Greyhawk came out in 1980. "Mystara" was sort of a snapshot, certainly not fleshed out for quite some time.
That’s not true at all. Most of the old modules were technically set in Mystara, but they were intentionally left just vague enough that DMs could use them in their own home worlds with little issue. Mystara was actually the main setting for OD&D throughout the ‘80s & ‘90s.
Greyhawk came out in 1980. "Mystara" was sort of a snapshot, certainly not fleshed out for quite some time.
That’s not true at all. Most of the old modules were technically set in Mystara, but they were intentionally left just vague enough that DMs could use them in their own home worlds with little issue. Mystara was actually the main setting for OD&D throughout the ‘80s & ‘90s.
I'm old. You are more wrong than you are right. And OD&D starts in 1974. AD&D starts in 1977. Basic D&D starts with the Holmes edition around 1977 but goes through several transformations. B/X starts in 1981. I didn't have the Homes edition but I had the B/X stuff. In the B/X stuff there is a map which is expanded over time with adventures and lore in Dragon Magazine. In 1980, Greyhawk was more developed than what later became known as Mystara. Please, don't argue with me about this. I was there.
Greyhawk came out in 1980. "Mystara" was sort of a snapshot, certainly not fleshed out for quite some time.
That’s not true at all. Most of the old modules were technically set in Mystara, but they were intentionally left just vague enough that DMs could use them in their own home worlds with little issue. Mystara was actually the main setting for OD&D throughout the ‘80s & ‘90s.
I'm old. You are more wrong than you are right. And OD&D starts in 1974. AD&D starts in 1977. Basic D&D starts with the Holmes edition around 1977 but goes through several transformations. B/X starts in 1981. I didn't have the Homes edition but I had the B/X stuff. In the B/X stuff there is a map which is expanded over time with adventures and lore in Dragon Magazine. In 1980, Greyhawk was more developed than what later became known as Mystara. Please, don't argue with me about this. I was there.
Or Dungeon masters could read older material as a basis for their lore, Mystara, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance have lots of material out there on the net.
However i also think it would behoove many dungeons master to try a little world building of their own. Quit asking to be spoon fed content.
Two additional points on the real issues (can’t be bothered to respond to the dog whistles again):
1. Welive in a world with the Forgotten Realms Wiki, which is a great source of lore if you need monster-specific Lore. They’ve collected multiple generations of D&D lore into a single space, giving more information about the monsters and creatures than any sourcebook ever could.
2. Lore takes up space—space that isn’t being used for art or stat blocks. That means the books either have to be longer and more expensive or they have to contain fewer monsters or less art. Given the choice between more monsters, art, and lore, the thing I can make up myself, find better in a sourcebook, find in an older edition, or locate on a Wiki is always going to be my preference for what gets sacrificed.
Let’s go over the difference between Tolkien and Gygax on this thread, as apparently we’re going to have to go over from now until the end of time itself:
Tolkien used orcs to represent the corruption of pastoral innocence (represented by the elves) by mechanisation and war—they were the physical embodiment of the dehumanisation he felt as a soldier fighting in the First World War.
Gygax was a racist who thought tribal cultures were inferior, primitive, and should be killed by “civilised” nations. He literally included orcish genocide in one of his works (where he gave stat blocks for children of orcs so the parties could murder children, while not giving the same to human children); he literally justified the killing of orcs by quoting a military commander ordering the genocide of a Native American tribe. His son is literally running around blatantly insulting Native Americans as he pontificates about how he wishes D&D still had the racism he and his father put into the game.
Gygax wore his contempt for other races—particularly races with tribal societies—on his sleeve and explicitly added his racist views on those societies into the game. It is well documented and hardly subtle—to the point one has to assume someone who thinks “surely there wasn’t racism in the game” either does not know the game’s history, is extremely obtuse, or is feigning ignorance because they have questionable motives.
There is a difference between a government banning books and a company/individual discontinuing its own books/works. A company or person choosing to discontinue their own work is part of their right to free expression. Just you have the right to say "orcs are not racist representations of people", Wizards have the right to say "orcs are a racist representation of people", and they have the right to change or eliminate their own works to reflect that view.
I experienced... and despite that still think this is overreaction. Orcs have been viewed as evil for a long time. In ancient Roman mythology Orcus was god of the underworld. From this people derived name "orcs" for evil spirits in old english. Tolkien used thisname to name a species of corrupted East Elves that served evil. Finally, Ed Greenwood adopted this for Forgotten Realms. As you see there is nothing wrong here.
Yes, Wizards have right legally to discontinue their work, but as fan of the game and Forgoten Realms I am deeply concerned. For me their decision was bad. This dismatles D&D lore, and game to a certain degree and nothing positive is gained, as cause of this is "contrived" for me. If this trend continues, Wotc may discontinue most of the lore for similar reasons. And that will kill D&D.
Let’s go over the difference between Tolkien and Gygax on this thread, as apparently we’re going to have to go over from now until the end of time itself:
Tolkien used orcs to represent the corruption of pastoral innocence (represented by the elves) by mechanisation and war—they were the physical embodiment of the dehumanisation he felt as a soldier fighting in the First World War.
Gygax was a racist who thought tribal cultures were inferior, primitive, and should be killed by “civilised” nations. He literally included orcish genocide in one of his works (where he gave stat blocks for children of orcs so the parties could murder children, while not giving the same to human children); he literally justified the killing of orcs by quoting a military commander ordering the genocide of a Native American tribe. His son is literally running around blatantly insulting Native Americans as he pontificates about how he wishes D&D still had the racism he and his father put into the game.
Gygax wore his contempt for other races—particularly races with tribal societies—on his sleeve and explicitly added his racist views on those societies into the game. It is well documented and hardly subtle—to the point one has to assume someone who thinks “surely there wasn’t racism in the game” either does not know the game’s history, is extremely obtuse, or is feigning ignorance because they have questionable motives.
Orcs are monsters. They are not a stand-in for human beings of any kind. Gary Gygax grew up and was inspired and entertained by the popular culture of his time. He used tropes that, over time, are no longer considered appropriate. I suspect he, like most people who live for several decades, altered his views over time. You speak like someone who hasn't been on this planet all that long and you refuse to accept context. You also speak as someone who assumes that everyone else implies whatever you choose to infer from what they say. I just googled "Gary Gygax evidence of racism" and hit a Gizmodo article that was rather unimpressive. "Nits make lice" is an expression with a dark origin. The problem the article writer has, and sounds like you have, is that Gygax's alignment system is an abstract concept and that he certainly didn't cheerlead lawful good, as capable of genocide of orcs, as being an ethic to aspire to. His alignment system was not meant to apply to the real world. You speak like you lack context in diverse perspectives as you force intent to statements others make that simply isn't true.
Let’s go over the difference between Tolkien and Gygax on this thread, as apparently we’re going to have to go over from now until the end of time itself:
Tolkien used orcs to represent the corruption of pastoral innocence (represented by the elves) by mechanisation and war—they were the physical embodiment of the dehumanisation he felt as a soldier fighting in the First World War.
Gygax was a racist who thought tribal cultures were inferior, primitive, and should be killed by “civilised” nations. He literally included orcish genocide in one of his works (where he gave stat blocks for children of orcs so the parties could murder children, while not giving the same to human children); he literally justified the killing of orcs by quoting a military commander ordering the genocide of a Native American tribe. His son is literally running around blatantly insulting Native Americans as he pontificates about how he wishes D&D still had the racism he and his father put into the game.
Gygax wore his contempt for other races—particularly races with tribal societies—on his sleeve and explicitly added his racist views on those societies into the game. It is well documented and hardly subtle—to the point one has to assume someone who thinks “surely there wasn’t racism in the game” either does not know the game’s history, is extremely obtuse, or is feigning ignorance because they have questionable motives.
Orcs are monsters. They are not a stand-in for human beings of any kind. Gary Gygax grew up and was inspired and entertained by the popular culture of his time. He used tropes that, over time, are no longer considered appropriate. I suspect he, like most people who live for several decades, altered his views over time. You speak like someone who hasn't been on this planet all that long and you refuse to accept context. You also speak as someone who assumes that everyone else implies whatever you choose to infer from what they say. I just googled "Gary Gygax evidence of racism" and hit a Gizmodo article that was rather unimpressive. "Nits make lice" is an expression with a dark origin. The problem the article writer has, and sounds like you have, is that Gygax's alignment system is an abstract concept and that he certainly didn't cheerlead lawful good, as capable of genocide of orcs, as being an ethic to aspire to. His alignment system was not meant to apply to the real world. You speak like you lack context in diverse perspectives as you force intent to statements others make that simply isn't true.
Gygax was an outspoken supporter of eugenics in the 70s—three decades after the 1940s made it very clear how problematic eugenics as a concept could be. He continued to espouse these views, and other horrific views (such as “women are biologically incapable of enjoying D&D) well into the 2000s. To this day, his son and fellow D&D founder Ernest is adamantly defending his dad’s racism and the racism that he and his dad intentionally put into the game, while actively trying to make a game that refers to the black skinned race as “less intelligent than the white ones” among other horrific things.
As I said, anyone who thinks there were not issues with racism within D&D either has not spent much time learning about Gary and Ernest Gygax, is simply missing the very blatant reality, or is wilfully turning a blind eye to the overt racism.
So, you are free to ascribe to me whatever problems you make up. But the problem “it seems like I have” is bigotry in a game I quite enjoy, and the fact that there exists an infestation of people who seem to want to keep it there.
You speak like someone who hasn't been on this planet all that long and you refuse to accept context. You also speak as someone who assumes that everyone else implies whatever you choose to infer from what they say.
Well, I have been on this planet for more than 35 years. If I am thinking logically, then, everyone thinking rationaly should came to same conclusion. I am writting it here so you may contest my thinking and either agree or show me my error so that I may re-evaluate my opinion. This is what discussion is about. Thanks to Caerwyn_Glyndwr and your imput I gained some context already. Thanks for that!
Ok. Gygax was un-nice, but 1) it was Ed Greenwood , not Gagax to create FR lore. 2)Can we judge itself creation by it's creator. His depiction of tribal communities was bad, but it doesn't mean tribal communities can't exist inside FR lore in different light? Also 3)cutting lore from books was very lazy thing to do for a such a big company full of creative people like Hasbro. Perhaps the bulk of lore from Volo's could be saved just by applying some minor alterations.
Tribal lore does exist in Forgotten Realms lore still - that isn’t changing. Nor is the fact that some orc tribes are aggressive. Here is what is changing:
1. They are removing strict alignment from races. It’s no longer the case that “all orcs are evil” but now “orcs are able to be any alignment you want them to be in your world.” That doesn’t mean you can’t have a bunch of evil orcs, it just means that is no longer an absolute, defining part of their nature.
2. They are not as much including lore in the Monster Manual style books because those books are no longer going to be setting-specific. They will still be including lore in setting specific books. You’ll still get orc lore about their tribal societies in books specific to Forgotten Realms; you’ll get the very different lore for orcs in Eberron. Deeper lore will still exist; it just will exist only in plane-specific books and adventures, not the plain-agnostic books.
3. They are going to do better about how they depict things. A tribal society is not only going to be shown as nasty and brutish as they were in earlier editions—you’ll see that some individuals might be nasty and brutish (as is the case in every society), but the society as a whole will be more complex and show the rich cultures that exist behind the outward facing warrior (or whatever) nature. This should lead to more complex, better lore than “oh, yeah, evil tribe over there, go kill it.”
These changes are designed to remove systemic issues in the game. Inertia within systems is powerful - Greenwood might not have been trying to be racist, but he still heavily built on what Gygax already added to orcs—Greenwood built FR upon a foundation that was already rotten due to Gygax, and a bit of that rot leached into FR, even if unintentionally.
And, again, there are good reasons to migrate the lore outside of the sourcebooks. Over 50% of players homebrew their campaigns rather than use official lore - removing the “official version” (which is almost always Forgotten Realms) opens up creativity for those who don’t want it (they don’t feel tied down by “but this is official!”) while lore still will exist in other places (or online) for those who want lore instead. Additionally, this frees up more space in books for the content most people want - art and stat blocks, both of which are more valuable in a book designed to be a table of enemies than setting-specific lore.
However i also think it would behoove many dungeons master to try a little world building of their own. Quit asking to be spoon fed content.
Ok. So, everyone here is demanding "to be spoon fed content". Everyone.
That's what you're doing whenever you buy this kind of content from WotC, heck, it's what you're doing when you're playing D&D. You could create your own statblocks, your own species, your own mechanics or even your own game. Instead you pay WotC to do it for you, because you find it too hard, or the quality of your work is too low for your liking or because you want to be on the same page as everyone else or...shocker...maybe you'd rather just pay someone else to do it so you can spend your time you would have spent creating your own content or researching it doing something else. If I can spend £30 on a book and save myself hours that I can then spend with my family...I will.
And unless you're pirating the books you have, so would you.
The discussion isn't about people being superior to each other. It's about what content we should be able to pay to be spoonfed. Some people would rather have statblocks because they've already created their cultures and history, so lore is a waste of page space that could be dedicated to spoonfeeding them new statblocks. Others would rather have lore because with over 2,000 statblocks already published, it's fairly simply for them to adapt one of those, but it takes a lot of work to create an interesting and logically coherent culture, and so they'd rather pay to be spoonfed a well written and polished article that lays it all out for them.
Both are valid positions and neither should be dismissed with sneering just because you want to be spoon fed with different content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
1. they didn't need to remove it the dungeon master has always had the power to do so ...
2. I don't care what setting they are thinking of writing next as long as they stay away from mystara I don't want them butchering my favorite setting!
3.They are going to do a better job of depicting things .... because they have been doing such a bang-up job up until now?
in Dungeons and Dragons what God is the chief god of the orcish pantheon? Gruumsh one-eye he is not peace-loving deity he pretty much hates everybody.
Gruumsh shares many of the traits that both Morgoth (Silmarillion) and Torak (The Belgariad) have. They both corrupted and coopted others to do their bidding fighting wars driven by their own hubris and desire until that is all the races they command know. In essence they as a race do become evil because it is all they know and even should they escape as a race there will always be someone to pick up the mantle of overlord (AS Evidenced by Sauron and Zandramas (LotR/the Mallorean))
Also, Memories are long Atrocities committed; battles fought thousands of years before reverberating down through the ages. Thermopylae were it not for 300 Spartans and 7000 other Greeks, the world would be very different, or in 1258 when the Mongol horde invaded what is now Iraq Putting the city of Baghdad to fire and sword reports of death range from 90000 all the way up to 1,000,000 people killed in a two-week period that they laid siege to the city all because the caliph killed a messenger. or the crusades to the holy land where the effects of that time period are felt even today.
Our History, Our Mythology even some of our most beloved legends are filled with sexism, racism, classism, persecution (religious or otherwise), slavery and r***. They are serious subjects, adult subjects.... they are also what I consider to be the ultimate faces of evil and all of them should be discussed with great care and the most serious of mind never to be used glibly at the table. Never to be used as a surprise and ins cases of the last one even i won't use on screen only referring to the act in the past tense and even then, I am uncomfortable. if you are running for children or young adults none of the topics mentioned above are acceptable.
Whitewashing evil hordes of orcs or whatever monsters out of the game because some perceived racism is a poor way to deal with it. Gygax may have been a racist (I say may have because i refuse to speak ill of the dead) However, any DM worth the title knows it is in their purview to change the game as they desire. If a DM does not know that I would refer them to the forwards of the 1st and 2nd edition DMG where Mike Carr and David Cook give some of the best advice one DM can give to another.
The game is ours, ladies and gentlemen it is up to us to make the most of it. If you want to do evil in the womb, exceptions to the rule or completely flip flop the racial paradigm. Do it I cannot express or stress this enough MAKE THE GAME YOUR OWN... I personally have a colony of Gnolls, Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs that are not evil and whole kingdom of those races that are enslaved by the main villain of my setting.
I know it may seem like i am picking at Caerwyn i am really not. i wish i still had the level of optimism he has for WotC's creative team i hope he does not lose it, even if I can't share it. Where we disagree i think is i will use racism in my game as part of the foil for my party, Caerwyn probably won't and there is nothing wrong with that. we are very different DM's coming from very different schools of thought.
However i also think it would behoove many dungeons master to try a little world building of their own. Quit asking to be spoon fed content.
Ok. So, everyone here is demanding "to be spoon fed content". Everyone.
That's what you're doing whenever you buy this kind of content from WotC, heck, it's what you're doing when you're playing D&D. You could create your own statblocks, your own species, your own mechanics or even your own game. Instead you pay WotC to do it for you, because you find it too hard, or the quality of your work is too low for your liking or because you want to be on the same page as everyone else or...shocker...maybe you'd rather just pay someone else to do it so you can spend your time you would have spent creating your own content or researching it doing something else. If I can spend £30 on a book and save myself hours that I can then spend with my family...I will.
And unless you're pirating the books you have, so would you.
The discussion isn't about people being superior to each other. It's about what content we should be able to pay to be spoonfed. Some people would rather have statblocks because they've already created their cultures and history, so lore is a waste of page space that could be dedicated to spoonfeeding them new statblocks. Others would rather have lore because with over 2,000 statblocks already published, it's fairly simply for them to adapt one of those, but it takes a lot of work to create an interesting and logically coherent culture, and so they'd rather pay to be spoonfed a well written and polished article that lays it all out for them.
Both are valid positions and neither should be dismissed with sneering just because you want to be spoon fed with different conten
I use like 7 books. My Co DM has all the books on his bookshelf if i need a book he will lend it to me. That being said I Homebrew my world, I make my own maps, both hands drawn and digital. I made my own templates for city and npc info, i use nothing of wizard's adventure material not because i am a purist or believe i am superior because i am actually neither if you asked my group, they would tell you I am hypercritical of my work to the point where i will apologize to my group before I show them anything. I don't use WotC material because it is not as good as past editions
Let’s go over the difference between Tolkien and Gygax on this thread, as apparently we’re going to have to go over from now until the end of time itself:
Tolkien used orcs to represent the corruption of pastoral innocence (represented by the elves) by mechanisation and war—they were the physical embodiment of the dehumanisation he felt as a soldier fighting in the First World War.
Gygax was a racist who thought tribal cultures were inferior, primitive, and should be killed by “civilised” nations. He literally included orcish genocide in one of his works (where he gave stat blocks for children of orcs so the parties could murder children, while not giving the same to human children); he literally justified the killing of orcs by quoting a military commander ordering the genocide of a Native American tribe. His son is literally running around blatantly insulting Native Americans as he pontificates about how he wishes D&D still had the racism he and his father put into the game.
Gygax wore his contempt for other races—particularly races with tribal societies—on his sleeve and explicitly added his racist views on those societies into the game. It is well documented and hardly subtle—to the point one has to assume someone who thinks “surely there wasn’t racism in the game” either does not know the game’s history, is extremely obtuse, or is feigning ignorance because they have questionable motives.
Orcs are monsters. They are not a stand-in for human beings of any kind. Gary Gygax grew up and was inspired and entertained by the popular culture of his time. He used tropes that, over time, are no longer considered appropriate. I suspect he, like most people who live for several decades, altered his views over time. You speak like someone who hasn't been on this planet all that long and you refuse to accept context. You also speak as someone who assumes that everyone else implies whatever you choose to infer from what they say. I just googled "Gary Gygax evidence of racism" and hit a Gizmodo article that was rather unimpressive. "Nits make lice" is an expression with a dark origin. The problem the article writer has, and sounds like you have, is that Gygax's alignment system is an abstract concept and that he certainly didn't cheerlead lawful good, as capable of genocide of orcs, as being an ethic to aspire to. His alignment system was not meant to apply to the real world. You speak like you lack context in diverse perspectives as you force intent to statements others make that simply isn't true.
Gygax was an outspoken supporter of eugenics in the 70s—three decades after the 1940s made it very clear how problematic eugenics as a concept could be. He continued to espouse these views, and other horrific views (such as “women are biologically incapable of enjoying D&D) well into the 2000s. To this day, his son and fellow D&D founder Ernest is adamantly defending his dad’s racism and the racism that he and his dad intentionally put into the game, while actively trying to make a game that refers to the black skinned race as “less intelligent than the white ones” among other horrific things.
As I said, anyone who thinks there were not issues with racism within D&D either has not spent much time learning about Gary and Ernest Gygax, is simply missing the very blatant reality, or is wilfully turning a blind eye to the overt racism.
So, you are free to ascribe to me whatever problems you make up. But the problem “it seems like I have” is bigotry in a game I quite enjoy, and the fact that there exists an infestation of people who seem to want to keep it there.
If you are going to call someone a racist, could you have the decency to provide links to your evidence.
However i also think it would behoove many dungeons master to try a little world building of their own. Quit asking to be spoon fed content.
Both are valid positions and neither should be dismissed with sneering just because you want to be spoon fed with different content.
Agreed.
@Caerwyn_Glyndwr So far your responses were very helpful. Could you please consider this?:
I have been thinking whole the time about removing strict alignment. By doing this, we will get even more lore to delete.
1. E.g. devils are lawful evil, demons are chaotic level. With removing strict alignment there is no difference - we lose diversity.
2. The planes lore is broken. Each creature had its coresponding plane according to its alignment. Modrons, for example, were the embodiment of the universal principle of order. Lawful Neutral. Now, with removed alignment they are like any other creature. Again unification and diversity killing.
3. Why would an evil wizard or evil god create a species that is capable of being good? That doesn't make sense.
Yeah, I am for most of the changes, but they do not work for the outer planes, agreed!
The part you both are forgetting - for the monsters where it makes sense to have their nature pre-established, the books still provide that information. Demons are still listed as “typically chaotic evil”, Devils as “typically lawful evil—DMs still are getting an official alignment , they’re just also getting flexibility built into RAW.
One of the problems with alignment has always been “alignment police”—players who see alignment as an absolute rather than a spectrum of evaluation. They tend to see each alignment as having only one possible manifestation, and that can cause problems for folks who take different views on what exactly constitutes “lawful evil” or the like.
This has historically caused gameplay problems for DMs—with players trying to dictate how the DM can play. “You can’t make the malfunctioning Modron that is lawful evil!” or the like. Except maybe what the player sees as “evil” the DM sees as the strict application of neutrality. Or maybe there is a story reason why the Mordon is evil.
“Typically” provides the best of both worlds - it gives DMs the information they need about monsters that embody certain esoteric concepts of morality, but also provides cloud cover against the certain type of player who sycophantically insists on forcing their views on alignment onto the game.
However i also think it would behoove many dungeons master to try a little world building of their own. Quit asking to be spoon fed content.
Ok. So, everyone here is demanding "to be spoon fed content". Everyone.
That's what you're doing whenever you buy this kind of content from WotC, heck, it's what you're doing when you're playing D&D. You could create your own statblocks, your own species, your own mechanics or even your own game. Instead you pay WotC to do it for you, because you find it too hard, or the quality of your work is too low for your liking or because you want to be on the same page as everyone else or...shocker...maybe you'd rather just pay someone else to do it so you can spend your time you would have spent creating your own content or researching it doing something else. If I can spend £30 on a book and save myself hours that I can then spend with my family...I will.
And unless you're pirating the books you have, so would you.
The discussion isn't about people being superior to each other. It's about what content we should be able to pay to be spoonfed. Some people would rather have statblocks because they've already created their cultures and history, so lore is a waste of page space that could be dedicated to spoonfeeding them new statblocks. Others would rather have lore because with over 2,000 statblocks already published, it's fairly simply for them to adapt one of those, but it takes a lot of work to create an interesting and logically coherent culture, and so they'd rather pay to be spoonfed a well written and polished article that lays it all out for them.
Both are valid positions and neither should be dismissed with sneering just because you want to be spoon fed with different conten
I use like 7 books. My Co DM has all the books on his bookshelf if i need a book he will lend it to me. That being said I Homebrew my world, I make my own maps, both hands drawn and digital. I made my own templates for city and npc info, i use nothing of wizard's adventure material not because i am a purist or believe i am superior because i am actually neither if you asked my group, they would tell you I am hypercritical of my work to the point where i will apologize to my group before I show them anything. I don't use WotC material because it is not as good as past editions
Great, you've paid to be "spoon fed" more content than the average for D&D (the amount I've heard is four books). The point is that being derisive and dismissive of other people's preferences is just being hypocritical - we're all asking for content, and your preferences as to which content is provided doesn't mean another's is any less valid or that it's more lazy than yours. We're all paying to suck from D&D's teat - even if the only book we ever purchase is the PHB.
If the only valid position is not being spoon fed content, then none of us would be playing D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The part you both are forgetting - for the monsters where it makes sense to have their nature pre-established, the books still provide that information.
That would be good, but are you sure that Wotc will do it that way?
That is how they have styled it in all the recent books, which are effectively the soft rollout of OneD&D. From MMM to Dragonlance, all books where consistency and the backwards compatibility of OneD&D were an important element of design, “typically” is found on all generic monsters except those designated as “any alignment” (mostly humanoids where a wide range of alignments are to be expected) or unaligned (simple beasts that recognise no morality).
It also should be noted that names monsters, such as specific NPCs, still have an alignment listed—so someone like Orcus, a specific Demon Prince, is firmly listed as “Chaotic Evil.” After all, he is not a multitude of creatures that might have some range—he is a singular, measurable entity.
However i also think it would behoove many dungeons master to try a little world building of their own. Quit asking to be spoon fed content.
Ok. So, everyone here is demanding "to be spoon fed content". Everyone.
That's what you're doing whenever you buy this kind of content from WotC, heck, it's what you're doing when you're playing D&D. You could create your own statblocks, your own species, your own mechanics or even your own game. Instead you pay WotC to do it for you, because you find it too hard, or the quality of your work is too low for your liking or because you want to be on the same page as everyone else or...shocker...maybe you'd rather just pay someone else to do it so you can spend your time you would have spent creating your own content or researching it doing something else. If I can spend £30 on a book and save myself hours that I can then spend with my family...I will.
And unless you're pirating the books you have, so would you.
The discussion isn't about people being superior to each other. It's about what content we should be able to pay to be spoonfed. Some people would rather have statblocks because they've already created their cultures and history, so lore is a waste of page space that could be dedicated to spoonfeeding them new statblocks. Others would rather have lore because with over 2,000 statblocks already published, it's fairly simply for them to adapt one of those, but it takes a lot of work to create an interesting and logically coherent culture, and so they'd rather pay to be spoonfed a well written and polished article that lays it all out for them.
Both are valid positions and neither should be dismissed with sneering just because you want to be spoon fed with different content.
The issue is less "people being superior based on what they want" and more "Fans of the Forgotten Realms get tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of lore delivered just for them, books overstuffed and overflowing with Forgotten Realms lore...while fans of literally anything else get '**** you, you're not a real D&D player if you don't play in the Realms, you'll get nothing and like it, eat shit and die you miserable loser'." It's manifestly unfair that not only do the homebrewers, the Eberron or Exandria fans, the Mystara or Greyhawk fans, or the literally anyone else that doesn't play in the Realms have to make up their own shit because they get NOTHING, they have to spend extra time actively unraveling all the unnecessary and unwanted Forgotten Realms lore from the content they do get. Fans of the Realms always defend the inclusion of FR-specific lore useless to anyone else by saying "you don't have to use it if you don't like it, you can invent your own lore all you like, just let us have booksful of lore anyways!" without ever explaining why they get to be super special and get half the pagecount of every single D&D book ever released devoted to their lore while everybody else gets to buy a book for the same price but get half the value at best.
All we're saying is that Forgotten Realms people get to be on the same level as everybody else - their lore is in their setting guides and setting-specific books, the same as Eberron or Wildemount or Theros or whatever, and if somebody doesn't want that lore they're allowed to skip that book instead of being forced to buy all that lore regardless and then spend extra time actively pulling it back out of players' heads and forcibly reminding their players twelve times a session that Realms lore DOES. NOT. APPLY. In their game.
A diverse, vibrant community of third party publishers would be great at filling in the gaps for lore as D&D moves in the direction of stripping lore from books in favor of art and stats.
I wonder what Hasbro would need to do to cultivate such a community that would support their game.
Great, you've paid to be "spoon fed" more content than the average for D&D (the amount I've heard is four books). The point is that being derisive and dismissive of other people's preferences is just being hypocritical - we're all asking for content, and your preferences as to which content is provided doesn't mean another's is any less valid or that it's more lazy than yours. We're all paying to suck from D&D's teat - even if the only book we ever purchase is the PHB.
If the only valid position is not being spoon fed content, then none of us would be playing D&D.
I never said that the path of the lazy DM is less valid i am saying that homebrewing and world building are useful tools for any dm to have in their toolbox.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That’s not true at all. Most of the old modules were technically set in Mystara, but they were intentionally left just vague enough that DMs could use them in their own home worlds with little issue. Mystara was actually the main setting for OD&D throughout the ‘80s & ‘90s.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm old. You are more wrong than you are right. And OD&D starts in 1974. AD&D starts in 1977. Basic D&D starts with the Holmes edition around 1977 but goes through several transformations. B/X starts in 1981. I didn't have the Homes edition but I had the B/X stuff. In the B/X stuff there is a map which is expanded over time with adventures and lore in Dragon Magazine. In 1980, Greyhawk was more developed than what later became known as Mystara. Please, don't argue with me about this. I was there.
Whatever you say chief.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Or Dungeon masters could read older material as a basis for their lore, Mystara, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance have lots of material out there on the net.
However i also think it would behoove many dungeons master to try a little world building of their own. Quit asking to be spoon fed content.
Two additional points on the real issues (can’t be bothered to respond to the dog whistles again):
1. Welive in a world with the Forgotten Realms Wiki, which is a great source of lore if you need monster-specific Lore. They’ve collected multiple generations of D&D lore into a single space, giving more information about the monsters and creatures than any sourcebook ever could.
2. Lore takes up space—space that isn’t being used for art or stat blocks. That means the books either have to be longer and more expensive or they have to contain fewer monsters or less art. Given the choice between more monsters, art, and lore, the thing I can make up myself, find better in a sourcebook, find in an older edition, or locate on a Wiki is always going to be my preference for what gets sacrificed.
Let’s go over the difference between Tolkien and Gygax on this thread, as apparently we’re going to have to go over from now until the end of time itself:
Tolkien used orcs to represent the corruption of pastoral innocence (represented by the elves) by mechanisation and war—they were the physical embodiment of the dehumanisation he felt as a soldier fighting in the First World War.
Gygax was a racist who thought tribal cultures were inferior, primitive, and should be killed by “civilised” nations. He literally included orcish genocide in one of his works (where he gave stat blocks for children of orcs so the parties could murder children, while not giving the same to human children); he literally justified the killing of orcs by quoting a military commander ordering the genocide of a Native American tribe. His son is literally running around blatantly insulting Native Americans as he pontificates about how he wishes D&D still had the racism he and his father put into the game.
Gygax wore his contempt for other races—particularly races with tribal societies—on his sleeve and explicitly added his racist views on those societies into the game. It is well documented and hardly subtle—to the point one has to assume someone who thinks “surely there wasn’t racism in the game” either does not know the game’s history, is extremely obtuse, or is feigning ignorance because they have questionable motives.
Orcs in D&D predate Ed Greenwood.
Orcs are monsters. They are not a stand-in for human beings of any kind. Gary Gygax grew up and was inspired and entertained by the popular culture of his time. He used tropes that, over time, are no longer considered appropriate. I suspect he, like most people who live for several decades, altered his views over time. You speak like someone who hasn't been on this planet all that long and you refuse to accept context. You also speak as someone who assumes that everyone else implies whatever you choose to infer from what they say. I just googled "Gary Gygax evidence of racism" and hit a Gizmodo article that was rather unimpressive. "Nits make lice" is an expression with a dark origin. The problem the article writer has, and sounds like you have, is that Gygax's alignment system is an abstract concept and that he certainly didn't cheerlead lawful good, as capable of genocide of orcs, as being an ethic to aspire to. His alignment system was not meant to apply to the real world. You speak like you lack context in diverse perspectives as you force intent to statements others make that simply isn't true.
Gygax was an outspoken supporter of eugenics in the 70s—three decades after the 1940s made it very clear how problematic eugenics as a concept could be. He continued to espouse these views, and other horrific views (such as “women are biologically incapable of enjoying D&D) well into the 2000s. To this day, his son and fellow D&D founder Ernest is adamantly defending his dad’s racism and the racism that he and his dad intentionally put into the game, while actively trying to make a game that refers to the black skinned race as “less intelligent than the white ones” among other horrific things.
As I said, anyone who thinks there were not issues with racism within D&D either has not spent much time learning about Gary and Ernest Gygax, is simply missing the very blatant reality, or is wilfully turning a blind eye to the overt racism.
So, you are free to ascribe to me whatever problems you make up. But the problem “it seems like I have” is bigotry in a game I quite enjoy, and the fact that there exists an infestation of people who seem to want to keep it there.
Tribal lore does exist in Forgotten Realms lore still - that isn’t changing. Nor is the fact that some orc tribes are aggressive. Here is what is changing:
1. They are removing strict alignment from races. It’s no longer the case that “all orcs are evil” but now “orcs are able to be any alignment you want them to be in your world.” That doesn’t mean you can’t have a bunch of evil orcs, it just means that is no longer an absolute, defining part of their nature.
2. They are not as much including lore in the Monster Manual style books because those books are no longer going to be setting-specific. They will still be including lore in setting specific books. You’ll still get orc lore about their tribal societies in books specific to Forgotten Realms; you’ll get the very different lore for orcs in Eberron. Deeper lore will still exist; it just will exist only in plane-specific books and adventures, not the plain-agnostic books.
3. They are going to do better about how they depict things. A tribal society is not only going to be shown as nasty and brutish as they were in earlier editions—you’ll see that some individuals might be nasty and brutish (as is the case in every society), but the society as a whole will be more complex and show the rich cultures that exist behind the outward facing warrior (or whatever) nature. This should lead to more complex, better lore than “oh, yeah, evil tribe over there, go kill it.”
These changes are designed to remove systemic issues in the game. Inertia within systems is powerful - Greenwood might not have been trying to be racist, but he still heavily built on what Gygax already added to orcs—Greenwood built FR upon a foundation that was already rotten due to Gygax, and a bit of that rot leached into FR, even if unintentionally.
And, again, there are good reasons to migrate the lore outside of the sourcebooks. Over 50% of players homebrew their campaigns rather than use official lore - removing the “official version” (which is almost always Forgotten Realms) opens up creativity for those who don’t want it (they don’t feel tied down by “but this is official!”) while lore still will exist in other places (or online) for those who want lore instead. Additionally, this frees up more space in books for the content most people want - art and stat blocks, both of which are more valuable in a book designed to be a table of enemies than setting-specific lore.
Ok. So, everyone here is demanding "to be spoon fed content". Everyone.
That's what you're doing whenever you buy this kind of content from WotC, heck, it's what you're doing when you're playing D&D. You could create your own statblocks, your own species, your own mechanics or even your own game. Instead you pay WotC to do it for you, because you find it too hard, or the quality of your work is too low for your liking or because you want to be on the same page as everyone else or...shocker...maybe you'd rather just pay someone else to do it so you can spend your time you would have spent creating your own content or researching it doing something else. If I can spend £30 on a book and save myself hours that I can then spend with my family...I will.
And unless you're pirating the books you have, so would you.
The discussion isn't about people being superior to each other. It's about what content we should be able to pay to be spoonfed. Some people would rather have statblocks because they've already created their cultures and history, so lore is a waste of page space that could be dedicated to spoonfeeding them new statblocks. Others would rather have lore because with over 2,000 statblocks already published, it's fairly simply for them to adapt one of those, but it takes a lot of work to create an interesting and logically coherent culture, and so they'd rather pay to be spoonfed a well written and polished article that lays it all out for them.
Both are valid positions and neither should be dismissed with sneering just because you want to be spoon fed with different content.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
2. I don't care what setting they are thinking of writing next as long as they stay away from mystara I don't want them butchering my favorite setting!
3.They are going to do a better job of depicting things .... because they have been doing such a bang-up job up until now?
in Dungeons and Dragons what God is the chief god of the orcish pantheon? Gruumsh one-eye he is not peace-loving deity he pretty much hates everybody.
Gruumsh shares many of the traits that both Morgoth (Silmarillion) and Torak (The Belgariad) have. They both corrupted and coopted others to do their bidding fighting wars driven by their own hubris and desire until that is all the races they command know. In essence they as a race do become evil because it is all they know and even should they escape as a race there will always be someone to pick up the mantle of overlord (AS Evidenced by Sauron and Zandramas (LotR/the Mallorean))
Also, Memories are long Atrocities committed; battles fought thousands of years before reverberating down through the ages. Thermopylae were it not for 300 Spartans and 7000 other Greeks, the world would be very different, or in 1258 when the Mongol horde invaded what is now Iraq Putting the city of Baghdad to fire and sword reports of death range from 90000 all the way up to 1,000,000 people killed in a two-week period that they laid siege to the city all because the caliph killed a messenger. or the crusades to the holy land where the effects of that time period are felt even today.
Our History, Our Mythology even some of our most beloved legends are filled with sexism, racism, classism, persecution (religious or otherwise), slavery and r***. They are serious subjects, adult subjects.... they are also what I consider to be the ultimate faces of evil and all of them should be discussed with great care and the most serious of mind never to be used glibly at the table. Never to be used as a surprise and ins cases of the last one even i won't use on screen only referring to the act in the past tense and even then, I am uncomfortable. if you are running for children or young adults none of the topics mentioned above are acceptable.
Whitewashing evil hordes of orcs or whatever monsters out of the game because some perceived racism is a poor way to deal with it. Gygax may have been a racist (I say may have because i refuse to speak ill of the dead) However, any DM worth the title knows it is in their purview to change the game as they desire. If a DM does not know that I would refer them to the forwards of the 1st and 2nd edition DMG where Mike Carr and David Cook give some of the best advice one DM can give to another.
The game is ours, ladies and gentlemen it is up to us to make the most of it. If you want to do evil in the womb, exceptions to the rule or completely flip flop the racial paradigm. Do it I cannot express or stress this enough MAKE THE GAME YOUR OWN... I personally have a colony of Gnolls, Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs that are not evil and whole kingdom of those races that are enslaved by the main villain of my setting.
I know it may seem like i am picking at Caerwyn i am really not. i wish i still had the level of optimism he has for WotC's creative team i hope he does not lose it, even if I can't share it.
Where we disagree i think is i will use racism in my game as part of the foil for my party, Caerwyn probably won't and there is nothing wrong with that. we are very different DM's coming from very different schools of thought.
I use like 7 books. My Co DM has all the books on his bookshelf if i need a book he will lend it to me. That being said I Homebrew my world, I make my own maps, both hands drawn and digital. I made my own templates for city and npc info, i use nothing of wizard's adventure material not because i am a purist or believe i am superior because i am actually neither if you asked my group, they would tell you I am hypercritical of my work to the point where i will apologize to my group before I show them anything. I don't use WotC material because it is not as good as past editions
If you are going to call someone a racist, could you have the decency to provide links to your evidence.
The part you both are forgetting - for the monsters where it makes sense to have their nature pre-established, the books still provide that information. Demons are still listed as “typically chaotic evil”, Devils as “typically lawful evil—DMs still are getting an official alignment , they’re just also getting flexibility built into RAW.
One of the problems with alignment has always been “alignment police”—players who see alignment as an absolute rather than a spectrum of evaluation. They tend to see each alignment as having only one possible manifestation, and that can cause problems for folks who take different views on what exactly constitutes “lawful evil” or the like.
This has historically caused gameplay problems for DMs—with players trying to dictate how the DM can play. “You can’t make the malfunctioning Modron that is lawful evil!” or the like. Except maybe what the player sees as “evil” the DM sees as the strict application of neutrality. Or maybe there is a story reason why the Mordon is evil.
“Typically” provides the best of both worlds - it gives DMs the information they need about monsters that embody certain esoteric concepts of morality, but also provides cloud cover against the certain type of player who sycophantically insists on forcing their views on alignment onto the game.
Great, you've paid to be "spoon fed" more content than the average for D&D (the amount I've heard is four books). The point is that being derisive and dismissive of other people's preferences is just being hypocritical - we're all asking for content, and your preferences as to which content is provided doesn't mean another's is any less valid or that it's more lazy than yours. We're all paying to suck from D&D's teat - even if the only book we ever purchase is the PHB.
If the only valid position is not being spoon fed content, then none of us would be playing D&D.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That is how they have styled it in all the recent books, which are effectively the soft rollout of OneD&D. From MMM to Dragonlance, all books where consistency and the backwards compatibility of OneD&D were an important element of design, “typically” is found on all generic monsters except those designated as “any alignment” (mostly humanoids where a wide range of alignments are to be expected) or unaligned (simple beasts that recognise no morality).
It also should be noted that names monsters, such as specific NPCs, still have an alignment listed—so someone like Orcus, a specific Demon Prince, is firmly listed as “Chaotic Evil.” After all, he is not a multitude of creatures that might have some range—he is a singular, measurable entity.
The issue is less "people being superior based on what they want" and more "Fans of the Forgotten Realms get tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of lore delivered just for them, books overstuffed and overflowing with Forgotten Realms lore...while fans of literally anything else get '**** you, you're not a real D&D player if you don't play in the Realms, you'll get nothing and like it, eat shit and die you miserable loser'." It's manifestly unfair that not only do the homebrewers, the Eberron or Exandria fans, the Mystara or Greyhawk fans, or the literally anyone else that doesn't play in the Realms have to make up their own shit because they get NOTHING, they have to spend extra time actively unraveling all the unnecessary and unwanted Forgotten Realms lore from the content they do get. Fans of the Realms always defend the inclusion of FR-specific lore useless to anyone else by saying "you don't have to use it if you don't like it, you can invent your own lore all you like, just let us have booksful of lore anyways!" without ever explaining why they get to be super special and get half the pagecount of every single D&D book ever released devoted to their lore while everybody else gets to buy a book for the same price but get half the value at best.
All we're saying is that Forgotten Realms people get to be on the same level as everybody else - their lore is in their setting guides and setting-specific books, the same as Eberron or Wildemount or Theros or whatever, and if somebody doesn't want that lore they're allowed to skip that book instead of being forced to buy all that lore regardless and then spend extra time actively pulling it back out of players' heads and forcibly reminding their players twelve times a session that Realms lore DOES. NOT. APPLY. In their game.
Please do not contact or message me.
A diverse, vibrant community of third party publishers would be great at filling in the gaps for lore as D&D moves in the direction of stripping lore from books in favor of art and stats.
I wonder what Hasbro would need to do to cultivate such a community that would support their game.
I never said that the path of the lazy DM is less valid i am saying that homebrewing and world building are useful tools for any dm to have in their toolbox.