So Orcs and Drow stop being evil. Then that must also extend to: Goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, Ogres, grimlocks, illithid, duergar, beholders, dragons, basically every race with an Int above 5.
Well... yeah. In my opinion, alignment is one game concept that hasn't aged well.
Every time you flip through the Monster Manual (of any edition) and it says "lawful evil" under Kobold, isn't that the very foundation of racism: a stereotype? Oh, every one of those people (if you even acknowledge them as people) is like that. It's just how they are. It's their nature.
In AD&D 1st edition, when I was about 11, it was fine and sufficient to say that the humans in the village were good and the kobolds causing problems for them were evil. Time to kill some kobolds!
Nowadays, "kill a bunch of indistinguishable enemies because they match a certain silhouette that the story defines as 'evil'" seems to be much better suited to video games than TTRPGs.
One idea that's gained a lot more prominence since then in both literature and TTRPGs is the idea that most villains think they're on the right side. The Snidely Whiplash trope of mustache-twirling villains who're bad and who know they're bad and do bad because they're bad is kinda out of fashion right now.
Example, Thanos. Villain. Thoroughly convinced he has to tear down half the universe (or more) in order to save it. Convinced that he is right, and brave and inspired to see what others do not and to have the will to act on it.
Which is more interesting? Thanos is the villain because he's large and purple and has certain stats and CR? Or Thanos is the villain because he's got this whack idea in his head that he believes is best for the universe? Do we think he's evil? Yes. Does he think he's evil? Not a chance.
So what’s left? Once the game has been gutted to the point where everything is generic and basically interchangeable, what happens to diversity?
It's allowed to exist. Diversity is about individuals, not races. Saying that all members of a certain race are one way is the very opposite of diversity.
Bring on the orc mages and the benevolent illithid who rules the city from the shadows by mind-controlling a succession of selfish, venal monarchs to keep them from tearing the kingdom apart. (Your party explores the rumor that the kingdom is secretly controlled by a strange creature and discovers this. Now what do you do? That is a way better game than illithid mind controlling the kings because the statblock says evil, and evil's gotta evil.)
And if you need the duergar or beholders in your game to be a problem, all taking "evil" off of them does is force you to have a reason why they're a problem. Lack of food or other resources? Pressure to move into the PC's lands coming from some even greater threat on the other side of them?
Or if you need a city full of hobgoblins with a ruthless gob-eat-gob power structure, all taking "evil" off of them does is force you to have a reason why their society is like that. A powerful ruler who believes war is coming and that only the strongest will survive? Brutal oppression by a stronger enemy that rewards sympathizers and turncoats? A dark artifact buried in the heart of the city that pulls everyones' selfish to the surface?
And why are the orcs rampaging all over Middle-Earth wrecking the place? Because they're the creations of Sauron and Saruman, bred and raised for that purpose. Nothing about changing their statblock from "chaotic evil" to "it's complicated" invalidates that campaign setting. Those orcs in that setting were evil for these reasons.
Finding those reasons instead of relying on "well, they're just evil" will always make your game better.
Demons, devils and other 'fiends' are a bit of an exception though in that they are not so much races as manifestations of concepts. In the pantheon I use, the higher on the divine scale a being is, the more purely defined it is, to the extent of losing actual free will. The argument goes 'Any given god is technically omnipotent in their areas of responsibility, however if they cease to act as they need to, they ceasing actually being themselves, essentially becoming different gods.'
This is a very interesting concept. I like it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
That is like saying 'If there is no systematic racism, how will we know it is bad?' Do you need someone to punch you in the face to understand that being punched in the face is bad?
Much lake an animal that has never encountered a hunter with a shotgun has no idea that it is dangerous. People only know getting punched in the face hurts because people have punched each other in the face. If it had never happened, how would any of us know it hurts?
If the party was to lead an in game effort against racism, would you ensure they failed simply because if they succeeded they would be 'sweeping racism under the rug?'
No, in fact quite the opposite. Clearly you have missed my point. Have you ever heard the adage: “Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them?”
Stories, like the ones we tell each other in D&D are the ways people teach each other those lessons from history. If we stop telling those stories, those lessons are lost, and we are then doomed to repeat those mistakes.If we take away the possibility of teaching each other through these stories by hand waving away the history, then we make ourselves weaker, and the bigotry will inevitably rise again. Only by keeping the history alive do we have any hope to overcome it.
In no way do these changes prevent the telling of those stories. We will always make our campaigns about the issues that are important to us. 5e has no direct lore or rules about the conflicts between civilization and wilderness but it doesn't stop me from making it a central part of my campaign.
This change does not make all drow good. It allegedly puts them on an even footing with other races. Humans are just as likely to be evil. Do you honestly think that's a bad thing? That we need to have predetermined "bad" races that the good races can fight in order to tackle the concept of racism?
What's wrong with making them all capable of evil but not inherently evil? Isn't that a truer analog to real world racism if that's what you want to portray in your campaigns?
One thing worth remembering is that the official rules are, essentially, the house rules for Adventurer's League. Which is where a lot of people play. Things that are "defaults" (as the 5e MM describes alignment) or jumping-off points for lots of us are the hard and fast rules of the road for lots of others.
It makes a lot of sense to make that environment as broadly accepting and inclusive (and inoffensive) as possible. Then, people who want something different can house rule it in their home games. Because the way things are set up, doing it the other way around is simply not an option.
I believed it was implicit already that there was a nuance about good and evil in DND but if it needs to be spelled out so be it, as long it is just that.
Well... yeah. In my opinion, alignment is one game concept that hasn't aged well.
That’s precisely why in D&D, originally alignment only consisted of Lawful vs. Chaotic. To specifically preclude these exact issues. Good and Evil were added later to appease the masses. I mostly ignore the G/E side of alignment personally.
One idea that's gained a lot more prominence since then in both literature and TTRPGs is the idea that most villains think they're on the right side. The Snidely Whiplash trope of mustache-twirling villains who're bad and who know they're bad and do bad because they're bad is kinda out of fashion right now.
Example, Thanos. Villain. Thoroughly convinced he has to tear down half the universe (or more) in order to save it. Convinced that he is right, and brave and inspired to see what others do not and to have the will to act on it.
Which is more interesting? Thanos is the villain because he's large and purple and has certain stats and CR? Or Thanos is the villain because he's got this whack idea in his head that he believes is best for the universe? Do we think he's evil? Yes. Does he think he's evil? Not a chance.
[sic]
Bring on the orc mages and the benevolent illithid who rules the city from the shadows by mind-controlling a succession of selfish, venal monarchs to keep them from tearing the kingdom apart. (Your party explores the rumor that the kingdom is secretly controlled by a strange creature and discovers this. Now what do you do? That is a way better game than illithid mind controlling the kings because the statblock says evil, and evil's gotta evil.)
I have found that it becomes even more interesting for the players to find out that the Illithid is benevolent if they already start with the preconception that it is evil as reinforced by the canon.
And if you need the duergar or beholders in your game to be a problem, all taking "evil" off of them does is force you to have a reason why they're a problem. Lack of food or other resources? Pressure to move into the PC's lands coming from some even greater threat on the other side of them?
Or if you need a city full of hobgoblins with a ruthless gob-eat-gob power structure, all taking "evil" off of them does is force you to have a reason why their society is like that. A powerful ruler who believes war is coming and that only the strongest will survive? Brutal oppression by a stronger enemy that rewards sympathizers and turncoats? A dark artifact buried in the heart of the city that pulls everyones' selfish to the surface?
And why are the orcs rampaging all over Middle-Earth wrecking the place? Because they're the creations of Sauron and Saruman, bred and raised for that purpose. Nothing about changing their statblock from "chaotic evil" to "it's complicated" invalidates that campaign setting. Those orcs in that setting were evil for these reasons.
Finding those reasons instead of relying on "well, they're just evil" will always make your game better.
It is inevitable.
That is why I specifically do that. For me, in my campaign world, “evil” is a matter of how many others one is willing to make suffer to further their own goals. As I said, I use the preconceptions formed by the canon to specifically make those points more impactful for the players.
In no way do these changes prevent the telling of those stories. We will always make our campaigns about the issues that are important to us. 5e has no direct lore or rules about the conflicts between civilization and wilderness but it doesn't stop me from making it a central part of my campaign.
This change does not make all drow good. It allegedly puts them on an even footing with other races. Humans are just as likely to be evil. Do you honestly think that's a bad thing? That we need to have predetermined "bad" races that the good races can fight in order to tackle the concept of racism?
What's wrong with making them all capable of evil but not inherently evil? Isn't that a truer analog to real world racism if that's what you want to portray in your campaigns?
I already do that though. So what needs to be changed? I don’t perceive “evil races” as every member of that race being inherently evil. It’s more of a measure of how their society views things.
I’m fairly sure we can all agree that the Nazi ideology was evil. That doesn’t mean that all Germans are. I look at it much the same way. Drow society encourages individuals to see to themselves at the expense of others. Orc society operates under the assumption that “might makes right.” Individual Drow or Orcs do not have to be “evil” for their society to be considered “evil.”
I live in the USA. We have a system of government where the wealthy get more wealthy by exploiting the rest of the society. Where the powerful retain power by not-so-metaphorically stepping on the necks of those without power. As a nation we have been turning away those seeking nothing but to escape the horrors of even more repressive societies. In just the contiguous 48 states we have the agricultural capacity to feed every single person on the planet. Instead we watch children starve in the streets of our own country and subsidize farmers to not grow food. I do not consider Americans to be inherently evil, but we are on the precipice of an evil society nonetheless. To be honest, I’m rather ashamed of us.... I’m sorry, this is getting me rather upset. The world is broken and instead of trying to solve real problems we are debating vocabulary in a game about fictional peoples. Why?
We fix this broken world the same way you would fix anything. One piece at a time. Debating vocabulary in a game about fictional peoples is a piece of it. We need to approach everything we do with the intention of harmony and inclusion, and that includes D&D. Removing the concept of inherently evil races knocks another stone from the wall of institutional racism without removing any possibilities from the game. Whether it is a big change or not, it's a change for the better and I see no reason not to embrace it.
For many of us, D&D is a part of our identity. An important part. So hearing that others consider it racist is hurtful and we want to fight that notion, to fight that any change needs to be made at all because it's an admission of fault and can be seen as a roundabout admission of racism in ourselves. We need to just get over that. Loving something that might have been perceived as hurtful by others doesn't make us bad.
But once we know it's hurtful to others, we should make an effort to change that. Sometimes the solution is not so easy, but in this case it is. We literally lose nothing by adopting these changes. Many of us were already operating this way. So we have a chance now to prove that we're willing to accept change to help others. I think that's a great opportunity.
The world is broken and instead of trying to solve real problems we are debating vocabulary in a game about fictional peoples. Why?
At the risk of sounding flippant... because you decided to make it debatable. You're right that it's small potatoes compared to other aspects of racism and oppression, so why not just go, "Ok, cool," in response to WOTC's announcement and focus your attention on the things you think are more important?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Yeah I don't know why I thought this wouldnt exploded into a flame war. I just wanted to vent my frustration, because I cant really understand why WOTC choice.
Yeah I don't know why I thought this wouldnt exploded into a flame war. I just wanted to vent my frustration, because I cant really understand why WOTC choice.
its not a flame war, i think people are discussing things that all. its important to talk and not be afraid of saying what you are thinking.
Yeah I don't know why I thought this wouldnt exploded into a flame war. I just wanted to vent my frustration, because I cant really understand why WOTC choice.
This is more of a discussion so far. It hasn't progressed to war stage (yet).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Yeah I don't know why I thought this wouldnt exploded into a flame war. I just wanted to vent my frustration, because I cant really understand why WOTC choice.
its not a flame war, i think people are discussing things that all. its important to talk and not be afraid of saying what you are thinking.
And that is my exact point. We are rapidly becoming a society that tells people what they are and are not allowed to think. It is akin to telling people that they are wrong for not perceiving implicit systematic racism because others do perceive it. I would personally rather live in a society where we are allowed to be offended than one in which we are not allowed to be offensive.
Yeah I don't know why I thought this wouldnt exploded into a flame war. I just wanted to vent my frustration, because I cant really understand why WOTC choice.
We seem to be having a perfectly civil conversation where different ideas and opinions are exchanged. This is the very soul of progress.
Honestly IMO, I think wizards while with some good intentions might be doing this just to appease or protect themselves from internet mobs or the cancel culture - basic fear and self preservation.
These Sensitivity editors sound like a brick of good intentions to the in the road to hell. (From wikipedia: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions is a proverb or aphorism. An alternative form is "Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works".)
I hope it is just that they want to be clear that there is nuance about good and evil and nothing else for that they don't need Sensitivity Editors.
On another note I am really glad I look up the proverb and i found that there is a even better one: "Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works" that is amazing.
D&D is one of the most diverse games ever, with all sorts of races. When I first saw the drow, I didn't think of black people. Now, I don't take sides on politics, but this is just silly. If you don't like something, change it! D&D is about creativity! (I know that doesn't really fit this situation, but whatever)
Yeah I don't know why I thought this wouldnt exploded into a flame war. I just wanted to vent my frustration, because I cant really understand why WOTC choice.
its not a flame war, i think people are discussing things that all. its important to talk and not be afraid of saying what you are thinking.
Yeah I don't know why I thought this wouldnt exploded into a flame war. I just wanted to vent my frustration, because I cant really understand why WOTC choice.
This is more of a discussion so far. It hasn't progressed to war stage (yet).
I've never seen any of these allegories presented is all. I just rather this not escalate into a flame war.
D&D is one of the most diverse games ever, with all sorts of races. When I first saw the drow, I didn't think of black people. Now, I don't take sides on politics, but this is just silly. If you don't like something, change it! D&D is about creativity! (I know that doesn't really fit this situation, but whatever)
I know right? And that's what frustrates me the most about this whole thing. Taking a hobby, a safe place from all the politics of real life and just trying to appease the politics in real life.
D&D is one of the most diverse games ever, with all sorts of races. When I first saw the drow, I didn't think of black people. Now, I don't take sides on politics, but this is just silly. If you don't like something, change it! D&D is about creativity! (I know that doesn't really fit this situation, but whatever)
I know right? And that's what frustrates me the most about this whole thing. Taking a hobby, a safe place from all the politics of real life and just trying to appease the politics in real life.
Ah, there is your error. Science fiction and fantasy have both been traditionally used to explore the social condition and to disguise social commentary in a form that those who object to change can accept, since it is different enough that they can look at it objectively, or at least more easily dismiss it as harmless.
Yeah I noticed it the contradiction, the moment if sent it.
I mostly ignore the G/E side of alignment personally.
This is difficult to parse next to this:
So Orcs and Drow stop being evil. Then that must also extend to: Goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, Ogres, grimlocks, illithid, duergar, beholders, dragons, basically every race with an Int above 5. So what’s left? Once the game has been gutted to the point where everything is generic and basically interchangeable, what happens to diversity?
I have found that it becomes even more interesting for the players to find out that the Illithid is benevolent if they already start with the preconception that it is evil as reinforced by the canon.
Because "a strange creature is mind-controlling our beloved and generous queen!" doesn't get that done? The game itself does not need to be racist for virtually everybody in town to be like "Yikes! That dude has a squid for a face! KILL IT WITH FIRE!"
If you're playing with genre-savvy players with access to the Monster Manual, you definitely need to work harder to keep them on their toes. In my campaign, everywhere the players go, the locals are invariably troubled by "pixies." Yet the pixies are never the same type of creature twice. Change the physical description a little bit. Call it a "pixie" and/or give it a unique name, and 20-year veterans have no idea what statblock I'm using or what it might do next. My players learned very quickly that relying on any info in the MM was a very bad idea.
I’m fairly sure we can all agree that the Nazi ideology was evil. That doesn’t mean that all Germans are.
Any yet, to extend your (dicey, Godwin-invoking) analogy, the Monster Manual would say "Germans, Lawful Evil" not "Nazis, Lawful Evil." Or even "Humans, Lawful Evil.*" That's the problem in a nutshell.
D&D is one of the most diverse games ever, with all sorts of races. When I first saw the drow, I didn't think of black people. Now, I don't take sides on politics, but this is just silly. If you don't like something, change it! D&D is about creativity! (I know that doesn't really fit this situation, but whatever)
I know right? And that's what frustrates me the most about this whole thing. Taking a hobby, a safe place from all the politics of real life and just trying to appease the politics in real life.
Ah, there is your error. Science fiction and fantasy have both been traditionally used to explore the social condition and to disguise social commentary in a form that those who object to change can accept, since it is different enough that they can look at it objectively, or at least more easily dismiss it as harmless.
Very true, and I appreciate when they do that. I just don't think D&D is trying to do that.
Well... yeah. In my opinion, alignment is one game concept that hasn't aged well.
Every time you flip through the Monster Manual (of any edition) and it says "lawful evil" under Kobold, isn't that the very foundation of racism: a stereotype? Oh, every one of those people (if you even acknowledge them as people) is like that. It's just how they are. It's their nature.
In AD&D 1st edition, when I was about 11, it was fine and sufficient to say that the humans in the village were good and the kobolds causing problems for them were evil. Time to kill some kobolds!
Nowadays, "kill a bunch of indistinguishable enemies because they match a certain silhouette that the story defines as 'evil'" seems to be much better suited to video games than TTRPGs.
One idea that's gained a lot more prominence since then in both literature and TTRPGs is the idea that most villains think they're on the right side. The Snidely Whiplash trope of mustache-twirling villains who're bad and who know they're bad and do bad because they're bad is kinda out of fashion right now.
Example, Thanos. Villain. Thoroughly convinced he has to tear down half the universe (or more) in order to save it. Convinced that he is right, and brave and inspired to see what others do not and to have the will to act on it.
Which is more interesting? Thanos is the villain because he's large and purple and has certain stats and CR? Or Thanos is the villain because he's got this whack idea in his head that he believes is best for the universe? Do we think he's evil? Yes. Does he think he's evil? Not a chance.
It's allowed to exist. Diversity is about individuals, not races. Saying that all members of a certain race are one way is the very opposite of diversity.
Bring on the orc mages and the benevolent illithid who rules the city from the shadows by mind-controlling a succession of selfish, venal monarchs to keep them from tearing the kingdom apart. (Your party explores the rumor that the kingdom is secretly controlled by a strange creature and discovers this. Now what do you do? That is a way better game than illithid mind controlling the kings because the statblock says evil, and evil's gotta evil.)
And if you need the duergar or beholders in your game to be a problem, all taking "evil" off of them does is force you to have a reason why they're a problem. Lack of food or other resources? Pressure to move into the PC's lands coming from some even greater threat on the other side of them?
Or if you need a city full of hobgoblins with a ruthless gob-eat-gob power structure, all taking "evil" off of them does is force you to have a reason why their society is like that. A powerful ruler who believes war is coming and that only the strongest will survive? Brutal oppression by a stronger enemy that rewards sympathizers and turncoats? A dark artifact buried in the heart of the city that pulls everyones' selfish to the surface?
And why are the orcs rampaging all over Middle-Earth wrecking the place? Because they're the creations of Sauron and Saruman, bred and raised for that purpose. Nothing about changing their statblock from "chaotic evil" to "it's complicated" invalidates that campaign setting. Those orcs in that setting were evil for these reasons.
Finding those reasons instead of relying on "well, they're just evil" will always make your game better.
It is inevitable.
This is a very interesting concept. I like it.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
In no way do these changes prevent the telling of those stories. We will always make our campaigns about the issues that are important to us. 5e has no direct lore or rules about the conflicts between civilization and wilderness but it doesn't stop me from making it a central part of my campaign.
This change does not make all drow good. It allegedly puts them on an even footing with other races. Humans are just as likely to be evil. Do you honestly think that's a bad thing? That we need to have predetermined "bad" races that the good races can fight in order to tackle the concept of racism?
What's wrong with making them all capable of evil but not inherently evil? Isn't that a truer analog to real world racism if that's what you want to portray in your campaigns?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
One thing worth remembering is that the official rules are, essentially, the house rules for Adventurer's League. Which is where a lot of people play. Things that are "defaults" (as the 5e MM describes alignment) or jumping-off points for lots of us are the hard and fast rules of the road for lots of others.
It makes a lot of sense to make that environment as broadly accepting and inclusive (and inoffensive) as possible. Then, people who want something different can house rule it in their home games. Because the way things are set up, doing it the other way around is simply not an option.
I believed it was implicit already that there was a nuance about good and evil in DND but if it needs to be spelled out so be it, as long it is just that.
That’s precisely why in D&D, originally alignment only consisted of Lawful vs. Chaotic. To specifically preclude these exact issues. Good and Evil were added later to appease the masses. I mostly ignore the G/E side of alignment personally.
I have found that it becomes even more interesting for the players to find out that the Illithid is benevolent if they already start with the preconception that it is evil as reinforced by the canon.
That is why I specifically do that. For me, in my campaign world, “evil” is a matter of how many others one is willing to make suffer to further their own goals. As I said, I use the preconceptions formed by the canon to specifically make those points more impactful for the players.
I already do that though. So what needs to be changed? I don’t perceive “evil races” as every member of that race being inherently evil. It’s more of a measure of how their society views things.
I’m fairly sure we can all agree that the Nazi ideology was evil. That doesn’t mean that all Germans are. I look at it much the same way. Drow society encourages individuals to see to themselves at the expense of others. Orc society operates under the assumption that “might makes right.” Individual Drow or Orcs do not have to be “evil” for their society to be considered “evil.”
I live in the USA. We have a system of government where the wealthy get more wealthy by exploiting the rest of the society. Where the powerful retain power by not-so-metaphorically stepping on the necks of those without power. As a nation we have been turning away those seeking nothing but to escape the horrors of even more repressive societies. In just the contiguous 48 states we have the agricultural capacity to feed every single person on the planet. Instead we watch children starve in the streets of our own country and subsidize farmers to not grow food. I do not consider Americans to be inherently evil, but we are on the precipice of an evil society nonetheless. To be honest, I’m rather ashamed of us.... I’m sorry, this is getting me rather upset. The world is broken and instead of trying to solve real problems we are debating vocabulary in a game about fictional peoples. Why?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We fix this broken world the same way you would fix anything. One piece at a time. Debating vocabulary in a game about fictional peoples is a piece of it. We need to approach everything we do with the intention of harmony and inclusion, and that includes D&D. Removing the concept of inherently evil races knocks another stone from the wall of institutional racism without removing any possibilities from the game. Whether it is a big change or not, it's a change for the better and I see no reason not to embrace it.
For many of us, D&D is a part of our identity. An important part. So hearing that others consider it racist is hurtful and we want to fight that notion, to fight that any change needs to be made at all because it's an admission of fault and can be seen as a roundabout admission of racism in ourselves. We need to just get over that. Loving something that might have been perceived as hurtful by others doesn't make us bad.
But once we know it's hurtful to others, we should make an effort to change that. Sometimes the solution is not so easy, but in this case it is. We literally lose nothing by adopting these changes. Many of us were already operating this way. So we have a chance now to prove that we're willing to accept change to help others. I think that's a great opportunity.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
At the risk of sounding flippant... because you decided to make it debatable. You're right that it's small potatoes compared to other aspects of racism and oppression, so why not just go, "Ok, cool," in response to WOTC's announcement and focus your attention on the things you think are more important?
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Yeah I don't know why I thought this wouldnt exploded into a flame war. I just wanted to vent my frustration, because I cant really understand why WOTC choice.
its not a flame war, i think people are discussing things that all. its important to talk and not be afraid of saying what you are thinking.
This is more of a discussion so far. It hasn't progressed to war stage (yet).
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
And that is my exact point. We are rapidly becoming a society that tells people what they are and are not allowed to think. It is akin to telling people that they are wrong for not perceiving implicit systematic racism because others do perceive it. I would personally rather live in a society where we are allowed to be offended than one in which we are not allowed to be offensive.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We seem to be having a perfectly civil conversation where different ideas and opinions are exchanged. This is the very soul of progress.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Honestly IMO, I think wizards while with some good intentions might be doing this just to appease or protect themselves from internet mobs or the cancel culture - basic fear and self preservation.
These Sensitivity editors sound like a brick of good intentions to the in the road to hell. (From wikipedia: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions is a proverb or aphorism. An alternative form is "Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works".)
I hope it is just that they want to be clear that there is nuance about good and evil and nothing else for that they don't need Sensitivity Editors.
On another note I am really glad I look up the proverb and i found that there is a even better one: "Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works" that is amazing.
D&D is one of the most diverse games ever, with all sorts of races. When I first saw the drow, I didn't think of black people. Now, I don't take sides on politics, but this is just silly. If you don't like something, change it! D&D is about creativity! (I know that doesn't really fit this situation, but whatever)
SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've never seen any of these allegories presented is all. I just rather this not escalate into a flame war.
I know right? And that's what frustrates me the most about this whole thing. Taking a hobby, a safe place from all the politics of real life and just trying to appease the politics in real life.
Yeah I noticed it the contradiction, the moment if sent it.
This is difficult to parse next to this:
Because "a strange creature is mind-controlling our beloved and generous queen!" doesn't get that done? The game itself does not need to be racist for virtually everybody in town to be like "Yikes! That dude has a squid for a face! KILL IT WITH FIRE!"
If you're playing with genre-savvy players with access to the Monster Manual, you definitely need to work harder to keep them on their toes. In my campaign, everywhere the players go, the locals are invariably troubled by "pixies." Yet the pixies are never the same type of creature twice. Change the physical description a little bit. Call it a "pixie" and/or give it a unique name, and 20-year veterans have no idea what statblock I'm using or what it might do next. My players learned very quickly that relying on any info in the MM was a very bad idea.
Any yet, to extend your (dicey, Godwin-invoking) analogy, the Monster Manual would say "Germans, Lawful Evil" not "Nazis, Lawful Evil." Or even "Humans, Lawful Evil.*" That's the problem in a nutshell.
*Some days, I do wonder though.
Very true, and I appreciate when they do that. I just don't think D&D is trying to do that.
SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!