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.
...It might have been a "safe place from all the politics of real life" for you, but it sure as hell wasn't for those of us who are gay, or women, or trans, or Black, or Native. Because even when we're playing DnD we're confronted with racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. - sometimes from the GM, sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the sourcebooks. It's not always intentional, and you probably didn't notice because it doesn't directly affect you, but it is there. I appreciate that WOTC is making at least some effort to create a "safe place" for everyone, not just white straight guys.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
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.
Quite True!! And that is the very crux of my point.
Given what you are saying when you asked what has to be changed, frankly, it sounds like you have already made these changes personally and therefore seem to have convinced yourself that WoTC are changing something else, or are making more extreme changes than you think they are. Furthermore, you seem to have a blind spot in this regard, continuing to argue against what you actually seem to believe in yourself.
And this is precisely why I am discussing this with you, Kotath. You actually read what I wrote analytically instead of simply dismissing it. But you have come to some erroneous conclusions. My point is, it was my choice. It was not forced on my by people bowing to petitions. Forcing people to see what one wants them to see accomplishes nothing but resentment. By giving me the freedoms to make those choices I was granted the opportunity to rise above. If we remove that possibility from future generations, then we have only made them weaker and more susceptible to predation by bigots. That is why I argue so passionately on this topic. Look at it this way:
You are walking along and see a chrysalis on a plant and stop to admire it. While watching, you see the butterfly begin to emerge. At first it cracks the cocoon, but then begins to struggle. You do the noble thing and help break that chrysalis so the butterfly need not struggle. Only, the butterfly now cannot fly, and starves. By “helping” you took away the very thing it needed to strengthen its wings.
In this metaphors, that butterfly represents future generations of young people who might have strengthened their wings through the struggle against racism. D&D is a safe place to learn about these things because the BBE isn’t actually going to chop our faces off with an axe. It allows a safe simulation for real people to learn how to overcome the IRL BBEs. By “helping” we make them weaker. When the real threat of actual racism with all of its insidious machinations comes to call, they will not have been trained to recognize, resist, and overcome it. Keeping your children safe all of the time does them a disservice by not allowing them to strengthen themselves against that adversity. If we make the choice for them, they never learn how to choose properly. By telling them what to think, we limit their ability to think for themselves.
I fear the law of unintended consequences. As Gothyl pointed out: “The road to hell....”
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.
...It might have been a "safe place from all the politics of real life" for you, but it sure as hell wasn't for those of us who are gay, or women, or trans, or Black, or Native. Because even when we're playing DnD we're confronted with racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. - sometimes from the GM, sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the sourcebooks. It's not always intentional, and you probably didn't notice because it doesn't directly affect you, but it is there. I appreciate that WOTC is making at least some effort to create a "safe place" for everyone, not just white straight guys.
I agree fully with what you are saying. While I may not be discriminated against, or take sides on politics, I do think people should be free do to whatever they want, regardless of bias. Also, not as an argument to what you were saying, just as a statement:
D&D is about creativity, you are free to change whatever. (Kinda)
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.
...It might have been a "safe place from all the politics of real life" for you, but it sure as hell wasn't for those of us who are gay, or women, or trans, or Black, or Native. Because even when we're playing DnD we're confronted with racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. - sometimes from the GM, sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the sourcebooks. It's not always intentional, and you probably didn't notice because it doesn't directly affect you, but it is there. I appreciate that WOTC is making at least some effort to create a "safe place" for everyone, not just white straight guys.
And I never saw sex orientation, gender, or race as an issue. So long as the players respect each other, the be gay, straight, man, woman, or any color of the rainbow. respect is all I ask in return
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.
...It might have been a "safe place from all the politics of real life" for you, but it sure as hell wasn't for those of us who are gay, or women, or trans, or Black, or Native. Because even when we're playing DnD we're confronted with racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. - sometimes from the GM, sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the sourcebooks. It's not always intentional, and you probably didn't notice because it doesn't directly affect you, but it is there. I appreciate that WOTC is making at least some effort to create a "safe place" for everyone, not just white straight guys.
And I never saw sex orientation, gender, or race as an issue. So long as the players respect each other, the be gay, straight, man, woman, or any color of the rainbow. respect is all I ask in return
...OK? I'm not sure how WOTC's announcement in any way disrespects you, so this statement feels like a non-sequitur.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Look, D&D needs “storm troopers” to kill without guilt. That’s not to say “monsters” because many “monsters” are fairly mindless. But having intelligent races that are clearly recognized as “evil” is important to the game. If every recognizably evil intelligent race suddenly stops being recognizable as evil, then it forces the story into two directions: Either 1) All of the easily recognizable evil creatures become vanilla and less exciting/challenging. Or 2) Every encounter with intelligent races becomes a morality play.
What would LotR have been like if the Goblins, Orcs, and Urukai were all objectively no more good/evil than the Elves, Dwarves, Humans, and Hobbits?
What’s next? Grimlocks? Illithid? Duergar? Where does it end?
Okay. I disagree with this. D&D can have the "storm troopers" that are irredeemably evil without having Orcs be the ones to do it. In many D&D worlds, Orcs are just another culture of people. Orcs throughout the books have been shown to be a people with good as a part of them.
Next, the Lord of the Rings comparison. Who cares if Lord of the Rings orcs are evil all the time? Their story warrants it, they are all evil, and are part of a story, not an actual game.
So, the question "where does it end" is always a weak argument to me. The answer is always "somewhere". You can give a child Twizzelers without resorting to letting them do heroin. "After the twizzelers, where does it end?"
I agree that D&D needs evil monsters. Mind Flayers fit into that category. They are genetically villains, they have to kill to reproduce, survive, and enslave to thrive. Duergar can be good, too, for all I care. Grimlocks, probably not, as they serve Illithids, but if you kidnap a baby grimlock, and raise it, does it stay evil, or do you have an adopted grimlock child.
If it's your home campaign, and your lore warrants it, fine. I don't care. But, if the core rules change to make D&D more inclusive or less offensive to certain groups of people, I tell them to go ahead. No one is being offended by the depictions of Balors or Frost Giants, but there are people offended by Vistani, the depictions of Chultans, and Orcs.
(I mean no disrespect, just wanted to put my view of this argument)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
...It might have been a "safe place from all the politics of real life" for you, but it sure as hell wasn't for those of us who are gay, or women, or trans, or Black, or Native. Because even when we're playing DnD we're confronted with racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. - sometimes from the GM, sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the sourcebooks. It's not always intentional, and you probably didn't notice because it doesn't directly affect you, but it is there. I appreciate that WOTC is making at least some effort to create a "safe place" for everyone, not just white straight guys.
And I never saw sex orientation, gender, or race as an issue. So long as the players respect each other, the be gay, straight, man, woman, or any color of the rainbow. respect is all I ask in return
...OK? I'm not sure how WOTC's announcement in any way disrespects you, so this statement feels like a non-sequitur.
Apparently someone basically accused the company racist, saying "Orcs vistani, and drow are an allegory for black people and gypsies". And them changing it because of something that isnt there
Do you have anything actually backing up that as being the reason for 'Law vs Chaos?' Frankly, having started back then it seemed more that good and evil were so defined that they did not need to be explicitly said. Plus not wanting to upset religious people.
I have something backing up that *not* being the reason.
It depends a bit on what specific source you're looking at. AD&D 1e had the full lawful/chaotic good/evil grid.
The BECMI D&D did not, it had only "Lawful" and "Chaotic." But on page 55, the Red Box Players Manual states, among other things:
"When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other player characters."
"Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'good.'"
"Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil.'"
"Neutral behavior may be considered 'good' or 'evil' (or neither), depending on the situation."
The examples go on to make clear that if you're not Lawful, you're kind of a jerk; both Neutral and Chaotic characters are expected to save themselves at the expense of the party when going gets tough.
It seems pretty clear that at least for that edition, Lawful and Chaotic were more or less direct stand-ins for good and evil. It feels to me more like editorializing about an inherent virtue of law and an inherent iniquity of chaos than anything else.
(Also that edition gave you a secret language based on your alignment. Boy, wouldn't that make life easier?)
I never played the older badly-xeroxed version of OD&D; I don't know if they handled Lawful & Chaotic any differently than BECMI. But all of these were games that were most frequently about going into dungeons that often made little or no logical sense to kill things for little or no reason and take their stuff with little or nothing to spend it on. It's a very different game from the fantastic platform for shared worldbuilding and storytelling we have in 5e.
I'm not convinced there's a lot of deep wisdom about our current situation to be mined from that barely-evolved-from-a-wargame history, but I definitely don't feel that the resources I have access to support the interpretation of lawful and chaotic as orthogonal to good and evil in editions where the latter were not present. As the text acknowledges, they were practically synonyms.
Apparently someone basically accused the company racist, saying "Orcs vistani, and drow are an allegory for black people and gypsies". And them changing it because of something that isnt there
Well, for one, that still doesn't mean WOTC is disrespecting you personally, so maybe stop taking it so personally; and for two, the Visanti are very explicitly based on the Romani and always have been. (Read the novel Dracula, which is explicitly what Curse of Strahd is based on, and you'll understand what I mean.) So this isn't "something that isn't there"; quite the opposite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Apparently someone basically accused the company racist, saying "Orcs vistani, and drow are an allegory for black people and gypsies". And them changing it because of something that isnt there
Well, for one, that still doesn't mean WOTC is disrespecting you personally, so maybe stop taking it so personally; and for two, the Visanti are very explicitly based on the Romani and always have been. (Read the novel Dracula, which is explicitly what Curse of Strahd is based on, and you'll understand what I mean.) So this isn't "something that isn't there"; quite the opposite.
You're right. They're trying their best not to step on anyone's toes.
Problem is that there will always be someone willing to take it further than that eventually the marry-go-round will come back to us even we will be considered "problems" because of traditions or ideas that "need to go".
I honestly think everyone needs the support of friends/family/community so that they feel strong enough not to rely on safe spaces to survive the day to day of the grind of life.
Life is tough you cant fix everything with censorship and authoritarianism.
Safe spaces are like training wheels on a bike eventually you need to learn to let them go other wise you will never survive the real world.
You cant turn the outside world into our safe space this would lead to all sort of bricks in the road to hell if not hell itself.
Its sad truth that not everyone is equipped with the right support and teachings - that should be one of the things we should endeavour to make it better.
Problem is that there will always be someone willing to take it further than that eventually the marry-go-round will come back to us even we will be considered "problems" because of traditions or ideas that "need to go".
I honestly think everyone needs the support of friends/family/community so that they feel strong enough not to rely on safe spaces to survive the day to day of the grind of life.
Life is tough you cant fix everything with censorship and authoritarianism.
Safe spaces are like training wheels on a bike eventually you need to learn to let them go other wise you will never survive the real world.
You cant turn the outside world into our safe space this would lead to all sort of bricks in the road to hell if not hell itself.
Its sad truth that not everyone is equipped with the right support and teachings - that should be one of the things we should endeavour to make it better.
I don't understand this line of thinking because it's ultimately tautological. The world is shitty and oppressive, and we shouldn't work to make it less so because... the world is shitty and oppressive? What?
Like, no duh you can't eliminate every bad thing from every part of the world forever. No one actually thinks that. But if we can eliminate some bad things from some parts of the world, why shouldn't we? The idea that doing so will somehow make people completely incapable of functioning is, frankly, bizarre and baseless. We don't thrive because of hardship; we thrive in spite of hardship.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
How do people plan out arguments on this thread so well?
That's 'cause D&D self-selects for people who are scary intelligent and love to hear themselves talk. ;-)
Pretty much this. Those of us who have been at this long enough have had plenty of time to observe and think. To the extent we DM, to think about what kind of stories we want to tell, what kind of worlds we want to present. This whole debate has been going on in our heads for years, in many cases, for decades.
How do people plan out arguments on this thread so well?
That's 'cause D&D self-selects for people who are scary intelligent and love to hear themselves talk. ;-)
Pretty much this. Those of us who have been at this long enough have had plenty of time to observe and think. To the extent we DM, to think about what kind of stories we want to tell, what kind of worlds we want to present. This whole debate has been going on in our heads for years, in many cases, for decades.
How do people plan out arguments on this thread so well?
That's 'cause D&D self-selects for people who are scary intelligent and love to hear themselves talk. ;-)
Pretty much this. Those of us who have been at this long enough have had plenty of time to observe and think. To the extent we DM, to think about what kind of stories we want to tell, what kind of worlds we want to present. This whole debate has been going on in our heads for years, in many cases, for decades.
How do people plan out arguments on this thread so well?
That's 'cause D&D self-selects for people who are scary intelligent and love to hear themselves talk. ;-)
Pretty much this. Those of us who have been at this long enough have had plenty of time to observe and think. To the extent we DM, to think about what kind of stories we want to tell, what kind of worlds we want to present. This whole debate has been going on in our heads for years, in many cases, for decades.
Wait really?
Well I can only actually speak for myself, but yes.
I don't know how I feel about that... thanks? You're welcome for the inspiration? I just made this to vent. XD
Please point out the censorship and authoritarianism. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing more options for players and continuing efforts to make all people feel welcome in this great game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
...It might have been a "safe place from all the politics of real life" for you, but it sure as hell wasn't for those of us who are gay, or women, or trans, or Black, or Native. Because even when we're playing DnD we're confronted with racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. - sometimes from the GM, sometimes from the players, and sometimes from the sourcebooks. It's not always intentional, and you probably didn't notice because it doesn't directly affect you, but it is there. I appreciate that WOTC is making at least some effort to create a "safe place" for everyone, not just white straight guys.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Quite True!! And that is the very crux of my point.
And this is precisely why I am discussing this with you, Kotath. You actually read what I wrote analytically instead of simply dismissing it. But you have come to some erroneous conclusions. My point is, it was my choice. It was not forced on my by people bowing to petitions. Forcing people to see what one wants them to see accomplishes nothing but resentment. By giving me the freedoms to make those choices I was granted the opportunity to rise above. If we remove that possibility from future generations, then we have only made them weaker and more susceptible to predation by bigots. That is why I argue so passionately on this topic. Look at it this way:
You are walking along and see a chrysalis on a plant and stop to admire it. While watching, you see the butterfly begin to emerge. At first it cracks the cocoon, but then begins to struggle. You do the noble thing and help break that chrysalis so the butterfly need not struggle. Only, the butterfly now cannot fly, and starves. By “helping” you took away the very thing it needed to strengthen its wings.
In this metaphors, that butterfly represents future generations of young people who might have strengthened their wings through the struggle against racism. D&D is a safe place to learn about these things because the BBE isn’t actually going to chop our faces off with an axe. It allows a safe simulation for real people to learn how to overcome the IRL BBEs. By “helping” we make them weaker. When the real threat of actual racism with all of its insidious machinations comes to call, they will not have been trained to recognize, resist, and overcome it. Keeping your children safe all of the time does them a disservice by not allowing them to strengthen themselves against that adversity. If we make the choice for them, they never learn how to choose properly. By telling them what to think, we limit their ability to think for themselves.
I fear the law of unintended consequences. As Gothyl pointed out: “The road to hell....”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I agree fully with what you are saying. While I may not be discriminated against, or take sides on politics, I do think people should be free do to whatever they want, regardless of bias. Also, not as an argument to what you were saying, just as a statement:
D&D is about creativity, you are free to change whatever. (Kinda)
SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I never saw sex orientation, gender, or race as an issue. So long as the players respect each other, the be gay, straight, man, woman, or any color of the rainbow. respect is all I ask in return
...OK? I'm not sure how WOTC's announcement in any way disrespects you, so this statement feels like a non-sequitur.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Okay. I disagree with this. D&D can have the "storm troopers" that are irredeemably evil without having Orcs be the ones to do it. In many D&D worlds, Orcs are just another culture of people. Orcs throughout the books have been shown to be a people with good as a part of them.
Next, the Lord of the Rings comparison. Who cares if Lord of the Rings orcs are evil all the time? Their story warrants it, they are all evil, and are part of a story, not an actual game.
So, the question "where does it end" is always a weak argument to me. The answer is always "somewhere". You can give a child Twizzelers without resorting to letting them do heroin. "After the twizzelers, where does it end?"
I agree that D&D needs evil monsters. Mind Flayers fit into that category. They are genetically villains, they have to kill to reproduce, survive, and enslave to thrive. Duergar can be good, too, for all I care. Grimlocks, probably not, as they serve Illithids, but if you kidnap a baby grimlock, and raise it, does it stay evil, or do you have an adopted grimlock child.
If it's your home campaign, and your lore warrants it, fine. I don't care. But, if the core rules change to make D&D more inclusive or less offensive to certain groups of people, I tell them to go ahead. No one is being offended by the depictions of Balors or Frost Giants, but there are people offended by Vistani, the depictions of Chultans, and Orcs.
(I mean no disrespect, just wanted to put my view of this argument)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Apparently someone basically accused the company racist, saying "Orcs vistani, and drow are an allegory for black people and gypsies". And them changing it because of something that isnt there
I have something backing up that *not* being the reason.
It depends a bit on what specific source you're looking at. AD&D 1e had the full lawful/chaotic good/evil grid.
The BECMI D&D did not, it had only "Lawful" and "Chaotic." But on page 55, the Red Box Players Manual states, among other things:
"When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other player characters."
"Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'good.'"
"Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil.'"
"Neutral behavior may be considered 'good' or 'evil' (or neither), depending on the situation."
The examples go on to make clear that if you're not Lawful, you're kind of a jerk; both Neutral and Chaotic characters are expected to save themselves at the expense of the party when going gets tough.
It seems pretty clear that at least for that edition, Lawful and Chaotic were more or less direct stand-ins for good and evil. It feels to me more like editorializing about an inherent virtue of law and an inherent iniquity of chaos than anything else.
(Also that edition gave you a secret language based on your alignment. Boy, wouldn't that make life easier?)
I never played the older badly-xeroxed version of OD&D; I don't know if they handled Lawful & Chaotic any differently than BECMI. But all of these were games that were most frequently about going into dungeons that often made little or no logical sense to kill things for little or no reason and take their stuff with little or nothing to spend it on. It's a very different game from the fantastic platform for shared worldbuilding and storytelling we have in 5e.
I'm not convinced there's a lot of deep wisdom about our current situation to be mined from that barely-evolved-from-a-wargame history, but I definitely don't feel that the resources I have access to support the interpretation of lawful and chaotic as orthogonal to good and evil in editions where the latter were not present. As the text acknowledges, they were practically synonyms.
Well, for one, that still doesn't mean WOTC is disrespecting you personally, so maybe stop taking it so personally; and for two, the Visanti are very explicitly based on the Romani and always have been. (Read the novel Dracula, which is explicitly what Curse of Strahd is based on, and you'll understand what I mean.) So this isn't "something that isn't there"; quite the opposite.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
How do people plan out arguments on this thread so well?
SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right. They're trying their best not to step on anyone's toes.
I dont actually know
Problem is that there will always be someone willing to take it further than that eventually the marry-go-round will come back to us even we will be considered "problems" because of traditions or ideas that "need to go".
I honestly think everyone needs the support of friends/family/community so that they feel strong enough not to rely on safe spaces to survive the day to day of the grind of life.
Life is tough you cant fix everything with censorship and authoritarianism.
Safe spaces are like training wheels on a bike eventually you need to learn to let them go other wise you will never survive the real world.
You cant turn the outside world into our safe space this would lead to all sort of bricks in the road to hell if not hell itself.
Its sad truth that not everyone is equipped with the right support and teachings - that should be one of the things we should endeavour to make it better.
That's 'cause D&D self-selects for people who are scary intelligent and love to hear themselves talk. ;-)
I don't understand this line of thinking because it's ultimately tautological. The world is shitty and oppressive, and we shouldn't work to make it less so because... the world is shitty and oppressive? What?
Like, no duh you can't eliminate every bad thing from every part of the world forever. No one actually thinks that. But if we can eliminate some bad things from some parts of the world, why shouldn't we? The idea that doing so will somehow make people completely incapable of functioning is, frankly, bizarre and baseless. We don't thrive because of hardship; we thrive in spite of hardship.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Wait really?
Really.
Really?
SAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know how I feel about that... thanks? You're welcome for the inspiration? I just made this to vent. XD
Here is the announcement at issue:
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd
Please point out the censorship and authoritarianism. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing more options for players and continuing efforts to make all people feel welcome in this great game.