Well, after 20 pages, I feel like no new arguments have been made against the changes in at least 10. It's now just a (mostly-)rotating cast of people repeating the same tired strawman misrepresentations that were on page 1 about the changes being bigger and impactful than they are, claiming that only what they personally see exists, and telling us how totally not racist their home table is.
When you're ready to see the history of racism in D&D, you will. Until then, good luck to you.
On the one hand I want to say that it doesn't matter if people in the majority or position of relative power don't see the discrimination or micro aggressions because they will never truly know what it's like to be on the receiving end of systemic discrimination, except that it kind of does ... because without help from people who are part of the entrenched power structure those things will never change. So it's even more important that the very white male leadership at Wizards is making this kind of statement. I don't know how much more it takes to prove to people that media like rpg's have a (sometimes not so) subtle and insidious bias hidden in them than personal testimony. Honestly it feels kind of gross to even have to prove something like that, but I suppose that's what comes of the privilege of never having been made to feel like an outsider by subtle implication lacking outright slurs.
I agree that further arguing here at this point is not likely to change any minds. I will recommend to every white person (myself included) in this thread to at least consider reading the book "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo. I haven't finished it yet, but what I have read already has been very powerful. While she does not address D&D specifically, she does address many of the wider issues we are discussing here.
I would venture to guess that a vast majority of the people posting in this thread are white.
Here's a lesson for you - if a BIPOC says something is racist/offensive, you don't get to say "no it isn't." If they find it racist/offensive, then it is racist/offensive and all you can do is decide how you're going to deal with that.
Here’s a lesson as well, if a BIPOC says something isn’t racist then you don’t get to say “yes it is.” Actually, you can, as some things are subjective and if you are offended then you have a right to be. But being offended or triggered doesn’t automatically make you right. There’s so much actual crap going on in the world that I think focusing on races that don’t actually exist in a fantasy world isn’t an effective use of time or effort.
I would venture to guess that a vast majority of the people posting in this thread are white.
Here's a lesson for you - if a BIPOC says something is racist/offensive, you don't get to say "no it isn't." If they find it racist/offensive, then it is racist/offensive and all you can do is decide how you're going to deal with that.
Isn't that a bit like someone for 1650 saying if a priest tells you something is blasphemy, you don't get to say "no it isn't"? Fortunately in the 18th and 19th century something called the Enlightenment happened and peoples' emotions stopped being that which governs us. Now, instead of having unassailable authority coming from some arcane source, you actually have to defend your assertions with reason. After Emmanuel Kant's time, no-one is due blind, unquestioned authority. You need to tell me why something is wrong and if you can't persuade people that you are right, beyond all other arguments. Arguments matter, not the colour of the skin of the person who enunciates them.
Questioning truths is at the heart of democracy, justice and science. It is unacceptable to take that very act as a form of treason. If you're saying someone should get their way because they feel that they should, then I'm sorry: that's not an argument.
Because you could have the PCs fighting anything. Literally anything without needing fall back on Standard Badguy Race A.
Soldiers and agents of rival kingdoms or factions, crooked merchant bands hiring amoral mercenaries, fiendish cultists and brain-washed zealots. Hell, misguided civilians, starving refugees and panicked mobs makes an even more compelling battle because you've got to try and stop them without killing them, and even then, you've beaten the hell out of civilians to achieve your goal, and that has consequences.
Having the entities in the monster manuals being, if they are humanoids or sapient ((and not Outsiders, Undead or other creatures that are literally hard-coded to a certain alignment)) be either allies or enemies not because of their race, but their religion, their nationality or their society is a change D&D has desperately needed for years now.
An argument I have long made is that you can't make up an original society because Humans have, over the centuries, made so many of their own that any fictional one you create will inevitably mimic at least traits of a few of them, even if you don't intend to. Thus it is important that all societies in the game have something respectable about them, and that we don't make only the caucasian/european ones the inherently good/successful societies, that we actively try to avoid the racist caricatures and stereotypes in opposing societies and factions and races that the players may face.
I feel like we're all overlooking a key factor here in analyses like this:
Dungeons and Dragons is a really stupid game.
I love D&D. I've played it since I was a kid in the late 80's/early 90's. I've spent hundreds of ill-advised dollars here on D&D Beyond. D&D is a great game. However, it's really, reallydumb.
I'm a political scientist. I've spent years of my life in universities. I'm looking at going back to do a PhD at a, here unnamed, but ultimately a university that's a big deal. That's not important, but it tells you that I don't have a layman's understanding of how societies work. I've studied how contemporary states are run and I've studied how ancient states have been run and government all over the globe as well. If you have a background in the social sciences, it doesn't take long before you realise that Dungeons and Dragons makes no coherent sense. If you want to enjoy it as a hobby, you have to let go of worrying about how this world works because it doesn't work. Its functionality is fiat.
For example, the economy would be ******. Or wouldn't work on precious metals. That you have adventurers dropping exponentially more coin into the economy would cause hyper-inflation that has only ever been accurately measured by that idle clicker game. Plus, it doesn't help that dwarves have disproportionate access to precious metals compared to surface peoples. So, this would incentivise even the most unskilled farmer to get into professional grave robbing because the only thing actually producing goods is going to get you is a death by starving as even a barter economy couldn't work beyond your direct friends.
Secondly, any sort of technology beyond basic pottery is unlikely to develop in a world with wide-spread magic. Developing tools to craft metal is expensive and if you can do it for cheaper with some arcane trickery, then yeah, you probably aren't going to invest money into the steam engine when you can hire a mage for a fraction of the cost to displace the water out of your mine.
Third, the metaphysical results of having objectively real supernatural beings are terrifying. You wouldn't need to have debates about morality, because it's clear: behaving like a demon is bad and behaving like an angel is good. Furthermore, the very arbiters of goodness and evilness are beyond mortal consideration. You can say "that's not really good" to an angel, but you'd be objectively wrong, because goodness has stopped being a philosophical consideration at that point.
Fourthly, it's super weird that all of these races are basically human. Actually it's far weirder than the idea that orcs are preternaturally evil that they have all developed the same philosophical concepts and morality as we have today. Because humans didn't even do that and we're all the same species. Elves should be alien to us, not pointed-eared humans. Dwarves should be alien to us, not short humans. They should have completely different concepts of ethics and norms that you and I should not be able to truly fathom, even if we can crudely encapsulate them. Hell, that Elves are effectively immortal alone would create beings whose thought patterns would be unnerving to say the least. Elves should be absolutely crippled by an utter inability to adapt. They shouldn't be wearing mithral, they should be wielding pointy sticks and rocks. "It worked for the first thousand years of my life, so I don't see a reason to change now." That they're more or less people that exist in the 21st century is mind-boggling from a sociological perspective. I mean, if you live for thousands of years, would you even view someone who lived for 70-80 as a person? Probably not.
The list really goes on, but if we are using our history as the analytical lens to judge whether D&D is rationally making sense, then no. It is so far away from making sense that you should probably make any claims to try to right that ship with hysterical laughter. You want to make D&D make sense? Burn it and start from scratch and this time write it with only humans, no magic and probably set in the 21st century. Because, and I don't mean this as an insult or a comment of derision, you are (likely) not equipped to invent an economy or a functioning society or political system or culture or philosophy that makes sense. And if you did make one of those things, the investment on the players' behalf to learn how one of these, let alone all of these, functions organically would be unreasonably high. It probably also wouldn't be fun. So you shouldn't try and just have fun with the game that doesn't make sense and don't think too hard about why it works, because that is a thread that will unravel the entire garment if pulled upon.
I would venture to guess that a vast majority of the people posting in this thread are white.
Here's a lesson for you - if a BIPOC says something is racist/offensive, you don't get to say "no it isn't." If they find it racist/offensive, then it is racist/offensive and all you can do is decide how you're going to deal with that.
Isn't that a bit like someone for 1650 saying if a priest tells you something is blasphemy, you don't get to say "no it isn't"? Fortunately in the 18th and 19th century something called the Enlightenment happened and peoples' emotions stopped being that which governs us. Now, instead of having unassailable authority coming from some arcane source, you actually have to defend your assertions with reason. After Emmanuel Kant's time, no-one is due blind, unquestioned authority. You need to tell me why something is wrong and if you can't persuade people that you are right, beyond all other arguments. Arguments matter, not the colour of the skin of the person who enunciates them.
Questioning truths is at the heart of democracy, justice and science. It is unacceptable to take that very act as a form of treason. If you're saying someone should get their way because they feel that they should, then I'm sorry: that's not an argument.
You can disagree with the priest, but for them whatever it is is still blasphemy.
And with due respect, others seem to be questioning your truths here. It is not enough to simply say 'I am objective, therefore I am right,' particularly when adjudicating a potential wrong against someone else and especially if you are among those accused and therefore have a personal stake in the proceedings.
It is true that they might merely be perceiving it as racist, but it is also true that you might merely be perceiving it as non-racist. That accusation swings both ways.
My "truths" can be questioned because they are supported not by my feelings, but my arguments, based on facts and reasoning. If I say "I am right because I am objective", it would be based on the idea that an objective truth is one that we all share equal access to, so, therefore, we can all equally see how true it is. A person who says their subjectiveness is true is someone who cannot be scrutinised because only they have access to that truth. My access to said truth, if the truth is subjective has to be mediated through another person and is susceptible to misinterpretation or willful distortion. Whereas, objective truth is open to all and therefore you can check to see if I am honestly representing the facts of the matter or even if I made an innocent mistake. You get to be a check on my interpretation with your questioning and if I can't stand up to those questions, then likely I was not telling the truth.
By allowing people to question and hold people accountable to their positions, we discover the truth. It isn't something that you or I bring to the conversation, but something we discover by interrogating our perceptions.
Because you could have the PCs fighting anything. Literally anything without needing fall back on Standard Badguy Race A.
Soldiers and agents of rival kingdoms or factions, crooked merchant bands hiring amoral mercenaries, fiendish cultists and brain-washed zealots. Hell, misguided civilians, starving refugees and panicked mobs makes an even more compelling battle because you've got to try and stop them without killing them, and even then, you've beaten the hell out of civilians to achieve your goal, and that has consequences.
Having the entities in the monster manuals being, if they are humanoids or sapient ((and not Outsiders, Undead or other creatures that are literally hard-coded to a certain alignment)) be either allies or enemies not because of their race, but their religion, their nationality or their society is a change D&D has desperately needed for years now.
An argument I have long made is that you can't make up an original society because Humans have, over the centuries, made so many of their own that any fictional one you create will inevitably mimic at least traits of a few of them, even if you don't intend to. Thus it is important that all societies in the game have something respectable about them, and that we don't make only the caucasian/european ones the inherently good/successful societies, that we actively try to avoid the racist caricatures and stereotypes in opposing societies and factions and races that the players may face.
I feel like we're all overlooking a key factor here in analyses like this:
Dungeons and Dragons is a really stupid game.
I love D&D. I've played it since I was a kid in the late 80's/early 90's. I've spent hundreds of ill-advised dollars here on D&D Beyond. D&D is a great game. However, it's really, reallydumb.
I'm a political scientist. I've spent years of my life in universities. I'm looking at going back to do a PhD at a, here unnamed, but ultimately a university that's a big deal. That's not important, but it tells you that I don't have a layman's understanding of how societies work. I've studied how contemporary states are run and I've studied how ancient states have been run and government all over the globe as well. If you have a background in the social sciences, it doesn't take long before you realise that Dungeons and Dragons makes no coherent sense. If you want to enjoy it as a hobby, you have to let go of worrying about how this world works because it doesn't work. Its functionality is fiat.
So now you are saying none of it makes sense so there is no point making any sense out of it? Do you understand how you are sounding here?
Appealing to your credentials is nice, but you are making some rather sweeping statements here, none of which justify retaining systematic racism.
Actually, the normalisation of orcs as humanoids would make the game make less sense. Orcs are fine, it's every other race, including humans who need to be extensively reworked if we are sincere about making the game make sense.
But I do know how I sound and what I'm saying is that making sense was never the intention of the game, so making it make more sense doesn't make sense. It's like saying that chickens need to produce more milk because they are poor cows; yes, they are poor cows, but they were never supposed to be cows.
I would turn your own statement around on you and say you haven't provided any evidence that they are systematic racism. I mean they are arguably stand-ins, especially originally for Germanic tribes-- the kind who sacked Rome. Most of the arguments here seem to be "I interpret them as stand-ins for Africans, so they're racist" but their "historical" behaviour is ... yeah, more akin to Germanic and Slavic tribes. You could make the parallel to Turkic and Mongol nomads, but Orcs don't prominently feature cavalry. I mean, you could make some parallels to Zulu styles of warfare, but even then Orcs don't behave like Zulus. Just because you say something is true doesn't make it so, and as I said above, I back my positions up with arguments. Until you say why orcs are like Africans and in what way those parallels are discriminating against that population, you haven't justified your position. You can handwave them away as "sweeping statements" but even those are better than nothing. And even if you provide an argument, that doesn't mean it has merit.
It is the laziest form of discussion to say "I disagree" without providing any sort of argument to back up your position. All things being equal? I won this exchange because more of my "pieces" remain on the board. You can say that you don't like how I played them, but if you play nothing to actually counter them, then your opponent wins by default.
I would venture to guess that a vast majority of the people posting in this thread are white.
Here's a lesson for you - if a BIPOC says something is racist/offensive, you don't get to say "no it isn't." If they find it racist/offensive, then it is racist/offensive and all you can do is decide how you're going to deal with that.
Isn't that a bit like someone for 1650 saying if a priest tells you something is blasphemy, you don't get to say "no it isn't"? Fortunately in the 18th and 19th century something called the Enlightenment happened and peoples' emotions stopped being that which governs us. Now, instead of having unassailable authority coming from some arcane source, you actually have to defend your assertions with reason. After Emmanuel Kant's time, no-one is due blind, unquestioned authority. You need to tell me why something is wrong and if you can't persuade people that you are right, beyond all other arguments. Arguments matter, not the colour of the skin of the person who enunciates them.
Questioning truths is at the heart of democracy, justice and science. It is unacceptable to take that very act as a form of treason. If you're saying someone should get their way because they feel that they should, then I'm sorry: that's not an argument.
You can disagree with the priest, but for them whatever it is is still blasphemy.
And with due respect, others seem to be questioning your truths here. It is not enough to simply say 'I am objective, therefore I am right,' particularly when adjudicating a potential wrong against someone else and especially if you are among those accused and therefore have a personal stake in the proceedings.
It is true that they might merely be perceiving it as racist, but it is also true that you might merely be perceiving it as non-racist. That accusation swings both ways.
My "truths" can be questioned because they are supported not by my feelings, but my arguments, based on facts and reasoning. If I say "I am right because I am objective", it would be based on the idea that an objective truth is one that we all share equal access to, so, therefore, we can all equally see how true it is. A person who says their subjectiveness is true is someone who cannot be scrutinised because only they have access to that truth. My access to said truth, if the truth is subjective has to be mediated through another person and is susceptible to misinterpretation or willful distortion. Whereas, objective truth is open to all and therefore you can check to see if I am honestly representing the facts of the matter or even if I made an innocent mistake. You get to be a check on my interpretation with your questioning and if I can't stand up to those questions, then likely I was not telling the truth.
By allowing people to question and hold people accountable to their positions, we discover the truth. It isn't something that you or I bring to the conversation, but something we discover by interrogating our perceptions.
For someone claiming to be a political scientist who has spent years of his life at universities, you seem to have interesting definitions of 'objective,' or, for that matter, of 'blasphemy.'
Definition of blasphemy
1a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God // accused of blasphemy
b: the act of claiming the attributes of a deity // for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy— John Bright †1889
2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
Note that the definition does not require any deity to actually exist. You can argue that God does not exist and therefore blasphemy should be considered irrelevant, but that is a completely different argument from insisting that something is not blasphemy.
And even then, as someone who has 'spent years of his life at universities,' and is claiming a Masters degree, you should know that proving a negative is impossible. There is no proof of the existence of God, but there is no proof of His non-existence either. (and please... not saying that to get into any debates over the existence of God, but merely over your logic that the priest cannot be correct about any giving thing being blasphemous).
This does not make the priest right, either, of course, but you will need more than 'no it isn't' to convince him, or to convince anyone else who is relying on an actual logical argument to decide rather than simple denial.
And although I do not have a masters, you are not the only student of political science in the world. Nor does having a masters necessarily make you an expert in all things or even necessarily in political science. If it was that easy, politicians would be rather a lot more competent.
I would like to note I never said anything about proving god exists and I have no idea what on earth drew you off on this tangent other than I used the word blasphemy.
Also, politicians are usually people who studied law, not political theory.
Actually, the normalisation of orcs as humanoids would make the game make less sense. Orcs are fine, it's every other race, including humans who need to be extensively reworked if we are sincere about making the game make sense.
But I do know how I sound and what I'm saying is that making sense was never the intention of the game, so making it make more sense doesn't make sense. It's like saying that chickens need to produce more milk because they are poor cows; yes, they are poor cows, but they were never supposed to be cows.
I would turn your own statement around on you and say you haven't provided any evidence that they are systematic racism. I mean they are arguably stand-ins, especially originally for Germanic tribes-- the kind who sacked Rome. Most of the arguments here seem to be "I interpret them as stand-ins for Africans, so they're racist" but their "historical" behaviour is ... yeah, more akin to Germanic and Slavic tribes. You could make the parallel to Turkic and Mongol nomads, but Orcs don't prominently feature cavalry. I mean, you could make some parallels to Zulu styles of warfare, but even then Orcs don't behave like Zulus. Just because you say something is true doesn't make it so, and as I said above, I back my positions up with arguments. Until you say why orcs are like Africans and in what way those parallels are discriminating against that population, you haven't justified your position. You can handwave them away as "sweeping statements" but even those are better than nothing. And even if you provide an argument, that doesn't mean it has merit.
It is the laziest form of discussion to say "I disagree" without providing any sort of argument to back up your position. All things being equal? I won this exchange because more of my "pieces" remain on the board. You can say that you don't like how I played them, but if you play nothing to actually counter them, then your opponent wins by default.
Whether they are a stand-in for Germanic tribes or not is neither here nor there.
That seems a strange interpretation, given the clear Lord of the Rings influence. Orcs were twisted from Elves using evil magic (tm). Trying to relate that to Germanic tribes would be like saying 'Well first, elves came from somewhere in the East, then took over the British Isles in the West (but really covered the entirety of Europe), then had a bunch of civil wars and somewhere in there, only the Germanic tribes became Evil. But uniformly evil. Because 'reasons.'
Furthermore, take a course on historical economics. The whole 'barbarian tribes sacked Rome' was itself a myth. Short version, in no particular order: Roman law allowed secession, Roman Legionaries were expensive, a lot more so than just contracting out locally for local defense, Rome failed to properly decentralize its government resulting in outlying regions feeling neglected and Rome lost its technology edge by diffusion of knowledge and by failing to innovate (mostly due to decadence resulting from too much success for too long). There are likely a couple other factors I am forgetting, but it really comes down to bad management on the part of Rome rather than the cliche of 'barbaric tribes.'
Tolkien's writings, epic though they were, were often misinterpreted. Most 'hero races' got translated in game to 'good' in a naive 'Cowboys and Indians' sense, ignoring that in said writings, all the so called 'good' races clearly had individuals with some very negative traits. 'Good' beings such as Angels, or even Gods were capable of falling, so why wouldn't so called 'evil' races have similar free will? The books were not presented from any Orcish perspective. We saw less even of Orcish society than Dwarven, despite the Dwarves being mostly wiped out by the 3rd Age. So frankly, the 'Orcs must be evil' line is mostly just an assumption.
Sentient races are sentient. That means they have free will and individuals are not all uniform.
And declaring yourself the winner rather than really responding to arguments is exactly what you seem to be doing. For you, also a sentient being and free individual, you may well feel that you have won. However, just as with your 17th century priest, having beliefs does not in and of itself equate to those beliefs being true, or false.
And as a poli-sci major, you should know that.
See, all of the above is not addressing my argument, but rather nitpicking small pieces of it and often in ways that just have nothing to do with the thing you were nitpicking. How does that reinforce your point that D&D should make sense because that is what you are trying to counter-- or maybe you are just writing things because you are angry and don't particularly care the effect of your words.
I only declared myself the winner, jokingly and in a way to encourage you to present your position better, because you have been writing empty rhetoric so devoid of content and yet you unrelentingly demand time from people you have made, seemingly, zero effort to understand their position. I feel like I have handled this unpleasant interaction long enough in good faith. I find the reality immune to be tedious and I do not traffic in tedium.
"Race X is ugly, stupid, and wants our women" is pretty close to "generic essential racism", it tends to be leveled against any disfavored group, and fits D&D orcs (it's not as good a match for Tolkien orcs).
D&D is about as real world racist as it promotes devil worship. Yes there are devils in game, they are evil, the game isn’t. Yes there are multiple races in game, some playable, some not, some are good and some are evil, but the game isn’t racist. Drawing parallels to become offended is a stretch at best and at worst trying to tear down a game that brings people of all backgrounds together. I DM one game a week and play in another, here are some of the people I play with. A truck driver from the Midwest, a couple rednecks from the mountains, a medivac crazy man, a high profile exec, an astrophysicist, a Native American who can actually hang with me drinking bourbon, an amazing lesbian who is just delightful and makes us all look bad, a marine (yes I give him blue crayons and he tells me to **** off, go USAF), and a couple other minorities. We have a great damn time and I can tell you that outside D&D I doubt we would ever interact.... mostly because I’m lazy and don’t go near people outside work lol.
Please just play and have fun. Any reason to be offended by any of the rules or portrayals are solely a misinterpretation that have no malice from the designers or 99.99% of the player base. But if someone is bullying you or making racist statements, just let us know, we all have your back.
Don't tell people when to be offended. If you're not offended by something, don't point at the people who are and scream "THAT'S NOT OFFENSIVE!" when you're not sharing their experiences.
Also, the argument eventually always goes to the Satanic Panic. Let's clear things up. What is different between this and the Satanic Panic? The following:
The Satanic Panic was about the literal destruction of D&D. This is not.
The Satanic Panic was a ton of ignorant, snowflake Christians (I'm Christian, not bashing Christians here, I'm bashing the specific ones involved in this movement) getting offended by the mere prescence of Demons and Devils in the game, not even looking far enough to see that the point was to kill those monsters. This is about making the game more open, and getting rid of offensive stereotypes of the races and real world races.
The Satanic Panic was a ton of people who didn't play the game freaking out. This is people who are actually playing the game, and they should have a say into its development, like the rest of us.
D&D doesn't send people to hell in real life. There are literal draws from real world races and cultures in D&D races and cultures. This problem is real, the Satanic Panic wasn't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Don't tell people when to be offended. If you're not offended by something, don't point at the people who are and scream "THAT'S NOT OFFENSIVE!" when you're not sharing their experiences.
Also, the argument eventually always goes to the Satanic Panic. Let's clear things up. What is different between this and the Satanic Panic?
The key difference is that the Satanic Panic went beyond "X is offensive" and into "X is trying to convince people to sell their souls to the devil" and trying to ban it.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask games to remove religiously offensive material. If they don't oblige, the normal responses to offensive speech (such as not buying or playing it, and discouraging others from doing so) is also reasonable. Just don't think of it as more than speech, and realize that D&D is hardly RaHoWa the RPG (which did exist on the internet. It was as bad as you would expect).
Don't tell people when to be offended. If you're not offended by something, don't point at the people who are and scream "THAT'S NOT OFFENSIVE!" when you're not sharing their experiences.
Also, the argument eventually always goes to the Satanic Panic. Let's clear things up. What is different between this and the Satanic Panic?
The key difference is that the Satanic Panic went beyond "X is offensive" and into "X is trying to convince people to sell their souls to the devil" and trying to ban it.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask games to remove religiously offensive material. If they don't oblige, the normal responses to offensive speech (such as not buying or playing it, and discouraging others from doing so) is also reasonable. Just don't think of it as more than speech, and realize that D&D is hardly RaHoWa the RPG (which did exist on the internet. It was as bad as you would expect).
Exactly this. The Satanic Panic wasn't reasonable. This is. They're asking to change a few paragraphs of things that are offensive to them, and some people are acting like they're asking for the destruction of the game, which is what they're doing when they compare this to the Satanic Panic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would venture to guess that a vast majority of the people posting in this thread are white.
Here's a lesson for you - if a BIPOC says something is racist/offensive, you don't get to say "no it isn't." If they find it racist/offensive, then it is racist/offensive and all you can do is decide how you're going to deal with that.
Isn't that a bit like someone for 1650 saying if a priest tells you something is blasphemy, you don't get to say "no it isn't"? Fortunately in the 18th and 19th century something called the Enlightenment happened and peoples' emotions stopped being that which governs us. Now, instead of having unassailable authority coming from some arcane source, you actually have to defend your assertions with reason. After Emmanuel Kant's time, no-one is due blind, unquestioned authority. You need to tell me why something is wrong and if you can't persuade people that you are right, beyond all other arguments. Arguments matter, not the colour of the skin of the person who enunciates them.
Questioning truths is at the heart of democracy, justice and science. It is unacceptable to take that very act as a form of treason. If you're saying someone should get their way because they feel that they should, then I'm sorry: that's not an argument.
You can disagree with the priest, but for them whatever it is is still blasphemy.
And with due respect, others seem to be questioning your truths here. It is not enough to simply say 'I am objective, therefore I am right,' particularly when adjudicating a potential wrong against someone else and especially if you are among those accused and therefore have a personal stake in the proceedings.
It is true that they might merely be perceiving it as racist, but it is also true that you might merely be perceiving it as non-racist. That accusation swings both ways.
My "truths" can be questioned because they are supported not by my feelings, but my arguments, based on facts and reasoning. If I say "I am right because I am objective", it would be based on the idea that an objective truth is one that we all share equal access to, so, therefore, we can all equally see how true it is. A person who says their subjectiveness is true is someone who cannot be scrutinised because only they have access to that truth. My access to said truth, if the truth is subjective has to be mediated through another person and is susceptible to misinterpretation or willful distortion. Whereas, objective truth is open to all and therefore you can check to see if I am honestly representing the facts of the matter or even if I made an innocent mistake. You get to be a check on my interpretation with your questioning and if I can't stand up to those questions, then likely I was not telling the truth.
By allowing people to question and hold people accountable to their positions, we discover the truth. It isn't something that you or I bring to the conversation, but something we discover by interrogating our perceptions.
For someone claiming to be a political scientist who has spent years of his life at universities, you seem to have interesting definitions of 'objective,' or, for that matter, of 'blasphemy.'
Definition of blasphemy
1a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God // accused of blasphemy
b: the act of claiming the attributes of a deity // for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy— John Bright †1889
2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
Note that the definition does not require any deity to actually exist. You can argue that God does not exist and therefore blasphemy should be considered irrelevant, but that is a completely different argument from insisting that something is not blasphemy.
And even then, as someone who has 'spent years of his life at universities,' and is claiming a Masters degree, you should know that proving a negative is impossible. There is no proof of the existence of God, but there is no proof of His non-existence either. (and please... not saying that to get into any debates over the existence of God, but merely over your logic that the priest cannot be correct about any giving thing being blasphemous).
This does not make the priest right, either, of course, but you will need more than 'no it isn't' to convince him, or to convince anyone else who is relying on an actual logical argument to decide rather than simple denial.
And although I do not have a masters, you are not the only student of political science in the world. Nor does having a masters necessarily make you an expert in all things or even necessarily in political science. If it was that easy, politicians would be rather a lot more competent.
I would like to note I never said anything about proving god exists and I have no idea what on earth drew you off on this tangent other than I used the word blasphemy.
Also, politicians are usually people who studied law, not political theory.
the point Veranti was making is that all statements can be challenged scientifically. then they can either be proven wrong or right. in the 17th century, you were not allowed to challenge the church unless you really didn't value your head remaining attached.
I am not saying I agree, as racism and the perception of racism are all subjective, but I do agree that all statements can be challenged. if I didn't I couldn't believe in democracy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I'm both impressed and disappointed that this thread has gone on for over twenty pages. All I can really say is that if enough people are upset enough over something in D&D to cause a sustained negative reaction...what does it hurt Wizards to fix it? What does it really hurt to say that a given orcish tribe is evil because they chose to be evil, rather than because they are orcs and ergo must be evil? This is D&D - we've been murdering evil cults full of robe-wearing yaybos for forty years now and nobody's ever batted an eye because of the inherent, fundamental idea that somebody chose to join a cult and thus they deserve whatever's coming their way. And in situations where this is not the case, entire adventures are built around 'redeeming' involuntary cultists.
If you want evil orcs in your game, put them there. Make them evil because of factors other than their inherent orcishness. An orcish raider band can be evil without orcs being genetically evil to the very last cell of their beings. Drow civilization can be deeply ****ed up and entirely loathsome from the influence of a corrupting spider goddess without drow themselves being genetically evil.
That's really all Wizards seems to be doing. They're avoiding the stigma of labeling something genetically evil, or labeling something genetically inferior a'la the Volo's Guide to DM Headaches orc. Is that really such an awful problem?
I think it's also worth reminding people of the following .... Edit: ok seems the image isn't working so I'll just quote it.
When you debate a person about something that affects them more than it affects you, remember that it will take a much greater emotional toll on them than on you. For you it may feel like an academic exercise. For them, it feels like revealing their pain only to have you dismiss their experience and sometimes their humanity. The fact that you might remain more calm under these circumstances is a consequence of your privilege, not increased objectivity on your part. Stay humble.
Has anyone else been having a lot of trouble with this site? I haven't been able to post for days at a time because the post editor won't load for me.
I'm both impressed and disappointed that this thread has gone on for over twenty pages. All I can really say is that if enough people are upset enough over something in D&D to cause a sustained negative reaction...what does it hurt Wizards to fix it? What does it really hurt to say that a given orcish tribe is evil because they chose to be evil, rather than because they are orcs and ergo must be evil? This is D&D - we've been murdering evil cults full of robe-wearing yaybos for forty years now and nobody's ever batted an eye because of the inherent, fundamental idea that somebody chose to join a cult and thus they deserve whatever's coming their way. And in situations where this is not the case, entire adventures are built around 'redeeming' involuntary cultists.
If you want evil orcs in your game, put them there. Make them evil because of factors other than their inherent orcishness. An orcish raider band can be evil without orcs being genetically evil to the very last cell of their beings. Drow civilization can be deeply ****ed up and entirely loathsome from the influence of a corrupting spider goddess without drow themselves being genetically evil.
That's really all Wizards seems to be doing. They're avoiding the stigma of labeling something genetically evil, or labeling something genetically inferior a'la the Volo's Guide to DM Headaches orc. Is that really such an awful problem?
^^^^This.
You want universally evil orcs, fine. It's your game, make any bullcrap explanation for that if you want to.
The point of this change is that Orcs in every setting aren't that. The default should be orcs that can choose how they act like humans, and in your settings or lore, if you want justified racism and genocide, just make them evil. The game should be as open as possible, and your choice for who is evil or good shouldn't be forced onto other settings and other people's campaigns. It should take work to make D&D less inclusive, not more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Well, after 20 pages, I feel like no new arguments have been made against the changes in at least 10. It's now just a (mostly-)rotating cast of people repeating the same tired strawman misrepresentations that were on page 1 about the changes being bigger and impactful than they are, claiming that only what they personally see exists, and telling us how totally not racist their home table is.
When you're ready to see the history of racism in D&D, you will. Until then, good luck to you.
On the one hand I want to say that it doesn't matter if people in the majority or position of relative power don't see the discrimination or micro aggressions because they will never truly know what it's like to be on the receiving end of systemic discrimination, except that it kind of does ... because without help from people who are part of the entrenched power structure those things will never change. So it's even more important that the very white male leadership at Wizards is making this kind of statement. I don't know how much more it takes to prove to people that media like rpg's have a (sometimes not so) subtle and insidious bias hidden in them than personal testimony. Honestly it feels kind of gross to even have to prove something like that, but I suppose that's what comes of the privilege of never having been made to feel like an outsider by subtle implication lacking outright slurs.
Here are some more thoughts about the topic: https://www.publicmedievalist.com/race-fantasy-genre/
https://www.mikeruso.com/blog/race-in-the-fantasy-genre/
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I agree that further arguing here at this point is not likely to change any minds. I will recommend to every white person (myself included) in this thread to at least consider reading the book "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo. I haven't finished it yet, but what I have read already has been very powerful. While she does not address D&D specifically, she does address many of the wider issues we are discussing here.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
I would venture to guess that a vast majority of the people posting in this thread are white.
Here's a lesson for you - if a BIPOC says something is racist/offensive, you don't get to say "no it isn't." If they find it racist/offensive, then it is racist/offensive and all you can do is decide how you're going to deal with that.
Here’s a lesson as well, if a BIPOC says something isn’t racist then you don’t get to say “yes it is.” Actually, you can, as some things are subjective and if you are offended then you have a right to be. But being offended or triggered doesn’t automatically make you right. There’s so much actual crap going on in the world that I think focusing on races that don’t actually exist in a fantasy world isn’t an effective use of time or effort.
Isn't that a bit like someone for 1650 saying if a priest tells you something is blasphemy, you don't get to say "no it isn't"? Fortunately in the 18th and 19th century something called the Enlightenment happened and peoples' emotions stopped being that which governs us. Now, instead of having unassailable authority coming from some arcane source, you actually have to defend your assertions with reason. After Emmanuel Kant's time, no-one is due blind, unquestioned authority. You need to tell me why something is wrong and if you can't persuade people that you are right, beyond all other arguments. Arguments matter, not the colour of the skin of the person who enunciates them.
Questioning truths is at the heart of democracy, justice and science. It is unacceptable to take that very act as a form of treason. If you're saying someone should get their way because they feel that they should, then I'm sorry: that's not an argument.
I feel like we're all overlooking a key factor here in analyses like this:
Dungeons and Dragons is a really stupid game.
I love D&D. I've played it since I was a kid in the late 80's/early 90's. I've spent hundreds of ill-advised dollars here on D&D Beyond. D&D is a great game. However, it's really, really dumb.
I'm a political scientist. I've spent years of my life in universities. I'm looking at going back to do a PhD at a, here unnamed, but ultimately a university that's a big deal. That's not important, but it tells you that I don't have a layman's understanding of how societies work. I've studied how contemporary states are run and I've studied how ancient states have been run and government all over the globe as well. If you have a background in the social sciences, it doesn't take long before you realise that Dungeons and Dragons makes no coherent sense. If you want to enjoy it as a hobby, you have to let go of worrying about how this world works because it doesn't work. Its functionality is fiat.
For example, the economy would be ******. Or wouldn't work on precious metals. That you have adventurers dropping exponentially more coin into the economy would cause hyper-inflation that has only ever been accurately measured by that idle clicker game. Plus, it doesn't help that dwarves have disproportionate access to precious metals compared to surface peoples. So, this would incentivise even the most unskilled farmer to get into professional grave robbing because the only thing actually producing goods is going to get you is a death by starving as even a barter economy couldn't work beyond your direct friends.
Secondly, any sort of technology beyond basic pottery is unlikely to develop in a world with wide-spread magic. Developing tools to craft metal is expensive and if you can do it for cheaper with some arcane trickery, then yeah, you probably aren't going to invest money into the steam engine when you can hire a mage for a fraction of the cost to displace the water out of your mine.
Third, the metaphysical results of having objectively real supernatural beings are terrifying. You wouldn't need to have debates about morality, because it's clear: behaving like a demon is bad and behaving like an angel is good. Furthermore, the very arbiters of goodness and evilness are beyond mortal consideration. You can say "that's not really good" to an angel, but you'd be objectively wrong, because goodness has stopped being a philosophical consideration at that point.
Fourthly, it's super weird that all of these races are basically human. Actually it's far weirder than the idea that orcs are preternaturally evil that they have all developed the same philosophical concepts and morality as we have today. Because humans didn't even do that and we're all the same species. Elves should be alien to us, not pointed-eared humans. Dwarves should be alien to us, not short humans. They should have completely different concepts of ethics and norms that you and I should not be able to truly fathom, even if we can crudely encapsulate them. Hell, that Elves are effectively immortal alone would create beings whose thought patterns would be unnerving to say the least. Elves should be absolutely crippled by an utter inability to adapt. They shouldn't be wearing mithral, they should be wielding pointy sticks and rocks. "It worked for the first thousand years of my life, so I don't see a reason to change now." That they're more or less people that exist in the 21st century is mind-boggling from a sociological perspective. I mean, if you live for thousands of years, would you even view someone who lived for 70-80 as a person? Probably not.
The list really goes on, but if we are using our history as the analytical lens to judge whether D&D is rationally making sense, then no. It is so far away from making sense that you should probably make any claims to try to right that ship with hysterical laughter. You want to make D&D make sense? Burn it and start from scratch and this time write it with only humans, no magic and probably set in the 21st century. Because, and I don't mean this as an insult or a comment of derision, you are (likely) not equipped to invent an economy or a functioning society or political system or culture or philosophy that makes sense. And if you did make one of those things, the investment on the players' behalf to learn how one of these, let alone all of these, functions organically would be unreasonably high. It probably also wouldn't be fun. So you shouldn't try and just have fun with the game that doesn't make sense and don't think too hard about why it works, because that is a thread that will unravel the entire garment if pulled upon.
My "truths" can be questioned because they are supported not by my feelings, but my arguments, based on facts and reasoning. If I say "I am right because I am objective", it would be based on the idea that an objective truth is one that we all share equal access to, so, therefore, we can all equally see how true it is. A person who says their subjectiveness is true is someone who cannot be scrutinised because only they have access to that truth. My access to said truth, if the truth is subjective has to be mediated through another person and is susceptible to misinterpretation or willful distortion. Whereas, objective truth is open to all and therefore you can check to see if I am honestly representing the facts of the matter or even if I made an innocent mistake. You get to be a check on my interpretation with your questioning and if I can't stand up to those questions, then likely I was not telling the truth.
By allowing people to question and hold people accountable to their positions, we discover the truth. It isn't something that you or I bring to the conversation, but something we discover by interrogating our perceptions.
Actually, the normalisation of orcs as humanoids would make the game make less sense. Orcs are fine, it's every other race, including humans who need to be extensively reworked if we are sincere about making the game make sense.
But I do know how I sound and what I'm saying is that making sense was never the intention of the game, so making it make more sense doesn't make sense. It's like saying that chickens need to produce more milk because they are poor cows; yes, they are poor cows, but they were never supposed to be cows.
I would turn your own statement around on you and say you haven't provided any evidence that they are systematic racism. I mean they are arguably stand-ins, especially originally for Germanic tribes-- the kind who sacked Rome. Most of the arguments here seem to be "I interpret them as stand-ins for Africans, so they're racist" but their "historical" behaviour is ... yeah, more akin to Germanic and Slavic tribes. You could make the parallel to Turkic and Mongol nomads, but Orcs don't prominently feature cavalry. I mean, you could make some parallels to Zulu styles of warfare, but even then Orcs don't behave like Zulus. Just because you say something is true doesn't make it so, and as I said above, I back my positions up with arguments. Until you say why orcs are like Africans and in what way those parallels are discriminating against that population, you haven't justified your position. You can handwave them away as "sweeping statements" but even those are better than nothing. And even if you provide an argument, that doesn't mean it has merit.
It is the laziest form of discussion to say "I disagree" without providing any sort of argument to back up your position. All things being equal? I won this exchange because more of my "pieces" remain on the board. You can say that you don't like how I played them, but if you play nothing to actually counter them, then your opponent wins by default.
I would like to note I never said anything about proving god exists and I have no idea what on earth drew you off on this tangent other than I used the word blasphemy.
Also, politicians are usually people who studied law, not political theory.
See, all of the above is not addressing my argument, but rather nitpicking small pieces of it and often in ways that just have nothing to do with the thing you were nitpicking. How does that reinforce your point that D&D should make sense because that is what you are trying to counter-- or maybe you are just writing things because you are angry and don't particularly care the effect of your words.
I only declared myself the winner, jokingly and in a way to encourage you to present your position better, because you have been writing empty rhetoric so devoid of content and yet you unrelentingly demand time from people you have made, seemingly, zero effort to understand their position. I feel like I have handled this unpleasant interaction long enough in good faith. I find the reality immune to be tedious and I do not traffic in tedium.
"Race X is ugly, stupid, and wants our women" is pretty close to "generic essential racism", it tends to be leveled against any disfavored group, and fits D&D orcs (it's not as good a match for Tolkien orcs).
Don't tell people when to be offended. If you're not offended by something, don't point at the people who are and scream "THAT'S NOT OFFENSIVE!" when you're not sharing their experiences.
Also, the argument eventually always goes to the Satanic Panic. Let's clear things up. What is different between this and the Satanic Panic? The following:
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The key difference is that the Satanic Panic went beyond "X is offensive" and into "X is trying to convince people to sell their souls to the devil" and trying to ban it.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask games to remove religiously offensive material. If they don't oblige, the normal responses to offensive speech (such as not buying or playing it, and discouraging others from doing so) is also reasonable. Just don't think of it as more than speech, and realize that D&D is hardly RaHoWa the RPG (which did exist on the internet. It was as bad as you would expect).
Exactly this. The Satanic Panic wasn't reasonable. This is. They're asking to change a few paragraphs of things that are offensive to them, and some people are acting like they're asking for the destruction of the game, which is what they're doing when they compare this to the Satanic Panic.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
the point Veranti was making is that all statements can be challenged scientifically. then they can either be proven wrong or right. in the 17th century, you were not allowed to challenge the church unless you really didn't value your head remaining attached.
I am not saying I agree, as racism and the perception of racism are all subjective, but I do agree that all statements can be challenged. if I didn't I couldn't believe in democracy.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I'm both impressed and disappointed that this thread has gone on for over twenty pages. All I can really say is that if enough people are upset enough over something in D&D to cause a sustained negative reaction...what does it hurt Wizards to fix it? What does it really hurt to say that a given orcish tribe is evil because they chose to be evil, rather than because they are orcs and ergo must be evil? This is D&D - we've been murdering evil cults full of robe-wearing yaybos for forty years now and nobody's ever batted an eye because of the inherent, fundamental idea that somebody chose to join a cult and thus they deserve whatever's coming their way. And in situations where this is not the case, entire adventures are built around 'redeeming' involuntary cultists.
If you want evil orcs in your game, put them there. Make them evil because of factors other than their inherent orcishness. An orcish raider band can be evil without orcs being genetically evil to the very last cell of their beings. Drow civilization can be deeply ****ed up and entirely loathsome from the influence of a corrupting spider goddess without drow themselves being genetically evil.
That's really all Wizards seems to be doing. They're avoiding the stigma of labeling something genetically evil, or labeling something genetically inferior a'la the Volo's Guide to DM Headaches orc. Is that really such an awful problem?
Please do not contact or message me.
I think it's also worth reminding people of the following .... Edit: ok seems the image isn't working so I'll just quote it.
Has anyone else been having a lot of trouble with this site? I haven't been able to post for days at a time because the post editor won't load for me.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
(I've always found that I can edit a post once, but after that, it likes to stay how it is. IDK why this is.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
^^^^This.
You want universally evil orcs, fine. It's your game, make any bullcrap explanation for that if you want to.
The point of this change is that Orcs in every setting aren't that. The default should be orcs that can choose how they act like humans, and in your settings or lore, if you want justified racism and genocide, just make them evil. The game should be as open as possible, and your choice for who is evil or good shouldn't be forced onto other settings and other people's campaigns. It should take work to make D&D less inclusive, not more.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms