# (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Okay. There has been quite a lot of discussion on this website and through the D&D community in general about what changes should be made to existing products, the current editions, and the next edition to promote inclusivity. A lot of the suggestions have been fought against, and for, by various members of the community. Now, while I agree with a lot of the changes that are being suggested, I think that timing is important here. I agree that we should change problematic descriptions in the current edition's books, like what is happening with Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation. I also think that most of the more major changes should be made in a 6e of D&D.

Now, this thread is to discuss the possible overall and compiled changes for 6e of D&D, for both lore and rule changes. It would range from ability scores being more open for characters (probably not connected to race) to describing races in a more vague way (which I have described in this thread). I also think that some campaign settings are going to have to change with the times. If Eberron and Exandria have non-evil orcs, and Toril still has a majority of evil orcs, I think that may have to change. As has happened before in Forgotten Realms lore, they could do an earth-shaking event. Maybe Lolth and Gruumsh die or are banished, loosing their control of Drow and Orc societies, allowing them to be a more free people.

D&D should be inclusive, and if that comes at the cost of villainous races of people, that's okay for me. If the changes in the game's rules enhance, and not restrict, player options I will most likely be happy with the changes.

I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, and this is meant to be a possible answer to the question many people have asked, "where does it end?" This thread is meant to be a part of the answer. It ends somewhere, and this is a step in that direction, hopefully.

Obviously, feel free to debate the need for certain changes, argue over possible descriptions, and so on. Do keep it civil. Please do not turn this thread into a debate completely revolving around a small aspect of the changes that may come. I personally want to get something done during this eventful year. Please be openminded in this discussion. This is not us against them, it is us trying to figure something out.

Now, here are the changes that I have compiled from various threads that seem to be wanted:

Alignment removed from humanoids at the very least. Possibly removed from dragons and other "monsters" but the extent to this is up for debate here.
Possibly remove alignment in its entirety. I personally don't think we should be getting rid of it altogether, but to keep it mainly for fiends, celestials, and the other otherworldly creatures.
Setting determining the culture and descriptions of the races, and not the base rules.
Ability Scores being detached from races. There have been many suggestions for this, linking it to background or class, but I personally don't like this. I think allowing a player to choose the bonus to ability scores completely detached from race or any other choice would allow for more player freedom, and support creativity.
Change descriptions of orcs, depictions of hobgoblins, other evil races, and so on.
Cause there to be less of a link between shamanism and the more evil races. This could be mostly solved by either making a shaman class and adding more shamans for more races, or just getting rid of evil races.
Possibly changing the word "race" to Ancestry, Species, Heritage, Folk, People, Lineage, etc.
Remove ability scores from classes.
Possibly rename certain classes (Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, Monk, Warlock)
Add/remove certain authors from Appendix E of the PHB (the list of inspirational works and authors).
Change the amount of classes in the core books, but in ways that are more inclusive. 
If I missed anything else that should be included in the bulleted points above, please comment below, and I'll add it.

Any of these possible changes, and more, are allowed topics, as long as they're relevant to a possible 6e's changes. Up for discussion is the lore changes that may come, from a cataclysmic event changing the Forgotten Realms to make way for these changes, no lore change happening at all, or other possible options.

Please discuss below. While there have been many other threads on this topic, this thread is more meant to discuss possible changes for a next edition. How would a DMG in 6e look like? A Monster Manual? What different races should be included in the PHB? Will alignment be included, and should/will it be listed in the monster stat blocks or racial descriptions?


----------



## Weiley31

I wouldn't mind having a "free reign" to add a +2/+2 or the 5E standard of +2/+1 to any Ability Score of Choice during Character Creation. That way if I want a dumb Elf whose focus is STR, I can do it.

If I want a Charismatic Orc who can spin a mean yarn while being sharp at noticing things  like an eagle, then I can focus on WIS and CHA.

If I want female Drow whose Hardy and Intelligent and doesn't want to be a Cleric, I can go CON and INT.

If you still want to go by regular DND racial scores, then you can still do that as a variant rule. But this method gives you the option of spicing things up.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Weiley31 said:


> I wouldn't mind having a "free reign" to add a +2/+2 or the 5E standard of +2/+1 to any Ability Score of Choice during Character Creation. That way if I want a dumb Elf whose focus is STR, I can do it.
> 
> If I want a Charismatic Orc who can spin a mean yarn while being sharp at noticing things  like an eagle, then I can focus on WIS and CHA.
> 
> If I want female Drow whose Hardy and Intelligent and doesn't want to be a Cleric, I can go CON and INT.
> 
> If you still want to go by regular DND racial scores, then you can still do that as a variant rule. But this method gives you the option of spicing things up.



I agree. It promotes character choice and creativity.


----------



## Charlaquin

I agree with having humanoids not having inherent alignments (heck, they’re making that change without even waiting for 6e). I don’t see alignment being removed entirely.

Setting already determines culture, with the cultural details in the core rules being very generic and subject to setting-specific changes. I do, however, think it would be good to separate culture from race. Instead of the dwarf race granting proficiency in axes, hammers, and mason’s tools, make a “clan crafter” background or whatever that does so. Maybe give long-lives races a second background or something.

I’m in favor of removing racial ability score increases, but I don’t think the D&D fandom at large is ready for that yet. I think it would be much more likely for them to add ASIs to background and class, such that it is possible to end up with whatever score the math treats as the baseline with any race. Much like what we see in Pathfinder 2e.

Changing the depictions of various monsterous races and removing the associations between such races and shamanism go hand-in-hand with removing inherent alignments for humanoids and making culture more setting-specific. Definitely good moves to make though. Along with these changes, I would like to see more player options for traditionally monstrous races, and for those options to be balanced as any other PC race option would be.

I also think changing the word race would be best; people is my preferred alternative, but I would be happy with folk and accepting of ancestry.


----------



## DND_Reborn

The nice thing is if WotC _does_ make changes people don't like, we can always house-rule it back.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> I also think changing the word race would be best; people is my preferred alternative, but I would be happy with folk and accepting of ancestry.



Added that. Nice post!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> Setting already determines culture, with the cultural details in the core rules being very generic and subject to setting-specific changes.



Yes, I agree that it already does this. In my personal opinion, the section in a 6e PHB that describes each race should not describe the culture or people at all. I think that should solely be left for the setting books.


----------



## Weiley31

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Added that. Nice post!



Pathfinder already does ancestry, which would've been the best option if not for that. Folk or Lineage would be a nice substitute.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

dnd4vr said:


> The nice thing is if WotC _does_ make changes people don't like, we can always house-rule it back.



Yes, I agree. People will say "you can do that already", though. 

I disagree with that argument, because it is obvious you can change any base rule or lore to anything you want, but it is better for the official rule/lore to be the one that causes less people to homebrew something different.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Weiley31 said:


> Pathfinder already does ancestry, which would've been the best option if not for that. Folk or Lineage would be a nice substitute.



I personally do prefer Species because of the science nerd in me, but I agree there are probably better options. Lineage seems like a good option. What would you call the subraces, though? "Race?"


----------



## Weiley31

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I personally do prefer Species because of the science nerd in me, but I agree there are probably better options. Lineage seems like a good option. What would you call the subraces, though? "Race?"



Folk would probably be the best term and Lineage could be the Subraces. Or just keep Subrace really.


----------



## Eltab

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I personally do prefer Species because of the science nerd in me, but I agree there are probably better options. Lineage seems like a good option. What would you call the subraces, though? "Race?"



Clan, folk, kith, or kin might work.
('Kith' might be the best choice because it is not commonly used in modern speech.)

The sub-races are (usually) supposed to have formed due to evolution-like processes - two groups of X moved apart and adapted to different conditions (plains vs forests) over time then expanded and met each other again; or a group went into tough terrain to hide, and stayed hid.  
A few exceptions - ex: the Descent of the Drow - are divine intervention.  
There might be a third category of differentiator events but I can't think of any examples off-hand.


----------



## Fenris-77

You should label this a (+) thread. It might forestall some of the inevitable threadcrapping.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Eltab said:


> Clan, folk, kith, or kin might work.
> ('Kith' might be the best choice because it is not commonly used in modern speech.)
> 
> The sub-races are (usually) supposed to have formed due to evolution-like processes - two groups of X moved apart and adapted to different conditions (plains vs forests) over time then expanded and met each other again; or a group went into tough terrain to hide, and stayed hid.
> A few exceptions - ex: the Descent of the Drow - are divine intervention.
> There might be a third category of differentiator events but I can't think of any examples off-hand.



I agree. Kith could probably work as a subrace for Lineage or Ancestry. 

So far, it seems like we pretty much all agree that "Race" should change.


----------



## Khelon Testudo

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yes, I agree that it already does this. In my personal opinion, the section in a 6e PHB that describes each race should not describe the culture or people at all. I think that should solely be left for the setting books.



You'll need some default cultures, or otherwise you have a Player's Handbook that isn't a complete game. I suggest replacing "subrace" options  with culture options.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Khelon Testudo said:


> You'll need some default cultures, or otherwise you have a Player's Handbook that isn't a complete game. I suggest replacing "subrace" options  with culture options.



Sure, the base rules would probably need some default info, but I don't think that it has to be in the Race section or the PHB. They could put it in the DMG, possibly.


----------



## Khelon Testudo

But isn't someone supposed to be able to play the the game with just the PHB? At least at low levels.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Khelon Testudo said:


> But isn't someone supposed to be able to play the the game with just the PHB? At least at low levels.



You certainly can in 5e, but I don't know about other editions, or even if it was intended that way. It seems to me that WotC assumes that you will always have the 3 core rule books.


----------



## Charlaquin

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I personally do prefer Species because of the science nerd in me, but I agree there are probably better options. Lineage seems like a good option. What would you call the subraces, though? "Race?"



I’d remove the concept of subrace. Make culture a thing and give them subcultures.


----------



## MGibster

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Possibly remove alignment in its entirety. I personally don't think we should be getting rid of it altogether, but to keep it mainly for fiends, celestials, and the other otherworldly creatures.




I actually like alignment but it hasn't been relevant in any of my 5E campaigns.  I think you can get rid of it rather safely without affecting much of anything.  



> Setting determining the culture and descriptions of the races, and not the base rules.




I've wanted this for years.  But I think WotC is more keen on keeping things generic.


----------



## Li Shenron

I don't think rules changes are needed, only descriptive text and artwork representations, so it can already be done in THIS edition, upcoming reprints. I am starting to become suspicious of these calls to fix stuff in 6e, it sounds either an attempt at delaying confronting the issues, or wanting a new edition for other reasons. 

Alignment is already mostly removed from 5e, but apparent the caveat in the MM introduction about it is always ignored. Maybe next print run of the MM could add "usually" to each monster's alignment, or replace it with "any" for the problematic ones.

Rewriting the main description page for orcs and drow takes more work but it's still a change of fluff. They can start by editing just a minimal amount of sentences using errata, but even replacing the whole page does not require a new book.

I don't really think ability scores bonus are the problem, but these can also be simply replaced with errata by non-specific ability increases like for humans, for example "increase any ability by 2, increase another by 1".

On the other hand, the game needs even more diverse artwork than it currently has, specifically it needs more non-white/westerners good races ie. elves, dwarves and halflings. I don't think necessarily changing artwork in the PHB which might be harder than changing text, but increasing representation in upcoming books and adventures.


----------



## GreenTengu

These all sound good. Two more things I would add...

Divorce ability scores from attack bonus, damage bonus and class mechanics. You will get a wider variety of characters if people raise their Dexterity or Strength because they imagine their characters to be agile or powerful and want to succeed on those checks more often than because raising those scores will give them a +1 80-90% of the rolls they make during the course of the adventure.

It should be possible to play a Dective-style Rogue whose highest ability is Intelligence or Wisdom or play a Monk who is slow and clumsy but powerful and deliberate without absolutely failing the majority of the rolls the character is ever expected to make during the course of their lifetime as a result and probably dying in the first couple battles.

Also-- get rid of weapons tables. In 5E we have been stuck with a state of affairs where something like one out of every 3 characters uses either a rapier or a great axe and virtually no other weapon in the game gets used because they are all mathematically demonstrably inferior options. Instead, just make melee damage and ranged damage die based on the class instead, regardless of whether the character narratively is using a two handed weapon, a sword and shield, two weapons-- what have you. I don't really see much of an issue in saying that a specialized fighter with a club can do as many "hit points" of damage over 1 rounds of actions as a specialized fighter with a great sword. It would just mean the person with the club is striking more times during those 10 seconds. Meanwhile, if a untrained Wizard has a Great Axe, they are likely going to be far more clumsy with it and just aren't going to be doing the same damage across those 10 seconds as a trained fighter.

The same could maybe be done for AC. One of the weird hang-ups about D&D forever has always been "why does one need to be 'trained' in armor to use it? Its clothing-- surely we can throw a chainmail shirt or breastplate on anyone and it will protect them" and various ways have had to be imagined up to explain this discrepancy and it has never felt satisfying. So if characters just have a set AC and set damage die so long as they are "suitably outfitted" which can be left up to the individual player's imagination, the whole system balances out better.


----------



## Minigiant

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Possibly remove alignment in its entirety




I think a possible 6e should make alignment totally optional. Much like feats.

And 9 point alignment should not be the only form displayed in the core 3 books as options. They could offer 3 point alignment. Or outsider faction alignment (Celestial, Abyssal, Eladrin, Infernal, Titanic, etc). On just faction loyalty.


----------



## jasper

Leave Alignment alone. Currently it is nearly gone.

The base rules are for the Forgotten Realms. Include sidebar noting this.

Then the Racial Abilities alone. If a person is upset he can’t play a race due to the racial abilities, include a sidebar about reskinning. I have a human who looks like a dwarf until you get within 10 feet. But does not have dwarf abilities.

Include a sidebar about evil races saying this the default (Forgotten Realms) view. Some of the verbiage can be change.

Include a data dictionary (we do this in programming) which exactly defines how the word race, humanoid, shaman, and other “Problem” words are being used in game.

IF you asking for changes for 6E. Elf lose the trance ability replacing with advantage on sleep spells.  No monster races can be player races. Exception you paid $10,000 to a currently unnamed charity to play any race from Volo’s as long as 6E lasts. Or you pay $100 to same charity per PC for an exception certificate.


----------



## dave2008

dnd4vr said:


> The nice thing is if WotC _does_ make changes people don't like, we can always house-rule it back.



They would have to rage about it on various forums first though.


----------



## dave2008

Khelon Testudo said:


> But isn't someone supposed to be able to play the the game with just the PHB? At least at low levels.



You could provide some defaults in the free basic rules.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Li Shenron said:


> I don't think rules changes are needed, only descriptive text and artwork representations, so it can already be done in THIS edition, upcoming reprints. I am starting to become suspicious of these calls to fix stuff in 6e, it sounds either an attempt at delaying confronting the issues, or wanting a new edition for other reasons.



Oh, I definitely think some changes should come in this edition, and I am not trying to delay them at all. This thread is just to discuss what a 6e could look like, not really attached to any changes they might do in 5e.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

GreenTengu said:


> Divorce ability scores from attack bonus, damage bonus and class mechanics. You will get a wider variety of characters if people raise their Dexterity or Strength because they imagine their characters to be agile or powerful and want to succeed on those checks more often than because raising those scores will give them a +1 80-90% of the rolls they make during the course of the adventure.
> 
> It should be possible to play a Dective-style Rogue whose highest ability is Intelligence or Wisdom or play a Monk who is slow and clumsy but powerful and deliberate without absolutely failing the majority of the rolls the character is ever expected to make during the course of their lifetime as a result and probably dying in the first couple battles.



I don't really see how this improves inclusivity in any way, really. This just seems like it would get rid of the meaning of the ability scores, and not seem realistic. 


GreenTengu said:


> Also-- get rid of weapons tables. In 5E we have been stuck with a state of affairs where something like one out of every 3 characters uses either a rapier or a great axe and virtually no other weapon in the game gets used because they are all mathematically demonstrably inferior options. Instead, just make melee damage and ranged damage die based on the class instead, regardless of whether the character narratively is using a two handed weapon, a sword and shield, two weapons-- what have you. I don't really see much of an issue in saying that a specialized fighter with a club can do as many "hit points" of damage over 1 rounds of actions as a specialized fighter with a great sword. It would just mean the person with the club is striking more times during those 10 seconds. Meanwhile, if a untrained Wizard has a Great Axe, they are likely going to be far more clumsy with it and just aren't going to be doing the same damage across those 10 seconds as a trained fighter.
> 
> The same could maybe be done for AC. One of the weird hang-ups about D&D forever has always been "why does one need to be 'trained' in armor to use it? Its clothing-- surely we can throw a chainmail shirt or breastplate on anyone and it will protect them" and various ways have had to be imagined up to explain this discrepancy and it has never felt satisfying. So if characters just have a set AC and set damage die so long as they are "suitably outfitted" which can be left up to the individual player's imagination, the whole system balances out better.



I have the same problems with this as the one above. I don't see how it promotes inclusivity and don't really find it realistic.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jasper said:


> Leave Alignment alone. Currently it is nearly gone.



But it is still in the base rules. I think making it an optional rule like flanking or multiclassing would be a good idea. 


jasper said:


> The base rules are for the Forgotten Realms. Include sidebar noting this.



Why does the next edition need a base setting in the PHB? Sure, it will help new players, but they could always just put it in the DMG. 

Also, why does it need to be the Forgotten Realms? It seems like an increasing number of people don't like the Forgotten Realms, and I wouldn't be overly surprised if they changed the base setting to Exandria or Eberron. 


jasper said:


> Then the Racial Abilities alone. If a person is upset he can’t play a race due to the racial abilities, include a sidebar about reskinning. I have a human who looks like a dwarf until you get within 10 feet. But does not have dwarf abilities.



They're already changing this in 5e, so they're probably (if not definitely) going to make the same change in a 6e. 


jasper said:


> Include a sidebar about evil races saying this the default (Forgotten Realms) view. Some of the verbiage can be change.



So, you think that Orcs and Drow should still be evil in the Forgotten Realms, and that they should keep Forgotten Realms as the base setting, and still base all the rules off of the setting? How are any of these changes? I just seems like it's a small clarification that largely ignores the issues. 


jasper said:


> Include a data dictionary (we do this in programming) which exactly defines how the word race, humanoid, shaman, and other “Problem” words are being used in game.



I think this could work. At the end of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount they have a Glossary of sorts. If they had this in the MM, PHB, or DMG that could help with things.


jasper said:


> IF you asking for changes for 6E. Elf lose the trance ability replacing with advantage on sleep spells. No monster races can be player races. Exception you paid $10,000 to a currently unnamed charity to play any race from Volo’s as long as 6E lasts. Or you pay $100 to same charity per PC for an exception certificate.



I fail to see the relevance. Please clarify, and I mean no disrespect. I am a bit dense.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Li Shenron said:


> Alignment is already mostly removed from 5e, but apparent the caveat in the MM introduction about it is always ignored. Maybe next print run of the MM could add "usually" to each monster's alignment, or replace it with "any" for the problematic ones.



I agree that this could be helpful for this edition, but this discussion is mainly for 6e. If they keep Alignment in the Monster Manual, I personally hope that they don't do "usually" and instead do "any alignment" for most monsters, besides Celestials, Fiends, Undead, and Aberrations (which would have the usually). 


Li Shenron said:


> Rewriting the main description page for orcs and drow takes more work but it's still a change of fluff. They can start by editing just a minimal amount of sentences using errata, but even replacing the whole page does not require a new book.



I am curious at how the MM will look in 6e, like if Orcs or Drow are still in it, and basic Dwarves, Elves, and Dragonborn, etc, are not. 


Li Shenron said:


> I don't really think ability scores bonus are the problem, but these can also be simply replaced with errata by non-specific ability increases like for humans, for example "increase any ability by 2, increase another by 1".



That kind of seems like the direction they're heading. They're going to release another book this year for 5e with changes similar to this. I'm just curious as to what these changes will evolve to in 6e. 


Li Shenron said:


> On the other hand, the game needs even more diverse artwork than it currently has, specifically it needs more non-white/westerners good races ie. elves, dwarves and halflings. I don't think necessarily changing artwork in the PHB which might be harder than changing text, but increasing representation in upcoming books and adventures.



I agree with this completely.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Most of these are good, but I think there are two which are just things people would like to see and are trying to piggyback them on inclusivity even though they're not about that. These are getting rid of racial ability bonuses and total removal of alignment. I don't like the former and I would very much like to see the latter, but these are not inclusivity issues.


----------



## jmartkdr2

I think you'd still need a default culture in the PHB for new players to know what a dwarf is. Height and weight isn't going to be enough. On the other hand, I think there must be a way to include that information that makes it clear it's subject to change for any of the various reasons someone might want to change it, such as setting, or even that the description is just about 'typical' dwarves and many dwarf communities will differ - plus the fact that pc's are exceptional. 

As for ability score improvements - if we're talking 6e I'd almost rather they get rid of starting ability mods altogether and just give more generous point buy or assume lower starting numbers in the game math. Remove the complexity since it isn't serving a purpose anymore.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jmartkdr2 said:


> I think you'd still need a default culture in the PHB for new players to know what a dwarf is. Height and weight isn't going to be enough. On the other hand, I think there must be a way to include that information that makes it clear it's subject to change for any of the various reasons someone might want to change it, such as setting, or even that the description is just about 'typical' dwarves and many dwarf communities will differ - plus the fact that pc's are exceptional.



Does it have to be in the PHB? I think most people will know what a Dwarf is without a description of their culture in the PHB. I think it would work best if it was in the DMG, just to make it a bit clearer that not every dwarf is this way, and instead is the base for the core rulebooks. 


jmartkdr2 said:


> As for ability score improvements - if we're talking 6e I'd almost rather they get rid of starting ability mods altogether and just give more generous point buy or assume lower starting numbers in the game math. Remove the complexity since it isn't serving a purpose anymore.



They could do that. Give a 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, and 8 for Standard Array, or something like that. Point Buy could just raise the maximum score for 2 of your abilities, and give you 3-4 more points to use. 

This would probably have to make Point Buy the base for character creation, which I'm honestly fine with. If rolling was still the base, they would still need a "racial bonus" of some sort (maybe not tied to race).


----------



## Deset Gled

Okay, I want D&D to be more inclusive in the future.  I'm all for removing "race" as a term.  I'm okay with no more "always evil" humanoids.  I'm comfortable with a different alignment systems.  But...



Weiley31 said:


> I wouldn't mind having a "free reign" to add a +2/+2 or the 5E standard of +2/+1 to any Ability Score of Choice during Character Creation. That way if I want a dumb Elf whose focus is STR, I can do it. ...
> 
> If you still want to go by regular DND racial scores, then you can still do that as a variant rule. But this method gives you the option of spicing things up.






GreenTengu said:


> Divorce ability scores from attack bonus, damage bonus and class mechanics. You will get a wider variety of characters if people raise their Dexterity or Strength because they imagine their characters to be agile or powerful and want to succeed on those checks more often than because raising those scores will give them a +1 80-90% of the rolls they make during the course of the adventure.
> ...
> 
> Also-- get rid of weapons tables. ...
> 
> The same could maybe be done for AC. ... So if characters just have a set AC and set damage die so long as they are "suitably outfitted" which can be left up to the individual player's imagination, the whole system balances out better.






Minigiant said:


> I think a possible 6e should make alignment totally optional. Much like feats.




Suggestions like these are just too much for me.  It's throwing the baby out with the bath water.  I'm quoting multiple people here because I don't want to pick on any persons ideas specifically.  Rather, I'm saying that there is a limit to how "rules light" a system can be, and these are examples that go past that limit (IMNSHO).

There's only so much you can remove from D+D before it stops being an RPG system.  I'm not talking about just "feel" or "fluff".  The base game needs a core set of solid mechanics that the rest of the game is built from.  For a fantasy setting, that includes things like elves and goblins that are mechanically different from humans.  Mythical beasts that are aligned with gods and demons.  And fencers and knights and berserkers that have different numbers on their character sheets next to their swords, not just different flavor text.

There is no reason "inclusive" has to by synonymous with "rules light".


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Crimson Longinus said:


> Most of these are good, but I think there are two which are just things people would like to see and are trying to piggyback them on inclusivity even though they're not about that. These are racial ability bonuses and total removal of alignment. I don't like the former and I would very much like to see the latter, but these are not inclusivity issues.



I added the changeable Ability Score increases because it was mentioned in WotC's Inclusivity announcement. I added the alignment bit to make it so races aren't tied to any specific alignment anymore.


----------



## Minigiant

Deset Gled said:


> Suggestions like these are just too much for me. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm quoting multiple people here because I don't want to pick on any persons ideas specifically. Rather, I'm saying that there is a limit to how "rules light" a system can be, and these are examples that go past that limit (IMNSHO).
> 
> There's only so much you can remove from D+D before it stops being an RPG system. I'm not talking about just "feel" or "fluff". The base game needs a core set of solid mechanics that the rest of the game is built from. For a fantasy setting, that includes things like elves and goblins that are mechanically different from humans. Mythical beasts that are aligned with gods and demons. And fencers and knights and berserkers that have different numbers on their character sheets next to their swords, not just different flavor text.
> 
> There is no reason "inclusive" has to by synonymous with "rules light".




I'm not suggesting removing alignment completely. I'm suggesting  treating the 9 point alignment the same as other D&D style alignment system. The LG-CE model doesn't work for every setting and D&D is a game with multiple settings.

At some point, the rules and lore have to start meshing. And one will have the bow to the other sometimes.


----------



## TheSword

Just out of interest, what is a (+) thread?


----------



## jmartkdr2

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I think most people will know what a Dwarf is without a description of their culture in the PHB.



But if someone's picking up the PHB for the first time, you really can't assume that. Especially if you want them to be DnD dwarves/elves/etc rather than just "short people."


----------



## MGibster

If you want to be inclusive, you have take new players into consideration.  They're going to have to have a little bit of information about who and what a wood elf, drow, or gully dwarf is all about.  Okay, maybe leave gully dwarfs out.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jmartkdr2 said:


> But if someone's picking up the PHB for the first time, you really can't assume that. Especially if you want them to be DnD dwarves/elves/etc rather than just "short people."



So, should it stay the same as it is now? If we're describing the races, how are we describing them? It has to be setting specific, so what setting? Are we keeping the sections of how the races think of the other races stereotypically, do we continue describing their gods? 

If you keep them, that raises a lot of questions as well. 

I've given my solution (put the cultural descriptions only in the DMG and setting books), what's yours?


----------



## Deset Gled

Minigiant said:


> I'm not suggesting removing alignment completely. I'm suggesting  treating the 9 point alignment the same as other D&D style alignment system. The LG-CE model doesn't work for every setting and D&D is a game with multiple settings.




As a standalone change, it's a reasonable suggestion.  Definitely worth considering.  I'm looking at the larger picture, and definitely didn't want to imply that your idea was inherently bad.  But there are a plethora of suggestions about how to make D+D inclusive by making <insert feature here> optional.  At a certain point, "optional" slides from being a feature to being a problem.

To paraphrase E. F. Schumaker for RPG design: "Any fool can make a game more inclusive by removing anything that could be seen as marginally distasteful.  It takes a touch of genius to include years of history and game mechanics in a way that is both fun and inoffensive."


----------



## FrogReaver

Inclusive to whom?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

TheSword said:


> Just out of interest, what is a (+) thread?



If my knowledge of internet language serves me correctly, it means a positive discussion. 

(Can anyone who is more fluent in internet jargon than I verify this? I'm not great at describing this kind of thing.)


----------



## jmartkdr2

AcererakTriple6 said:


> So, should it stay the same as it is now? If we're describing the races, how are we describing them? It has to be setting specific, so what setting? Are we keeping the sections of how the races think of the other races stereotypically, do we continue describing their gods?
> 
> If you keep them, that raises a lot of questions as well.
> 
> I've given my solution (put the cultural descriptions only in the DMG and setting books), what's yours?



What I said above - include a default but make it clear in the text that's only one version of the idea.

Not including a default will only make the game more confusing. Too much freedom in character creation is a thing, because it pushes the job of 'making the campaign coherent' on the players, when it's been on the writers before. I don't think the game is well served by making it harder to play by pushing meta-responsibilities on people who've never dealt with those kinds of issues before.

Raising the barrier for entry is the opposite of "inclusive."


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> If my knowledge of internet language serves me correctly, it means a positive discussion.
> 
> (Can anyone who is more fluent in internet jargon than I verify this? I'm not great at describing this kind of thing.)




Yea. Basically don’t trash the premise of the thread.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jmartkdr2 said:


> What I said above - include a default but make it clear in the text that's only one version of the idea.



Okay. So, keep it in the PHB just where it is. 


jmartkdr2 said:


> Not including a default will only make the game more confusing. Too much freedom in character creation is a thing, because it pushes the job of 'making the campaign coherent' on the players, when it's been on the writers before. I don't think the game is well served by making it harder to play by pushing meta-responsibilities on people who've never dealt with those kinds of issues before.



I think that they could have a default, but not having it in the PHB would make it more clear that it is not the "rule" of D&D races. They could also put it in the free rules that they put online, and in the Starter Sets. 


jmartkdr2 said:


> Raising the barrier for entry is the opposite of "inclusive."



The barrier of entry is already basically the 3 core rulebooks, it wouldn't raise the barrier, just move it around a bit.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> Inclusive to whom?



Players, and how they want to play their characters, in the simplest sense.

Edit: There's also the factor of making material inoffensive and not echo stereotypes of real people, like the Vistani and descriptions of Orcs.


----------



## jmartkdr2

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Okay. So, keep it in the PHB just where it is.
> 
> I think that they could have a default, but not having it in the PHB would make it more clear that it is not the "rule" of D&D races. They could also put it in the free rules that they put online, and in the Starter Sets.
> 
> The barrier of entry is already basically the 3 core rulebooks, it wouldn't raise the barrier, just move it around a bit.



You seem to be assuming that most player have read through the Dungeon Master's Guide before playing, which IME pretty much never happens, largely because they're either told they don't need to or specifically instructed not to. Anything in the DMG is not something player's are likely to know. The same could be said for the Monster Manual - players reading the MM i usually called metagaming and frowned upon. 

The barrier for entry _for player_ is the PHB alone, so anything the player needs to know needs to be there.

So yeah, don't move the info. The writing needs some adjustment, but that kinda flows from the premise anyways.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jmartkdr2 said:


> You seem to be assuming that most player have read through the Dungeon Master's Guide before playing, which IME pretty much never happens, largely because they're either told they don't need to or specifically instructed not to. Anything in the DMG is not something player's are likely to know. The same could be said for the Monster Manual - players reading the MM i usually called metagaming and frowned upon.
> 
> The barrier for entry _for player_ is the PHB alone, so anything the player needs to know needs to be there.
> 
> So yeah, don't move the info. The writing needs some adjustment, but that kinda flows from the premise anyways.



Isn't a part of the barrier of entry for players to have a group of people to play with? If they need that, they need a DM, and the DM will need the DMG. Any character creation should be done with a discussion with the DM, and then they can describe what the Dwarves and Elves are like in the world. 

I don't think moving it to the DMG would be a barrier for players. If it has to be in the PHB, I would designate a section for the base setting and how the races are there.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Players, and how they want to play their characters, in the simplest sense.
> 
> Edit: There's also the factor of making material inoffensive and not echo stereotypes of real people, like the Vistani and descriptions of Orcs.




Yes. But you can’t be inclusive to every player. Ideologies and opinions do and will clash.

Edit: btw I don’t want to crap on your thread. So if you feel any comments aren’t constructive here then feel free to ask me to leave and I will.


----------



## jmartkdr2

FrogReaver said:


> Yes. But you can’t be inclusive to every player. Ideologies and opinions do and will clash.



If you set the goal at "absolutely inclusive of every person in the world" then yes, that's impossible. 

But being more inclusive is still a good thing to aim for, even if perfection can't be reached. And we do that by finding the barriers, and determining if they serve a worthwhile purpose. If not, we remove them. If so, we consider if there's a better way to serve that purpose. (And often the answer is 'not really' so we leave it be.)


----------



## FrogReaver

jmartkdr2 said:


> If you set the goal at "absolutely inclusive of every person in the world" then yes, that's impossible.
> 
> But being more inclusive is still a good thing to aim for, even if perfection can't be reached. And we do that by finding the barriers, and determining if they serve a worthwhile purpose. If not, we remove them. If so, we consider if there's a better way to serve that purpose. (And often the answer is 'not really' so we leave it be.)




Sure. But you do have to rate the importance of the groups you may include.

Do you want to include certain religious groups or groups they oppose?  Do you want to include those that like evil orcs or those that find them offensive. Etc. 

The suggestions that include some of those groups inevitably exclude others.  Some guidance on what this thread means to include is all I was asking for.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jmartkdr2 said:


> If you set the goal at "absolutely inclusive of every person in the world" then yes, that's impossible.
> 
> But being more inclusive is still a good thing to aim for, even if perfection can't be reached. And we do that by finding the barriers, and determining if they serve a worthwhile purpose. If not, we remove them. If so, we consider if there's a better way to serve that purpose. (And often the answer is 'not really' so we leave it be.)



Exactly. @FrogReaver, the goal isn't to satisfy literally every single person who plays the game. I am sure that in the millions of people who play the game there are plenty of different ideologies and opinions that would clash, but that's not the issue at hand. If inclusivity clashes with their ideologies or opinions, you don't have to be inclusive to them or listen to their suggestions to make the game less inclusive. 

I don't want this thread to become a discussion of the definition of inclusion, but debates like this in the thread are inevitable. Let's not derail the topic, but feel free to stay if you're discussing specific recommendations.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Exactly. @FrogReaver, the goal isn't to satisfy literally every single person who plays the game. I am sure that in the millions of people who play the game there are plenty of different ideologies and opinions that would clash, but that's not the issue at hand. If inclusivity clashes with their ideologies or opinions, you don't have to be inclusive to them or listen to their suggestions to make the game less inclusive.
> 
> I don't want this thread to become a discussion of the definition of inclusion, but debates like this in the thread are inevitable. Let's not derail the topic, but feel free to stay if you're discussing specific recommendations.




No problem. I’ve said my thoughts. Thanks for allowing them. Hope you get some good recommendations.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> Do you want to include certain religious groups or groups they oppose? Do you want to include those that like evil orcs or those that find them offensive. Etc.



If the game is more inclusive, it will be just as easy to have evil orcs as it will to have non-evil orcs. Inclusivity does not equal exclusion of certain people. They'd still be as free to play the game as anyone else.


----------



## TheSword

AcererakTriple6 said:


> If my knowledge of internet language serves me correctly, it means a positive discussion.
> 
> (Can anyone who is more fluent in internet jargon than I verify this? I'm not great at describing this kind of thing.)



Ah cool. Don’t worry I won’t touch this with a 10ft pole. I leave you to the echo chamber.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

TheSword said:


> Ah cool. Don’t worry I won’t touch this with a 10ft pole. *I leave you to the echo chamber.*



(emphasis mine)

I feel like that wasn't necessary. Is there anything inherently wrong with an echo chamber? This website is an echo chamber for nerds who like Tabletop RPGs. 

I understand the fact that other views are important, but there's already been heavy discussion on this topic throughout the threads of this website. I have stated that debate is welcome, but I don't want this to become the verbal/digital slugfests that the other threads were. 

If you have nothing to say, don't say it. If all you've got to say is a quick, snide comment, don't say it.


----------



## jmartkdr2

One thing that might help new players get into the game is better scaling of complexity - for your first game, it would be pretty helpful to have highly simplified rules. Something like a design goal where you only need your ability scores and hit points and you technically have enough to start playing. The champion fighter is probably a more realistic version of this idea.

Of course I think staying at that level of complexity is going to get boring for some players (a frequent complaint with the champion) so you'd want to build in a way to smoothly add complexity over time if you want to as a player.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

They can add an unreliable narrator to the race section, maybe even dueling narrators.  So Volo can go "everyone knows dwarves are hard working people who live underground....." and then Elminister can say "well, except for the above ground living dwarves on the tropical island of _____ who live a life of island tranquility....."  For the cost of an extra page per race, you could have 4 or 5 narrators (possibly from different campaign worlds) giving a short description.

Edit:  come to think of it, that might be a good thing for class descriptions too.  4 or 5 narrators with different examples of "when I think of a X, I think of...."


----------



## jgsugden

I am against a 6E at this time, but this is how I'd do the changes to account for modern social visions.

1.) Each PC would select a Humanoid Type, a Class, a Background, and a Profession.  
2.) Humanoid type would provide you some purely physical characteristics tied to the form of the humanoid type.  It would also give you points to spend in your background and profession.  A race like aarakocra would get fewer points to spend elsewhere because it gains a power ability through the humanoid type.
3.) Class would be much as it is now, but would also include a bonus to the prime attribute of the class.
4.) Backgrounds would be much as they are now, but would you'd spend points from the pool provided by your humanoid type to obtain features from the background, like proficiencies, special abilities, tool proficiencies, etc...  You would get an ability score bonus from your background choice.
5.) Your profession would be what you currently do as a newly heroic figure.  While background looks at where you were, profession would look at where you are.  Many of them would be tied directly to combat, but some options would focus on social or exploration abilities.  Again, you could use points from your humanoid type to buy abilities in your profession.  You would also get one ability score bonus from your profession.  You'd be able to choose a second background as your profession, or something more focused on adventuring that was only available as a profession.
6.) If all three ability score bonuses (class, background and profession) are in the same attribute, you move one to an attribute of your choice.
7.) We'd establish that _only_ humanoids have free will.  Everything else, in the standard setting, is guided by directives put into them by the Gods or other forces.  They have personalities, but they are programmed to be a certain way, and are not allowed to deviate without magic.  
8.) However, these directives would not be alignments.  Alignment would be removed from the game.  Instead, these directives would be rules that the creatures without free will must follow and believe - and have no choice but to follow and believe.  A red dragon would inherently value wealth, despise those weaker than it, and enjoy cruelty. You could shape the rest of their personality when one is met, but all red dragons would share the same core rules of belief and nature.  
9.) As mentioned - no alignment.  Instead, we'd focus on shared belief structures.  Instead of a magic sword only being useful to good PCs, it would only be useful to one that was blessed by a certain deity.  Instead of having spirit guardians dealing damage type based on alignment, it would be a choice.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I don't really see how this improves inclusivity in any way, really. This just seems like it would get rid of the meaning of the ability scores, and not seem realistic.



 It is just a more thorough treatment of the removal of racial ASIs in your OP, and possibly WotC's adjustment of the racial ASIs. Removing racial ASIs allows people to optimise concepts that have previously been less synergised with racial ASIs (such as the Gnome barbarian). Removing the link between class performance and ability scores completely allows you to play a more diverse range of characters - You now don't have to play a strong character to be an effective barbarian.
We know that WotC are thinking of giving the ability to change how racial ASIs are allocated. Whether they'll do something as extreme as disconnecting them completely, removing them, or disengaging ability scores entirely we can only speculate on. But this is a thread for discussing this sort of suggestion positively.



> I have the same problems with this as the one above. I don't see how it promotes inclusivity and don't really find it realistic.



 Likewise no longer pushing a specific character image in order to be able to mechanically perform.



AcererakTriple6 said:


> I fail to see the relevance. Please clarify, and I mean no disrespect. I am a bit dense.



 I'd guess to keep separation between creatures that can have a primarily antagonistic culture in the setting for the purpose of providing the PCs with opponents, and PC races, which may not.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> Inclusive to whom?




How about inclusive to non-bigots?


----------



## Oofta

TheSword said:


> Ah cool. Don’t worry I won’t touch this with a 10ft pole. I leave you to the echo chamber.




Same here.  Especially when I see posts like

​


Azzy said:


> How about inclusive to non-bigots?​​



​
Which to me says loud and clear "if you don't agree with the basic premise, you're a bigot".    

Anyway, I disagree with much of the basic premise so I'll leave everyone to seek their bliss.


----------



## Azzy

Oofta said:


> Which to me says loud and clear "if you don't agree with the basic premise, you're a bigot".




If the "basic premise" you disagree with is the attempting to better promote inclusivity , then I don't know what to tell you—I don't know why any reasonable person would be opposed to promoting inclusivity. If you disagree with the approaches to how to better promote inclusivity provided in this thread, I don't see why you would think that my statement implies that your disagreement makes you a bigot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Oofta

Azzy said:


> If the "basic premise" you disagree with is the attempting to better promote inclusivity , then I don't know what to tell you—I don't know why any reasonable person would be opposed to promoting inclusivity. If you disagree with the approaches to how to better promote inclusivity provided in this thread, I don't see why you would think that my statement implies that your disagreement makes you a bigot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯




The basic premise is that anything that looks vaguely like a human and doesn't have supernatural abilities (aka humanoid) there should be no alignment, not even a default with a more explicit explanation of "do what makes sense for your campaign".

I think it's insulting to state that anyone that doesn't agree with the basic premise being a bigot.  It's a game and I disagree that having evil monsters causes an issue.

But this is a dead horse.  Have fun ignoring anyone who disagrees.


----------



## Azzy

Oofta said:


> The basic premise is that anything that looks vaguely like a human and doesn't have supernatural abilities (aka humanoid) there should be no alignment, not even a default with a more explicit explanation of "do what makes sense for your campaign".




When you completely redefine the premise of this thread like you just did, I can see why you might be offended.


----------



## Oofta

Azzy said:


> When you completely redefine the premise of this thread like you just did, I can see why you might be offended.




Really?



AcererakTriple6 said:


> *Alignment removed from humanoids at the very least.* *Possibly removed *from dragons and other "monsters" but the extent to this is up for debate here.




I'm "redefining" the premise by practically quoting word for word the OP and defining what a humanoid is.   

I also disagree with most of the rest of what the OP said as well, but he doesn't want to hear disagreements and the alignment thing is a dead horse so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Azzy

Oofta said:


> Really?




Really.



> I'm "redefining" the premise by practically quoting word for word the OP and defining what a humanoid is.




Selectively quoting, that is.

Note that the thread starts with:



	
		Okay. There has been quite a lot of discussion on this website and through the D&D community in general about what changes should be made to existing products, the current editions, and the next edition to promote inclusivity. A lot of the suggestions have been fought against, and for, by various members of the community. Now, while I agree with a lot of the changes that are being suggested, I think that timing is important here. I agree that we should change problematic descriptions in the current edition's books, like what is happening with Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation. I also think that most of the more major changes should be made in a 6e of D&D.
		
	


The bit you quoted is also preceded by:



	
		Now, here are the changes that I have compiled from various threads that seem to be wanted: 
		
	


So, your quote has a context that you've ignored and is not reflective of the actual premise. It is merely one idea that has been put forth on other threads and compiled here.



> I also disagree with most of the rest of what the OP said as well, but he doesn't want to hear disagreements and the alignment thing is a dead horse so I'll just leave it at that.




Like I said previously, if disagree with one, more, or all of the specific changes compiled and mentioned, that's cool—you can make alternate suggestions to achieve the premise of "what changes should be made to existing products, the current editions, and the next edition to promote inclusivity".


----------



## Azzy

Damn, I'm never going to finish my response to the OP at this rate.


----------



## Azzy

Mechanically, I really don't think a whole lot needs to change—it's mostly a factor of presentation, terminology, inclusive language, depictions, and excising real-world stereotypes and other questionable things.

As far as the race/subrace issue and the racial ASIs, I think that Ancestry & Culture: An Alternative to Race in 5e has taken a good approach and could be emulated. 

As for alignment, I don't see it as terribly relevant to inclusivity in and of itself. But making a point to say that it's optional wouldn't hurt my feelings (actually, that could allow alternate approaches to alignment in the DMG—like BECMI's law/neutral/chaos, 4e's alignments, or other takes). For stat blocks of humanoids and the like, replacing a static alignment with "any alignment" should suffice there along with how they're differently depicted in a given setting.

Yeah, the linking of shamanism exclusively with "savage" and "primitive" cultures or "monstrous" humanoids needs to go into the trash bin. Shamanism is limited to non-urban, "traditional" civilizations.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Oofta said:


> defining what a humanoid is.



I'm using the definition in the Monster Manual. Most character races are humanoids, and most humanoids are playable.


Oofta said:


> I also disagree with most of the rest of what the OP said as well, but he doesn't want to hear disagreements and the alignment thing is a dead horse so I'll just leave it at that.



"I don't want to hear disagreements"?

What's that supposed to mean. I want a discussion. Discussions call for disagreements. I want a discussion that actually gets something done, not go in circles like all the other threads on this topic. If you don't agree, that's fine. If you have no comment, please don't comment then. If you want to post with a disagreement, please do so with a better statement than "I hate the premise of this thread" and then leave.

Feel free to comment, but this thread is meant to be constructive.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Also, I understand that people disagree with the premise. I also agree that you can disagree/be hesitant about some certain possible changes and not be a bigot. Please, don't direct insults at groups of people or any singular person in this thread. Rebuttals are obviously fine, disagreements and arguments are fine, but it's not nice, clever, or fun for any of us when you purposefully direct an insult or personal attack at someone on this thread.


----------



## Eltab

Based on discussion to date, I think making Eberron the default setting for this ruleset would be a good fit.  Include a section (3 - 4 pages?) in the PHB describing the top say 10 D&D settings by popularity, under a heading "Worlds of Imagination".  Use a framework similar to the 4e Dark Sun book's "Things to know about the world" but write it in prose not bulletpoints.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cap'n Kobold said:


> It is just a more thorough treatment of the removal of racial ASIs in your OP, and possibly WotC's adjustment of the racial ASIs. Removing racial ASIs allows people to optimise concepts that have previously been less synergised with racial ASIs (such as the Gnome barbarian). Removing the link between class performance and ability scores completely allows you to play a more diverse range of characters - You now don't have to play a strong character to be an effective barbarian.
> We know that WotC are thinking of giving the ability to change how racial ASIs are allocated. Whether they'll do something as extreme as disconnecting them completely, removing them, or disengaging ability scores entirely we can only speculate on. But this is a thread for discussing this sort of suggestion positively.



Yep. I'm not meaning to be negative, I apologize if I came off that way. I'm just skeptical that those changes would help. For realism's sake, I don't personally want to remove the connection between strength and the power of your punches. I also think that certain classes and subclasses should be focused on specific ability scores just to make classes have meaning. 


Cap'n Kobold said:


> Likewise no longer pushing a specific character image in order to be able to mechanically perform.



I think paladins should have a distinct image. Removing Charisma from them would make them less unique, and make them seem meaningless. 

(It has occurred to me that these are similar arguments to those arguing against removing racial ability scores. Classes and Races are different. Arguably, class is more important to character identity than race.)


Cap'n Kobold said:


> I'd guess to keep separation between creatures that can have a primarily antagonistic culture in the setting for the purpose of providing the PCs with opponents, and PC races, which may not.



I don't know if I personally would agree with this, but thanks for contributing. I think if you were to remove the differences between ability scores and armors that wouldn't promote creativity, and instead would result in more bland characters.


----------



## Eltab

Azzy said:


> How about inclusive to non-bigots?



I commend to your attention the section of EnWorld's *Terms and Rules* headed _Be Polite_.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Eltab said:


> Based on discussion to date, I think making Eberron the default setting for this ruleset would be a good fit.  Include a section (3 - 4 pages?) in the PHB describing the top say 10 D&D settings by popularity, under a heading "Worlds of Imagination".  Use a framework similar to the 4e Dark Sun book's "Things to know about the world" but write it in prose not bulletpoints.



I think Eberron could work fairly well as a default setting as well. It has a lot of lore, but nowhere as much as Forgotten Realms. It seems well liked by a lot of the community, and everyone I know who thought they wouldn't like Eberron has changed their mind after learning more about it. 

Does anyone here object to making eberron the default? If so, which setting do you think should be the default? 

(Also, I personally don't think the core rulebooks should be based on any default setting, but they would need a base setting for new players and DMs.)


----------



## FrogReaver

Azzy said:


> How about inclusive to non-bigots?




“Bigot - A person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”

I’d say that makes every honest person a self proclaimed bigot. I mean aren’t we all prejudiced against rapists?  But if we are all bigots then the accusation of bigotry kind of loses its sting.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Also, I understand that people disagree with the premise. I also agree that you can disagree/be hesitant about some certain possible changes and not be a bigot. Please, don't direct insults at groups of people or any singular person in this thread. Rebuttals are obviously fine, disagreements and arguments are fine, but it's not nice, clever, or fun for any of us when you purposefully direct an insult or personal attack at someone on this thread.




Thank you.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jgsugden said:


> I am against a 6E at this time, but this is how I'd do the changes to account for modern social visions.



I don't want a 6e anytime soon. I've just finished buying all the 5e books, and don't want to start over. Also, there's not much of a reason to do a new edition at this time, especially when D&D is still more popular than it ever was before. 


jgsugden said:


> 1.) Each PC would select a Humanoid Type, a Class, a Background, and a Profession.
> 2.) Humanoid type would provide you some purely physical characteristics tied to the form of the humanoid type. It would also give you points to spend in your background and profession. A race like aarakocra would get fewer points to spend elsewhere because it gains a power ability through the humanoid type.
> 3.) Class would be much as it is now, but would also include a bonus to the prime attribute of the class.
> 4.) Backgrounds would be much as they are now, but would you'd spend points from the pool provided by your humanoid type to obtain features from the background, like proficiencies, special abilities, tool proficiencies, etc... You would get an ability score bonus from your background choice.
> 5.) Your profession would be what you currently do as a newly heroic figure. While background looks at where you were, profession would look at where you are. Many of them would be tied directly to combat, but some options would focus on social or exploration abilities. Again, you could use points from your humanoid type to buy abilities in your profession. You would also get one ability score bonus from your profession. You'd be able to choose a second background as your profession, or something more focused on adventuring that was only available as a profession.
> 6.) If all three ability score bonuses (class, background and profession) are in the same attribute, you move one to an attribute of your choice.
> 7.) We'd establish that _only_ humanoids have free will. Everything else, in the standard setting, is guided by directives put into them by the Gods or other forces. They have personalities, but they are programmed to be a certain way, and are not allowed to deviate without magic.
> 8.) However, these directives would not be alignments. Alignment would be removed from the game. Instead, these directives would be rules that the creatures without free will must follow and believe - and have no choice but to follow and believe. A red dragon would inherently value wealth, despise those weaker than it, and enjoy cruelty. You could shape the rest of their personality when one is met, but all red dragons would share the same core rules of belief and nature.
> 9.) As mentioned - no alignment. Instead, we'd focus on shared belief structures. Instead of a magic sword only being useful to good PCs, it would only be useful to one that was blessed by a certain deity. Instead of having spirit guardians dealing damage type based on alignment, it would be a choice.



Nice suggestions. I personally don't agree with a few of them, but this is a nice concept.


----------



## Oofta

I was j







AcererakTriple6 said:


> I'm using the definition in the Monster Manual. Most character races are humanoids, and most humanoids are playable.
> 
> "I don't want to hear disagreements"?
> 
> What's that supposed to mean. I want a discussion. Discussions call for disagreements. I want a discussion that actually gets something done, not go in circles like all the other threads on this topic. If you don't agree, that's fine. If you have no comment, please don't comment then. If you want to post with a disagreement, please do so with a better statement than "I hate the premise of this thread" and then leave.
> 
> Feel free to comment, but this thread is meant to be constructive.




It's been a long week and this topic has been beaten to death and then some.   Sorry.

My answer is simple but I've already posted it multiple times so I don't see the point. But ..

Emphasize that alignments are just a default and will vary from campaign to campaign.
Emphasize the supernatural influence for those campaigns that want evil (or practically always evil) humanoids.
Fix some of the imagery and wording.  Why are the monstrous races always tribes while dwarves are clans?
Don't give monstrous races negative ability score modifiers.
But again, apologies. Long week, longer day.


----------



## FrogReaver

More in the thread topic, I want to see some Real world religious inclusivity in d&d. I’m not sure what that looks like though. Any ideas?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> More in the thread topic, I want to see some Real world religious inclusivity in d&d. I’m not sure what that looks like though. Any ideas?



I honestly don't know. I think the game is fairly inclusive to Christianity, and I am a Christian. For Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and other religions, I'm not a member of their religions, so I don't know what is offensive to them. 

A sensitivity reader could help WotC with this. Can anyone on this thread help here? Is there anything offensive or problematic for religions in 5e?


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I honestly don't know. I think the game is fairly inclusive to Christianity, and I am a Christian. For Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and other religions, I'm not a member of their religions, so I don't know what is offensive to them.
> 
> A sensitivity reader could help WotC with this. Can anyone on this thread help here? Is there anything offensive or problematic for religions in 5e?




There are many Christian denominations. It may be inclusive to yours and exclusive to someone else’s.  One of the most controversial Christian beliefs in modern times is that homosexuality is a sin (not all Christian denominations teach this but many do). Perhaps d&d could leave sexuality up to the DM instead of imbedding it into certain parts of the game?  Perhaps we could get some characters in official adventures that look like Christians so they can see representations of themselves there?

Just brainstorming and thinking aloud.


----------



## jmartkdr2

FrogReaver said:


> More in the thread topic, I want to see some Real world religious inclusivity in d&d. I’m not sure what that looks like though. Any ideas?



I think the goal should be to include, say, Islam, as much as we include Christianity,. Meaning not directly at all, but borrow from the underlying mythos.

In other words - more Arabian- and Persian- and South Asian-inspired content. Monsters, items, settings, etc. Or make sure the influences that are there are represented well - basically better genie lore that gets at the old Arabian versions.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> There are many Christian denominations. It may be inclusive to yours and exclusive to someone else’s. One of the most controversial Christian beliefs in modern times is that homosexuality is a sin (not all Christian denominations teach this but many do). Perhaps d&d could leave sexuality up to the DM instead of imbedding it into certain parts of the game? Perhaps we could get some characters in official adventures that look like Christians so they can see representations of themselves there?



Isn't sexuality already detached from the game? I also don't think including depictions of Christians in the game is a good idea. They're a real religion, and I don't think D&D should have real religions in the fantasy worlds, even people who are meant to look like them. 

Also, the Christianity and Homosexuality thing is probably not a good thing to discuss here. In simplest terms, we don't change things to be more comfortable for homophobes.


----------



## Mercurius

FrogReaver said:


> More in the thread topic, I want to see some Real world religious inclusivity in d&d. I’m not sure what that looks like though. Any ideas?




Out of curiosity, why do you want this? Inclusivity in terms of real world ethnicity and gender makes sense, but I'm not so sure about religion, unless you're talking about fantasy analogues for real world religions. But that may create more problems than it solves, especially when there doesn't seem to be a problem to begin with.

I suppose one approach could be a "fantasy Earth" setting - ala Ars Magica or Mage Dark Ages/Sorcerer's Crusade - with direct analogues to real world cultures and religions.

That said, I do think that D&D history is rather weak in terms of the range of religious structures and cosmologies, always defaulting to the Gygaxian/Wardian polytheism. How about a monotheistic religion (the "Way of Ao"), or something akin to Taoism or an actual shamanism that is, well, shamanistic. Or the dualism of Zoroastrianism, with the good Ahura Mazda and the evil Angra Mainyu. Or the non-theism of Buddhism in which the "gods" are actually embodiments of aspects of Buddha Mind.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> I want to see some Real world religious inclusivity in d&d.
> 
> Any ideas?




*Mod Note:*

Discussion of such would run afoul of the rules, so please don't go down this road.  Thanks.


----------



## AliasBot

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Does anyone here object to making eberron the default? If so, which setting do you think should be the default?



In a vacuum, I'd say Exandria, as it mostly* keeps the standard fantasy-kitchen-sink fare of previous default settings, but lacks the outdated concepts or other lore baggage of those settings, by virtue of the recency of its creation: its lore isn't entrenched nearly as _deeply_ as the FR's is, so there's much more room to tweak stuff if necessary. Same concept, newer model, basically.

The issue there is that the Critical Role company might own Exandria as an IP - collaborations are one thing, but I doubt WotC would want its game's central setting to be one that somebody else owns if it has other options at its disposal. Whether that matters to this thread depends on whether it's about what we _want_ out of 6E, or what we might _expect_. If it's the former, then hypothetical legal quandaries are irrelevant.

(Eberron would also be fine: the only theoretical issue I can see would be that the _feel_ of the world seems a bit further from D&D default: since the other intended changes would topple a few sacred cows already, keeping other stuff mostly the same might make those changes a bit easier to swallow for some.)

*The one major exception being the increasingly-widespread existence of firearms: an edition with Exandria as the default setting would probably be an edition that treats the presence of firearms as the default. Though I suppose the same might be true of Eberron, so maybe it's a wash there...


----------



## Umbran

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Does anyone here object to making eberron the default? If so, which setting do you think should be the default?




"Object" is a strong word.  

Eberron is rather steampunky.  But the steampunk fad is well past its peak.  Shifting your default to an aesthetic and themes that are a bit passe is probably not wise.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Umbran said:


> "Object" is a strong word.
> 
> Eberron is rather steampunky.  But the steampunk fad is well past its peak.  Shifting your default to an aesthetic and themes that are a bit passe is probably not wise.



Yeah. It is a lot different from the other D&D settings. Do you think that they should keep Forgotten Realms as the base, or change to a different setting?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

AliasBot said:


> In a vacuum, I'd say Exandria, as it mostly* keeps the standard fantasy-kitchen-sink fare of previous default settings, but lacks the outdated concepts or other lore baggage of those settings, by virtue of the recency of its creation: its lore isn't entrenched nearly as _deeply_ as the FR's is, so there's much more room to tweak stuff if necessary. Same concept, newer model, basically.
> 
> The issue there is that the Critical Role company might own Exandria as an IP - collaborations are one thing, but I doubt WotC would want its game's central setting to be one that somebody else owns if it has other options at its disposal. Whether that matters to this thread depends on whether it's about what we _want_ out of 6E, or what we might _expect_. If it's the former, then hypothetical legal quandaries are irrelevant.
> 
> (Eberron would also be fine: the only theoretical issue I can see would be that the _feel_ of the world seems a bit further from D&D default: since the other intended changes would topple a few sacred cows already, keeping other stuff mostly the same might make those changes a bit easier to swallow for some.)
> 
> *The one major exception being the increasingly-widespread existence of firearms: an edition with Exandria as the default setting would probably be an edition that treats the presence of firearms as the default. Though I suppose the same might be true of Eberron, so maybe it's a wash there...



Yeah. Wildemount is similar enough to Forgotten Realms to not be such a jarring change if they were to choose it as the default world of 5e, but that would be problematic with Critical Role owning Exandria.


----------



## Azzy

Eltab said:


> I commend to your attention the section of EnWorld's *Terms and Rules* headed _Be Polite_.




To whom am I being impolite to in this statement? I made no accusation of anyone here being a bigot (see my response to Oofta if you need clarification on that point). That some have taken it as such is surprising, to say the least. My post was to answer the question of to whom we should be inclusive of if we can't be realistically be inclusive of everyone—we should be inclusive of those that want to be inclusive of others. If we have to draw the line on peoples that we cannot include (because some people can't accept others that are different from themselves), then we should err on the side of not being inclusive to people that are intolerant and don't want to be inclusive of other (i.e., bigots). I do not see how this is at all a controversial statement. To reiterate, I am not calling anyone here a bigot. If you disagee about the specifics of how D&D should aim to be more inclusive, that's cool—we all approach things differently—give your ideas of how we can improve our hobby and be more inclusive. Anyone that took this as a barb against them, I'm sorry.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> “Bigot - A person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”
> 
> I’d say that makes every honest person a self proclaimed bigot. I mean aren’t we all prejudiced against rapists?  But if we are all bigots then the accusation of bigotry kind of loses its sting.




I'm sorry, but that's just sophistry for the sake of being contrarian. Let's not falsely equate peoples of differening religions, races/ethnicities, genders, gender identities, sexual orientations, nationalities, and such with rapists. That's just gross.


----------



## Hussar

The one thing that I have learned in the past couple of weeks with these threads is that the changes needed are really rather minor.

We're not talking about massive overhauls or rewrites for the most part.  Mostly it's snipping a couple of words here or there or editing a couple of sentences.  

You'd think with the uproar and length of threads on the topic that people were advocating rebuilding the game from the ground up.  Instead, most people are perfectly reasonable and coming to something approaching consensus on most of these issues wasn't that difficult.  It really is nice to see.


----------



## Umbran

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yeah. It is a lot different from the other D&D settings. Do you think that they should keep Forgotten Realms as the base, or change to a different setting?




I don't have a strong opinion.  I have nothing at all against FR.  But I don't really have an attachment to it, either.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> More in the thread topic, I want to see some Real world religious inclusivity in d&d. I’m not sure what that looks like though. Any ideas?




I have no clue. Maybe put a blurb in the PHB (and expand in the DMG, which I believe is already there) about how clerics (and other divine types) and otherwise religious characters don't have to follow the polytheistic/henotheistic default that is common in the official settings, and point out that monotheism, animism, shamanism, etc. are all worthy alternatives when creating religions and characters for your own setting). Maybe, if necesary and not self-evident, make extra effort to note that the gods presented in the D&D settings are fictional even when the share similar characteristics or names to real world deities and that gods whorshipped by a player's character are not actually worshipped by the player. That's just me spit-balling, though—I've never felt not included because of my religion, so I'm not the best person answer this.


----------



## Azzy

Umbran said:


> "Object" is a strong word.
> 
> Eberron is rather steampunky.  But the steampunk fad is well past its peak.  Shifting your default to an aesthetic and themes that are a bit passe is probably not wise.




Agreed. While I love Eberron, I also don't think it should be the default. Eberron tried to subvert the traditional ideas of what D&D-style fantasy is. If it was the default, it wouldn't be able to do that. So, I believe D&D needs something more traditional (even if we have to make adjustments to that) as its default. I don't think that Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc. need much (if any) significant alteration to be more inline with the goal of inclusivity.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> “Bigot - A person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”




So, short definitions are handy, but they lose connotation.  Lets try to find it, since you seem to have left it lying on the floor back there somewhere.

*"bigot*. : a *person* who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. "

The extra qualifiers and examples make a difference.

That "such as" contains an inkling of the connotation.  In general, membership in a racial or ethnic group does not actually imply having done anything wrong.  Being a rapist very much does mean you've done something wrong.  Having hatred for folks who haven't done any wrong is not the same as having a negative opinion of someone who has committed violent crimes.

And, further, a reasonable person might have a negative general opinion of folks who have spent time in jail, but may be willing to reconsider that when given exposure to, say, folks who were convicted and are now honestly trying to be good and honest citizens.  A bigot will not move their opinion, even when given relevant evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Xeviat

I think a new setting is due, and then use that as the default setting in 6E for the 50th Anniversary.

For rules changes, largely divorcing ability score adjustments from whatever race ends up being called feels like a given. I'd couple that with divorcing ability scores from a direct influence on attack/saving throw DCs, and just set attack/save DCs with level (so you can be a smart fighter, a strong fighter, or a tough fighter, and you could be a fast rogue or a charming rogue). This would keep any change to ability score adjustments on races from hurting the mechanics of the game, and also diversify the characters people can build.


----------



## Cadence

Xeviat said:


> For rules changes, largely divorcing ability score adjustments from whatever race ends up being called feels like a given. I'd couple that with divorcing ability scores from a direct influence on attack/saving throw DCs, and just set attack/save DCs with level (so you can be a smart fighter, a strong fighter, or a tough fighter, and you could be a fast rogue or a charming rogue). This would keep any change to ability score adjustments on races from hurting the mechanics of the game, and also diversify the characters people can build.




I don't need a lot of immersion in my game, but some of that annoys me. 

You can already be a really strong Halfling (compared to the vast majority of humanoids) - but why does a Halfling that maxed out strength need to be as strong as a Half-Orc or Dragonborn that maxed out strength? You can already be a charming rogue instead of a dexterous rogue - but why does the charming rogue get to be as good at sword play or shooting the hand cross-bow?

If you're going the route of divorcing abilities from anatomy and from attacks and saves, then why have abilities connected to anything mechanical in the game? Why would dexterity help you jump if it doesn't help you shoot? Or strength help you climb if it doesn't help you jump? Or constitution help you run longer but not resist more damage? 

At some point it feels like a push to change D&D into having a bunch of different skins they can slap on the characters, but where the skins don't have any effect on the game play except the words you to describe things.  (Some parts of 4e felt that way a bit to me).


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

MechaTarrasque said:


> They can add an unreliable narrator to the race section, maybe even dueling narrators.  So Volo can go "everyone knows dwarves are hard working people who live underground....." and then Elminister can say "well, except for the above ground living dwarves on the tropical island of _____ who live a life of island tranquility....."  For the cost of an extra page per race, you could have 4 or 5 narrators (possibly from different campaign worlds) giving a short description.
> 
> Edit:  come to think of it, that might be a good thing for class descriptions too.  4 or 5 narrators with different examples of "when I think of a X, I think of...."




I'm glad to see my idea is catching on.


----------



## Hussar

It is a cool idea.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yep. I'm not meaning to be negative, I apologize if I came off that way. I'm just skeptical that those changes would help. For realism's sake, I don't personally want to remove the connection between strength and the power of your punches. I also think that certain classes and subclasses should be focused on specific ability scores just to make classes have meaning.



 I think that we're already messing with realism when we decide that Halflings are on average as strong as Half-orcs. Everyone draws the line between realism and the ability to optimise more diverse character concepts in a different place.



> I think paladins should have a distinct image. Removing Charisma from them would make them less unique, and make them seem meaningless.
> 
> (It has occurred to me that these are similar arguments to those arguing against removing racial ability scores. Classes and Races are different. Arguably, class is more important to character identity than race.)
> 
> I don't know if I personally would agree with this, but thanks for contributing. I think if you were to remove the differences between ability scores and armors that wouldn't promote creativity, and instead would result in more bland characters.



 The weapons thing is again, character concept and image. - Maybe the poster has in mind a quick, dextrous character that uses a greataxe or something else that doesn't fall into the usual tropes that 5e optimises for.
(Note: I don't share the views of that poster. I was just trying to clarify given my understanding of what they were getting at.)




AcererakTriple6 said:


> I think Eberron could work fairly well as a default setting as well. It has a lot of lore, but nowhere as much as Forgotten Realms. It seems well liked by a lot of the community, and everyone I know who thought they wouldn't like Eberron has changed their mind after learning more about it.
> 
> Does anyone here object to making eberron the default? If so, which setting do you think should be the default?
> 
> (Also, I personally don't think the core rulebooks should be based on any default setting, but they would need a base setting for new players and DMs.)



 Forgotten Realms is problematic given that many of its cultures and religions are literally real-life ones that came over when Toril and Earth were linked.
Eberron however is a bit far from the "default D&D assumptions" of races etc. It has a distinct style not shared by Greyhawk, FR etc, so might not work as well as a starting point. Also, most Eberron races have at least two different cultures.



WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I'm glad to see my idea is catching on.





MechaTarrasque said:


> They can add an unreliable narrator to the race section, maybe even dueling narrators.  So Volo can go "everyone knows dwarves are hard working people who live underground....." and then Elminister can say "well, except for the above ground living dwarves on the tropical island of _____ who live a life of island tranquility....."  For the cost of an extra page per race, you could have 4 or 5 narrators (possibly from different campaign worlds) giving a short description.
> 
> Edit:  come to think of it, that might be a good thing for class descriptions too.  4 or 5 narrators with different examples of "when I think of a X, I think of...."



Maybe instead of Elminster and Volo, they could do Volo, and Astinus of Palanthas, and Professor Vii of Korranberg, and Mordenkainen etc?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Maybe instead of Elminster and Volo, they could do Volo, and Astinus of Palanthas, and Professor Vii of Korranberg, and Mordenkainen etc?




Why not? The more the better.


----------



## jasper

AcererakTriple6 said:


> But it is still in the base rules. I think making it an optional rule like flanking or multiclassing would be a good idea.
> 
> Why does the next edition need a base setting in the PHB? Sure, it will help new players, but they could always just put it in the DMG.
> 
> Also, why does it need to be the Forgotten Realms? It seems like an increasing number of people don't like the Forgotten Realms, and I wouldn't be overly surprised if they changed the base setting to Exandria or Eberron.
> 
> They're already changing this in 5e, so they're probably (if not definitely) going to make the same change in a 6e.
> 
> So, you think that Orcs and Drow should still be evil in the Forgotten Realms, and that they should keep Forgotten Realms as the base setting, and still base all the rules off of the setting? How are any of these changes? I just seems like it's a small clarification that largely ignores the issues.
> 
> I think this could work. At the end of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount they have a Glossary of sorts. If they had this in the MM, PHB, or DMG that could help with things.
> 
> I fail to see the relevance. Please clarify, and I mean no disrespect. I am a bit dense.



To sum up. NO changes are needed.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jasper said:


> To sum up. NO changes are needed.



Okay, want to give your argument for this? If you think absolutely nothing should change from 5e to 6e to promote inclusivity, please explain why.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Xeviat said:


> I think a new setting is due, and then use that as the default setting in 6E for the 50th Anniversary.



I would like to see a new setting, but I don't know if WotC would do it. It's been awhile since they've made a new setting (Eberron and Nentir Vale, right?). 
There's also the problem of making the new setting the default. They'd probably have to publish it in 5e so people have time to get used to it before they suddenly shift to a whole new setting for the base game.


----------



## GreenTengu

Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.

To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.

But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all. 

Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.

But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG and let the Grognards drive the name of Dungeons and Dragons into the grave. Really, I can't help but feel more and more ashamed about the attitudes of so many players who are in the hobbies I enjoyed. It is hard to really understand why what always struck me as the hobbies of the outsiders became the realm of well.... disclusionary people. In the very least, I thought those people peeled off long ago to be funneled into various OSR games.

But maybe what we need is the opposite of an OSR game. I have seen 13th Age and Dungeon World make steps in the right direction, though I cannot say I totally agree with everything they have done. Even Pathfinder 2 seems to be ahead of Dungeons and Dragons in fixing the worst aspects.

I understand that we are all attached to the D&D name and concept but... maybe it is time to let it go. Maybe it is time to let it crash and burn. It was the first, and for that it deserves respect, but by being the first it seems that it attracted and attached to itself far too many people who, after being mistreated by others, desire nothing more than to pass that mistreatment onto other people so as to feel superior. And maybe it is theirs-- they can have it and bring it down with them. And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.

Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

GreenTengu said:


> Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.
> 
> To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.
> 
> But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.
> 
> Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.
> 
> But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG and let the Grognards drive the name of Dungeons and Dragons into the grave. Really, I can't help but feel more and more ashamed about the attitudes of so many players who are in the hobbies I enjoyed. It is hard to really understand why what always struck me as the hobbies of the outsiders became the realm of well.... disclusionary people. In the very least, I thought those people peeled off long ago to be funneled into various OSR games.
> 
> But maybe what we need is the opposite of an OSR game. I have seen 13th Age and Dungeon World make steps in the right direction, though I cannot say I totally agree with everything they have done. Even Pathfinder 2 seems to be ahead of Dungeons and Dragons in fixing the worst aspects.
> 
> I understand that we are all attached to the D&D name and concept but... maybe it is time to let it go. Maybe it is time to let it crash and burn. It was the first, and for that it deserves respect, but by being the first it seems that it attracted and attached to itself far too many people who, after being mistreated by others, desire nothing more than to pass that mistreatment onto other people so as to feel superior. And maybe it is theirs-- they can have it and bring it down with them. And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.
> 
> Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.



I get that you want a rules light game with basically no simulationism and that is a valid thing to want but has absolutely nothing to do with being inclusive unless we understand 'inclusiveness' to mean 'I want my specific game design preferences to be catered to.'

I really wish people would stop trying to justify their personal preferences with inclusiveness. It is a serious and important topic and doing that is just disrespectful. And while we are at disrespectful, your post was very ageist and condescending.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

GreenTengu said:


> Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.
> 
> To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.
> 
> But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.
> 
> Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.
> 
> But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG and let the Grognards drive the name of Dungeons and Dragons into the grave. Really, I can't help but feel more and more ashamed about the attitudes of so many players who are in the hobbies I enjoyed. It is hard to really understand why what always struck me as the hobbies of the outsiders became the realm of well.... disclusionary people. In the very least, I thought those people peeled off long ago to be funneled into various OSR games.
> 
> But maybe what we need is the opposite of an OSR game. I have seen 13th Age and Dungeon World make steps in the right direction, though I cannot say I totally agree with everything they have done. Even Pathfinder 2 seems to be ahead of Dungeons and Dragons in fixing the worst aspects.
> 
> I understand that we are all attached to the D&D name and concept but... maybe it is time to let it go. Maybe it is time to let it crash and burn. It was the first, and for that it deserves respect, but by being the first it seems that it attracted and attached to itself far too many people who, after being mistreated by others, desire nothing more than to pass that mistreatment onto other people so as to feel superior. And maybe it is theirs-- they can have it and bring it down with them. And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.
> 
> Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.



Wait, since people were hesitant about making ability scores practically not matter anymore (which I don't feel like I was hostile, more skeptical if anything), you think we're people who want to exclude creativity from the game. I think you should obviously be able to play any race as any class well, but that can be done as simply as removing the racial ability scores from the game. 

I just didn't think that making classes no longer be focused on any one ability score made sense, and was too rules-lite. I still think if you want to play a Wizard, you need to be intellectually smart as a character. If a character wants to max out Strength and use that as their ability score to cast Wizard spells, I would immediately say no, because that makes absolutely no sense. I understand this is a fantasy game, but I do personally prefer when things can make sense in my games. 

Also, you're saying it's min-maxers who don't like your idea, right? How does that make sense? You idea would promote min-maxing more than anything I've recommended. Suddenly, every person in the game would be a Yuan-Ti Pureblood, maxing Constitution to use it as a spellcasting ability for Druids, Bards, or Clerics. 

If you make everyone have the same bonuses to hit and same bonuses for damage, that doesn't promote inclusivity, that diminishes the importance of player choice when they make a character. 

I don't want a new game. I like the current game, but would like some possible minor changes in an edition shift. (Also, I am not a grognard. 5e is my first edition of D&D. The entire edition of 3e is older than I am.)

Also, your post was a bit rude. This discussion is meant to be productive and polite. Please continue being so.


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.




I am great with not catering to min-maxers, and it drives me up a wall that folks feel the need to get every single extra +1 possible in their character and make them one sided to do it.



> To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.




Why are all character concepts worth having in the game? Is Dungeons & Dragons really poorer if it doesn't allow (non-magically) for the physically strongest character in the game to be a halfling and let them wield a weapon scaled for someone over three times as tall as they are? Is it poorer if the players who chose to emphasize physical attributes over mental are better at physical combat? If your seductress and scholar are as good in combat as the character whose dedicated themselves to combat, haven't you de facto decided their character conception isn't worth supporting?

Iirc, you wanted to have STR and DEX separate, because they have too big of an influence on something that is 80-90% of the game (combat). Why are you bringing a discerning detective or clever scholar to a game that is 80-90% combat? Isn't the better solution there to find a DM who will run something that isn't all combat centric? Or if the party has a mix of interests to put various challenges in that don't all rely on combat?

If you want a strong but clumsy "Monk", why isn't the parsimonious solution to actually make a hand-to-hand unarmored fighter?  Or to have a sub-class of Monk that subs out things that are based on speed and dexterity for things that are based on strength and endurance?



> But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.




I missed the posts. Where have people been violently hostile to those who want to play characters of different skin colors, eye types, or tuskedness?

Are there any ability modifiers for the standard races that give more than a +1 bonus because of the race you picked? That hardly seems like sucking unless one is hyper focused on being a min-maxer to me. I'm guessing if one didn't see the dice rolls it would take a large number of combats to get a sample size large enough to notice the difference.



> Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.




This through me off a bit, because there has never been a basic and advanced D&D that did that.  Even the easiest versions had ability scores tied to combat.



> But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG




I'm having trouble what you actually like about Dungeons and Dragons at this point.



> And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.




At this point, you're ageistly insulting a bunch of people on here, many of whom are all for changing a bunch of the things to make the game more inclusive. All because they think ability scores affecting combat makes sense and that they like lots of options with mechanical implications?


----------



## GreenTengu

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I just didn't think that making classes no longer be focused on any one ability score made sense, and was too rules-lite. I still think if you want to play a Wizard, you need to be intellectually smart as a character. If a character wants to max out Strength and use that as their ability score to cast Wizard spells, I would immediately say no, because that makes absolutely no sense. I understand this is a fantasy game, but I do personally prefer when things can make sense in my games.




I this still feels like the biggest barrier to D&D forging ahead is the 6 arbitrarily decided ability scores. If I were to look outside of the D&D system, I have trouble finding any character who would have a high strength and low constitution or low constitution and high strength. Those who stats are pretty obviously intrinsically linked just as the Dexterity stat covers far too many human abilities than belong in a single stat.

If there were a spell-caster who relied on Strength/Constitution, I see little difference between that idea and a Dragon Ball Z style martial artist who can unleash ki-blasts. Or, alternatively, they could use some sort of blood magic that can only be used so much before they cannot put out any more. Similarly, you could have a melee based character with high intellect who makes very precise strikes that are designed to sever the tendons and arteries-- because they are so knowledgeable about how a body works that even if they cannot strike as fast or as hard as another fighter, their understanding of various creature's biology allows them to basically dissect their opponents on the battlefield.

There are various ways to justify any sort of ability build while entirely divorcing the idea from what the character can do based on their class and level. Sometime it takes a bit more thinking outside the box and creativity, granted, but there are ways to arrive at the idea. The idea D&D has always had though is that is prescribes a "correct path" and so naturally all characters align to that path and dismiss any concepts that lie outside of it. As a result, in any given edition, all characters have been far too similar.

In D&D 5E-- every single character that exists, outside a couple classes, is dumb as a rock because Intelligence is hardly ever utilized and even the skills that are Intelligence-based require the DM to bend over backwards and create the whole adventure with the intent of them ever being usable and yet somehow still completable even if they are failed.



Cadence said:


> I missed the posts. Where have people been violently hostile to those who want to play characters of different skin colors, eye types, or tuskedness?




You missed the poster who replies to me and said that no one who doesn't pay $100,000 should be allowed to play an Orc, Hobgoblin, Goblin, etc.?


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> You missed the poster who replies to me and said that no one who doesn't pay $100,000 should be allowed to play an Orc, Hobgoblin, Goblin, etc.?




I did miss that one (#24).  But I don't think I would have recognized it as going with your comment about skin color, eye type, and tuskedness.

Your comment seems to say that that poster was "violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all."

The quote in question says:



jasper said:


> No monster races can be player races. Exception you paid $10,000 to a currently unnamed charity to play any race from Volo’s as long as 6E lasts. Or you pay $100 to same charity per PC for an exception certificate.




Isn't that only talking about wanting to play things with the abilities of the monster races in the MM instead of just the ones in the PhB.  That it's focusing on abilities seems clear from their third paragraph that is about reskinning between the PhB races for those who don't like a particular racial ability.



jasper said:


> Then the Racial Abilities alone. If a person is upset he can’t play a race due to the racial abilities, include a sidebar about reskinning. I have a human who looks like a dwarf until you get within 10 feet. But does not have dwarf abilities.




I really don't see how they're saying you can't play something with dark skin?  The PhB has that and they seem great with the PhB.  And since the poster was ok with reskinning and there are PhB races with tusks and different color skins, I don't understand that complaint either.


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> If I were to look outside of the D&D system, I have trouble finding any character who would have a high strength and low constitution or low constitution and high strength.




Could Goliath (of David and Goliath fame) possibly be portrayed as a high STR but low CON? Cribbing from a reddit thread, a power lifter who couldn't do cardio would be like that? A big strong fighter who always needed to ride on the wagon instead of marching? Isn't there a character in My Hero Academia who can essentially never hurt anyone with their attacks but is almost impossible to put down?  Is the "nerd  who can take a beating" a trope?



> Similarly, you could have a melee based character with high intellect who makes very precise strikes that are designed to sever the tendons and arteries-- because they are so knowledgeable about how a body works that even if they cannot strike as fast or as hard as another fighter, their understanding of various creature's biology allows them to basically dissect their opponents on the battlefield.




How does knowing where to hit the other person let them actually execute the correct hit? Isn't that hand-eye-coordination, which would be DEX and not INT? I can see making the damage bonus for back-stab be INT and not STR. Would an INT fighter get back-stab instead of some of the other feats?

I'm all for expanding the usefulness of the abilities in more circumstances. That feels better to me than getting rid of them. 

Would your INT "fighter" lack all of STR, DEX, and CON?



> The idea D&D has always had though is that is prescribes a "correct path" and so naturally all characters align to that path and dismiss any concepts that lie outside of it. As a result, in any given edition, all characters have been far too similar.




I thought the idea would be that all the other concepts would show up in the thousands of splat books that would signal the impending arrival of a new edition.  And also give everyone who hates min-maxing continually more to complain about 



> In D&D 5E-- every single character that exists, outside a couple classes, is dumb as a rock because Intelligence is hardly ever utilized and even the skills that are Intelligence-based require the DM to bend over backwards and create the whole adventure with the intent of them ever being usable and yet somehow still completable even if they are failed.




I've been lucky to usually have fellow players who put ability stats based on character conception instead of bonuses and DMs where the storyline outside of combat was a huge part of things. 

What's the lowest INT someone can take in 5e if not rolling randomly? Labeling someone with an 8 Int (just below average) as "dumb as a rock" seems awfully ableist for a thread on inclusivity.


----------



## GreenTengu

Cadence said:


> lsn't that only talking about wanting to play things with the abilities of the monster races in the MM instead of just the ones in the PhB.  That it's focusing on abilities seems clear from their third paragraph that is about reskinning between the PhB races for those who don't like a particular racial ability




Every edition has given characters a massive penalty for playing an "orc" or "drow" or "hobgoblin" or "goblin", so how could you possibly justify this statement? Having such "monster abilities" has never been an advantage, it has already always been punished and there are at least three posters who have indicated it should be punished even more.

If it was "Orcs and half-orcs use the same profile" or "there is no statistical difference between playing a dark skinned drow and a light-skinned high elf" or "if you want to play a goblin, just make the character a halfling with an outsider or such background or if you want to play a hobgoblin, just make a human character with high constitution."

That would be superior to any system in any D&D edition. I cannot believe anyone has ever played those races for mechanical advantage.

Most people play those because they want to play dark-skinned elves or green-skinned tusked tribal people or outcasts from a samurai/spartan/nazi culture who want to forge a new path for their people or little yellow/green skinned children who no one expects much from so exceed expectations just by trying.

And then there is my issue with non-dexterity focused Rogues being screwed over when the las should be functional for intelligence, wisdom and charisma focused non-magical characters based on the various failed sub-classes, and intelligence and strength being dump stats to most characters in 5E. 

I just want a system where whatever character you dream up, they can be cool. I am fine with accepting this as the "lesser" version.


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> Most people play those because they want to play dark-skinned elves or green-skinned tusked tribal people or outcasts from a samurai/spartan/nazi culture who want to forge a new path for their people or little yellow/green skinned children who no one expects much from so exceed expectations just by trying.




The post you specifically referred me to was literally fine with reskinning, wasn't it?

Whatever penalties there are for playing drow doesn't seem to stop many people playing them, do they?  Are the monster races for 5e that weaker than the actual ones?  (Didn't PF try to balance them all out, for example?  That feels essentially D&D to me).  I think monster races usually weren't played in a lot of the games I've been in because they didn't seem to really fit.  I had fun with a Bugbear once.



> I just want a system where whatever character you dream up, they can be cool. I am fine with accepting this as the "lesser" version.




That's always struck me as the place where you write up your idea for a sub-class and present it to the DM. Hopefully most of the ideas will be run with. And if one isn't (using CHR for a non-magical bonus on missile weapon attacks?), then maybe some ideas aren't actually that good.


----------



## GreenTengu

Cadence said:


> Could Goliath (of David and Goliath fame) possibly be portrayed as a high STR but low CON? Cribbing from a reddit thread, a power lifter who couldn't do cardio would be like that? A big strong fighter who always needed to ride on the wagon instead of marching? Isn't there a character in My Hero Academia who can essentially never hurt anyone with their attacks but is almost impossible to put down?  Is the "nerd  who can take a beating" a trope?
> 
> 
> 
> How does knowing where to hit the other person let them actually execute the correct hit? Isn't that hand-eye-coordination, which would be DEX and not INT? I can see making the damage bonus for back-stab be INT and not STR. Would an INT fighter get back-stab instead of some of the other feats?
> 
> I'm all for expanding the usefulness of the abilities in more circumstances. That feels better to me than getting rid of them.
> 
> Would your INT "fighter" lack all of STR, DEX, and CON?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the idea would be that all the other concepts would show up in the thousands of splat books that would signal the impending arrival of a new edition.  And also give everyone who hates min-maxing continually more to complain about
> 
> 
> 
> I've been lucky to usually have fellow players who put ability stats based on character conception instead of bonuses and DMs where the storyline outside of combat was a huge part of things.
> 
> What's the lowest INT someone can take in 5e if not rolling randomly? Labeling someone with an 8 Int (just below average) as "dumb as a rock" seems awfully ableist for a thread on inclusivity.




Would you really expect a power-lifter to drop after you punch them once in a fight? The David vs. Golliath story indicates more David being skillful and getting a critical hlt, but perhaps most of all is an arguement that a halfling and a golliath getting the same attack and damage bonus as each other if equally leveled.

The fact that my examples have at least allowed you to reconsider whether it is possible for a damage bonus to come from intelligence should at least allow you to consider-- if the ability for people to "roll up" out and out better characters is removed-- then why does it matter what mix of ability scores a character's attack bonus and damage bonus come from?

A little bit comes from their physical ability to hit harder, a little bit comes from control of their body, a little bit comes from their stamina, a little bit comes from their willpower to succeed and perceptional awareness, a little bit comes from their knowledge of tactics and biology, a little bit comes from their confidence and intimidation factor.

All ability score ought to factor in just a little bit. It shouldn't be so much trading A for B as much as A adds to B.


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> The fact that my examples have at least allowed you to reconsider whether it is possible for a damage bonus to come from intelligence should at least allow you to consider-- if the ability for people to "roll up" out and out better characters is removed-- then why does it matter what mix of ability scores a character's attack bonus and damage bonus come from?




There are games that basically don't have statistics for much of anything and just have the players tell the story of what the characters are attempting, and there may or may not be some dice rolls on a standard table to see if it works, right? And there's nothing wrong with any of those systems. Unless for some reason you're trying to play D&D. 

It might help if I knew what parts of D&D, as a set of RPG rules, that you actually like that aren't served better by other games that seem to let you do everything you want.


----------



## GreenTengu

The-Magic-Sword said:


> Whatever penalties there are for playing drow doesn't seem to stop many people playing them, do they?  Are the monster races for 5e that weaker than the actual ones?  (Didn't PF try to balance them all out, for example?  That feels essentially D&D to me).  I think monster races usually weren't played in a lot of the games I've been in because they didn't seem to really fit.  I had fun with a Bugbear once.




For more than half my life, I have wanted to play as a goblinoid race simply because I thought they looked like a fun extension of humanity without facing discrimination, but never have.

Every edition there is screwed me over in my desire to play a goblinoid character and told me that I am unwelcome. Never the players at the table, always the DM. 



Cadence said:


> There are games that basically don't have statistics for much of anything and just have the players tell the story of what the characters are attempting, and there may or may not be some dice rolls on a standard table to see if it works, right? And there's nothing wrong with any of those systems. Unless for some reason you're trying to play D&D.
> 
> It might help if I knew what parts of D&D, as a set of RPG rules, that you actually like that aren't served better by other games that seem to let you do everything you want.




And this is why I think maybe it is best to give up on the D&D system. No amount of mitigatlng will change its fundamental nature. A whole new system is needed for a good adventure narrative that can represent any fantasy world.


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> For more than half my life, I have wanted to play as a goblinoid race simply because I thought they looked like a fun extension of humanity without facing discrimination, but never have.
> 
> Every edition there is screwed me over in my desire to play a goblinoid character and told me that I am unwelcome. Never the players at the table, always the DM.




:-(    



> And this is why I think maybe it is best to give up on the D&D system. No amount of mitigatlng will change its fundamental nature. A whole new system is needed for a good adventure narrative that can represent any fantasy world.




One group I've played with has been into trying lots of different games as each person looks for the one they want.  I hope you find one that does what you want and a group you play with can put into the rotation.


----------



## Remathilis

Hopping in late, sorry if this was already covered.

If 6e is going to be more inclusive; it's time to hit the third rail: classes. 

Assuming we keep classes in D&D, there are a few names that need rethinking. 


Barbarian: "a person from an alien land, culture, or group believed to be inferior, uncivilized, or violent" The class has all the negative connotations that we have associated with Orcs and other "savage" humanoids.
Druid:  Very culturally specific and doesn't have any connection to shapechanging nature-priests in game. In addition, it refers to a living religion (as part of the neopagan/Wiccan tradition).
Monk: Obviously, a stand-in for Shaolin/Eastern mysticism, it is a sliver of all the OA troublesome tropes put in a single class.
Paladin: Probably the least offensive of the list, but very specific to a certain time/era and deserves to remain a class about as much as samurai, cavalier/chevalier, and any other single order of warriors does.
Warlock: Assuming the masculine of witch, we run into similar problems with neopaganism and add on a dose of negative stereotyping of being "evil devil worshippers"

(As an aside, the fact that 5e seems unable to provide rangers and sorcerers with a strong mechanical niche probably would mean if we are removing the above classes, those two could also go not for inclusionary purposes but for mechanical redundancy.)

Now, to replace these options, we have a few choices: One is to rename them (barbarian = berserker, paladin = champion) but that seems a band-aid at best. Some could become sub-classes to much more flexible/broader archetype classes (warrior, cleric, rogue, mage) or possibly builds in a more "build your own class" system (akin to 2e's skills and powers or even Mutants and Masterminds).


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Remathilis said:


> Hopping in late, sorry if this was already covered.
> 
> If 6e is going to be more inclusive; it's time to hit the third rail: classes.
> 
> Assuming we keep classes in D&D, there are a few names that need rethinking.




I'd love to see some suggestions related to inclusivity that make the game *more flavorful* and evocative rather than less?


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> So, short definitions are handy, but they lose connotation.  Lets try to find it, since you seem to have left it lying on the floor back there somewhere.
> 
> *"bigot*. : a *person* who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. "
> 
> The extra qualifiers and examples make a difference.




The rest of your post goes on explaining how some bigotry is bad and some isn't isn't!  I fully agree there.  But it takes qualifiers outside the listed definition to make it so.  It's not about being intolerant toward any given group - which is the expanded definition of bigotry that you provided.  It's about having prejudices and intolerance toward a group that *doesn't deserve it.*  But who or what determines which group deserves it and which group doesn't?  The simple answer is that your worldview does and that is the problem. 

Suppose there is a situation where two worldviews are fundamentally opposed.  The one that fundamentally opposes your worldview is the one it is okay to be intolerant toward.  It's essentially justified bigotry - just like in the case of rapists that I brought up.  Except to those that don't share that worldview that justifies it, it is unjustified bigotry.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I'd love to see some suggestions related to inclusivity that make the game *more flavorful* and evocative rather than less?



Flavorful is a matter of one's personal tastes. I'm sorry if some of the recommended changes make the game seem less fun for you. I know a lot of them would make it more fun for me, and my players.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Remathilis said:


> Hopping in late, sorry if this was already covered.
> 
> If 6e is going to be more inclusive; it's time to hit the third rail: classes.
> 
> Assuming we keep classes in D&D, there are a few names that need rethinking.
> 
> 
> Barbarian: "a person from an alien land, culture, or group believed to be inferior, uncivilized, or violent" The class has all the negative connotations that we have associated with Orcs and other "savage" humanoids.
> Druid:  Very culturally specific and doesn't have any connection to shapechanging nature-priests in game. In addition, it refers to a living religion (as part of the neopagan/Wiccan tradition).
> Monk: Obviously, a stand-in for Shaolin/Eastern mysticism, it is a sliver of all the OA troublesome tropes put in a single class.
> Paladin: Probably the least offensive of the list, but very specific to a certain time/era and deserves to remain a class about as much as samurai, cavalier/chevalier, and any other single order of warriors does.
> Warlock: Assuming the masculine of witch, we run into similar problems with neopaganism and add on a dose of negative stereotyping of being "evil devil worshippers"
> 
> (As an aside, the fact that 5e seems unable to provide rangers and sorcerers with a strong mechanical niche probably would mean if we are removing the above classes, those two could also go not for inclusionary purposes but for mechanical redundancy.)
> 
> Now, to replace these options, we have a few choices: One is to rename them (barbarian = berserker, paladin = champion) but that seems a band-aid at best. Some could become sub-classes to much more flexible/broader archetype classes (warrior, cleric, rogue, mage) or possibly builds in a more "build your own class" system (akin to 2e's skills and powers or even Mutants and Masterminds).



Those are nice recommendations. I'll add them to the list. 

Also, I think naming Barbarians "Berserkers" in 6e would fit, and be a nice change. Paladin could be called the Knight or Sworn Champion. Warlock could be a Pactkeeper or something like that if it changes. What would you recommend for the Monk or Druid?


----------



## jmartkdr2

GreenTengu said:


> Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.
> 
> To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.
> 
> But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.
> 
> Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.
> 
> But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG and let the Grognards drive the name of Dungeons and Dragons into the grave. Really, I can't help but feel more and more ashamed about the attitudes of so many players who are in the hobbies I enjoyed. It is hard to really understand why what always struck me as the hobbies of the outsiders became the realm of well.... disclusionary people. In the very least, I thought those people peeled off long ago to be funneled into various OSR games.
> 
> But maybe what we need is the opposite of an OSR game. I have seen 13th Age and Dungeon World make steps in the right direction, though I cannot say I totally agree with everything they have done. Even Pathfinder 2 seems to be ahead of Dungeons and Dragons in fixing the worst aspects.
> 
> I understand that we are all attached to the D&D name and concept but... maybe it is time to let it go. Maybe it is time to let it crash and burn. It was the first, and for that it deserves respect, but by being the first it seems that it attracted and attached to itself far too many people who, after being mistreated by others, desire nothing more than to pass that mistreatment onto other people so as to feel superior. And maybe it is theirs-- they can have it and bring it down with them. And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.
> 
> Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.



I'm going to push back on this, because I think you're missing a thing:

Part of the fun of rpg's is immersing yourself in a different world. A world where magic is real and elves are just down the street drinking tea. In order to immerse yourself in the world, you need the feeling that it plays by a set of rules. Different rules, maybe, and you might not know all of them, but rules that apply there. And those rules, to feel like real rules, need to always apply unless a specific exception is made. Or else the whole thing falls apart because the curtain came crashing down. 

And one of the ways you can ruin it for some people is to have different rules for pc's. Many don't mind, but many players very much do. 

Which cycles back to racial ability score adjustments: if the rules state that halfings and orcs have the same strength, or even the same range of strength, that's going to feel weird - but the worse answer is for the rules to say orcs are stronger than halflings _unless they're pc's_ - that's going to break the entire idea that this is a real-ish place. 

For some players, racial ability scores aren't a trope - they're a defining feature of the setting and removing them makes the setting less real. Verisimilitudinous, I guess would be the better word.

That's a tough compromise to manage. It also, I feel, has little to do with inclusivity unless the races code as real world races a little too well, and that's a problem being actively worked on as we change the lore for orcs and such.


----------



## Remathilis

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Those are nice recommendations. I'll add them to the list.
> 
> Also, I think naming Barbarians "Berserkers" in 6e would fit, and be a nice change. Paladin could be called the Knight or Sworn Champion. Warlock could be a Pactkeeper or something like that if it changes. What would you recommend for the Monk or Druid?



It's tricky. I'm partial to how Arcana Evolved did it: the class names are more descriptive than archetypal (Oathsworn, Greenbond, Magister, etc). 

Classes are going to be a twofold issue though. The two parts that need to be addressed is a.) Does this class warrant a full class or is it narrow enough to be a subclass and b.) If it does, what do we do with the archetype attached to it? For example, perhaps a 6e fighter will be more flexible and could encompass a ranger, berserker, paladin, samurai, martial artist and knight set of archetypes. In that case, I see less of an issue with the name paladin since it emulates one archetype of many. 

This is also predicted on D&D wanting a clean break from it's traditions. A dangerous concept considering 4e's attempt at modernization and the reaction to it. No guarantee that it will want to go this far. However, if we have to look at race, alignment, even ability scores to determine if they have problematic elements, I think classes need a similar heart to heart moment. 

Maybe it's all for nothing, but I expect there will need to be a good look at some of the classic class archetypes to make sure they aren't doing the same thing CE orcs are.


----------



## Alzrius

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Also, I think naming Barbarians "Berserkers" in 6e would fit, and be a nice change.




Inspiring bards everywhere to sing, "my love for you is ticking clock, berserker..."


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Remathilis said:


> It's tricky. I'm partial to how Arcana Evolved did it: the class names are more descriptive than archetypal (Oathsworn, Greenbond, Magister, etc).
> 
> Classes are going to be a twofold issue though. The two parts that need to be addressed is a.) Does this class warrant a full class or is it narrow enough to be a subclass and b.) If it does, what do we do with the archetype attached to it? For example, perhaps a 6e fighter will be more flexible and could encompass a ranger, berserker, paladin, samurai, martial artist and knight set of archetypes. In that case, I see less of an issue with the name paladin since it emulates one archetype of many.
> 
> This is also predicted on D&D wanting a clean break from it's traditions. A dangerous concept considering 4e's attempt at modernization and the reaction to it. No guarantee that it will want to go this far. However, if we have to look at race, alignment, even ability scores to determine if they have problematic elements, I think classes need a similar heart to heart moment.
> 
> Maybe it's all for nothing, but I expect there will need to be a good look at some of the classic class archetypes to make sure they aren't doing the same thing CE orcs are.



I personally think that there should be more than one weapon focused class, and they shouldn't all be wrapped up into one "Fighter" class. Paladins, are, and should be distinct in D&D from clerics and fighters, IMO. Same with Rangers, Barbarians, and Sorcerers.


----------



## Remathilis

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I personally think that there should be more than one weapon focused class, and they shouldn't all be wrapped up into one "Fighter" class. Paladins, are, and should be distinct in D&D from clerics and fighters, IMO. Same with Rangers, Barbarians, and Sorcerers.



It's kinda a debate beyond the scope of this thread. Going by 5e standards, I totally agree. However, a potential 6e could do a lot to expand the scope and interaction of subclasses, the ability to swap class features (from the UA) and even some class identity. Mearls, before he became persona non grata, floated the idea of druids behing more focused on shape shifting rather than spellcasting. It might be possible to make a natural shape changer class and then use cleric or another spellcaster to emulate the nature-magic druid. Plenty of former classes got regulated to subclasses (assassin, illusionist, and warlord to name a few) and it might be possible to slide a few more in.

The point was to consider if certain class names or archetypes might be rooted in similar tropes that people raised with OA and orcs.


----------



## Maxperson

dnd4vr said:


> The nice thing is if WotC _does_ make changes people don't like, we can always house-rule it back.



There's a limit to the amount of changes I'll make.  I stuck with 3.5, because 4e made too many changes.  If 6e does half the things on that list, I'll stick with 5e or go back to 3.5.


----------



## Bacon Bits

Remathilis said:


> Hopping in late, sorry if this was already covered.
> 
> If 6e is going to be more inclusive; it's time to hit the third rail: classes.
> 
> Assuming we keep classes in D&D, there are a few names that need rethinking.
> 
> 
> Barbarian: "a person from an alien land, culture, or group believed to be inferior, uncivilized, or violent" The class has all the negative connotations that we have associated with Orcs and other "savage" humanoids.




I agree the class plays up the savage trope a bit too highly, I think Ranger and Barbarian should probably be merged but not for cultural reasons. I just don't think there is enough design space for Ranger anymore, squeezed between Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, Bard, and Rogue. It's too narrow of a design space. Nobody wants to play Davy Crockett or Daniel Boone anymore. Very few still playing grew up watching horse operas and glorifying the Indian Wars anymore, and even fewer want to relive that. That's why Ranger tends to become "the archer class" or "the pet class" or "the two weapon fighting class" and none of those are enough to make a class around. I'd rather just see a class for _a warrior from a wilderness heritage_. By merging Barbarian and Ranger, you can have that and the character can choose to be either from a native tribe or otherwise.

However, I don't think the idea of "not problematic" is "no cultural references at all". I think that's the way of a generic RPG death. When you strip out everything from the setting from your classes, you risk disconnecting your campaign setting from your mechanics entirely. That will make it difficult to translate the mechanics in the book to the setting you're playing with. I think that's what made Dark Sun so compelling and interesting, while Planescape had interesting, but nearly impenetrable lore that it was almost impossible to run a campaign for. Dark Sun rewrote all the classes to fit the setting. Planescape had this massively complex world, and then took the regular classes and PCs from FR and Greyhawk and tried to fit them into this weirdly shaped box they weren't built for.



> Druid:  Very culturally specific and doesn't have any connection to shapechanging nature-priests in game. In addition, it refers to a living religion (as part of the neopagan/Wiccan tradition).




Eh, I don't think so. The witch-cult hypothesis is pretty heavily discredited by historians at this point, regardless of how pervasive it remains in some Wiccan circles. Wicca is an early/mid 20th century religion. I'm not saying we don't have to respect modern Wiccans or that it's not a legitimate religion, but Druid isn't trying to represent modern Wicca.

Furthermore, even if that weren't the case I don't think that Druid is a disrespectful treatment. Druid, Bard, and all the other elements from Celtic and Gaelic traditions are portrayed positively even if it's not exactly how every historical record presents them. It doesn't portray druids as evil, savage, etc. It's portrayed as a _different_ tradition, and not one that is any less valid. They don't include human sacrifice or any of the depraved things the Romans accused them of.

Simply put, I think if Druid is problematic in it's presentation, then Cleric is as well.



> Monk: Obviously, a stand-in for Shaolin/Eastern mysticism, it is a sliver of all the OA troublesome tropes put in a single class.
> Paladin: Probably the least offensive of the list, but very specific to a certain time/era and deserves to remain a class about as much as samurai, cavalier/chevalier, and any other single order of warriors does.




Again, I don't find these disrespectful. Merely stating that they were inspired by pop culture tropes isn't enough to _remove the class entirely_.

Orcs as inherently evil is disrespectful because it portrays a race using the same dehumanizing terms and tropes that were used to dehumanize countless people in human history. It's problematic because it's dehumanizing, race-based violence. The problem is the dehumanization and the violence. We shouldn't accept dehumanization as a passe element of our games. We should not accept race-based violence justified by dehumanization from ostensibly good characters. But there needs to be something that problematic to actually be problematic. "That's from a different culture" isn't enough. "That's potentially offensive to some theoretical group" isn't enough. It's got to actually portray the culture negatively (e.g., Vistani portrayal in CoS) or misappropriate it to an extent that harms the original cultural.

Monk might be based on the Kung Fu TV series, and Paladin based on Three Hearts Three Lions, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to have a wuxia-inspired class, or impossible to have Song of Roland inspired knights. It's not like depictions of wuxia from Chinese pop culture (or Japanese depictions of ninja or samurai) are particularly devoid of tropes, either. Arguably, the inclusion of Monk makes D&D _more_ inclusive because it means that characters from wuxia have a place in the D&D setting. The key is whether or not you're respectful about it.

If it's not disrespectful, I find it hard to discard it due to cultural misappropriation. If _merely using_ a historical culture's traditions is reason enough to stop using something, then _the entire speculative fiction genre_ falls apart. Indeed, much of _fiction and non-fiction_ starts to fall apart if we start to require perfect cultural authenticity from creators. If we're going to require perfect authenticity in order to create any form of art, then that's a real problem. It's got to be more toxic than "that's not explicitly from the creators' personal heritage." We're not doing cultures any favors by _not_ incorporating their beliefs or ideas or expressions. It's putting them on a pedestal like a museum piece and letting them rot. It's excluding them from being an acceptable part of other cultures. We must accept that there is a healthy and positive way to include elements from other cultures in our creative works. Look at the response to Ghosts of Tsushima. Toshihiro Nagoshi goes out of his way to talk about decisions that Sucker Punch were able to make as an American company which a Japanese company wouldn't make. This is the value of adapting material from other cultures. If you do it respectfully, you can create something of value to _both_ cultures in ways that neither could accomplish alone.

And I don't think we actually want to use things without changing anything. I think we would reject a game that only included cultural elements if presented as accurately as possible. For example, how do we balance the fact that women were historically not included in the ranks of knighthood with our modern ideas of gender equality? There's no way you're going to publish a game in 2020 that says "women can't be knights in this fantasy world." Obviously, we already know that it's acceptable to adapt that part of historic culture to fit ours. It's possible to do that and _still_ be respectful. It's certainly possible to do the same elsewhere.

Improving the game going forward is not a game of "I can identify cultural influences" combined with whack-a-mole to eliminate every single one. That's just a reactionary response. It's missing the point of inclusivity. Missing the point of progressivism. It's going through the motions without caring about the meaning or context of what you're looking at. It's saying, "Mike Mearls isn't an Asian so he can't make a Monk. He's a Christian so he can't make a Druid or a Bard," etc. That's not progressive. It's just proscriptive. It does exactly what it shouldn't: boil down the author into _what_ they are and use that as the only lens for determining the authenticity of their creation. Authenticity in art is important, but cultural authenticity is not the only kind of authenticity there is. It's not the sum total of who a creator is or what a creation is. Authenticity is extraordinarily complex. Boiling it down to judging the race, nationality, religion, and personal heritage of the authors is just as problematic as taking real world races, nationalities, religions, and personal heritages and essentializing them in a work without any respect paid beyond the stereotypes and surface level trappings.


----------



## Hussar

Remathilis said:


> It's tricky. I'm partial to how Arcana Evolved did it: the class names are more descriptive than archetypal (Oathsworn, Greenbond, Magister, etc).




WotC tried to do this with 4e and people lost their collective minds.  I really don't think you'll have much luck here.


----------



## Hussar

Remathilis said:


> The point was to consider if certain class names or archetypes might be rooted in similar tropes that people raised with OA and orcs.




I'd also humbly suggest that if you think that class names and archetypes were the problems with OA and orcs, you may have missed the point.

The primary issue with OA is othering but, also, the fact that EVERY element of the area that OA was supposed to cover was boiled down to a single culture - Japan. Having a samurai class in the game isn't the problem.  Having every class based on Japanese culture, every piece of equipment based on Japanese culture and actually USING Japanese language to describe setting elements, while completely ignoring the rest of the cultures that the setting book was supposed to draw from was the problem.

The problem with orcs isn't that they are evil.  That was never the problem.  The problem is that orc descriptions use language that mirror real world writing on issues like race and eugenics.  Strip that out and orcs are fine as is.  It takes removing about three sentences from orcs to fix orcs.

The real problem here is that folks are unwilling to accept that those are the issues and are insisting on inventing issues that don't actually exist.


----------



## roger semerad

*The default setting* - Make a new one that has only the most basic information needed to get started telling stories, and leaves a lot of room to make it your own. This new setting would carry forward a lot of the basic ideas that have shown up in various settings over the years, but nothing is exactly the same. So you might have things that remind you of the Forgotten Realms, but with a fresh spin on them.

*Alignments* - Remove them entirely from the rules, but have a small section in the DMG that describes them.  Basically just list them as additional variant gameworld ideologies, and/or roleplaying guides.

*Ability Scores* - Hear me out, I know this is going to be a big change, but I feel my ideas could help many areas of the game.  Ability scores are no longer added to attacks, damage, saves, or skill checks.  Reduce the number of skills to the bare minimum of essential adventurer focused stuff.  Now when you want to do something that isn't spelled out in the skill description you instead roll a relevant ability score instead.  You also roll your ability score if you are not trained in the skill.  Ability scores are now listed numerically like your proficiency bonus ( so no more 8-20 range, instead simply a bonus, like +0-6 ).  There would still be some derived traits from ability scores ( like carry weight ).

This accomplishes so many things at the same time.  First, since your ability scores are no longer linked to the things that you rely on the most you can bring back the idea of racial bonuses.  A Goliath can be intrinsically stronger than a Halfling without bringing along a mechanical deficiency for the Halfling.  A Halfling fighter can do the same amount of damage as the Goliath ( and you're free to interpret how that happens however you wish ).  Second, this reduces the value of an ability bonus.  In 5th edition ability bonuses are so powerful that including one in a race entry takes up a lot of the available design space.  With the reduced reliance on ability scores you could have larger bonuses without unbalancing things, and/or folks that don't have ability bonuses can be balanced with other features much more easily.  Third, this actually closely emulates how ability scores worked in the first two editions.  In those editions your ability scores were basically the skill system.  This idea calls back to that, but silos out the most important skills to be based on level and training.  So you don't have to worry about your thief sucking at disarm trap if you don't pick the "right" ability scores.  Ability scores will still influence what your character can do, but training bypasses it for the stuff you deem important to your character concept.  Fourth, this allows you to come up with your character's theme and abilities without having to min-max at all.  If you chose to be trained in climbing, you're just good at climbing.  If you have a bad strength score, you just assume that character isn't relying on strength for how they do something.

*Classes and Races* - Break it up into culture, folk, background, and class.  Each one of those has a deferent list of abilities/feats/skill training that you can chose from.

List culture first in the Player's Handbook character creation rules.  Having culture come first reinforces the idea that who your character *is* has more to do with upbringing than birth.  These cultures should mostly be based on a society rather than a specific folk.  If the new Player's handbook wants to be more inclusive, the list of available folks should be in the double digits at least.  With that many deferent folks running around most societies would be comprised of a mix of them.  There might be a few of these cultures that resemble the classic tropes of elves or dwarves, but the book won't describe them in a way that would exclude any specific folk.

Folk should have some traits assigned that you can't change, but should also give you a couple of choices too.  So there are *some* things common to all folk of a certain type while allowing a little wiggle room for how  your elfishness ( or other folkyness ) manifests.

Backgrounds should mostly stay the same, maybe with just a little more traits to chose from.

Classes would have a bit fewer traits assigned to them.  Giving more ground to the concepts of culture, folk, and background.  It would still be the most important part to how your character plays, just not quite as important as it is now.


----------



## Hussar

Bacon Bits said:


> Improving the game going forward is not a game of "I can identify cultural influences" combined with whack-a-mole to eliminate every single one. That's just a reactionary response. It's missing the point of inclusivity. Missing the point of progressivism. It's going through the motions without caring about the meaning or context of what you're looking at. It's saying, "Mike Mearls isn't an Asian so he can't make a Monk. He's a Christian so he can't make a Druid or a Bard," etc. That's not progressive. It's just proscriptive. It does exactly what it shouldn't: boil down the author into _what_ they are and use that as the only lens for determining the authenticity of their creation. Authenticity in art is important, but cultural authenticity is not the only kind of authenticity there is. It's not the sum total of who a creator is or what a creation is. Authenticity is extraordinarily complex. Boiling it down to judging the race, nationality, religion, and personal heritage of the authors is just as problematic as taking real world races, nationalities, religions, and personal heritages and essentializing them in a work without any respect paid beyond the stereotypes and surface level trappings.




Quote for truth and for saying what I wanted to say so much better than me.  Well done you sir.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Umbran said:


> "Object" is a strong word.
> 
> Eberron is rather steampunky.  But the steampunk fad is well past its peak.  Shifting your default to an aesthetic and themes that are a bit passe is probably not wise.



No, it's not.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Flavorful is a matter of one's personal tastes. I'm sorry if some of the recommended changes make the game seem less fun for you. I know a lot of them would make it more fun for me, and my players.




I don't think so. A bad flavor is still a flavor. I just want to see some ideas promoting inclusion that make the game more interesting rather than more generic. I want to see what that would look like.


----------



## GreenTengu

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, it's not.




I think it is no longer so much in vogue as it was 10 years ago.
In the 1980s, Dune and Mad Max were popular so Dark Sun was most relevant. There were also Saturday morning cartoons then and so Dragonlance, which very much had the feel of one with very cartoony characture races and a strong overall metaplot, was very much relevant. Mystara seems to have been inspired by adventure movies like the Goonies and Indiana Jones, and was most themed to explore forgotten areas of the world more than any other setting (it was also the setting for basic D&D, so the setting, like the system, was fairly simple.) The samurai craze of the late 1980s to mid 1990s is what prompted the Oriental Adventures setting.
In the 1990s Disney put out Aladin and TSR responded by putting out the Al-Qadim setting. When Jurassic Park came out and dinosaurs were in vogue, Forgotten Realms was sold as the dinosaur setting (once WotC took over though, the Drizzt series had taken off and the setting was rebranded). There was a monster/vampire craze from the late 1980s through the 1990s which is when Ravenloft was most relevant, and that was also the vibe that the World of Darkness games picked up on.
The 2000s was when Steampunk, Noir and Mystery were most in vogue, so that's why Eberron was chosen to be the "new D&D setting" near the end of 3.5. It was also the era of peak the MMORPG which is why Nentir Vale was created the way it was.

Pretty much every D&D setting was a response to the cultural zeitgeist at the time. It is actually a bit odd that 5E decided to go back and revisit a number of these instead of reacting to what was in the cultural zeitgeist for the 2010s.  I would have thought for sure we would have gotten a proper pirate setting. But, I suppose, because 5E from the start has been an over-reaction to people rejecting 4E, the team decided to simply cater to the older fans instead of creating something new.

And I do know that once something has been in the cultural zeitgeist during a person's lifetime, for some people that's just always going to be their most favorite thing. (Sometimes it is even something that was popular for their parents and so their parents passed on a bunch of stuff to the kids.) I probably wouldn't go as far to say that any of these are entirely passe and not worth engaging in-- but its just that the peak has sort of passed by.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

GreenTengu said:


> Pretty much every D&D setting was a response to the cultural zeitgeist at the time. It is actually a bit odd that 5E decided to go back and revisit a number of these instead of reacting to what was in the* cultural zeitgeist for the 2010s*.  I would have thought for sure we would have gotten a proper pirate setting. But, I suppose, because 5E from the start has been an over-reaction to people rejecting 4E, the team decided to simply cater to the older fans instead of creating something new.




Time to bring back *Blue Rose*.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

GreenTengu said:


> For more than half my life, I have wanted to play as a goblinoid race simply because I thought they looked like a fun extension of humanity without facing discrimination, but never have.
> 
> Every edition there is screwed me over in my desire to play a goblinoid character and told me that I am unwelcome. Never the players at the table, always the DM.



 Not fully connected to the thread, but do you have access to the two Eberron books?
They have some better racial stats for goblinoids and orcs, since they play a major part in the setting, not just as hostile antagonists.


----------



## GreenTengu

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Not fully connected to the thread, but do you have access to the two Eberron books?
> They have some better racial stats for goblinoids and orcs, since they play a major part in the setting, not just as hostile antagonists.




A few D&D settings have ways to allow for human-friendly goblinoids and orcs written into their core. It was perfectly possible and reasonable to see in Forgotten Realms since the settings inception. In Al-Qadim, they were just regular citizens like everyone else. In Kingdoms of Kalamar, there were even half-Hobgoblins. I don't even think Gruumish nor Maglibiyet exist in Nentir Vale and so they worship the same gods as everyone else. Plainscape allows for just about everything. And even in GreyHawk, you could find yourself reincarnated as a goblinoid or orc or pick up followers of those races who could, presumably, go on to be adventurers of their own.

The thing is, you actually try to play one though, and you will get handed a set of half-baked stats that can't really be used to make a functional character outside of maybe one or two very specific class builds. And even then they are generally considered unofficial and unsanctioned.


----------



## TheSword

GreenTengu said:


> I think it is no longer so much in vogue as it was 10 years ago.
> In the 1980s, Dune and Mad Max were popular so Dark Sun was most relevant. There were also Saturday morning cartoons then and so Dragonlance, which very much had the feel of one with very cartoony characture races and a strong overall metaplot, was very much relevant. Mystara seems to have been inspired by adventure movies like the Goonies and Indiana Jones, and was most themed to explore forgotten areas of the world more than any other setting (it was also the setting for basic D&D, so the setting, like the system, was fairly simple.) The samurai craze of the late 1980s to mid 1990s is what prompted the Oriental Adventures setting.
> In the 1990s Disney put out Aladin and TSR responded by putting out the Al-Qadim setting. When Jurassic Park came out and dinosaurs were in vogue, Forgotten Realms was sold as the dinosaur setting (once WotC took over though, the Drizzt series had taken off and the setting was rebranded). There was a monster/vampire craze from the late 1980s through the 1990s which is when Ravenloft was most relevant, and that was also the vibe that the World of Darkness games picked up on.
> The 2000s was when Steampunk, Noir and Mystery were most in vogue, so that's why Eberron was chosen to be the "new D&D setting" near the end of 3.5. It was also the era of peak the MMORPG which is why Nentir Vale was created the way it was.
> 
> Pretty much every D&D setting was a response to the cultural zeitgeist at the time. It is actually a bit odd that 5E decided to go back and revisit a number of these instead of reacting to what was in the cultural zeitgeist for the 2010s.  I would have thought for sure we would have gotten a proper pirate setting. But, I suppose, because 5E from the start has been an over-reaction to people rejecting 4E, the team decided to simply cater to the older fans instead of creating something new.
> 
> And I do know that once something has been in the cultural zeitgeist during a person's lifetime, for some people that's just always going to be their most favorite thing. (Sometimes it is even something that was popular for their parents and so their parents passed on a bunch of stuff to the kids.) I probably wouldn't go as far to say that any of these are entirely passe and not worth engaging in-- but its just that the peak has sort of passed by.



So I hate to break it to you but your causality is so mixed up it’s painful. I can only assume your references were based on a hunch as even a cursory look at dates show this is wrong.

Mad Max was 1979, 81 and 85, Dune was 1985. Yet Dark Sun wasn’t released until six years later in 1991. There were also re-releases of Darksun in 2010.

Al Quadim was released in 1992 whereas Aladdin wasn’t released until November that same year... even faster writing!

Mad Max was 1979, 81 and 85, Dune was 1985. Yet Dark Sun wasn’t released until six years later in 1991. There were also re-releases of Darksun in 2010. Without any more Dune or Mad Max.

Jurassic Park was released in 1993, whereas the saurials were featured in 1988 with Curse of the Azure bonds and Chult’s dinosaurs were detailed in Ring of Winter 1992.

Hammer Horror films ran through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, and horror is just as popular now as it’s always been. Ravenloft was first published in 1983 and has existed in some form or other for every edition bar 4th.

The samurai craze of the 80’s and mid 90’s? Crouching Tiger 2000, Hero 2002, Last Samurai 2003, and House of Flying Daggers 2004 are the biggest historical/fantasy films featuring East Asia in the last 40 years as best as I recall.

Eberron in 2004 was influenced by Pulp Noir, among a wide range of things. Some of the influences were mentioned in 3e campaign setting book... the one I always remember is The Maltese Falcon (1941) Steam punk had been going strong since the late 1980s with studio Ghibli and a host of novels like Infernal Devices. So saying that it was a 2000’s steam punk craze that made Eberron popular is odd.

It’s not that you’re wrong that D&D is influenced by culture. Of course d&d is derivative, but you’re just plain wrong about the simplicity of the influences. There is a huge body of fiction, myth, art, tv and film that have influenced d&d. Some of it like the Arabian Nights, The art of Brom, or the novels of Troy Denning, or Ed Greenwood. You’re ignoring the popularity of vintage, or the fact that as adults we often want to write about what we enjoyed as kids.

Ironically the edition most derivative of its time and dismissive of other times was 4e when it jumped on the MMORG band wagon forgetting the rich history and influences that went before it, much to the chagrin of D&Ds fans... particularly the forgotten realms. With the loss of popularity of MMORG the 4e experiment died a death. The other editions and settings seem to be eternal whereas Nentir Vale is a footnote.

I’d be grateful if you could tell me what the Zeigtgeist for 2010s is. So far it appears to be nostalgic referencing of earlier ideas (stranger things), TV of books from the 90’s (Game of Thrones) and film adaptions from previous decades comic books, music remixes, Disney live action releases. Etc etc etc. 

That seems to be exactly was WOC is doing now... sounds like a good strategy to me.


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> A few D&D settings have ways to allow for human-friendly goblinoids and orcs written into their core. It was perfectly possible and reasonable to see in Forgotten Realms since the settings inception. In Al-Qadim, they were just regular citizens like everyone else. In Kingdoms of Kalamar, there were even half-Hobgoblins. I don't even think Gruumish nor Maglibiyet exist in Nentir Vale and so they worship the same gods as everyone else. Plainscape allows for just about everything. And even in GreyHawk, you could find yourself reincarnated as a goblinoid or orc or pick up followers of those races who could, presumably, go on to be adventurers of their own.
> 
> The thing is, you actually try to play one though, and you will get handed a set of half-baked stats that can't really be used to make a functional character outside of maybe one or two very specific class builds. And even then they are generally considered unofficial and unsanctioned.




In 3.5, the monsters as characters are right in the SRD. That feels pretty sanctioned. I can see some DMs not wanting them if they don't fit the milieu of the game they're running, but it feels like a DM running one of the settings you mention above might be unreasonable for not letting you play one - I'd be curious what they're reasoning was. On the other hand, I've also seen games that didn't have some (or even any) of the PhB non-human races because they didn't fit a particular world.

In 3.5, relative to each other, the
Goblin gets: +10 movement rate,  Darkvision, +2 on Move Silently, +4 Ride
Halfling gets:  +2 Chr, +2 Climb, Jump, Listen, +1 Saves, +2 saves on Fear, +1 Sling

So in 3.5 the Goblin is sub-optimal for the Bard, Paladin, and Sorcerer in terms of Charisma, but doesn't seem particularly off for me on the other eight classes. I'm missing how that makes them not a functional character outside of one or two very specific class builds. How much needs to change about the Goblin to make it just as "half-baked" as the other PC races?

I don't have the Volo's Guide for 5e, how do they work there? The reviews for the Goblins seem mixed for power level? Having a Volo's Guide on it, again, feels pretty sanctioned in any case (especially if I'm correct that they're officially allowed in Adventurer's League games).

In 3.5, the Orc is definitely shoe-horned away from the Int/Wis/Chr classes - but that seems to fit with their description in the MM. They have the same net -2 as all the other races, nothing particularly great, and daylight sensitivity. That one does feel sad as a PC race. The reviews for 5e don't seem particularly great for them either.


----------



## Remathilis

Hussar said:


> I'd also humbly suggest that if you think that class names and archetypes were the problems with OA and orcs, you may have missed the point.
> 
> The primary issue with OA is othering but, also, the fact that EVERY element of the area that OA was supposed to cover was boiled down to a single culture - Japan. Having a samurai class in the game isn't the problem. Having every class based on Japanese culture, every piece of equipment based on Japanese culture and actually USING Japanese language to describe setting elements, while completely ignoring the rest of the cultures that the setting book was supposed to draw from was the problem.
> 
> The problem with orcs isn't that they are evil. That was never the problem. The problem is that orc descriptions use language that mirror real world writing on issues like race and eugenics. Strip that out and orcs are fine as is. It takes removing about three sentences from orcs to fix orcs.
> 
> The real problem here is that folks are unwilling to accept that those are the issues and are insisting on inventing issues that don't actually exist.



No, I'm suggesting that they raise similar issues with language used to describe them. Barbarians are savage, primal, emotional, full of rage and uncivilized, similar racial tropes to what orcs get (no wonder what a archetypal half-orc PC is). Monks on the other hand are exoticized as being the only class that fights using martial arts, has pseudo-Magical ki abilities, and tends to fight with "Asian" weapons like bo staves and nunchucks. 

I'm saying they aren't there same, but they may raise similar concerns and might need to be addressed while we are doing a wholesale review of the game for the next edition. 

Then again, if no party is raising objection, maybe nothing need be done and we can keep the names and classes as they are (save for revised mechanics like all editions get). I'd just like to see it looked at before we're five years into 6th edition and social media is posting about how Barbarian, Monk, Druid and Warlock are Problematic and should have been changed...


----------



## TheSword

Remathilis said:


> No, I'm suggesting that they raise similar issues with language used to describe them. Barbarians are savage, primal, emotional, full of rage and uncivilized, similar racial tropes to what orcs get (no wonder what a archetypal half-orc PC is). Monks on the other hand are exoticized as being the only class that fights using martial arts, has pseudo-Magical ki abilities, and tends to fight with "Asian" weapons like bo staves and nunchucks.
> 
> I'm saying they aren't there same, but they may raise similar concerns and might need to be addressed while we are doing a wholesale review of the game for the next edition.
> 
> Then again, if no party is raising objection, maybe nothing need be done and we can keep the names and classes as they are (save for revised mechanics like all editions get). I'd just like to see it looked at before we're five years into 6th edition and social media is posting about how Barbarian, Monk, Druid and Warlock are Problematic and should have been changed...



Barbarians with their rage are first and foremost based on northern Europeans, Danes, Saxons, Vikings, Northmen, Frisians, Celts, Goths, Vandals, Huns. Whatever you want to call them throughout history they were hardly an oppressed category, they gave the Romans a run for their money.

This is the problem where people try to make assumptions about influence and then because of those assumptions say something is bad/wrong/fun. You should be letting real harm be the thing that drives change, not tautological arguments.

“Social Media” is a bad reason to do anything of substance.


----------



## TheSword

Alignment has nothing to do with inclusiveness or exclusiveness. It’s just a less specific and more ephemeral version of factions.

People make choices that may be anti-inclusive - like evil orcs - but that is not a result of the alignment system. It’s due the writers’ view on Orcs.

It’s not bigoted to make that point, and by lumping everything in together and calling those that disagree bigots, or excluding them from the conversation you undermine the overall argument.

The premise is good, that progress is on the whole needed and a lot of the suggestions are sensible.

Add positive examples and only subtract where things are gratuitous.


----------



## Maxperson

GreenTengu said:


> Pretty much every D&D setting was a response to the cultural zeitgeist at the time. It is actually a bit odd that 5E decided to go back and revisit a number of these instead of reacting to what was in the cultural zeitgeist for the 2010s.  I would have thought for sure we would have gotten a proper pirate setting. But, I suppose, because 5E from the start has been an over-reaction to people rejecting 4E, the team decided to simply cater to the older fans instead of creating something new.
> 
> And I do know that once something has been in the cultural zeitgeist during a person's lifetime, for some people that's just always going to be their most favorite thing. (Sometimes it is even something that was popular for their parents and so their parents passed on a bunch of stuff to the kids.) I probably wouldn't go as far to say that any of these are entirely passe and not worth engaging in-- but its just that the peak has sort of passed by.




New(4e) had been soundly rejected and they apparently did something right, because 5e is very successful.


----------



## Remathilis

TheSword said:


> Barbarians with their rage are first and foremost based on northern Europeans, Danes, Saxons, Vikings, Northmen, Frisians, Celts, Goths, Vandals, Huns. Whatever you want to call them throughout history they were hardly an oppressed category, they gave the Romans a run for their money.
> 
> This is the problem where people try to make assumptions about influence and then because of those assumptions say something is bad/wrong/fun. You should be letting real harm be the thing that drives change, not tautological arguments.
> 
> “Social Media” is a bad reason to do anything of substance.




Sure, the concept of wild raging barbarians can represent the European tribes like Vikings, but the same tropes used to describe them were used to describe the Huns, or "headhunter" tribes of Africa, or Native Americans in the old West. "The natives are restless tonight." Isn't just describing the Visigoths! 

That said, you may be right, it's a mountain out of a molehill. I'd would have said the same thing about orcs until two months ago. Then a lot of digital ink got poured on race, always evil monsters, OA, etc. It didn't take very long to go from praise of the PHB's inclusive artwork and stance on gender to people criticizing it as perpetuating racist/sexist/ableist tropes and calling for boycotts on future products. 

The world is changing faster than most thought possible, and media is being held to account for it's role in the old regime. It's happening in music, movies, tv, comics, novels, and video games, and it is happening in table top games as well. The question is if we are going to be proactive and look for the problems or reactive and keep changing things only when the outcry is deafening?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

GreenTengu said:


> I think it is no longer so much in vogue as it was 10 years ago.
> In the 1980s, Dune and Mad Max were popular so Dark Sun was most relevant. There were also Saturday morning cartoons then and so Dragonlance, which very much had the feel of one with very cartoony characture races and a strong overall metaplot, was very much relevant. Mystara seems to have been inspired by adventure movies like the Goonies and Indiana Jones, and was most themed to explore forgotten areas of the world more than any other setting (it was also the setting for basic D&D, so the setting, like the system, was fairly simple.) The samurai craze of the late 1980s to mid 1990s is what prompted the Oriental Adventures setting.
> In the 1990s Disney put out Aladin and TSR responded by putting out the Al-Qadim setting. When Jurassic Park came out and dinosaurs were in vogue, Forgotten Realms was sold as the dinosaur setting (once WotC took over though, the Drizzt series had taken off and the setting was rebranded). There was a monster/vampire craze from the late 1980s through the 1990s which is when Ravenloft was most relevant, and that was also the vibe that the World of Darkness games picked up on.
> The 2000s was when Steampunk, Noir and Mystery were most in vogue, so that's why Eberron was chosen to be the "new D&D setting" near the end of 3.5. It was also the era of peak the MMORPG which is why Nentir Vale was created the way it was.
> 
> Pretty much every D&D setting was a response to the cultural zeitgeist at the time. It is actually a bit odd that 5E decided to go back and revisit a number of these instead of reacting to what was in the cultural zeitgeist for the 2010s.  I would have thought for sure we would have gotten a proper pirate setting. But, I suppose, because 5E from the start has been an over-reaction to people rejecting 4E, the team decided to simply cater to the older fans instead of creating something new.
> 
> And I do know that once something has been in the cultural zeitgeist during a person's lifetime, for some people that's just always going to be their most favorite thing. (Sometimes it is even something that was popular for their parents and so their parents passed on a bunch of stuff to the kids.) I probably wouldn't go as far to say that any of these are entirely passe and not worth engaging in-- but its just that the peak has sort of passed by.



I’m saying Eberron isn’t Steampunk.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m saying Eberron isn’t Steampunk.




You're welcome to your opinion, of course.  I am not concerned with whether or not the world actually fits your personal genre definition.

I did an image search for Eberron art - in the first three images I get airships, trains, mechanical men, and firearms.  The setting has artificers - magical science. 

Steampunky seems to apply.


----------



## Cadence

Umbran said:


> Steampunky seems to apply.




Google turned up Eberron isn't Steampunk Which offered three things it was missing to be Steampunk, and offered Magipunk instead.

In any case, Steampunk does seam to get brought up in a lot of the reviews of Eberron.

Stolen from: McGhiever's Fantasy Dioramas: Eberron campaign

Doc (Frostcloud): Eberron is steampunk.
Jon (Nukumal): Except for the dearth of steam and punk.
Doc (Frostcloud): Overlooking the fire and water elementals they keep combining to make steam, sure.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Umbran said:


> You're welcome to your opinion, of course.  I am not concerned with whether or not the world actually fits the technical genre definition.
> 
> I did an image search for Eberron art - in the first three images I get airships, trains, mechanical men, and firearms.  The setting has artificers - magical science.
> 
> Steampunky seems to apply.



No, it doesn't apply. There are no clockworks, no steam power, no Victorian social norms being portrayed and subverted, nor Victorian fashion and architecture, the "technology" doesn't look at all like something out of H.G. Wells, I could go on. 

Hell, all the things you list apply to Forgotten Realms. 

The idea that Eberron doesn't work as a default setting could be reasonable, but the idea that it's because the setting is too "Steampunk" is just laughable.


----------



## TheSword

Cadence said:


> Google turned up Eberron isn't Steampunk Which offered three things it was missing to be Steampunk, and offered Magipunk instead.
> 
> In any case, Steampunk does seam to get brought up in a lot of the reviews of Eberron.
> 
> Stolen from: McGhiever's Fantasy Dioramas: Eberron campaign
> 
> Doc (Frostcloud): Eberron is steampunk.
> Jon (Nukumal): Except for the dearth of steam and punk.
> Doc (Frostcloud): Overlooking the fire and water elementals they keep combining to make steam, sure.



Not sure there is any steam as such. Also the mechanical men are made out of magic and wood as much as metal.

The big missing element is the Victoriana. I don’t think Eberron comes across like that at all.

Really it crosses a lot of genres. It an interesting setting.

It shouldn’t be the default setting though because it’s too high fantasy, and you can’t really get away from that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> Google turned up Eberron isn't Steampunk Which offered three things it was missing to be Steampunk, and offered Magipunk instead.
> 
> In any case, Steampunk does seam to get brought up in a lot of the reviews of Eberron.
> 
> Stolen from: McGhiever's Fantasy Dioramas: Eberron campaign
> 
> Doc (Frostcloud): Eberron is steampunk.
> Jon (Nukumal): Except for the dearth of steam and punk.
> Doc (Frostcloud): Overlooking the fire and water elementals they keep combining to make steam, sure.



Nothing in Eberron is powered by steam. Or clockworks.


----------



## TheSword

Now pathfinder does have several steampunk elements. With Galt, clockwork dragons, Frankenstein’s monsters etc etc


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nothing in Eberron is powered by steam. Or clockworks.




As the OP in the first link I gave said...



Hardhead said:


> Steampunk has:
> 
> Clockwork creatures
> Guns
> STEAM power (thus the name)
> Eberron has none of those things.




And then someone offered Magipunk.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

TheSword said:


> Not sure there is any steam as such. Also the mechanical men are made out of magic and wood as much as metal.
> 
> The big missing element is the Victoriana. I don’t think Eberron comes across like that at all.
> 
> Really it crosses a lot of genres. It an interesting setting.
> 
> It shouldn’t be the default setting though because it’s too high fantasy, and you can’t really get away from that.



Exactly. The warforged aren't mechanical. Literally at all. They're organic constructs of living wood and stone with metal plating. ANd you genuinely can't be Steampunk while lacking both the signature technology of Steampunk _and _the signature sociopolitical elements _and_ the signature aesthetic.  

At most, you've got a world that has a few similar themes. What Eberron is, is a Pulp Fantasy Noir setting. The sociopolitics are all over the map and timeline, the aesthetic is a mix of High Fantasy, Pulp/Noir, and traditional psuedo-Medieval Fantasy, the tech level is kinda early 19th century but all tech is just magical, not mechanical, and the stories the world is built for are mostly classic Pulp and Noir stories with a Fantasy flair.


----------



## TheSword

Remathilis said:


> Sure, the concept of wild raging barbarians can represent the European tribes like Vikings, but the same tropes used to describe them were used to describe the Huns, or "headhunter" tribes of Africa, or Native Americans in the old West. "The natives are restless tonight." Isn't just describing the Visigoths!
> 
> That said, you may be right, it's a mountain out of a molehill. I'd would have said the same thing about orcs until two months ago. Then a lot of digital ink got poured on race, always evil monsters, OA, etc. It didn't take very long to go from praise of the PHB's inclusive artwork and stance on gender to people criticizing it as perpetuating racist/sexist/ableist tropes and calling for boycotts on future products.
> 
> The world is changing faster than most thought possible, and media is being held to account for it's role in the old regime. It's happening in music, movies, tv, comics, novels, and video games, and it is happening in table top games as well. The question is if we are going to be proactive and look for the problems or reactive and keep changing things only when the outcry is deafening?



There is a balance to be struck, between being too proactive and demonizing things that are actually cause no harm.

I don’t think the phrase ‘the natives are restless tonight’ ever described the visigoths... it was a British Empire expression. There isn’t anything inherantly racist about the idea of a barbarian. That’s my point I guess. The trope of raging barbarians doesn’t fit native Americans or Zulu warriors without some serious twisting. It perfectly fits Viking warriors. Maybe the solution is to stop using barbarians to represent native American style characters.

When someone makes a convincing case that barbarians are systemically racist in the same way that orcs are then we can talk about it. Until that point it’s probably not worth stressing about.


----------



## Remathilis

Umbran said:


> You're welcome to your opinion, of course. I am not concerned with whether or not the world actually fits the technical genre definition.
> 
> I did an image search for Eberron art - in the first three images I get airships, trains, mechanical men, and firearms. The setting has artificers - magical science.
> 
> Steampunky seems to apply.



I mean, Dark Sun is a beach setting because I see sand, sun, and people not wearing much clothes, so sure, let's go with that.


----------



## Argyle King

If ability scores are divorced from Ancestry/Lineage/etc selection, what effect would that choice have on character creation and why does the choice remain relevant? 

If dwarves are functionally identical to elves, is there is a reason for both to exist?


----------



## TheSword

In fairness, it does look pretty steampunk lol.















I mean I know it isn’t but


----------



## doctorbadwolf

TheSword said:


> There is a balance to be struck, between being too proactive and demonizing things that are actually cause no harm.
> 
> I don’t think the phrase ‘the natives are restless tonight’ ever described the visigoths... it was a British Empire expression. There isn’t anything inherantly racist about the idea of a barbarian. That’s my point I guess. *The trope of raging barbarians doesn’t fit native Americans or Zulu warriors without some serious twisting. It perfectly fits Viking warriors. Maybe the solution is to stop using barbarians to represent native American style characters.*
> 
> When someone makes a convincing case that barbarians are systemically racist in the same way that orcs are then we can talk about it. Until that point it’s probably not worth stressing about.



I think that you hit the nail on the head. Using Barbarians for every culture that isn't "civilised" in a way easily recognizable from a Western POV is just silly. The Apache, so far as I know, never had berserkers of any kind. The Mongols didn't do drugs and work themselves into a frenzy. The various people of the Iroquois Federation didn't run mouth frothing into battle without care for self or tactics or sanity. 

Instead, those are Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, with different gear sets than their European counterparts.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Johnny3D3D said:


> If ability scores are divorced from Ancestry/Lineage/etc selection, what effect would that choice have on character creation and why does the choice remain relevant?
> 
> If dwarves are functionally identical to elves, is there is a reason for both to exist?



Do they become identical just because they don't have different stat bumps? All their other different traits (and dwarves are kinda short on actual traits in 5e, IMO) surely distinguish them, still?


----------



## jmartkdr2

Johnny3D3D said:


> If ability scores are divorced from Ancestry/Lineage/etc selection, what effect would that choice have on character creation and why does the choice remain relevant?
> 
> If dwarves are functionally identical to elves, is there is a reason for both to exist?



The second question is answered by: "if removing the ability adjustments made the races the exactly same, why have races at all? You could just re-create all of them using variant humans!" But there's more to races than ASIs - and most of the specific features (ie trance, stonecunnning) are more distinctive and therefore do a better job making races feel distinct from each other. Just geting rid of the ability adjustment does not, when I've used a houserule to do that, make the races all feel the same. 

BUT, if we're looking at this purely from an inclusivity standpoint, it's a distinction without difference. Either racial features promote race-essentialist thinking or they don't. Ability adjustments aren't significantly different form other features in this regard. You could take that to mean the entire concept of races as a game mechanic is problematic, and your logic would be both valid and reasonable, but the only solution is to remove races as a game mechanic entirely, which I think crosses into not-D&D for a lot of people. 

You could remove racial ability adjustments as a compromise option, because the other features tend to be more overtly magical/inhuman, but like most compromise option this doesn't really make anyone truly happy. 

On the first point: there's whole other threads about this, but the gameplay advantage would be in opening up more 'viable' character concepts. Changing racial ASI's is one way to do this, and there are some really simple ways to implement it. But that's not really an inclusivity argument.


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think that you hit the nail on the head. Using Barbarians for every culture that isn't "civilised" in a way easily recognizable from a Western POV is just silly. The Apache, so far as I know, never had berserkers of any kind. The Mongols didn't do drugs and work themselves into a frenzy. The various people of the Iroquois Federation didn't run mouth frothing into battle without care for self or tactics or sanity.
> 
> Instead, those are Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, with different gear sets than their European counterparts.



This argument hinges on the idea that when you say "barbarian", the person you're talking to immediately thinks of the barbarian as described by the rules of DnD, or one of the cultures that archetype is based on.

For people who do not play DnD (the ones we're worried about excluding), I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. I'm also not sure it's safe to assume any other perception - I'd need good statistics to believe any position on that. Otherwise we're just guessing there's a problem (or not).


----------



## TheSword

jmartkdr2 said:


> This argument hinges on the idea that when you say "barbarian", the person you're talking to immediately thinks of the barbarian as described by the rules of DnD, or one of the cultures that archetype is based on.
> 
> For people who do not play DnD (the ones we're worried about excluding), I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. I'm also not sure it's safe to assume any other perception - I'd need good statistics to believe any position on that. Otherwise we're just guessing there's a problem (or not).



In the absence of evidence there is a problem I alway incline towards assuming there’s not a problem.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> This argument hinges on the idea that when you say "barbarian", the person you're talking to immediately thinks of the barbarian as described by the rules of DnD, or one of the cultures that archetype is based on.
> 
> For people who do not play DnD (the ones we're worried about excluding), I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. I'm also not sure it's safe to assume any other perception - I'd need good statistics to believe any position on that. Otherwise we're just guessing there's a problem (or not).



I think you're talking about something other than what I'm talking about. 

I'm not saying it's problematic (although it is), I'm saying that it's _stupid._ Seriously, read my post. You're responding to some stuff I didn't even say.


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think you're talking about something other than what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'm not saying it's problematic (although it is), I'm saying that it's _stupid._ Seriously, read my post. You're responding to some stuff I didn't even say.



Hold on, I'm confused:

The quoted text argues that the name isn't a problem. You open by agreeing with the quoted text: the name isn't a problem. 

You then say "it's stupid to use the word barbarian to describe all non-European cultures" (which is true but is one way the word is used.) Implying the the reason the name isn't a problem is that it doesn't mean non-white.

So whether or not the name implies non-civilized is pretty relevant, I would think. Unless you think the name is the problem, in which case you're first sentence in the above post means the opposite of that.


----------



## Remathilis

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think that you hit the nail on the head. Using Barbarians for every culture that isn't "civilised" in a way easily recognizable from a Western POV is just silly. The Apache, so far as I know, never had berserkers of any kind. The Mongols didn't do drugs and work themselves into a frenzy. The various people of the Iroquois Federation didn't run mouth frothing into battle without care for self or tactics or sanity.
> 
> Instead, those are Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, with different gear sets than their European counterparts.



I'm not sure your point actually bolsters the argument FOR barbarians the same way you think it does. 

Clearly, the Barbarian class is supposed to represent more than Viking Berserkers, because that is a ridiculously narrow archetype for a class. What IS the class supposed to represent us not many types of primitive warrior tropes? Why was it included in 3.5 Oriental Adventures if they primarily represent European berserkers? If all those groups you suggest are not representative of the Barbarian class, what does that class represent and why does it need a full 20 level class to do it? Samurai and cavalier fit into a fighter sub, after all. 

I don't see how moving Barbarian from "possibly racist trope" to "extremely narrow European origin trope" improves it's position much.


----------



## TheSword

jmartkdr2 said:


> Hold on, I'm confused:
> 
> The quoted text argues that the name isn't a problem. You open by agreeing with the quoted text: the name isn't a problem.
> 
> You then say "it's stupid to use the word barbarian to describe all non-European cultures" (which is true but is one way the word is used.) Implying the the reason the name isn't a problem is that it doesn't mean non-white.
> 
> So whether or not the name implies non-civilized is pretty relevant, I would think. Unless you think the name is the problem, in which case you're first sentence in the above post means the opposite of that.



The name implies non-civilized... but it’s a pretty specific type of non-civilized. That of axe wielding Norse berserkers.


----------



## jmartkdr2

TheSword said:


> The name implies non-civilized... but it’s a pretty specific type of non-civilized. That of axe wielding Norse berserkers.



The name has been used to describe all sorts of "uncivilized" people, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America.


----------



## TheSword

jmartkdr2 said:


> The name has been used to describe all sorts of "uncivilized" people, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America.



Can you reference that in any substantial way as the main way it seems to be used is for those civilizations not considered part of Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome. Vercingetorix, Boudicca, Attila the Hun, Clovis.

I’ve never heard of Shaka Zulu, Moctezuma or Geronimo being described as barbarians? That seems very jarring.


----------



## Cadence

Remathilis said:


> If all those groups you suggest are not representative of the Barbarian class, what does that class represent and why does it need a full 20 level class to do it? Samurai and cavalier fit into a fighter sub, after all.




If Aragorn and Lancelot get a full 20 level treatment, Conan gets one too.  Game history and inertia.


----------



## Remathilis

Cadence said:


> If Aragorn and Lancelot get a full 20 level treatment Conan gets one too. Game history and inertia.



Aragorn's niche has been eroding over the course of several editions, and every edition since 2e has tried multiple attempts per the life of that edition to nail it. Lancelot's too, though his is more of the Lawful Goodness no longer being a prime factor in the class. As for Conan, if your going by the movie or Marvel comics Conan, then sure. If you go by the ones from Howard's stories, not quite. 

I will agree with you on tradition and inertia, but if that isn't enough to save alignment or CE orcs, it shouldn't be enough to hold any other part of the game beyond scrutiny.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

I said...


doctorbadwolf said:


> I think that you hit the nail on the head. [this in reference to a specific bolded text] Using Barbarians for every culture that isn't "civilised" in a way easily recognizable from a Western POV is just silly. The Apache, so far as I know, never had berserkers of any kind. The Mongols didn't do drugs and work themselves into a frenzy. The various people of the Iroquois Federation didn't run mouth frothing into battle without care for self or tactics or sanity.
> 
> Instead, those are Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, with different gear sets than their European counterparts.



None of this says anything you seem to think I said.



jmartkdr2 said:


> Hold on, I'm confused:
> 
> The quoted text argues that the name isn't a problem. You open by agreeing with the quoted text: the name isn't a problem.
> 
> You then say "it's stupid to use the word barbarian to describe all non-European cultures" (which is true but is one way the word is used.) Implying the the reason the name isn't a problem is that it doesn't mean non-white.



 I didn't say that, though.



Remathilis said:


> I'm not sure your point actually bolsters the argument FOR barbarians the same way you think it does.
> 
> Clearly, the Barbarian class is supposed to represent more than Viking Berserkers, because that is a ridiculously narrow archetype for a class. What IS the class supposed to represent us not many types of primitive warrior tropes? Why was it included in 3.5 Oriental Adventures if they primarily represent European berserkers? If all those groups you suggest are not representative of the Barbarian class, what does that class represent and why does it need a full 20 level class to do it? Samurai and cavalier fit into a fighter sub, after all.
> 
> I don't see how moving Barbarian from "possibly racist trope" to "extremely narrow European origin trope" improves it's position much.



I...don't...care?

But I also didn't say or imply that it is meant to only represent the European barbarians. It does, however, only represent berserker barbarians, which makes no sense for many of the cultures that the class gets used to represent the warriors of. 

I was commenting on that, specifically. As shown by how that was the only thing I commented on.


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> I said...
> 
> None of this says anything you seem to think I said.
> 
> I didn't say that, though.
> 
> 
> I...don't...care?
> 
> But I also didn't say or imply that it is meant to only represent the European barbarians. It does, however, only represent berserker barbarians, which makes no sense for many of the cultures that the class gets used to represent the warriors of.
> 
> I was commenting on that, specifically. As shown by how that was the only thing I commented on.




Perhaps a bit too much I here?


----------



## Khelon Testudo

Perhaps we could do something to make Berserker a subclass of a class called Wayfarer. Ranger could be another subclass. - or keep Ranger as the class, and make Berserker and Wayfarers subclasses? The basic class is a character who is comfortable outdoors, and has skills to suit.


----------



## Umbran

Cadence said:


> Google turned up Eberron isn't Steampunk Which offered three things it was missing to be Steampunk, and offered Magipunk instead.




The point was not to engage in a pedantic argument of what genre Eberron is.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Khelon Testudo said:


> Perhaps we could do something to make Berserker a subclass of a class called Wayfarer. Ranger could be another subclass. - or keep Ranger as the class, and make Berserker and Wayfarers subclasses? The basic class is a character who is comfortable outdoors, and has skills to suit.



I really feel like the Barbarian maybe needs a new name, at most, and maybe a different name and basic flavor for Rage. 

Not because it's problematic, but because it's really one of the most narrow basic concepts of a class, and it already has subclasses that just do not fit that base class concept, like the Zealot. 

But I don't think that Ranger and Barbarian need to be the same class. They could be, but they don't need to be.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Umbran said:


> The point was not to engage in a pedantic argument of what genre Eberron is.



It's not pedantic. You said that Eberron shouldn't be the default world (in 5e terms, this would just mean the world referenced most in the PHB), because it's "Steampunk" and that genre is out of the zeitgeist. 

But neither part of the statement is true, and the second part relies entirely on the first.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> It's not pedantic. You said that Eberron shouldn't be the default world (in 5e terms, this would just mean the world referenced most in the PHB), because it's "Steampunk" and that genre is out of the zeitgeist.
> 
> But neither part of the statement is true, and the second part relies entirely on the first.



Steampunk, Magipunk, Punkrock, it doesn't really matter.  Eberron is not a generic adventuring world like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk.  It takes a specialized taste to want to play in that sort of game, just like Dark Sun, Planescape or Ravenloft.  

Making a specialized campaign setting the default world would be a mistake.  It needs to remain one of the generic worlds, or else there shouldn't be a default at all.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> It's not pedantic. You said that Eberron shouldn't be the default world (in 5e terms, this would just mean the world referenced most in the PHB), because it's "Steampunk"




No, I didn't.  

I said it was "steampunky".  As in, "it has stylistic similarities to steampunk".  Which I still maintain is true, given the art already posted in the thread.  

The technical definition is irrelevant.  The stylistic similarities are relevant.  Fandom has largely moved on from steampunk, so those style elements are no longer a major selling point, and will seem rather passé.    

The fact that I've had to say this several times over, apparently to deaf ears, is really annoying.  Please do not make me repeat it again.


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> I really feel like the Barbarian maybe needs a new name, at most, and maybe a different name and basic flavor for Rage.




Are rage, ki, panache/grit/luck all kind of in the same family of drawing on exceptional inner reserves to do amazing things?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> Are rage, ki, panache/grit/luck all kind of in the same family of drawing on exceptional inner reserves to do amazing things?



Yep.


----------



## Azzy

jmartkdr2 said:


> Hold on, I'm confused:
> 
> The quoted text argues that the name isn't a problem. You open by agreeing with the quoted text: the name isn't a problem.
> 
> You then say "it's stupid to use the word barbarian to describe all non-European cultures" (which is true but is one way the word is used.) Implying the the reason the name isn't a problem is that it doesn't mean non-white.
> 
> So whether or not the name implies non-civilized is pretty relevant, I would think. Unless you think the name is the problem, in which case you're first sentence in the above post means the opposite of that.




No, what I read from the post in question is that it's stupid to have a class that's clearly modeled on the Norse berserker archetype also be a stand-in for other cultures that got labled at "barbarians".

Seriously, the barbarian class should never have been built around the rage/berseker concept (and left it squarely in the hands of a subclass) so that it could cover a broader array of cultural identities. Even the 1e barbarian class (horrible as it was) never had a rage feature and included a handful of options to customize it to fit different cultures.


----------



## Sadras

doctorbadwolf said:


> I really feel like the Barbarian maybe needs a new name, at most, and maybe a different name and basic flavor for Rage.
> 
> Not because it's problematic, but because it's really one of the most narrow basic concepts of a class, and it already has subclasses that just do not fit that base class concept, like the Zealot.
> 
> But I don't think that Ranger and Barbarian need to be the same class. They could be, but they don't need to be.




@doctorbadwolf and I generally do not agree on most things when it comes to issues surrounding these types of discussion about D&D, but I do see his point here. The barbarian class for me is a little jarring - not because I think there is some sort of PC issue but it just feels like a loose stitch for all types of fighters (historically inspired) who do not wear or have proficiency in particular armour/weapons. It just feels a little messy with all of them getting the d12 + rage to make up for the lack of armour/weapon proficiency.

Is it a problem? Probably only to someone who overthinks this issue, like me.
Do I know what the solution is? Nope.


----------



## TheSword

Sadras said:


> @doctorbadwolf and I generally do not agree on most things when it comes to issues surrounding these types of discussion about D&D, but I do see his point here. The barbarian class for me is a little jarring - not because I think there is some sort of PC issue but it just feels like a loose stitch for all types of fighters (historically inspired) who do not wear or have proficiency in particular armour/weapons. It just feels a little messy with all of them getting the d12 + rage to make up for the lack of armour/weapon proficiency.
> 
> Is it a problem? Probably only to someone who overthinks this issue, like me.
> Do I know what the solution is? Nope.



I have no problem with the class as it stands. The raging Barbarian archetype is a pretty clear one in fantasy fiction - Conan, Khal Drogo, Fafhrd, Red Sonja, Logen Nine-fingers, Ghengis Cohen (shoft lavatory paper), He-man, heroquest, etc etc.

The mistake is applying a very specific type of character to a Native American and then wondering why this is not complementary. Don’t ascribe it incorrectly and then you won’t be disappointed.

Woah... that was my 1,000th post. I feel like I should celebrate.


----------



## MGibster

This thread is about making the game more inclusive.  Does changing the name of the Barbarian, Druid, and Monk class actually make the game more inclusive?  I don't think so.


----------



## jasper

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Okay, want to give your argument for this? If you think absolutely nothing should change from 5e to 6e to promote inclusivity, please explain why.



5E has plenty of inclusivity. How does changing any thing like race adjustments to  floating adjustments, verbiage changes, etc promote inclusivity.  IF you don't like a penalty to playing a monster race don't play it. If you can't stand some of the verbiage of monsters/races/encounters change in your world. 
NO one here has given me a good reason to change the racial adjustments. Some have given good reasons to change some of the verbiage due to stereotypes.


----------



## Sadras

TheSword said:


> I have no problem with the class as it stands. The raging Barbarian archetype is a pretty clear one in fantasy fiction - Conan, Khal Drogo, Fafhrd, Red Sonja, Logen Nine-fingers, Ghengis Cohen (shoft lavatory paper), He-man, heroquest, etc etc.




That is fair.



> The mistake is applying a very specific type of character to a Native American and then wondering why this is not complementary. Don’t ascribe it incorrectly and then you won’t be disappointed.




Out of interest - what class could we apply to Native Americans (north, meso and south) or for that matter the African tribes (mid and south) or the native Australasians? An answer could be - that the class has not been created as yet.


----------



## TheSword

Sadras said:


> That is fair.
> 
> 
> 
> Out of interest - what class could we apply to Native Americans (north, meso and south) or for that matter the African tribes (mid and south) or the native Australasians? An answer could be - that the class has not been created as yet.



Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Druid, Warlock, Bard, Monk, off the top of my head. I’m sure others can think of other relevant classes.

If someone wanted to play a warrior possessed by some rage or trance then a barbarian could work. I wouldn’t call it a natural fit.


----------



## Sadras

TheSword said:


> Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Druid, Warlock, Bard, Monk, off the top of my head. I’m sure others can think of other relevant classes.




Yeah none of that really works for me. There are combinations that work, proficiencies need to be swapped out, skills need to be adopted. Anyways.


----------



## jasper

jmartkdr2 said:


> The name has been used to describe all sorts of "uncivilized" people, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America.



People who drink unsweet tea. People who are not fans of American Football. People who talk in the movies. People who are snarky in threads. People who put catsup on steak.


----------



## jasper

Classes, Racial Abilities, Racial Bonus/Penalties, are features of the game. Some races being suboptimal for a class is a feature of the game.
****
Okay. When did Steampunk become so rigid that they are excluding people from their club. Steampunk has always been a little bit of mad science, magic, Victoriana/Old West/Not medieval or 20th century setting. Aka if they aren’t medieval and Isn’t modern+ it is steam punk.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Azzy said:


> No, what I read from the post in question is that it's stupid to have a class that's clearly modeled on the Norse berserker archetype also be a stand-in for other cultures that got labled at "barbarians".
> 
> Seriously, the barbarian class should never have been built around the rage/berseker concept (and left it squarely in the hands of a subclass) so that it could cover a broader array of cultural identities. Even the 1e barbarian class (horrible as it was) never had a rage feature and included a handful of options to customize it to fit different cultures.



Okay, that's fair. 

I'd say that the rage feature is distinct enough to warrant it's own class, but that class should probably be called 'berzerker.' Among my reasons is it's an easy change and makes the label fit the product better. 

Then we can find a better word for warriors who don't use metal armor and make those playable. Probably not their own class so much as an alternative feature for fighters et al.


----------



## Maxperson

TheSword said:


> Woah... that was my 1,000th post. I feel like I should celebrate.


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> Out of interest - what class could we apply to Native Americans (north, meso and south) or for that matter the African tribes (mid and south) or the native Australasians? An answer could be - that the class has not been created as yet.



It would depend on the class that they took.  Not all members of Barbarian tribes in D&D are Barbarians the class.  Some are Rangers, others Clerics, yet others Druids or sometimes Druid-Shaman, etc.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man

The game would become more inclusive if the Game Master were renamed "Game Manager" and if monsters were called "creatures".


----------



## Coroc

dnd4vr said:


> The nice thing is if WotC _does_ make changes people don't like, we can always house-rule it back.




...casts "Protection from diversity" and "Detect normalized"


----------



## BookTenTiger

I've been thinking about this a lot!

While I understand the idea of taking the setting out of the Player's Handbook, I do not know that it would improve inclusiveness. Because dwarves, elves, etc. are not _real_, any depiction of them is going to call on the author's biases of humans. If we take setting out of the description, then the only thing that defines dwarves, elves, and so on is their difference from humans. And in order to describe how something is different from humans, we then have to have an assumption of what a baseline human is.

I wonder what it would look like to go in the opposite direction. Have a strong setting in the PHB, with notes or columns noting that this is just _one_ setting, and that much of the mechanics and descriptions are written to fit the setting. Then you could have parts of the DMG or other books have easy templates to apply in order to adapt the book to other settings ("when running a Dark Sun campaign, apply the following mechanical changes...")

In my dream 6e, we have a brand new setting. When creating characters, the creation process goes like this: culture -> background -> class -> lineage.

The new setting would have a few distinct cultures (military city-state, coastal island-hoppers, magic forest-dwellers, etc) in which live people of different lineages. The PHB would also include rules on how to create your own culture (like creating your own background). The culture grants proficiencies, and some bonuses.

After choosing a culture, you would then choose your background, your class, and your lineage. Based on all these you would have certain ability score bonuses, proficiencies, etc. Having those mechanics are a fun part of the game, and introduce a bit of the game in character creation itself. However, there could also be side mechanics for more of a "choose your own" bonus system.

Following this process, you could have an elf and a halfling both from the same sea-faring culture. They have proficiencies with ships and navigator's tools, maybe advantage on Athletics checks when swimming, a shared language... Their different lineages, however, provide some other narrative and mechanical truths (elves live to be hundreds of years old, halflings are lucky, etc).

That would be my idea!


----------



## Coroc

GreenTengu said:


> ...
> -- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.
> ....




O rly?

While I might like a game with characters resembling those of LotR, you paint us older guys a bit singleminded.
Get the life experience of someone over 50, then you would realize the (absolutely wrong) stereotyping of your rant.

I bet out of all characters I played in TTRPGs about 10% might have some resemblance of a LotR character, but why do I even try to justify myself against your totally black and white thinking.

You wonder why you get "hostile" reactions, we have a saying here it is roughly translated to English: 
"Like you shout into the forest, the forest shouts back at you" I hope you get the meaning.


----------



## Deset Gled

The Mirrorball Man said:


> The game would become more inclusive if the Game Master were renamed "Game Manager" and if monsters were called "creatures".




I am familiar with some tech types getting away from the "master/slave" naming convention.  I think I first saw that over a decade ago.  But I haven't run across anything yet that pushes for removal of the word "master" by itself.  I was under the impression that the presence of "slave" is what made the convention improper, as "master" by itself has a lot more (non-racist) uses.  IIRC, some of the "master/slave" alternatives still use "master/minion" or similar.

Can you expand a bit on why Game Master (or Dungeon Master) is problematic for you?


----------



## BookTenTiger

Thinking more about tying Ability Score Bonuses to lineages (I'm just going to use that word), or Attacks to Ability Scores..

I think some of the conflict comes from the dual nature of D&D as both a _tabletop game_ and a _storytelling tool_.

I *love *how D&D facilitates incredible storytelling. There's something absolutely magic in the way a bunch of people can hold this shared story in their minds and memories... I think we all know that.

At the same time, I _*also love *_how D&D is a _game_. The mechanics of D&D are fun! I'm playing as a dwarven wizard, because I wanted to be a cousin to two of the other characters (dwarf cleric and dwarf fighter). Because a dwarf does not get any bonuses to Intelligence, it has been a fun mechanical challenge to figure out what kinds of spells I should cast, what benefits I do get from being a dwarf, etc. That's a part of the game, too.

So I agree that we should free Ability Score Bonuses from archaic ideas of eugenics and race... but at the same time I would enjoy a game that includes an aspect of gameplay in character creation.


----------



## Argyle King

jmartkdr2 said:


> The second question is answered by: "if removing the ability adjustments made the races the exactly same, why have races at all? You could just re-create all of them using variant humans!" But there's more to races than ASIs - and most of the specific features (ie trance, stonecunnning) are more distinctive and therefore do a better job making races feel distinct from each other. Just geting rid of the ability adjustment does not, when I've used a houserule to do that, make the races all feel the same.
> 
> BUT, if we're looking at this purely from an inclusivity standpoint, it's a distinction without difference. Either racial features promote race-essentialist thinking or they don't. Ability adjustments aren't significantly different form other features in this regard. You could take that to mean the entire concept of races as a game mechanic is problematic, and your logic would be both valid and reasonable, but the only solution is to remove races as a game mechanic entirely, which I think crosses into not-D&D for a lot of people.
> 
> You could remove racial ability adjustments as a compromise option, because the other features tend to be more overtly magical/inhuman, but like most compromise option this doesn't really make anyone truly happy.
> 
> On the first point: there's whole other threads about this, but the gameplay advantage would be in opening up more 'viable' character concepts. Changing racial ASI's is one way to do this, and there are some really simple ways to implement it. But that's not really an inclusivity argument.





I think I both agree and disagree.

Yes, I agree that there are more interesting differences than +X to stat to differentiate "races." 
(Indeed, other games I play focus much more on those other differences, with the +X game found in D&D being uncommon.)

On the other hand, there are already times when I feel as though there is little to differentiate certain "races" (or weapons or various other things) from each other in D&D. 

I think there is also a potentially valid argument to be had for considering how connected/divorced the mechanics are from the fiction. Can the tortoise defeat the hare in a race? In fiction yes, with mitigating factors. What does the story look like on a drag strip with a straight roll of the dice, and how does that hypothetical outcome match player expectations of the fiction?

Perhaps a little more granularity in character creation and advancement might help...? I don't know. I don't believe there are many who want to go back toward the complexity of 3rd Edition, but I do believe there is a lot of room between that and where 5th currently resides. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a few more moving parts to allow for more character features which are more interesting than +X to something; in fact, I'd like that in regards to both characters and magic items.

I'm completely on board with inclusivity. At the same time, are there areas of design conflict at which certain choices may go against what is accepted as D&D and/or established expectations of fantasy?

On a personal level, I don't have any sort of emotional connection to what's regarded as "true D&D" and keeping it. I regularly play other games exactly because they do things which aren't that. Even so, from a design and branding standpoint, I believe it to be something to consider. 

Inclusivity wasn't a problem for newer versions of Star Wars, Ghostbusters, and so on, but figuring out how to add or better highlight those things without undermining the core spirit of what constituted the perceived brand of those products was. I believe that designing a new edition of D&D would have similar challenges.


----------



## ART!

Charlaquin said:


> Setting already determines culture, with the cultural details in the core rules being very generic and subject to setting-specific changes. I do, however, think it would be good to separate culture from race. Instead of the dwarf race granting proficiency in axes, hammers, and mason’s tools, make a “clan crafter” background or whatever that does so. Maybe give long-lives races a second background or something.
> 
> Changing the depictions of various monsterous races and removing the associations between such races and shamanism go hand-in-hand with removing inherent alignments for humanoids and making culture more setting-specific. Definitely good moves to make though. Along with these changes, I would like to see more player options for traditionally monstrous races, and for those options to be balanced as any other PC race option would be.




Detaching proficiencies from race would near the top of my list of relatively quick-and-easy changes.



Weiley31 said:


> Folk would probably be the best term and Lineage could be the Subraces. Or just keep Subrace really.




The term "subrace" always seems way too close to the term "sub-human" to me, but regardless if we aren't using "race" then I'd say definitely lose "subrace" as well.

It gets pretty far from what people traditionally think of as "D&D", but having "racial" distinctions come down to just appearance descriptors is not a terrible idea. Is the Sunlight Sensitivity of drow purely a function of biology, is it magically inherent, or does each individual develop it just from living their lives underground? It might make sense to have a base, descriptive-only, version of each "race", followed by common "racial" builds (complete with ASI's, features, and maybe even proficiencies.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I don't think so. A bad flavor is still a flavor. I just want to see some ideas promoting inclusion that make the game more interesting rather than more generic. I want to see what that would look like.



You don't think so what? That flavor is a matter of opinion, or that I, and others, like some of the changes that have been discussed?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Johnny3D3D said:


> If ability scores are divorced from Ancestry/Lineage/etc selection, what effect would that choice have on character creation and why does the choice remain relevant?
> 
> If dwarves are functionally identical to elves, is there is a reason for both to exist?



Why would they be functionally identical? Dwarves would still have Poison Resistance, Elves would have Trance, etc. It would only be the ASIs that are more freely moved around, and this would promote more character freedom when they make their characters.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jasper said:


> 5E has plenty of inclusivity. How does changing any thing like race adjustments to  floating adjustments, verbiage changes, etc promote inclusivity.  IF you don't like a penalty to playing a monster race don't play it. If you can't stand some of the verbiage of monsters/races/encounters change in your world.
> NO one here has given me a good reason to change the racial adjustments. Some have given good reasons to change some of the verbiage due to stereotypes.



5e is inclusive, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. There's almost always room for improvement. I mentioned the changing ability scores from their racial attachments because WotC mentioned it in their D&D and Inclusivity announcement. WotC seems to agree that it's an inclusivity problem to have races attached to ability score increases. The verbiage changes promotes inclusivity because certain parts of the 5e rule books describes Orcs in ways that mirror the language used by White Supremacists, and getting rid of that language would make the game more inclusive.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

The Mirrorball Man said:


> The game would become more inclusive if the Game Master were renamed "Game Manager" and if monsters were called "creatures".



Um, why and how? Does having Dungeon Master being the title for the person who runs the game bar anyone from the game? I also think that the Monster Manual did a good job at defining what "monster" means in 5e.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Um, why and how? Does having Dungeon Master being the title for the person who runs the game bar anyone from the game? I also think that the Monster Manual did a good job at defining what "monster" means in 5e.



The same could be said of the word "race", that many people here find problematic. If we want to get rid of one of them because of the connotations and the potential misuse if the word, it would be absurd to keep the other.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You don't think so what? That flavor is a matter of opinion, or that I, and others, like some of the changes that have been discussed?




As I said, bad flavor is fine with me. I just want to see flavor (as opposed to blandness). What are some of the flavorful suggestions made to promote inclusivity? Maybe I missed them.

Edit: I remember seeing some ideas to remove the word "race". Some of them were good. What else?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

The Mirrorball Man said:


> The same could be said of the word "race", that many people here find problematic. If we want to get rid of one of them because of the connotations and the potential misuse if the word, it would be absurd to keep the other.



Are there negative connotations of "Dungeon Master"? Race is problematic as a term in 5e. If the "Master" part of it is considered problematic (someone mentioned because of slavery) then maybe it should be considered for changing. 

"Master" as a word may have been used in slavery for the person who owns the slaves, but that isn't a compelling argument for me to change it. Master has many different meanings, is used mainly as a descriptor of someone who is an expert at a certain skill-set in D&D, and I don't think we should change it. 

Maybe you can try to convince me otherwise?


----------



## jasper

GreenTengu said:


> 1.....The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.
> ...
> 2......- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.
> .......
> 3......And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.
> ....
> 4......Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.



1. That is the idea I am getting from people who want to Abandon Racial Stats Bonuses. and/or change the game. 
2. OKay. Lord of Rings copy cat PCs have always been an on again off again problem depending on how popular the cartoon/books/movies and it clones were. Not the age of the gamers. 
3. I feel better. 
4. Or maybe some people who want to change the game by coping another system should just play that other system.


----------



## Umbran

jasper said:


> 2. OKay. Lord of Rings copy cat PCs have always been an on again off again problem...




There's a logical failure in "we want to build a game to allow folks to play what they want," alongside, "a character that is close to one of the strongest influences on the game is a problem."


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jasper said:


> Or maybe some people who want to change the game by coping another system should just play that other system.



Has anyone suggested copying another system? Also, thank you for being polite enough and inclusive enough to say, "Get out of my game!" to the people who want it to change for the betterment of the game, in their opinions.


----------



## Remathilis

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Are there negative connotations of "Dungeon Master"? Race is problematic as a term in 5e. If the "Master" part of it is considered problematic (someone mentioned because of slavery) then maybe it should be considered for changing.
> 
> "Master" as a word may have been used in slavery for the person who owns the slaves, but that isn't a compelling argument for me to change it. Master has many different meanings, is used mainly as a descriptor of someone who is an expert at a certain skill-set in D&D, and I don't think we should change it.
> 
> Maybe you can try to convince me otherwise?











						Some realtors no longer using "master" to describe bedrooms and bathrooms
					

Other industries are also removing the word "master" from their vocabularies, as it has roots in racism




					www.cbsnews.com
				




There is some prescident for removing the world from titles. Not saying its necessarily good, but it exists in the world...


----------



## Argyle King

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Why would they be functionally identical? Dwarves would still have Poison Resistance, Elves would have Trance, etc. It would only be the ASIs that are more freely moved around, and this would promote more character freedom when they make their characters.




You have a point. Though, I would say that leads to other questions.

If stating that the average [insert species] is stronger/faster/whatever than [second species] as a product of their morphology and natural traits is considered bad form, would the same not also hold true for other traits? How that is answered may not be a binary yes/no and may lead to changing which mechanics the game uses to emulate fiction. I would be okay with that, but it would require further discussion concerning how and what is modeled by the game.

Also, would those traits be balanced against each other? In a vacuum, I would be inclined to say that immunity to magical sleep and resistance to poison are not on equal footing in terms of value. In theory, the floating ability scores would mean more freedom, but would that weigh out in practice if one choice is presented as obviously better and of objectively more value than others? 

The answer may become to allow for some method of "purchasing" racial abilities (and this is already somewhat reflected in the form of racial feats). But, at that point, is the game still D&D or would you be better off playing a system (such as something like GURPS) which is built around the concept of point buy and building characters that way?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Johnny3D3D said:


> If stating that the average [insert species] is stronger/faster/whatever than [second species] as a product of their morphology and natural traits is considered bad form, would the same not also hold true for other traits? How that is answered may not be a binary yes/no and may lead to changing which mechanics the game uses to emulate fiction. I would be okay with that, but it would require further discussion concerning how and what is modeled by the game.



It depends if the traits come from their physical differences, or cultural ones. I don't think cultural traits for races should exist (i. e. Stonecunning, Weapon/Armor Proficiency, etc) in the base races, because in different settings it may not make sense for the races to have those features.


Johnny3D3D said:


> Also, would those traits be balanced against each other? In a vacuum, I would be inclined to say that immunity to magical sleep and resistance to poison are not on equal footing in terms of value. In theory, the floating ability scores would mean more freedom, but would that weigh out in practice if one choice is presented as obviously better and of objectively more value than others?



WotC is the one who balances abilities, not me. 


Johnny3D3D said:


> The answer may become to allow for some method of "purchasing" racial abilities (and this is already somewhat reflected in the form of racial feats). But, at that point, is the game still D&D or would you be better off playing a system (such as something like GURPS) which is built around the concept of point buy and building characters that way?



Why should other games work that way, and not D&D?


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> It depends if the traits come from their physical differences, or cultural ones. I don't think cultural traits for races should exist (i. e. Stonecunning, Weapon/Armor Proficiency, etc) in the base races, because in different settings it may not make sense for the races to have those features.




Strongly agree with this.



AcererakTriple6 said:


> Why should other games work that way, and not D&D?




What makes D&D be D&D?  There's been lots of talk about the settings, so it's not that.  If it's not things that have always been a major part of the rules like different races, classes, and ability scores, then what is it?


----------



## Remathilis

I've been considering that species give only a few core traits: size, speed, senses, and a single racial trait like poison immunity fey ancestry or lucky. Other elements come from a package that any race can take, like Urban, Mountain-born, Forester, Shadow-touched, Underdark, etc that grant proficiencies, languages, and other traits like stealthy, innate magic, or such. Other abilities can be shunted to feats ala Pathfinder.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> That is fair.
> 
> 
> 
> Out of interest - what class could we apply to Native Americans (north, meso and south) or for that matter the African tribes (mid and south) or the native Australasians? An answer could be - that the class has not been created as yet.




Considering that D&D is set in a medieval setting, why would you expect classes to map on settings that are distinctly not-medieval?  I mean, what classes would modern French come under?   

I would say, "Classes and setting that has not been created yet for 5e" (I believe that there are setting books for d20 set in those settings).


----------



## Azzy

TheSword said:


> I have no problem with the class as it stands. The raging Barbarian archetype is a pretty clear one in fantasy fiction - Conan, Khal Drogo, Fafhrd, Red Sonja, Logen Nine-fingers, Ghengis Cohen (shoft lavatory paper), He-man, heroquest, etc etc.




Virtually none of those "barabarians" are raging beserkers that the D&D class actually models.


----------



## Azzy

AcererakTriple6 said:


> "Master" as a word may have been used in slavery for the person who owns the slaves, but that isn't a compelling argument for me to change it. Master has many different meanings, is used mainly as a descriptor of someone who is an expert at a certain skill-set in D&D, and I don't think we should change it.




Right, the word "master" has been used in many different contexts. I doubt anyone has ever had a problem with the term "master of ceremonies".


----------



## Azzy

Hussar said:


> Considering that D&D is set in a medieval setting, why would you expect classes to map on settings that are distinctly not-medieval?  I mean, what classes would modern French come under?




Yeah, I'd say that that's a big nope. D&D hasn't been limited to medieval fantasy for a very long time, and it has strained against that restriction from at least 1e. Furthermore, D&D should strive to cover more fantasy more cultures just on the basis of world building (something many of us love to do) if for no other more lofty reason.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

I have not read through this entire thread, so forgive me if I repeat things others have already said.

I am mostly familiar with the _Forgotten Realms _setting (though I am a Critical Role fan, too), so my thoughts will mostly be directed at Toril. My thoughts will also mostly concern lore, as, while I am very much invested in the setting and D&D, I've only actually played a few times, so I can't weigh in that much on any mechanical aspects.

With regards to orcs and drow at least, in the _Forgotten Realms, _actually already have an example of goodly drow and orcs. Eilistraee, the daughter of Corellon and Araunshnee/Lolth, has been present in the lore for a long time (I believe she was introduced in '91). She has been providing an alternate path for the drow for centuries. Likewise, Vhaeraun, her brother while "evil", is still a better choice than Lolth.

In 4e, WotC killed them off, because they wanted Drizzt to be the "one special drow". Kind of shot themselves in the foot there. Eilistraee and Vhaeraun were returned in 5e (having it be revealed that they in fact never died, but instead were held in stasis in the Weave for a time). Her followers were mentioned in Ed Greenwood's _Death Masks_, and she and Vhaeraun are in fact allied now. 

There are also the Ondthi orcs, who I myself only recently learned of, but they have been around since 2e. These were goodly orcs who follow the deity Eldath. Unfortunately, they've been largely ignored, as have Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, even though they've been returned. I think if WotC/Hasbro looked to established lore, rather than changing everything, it would at least give them a start (at least in this area). I hate Lolth, but I wouldn't necessarily want her or Gruumsh to be killed (there was enough deity death in 4e). But she could be reduced in power, as more drow turn away from her and towards Eilistraee and/or Vhaeraun. This would bring back lore that has been around for years but brushed aside, and reduce the risk of more retcons. 

I'm all about diversity and inclusivity. I just wouldn't want the "culture" of races (or species I guess) to be diminished (elves have a culture, dwarves have a culture, halflings have a culture, etc, especially in areas that are heavily populated by that race). That doesn't mean these cultures can't evolve, of course (and a halfling raised by orcs, rather than other halflings, may act more "orcish".) 

I will admit that I am big fan of the gods (I know some people have issues with how involved they are), and I enjoy settings with well-established afterlives. This is kind of why I have stayed away from Eberron and Dark Sun--from what little I know, the settings seem to the deities far removed, and the only option for the afterlife sounds pretty grim. At least other settings have various options. 

I'm honestly not sure what to think of the alignment thing. Would the change only affect the mortals? If it's based on choices--which it kind of already is--a person goes to the plane based on how they lived their life (so a person who has made evil choices would go to an evil plane, for example).


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Azzy said:


> Right, the word "master" has been used in many different contexts. I doubt anyone has ever had a problem with the term "master of ceremonies".



Right. The reason some realtors are removing the term isn’t that “master” is an inherently problematic term. It’s that “master bedroom” gives a lot of folks the same vibes as “plantation wedding”. It makes folks feel like they’re being sold on the appeal of the house on the basis of getting a bedroom so big they’ll feel like “the master” of the house, which only really has bad connotations. Ya got slavery, aristocracy and wealth that might as well be aristocracy, and patriarchal ideas of the man naturally and automatically being the master of his home.

“Master cylinder” and “Slave Circuit” have the master/slave dichotomy, but as technical jargon they aren’t under as much scrutiny.


----------



## Khelon Testudo

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Why would they be functionally identical? Dwarves would still have Poison Resistance, Elves would have Trance, etc. It would only be the ASIs that are more freely moved around, and this would promote more character freedom when they make their characters.



The problem with this is some people like working with limitations - they encourage creativity.
I also personally struggle with the concept of a Str 18 goblin or gnome, never mind 20.


----------



## Deset Gled

Masters degree. Master classes. Apprentice, journeyman, and master tradesman levels. Chess master levels. TV shows: Master Chef, Masters of Horror, Duels Masters, Lego Masters. Video games: Blaster Master, Star Wars Masters of Teras Kasi, Mega Man robot masters. 

The word "master", per se, seems pretty innocuous to me.


----------



## Alzrius

Deset Gled said:


> Star Wars Masters of Teras Kasi
> 
> The word "master", per se, seems pretty innocuous to me.




Kind of contradicted yourself there, don't you think?


----------



## GreenTengu

Khelon Testudo said:


> The problem with this is some people like working with limitations - they encourage creativity.
> I also personally struggle with the concept of a Str 18 goblin or gnome, never mind 20.




And if "strength" was only used precisely when "strength" was called for-- pushing a boulder or breaking a chain, then it really wouldn't be a problem.

The issue is more "Should the Goblin or Gnome Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin have the same chance to hit and have the same bonus output as the Orc Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin if they are gaining no significant advantage in any other area?" and that answer to that-- if we are saying that any race can be any class in the setting and be successful-- is definitely yes.

It is just I would imagine that that chance to hit and damage for the Orc comes considerably more from raw brute strength while for the Gnome or Goblin, its probably coming more from precision strikes.

The issue is the instance that bonus to attack and bonus to damage can only possibly come from Strength and all other ability scores are discarded from consideration. Sever that arbitrary connection and suddenly it doesn't really matter if one race has a higher strength score or not.

And this isn't the only example. Pretty much every class in the game has everything entirely revolving around one or two arbitrarily decided ability scores and if you don't have the maximum possible bonus in those scores, you are not going to be successful in performing the class's functions.


----------



## Deset Gled

GreenTengu said:


> tI is just I would imagine that that chance to hit and damage for the Orc comes considerably more from raw brute strength while for the Gnome or Goblin, its probably coming more from precision strikes.
> ...
> And this isn't the only example. Pretty much every class in the game has everything entirely revolving around one or two arbitrarily decided ability scores and if you don't have the maximum possible bonus in those scores, you are not going to be successful in performing the class's functions.




You just did a great job describing the differences between Str and Dex based attacks, and how abstract ability scores work as a simulationist tool in games.

I still have no idea why this is necessary in a discussion of inclusivity.


----------



## CleverNickName

It's a bit daft to be talking about "Sixth Edition" at a time when the current version of the game is more popular than it ever has been, and is selling more copies than any other edition.  But I've got nothing against a good thought experiment.  

I don't want to see alignment removed, or even removed from creature stat blocks.  I find that alignment is a helpful shorthand for roleplaying the general attitudes and dispositions of certain creatures.  It would be frustrating for me to have to put them all back in.  Rather than dropping them entirely, I just want the words "typically," "rarely," and "always" added.  Like, bandits would be "typically chaotic neutral" or "typically evil," while modrons could be "always lawful (any)."

I agree that ability score bonuses should be detached from races.  Heck, I'd put them straight in the trash if I'm being honest...starting stats are already plenty high enough.  But if ability score increases are added at 1st level, I think it makes the most sense to link them to a character's background. 

Definitely let the setting determine the culture and descriptions of the different creatures and races in the game.  And definitely change the descriptios of orcs.

Drop the word "Race," and replace it with Ancestry (good call).

And as long as we are dreaming about stuff we would like to change:

Barbarian, Monk, and Ranger should all be subclasses of Fighter.  Druid and Paladin should be subclasses of Cleric.  Bard should be a subclass of Rogue, and Artificer, Sorcerer, and Warlock should all be subclasses of Wizard.


----------



## GreenTengu

Deset Gled said:


> You just did a great job describing the differences between Str and Dex based attacks, and how abstract ability scores work as a simulationist tool in games.
> 
> I still have no idea why this is necessary in a discussion of inclusivity.




Probably different definitions of "inclusivity" then. Because to me, it seems like the issue is "people want to play any race as any class with any skin color or gender and not be significantly penalized for it."

That would be inclusivity within the game.

If you are focused at inviting a wider range of people to the table-- well, while the above may help to some extent, then what might actually be called for would be to have a wider variety of cultures that represent non-European elements in the game world and perhaps add a whole new array of races that represent the favorite fairies/goblins of different cultures from non-European countries just as the standard array has always been the old fairies from Europe.

That might mean creating a whole new game world-- maybe something akin to Planescape or one that was created by pulling cities/nations/islands from other worlds along with all their peoples, flora and fauna and just sort of meshing them together and they have been slowly blending ever since.

It might do much to help people from non-European backgrounds feel more heard, acknowledged and included.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Khelon Testudo said:


> The problem with this is some people like working with limitations - they encourage creativity.
> I also personally struggle with the concept of a Str 18 goblin or gnome, never mind 20.



Okay, you just made a very general statement. "Limiting/Restricting someone's options encourages creativity." when paraphrased, right? 

So, if I were to tie someone up in a dark room, restricting their options, would encourage them to be creative in that situation, right? Does that make my restricting their options right or good because I took away a bit of their freedom? 

I have never seen anyone in my campaigns thank me for railroading them, or force them to play a certain character (I have not forced anyone to play a certain character, and railroad only very, very rarely). 

And who cares if a PC goblin has a Strength of 18? The PCs are supposed to be exceptional examples of their race. I don't get the "isn't realistic" bit for ability scores for certain races. I don't get how racist, psionic, octopus people used to have a universe-spanning empire, or how yellow-skinned, egg-laying elves who were their slaves were able to beat those racist octopeople. Realism is mostly an unheard concept in D&D (I'll admit, I like a bit of realism in my games, but there is a point where you have to suspend your disbelief).


----------



## Deset Gled

GreenTengu said:


> Probably different definitions of "inclusivity" then. Because to me, it seems like the issue is "people want to play any *race as any class with any skin color or gender and not be significantly penalized for it.*"
> 
> That would be inclusivity within the game.




None of the bolded part is remotely related to the simulationist concept of Str and Dex ability scores.  Furthermore, there are no penalties to Str and Dex for skin color or gender.  Strength based and dex based fighters/barbarians/paladins/rogues all exist.  And a single +2 to any ability does not constitute a debilitating penalty.

You're arguing that a huge rules shift to a completely rules light and non-simulationist game is the only way for D&D to achieve inclusivity.  I reject that idea completely.


----------



## roger semerad

Deset Gled said:


> Strength based and dex based fighters/barbarians/paladins/rogues all exist.  And a single +2 to any ability does not constitute a debilitating penalty.
> 
> You're arguing that a huge rules shift to a completely rules light and non-simulationist game is the only way for D&D to achieve inclusivity.  I reject that idea completely.




I think that the str and dex based fighting styles point to the underlining problem.  What about an Int based one?  or a Cha one based on trickery?  What about the amazing all rounder that's stronger than the fast guy, faster than the strong guy, more intelligent than the natural athlete, and so on.  The game system is really bad at simulating a great fighter that relies on all his strengths put together being stronger than they'd be on their own.  

Now you can actually have that with the more traditional system, but only if you're comfortable with having a new class/subclass and feats built around each of these concepts.  Which leads to system bloat and complexity, and that's something that DnD has been trying to get away from for a while.  Or you can start to distance ability scores from the most important class abilities and your fighting style becomes more about how you visualize your character.


----------



## Cadence

It seems you keep raising two different issues...

One is racial ability bonuses.



GreenTengu said:


> Probably different definitions of "inclusivity" then. Because to me, it seems like the issue is "people want to play any race as any class with any skin color or gender and not be significantly penalized for it."
> 
> That would be inclusivity within the game.




There is nothing is stopping you from having a different skin color, that's possible in a race, or a different gender, with no penalty.  And many DMs might even let you have green skinned humans or a new shade of Dragonborn. That might depend on whether they actually fit in a given campaign setting (some campaign settings wouldn't even allow some PhB races because they weren't part of that world).

There is nothing stopping you from playing any PhB race as any class. And the biggest penalty you take for a different PhB race is missing a +1 bonus on the rolls with that stat. +1. So I would say there is nothing stopping any race from being any class with no significant penalty.

One concern you've expressed before is that some current non-PhB races are significantly disadvantaged compared to the PhB ones. I think that complaint is spot on and should be fixed. It might involve the Hobogoblins starting young or having a level penalty, or the Goblin being extraordinary in some fashion - but I think they should do something to make as many of the different humanoids playable as possible.

And I like your point about expanding it to other parts of the world. Adding more real-world literary, trope, folklore, and myth spanning diversity to the monster books - and then playable races - seems super.


Your other repeated point seems to be about ability scores mattering for doing things, especially combat (something also noted above by @roger semerad above)



GreenTengu said:


> And if "strength" was only used precisely when "strength" was called for-- pushing a boulder or breaking a chain, then it really wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> The issue is more "Should the Goblin or Gnome Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin have the same chance to hit and have the same bonus output as the Orc Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin if they are gaining no significant advantage in any other area?" and that answer to that-- if we are saying that any race can be any class in the setting and be successful-- is definitely yes.
> 
> It is just I would imagine that that chance to hit and damage for the Orc comes considerably more from raw brute strength while for the Gnome or Goblin, its probably coming more from precision strikes.
> 
> The issue is the instance that bonus to attack and bonus to damage can only possibly come from Strength and all other ability scores are discarded from consideration. Sever that arbitrary connection and suddenly it doesn't really matter if one race has a higher strength score or not.




As has been noted by @Deset Gled , there are builds that make hitting and damage more dependent on Dexterity than Strength. And the single +1 modifier is hardly the end of the world in making a character.



> And this isn't the only example. Pretty much every class in the game has everything entirely revolving around one or two arbitrarily decided ability scores and if you don't have the maximum possible bonus in those scores, you are not going to be successful in performing the class's functions.




If you want a high CHR but low STR and DEX character who is just as good in combat as the high STR and DEX character but also good great at acting, is it also reasonable for someone to ask for a high STR but low INT and CHR character who is just as good in spell casting as the high INT and WIS character but also great at stacking rocks?

But a lot of games have significant portions devoted to things besides combat. Why is combat the only thing where abilities should be completely interchangeable? Why can't the high CHR (low STR) character also be great at stacking rocks, the high CHR (low DEX) character be great at acrobatics, the high STR (low CHR) character be great at acting , and the high STR (low INT) character be great at math and research? At some point, if CHR isn't needed for acting, and STR isn't needed for rock-stacking, and INT isn't needed to be a wizard, and CHR can let you punch just as hard as STR, you essentially have made ability scores meaningless except for cinematically describing the character. As I've said before, at that point I'd argue that it seems that you don't actually want to play Dungeons and Dragons, but rather some other game that focuses just on your cinematic descriptions and a universal dice table (and there are lots of folks who pick other games to suit their particular tastes).

But I like the idea of INT or WIS character to for combat to hit and damage because of a well chosen or sensed strike location.  And the reason I'd argue for a class that does that instead of just letting any ability apply, is that I don't see how it's reasonable, say to have one who bases to hit in melee on CON or CHR.  Just as there are some stats that I would argue don't make particular sense for casting wizard spells or picking pockets or tracking someone in the woods.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And who cares if a PC goblin has a Strength of 18? The PCs are supposed to be exceptional examples of their race. I don't get the "isn't realistic" bit for ability scores for certain races. I don't get how racist, psionic, octopus people used to have a universe-spanning empire, or how yellow-skinned, egg-laying elves who were their slaves were able to beat those racist octopeople. Realism is mostly an unheard concept in D&D (I'll admit, I like a bit of realism in my games, but there is a point where you have to suspend your disbelief).




I don't need a lot of realism in my game, and if the campaign world is such that goblins can have any strength because they don't follow the laws of physiology and physics that halflings, humans, and ogres do, then great.  If that's how it is then I'll expect everyone to be darn careful in judging goblins by their looks.

My guess is that most worlds have some expectation of things like physiology and physics for things that are seemingly "normal" working similar to the real world. The really buff normal house cat isn't going to beat the really buff normal lion at killing the person who snuck into the cage. The normal shetland pony isn't going to be a better choice to pull the heavy wagon than the normal clydesdale. And the non-magical halfling weightlifter is certainly going to lose to the non-magical half-orc weightlifter.

Who cares if a PC goblin (in a world without magically any-strengthed Goblins) that has devoted everything to STR can get the same STR as a half-orc or dragonborn that devoted everything to STR? Maybe the person who picked the bigger stronger race explicitly to be bigger and stronger? Is it not enough for the goblin player that they can be within a measly 2 point difference from the dragonborn that went all out?  Why doesn't the player who chose to play to type's story matter at all?


----------



## teitan

So make it Pathfinder 2e? Note. I love both.


----------



## Deset Gled

roger semerad said:


> I think that the str and dex based fighting styles point to the underlining problem.  What about an Int based one?  or a Cha one based on trickery?  What about the amazing all rounder that's stronger than the fast guy, faster than the strong guy, more intelligent than the natural athlete, and so on.  The game system is really bad at simulating a great fighter that relies on all his strengths put together being stronger than they'd be on their own.
> 
> Now you can actually have that with the more traditional system, but only if you're comfortable with having a new class/subclass and feats built around each of these concepts.  Which leads to system bloat and complexity, and that's something that DnD has been trying to get away from for a while.  Or you can start to distance ability scores from the most important class abilities and your fighting style becomes more about how you visualize your character.




First, I primarily play 3.5e, and have literally played warriors based off of every ability score.  I'm completely comfortable with it.  I have no problems visualizing my characters as I see fit.

Second, this is still a discussion entirely about rules complexity and simulationism, not about inclusivity.


----------



## Cadence

Deset Gled said:


> First, I primarily play 3.5e, and have literally played warriors based off of every ability score.  I'm completely comfortable with it.  I have no problems visualizing my characters as I see fit.
> 
> Second, this is still a discussion entirely about rules complexity and simulationism, not about inclusivity.




It is off of inclusivity, but now I'm curious how you visualized your CON based warrior being just as effective at hitting and damaging things as someone with a high STR or DEX used traditionally (who might also have a close to your CON).  Or how you pictured your CHR based warrior as effectively attacking mindless undead, automatons, and oozes as a traditionally based one.  [And how the rules options were modified, if at all, to allow CON and CHR to be the primary attack abilities].


----------



## GreenTengu

Cadence said:


> If you want a high CHR but low STR and DEX character who is just as good in combat as the high STR and DEX character but also good great at acting, is it also reasonable for someone to ask for a high STR but low INT and CHR character who is just as good in spell casting as the high INT and WIS character but also great at stacking rocks?




I really don't see much of an issue here. I honestly think there is a better argument for ranged attacks to use Wisdom for attack bonus and damage bonus when it comes to ranged attacks. The stat that covers perception and willpower, thus breath control, has a lot more to do with accurately hitting a target precisely for maximum effect than one's ability to juggle or tumble. Having AC, Attack Bonus and Damage bonus all derived from the same ability score is just counter-productive to having rounded characters in the game at all, especially when you also derive initiative from that stat and have it used for more than a third of the saving throws characters ever made and have it rule over all of the critical Rogue skills too.

It is why all Rogue subclasses beyond the initial one have all been garbage-- because the class is so entirely balanced around boosting up one ability score and dumping the rest that just switching out abilities and forcing the class to be multi-ability dependent is always going to suck. Thus we can never have any diversity when it comes to Rogues. Dexterity is just too wildly imbalanced when it comes to the amount of the game ruled over by that one stat.

How can we ever have diversity in builds when one ability score dictates your success rate with the majority of the rolls you are going to make during the course of the game?



Cadence said:


> But a lot of games have significant portions devoted to things besides combat. Why is combat the only thing where abilities should be completely interchangeable? Why can't the high CHR (low STR) character also be great at stacking rocks, the high CHR (low DEX) character be great at acrobatics, the high STR (low CHR) character be great at acting , and the high STR (low INT) character be great at math and research? At some point, if CHR isn't needed for acting, and STR isn't needed for rock-stacking, and INT isn't needed to be a wizard, and CHR can let you punch just as hard as STR, you essentially have made ability scores meaningless except for cinematically describing the character. As I've said before, at that point I'd argue that you don't actually want to play Dungeons and Dragons, you actually seem to want some other game.




I have never seen any D&D game where non-combat rolls were made anywhere as frequently as non-combat rules. When it comes to skill challenges, there are a smattering of times when you need to use certain skills to get through an adventure. The Charisma-based Persuasion skill might be more commonly utilized than most other skills. There have been a whole lot less Strength-based skill challenges in this edition than in previous ones, perhaps as a direct result of having virtually nullified Strength as you can substitute Dexterity in for it virtually all of the time.

On the other hand-- Intelligence skills are just entirely worthless. Every single Intelligence skill pretty much comes down to "I don't know what to do next, DM-- give me more hints." And, frankly, if you fail? Well-- if you still can't figure it out, the DM will be forced to provide more hints regardless or you will all sit there all night twiddling your thumbs. And that is assuming the DM has even prepared any more information to give you at all. There is virtually never a situation where any of the Intelligence skills is going to be key to success or even give one a significant advantage.

As a result, the only 5E characters who don't have Intelligence as their worst stat are the ones that use it for spellcasting. In which case-- why even call the stat "Intelligence", why not just call it what it is-- "Magic Power.... if you are a Wizard or Warlock." Because it in no way functions as Intelligence in any other manner, it is the intelligence and experience of the player at the table that dictates the character's actual Intelligence.

Given how generally screwed up these ability scores are in general-- why is anyone even defending them continuing to rule over and dictate a character's ability to succeed at anything? Why not just refer to the skills instead?


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> I really don't see much of an issue here. I honestly think there is a better argument for ranged attacks to use Wisdom for attack bonus and damage bonus when it comes to ranged attacks. The stat that covers perception and willpower, thus breath control, has a lot more to do with accurately hitting a target precisely for maximum effect than one's ability to juggle or tumble.




Dexterity has also traditionally included hand-eye coordination. A person with good hand-eye coordination seems like they might be good with a bow or dagger to me.  A perceptive strong-willed person without hand-eye coordination feels like they'll struggle in a game of darts.



GreenTengu said:


> How can we ever have diversity in builds when one ability score dictates your success rate with the majority of the rolls you are going to make during the course of the game?




By spending more time worry about role-playing than worrying about how a +1 bonus you're missing in the roll-playing that only has an effect on average once every 20 rolls to hit?   



GreenTengu said:


> On the other hand-- Intelligence skills are just entirely worthless. Every single Intelligence skill pretty much comes down to "I don't know what to do next, DM-- give me more hints."




I've never seen someone ask the DM for hints about what to do next. Do you count seeing if you can recall a historical detail based on a lore skill or to see if you can identify a symbol as a hint?

As you note, Int is used for spell casting... and it was formerly used for number of skill points and languages and the like.  Spell attack roll modifiers and saving throw DCs feel like they're somewhat important.  It certainly was a lot bigger impact in 3.5 when it came with bonus spells.   I haven't played a ton of 5e.  Do you find the ability scores a lot more annoying in it than previous editions?



GreenTengu said:


> Because it in no way functions as Intelligence in any other manner, it is the intelligence and experience of the player at the table that dictates the character's actual Intelligence.




There have been some other threads where new names for INT and WIS have come up (partially for concerns about ableism).  It would be hard to stop writing INT and WIS for a while (like when the new year changes and one is writing dates), but I could see something like Recall and Awareness instead, for example.  (It feels like there were suggestions I liked better, but I don't remember them).  It feels like that would still fit with their other skill uses to.



GreenTengu said:


> Given how generally screwed up these ability scores are in general-- why is anyone even defending them continuing to rule over and dictate a character's ability to succeed at anything? Why not just refer to the skills instead?




I know why I bother. I have enjoyed playing the game with that as a major part of the rules for decades. I have especially enjoyed 1e, 2e, 3.5, and PF. (4 not so much, 5 is fine). I've also played games with other stat set-ups (or lack thereof) and enjoyed them for what they were. Something different and not D&D.

Why are you even playing D&D since it doesn't let you do want you want in terms of race-class combinations, has a basic character description engine you hate, and results in all kinds of character outcomes that are too narrow or garbagey?


----------



## Deset Gled

Cadence said:


> It is off of inclusivity, but now I'm curious how you visualized your CON based warrior being just as effective at hitting and damaging things as someone with a high STR or DEX used traditionally (who might also have a close to your CON).  Or how you pictured your CHR based warrior as effectively attacking mindless undead, automatons, and oozes as a traditionally based one.  [And how the rules options were modified, if at all, to allow CON and CHR to be the primary attack abilities].





Without hunting down any specific builds, a Deepwarden from Races of Stone, a 3.0e Psychic Warrior, and the classic Dwarven Defender on a cart all make good Con based warriors. Cha warriors other than rogues would typically be Paladins (or PrC variants) or an Iaijutsu Warrior.


----------



## GreenTengu

Cadence said:


> By spending more time worry about role-playing than worrying about how a +1 bonus you're missing in the roll-playing that only has an effect on average once every 20 rolls to hit?




That +1 on D20 rolls makes a big difference in one's percentage chance of success. If the person with the +1 needs a 10 to succeed, the person without has 10% less chance of succeeding. If the person with the +1 needs a 15 to succeed, the person without the +1 has a 20% less chance of success. If the person with the +1 needs a 19 to succeed, the person without it has only 50% chance of success.

If you just do the basic math, you would see that it matters a whole lot more than 1 in 20 rolls.

And you have entirely discounted the bonus to damage-- and damage is generally rolls on a die ranging from D4 to 2d6-- never anything as large as a D20.

Since you think it doesn't matter at all-- how about playing your next game with a character who has ability scores of all 8 and see how much of a difference it actually makes.




Cadence said:


> I've never seen someone ask the DM for hints about what to do next. Do you count seeing if you can recall a historical detail based on a lore skill or to see if you can identify a symbol as a hint?




Absolutely. You are asking the DM to provide you with information you do not currently have-- assuming the DM prepared any in advance. And you would only be making that roll if you were unsure what you were supposed to make of the symbols-- if they were somehow relevant to the plot. In such a situation you are explicitly asking the DM for a hint as to what you are meant to do with whatever the object the symbol is printed on.

The DM could have just told you what the symbol meant straight-up or told you what the object is directly, and various DMs would. The fact that you have to make a roll to ask for more information means that they hid the answer behind a bit of a puzzle. And you are asking for a hint by making that roll instead of experimenting.

The only other reason you would possibly be asking the DM what some symbol may mean if it is not on an object that you are expected to utilize somehow to advance the plot and the answer isn't apparent to you yet is if it was meant to be an irrelevant symbol on something and you are testing to see how much detail the DM added to the world or can come up with on the fly.



Cadence said:


> As you note, Int is used for spell casting... and it was formerly used for number of skill points and languages and the like.  Spell attack roll modifiers and saving throw DCs feel like they're somewhat important.  It certainly was a lot bigger impact in 3.5 when it came with bonus spells.   I haven't played a ton of 5e.  Do you find the ability scores a lot more annoying in it than previous editions?




And it has none of these functions now-- rendering it pretty useless except in cases where you are indirectly asking the DM for hints as to how to advance the plot. Hints they would probably give you eventually anyway.


----------



## Cadence

Deset Gled said:


> Without hunting down any specific builds, a Deepwarden from Races of Stone, a 3.0e Psychic Warrior, and the classic Dwarven Defender on a cart all make good Con based warriors. Cha warriors other than rogues would typically be Paladins (or PrC variants) or an Iaijutsu Warrior.




Thanks.

I see where the Deepwarden adds their Con in place of Dex for AC. but didn't see where Deepwarden, Psychic Warrior, or Dwarven Defender actually uses the the Con bonus in place of Str or Dex for attacking. Similarly I didn't see an option for a Rogue, Paladin, or Iaijutsu warrior to use Chr in place of Str or Dex for attacking.

Googling after those, I did find a paladin feature that lets Chr add extra temporarily for attack, a 4e feat to use any ability for any basic attacks, and a 5e option that lets Warlocks use Chr.


----------



## roger semerad

Deset Gled said:


> First, I primarily play 3.5e, and have literally played warriors based off of every ability score.  I'm completely comfortable with it.  I have no problems visualizing my characters as I see fit.
> 
> Second, this is still a discussion entirely about rules complexity and simulationism, not about inclusivity.




How your ability scores interact with your class abilities definitely affect inclusivity.  For instance, I'm a furry and every character I'd make would be a Tabaxi.  Tabaxi's come with a +2 to Dex and a +1 to cha.  If I wanted to play a Barbarian my abilities don't line up at all.  I could still make one and have some success with them, but I'd always know I picked a sub optimal build and feel *some* negative feelings about that.  That feeling would then increase if my character died during play.  Did that death happen because my character was deficient? It would be difficult to say, but I'd always wonder. A certain amount of risk of death is something most tables has to deal with, but with that risk comes the desire to mitigate it as much as possible through optimal character generation and play.

This extends to any character idea that someone might be strongly attached to. If you really want to play a wizard who accessed magic through willpower ( in 5th edition that would be wisdom ) then you'd have to make an sub optimal build.  You could make tons of variants to allow any combination to work, but that adds to the complexity of the system. Personally I'm a 4th edition fan and would love for a power based combat system to come back, with every fighting style given completely different powers that work fundamentally different, but D&D has moved to a more simple system.  To allow the all the different character concepts, without making any clearly worse at their job and without adding any more complexity, your going to have to have ability scores become more abstract.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Deset Gled said:


> I am familiar with some tech types getting away from the "master/slave" naming convention.  I think I first saw that over a decade ago.  But I haven't run across anything yet that pushes for removal of the word "master" by itself.  I was under the impression that the presence of "slave" is what made the convention improper, as "master" by itself has a lot more (non-racist) uses.  IIRC, some of the "master/slave" alternatives still use "master/minion" or similar.
> 
> Can you expand a bit on why Game Master (or Dungeon Master) is problematic for you?




Not mirrorball man, but we did run into a reason to change our DM's name a while back.

She was making a joke about Dungeon Master being too masculine, but Dungeon Mistress gave all the wrong vibes. Someone said Dungeon Manager and she immediately changed her title, because we all thought it was both hilarious and far more accurate.

I mean, let us be frank for a second. A) Master is a masculine term B) None of us DMs are really the masters of the game.



Khelon Testudo said:


> The problem with this is some people like working with limitations - they encourage creativity.
> I also personally struggle with the concept of a Str 18 goblin or gnome, never mind 20.




I want to use this post as a small jumping off point for a second. Because I keep hearing this, and by serendipity I heard something that is not only the opposite, but seems to be a great example.  (I saw this before @Cadence post which would have also worked)

A typical halfling or Gnome is about 2 to 3 ft tall, a creature of similar height? Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are also quite a lot stronger than your average human, because of the way their muscles work (current guesses for the reasoning include that they have more explosive strength, but less endurance and fine motor control). 

Now, I don't want to get into the science of biology and muscles, I just want to point out that in terms of size in feet compared to strength, this isn't as absurd as people keep making it out to be. 

*----------------------------
I also want to take a moment to think about an aspect of Green Tengu's argument that I feel like hits closer to a real issue. 

Non-combat vs combat. 

I feel like the biggest part of what is being talking about on Tengu's side is not having to sacrifice combat capability in exchange for the more fun non-combat stuff. Like being a charming rogue like Solo. 

Now, I can already feel people wanting to talk about sacrificing for concept, and how you can't get something for nothing, but there is something here. I have two characters who I remember building for very story heavy reasons. One was for a game that I didn't even know if we would have combat (it was very experimental for me to play in, but I love it) and the other I knew we would have combat, but I also knew we had some players who did not know the rules as well as I did, and that the non-combat stuff would be a more fun section for me anways. They were my Druid and Warlock respectively. But, something notable happened both times. 

For the Druid, as I was building them, I had the choice of a feat, and I took Magic Initiate. I did this so I could combine Shillelagh and Booming Blade. So that I could be an effective, at-will damage dealer and actually this character is often right on the frontlines with our barbarian. But I did this very specifically so that no matter what else I did, I would be good at combat. I had one fallback trick, guaranteed. 

And for the warlock? You guessed it, Agonizing Blast. Because with that and Hex, at the very least, I had a single, guaranteed fall back combat option. 


This was all for making sure I was good at combat, but that is harder to do for certain classes. It is hard to play a brainy fighter, needing the physical stats to make sure you are effective in combat prevents a lot of things like the intelligent commander or the charismatic mercenary leader. Because those are your third choices at best. A rogue almost has to be good at Dex, even if you are really more interested in the non-magical skills of an investigator archetype, you need Dex, because you need to be decent at combat. 


I don't have a solution to this problem. I don't think there has ever been a satisfactory solution to this problem, but I can see Tengu's point leading to the possibility of having a class that is made for the non-combat sections, but can still carry their mechanical weight when combat inevitably springs up.



roger semerad said:


> How your ability scores interact with your class abilities definitely affect inclusivity.  For instance, I'm a furry and every character I'd make would be a Tabaxi.  Tabaxi's come with a +2 to Dex and a +1 to cha.  If I wanted to play a Barbarian my abilities don't line up at all.  I could still make one and have some success with them, but I'd always know I picked a sub optimal build and feel *some* negative feelings about that.  That feeling would then increase if my character died during play.  Did that death happen because my character was deficient? It would be difficult to say, but I'd always wonder. A certain amount of risk of death is something most tables has to deal with, but with that risk comes the desire to mitigate it as much as possible through optimal character generation and play.
> 
> This extends to any character idea that someone might be strongly attached to. If you really want to play a wizard who accessed magic through willpower ( in 5th edition that would be wisdom ) then you'd have to make an sub optimal build.  You could make tons of variants to allow any combination to work, but that adds to the complexity of the system. Personally I'm a 4th edition fan and would love for a power based combat system to come back, with every fighting style given completely different powers that work fundamentally different, but D&D has moved to a more simple system.  To allow the all the different character concepts, without making any clearly worse at their job and without adding any more complexity, your going to have to have ability scores become more abstract.




One thing I loved, and your post made me think of them, Shifters are a great concept. They are a single race, but they have four different stat arrays. I think a floating ASI is easier, but you could also have some races that are a bit more diverse than two subraces. 

Like, taking some random dwarf-y sounding names

Stonewardens get con, str
Metal Singers get wis, cha
ect

And I realize, this is likely also just what the ancestry stuff is. Ah well, 1 AM, and I'm getting tired


----------



## Cadence

GreenTengu said:


> That +1 on D20 rolls makes a big difference in one's percentage chance of success. If the person with the +1 needs a 10 to succeed, the person without has 10% less chance of succeeding. If the person with the +1 needs a 15 to succeed, the person without the +1 has a 20% less chance of success. If the person with the +1 needs a 19 to succeed, the person without it has only 50% chance of success.
> 
> If you just do the basic math, you would see that it matters a whole lot more than 1 in 20 rolls.




It's a 1 in 20 rolls difference in the chance of hitting. (I apologize if you meant they needed to get a 10 total instead of just roll one, for example. It doesn't particularly change the story).

A person rolling a d20+1 rolls 10+ (gets 11+) with probability 11/20.  A d20 gets 11+ with probability  10/20.
11/20 - 10/20 = 1/20 =5%

A person rolling a d20+1 rolls 15+ (gets 16+) with probability 6/20.  A d20 gets 16+ with probability  5/20.
6/20 - 5/20 = 1/20 = 5%

A person rolling a d20+1 rolls 19+ (gets 20+) with probability 2/20. A d20 gets 20+ with probability 1/20.
2/20 - 1/20 = 1/20 = 5%

The difference in probability of success in each case is a difference  in 1 out of 20 rolls.  It doesn't matter what the target number was.

It looks like you were calculating 1 - P(+0)/P(+1) and rounding it. Those feel like they behave oddly and I don't see them that often. Would it be the percent of obtained hits you'd lose if you switched back to +0?  The value for a +1 sword trying to get an 19+ is 1 - 1/20 / 2/20 = 1 - 0.5 = 0.5 = 50%. The value for a +6 sword trying to get a 15+ is also 1 - 6/12 / 12/20 = 1 - 0.5 = 50%. It feels strange to me to say a +1 sword has the same affect when trying to get a 19+ as a +6 one has when trying to get a 15+. The +6 sword changes the roll from a miss to a hit on 6/20 rolls. The +1 sword only changes it on 1/20 rolls.



GreenTengu said:


> And you have entirely discounted the bonus to damage-- and damage is generally rolls on a die ranging from D4 to 2d6-- never anything as large as a D20.




That is true.

For each round of combat, the difference in expected damage delivered (disregarding criticals) is

Needing a 11+  =   11/20 * (4.5+1) - 10/20*(4.5) = 0.775
Needing a 16+  =     6/20 * (4.5+1) - 5/20*(4.5) = 0.525
Needing a 20+ =     2/20 * (4.5+1) - 6/20*(4.5) = 0.325

In the 2d6 case they would be 0.9, 0.65, and 0.45.  In the d4 case 0.675, 0.425, 0.225.  So, something from close to 1 point of extra damage missed on average each round to something close to 1 point of damage every 4 rounds on average.




GreenTengu said:


> Since you think it doesn't matter at all-- how about playing your next game with a character who has ability scores of all 8 and see how much of a difference it actually makes.




How on earth did it go from a character with a standard stat array (around 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) to one around (8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8) !?!?!?

They typical race bonuses are a +2 and a +1.   So if we min-maxed one standard array and put them in the least used spot in the other it would be the difference between a (17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8) and a (15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10).    Looking at the bonuses, that's (+3, +2, +1, +1, +0, -1) vs. (+2, +2, +1, +1, +0, +0).    As always, the worst bonus difference is the +1 in the most important stat, and the total stat bonus is actually the same.




GreenTengu said:


> Absolutely. You are asking the DM to provide you with information you do not currently have-- assuming the DM prepared any in advance. And you would only be making that roll if you were unsure what you were supposed to make of the symbols-- if they were somehow relevant to the plot. In such a situation you are explicitly asking the DM for a hint as to what you are meant to do with whatever the object the symbol is printed on.




Ok.  I would assume in general that the player wouldn't, for example, know all the heraldic devices in the kingdom, but that a character who studied such things might.  I would probably think of that as a legitimate knowledge skill check instead of a hint... but I wouldn't complain if the DM elaborated more than just what I asked.



GreenTengu said:


> The DM could have just told you what the symbol meant straight-up or told you what the object is directly, and various DMs would. The fact that you have to make a roll to ask for more information means that they hid the answer behind a bit of a puzzle. And you are asking for a hint by making that roll instead of experimenting.




True. Some DMs use a lot of die rolls (so those attribute skills and bonuses are important) and some don't.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> I don't need a lot of realism in my game, and if the campaign world is such that goblins can have any strength because they don't follow the laws of physiology and physics that halflings, humans, and ogres do, then great.  If that's how it is then I'll expect everyone to be darn careful in judging goblins by their looks.
> 
> My guess is that most worlds have some expectation of things like physiology and physics for things that are seemingly "normal" working similar to the real world. The really buff normal house cat isn't going to beat the really buff normal lion at killing the person who snuck into the cage. The normal shetland pony isn't going to be a better choice to pull the heavy wagon than the normal clydesdale. And the non-magical halfling weightlifter is certainly going to lose to the non-magical half-orc weightlifter.
> 
> Who cares if a PC goblin (in a world without magically any-strengthed Goblins) that has devoted everything to STR can get the same STR as a half-orc or dragonborn that devoted everything to STR? Maybe the person who picked the bigger stronger race explicitly to be bigger and stronger? Is it not enough for the goblin player that they can be within a measly 2 point difference from the dragonborn that went all out?  Why doesn't the player who chose to play to type's story matter at all?



Also, there's the fact that small races are already disadvantaged mechanically with heavy weapons and that larger races often have Powerful Build, which shows the fact that smaller races be weaker, even if the Ability Scores don't show that directly.


----------



## Cadence

Chaosmancer said:


> A typical halfling or Gnome is about 2 to 3 ft tall, a creature of similar height? Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are also quite a lot stronger than your average human, because of the way their muscles work (current guesses for the reasoning include that they have more explosive strength, but less endurance and fine motor control).
> 
> Now, I don't want to get into the science of biology and muscles, I just want to point out that in terms of size in feet compared to strength, this isn't as absurd as people keep making it out to be.




That's a great example (and I'm embarrassed for not having though of it).  Thank you!

If nothing else that would make a great explanation if someone wanted to have a race that was small but super strong in general (say you wanted super-strong goblins in your world, but not due to magic).  

It still feels a bit odd to think of just one having that though. I'm picturing a twilight zone or looney tunes episode or something where someone's 1st grade child has the strength of an adult chimpanzee. It would certainly be the stuff of legends.

So, after the halfling sized character says they want a strength bonus because they're like a chimpanzee, can the dragonborn or half-orc as for an even bigger bonus because they're like a gorilla?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> But I like the idea of INT or WIS character to for combat to hit and damage because of a well chosen or sensed strike location. And the reason I'd argue for a class that does that instead of just letting any ability apply, is that I don't see how it's reasonable, say to have one who bases to hit in melee on CON or CHR. Just as there are some stats that I would argue don't make particular sense for casting wizard spells or picking pockets or tracking someone in the woods.



There are already ways to use weapons based on these Ability Scores (not Constitution). Hexblades can use Charisma, Battle Smiths can use Intelligence, Shillelagh uses your spellcasting modifier (Wisdom), Finesse allows for Strength and Dexterity. The only one that 5e does not allow you to use for weapon attacks to be based off of are Constitution. I think you should be able to use these ability scores for weapon combat, but it has almost nothing to do with inclusivity, should IMHO be limited similarly to how it is in 5e already, and this really isn't in the scope of the thread.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Also, there's the fact that small races are already disadvantaged mechanically with heavy weapons and that larger races often have Powerful Build, which shows the fact that smaller races be weaker, even if the Ability Scores don't show that directly.




I hadn't seen powerful build (at least recently enough to remember). Thank you!

Powerful build and the weapon difference does fix quite a bit, at least going from the smallest races to the largest ones.

I wonder if the "play any build just as well in combat" side would argue that the weapon restriction was unfair.


(Edit: And thank you for the list of ways to use the non-Con attributes.)


----------



## Flamestrike

It's hilarious that people think that Wizards is going to do away with Halflings, Orcs and Elves all of a sudden (or simply make them all the same) in the name of 'inclusiveness.'

*Literally *all they've said on the topic is:

We want to be careful we just dont cut and paste negative real world stereotypes into fictional human cultures (Vistani, Chultans, Maztica, Al Quadim etc) and also into non human cultures (all Orcs and dark skinned races are evil), and we want to flesh out those cultures as more than just dot point negative cultural stereotypes and worn out tropes.
We want to make it clearer that Humanoid alignment (and thus _behaviours_) are driven by free will and choice and not by 'instinct', and that no 'race' or 'culture' is inherently and irredeemably evil, fit only for genocide.
Suddenly everyone loses their minds and threads like this pop up. I literally cant even tell if the thread is a troll or not such is the level of misunderstanding about what WoTC have actually said on the topic, and the handwringing that followed it.


----------



## Hussar

Azzy said:


> Yeah, I'd say that that's a big nope. D&D hasn't been limited to medieval fantasy for a very long time, and it has strained against that restriction from at least 1e. Furthermore, D&D should strive to cover more fantasy more cultures just on the basis of world building (something many of us love to do) if for no other more lofty reason.




D&D may not be "limited" to medieval fantasy, but, let's be honest, that's where about 90% of it lives.

Whether you're talking about the Sword Coast or Icewind Dale, or Dragonlance, or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, the baseline assumptions of D&D is medieval at the very least, and probably Eurocentric.  Asking what classes should be used to emulate First Nations people is like asking what classes should be used to emulate accountants.  They are both about equally far removed from the baseline.  Why would you expect the base rules to cover settings and cultures that are well outside the presumed genre of the game?


----------



## Deset Gled

roger semerad said:


> For instance, I'm a furry and every character I'd make would be a Tabaxi.  Tabaxi's come with a +2 to Dex and a +1 to cha.  If I wanted to play a Barbarian my abilities don't line up at all.  I could still make one and have some success with them, but I'd always know I picked a sub optimal build and feel *some* negative feelings about that.  That feeling would then increase if my character died during play.  Did that death happen because my character was deficient? It would be difficult to say, but I'd always wonder. A certain amount of risk of death is something most tables has to deal with, but with that risk comes the desire to mitigate it as much as possible through optimal character generation and play.




If you want to be a furry, buy yourself a Hat of Disguise and activate your fursuit whenever you want too.  Pick whatever race and class you want.  The rest is anxiety about powergaming.



Cadence said:


> I see where the Deepwarden adds their Con in place of Dex for AC. but didn't see where Deepwarden, Psychic Warrior, or Dwarven Defender actually uses the the Con bonus in place of Str or Dex for attacking. Similarly I didn't see an option for a Rogue, Paladin, or Iaijutsu warrior to use Chr in place of Str or Dex for attacking.




The Iaijutsu Master adds their Cha to damage when they use iaijutsu focus.  Paladins use their Cha to cast Bless Weapon or Lay Hands.  Rogues use their Cha to bluff and then get sneak attack damage.  Psions use whatever revelevant psychokinesis (CON based powers) they want.



Chaosmancer said:


> I mean, let us be frank for a second. A) Master is a masculine term B) None of us DMs are really the masters of the game.




Eh, I kinda see what you mean with this, but also kinda disagree.  "Master" was historically masculine, but in modern terms has become non-gendered.  I posted a list earlier of modern uses of the term "master", and all of them would be applied to females without switching to "mistress".  "Mistress" has really become a completely separate term in modern usage.


----------



## Spohedus

I agree Flamestrike. Most of us, at each of our tables have not struggled with this topic at all for decades. This is a PR reaction for WotC much more than it is an actual game issue, and it has not really much to do with social justice, just so we're clear. Each table, whoever wonderful and diverse is sitting there playing with their friends, has worked these things out in a better fashion over the last 40+years than any edited 5e+ or press release from THE CORPORATION could ever do. We all have, and have had the freedom at our tables to make it so for Pete's Sake!

I'll just say it. I haven't seen any hate or prejudice implicit in the game's design, black elves and all.  We all need to recognize just how inclusive this game has been and already is, and not cow-tow to the day's narrative screaming that rights need to be wronged at the gaming table. That's rubbish. I am perfectly fine with racism between actual races in a fantasy genre. I am anti-racist in my views of American culture in the real world. But playable races in a make-believe world are not different cultures. They are, in fact, different races/species.


----------



## Coroc

doctorbadwolf said:


> ..... It’s that “master bedroom” gives a lot of folks the same vibes ...




For me as a non native speaker when I first heard the term (without having read it before) I thought of something totally different (think something dirty that really sounds alike) and wondered why they would talk such nonsense on MTV while keeping their face totally serious.

I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?


----------



## FrogReaver

Flamestrike said:


> It's hilarious that people think that Wizards is going to do away with Halflings, Orcs and Elves all of a sudden (or simply make them all the same) in the name of 'inclusiveness.'
> 
> *Literally *all they've said on the topic is:
> 
> We want to be careful we just dont cut and paste negative real world stereotypes into fictional human cultures (Vistani, Chultans, Maztica, Al Quadim etc) and also into non human cultures (all Orcs and dark skinned races are evil), and we want to flesh out those cultures as more than just dot point negative cultural stereotypes and worn out tropes.
> We want to make it clearer that Humanoid alignment (and thus _behaviours_) are driven by free will and choice and not by 'instinct', and that no 'race' or 'culture' is inherently and irredeemably evil, fit only for genocide.
> Suddenly everyone loses their minds and threads like this pop up. I literally cant even tell if the thread is a troll or not such is the level of misunderstanding about what WoTC have actually said on the topic, and the handwringing that followed it.




So if some people started talking about how racist fictional elves are, I think it's within the realm of possibility that there could be a demand to remove them or modify them and that wotc would cave to those demands.  Would the resulting fictional race still be elves.  Maybe.  I'm not really sure how much we can change elves and orcs before they cease to be elves and orcs.  All I know is that there exists some point where that's the case and that I want to stay far away from it.

The changes we are talking about are chaotic.  The full outcome of them is unknown.  If you want people to get on board you need to give them a vision of exactly what the change looks like and where it actually stops.  Make the process of change have some actual order to it.


----------



## Cadence

Coroc said:


> I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?




The master bedroom does indeed often come with a master bathroom (or two).    In (relatively) newer houses the parents get the distinctly bigger bedroom, with the big closets, and their own bathroom.  The kids get smaller ones and might share a bathroom off the hall.

If there's a separate kitchen, that's for someone you don't want eating with the family.  Maybe one in a "mother-in-law's suite" (or apartment for the older kid when they come back from college).


Edit: Fixed bad attribution, thanks @Sadras !


----------



## Deset Gled

Coroc said:


> I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?




Actually, yes.  The master bedroom typically has a bathroom attached that is only accessible through the master bedroom.  That's actually what makes it the master bedroom, not size.

In older houses with servants, there might also be a small secondary kitchen next to the servants quarters.


----------



## Cadence

Deset Gled said:


> Actually, yes.  The master bedroom typically has a bathroom attached that is only accessible through the master bedroom.  That's actually what makes it the master bedroom, not size.




When we stop overnight in a hotel traveling, we sometimes put on HGTV.  The shows like House Hunters are often a hoot.  When some first time home owners are shown a house built in the 1970s or before, they'll walk from bedroom to bedroom, and then one will shrug and questioningly say "I guess this one's the master....?".  With no bathroom of it's own they don't know quite know which one to pick but feel their should be one.  And then you get the houses like ours where all the bedrooms are identically sized...


----------



## FrogReaver

Coroc said:


> For me as a non native speaker when I first heard the term (without having read it before) I thought of something totally different (think something dirty that really sounds alike) and wondered why they would talk such nonsense on MTV while keeping their face totally serious.
> 
> I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?




Master means principal.  Generally homes have 1 living room, 1 kitchen and multiple bedrooms.  Master just means the principal bedroom (aka the best bedroom).


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

CleverNickName said:


> Drop the word "Race," and replace it with *Ancestry* (good call).




*Dwarf mother in the birthing room: *Oh no! I've had an elven baby. Never have I brought such shame to my ancestry. 

*Dwarf mother in an adjacent bed: *Better elven than goblin like mine. I worry my ancestors will curse us both!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> *Dwarf mother in the birthing room: *Oh no! I've had an elven baby. Never have I brought such shame to my ancestry.
> 
> *Dwarf mother in an adjacent bed: *Better elven than goblin like mine. I worry my ancestors will curse us both!



That’s the wildest leap I’ve seen in any of these threads, which is saying quite a lot.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s the wildest leap I’ve seen in any of these threads, which is saying quite a lot.



I'll take that as a compliment : )


----------



## doctorbadwolf

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I'll take that as a compliment : )



It isn’t.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

doctorbadwolf said:


> It isn’t.



* shrug *


----------



## Sadras

Cadence said:


> The master bedroom does indeed often come with a master bathroom (or two).    In (relatively) newer houses the parents get the distinctly bigger bedroom, with the big closets, and their own bathroom.  The kids get smaller ones and might share a bathroom off the hall.
> 
> If there's a separate kitchen, that's for someone you don't want eating with the family.  Maybe one in a "mother-in-law's suite" (or apartment for the older kid when they come back from college).




I think you may have accidentally attributed the quote to Hussar.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Why would you expect the base rules to cover settings and cultures that are well outside the presumed genre of the game?




That is my thinking, hence I said perhaps the class has not been created (at least in 5e).


----------



## Azzy

Hussar said:


> D&D may not be "limited" to medieval fantasy, but, let's be honest, that's where about 90% of it lives.
> 
> Whether you're talking about the Sword Coast or Icewind Dale, or Dragonlance, or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, the baseline assumptions of D&D is medieval at the very least, and probably Eurocentric.  Asking what classes should be used to emulate First Nations people is like asking what classes should be used to emulate accountants.  They are both about equally far removed from the baseline.  Why would you expect the base rules to cover settings and cultures that are well outside the presumed genre of the game?




While D&D started as very Eurocentric (something that is still reflected in the game to some degree to this day), I think you overstate it. In the two oldest settings published by TSR, Greyhawk and the Known World (later Mystara) included various non-European cultures. In Greyhawk, the Baklunish West is very Arabian and Persian inspired with some Eurasian Khanates thrown in for good measure, while the Rovers of the Barrens and other Flan have a bit of a Native American influence. The Known World has several non-European lands (such the Native American-inspired Atruaghin Clans, the Ethengar Khanate, the very Arabic Emirates of Ylaruam, Mughal Indian-inspired Sind, etc.). The Forgotten Realms included several non-European cultures as well right from the start (and then Kara-Tur, Zakhara, and Maztica came later). So, yes, I do think that D&D should support playing in the various non-European cultures that it has included in its settings since at least the split of D&D and AD&D.


----------



## Azzy

Coroc said:


> For me as a non native speaker when I first heard the term (without having read it before) I thought of something totally different (think something dirty that really sounds alike) and wondered why they would talk such nonsense on MTV while keeping their face totally serious.
> 
> I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?



Well, we can also look at the term "Dungeon Master" in that light, too. Sounds very BDSM.


----------



## Flamestrike

Spohedus said:


> I agree Flamestrike. Most of us, at each of our tables have not struggled with this topic at all for decades. This is a PR reaction for WotC much more than it is an actual game issue, and it has not really much to do with social justice, just so we're clear.




Mate, its just how people are these days. See the negative reaction to The Last of Us 2, which in many cases is driven by the same divisive politics that caused Gamergate and so much of the naughty word you see on the news and on social media and the comments section of websites these days.

All you can do is shake your head, and wait for the Doomsday clock to hit midnight.

We're 100 seconds away from midnight at the moment, and it was set there BEFORE 2020 turned everything pearshaped.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Coroc said:


> I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?



"Master" in this case is a synonym for "main" or "best". See also: "master key". You should find that in a thesaurus. It is used in British English.


----------



## roger semerad

Deset Gled said:


> If you want to be a furry, buy yourself a Hat of Disguise and activate your fursuit whenever you want too.  Pick whatever race and class you want.  The rest is anxiety about powergaming.




You may not be aware of it, but there are two things in that statement that are offensive. First you group all furries into a narrow stereotype ( fursuiters ), and then dismiss their concerns as frivolous and unimportant. I don't blame you, there are very few furries actually talking to people about themselves. Most reflexively cringe every time the topic is brought up outside furry circles, no news is good news most of the time. 

There's actually very little you can say about furries as a whole.  Basically just that we all like the idea of human/animal hybrids to some degree. Some see their furry forms ( called a fursona ) as their real selves, others see a fursona as a symbol, and others don't even have a fursona. Some fursona's are very deferent from the real person, others aren't deferent at all. Some have sexual feelings about furries, others don't.  Some think they're reincarnations of animal spirits. Some would welcome the ability to actually become their fursona, others only think of it as a fantasy. Fursuiters are little deferent than cosplayers. They're a vibrant part of the furry community, but just that - *a part*. Some that put on a fursuit feel a spiritual connection, others just see it as a costume. 

As to what being a furry means to me, it's complicated. I see tigers as a strong symbol of my perfect self. Strong, curious, independent, fearsome, and beautiful. There is also a bit of a notion that this is the form I'd chose for myself, birth made me one thing but this is what I'd chose. I don't think about it too often as changing your species is a *long* way off, but I would like to see us get there. So there is a bit of transhumanism in there too. I also am not a costume person, I don't see the point. They don't look real and they are very uncomfortable. I seek out games that let me carry out this fantasy. When I'm playing one, like the Elder Scrolls, I feel comfortable and happy. It welcomes me in and lets me feel like the real me. So having a cat race in D&D is a big reason why I'd play in the first place, and being cat-like is the whole point. So reskinning another race wouldn't work.

D&D is a combat heavy game by default, so survivability is an important consideration. No one wants to play a game where you feel like you're being handicapped. Lessening the impact of ability scores is the easiest way to do that, which is why it's being brought up. It's not my ideal though, that would be having every ability score equally contributing to your survivability, but in a deferent way. That would make any combination of ability scores viable, even an even spread between all of them. It's just that it would require a real heavy rethinking of ability scores in D&D to make that happen, and I don't think there is a will to do that.

Also, while I'm talking about being welcoming to furries, it would really help if there was a canine race. The most plentiful types of furries are canines and felines, so having those two represented would be great. Having an open ended animal/person race that let you pick from a list of features to make any type of animal person would be ideal, but just a canine and feline race is a good start.


----------



## TheSword

roger semerad said:


> You may not be aware of it, but there are two things in that statement that are offensive. First you group all furries into a narrow stereotype ( fursuiters ), and then dismiss their concerns as frivolous and unimportant. I don't blame you, there are very few furries actually talking to people about themselves. Most reflexively cringe every time the topic is brought up outside furry circles, no news is good news most of the time.
> 
> There's actually very little you can say about furries as a whole.  Basically just that we all like the idea of human/animal hybrids to some degree. Some see their furry forms ( called a fursona ) as their real selves, others see a fursona as a symbol, and others don't even have a fursona. Some fursona's are very deferent from the real person, others aren't deferent at all. Some have sexual feelings about furries, others don't.  Some think they're reincarnations of animal spirits. Some would welcome the ability to actually become their fursona, others only think of it as a fantasy. Fursuiters are little deferent than cosplayers. They're a vibrant part of the furry community, but just that - *a part*. Some that put on a fursuit feel a spiritual connection, others just see it as a costume.
> 
> As to what being a furry means to me, it's complicated. I see tigers as a strong symbol of my perfect self. Strong, curious, independent, fearsome, and beautiful. There is also a bit of a notion that this is the form I'd chose for myself, birth made me one thing but this is what I'd chose. I don't think about it too often as changing your species is a *long* way off, but I would like to see us get there. So there is a bit of transhumanism in there too. I also am not a costume person, I don't see the point. They don't look real and they are very uncomfortable. I seek out games that let me carry out this fantasy. When I'm playing one, like the Elder Scrolls, I feel comfortable and happy. It welcomes me in and lets me feel like the real me. So having a cat race in D&D is a big reason why I'd play in the first place, and being cat-like is the whole point. So reskinning another race wouldn't work.
> 
> D&D is a combat heavy game by default, so survivability is an important consideration. No one wants to play a game where you feel like you're being handicapped. Lessening the impact of ability scores is the easiest way to do that, which is why it's being brought up. It's not my ideal though, that would be having every ability score equally contributing to your survivability, but in a deferent way. That would make any combination of ability scores viable, even an even spread between all of them. It's just that it would require a real heavy rethinking of ability scores in D&D to make that happen, and I don't think there is a will to do that.
> 
> Also, while I'm talking about being welcoming to furries, it would really help if there was a canine race. The most plentiful types of furries are canines and felines, so having those two represented would be great. Having an open ended animal/person race that let you pick from a list of features to make any type of animal person would be ideal, but just a canine and feline race is a good start.




Your expectation of a canine playable race raises an interesting point. At what point should it be a reasonable expectation that a person’s preferred race should be made available to them because of inclusivity.

If dog humanoids don’t exist in common literature, film, or myth, should the writers be expected to conjure them fresh from the ether.

Maybe it’s better that if it feels that important to you, someone could easily publish a canine, vulpine or bovine race on DM Guild. Or maybe play a toned down lycanthrope.


----------



## Paul Farquhar




----------



## Derren

Funny how inclusiveness has become a codeword for minmaxing and how not having a 20 strength fighter is racism.


----------



## Hussar

Spohedus said:


> I agree Flamestrike. Most of us, at each of our tables have not struggled with this topic at all for decades. This is a PR reaction for WotC much more than it is an actual game issue, and it has not really much to do with social justice, just so we're clear. Each table, whoever wonderful and diverse is sitting there playing with their friends, has worked these things out in a better fashion over the last 40+years than any edited 5e+ or press release from THE CORPORATION could ever do. We all have, and have had the freedom at our tables to make it so for Pete's Sake!
> 
> I'll just say it. I haven't seen any hate or prejudice implicit in the game's design, black elves and all.  We all need to recognize just how inclusive this game has been and already is, and not cow-tow to the day's narrative screaming that rights need to be wronged at the gaming table. That's rubbish. I am perfectly fine with racism between actual races in a fantasy genre. I am anti-racist in my views of American culture in the real world. But playable races in a make-believe world are not different cultures. They are, in fact, different races/species.




I'm sorry, but, this is easily disproven.

Prior to 2015 and the release of 5e, the demographics of D&D was virtually entirely white, male and young.  This wasn't something that people made up.  It is a fact.  

Now, after 2015, we see a massive surge in female gamers for the first time in the games history.  We see a surge in various minorities playing the game.  To the point where last I heard, we're about 40% female gamers now?  Something to that effect.

So, if the game was so welcoming to outsiders, so completely without hate or prejudice, how do you explain that for the first forty-five years of its history, until the publishers actively started honestly changing the books to be more welcoming and less offensive, the hobby was overwhelmingly white and male?

Oh, and it's spelled kow tow.  We're not pulling bovines.


----------



## TheSword

Paul Farquhar said:


>



Loved that show! Not sure a parody of another story that d&d is influenced by counts though


----------



## Aldarc

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Time to bring back *Blue Rose*.



It was updated by Green Ronin for their AGE system.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, but, this is easily disproven.
> 
> Prior to 2015 and the release of 5e, the demographics of D&D was virtually entirely white, male and young.  This wasn't something that people made up.  It is a fact.




Tons of gamers who were white, young and male in the 70's and 80's still played in 2000's and were not young anymore. 



> Now, after 2015, we see a massive surge in female gamers for the first time in the games history.  We see a surge in various minorities playing the game.  To the point where last I heard, we're about 40% female gamers now?  Something to that effect.
> 
> So, if the game was so welcoming to outsiders, so completely without hate or prejudice, how do you explain that for the first forty-five years of its history, until the publishers actively started honestly changing the books to be more welcoming and less offensive, the hobby was overwhelmingly white and male?




Because it was not socially acceptable.  It was still a "nerd/geek" game until then.  It slowly became main stream and people who were not interested in it before became interested in playing D&D.  I had multiple groups that tried to get women to play D&D from the 1990's through the 2000's and got turned down time and time again.  A few women tried it and then left, because they didn't like it. Once D&D became basically main stream, with the help of shows like Stranger Things and Big Bang Theory, a lot more women tried the game.


----------



## Alzrius

Maxperson said:


> Tons of gamers who were white, young and male in the 70's and 80's still played in 2000's and were not young anymore.




Make note of the WotC RPG market survey that Wizards of the Coast conducted in 1999. According to it, among the U.S. population ages 12 to 35, 19% of the people who played tabletop RPGs on a monthly basis were female. It also noted the following conclusion:



> Second, it is clear that female gamers constitute a significant portion of the hobby gaming audience; essentially a fifth of the total market. This represents a total population of several million active female hobby gamers. However, females, as a group, spend less than males on the hobby.


----------



## jmartkdr2

TheSword said:


> Your expectation of a canine playable race raises an interesting point. At what point should it be a reasonable expectation that a person’s preferred race should be made available to them because of inclusivity.
> 
> If dog humanoids don’t exist in common literature, film, or myth, should the writers be expected to conjure them fresh from the ether.
> 
> Maybe it’s better that if it feels that important to you, someone could easily publish a canine, vulpine or bovine race on DM Guild. Or maybe play a toned down lycanthrope.



I don't think you'll find any animal-person hybrid concept that doesn't exist in literature (all media) somewhere. But I digress - the answer here is to make a 'build your own race' tool that gets balanced-enough results to fit with the existing races. Then I can play a Honey-Badger person that fits my idea of what that means without needing to homebrew from scratch. Because, and I know this will come as a shock to some people, homebrewing something balanced is not trivially easy. If it was, there would be no bad homebrew. 

That's an easy-ish answer to one area of potential exclusion. Kind of like renaming certain things - calling barbarians berzerkers is slightly less colonialist and slightly more accurate to what the class is all about, so let's do that.


----------



## Deset Gled

roger semerad said:


> You may not be aware of it, but there are two things in that statement that are offensive. First you group all furries into a narrow stereotype ( fursuiters ), and then dismiss their concerns as frivolous and unimportant..




You are literally complaining about the fact that your preference isn't the most statistically optimal choice, and then claiming that it means I'm being offensive and not inclusive.  Yes, I dismiss that as frivolous and unimportant.

Furthermore, I do not recognize "furry" as a protected class.


----------



## roger semerad

TheSword said:


> Your expectation of a canine playable race raises an interesting point. *At what point should it be a reasonable expectation that a person’s preferred race should be made available to them because of inclusivity.*
> 
> If dog humanoids don’t exist in common literature, film, or myth, should the writers be expected to conjure them fresh from the ether.




The answer of course, is the point where WotC sees more profit coming in than it would cost them to develop it. It would be nice for them to do it out of the goodness of their heart, and maybe that can factor in when deciding where the line is, but in the end WotC is most concerned with money. 



Deset Gled said:


> You are literally complaining about the fact that your preference isn't the most statistically optimal choice, and then claiming that it means I'm being offensive and not inclusive.  Yes, I dismiss that as frivolous and unimportant.
> 
> Furthermore, I do not recognize "furry" as a protected class.




The dismissive and offensive part of that statement was the idea that a magical hat that superficially adds the appearance of a furry over an existing race was an adequate solution to the problem. In hindsight I should have made that more clear. The ability score thing is just a disagreement.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

The problem is:
Where do you draw the line... 

After eliminating allignment, you can discuss ability scores, next is racial abilities, because they are stereotypical... 

I don't want to stop inclusiveness, but at aome point you need stereotypical assignments or you have to throw the whole fantasy settings over board. 

Probably you have to divide between cultural and biological differences first and then see what works.


----------



## jmartkdr2

UngeheuerLich said:


> The problem is:
> Where do you draw the line...
> 
> After eliminating allignment, you can discuss ability scores, next is racial abilities, because they are stereotypical...
> 
> I don't want to stop inclusiveness, but at aome point you need stereotypical assignments or you have to throw the whole fantasy settings over board.
> 
> Probably you have to divide between cultural and biological differences first and then see what works.



That's always one of the tough questions. 

(For ability scores - I don't find the inclusivity argument for changing them very strong, but I do think loosening them up results in greater character diversity with few downsides so I'm all for that change.)

For example: I really don't like the idea that any class should work with any ability score. "You can play whatever you want" is one of the more annoying sales pitches for DnD, because you always need to fit both the game and the table, and some classes leaning on certain ability scores is part of that. If you want to play a wizard, you gotta be smart. If you want to play a not-smart magic user, there's other classes for that. I'm all for getting rid of silly restrictions (ie bards can't be lawful) but not all restrictions are bad for the game or exclusionary.


----------



## Remathilis

I think people are mixing up inclusiveness (be accepted for your differences) with homogeny (everyone being equally good at all things). It's ok if dwarves are better fighters than elves or halflings are stealthier than orcs if they all have a niche. It's quite another to say orcs are inferior to dwarves, elves, and halflings in all things but destruction.


----------



## FrogReaver

Remathilis said:


> I think people are mixing up inclusiveness (be accepted for your differences) with homogeny (everyone being equally good at all things). It's ok if dwarves are better fighters than elves or halflings are stealthier than orcs if they all have a niche. It's quite another to say orcs are inferior to dwarves, elves, and halflings in all things but destruction.




LOL. I don’t think you fully grasp what inclusiveness means these days.


----------



## Remathilis

FrogReaver said:


> LOL. I don’t think you fully grasp what inclusiveness means these days.



Enlighten?


----------



## MGibster

Remathilis said:


> Enlighten?




The idea of attribute bonuses for races is one rooted in colonialism and modern pseudo scientific racism.


----------



## Remathilis

MGibster said:


> The idea of attribute bonuses for races is one rooted in colonialism and modern pseudo scientific racism.



Did I specify ability bonuses? Or is elves having an extra cantrip, dwarves getting extra hp, halflings hiding under larger creatures and orcs having extra move before an attack also rooted in colonialism and racist pseudoscience?


----------



## FrogReaver

Remathilis said:


> Enlighten?




All people are equal.  To deny this by saying one racial group is stronger or smarter is anthema. It’s one of the most non-inclusive things that can be done.  This same phenomenon must also apply to the fantasy world as the races can often resemble real world races and peoples and cultures enough such that people draw connections between them.  That those connections can be drawn is what makes having races that exhibit such characteristics be non-inclusive.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> All people are equal.  To deny this by saying one racial group is stronger or smarter is anthema. It’s one of the most non-inclusive things that can be done.  This same phenomenon must also apply to the fantasy world as the races can often resemble real world races and peoples and cultures enough such that people draw connections between them.  That those connections can be drawn is what makes having races that exhibit such characteristics be non-inclusive.



This is an extreme reading that is inconsistent with what actual inclusivity advocates are calling for.


----------



## Remathilis

FrogReaver said:


> All people are equal. To deny this by saying one racial group is stronger or smarter is anthema. It’s one of the most non-inclusive things that can be done. This same phenomenon must also apply to the fantasy world as the races can often resemble real world races and peoples and cultures enough such that people draw connections between them. That those connections can be drawn is what makes having races that exhibit such characteristics be non-inclusive.



So remove all racial traits then. Make race/species/ancestry purely cosmetic. Why should one race see in the dark better than another or have more HP or move faster or resist fire damage better than any other?


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is an extreme reading that is inconsistent with what actual inclusivity advocates are calling for.




You have a terrible habit of stating something contrarian with no elaboration. Please be more polite and elaborate on why instead of just saying “an your wrong”.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Cadence said:


> That's a great example (and I'm embarrassed for not having though of it).  Thank you!
> 
> If nothing else that would make a great explanation if someone wanted to have a race that was small but super strong in general (say you wanted super-strong goblins in your world, but not due to magic).
> 
> It still feels a bit odd to think of just one having that though. I'm picturing a twilight zone or looney tunes episode or something where someone's 1st grade child has the strength of an adult chimpanzee. It would certainly be the stuff of legends.
> 
> So, after the halfling sized character says they want a strength bonus because they're like a chimpanzee, can the dragonborn or half-orc as for an even bigger bonus because they're like a gorilla?




Why do they need a bigger bonus? Ape's are strength 16, they are already as strong as a Gorilla.

And honestly, gnomes and halflings would already be insane to witness in real life. Strength 12 isn't unreasonable with the standard array. It lets you carry 180lbs. Your typical gnome or halfling weighs 40lbs. They are capable of carrying four times their body weight without struggle. Up to nine times if they push. They can leap nearly four times their own height.

What happens if they decide to climb something, or swing themselves from rafters? 

And this seems "looney toons" because you are picturing a 1st grade child, but it isn't a first grade child, it is a grown adult with wiry musculature who is just as agile and cooridinated as a human.





Deset Gled said:


> Eh, I kinda see what you mean with this, but also kinda disagree.  "Master" was historically masculine, but in modern terms has become non-gendered.  I posted a list earlier of modern uses of the term "master", and all of them would be applied to females without switching to "mistress".  "Mistress" has really become a completely separate term in modern usage.




Maybe in  general, but it definitely bothered my DM a bit, enough so that she still has not changed her title back from Dungeon Manager and probably will keep it going forward. 

For me then, changing Dungeon Master to something Dungeon Manager has nothing to do with "master/slave" stuff and is far more like changing "Fireman" to "Firefighter" by removing the implicit gendering.  (Also, while I skimmed your list, many of the words I remember were applied to rooms or objects, which removes a gendering bias generally)



Azzy said:


> Well, we can also look at the term "Dungeon Master" in that light, too. Sounds very BDSM.




Also very true, there is a DnD stageplay ("She slays Monsters" I think) where that exact misunderstanding is played for laughs. I think it is more amusing than anything else, but it is there.




roger semerad said:


> D&D is a combat heavy game by default, so survivability is an important consideration. No one wants to play a game where you feel like you're being handicapped. Lessening the impact of ability scores is the easiest way to do that, which is why it's being brought up. It's not my ideal though, that would be having every ability score equally contributing to your survivability, but in a deferent way. That would make any combination of ability scores viable, even an even spread between all of them. It's just that it would require a real heavy rethinking of ability scores in D&D to make that happen, and I don't think there is a will to do that.




I'm not going to comment too much on the furry aspect. I don't consider myself one, but I also find Anthro characters fascinating and deeply compelling from a multitude of angles, and often end up including elements of that in various stories. (Honestly, a "beast-men" race is generally one of the first things I add to a fantasy setting if they don't have one) 

I will agree on this point though. And frankly, no one should really be surprised. It has been known for decades that DnD is very combat heavy, which makes combat effectiveness a big issue, and drives people to want to survive, and therefore be good at combat, so the DM makes them fight more, because they have all these combat abilities that they need to use, and it cycles. 


But, it is a tough balance issue. Rogues, Rangers and Bards are partially in this section of supposedly being great for out of combat things, while the fighter and barbarian are supposed to be more heavily combat focused. And making everyone good at everything doesn't feel right, but making people who are bad at combat is nearly unthinkable.





roger semerad said:


> Also, while I'm talking about being welcoming to furries, it would really help if there was a canine race. The most plentiful types of furries are canines and felines, so having those two represented would be great. Having an open ended animal/person race that let you pick from a list of features to make any type of animal person would be ideal, but just a canine and feline race is a good start.




Again, they aren't perfect, but Shifters have both the Wildhunt and Longtooth, which are more canine in appearance and ability. Far from perfect, but they are there.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> You have a terrible habit of stating something contrarian with no elaboration. Please be more polite and elaborate on why instead of just saying “an your wrong”.



You have to remember, he doesn't believe that he has to back up his claims.  That's your job..........in a library.


----------



## Cadence

Chaosmancer said:


> Why do they need a bigger bonus? Ape's are strength 16, they are already as strong as a Gorilla.




Ok, now I'm wondering why the 5e MM only give Apes a 16 STR and PF gives it a 15. 



> And honestly, gnomes and halflings would already be insane to witness in real life. Strength 12 isn't unreasonable with the standard array. It lets you carry 180lbs. Your typical gnome or halfling weighs 40lbs. They are capable of carrying four times their body weight without struggle. Up to nine times if they push. They can leap nearly four times their own height.




Good points, thanks. I hadn't looked at the 5e encumbrance rules before. I would never have guessed they would set the no-penalty default carrying capacity to 15 x STR, and then hae the optional encumbrance rule be encumered at 5x and heavily encumbered at 10x... 

I guess the ship on worry about STR and size in 5e already sailed, and I missed seeing it go. 

3.5/PF had the 3/4 multiplier and a lower limit. The halfling with a 12 str in PF would have only 32 pounds for light load, 64 for medium, and 97 for heavy. They'd need to have a 25 to carry 180 pounds with no penalty at all.



> And this seems "looney toons" because you are picturing a 1st grade child, but it isn't a first grade child, it is a grown adult with wiry musculature who is just as agile and cooridinated as a human.




I actually started by picturing the hobbits in the LotR movie and went from there. 5e Samwise doesn't really even need poor Bill.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Cadence said:


> Ok, now I'm wondering why the 5e MM only give Apes a 16 STR and PF gives it a 15.



Short answer: because the strength of all things in the universe capable of exerting force must fit on a scale of 1-30, with a modifier range of -5 to +10. Therefore, a strength check with a DC of 12 to 15 can be passed by the weakest creature in the universe and failed by the strongest god. 

But humans need to fill the entire 3-18 part of the scale. Meaning very few creatures in the setting can be weaker than a human, and never by much. 

In other words, don't think about it too hard. It's not worth it.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> You [ @FrogReaver  ] have to remember, he doesn't believe that he has to back up his claims.  That's your job..........in a library.




There have been many people on here that have been in favor of being more inclusive, but either not for getting rid of all racial mods or not thinking it was necessary. There seemed to have been a consensus in past threads that the biggest problem might just be the language used to describe them (mimicking racists of the late 1800s and early 1900s). Have there even been 2 posters that would get rid of all differences between the races in terms of mechanics?

Assuming you've been reading the various threads you've regularly posted in since the Orc/OA ones started, you saw that there's that wide range of views among those pushing for inclusivity. I can go dig up the posts with that where I @'ed folks in particular with some of these points.

I am guessing that @doctorbadwolf has been following along as well for a while and also assumes you've been reading the things in the threads that you regularly reply in.  In that case I don't find his statement impolite.


----------



## Derren

FrogReaver said:


> All people are equal.



All humans are equal, but in D&D you are not dealing with just humans.


----------



## FrogReaver

Cadence said:


> There have been many people on here that have been in favor of being more inclusive, but either not for getting rid of all racial mods or not thinking it was necessary. There seemed to have been a consensus in past threads that the biggest problem might just be the language used to describe them (mimicking racists of the late 1800s and early 1900s). Have there even been 2 posters that would get rid of all differences between the races in terms of mechanics?
> 
> Assuming you've been reading the various threads you've regularly posted in since the Orc/OA ones started, you saw that there's that wide range of views among those pushing for inclusivity. I can go dig up the posts with that where I @'ed folks in particular with some of these points.
> 
> I am guessing that @doctorbadwolf has been following along as well for a while and also assumes you've been reading the things in the threads that you regularly reply in.  In that case I don't find his statement impolite. ;-)




Or god forbid I have a different opinion about what’s been said than you do.


----------



## FrogReaver

Derren said:


> All humans are equal, but in D&D you are not dealing with just humans.




Yep. That’s exactly what I said.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?


----------



## reelo

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?



Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm fed up with kitchen-sink settings. The tighter the race/class selection for PCs, the better. Setting should have a theme, have focus. Tortles, Tabaxi, Kenku, Aracokra, but also Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi etc do not interest me one bit.


----------



## Cadence

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?




Given the number of different types of humanoids that exist across all of fiction, folklore, myth, trope, and modern culture... I'm pretty sure that not everything could be presented in a reasonable number of books.

There have certainly been some on here that seem to have implied that not having every conceivable option available was uninclusive. I'm guessing there aren't many who would say that.

Didn't past editions have rules for creating balanced new races on the fly?  Does 5e?



reelo said:


> I'm fed up with kitchen-sink settings.  The tighter the race/class selection for PCs, the better. Setting should have a theme, have focus. Tortles, Tabaxi, Kenku, Aracokra, but also Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi etc do not interest me one bit.




My world building is usually pretty focussed in what races and classes are allowed, unless I've set out to make a kitchen-sink.


----------



## FrogReaver

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?




I’m not sure. I’m thinking that Not having something that looks like you in the game tends to be labeled as uninclusive. I’m interested to see the responses.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> You have to remember, he doesn't believe that he has to back up his claims.




*Mod Note:

Anyone who wants a quick trip out of this discussion, by all means, continue to make it personal.

Heck, at this point, with the repetitive nature of these threads of late - if you really want a week-long vaction from the boards, by all means, continue to make it personal.  If you cannot manage your own engagement with these topics, it will be managed for you*.


----------



## Cadence

FrogReaver said:


> I’m not sure. I’m thinking that Not having something that looks like you in the game tends to be labeled as uninclusive. I’m interested to see the responses.




(1) Folks feeling excluded because options don't exist to play people like themselves in terms of physical apperance, LGBTQ+ status, disability status, and religion type or lack thereof, in a game system where a lot of other human beings get to... seems uninclusive to me, and very qualitatively different than (2) folks feeling excluded because they can't play whatever choice of any particular thing they happen to want to.  Needing all of that variety of real world individual difference to be available in every campaign setting seems a very different matter.  There don't even need to be any humans (or non-rainbow skin colored humanoids, or mammalian sexuality, or disability status differences, or real world-like religion) in a particular campaign.  The reason for particularly excluding some of the options in a campaign may or may not be anti-inclusive.

Having things in the game that egregiously or consistently apply derogatory historical rhetoric or negative portrayals to one of those real world group seems very anti-inclusive to me.  Lacking any positive examples in the art and story certainly doesn't help someone feel included. The game can't have art for every combination of those characteristics, but it can hit a lot of the bases.

Having the examples of your ancestral culture portrayed egregiously or consistently negatively, or in a stereotypical way which links to discrimination your group has faced, also feels very anti-inclusive to me.  Not having your ethnic group represented in terms of game options isn't great, but they can't possibly represent all the ethnic groups that have existed.  I would hope they aspire to.


----------



## jmartkdr2

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?



This question could be rephrased as "is not including animal-folk races keeping people out of the game?" or, slightly differently "Is not including these races making players feel unwelcome?"

For the first version: I think this is yes in an absolute sense of at least one person decided not to play the game because they thought couldn't be a fox-person. But there's a higher threshold than that. I think more race options helps more players enjoy the game the way they want to, and if you can do so in a balanced way that's broadly a good thing. It also helps bring in new players if they have an easier time finding something that they think will be fun to play. Plus, in at least one other highly popular fantasy game, orcs were a core pc race so having orcs but not letting you play them seems odd. Especially when half-orc and dragonborn both make the cut. 

But the drive to include as many character options _must _be weighed against the drive to have games feel coherent, and thematic coherence means not all conceptually possible character options will fit. I've never been in a game where a mind flayer pc would be acceptable, not because mind flayer pc's can't be balanced but because the setting has never allowed for it. Some of this is just good table ettiquette and a solid session zero, but the books can be written to promote these things, and they can be written in ways the work against it. 

But the context of this balance, at least ofr this thread, is Dungeons & Dragons as a game overall, not your personal campaign. We should exclude a race when it won't work in any DnD, not when it won't work in my game. So there should probably be a way to play as a mind flayer pc if it works in the specific campaign you're joining (and it's not hard to imagine such a game).

On the fourth hand, there's only so many pages in the book, so at some point we have to distinguish between "central and important to present", "allowed" and "not cool, bro."

For the second version, (are people being made to feel unwelcome) with respect to orcs: I'm not seeing the complaint phrased that way, as in it's not the status of them being pc's or not that's the real issue. Some people feel that the descriptions of orc (fluff and crunch) tracks a little too close to how real-world racists talk about certain peoples. This is a bad thing, and something we should question and adjust to account for. Thinking of orcs as playable is a good way to reconsider it, even if in the end they aren't included as a core playable race. Which is why stuff like racial intelligence mods and getting rid of mandatory alignment for non-outsiders tend to go over without much knee-jerking. Strength mods are a little tougher because the mechanical range is so small compared to the breadth we'd expect in the real world, let alone when magic is involved. 

With respect to furries: I would say probably not in the sense of the game making them feel unwelcome so much as the community making them feel unwelcome. It's not even that you can't play a fox-person, really (lots of good refluffing and homebrew options exist), it's much more likely that the hostile reaction you'll get from other players is what's making you walk away. 

Which leads to another path of questioning that I'm not ready to dive into just yet.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> You have a terrible habit of stating something contrarian with no elaboration. Please be more polite and elaborate on why instead of just saying “an your wrong”.



You made an extreme claim about other people’s position, without anything to back said claim up. 

I find your reply to being called out on that hilariously hypocritical. 


Maxperson said:


> You have to remember, he doesn't believe that he has to back up his claims.  That's your job..........in a library.



As someone who is quick to accuse people of personal attacks, maybe don’t make it personal.


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> You made an extreme claim about other people’s position, without anything to back said claim up.
> 
> I find your reply to being called out on that hilariously hypocritical.




I’ll always call you out when your response is no better than “no you are wrong”


----------



## GreenTengu

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?




Well-- perhaps not if no "not technically human" humans were available for play, but if others are available-- then I think it is pretty obviously so.

Also-- I don't know why virtually all of the fairy creatures from Asia (and Africa and the Americas, come to think of it) pretty much boil down to "human with animal head and maybe fur", but it seems rather reductive to compare kitsune-spirits, naga, rakshasha, vanara, garudo, etc. with people who dress up in cartoon anthromorphic animal costumes for adult activities. (granted it is true that a lot of the kitsune-spirit stories do involve them posing as humans in order to get married to or have babies with a human, but finding out your spouse was actually a fox was always a tragedy, not titillating)

It is rather reductive and culturally condescending. I don't really see how the European fairies of "humans, but extra small and maybe with this or that exaggerated facial feature" is in any way naturally superior to "humans, but also totally this other animal at the same time."

The fact that you are being so reductive and culturally condescending pretty much highlights just how deeply uninclusive it really is.


----------



## Remathilis

GreenTengu said:


> Well-- perhaps not if no "not technically human" humans were available for play, but if others are available-- then I think it is pretty obviously so.
> 
> Also-- I don't know why virtually all of the fairy creatures from Asia (and Africa and the Americas, come to think of it) pretty much boil down to "human with animal head and maybe fur", but it seems rather reductive to compare kitsune-spirits, naga, rakshasha, vanara, garudo, etc. with people who dress up in cartoon anthromorphic animal costumes for adult activities. (granted it is true that a lot of the kitsune-spirit stories do involve them posing as humans in order to get married to or have babies with a human, but finding out your spouse was actually a fox was always a tragedy, not titillating)
> 
> It is rather reductive and culturally condescending. I don't really see how the European fairies of "humans, but extra small and maybe with this or that exaggerated facial feature" is in any way naturally superior to "humans, but also totally this other animal at the same time."
> 
> The fact that you are being so reductive and culturally condescending pretty much highlights just how deeply uninclusive it really is.




As I think more on this, I'm leaning more and more on race/species having no mechanical benefit and instead having a robust system where you can buy "traits" that you can favor however you want. 

Why does your PC have darkvision? Maybe he's an elf with keen senses, or a human who was blessed by the God of Night, or a dwarf who made a pact with a devil, or a halfling with draconic blood in his family, or a tabaxi with magical cat eyes, or a mage who learned a ritual to permanently cast it, or a gnome who built night vision goggles. Etc. 

Build what you want based on the traits you purchased. So the same with ability scores, skills and classes. Just keep the point total the same for all starting players and they're are no limits.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Remathilis said:


> As I think more on this, I'm leaning more and more on race/species having no mechanical benefit and instead having a robust system where you can buy "traits" that you can favor however you want.
> 
> Why does your PC have darkvision? Maybe he's an elf with keen senses, or a human who was blessed by the God of Night, or a dwarf who made a pact with a devil, or a halfling with draconic blood in his family, or a tabaxi with magical cat eyes, or a mage who learned a ritual to permanently cast it, or a gnome who built night vision goggles. Etc.
> 
> Build what you want based on the traits you purchased. So the same with ability scores, skills and classes. Just keep the point total the same for all starting players and they're are no limits.




I think that's a good idea. I would probably describe it as optional, though. In the same way 5e feats and multiclassing is optional.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

jmartkdr2 said:


> This question could be rephrased as "is not including animal-folk races keeping people out of the game?" or, slightly differently "Is not including these races making players feel unwelcome?"




Thanks for letting me know where you're coming from.

I want you to play the type of game that you want at your table, but I also want me to be able play the game I want at my table. I want to find a solution so we can both play the type of game we desire, even if it's not at the same table.


----------



## Remathilis

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I think that's a good idea. I would probably describe it as optional, though. In the same way 5e feats and multiclassing is optional.



Nah. Core mechanic in 6e. It's time to revive Player's Option: Skills and Powers give it it's due. 

6e: know no limit


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Remathilis said:


> Nah. Core mechanic in 6e. It's time to revive Player's Option: Skills and Powers give it it's due.
> 
> 6e: know no limit




Isn't that equally as uninclusive as having limits. Maybe both systems should be presented on equal footing. System: A, System: B.


----------



## jasper

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Thanks for letting me know where you're coming from.
> 
> I want you to play the type of game that you want at your table, but I also want me to be able play the game I want at my table. I want to find a solution so we can both play the type of game we desire, even if it's not at the same table.



homebrew? Don'e like elf, No elf in the game. You want a 2.5 meter dog race, stat it up. Orcs having Marine Corp training, knock yourself out. (But hide the crayons).  Why do any of you want official rules for niche possiblities?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

jasper said:


> homebrew? Don'e like elf, No elf in the game. You want a 2.5 meter dog race, stat it up. Orcs having Marine Corp training, knock yourself out. (But hide the crayons).  Why do any of you want official rules for niche possiblities?




I don't want those changes, but I do think changes are coming. Compromise seems like the best option.


----------



## Remathilis

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Isn't that equally as uninclusive as having limits. Maybe both systems should be presented on equal footing. System: A, System: B.



So you want WotC to effectively build two versions of 6e, one balanced as a point-buy system and another with traditional class/race balancing? I assume they should be balanced against each other as well?

I'm sure if WotC starts on that now, it should be ready by 2032...


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Remathilis said:


> So you want WotC to effectively build two versions of 6e, one balanced as a point-buy system and another with traditional class/race balancing? I assume they should be balanced against each other as well?
> 
> I'm sure if WotC starts on that now, it should be ready by 2032...




Players have already built that system for 5e races.

Anyway, I don't think it would be hard. Everything would use the point-buy system - but some options (dwarf, elf, etc.) would be spelled out. Then DMs could choose whether to allow only the preset races (for simplicity) or open it up to endless possibilities.


----------



## FrogReaver

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Players have already built that system for 5e races.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think it would be hard. Everything would use the point-buy system - but some options (dwarf, elf, etc.) would be spelled out. Then DMs could choose whether to allow only the preset races (for simplicity) or open it up to endless possibilities.




That’s not the worst idea I’ve heard.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

FrogReaver said:


> That’s not the worst idea I’ve heard.




They could even make ability score bonuses part of the system. That way, standard halflings receive no bonuses to strength, but for tables that want it, halflings could have +2 Strength. Same with Orcs and Int, etc.


----------



## Remathilis

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Players have already built that system for 5e races. Anyway, I don't think it would be hard. Everything would use the point-buy system - but some options dwarf, elf, etc. would be spelled out. Then DMs could choose whether to allow only the preset races or open it up to endless possibilities.



Ok. Sure, there could be templates like "pick x, y, and z options to represent a paladin" or "these options represent a stereotypical elf". I guess that can work.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FrogReaver said:


> Yep. That’s exactly what I said.






Derren said:


> All humans are equal, but in D&D you are not dealing with just humans.




All people are equal. Not all people are human.




reelo said:


> Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm fed up with kitchen-sink settings. The tighter the race/class selection for PCs, the better. Setting should have a theme, have focus. Tortles, Tabaxi, Kenku, Aracokra, but also Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi etc do not interest me one bit.




I think though this gets to the heart of a problem. 

Let us say I wanted to run a DnD campaign set in a world bordering the Feywild. Beast-Like and dryad-esque characters would make a ton of sense thematically. But. I have no options in the PHB to make that world. 

In fact, I need about three or four different books to get even most of the races started, and even then there are a few I just straight up need to homebrew. Which means that the PHB is limiting _*settings*_ in a very real way. Until Volo's and Xanathar's, you were highly limited in the way you could portray a divinely blessed character. So a setting based entirely on the conflict between the Hells and the Heavens needed homebrewing to even get started, because there were no "angelic races". 

Maybe a future PHB that is setting neutral should have more race options, or at least sections on "these races for this popular setting"


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Remathilis said:


> Ok. Sure, there could be templates like "pick x, y, and z options to represent a paladin" or "these options represent a stereotypical elf". I guess that can work.




I think removing classes is changing too much. That's ripping out the heart of the game. There are plenty of other system that might accommodate you, though.


----------



## FrogReaver

Chaosmancer said:


> All people are equal. Not all people are human.




You are just using equal differently than I.  There is equal in terms of value (not what I was referring to) and equal in terms of abilities ( what I was referring to).  The worldview today is that every human regardless of subgroup is equal in terms of ability.  No human subgroup is any stronger or more intelligent than another because they are all part of the human race. 

That’s not the case for non-Human people.  Or at least not necessarily so.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

FrogReaver said:


> You are just using equal differently than I.  There is equal in terms of value (not what I was referring to) and equal in terms of abilities ( what I was referring to).  The worldview today is that every human regardless of subgroup is equal in terms of ability.  No human subgroup is any stronger or more intelligent than another because they are all part of the human race.
> 
> That’s not the case for non-Human people.  Or at least not necessarily so.




Depends on the subgroups. Pro basketball players are probably taller than pro limboers.


----------



## Remathilis

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I think removing classes is changing too much. That's ripping out the heart of the game. There are plenty of other system that might accommodate you, though.



Ideally, I'd like to see 4-5 major classes (warrior, rogue, cleric, mage, psionic) and each of them be able to build different types of PCs with. A warrior could be built as a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a berserker, a knight, a samurai, an arcane archer, etc. You could buy abilities and mix them, such as a zealot using berserker and paladin abilities. 

You could also buy abilities from other classes, such as a warrior learning arcane magic, but at a higher cost. That's your multiclassing.


----------



## Hussar

Remathilis said:


> Ideally, I'd like to see 4-5 major classes (warrior, rogue, cleric, mage, psionic) and each of them be able to build different types of PCs with. A warrior could be built as a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a berserker, a knight, a samurai, an arcane archer, etc. You could buy abilities and mix them, such as a zealot using berserker and paladin abilities.
> 
> You could also buy abilities from other classes, such as a warrior learning arcane magic, but at a higher cost. That's your multiclassing.



Heh.  and they crucified 4e for not being D&D.  

It's a cool idea mind you.  But, good luck getting this idea off the ground.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

[/QUOTE]


Remathilis said:


> Ideally, I'd like to see 4-5 major classes (warrior, rogue, cleric, mage, psionic) and each of them be able to build different types of PCs with. A warrior could be built as a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a berserker, a knight, a samurai, an arcane archer, etc. You could buy abilities and mix them, such as a zealot using berserker and paladin abilities.
> 
> You could also buy abilities from other classes, such as a warrior learning arcane magic, but at a higher cost. That's your multiclassing.




Sounds similar to SW SAGA. If well done, I could get behind that - but it wouldn't be D&D. Sounds fun, though.


----------



## Derren

Chaosmancer said:


> All people are equal. Not all people are human.




Wrong. All people are human because elves and dwarves do not actually exist. The whole "all people are equal" only works because only humans are people.
If elves and dwarfs would exist, as we pretend them to be in D&D, they would be different to humans, again how we pretend them to be in D&D.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Remathilis said:


> Ideally, I'd like to see 4-5 major classes (warrior, rogue, cleric, mage, psionic) and each of them be able to build different types of PCs with. A warrior could be built as a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, a berserker, a knight, a samurai, an arcane archer, etc. You could buy abilities and mix them, such as a zealot using berserker and paladin abilities.
> 
> You could also buy abilities from other classes, such as a warrior learning arcane magic, but at a higher cost. That's your multiclassing.




Thinking about it again, I would probably enjoy playing in your game, but I wouldn't run it. The two worlds I've created and run are very thematic. 20-30% of sub-classes don't fit them very well. One world is human only. I would want more control over player-character options in order to ensure legitimacy of those settings.


----------



## TheSword

MGibster said:


> The idea of attribute bonuses for races is one rooted in colonialism and modern pseudo scientific racism.



I don’t think so. You missed out the word human in your sentence. Humans are not predisposed to be stronger, smarter, more charismatic or wiser than other human ethnicities.

There is nothing colonial or pseudoscientific about dwarves being predisposed to be tougher than Elves.


----------



## FrogReaver

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Depends on the subgroups. Pro basketball players are probably taller than pro limboers.



i know it’s the internet and all and we have nothing better but to point out someone’s words are technically wrong, but that’s obviously not the kind of subgroup I was talking about


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> You made an extreme claim about other people’s position, without anything to back said claim up.




You just argued to me in another thread that it wasn't the job of the person making the claim to back it up, but rather it was the job of the reader to Google it. So...


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Flamestrike said:


> I literally cant even tell if the thread is a troll or not such is the level of misunderstanding about what WoTC have actually said on the topic, and the handwringing that followed it.



Hi, I'm the Original Poster. I can guarantee that this thread is not meant to troll anyone or anything. This is meant to be a thread to discuss possible changes in a 6th edition, and definitely mostly separate from the current WotC statements. It is merely a thread discussing all the recommendations as a whole in one thread, and how D&D may be changed moving forward in future editions. They will likely change things between editions rules and lore-wise. If you don't agree with any of the changes that people have recommended, please do comment on the ones you don't/do agree with.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

TheSword said:


> Your expectation of a canine playable race raises an interesting point. At what point should it be a reasonable expectation that a person’s preferred race should be made available to them because of inclusivity.
> 
> If dog humanoids don’t exist in common literature, film, or myth, should the writers be expected to conjure them fresh from the ether.
> 
> Maybe it’s better that if it feels that important to you, someone could easily publish a canine, vulpine or bovine race on DM Guild. Or maybe play a toned down lycanthrope.



Didn't Kobolds used to be dog people?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Derren said:


> Funny how inclusiveness has become a codeword for minmaxing and how not having a 20 strength fighter is racism.



Funny how adamant you, and all the people who liked your post, are about hating on the people who like playing powerful characters. This isn't about wanting to play powerful characters, it's more about not being punished mechanically for playing a certain race as a certain class.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Didn't Kobolds used to be dog people?




Dog-like anyway.  I think I've most recently described them as lizard-dog people.


----------



## GreenTengu

Derren said:


> Wrong. All people are human because elves and dwarves do not actually exist. The whole "all people are equal" only works because only humans are people.
> If elves and dwarfs would exist, as we pretend them to be in D&D, they would be different to humans, again how we pretend them to be in D&D.




That's your assertion and one that seems entirely based on ignorance. Sentient human-like beings in fiction are very clearly stand-ins for humans with the whole "not technically a human" being used only to explain away having super powers. The character Wolverine from X-Men is technically "not a human" by the definitions of his own world and has a number of features that any normal human would not have anyway. So you are arguing that he, and others like him, should be inherently treated inhumanely and no understanding of human psychology should be applied to him? Then you could have a character like Superman who is even more so definitely not human, despite appearing human in all manners-- you would argue that human rights should not extend to him? He is not a person?

I suppose Commander Spock from Star Trek is also not to be considered "a person"? Or is he only half a person? How about Lt. Commander Data? Just property, just an object I suppose.

In Sci-fi and fantasy, any time you want to have a group of people who either have abilities beyond what we do or who are visually distinct, they are just called something else. But everything about them is still understood to be functionally human except in areas that are explicitly stated to be different. Beyond that, you are always to understand them to be just as much a person as any human, not to be seen as lesser or to imply that they aren't motivated like a human. It is just a matter of expanding the concept of personhood beyond our one fairly boring animal species.



TheSword said:


> I don’t think so. You missed out the word human in your sentence. Humans are not predisposed to be stronger, smarter, more charismatic or wiser than other human ethnicities.
> 
> There is nothing colonial or pseudoscientific about dwarves being predisposed to be tougher than Elves.




Which might be, at least in part, because the concept of ethnicity ends up being based primarily on some fairly incidental physical features. Also, because the most recent common ancestor of all existing humanity was only about 200,000 years ago at most and possibly as recent as only 50,000 years ago. There used to be a greater diversity of humanity that had dramatically different physical and mental characteristics, but they aren't around any longer.

But they were still humans of a kind. It does seem to raise the question in the terms of many of the D&D worlds whether it is at all realistic to have tons of human/near-human species all occupying the same general area for thousands of years without driving one another to extinction or interbreeding to the point that one couldn't really clearly discern one from another. And it isn't even like they are solely occupying different regions of the world and never crossing paths, but they are kind of inexplicably mixed together like a big salad in most worlds.

So whatever the heightened drama is for these worlds-- their reality is still far less harsh and brutal than actual reality was. These people are demonstrably more tolerant of one another's existence overall regardless of what we see in any given story.


----------



## Campbell

I do not think you need to move detailed descriptions over to setting material or get rid of ability bonuses for Dwarves, Elves, and Orcs. I think the vast majority of gains just comes from writing in a less essentialized way. I think if you acknowledge the diversity and agency of whatever game element you are talking about (elves, orcs, barbarians, monks, etc) that goes a long way. So does avoiding talking about cultures in a way that seems to buy into discredited cultural evolution theories. I mean we can just do better at this stuff and we do not need to really lose anything.

I would like to see some more flexibility built into ability score bonuses, but that is more of a game play thing for me.


----------



## Alzrius

GreenTengu said:


> The character Wolverine from X-Men is technically "not a human" by the definitions of his own world


----------



## Hussar

Derren said:


> Wrong. All people are human because elves and dwarves do not actually exist. The whole "all people are equal" only works because only humans are people.
> If elves and dwarfs would exist, as we pretend them to be in D&D, they would be different to humans, again how we pretend them to be in D&D.




And that's perfectly fine.  The fact that you seem to believe that the issue is about stat bonuses simply shows how out of touch you are with what is being discussed.

I swear, these threads are about 25% actually discussing the actual issues that people have and then 75% of the time wasted on trying to calm people's massive over reactions, complete misreadings, deliberate twisting and pedantry.  

When we actually stick to the issues, resolving them generally takes about 15 minutes and a couple of sentences.  One really has to wonder, @Derren, what your objective is, in every single one of these threads that you comment in, why you insist on misrepresenting the issues every single time.  Once or twice is simply misunderstanding, but, every time?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Derren said:


> Wrong. All people are human because elves and dwarves do not actually exist. The whole "all people are equal" only works because only humans are people.
> 
> If elves and dwarfs would exist, as we pretend them to be in D&D, they would be different to humans, again how we pretend them to be in D&D.




We are getting close to a world where non-human intelligence will exist. I believe that extending "people" beyond humanity is going to be necessary.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Chaosmancer said:


> We are getting close to a world where non-human intelligence will exist. I believe that extending "people" beyond humanity is going to be necessary.



Yeah. Saying "elves and dwarves" aren't people, is like the people in Eberron saying "warforged are just machines."


----------



## FrogReaver

Chaosmancer said:


> We are getting close to a world where non-human intelligence will exist. I believe that extending "people" beyond humanity is going to be necessary.




Suppose we do end up with artificial intelligence that is self conscious. Could we represent it with an intelligence bonus in an RPG?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> Suppose we do end up with artificial intelligence that is self conscious. Could we represent it with an intelligence bonus in an RPG?



Is that really in the scope of this thread? What does that have to do with 6e or inclusivity. If you want to start a thread talking about intelligence in AI and how that would equate in D&D and other RPGs, please do so. If it's not on topic, please don't discuss this.

Edit: I would very much be happy to engage in this conversation, but this thread isn't really the place to do it.


----------



## EscherEnigma

FrogReaver said:


> Suppose we do end up with artificial intelligence that is self conscious. Could we represent it with an intelligence bonus in an RPG?



I've seen the output from machine learning.  It's far more likely to warrant an intelligence penalty.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Is that really in the scope of this thread? What does that have to do with 6e or inclusivity. If you want to start a thread talking about intelligence in AI and how that would equate in D&D and other RPGs, please do so. If it's not on topic, please don't discuss this.
> 
> Edit: I would very much be happy to engage in this conversation, but this thread isn't really the place to do it.




dont jump on me for replying to the idea that you liked....

if my comment doesn’t have a place here then that like and comment don’t either.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> dont jump on me for replying to the idea that you liked....
> 
> if my comment doesn’t have a place here then that like and comment don’t either.



Rebuttal by providing real world examples that apply to the situation is a valid post in this thread. The post I liked was not off topic. Yours, which was suggesting to shift the discussion to discuss mechanical attributes that would apply to AI was not on topic. 

I'm not "jumping on you." I'm trying to keep the thread actually discussing things relevant to the thread. @Chaosmancer's post was relevant, but yours was not. Don't mistake this for a personal attack, which your previous post was. I have suggested multiple times in this thread before to others who were trying to derail it the same thing I did for you in my last post.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Rebuttal by providing real world examples that apply to the situation is a valid post in this thread. The post I liked was not off topic. Yours, which was suggesting to shift the discussion to discuss mechanical attributes that would apply to AI was not on topic.
> 
> I'm not "jumping on you." I'm trying to keep the thread actually discussing things relevant to the thread. @Chaosmancer's post was relevant, but yours was not. Don't mistake this for a personal attack, which your previous post was. I have suggested multiple times in this thread before to others who were trying to derail it the same thing I did for you in my last post.



Mine was directly related to his. If his was relevant then mine was too.  Nor was my post a personal attack. Claiming it was though...


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

FrogReaver said:


> All people are equal.  To deny this by saying one racial group is stronger or smarter is anthema. It’s one of the most non-inclusive things that can be done.  This same phenomenon must also apply to the fantasy world as the races can often resemble real world races and peoples and cultures enough such that people draw connections between them.  That those connections can be drawn is what makes having races that exhibit such characteristics be non-inclusive.



 I think that everyone in this discussion is _starting _from the point at which the unfortunate language drawing parallels between certain races in D&D and certain real-life ethnic groups has been removed.



GreenTengu said:


> That's your assertion and one that seems entirely based on ignorance. Sentient human-like beings in fiction are very clearly stand-ins for humans with the whole "not technically a human" being used only to explain away having super powers. The character Wolverine from X-Men is technically "not a human" by the definitions of his own world and has a number of features that any normal human would not have anyway. So you are arguing that he, and others like him, should be inherently treated inhumanely and no understanding of human psychology should be applied to him? Then you could have a character like Superman who is even more so definitely not human, despite appearing human in all manners-- you would argue that human rights should not extend to him? He is not a person?
> 
> I suppose Commander Spock from Star Trek is also not to be considered "a person"? Or is he only half a person? How about Lt. Commander Data? Just property, just an object I suppose.
> 
> In Sci-fi and fantasy, any time you want to have a group of people who either have abilities beyond what we do or who are visually distinct, they are just called something else. But everything about them is still understood to be functionally human except in areas that are explicitly stated to be different. Beyond that, you are always to understand them to be just as much a person as any human, not to be seen as lesser or to imply that they aren't motivated like a human. It is just a matter of expanding the concept of personhood beyond our one fairly boring animal species.



 I think that you _*really *_need to read back on the conversation you just stepped in on. It was a discussion about physical differences (or, I suppose predilection of phenotypic expressions within ethnic/species groupings.)
Claiming that someone pointing out the differences in size and strength that exist within some demographics is arguing that those differences make them less deserving as a _person _is a deeply, deeply unpleasant misattribution of their position.




Hussar said:


> And that's perfectly fine.  The fact that you seem to believe that the issue is about stat bonuses simply shows how out of touch you are with what is being discussed.
> 
> I swear, these threads are about 25% actually discussing the actual issues that people have and then 75% of the time wasted on trying to calm people's massive over reactions, complete misreadings, deliberate twisting and pedantry.
> 
> When we actually stick to the issues, resolving them generally takes about 15 minutes and a couple of sentences.  One really has to wonder, @Derren, what your objective is, in every single one of these threads that you comment in, why you insist on misrepresenting the issues every single time.  Once or twice is simply misunderstanding, but, every time?



 The current discussion that they were commenting on in the thread _is _about stat bonuses. Following from the section in the original post that was specifically talking about stat bonuses.
Do you believe that the line of conversation that Derren was contributing to was _not _about stat bonuses?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> Mine was directly related to his. If his was relevant then mine was too.  Nor was my post a personal attack. Claiming it was though...



If your post wasn't a personal attack, I apologize for mistaking it to be one. Yours was related to theirs, but it was not on topic, theirs was. I'm not going to debate this. I politely asked for you to stop pursuing this topic on this thread, as it is not on topic. If you have any grievances, take it to a private message. Don't bog up this thread further with this discussion. 


Hussar said:


> I swear, these threads are about 25% actually discussing the actual issues that people have and then 75% of the time wasted on trying to calm people's massive over reactions, complete misreadings, deliberate twisting and pedantry.



Yeah, it is annoying. A lot of this I had thought was already covered in other threads. Almost all of what we want are changed descriptions. The rest here is just possible changes in the next edition, which will contain changes.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> Mine was directly related to his. If his was relevant then mine was too.  Nor was my post a personal attack. Claiming it was though...




*Mod Note:*

But now, you are turning whether you should have posted it into a whole sub-thread of its own that very much is off topic.

Time to let it go and move on, everyone.


----------



## Hussar

Cap'n Kobold said:


> The current discussion that they were commenting on in the thread _is _about stat bonuses. Following from the section in the original post that was specifically talking about stat bonuses.
> Do you believe that the line of conversation that Derren was contributing to was _not _about stat bonuses?




I believe that the whole line about stat bonuses is a red herring, and, a pointless diversion from the actual issues the exist.  Giving a +2 Str to a race is not racist, nor is anyone actually complaining about it except as a personal preference issue.  Which has now gotten tied up into the actual instances of racism in the texts.  But, since it benefits the groups that hate the idea of any change in the game, they run with it and drag it out until the thread gets closed for pointless argumentation.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FrogReaver said:


> Suppose we do end up with artificial intelligence that is self conscious. Could we represent it with an intelligence bonus in an RPG?




Bridges to be crossed when DnD Future-Tech comes out.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To keep things on-topic, and out of some genuine curiosity, does anyone have any good ideas regarding differently abled people as Player Characters? 

Ableism is something very close to a friend of mine's heart and we recently stumbled upon a thread on a different site with some.... horrendously tone-deaf content. But, it got me thinking... is there any good content for that sort of thing for DnD? 

I have no ideas, and I don't know how something like that could be portrayed in a respectful manner, but it is one section of the discussion that rarely if ever gets touched upon.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Chaosmancer said:


> Bridges to be crossed when DnD Future-Tech comes out.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> To keep things on-topic, and out of some genuine curiosity, does anyone have any good ideas regarding differently abled people as Player Characters?
> 
> Ableism is something very close to a friend of mine's heart and we recently stumbled upon a thread on a different site with some.... horrendously tone-deaf content. But, it got me thinking... is there any good content for that sort of thing for DnD?
> 
> I have no ideas, and I don't know how something like that could be portrayed in a respectful manner, but it is one section of the discussion that rarely if ever gets touched upon.



I can only comment on a narrow example, but having a blind dm for 20 years now - the one trope he hates is blind characters getting super-hearing instead. Any "alternative sense" dismisses the difficulties he faces in his day to day life. so he, for one, would rather you not do that. If you want to chose to play a blind character, just be blind and figure out how to be an adventurer anyways. 

But where I think the biggest issue lies is that in most DnD settings, there are magical solutions to many physical disabilities, and there's not a lot of reason why people with those disabilities wouldn't use said magic if they could afford it. _Of course_ you'd get your eyes regenerated. 

Now, the only thing I'll say about mental conditions is that the above does not apply. 

The presence of magic also makes transgender characters a bit odd - the magic is a lot harder in newer editions since they (thankfully) got rid of the girdle of gender reversal, but lots of magical options get pretty close and if you demand perfection in your transition, _wishes_ are a thing in the world.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Remathilis said:


> I'm not sure your point actually bolsters the argument FOR barbarians the same way you think it does.
> 
> Clearly, the Barbarian class is supposed to represent more than Viking Berserkers, because that is a ridiculously narrow archetype for a class. What IS the class supposed to represent us not many types of primitive warrior tropes? Why was it included in 3.5 Oriental Adventures if they primarily represent European berserkers? If all those groups you suggest are not representative of the Barbarian class, what does that class represent and why does it need a full 20 level class to do it? Samurai and cavalier fit into a fighter sub, after all.
> 
> I don't see how moving Barbarian from "possibly racist trope" to "extremely narrow European origin trope" improves it's position much.



Need I keep reminding people of this?

Barbarians are Melee Fighters With Big Dumb Super Modes. "Barbarian" is just the easiest and most on theme (medieval fantasy) name for that archetype.


----------



## MGibster

Chaosmancer said:


> To keep things on-topic, and out of some genuine curiosity, does anyone have any good ideas regarding differently abled people as Player Characters?




That's a tough pickle because D&D really wasn't designed for that kind of thing.  A player could role play mental illnesses and for physical disabilities probably work something out with the DM.  I once had a pirate captain and I asked the DM if I could have a hook for a hand.  It wasn't a problem save for when I did certain things that required both hands to do.  A player could explain an attribute as the result of a disability of some kind.  A Strength of 8 might represent underdeveloped limbs due to polio, a Charisma of 8 might represent a severe social anxiety disorder, and a low Constitution might be tuberculosis.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Also, on the current track of racial bonuses:

I feel like taking racial bonuses out takes something that I feel is important out. It removes the identity from the races and just makes Elves and Dwarves into Tall Pointy-Eared Human and Short, Hairy Human. I mean, yeah, they're related, but they aren't the same. Say for example we have an RPG where the primary races are all based on dogs, would a Great Dane and a Corgi having the same stat bonuses make sense and add to the game? I don't really think so. I do get and sympathize with people saying that picking Elf pigeon holes them too much into the dex-y classes, so I could see them adding essentially a floating modifier to them. Like, for example "As an elf, you have the choice to add +2 to DEX, INT, or CHA, and +1 to another of those stats that wasn't the one you put +2 into". They'd still have a gameplay niche, while also being more flexible to other ideas rather than just the DEX-y characters. I also like the idea of making racial traits a "point buy" of sorts, where you have a group of points (that would be the same across every race) to buy certain racial traits you'd like for your character, with a sidebar saying that, if the list of racial traits for that race doesn't fit your idea for your character or your world, you can always just grab other racial traits if your DM gives the OK.

Maybe this is focusing mostly on the gameplay side of things, but that's just the thing I'm looking at the most here, because that's what my brain focuses on. I'm also white so I'm completely blind to the opinions of minorities, especially on their grievances.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jmartkdr2 said:


> Now, the only thing I'll say about mental conditions is that the above does not apply.



I have autism. Though I am not the voice for everyone who has autism, I don't know or have any ideas for what D&D could do to include characters or anything about autism in their games. (I personally don't think anything needs to be done, but again, others may disagree.)

I do know that WotC should definitely not make templates or rules for this kind of thing. If you want to play a character with a mental condition, do so respectfully and actually research the condition. Don't just base it off of whatever stereotype exists of that condition, or any stigmas that may exist about it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> I can only comment on a narrow example, but having a blind dm for 20 years now - the one trope he hates is blind characters getting super-hearing instead. Any "alternative sense" dismisses the difficulties he faces in his day to day life. so he, for one, would rather you not do that. If you want to chose to play a blind character, just be blind and figure out how to be an adventurer anyways.
> 
> But where I think the biggest issue lies is that in most DnD settings, there are magical solutions to many physical disabilities, and there's not a lot of reason why people with those disabilities wouldn't use said magic if they could afford it. _Of course_ you'd get your eyes regenerated.
> 
> Now, the only thing I'll say about mental conditions is that the above does not apply.
> 
> The presence of magic also makes transgender characters a bit odd - the magic is a lot harder in newer editions since they (thankfully) got rid of the girdle of gender reversal, but lots of magical options get pretty close and if you demand perfection in your transition, _wishes_ are a thing in the world.



It's worth remembering, though, that the vast majority of people in a by the book 5e dnd world wouldn't have access to any of that, except maybe the magical prosthetic. I can tell you for certain that a hat of disguise isn't gonna satisfy most trans people. 

Still, what, if any disabilities are technically diseases or caused by a disease? Is it ablest to have an effect that removes or cures a disease remove or cure a disability? 

How can we look at Eberron, and actually consider disabled folks when thinking about what sorts of wide magic inventions would exist?


----------



## Derren

GreenTengu said:


> I suppose Commander Spock from Star Trek is also not to be considered "a person"? Or is he only half a person? How about Lt. Commander Data? Just property, just an object I suppose.



Moving the goalposts I see....
So was Spock/Vulcans or Data exactly the same as humans, meaning as intelligent with the same constitution? No, they were not. The show was pretty clear about that especially in the case of Data but also Vulcans.
But if translated to D&D the demand would be that those have the same abilities as a normal human or klingon or any other race would as "everyone is equal". And thats simply nonsense.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

*Another serious question: Which groups should WotC be responsible for actively including?*

Certainly they are responsible for making sure that members of percieve racial groups do not feel like outsiders. At the same time, I'm not sure they are responsible to groups demanding demons and devils be excised from the game - as fighting demons and devils is one aspect of the game's core identity (see the image of "A Paladin in Hell" in the AD&D PHB).


----------



## GreenTengu

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I think that you _*really *_need to read back on the conversation you just stepped in on. It was a discussion about physical differences (or, I suppose predilection of phenotypic expressions within ethnic/species groupings.)
> Claiming that someone pointing out the differences in size and strength that exist within some demographics is arguing that those differences make them less deserving as a _person _is a deeply, deeply unpleasant misattribution of their position.




What I read was that, if elves and dwarfs existed, they wouldn't qualify as people because they wouldn't technically be human. But all these sci-fi and fantasy peoples are virtually always understood to be just humans with some exaggerated traits. By making them "not technically human" people, they can be given abilities beyond the keen of humanity or an exaggerated version of some human culture.

And-- really-- history has shown that if you actually had all these peoples occupying the same land for 10,000 years-- there would be no more Orcs or Elves or Halflings or Goblinoids or Dwarfs or Gnomes-- or even half ones. What you'd probably actually end up having is just "humans" only those "humans" would have 1-2% genes from all of those other extinct people and would express some of those phenotypes.

The idea that a world could support dozens of species simultaneously occupying the same ecological niche without one out competing the other or just merging together into a single species over the lengths of histories these fantasy worlds have is itself quite unrealistic.

And that is just one fundamental aspect of the D&D settings that is so wildly unrealistic that it seems odd to me that people cannot suspend their disbelief to allow for other things.

I don't know if making it so that every size and shape of people in D&D can have the maximum allowable stat in every attribute is necessarily the answer-- but if anyone has a better idea how to make it so that the Dwarf Rogue is not massively disadvantaged to the point of not being at all functional next to the Elf Rogue without having Dwarfs with Dexterity 20, I'd be happy to entertain it.

Because so long as there exists the issue that there are race/class builds that should absolutely exist and yet are so bad mechanically that one is massively hampering themselves and their entire party if they try to play one-- its just not working.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

GreenTengu said:


> What I read was that, if elves and dwarfs existed, they wouldn't qualify as people because they wouldn't technically be human. But all these sci-fi and fantasy peoples are virtually always understood to be just humans with some exaggerated traits. By making them "not technically human" people, they can be given abilities beyond the keen of humanity or an exaggerated version of some human culture.
> 
> And-- really-- history has shown that if you actually had all these peoples occupying the same land for 10,000 years-- there would be no more Orcs or Elves or Halflings or Goblinoids or Dwarfs or Gnomes-- or even half ones. What you'd probably actually end up having is just "humans" only those "humans" would have 1-2% genes from all of those other extinct people and would express some of those phenotypes.
> 
> The idea that a world could support dozens of species simultaneously occupying the same ecological niche without one out competing the other or just merging together into a single species over the lengths of histories these fantasy worlds have is itself quite unrealistic.
> 
> And that is just one fundamental aspect of the D&D settings that is so wildly unrealistic that it seems odd to me that people cannot suspend their disbelief to allow for other things.
> 
> I don't know if making it so that every size and shape of people in D&D can have the maximum allowable stat in every attribute is necessarily the answer-- but if anyone has a better idea how to make it so that the Dwarf Rogue is not massively disadvantaged to the point of not being at all functional next to the Elf Rogue without having Dwarfs with Dexterity 20, I'd be happy to entertain it.
> 
> Because so long as there exists the issue that there are race/class builds that should absolutely exist and yet are so bad mechanically that one is massively hampering themselves and their entire party if they try to play one-- its just not working.




Which is why I suggested WotC make two race systems, each presented on par with each other. Each group could then decide which system worked best for them.

System B (Yes I'm starting with System B) would be a point buy, in which players could buy racial abilities and create their own race. Some of those would be certain type of vision, others would be ability score bonuses, etc.

System A would use that point buy system to present standards humans, dwarves, elves, etc. for players to choose from. 

So if a player (using system B) wanted to play a halfling with a Strength bonus, that player could simply recreate the standard halfling in the point buy, but purchase a Strength bonus instead of a Dexterity bonus.

That way, more and less traditional tables will both be happy.


----------



## Hussar

Derren said:


> Moving the goalposts I see....
> So was Spock/Vulcans or Data exactly the same as humans, meaning as intelligent with the same constitution? No, they were not. The show was pretty clear about that especially in the case of Data but also Vulcans.
> But if translated to D&D the demand would be that those have the same abilities as a normal human or klingon or any other race would as "everyone is equal". And thats simply nonsense.



Absolutely right.

Good thing no one is actually advocating for that.


----------



## Sadras

jmartkdr2 said:


> I can only comment on a narrow example, *but having a blind dm for 20 years now* - the one trope he hates is blind characters getting super-hearing instead.




Bold emphasis mine. I cannot believe everyone just seemed to skip over this.
I'm genuinely curious - how does that work? Rules wise, monster stat wise, designing encounters...has he read everything in braille?
I found this site from a quick and dirty google - looks like the person uses some sort of screenreading software (which is fantastic - first I have heard of it)


----------



## The Mirrorball Man

Hussar said:


> Absolutely right.
> 
> Good thing no one is actually advocating for that.



Then what does "everyone is equal" even means if it does not mean that everyone is actually equal?


----------



## Aldarc

UngeheuerLich said:


> The problem is:
> Where do you draw the line...



Line-drawing is often presented as a problem but it really isn’t because we shouldn’t be trying to draw artificial lines in the first place. Asking for lines in the sand often tries to present complex situations with cut and dried solutions, with lines in the sand acting as lines where people can safely hide behind, but this often strips these situations from their context.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> Line-drawing is often presented as a problem but it really isn’t because we shouldn’t be trying to draw artificial lines in the first place. Asking for lines in the sand often tries to present complex situations with cut and dried solutions, with lines in the sand acting as lines where people can safely hide behind, but this often strips these situations from their context.




Line drawing is eventually necessary. At some point D&D 6e will become a physical product. It will exclude people - as a matter of page space, if nothing else. Someone has to decide which groups should be included and which excluded.

Take a furry-enthusiast, a goblin-lover, a orc-fan, and thea dragonborn-nut. If there is only space for 8 seeds (we can't use the word race anymore) in the player's handbook, which 8 seeds do we choose? Some will be left out. Likewise, the book won't have an unlimited number of illustrations in include members of every conceivable group.

At some point, choices must be made. People can complain about problems, but everyone can complain about problems. I want to see solutions (and I've suggested several). But no solution will be completely inclusive of all groups.

Furthermore, inclusivity toward all groups will drive down sales. No one wants to see pictures of heroic exhibitionist paladins. What if the exhibitionist paladin is an white human? Does that exclude black exhibitionists? If the exhibitionist paladin is black, does that imply WotC thinks all blacks are exhibitionists? Or that blacks have a greater tendency to become subjects of voyeurism than whites?

More importantly, including images of heroic exhibitionist paladins - regardless of skin pigmentation - will exclude those who would rather not see penises in their Player's Handbook.

Likewise, I don't think we need illustrations of heroic drug-dealing sorcerers - yet that might make drug dealers feel excluded. I'm OK with that.

Now, those are absurd examples. I'm attempting to use absurdity in order not to break the rules of the forum. Nevertheless, tough choices will have to be made. Deigning that is simply idealism.


----------



## Aldarc

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Line drawing is eventually necessary.



Not really.


----------



## Sadras

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Furthermore, inclusivity toward all groups will drive down sales. No one wants to see pictures of heroic exhibitionist paladins. What if the exhibitionist paladin is an white human? Does that exclude black exhibitionists? If the exhibitionist paladin is black, does that imply WotC thnks all blacks are exhibitionists? Or that blacks have a greater tendency to become subjects of voyeurism than whites?
> 
> More importantly, including images of heroic exhibitionist paladins - regardless of skin pigmentation - will exclude those who would rather not see penises in their Player's Handbook.




Well that settles it, only female paladin exhibitionists for me thanks, but they better be full blown exhibitionists because bikini mail offends me.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> Not really.




I think it will be helpful if you explained in a little more detail. If you were to organize the 6e PHB, what would not drawing a line in the sand look like?


----------



## Aldarc

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I think it will be helpful if you explained in a little more detail. If you were to organize the 6e PHB, what would not drawing a line in the sand look like?



I suspect that a beach without a line drawn in the sand would look like a beach without a line drawn in the sand. And when asked what organizing a 6e PHB without a line drawn in the sand would look like, I likewise say that I suspect that it would look a Nine Hells of lot like organizing a 6e PHB.


----------



## Hussar

The Mirrorball Man said:


> Then what does "everyone is equal" even means if it does not mean that everyone is actually equal?




Equal does not mean identical.  

By and large, all the classes in 5e are equal.  Or, at least, there isn't that much range from top to bottom.  Does that mean all the classes are identical?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that a beach without a line drawn in the sand would look like a beach without a line drawn in the sand. And when asked what organizing a 6e PHB without a line drawn in the sand would look like, I likewise say that I suspect that it would look a Nine Hells of lot like organizing a 6e PHB.




This is part of the reason I find it so far to take the inclusivity argument seriously. I'm trying to understand the vision the inclusivity crowd has of the world, but I'm so often written off. If a crowd want the PHB to be more inclusive and several members presents their ideas for the 6e PHB, maybe we can all find some common ground. Maybe we can find some territory where both more traditional players and more inclusive players can both happily play together.


----------



## Hussar

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> This is part of the reason I find it so far to take the inclusivity argument seriously. I'm trying to understand the vision the inclusivity crowd has of the world, but I'm so often written off. If a crowd want the PHB to be more inclusive and several members presents their ideas for the 6e PHB, maybe we can all find some common ground. Maybe we can find some territory where both more traditional players and more inclusive players can both happily play together.




Take a look through the orc, shaman and other threads.  You'll find, at about page 20 or so, the consensus view of what needs to be changed.  The other 50 or so pages of each thread is filled with people derailing the issue with endless hypotheticals that no one is actually arguing.  

The orc issue requires about three sentences to be changed.  
Shaman - increase the amount of lore in the game related to shamans so that more than just one kind of creature is presented with shaman.
Drow - A slight editing of the drow origin story and maybe a couple of other minor snips here and there.  
Oriental Adventures and other older material - add a disclaimer to the pdf.  Done.

See, I'd flip it over the other way.  It's so hard to take those opposed to inclusivity seriously when, despite repeated, (and I do mean REPEATED) statements of what needs to change and what is actually being discussed, we see folks endlessly painting the situation as this massive change that will forever rewrite the game.  It's not.  It's a couple of minor edits and we're done.

Thing is, I've been through all this already.  I work in ESL and have done so for a long time.  Cultural imperialism is a major issue in textbook writing.  So, every year, for the past twenty years or so, I've attended seminars, watched and given presentations, edited texts, written texts, written syllabi and whatnot all revolving around these same issues.  And, I can tell you from experience that it's nowhere near as difficult or as earth changing as those who oppose it make it seem.  

Think about it this way.  How much has the game changed when the industry decided to not use cheesecake art anymore?  Has that had a radical change on your table?  Have you seen any real difference in how people play the game now that we no longer have scantily clad chainmail bikinis on the covers of our game books?  No?  Then why do you think that continuing the tradition of opening the game to be more inclusive is going to change the game that much?

Or, is it perhaps more likely that there is a small group of gamers who just cannot understand that no, we're not rewriting the game or the hobby.   That there is a small group of gamers who are very loud, because they cannot wrap their heads around the idea that making the game more inclusive doesn't actually mean what they think it means because they've spent so many years building this bogeyman in their head of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" and whatnot, that is fed by certain political strains.  And any admission that the changes are actually fairly minor, logical and frankly easy, means that their whole political house of cards framework that they've built in their heads is just so much smoke and mirrors.  

And, it's EXTREMELY difficult to get people to admit that their interpretation of the world is flawed regardless of how much evidence you can produce.


----------



## Remathilis

I think part of the problem comes down to there are several factions of people arguing like there is only two: pro- and anti - inclusivity. In reality, there are: 


People who think things are fine as they are (status quo)
People who think the rules are mostly fine, but a little more sensitivity of needed in the lore. (All orcs are born evil)
People who think certain mechanical elements (or ability score mods) are similarly problematic and need changing.
People who think some elements (ie half-orcs) are too problematic to fix and need to be removed.
People who think whole system components (ie monocultural races with cultural racial traits) are bad and the whole component needs to be replaced with something more appropriate.
People who think major parts of the system (ie ability scores) are unfixable and need to be removed altogether.
People who believe the whole premise of the game is fundementaly flawed (colonialist tropes of conquest and violence) and maybe the best approach is to scrap it and start over.

Where ever you stand in this scale, you tend to view those above you in it as non-inclusive and those below you as "taking it too far" or straw men created by the other side too demonize you.

It gets really hard to reach consensus when someone from one group says something, another reacts, and the third says the second is overreacting because they didn't say what the first said and quit assuming that is what they meant.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Hussar said:


> And, it's EXTREMELY difficult to get people to admit that their interpretation of the world is flawed regardless of how much evidence you can produce.




Well, your position seems completely reasonable. The smallest possible to change to fix major problems. Wonderful.

Unfortunately the poster I was quoting seemed (perhaps I'm wrong) to believe that no line should ever be drawn in the sand and all groups must be included. I was confused. I didn't see how this is possible within a limited page count. I brought up this fact and asked him to explain. He/She told me:

"I suspect that a beach without a line drawn in the sand would look like a beach without a line drawn in the sand. And when asked what organizing a 6e PHB without a line drawn in the sand would look like, I likewise say that I suspect that it would look a Nine Hells of lot like organizing a 6e PHB."

That comment confused me. I and want to understand his/her perspective, and I'm sure I can find some common ground with this poster.

Personally, I don't think any changes are necessary, but others believe they are. Some changes, like the ones you pointed out, are very reasonable ideas and can be incorporated without difficulty. Others are more difficult for me to understand (e.g. said poster's "no line in the sand" comment).


----------



## Aldarc

“Where do we draw the line?” is more often than not a red flag for a continuum fallacy. It seems easier for us to engage the subject matter of how should we organize a PHB without having to first engage the line-drawing fallacy. Saying that we should not draw the line is not the same position as arguing that we should include everything. It’s simply criticizing the value, purpose, and what not of any question about the position of artificially drawn lines.


----------



## Hussar

Remathilis said:


> /snip
> 
> It gets really hard to reach consensus when someone from one group says something, another reacts, and the third says the second is overreacting because they didn't say what the first said and quit assuming that is what they meant.




I disagree.  All three discussions I participated in - the orcs, the drow and the shaman discussions, all reached a consensus point.  Fairly quickly.  Reaching a reasonable consensus takes about five or ten pages.  

It's the other 50 pages of "whataboutit's" that cloud the issue.   Once you can reduce the noise to signal ratio down to a reasonable level, reaching a consensus has been pretty simple and relatively easy.

Like I said, it's 10 pages of reaching a consensus, 40 pages of fairly pointless "whataboutit's" and 10 pages of people who cannot be bothered reading the thread or doing their own research asking for the proofs to yet again be brought forward for examination resulting in yet again a round of the same questions that had already been answered.

Strip away all that cruft?  Consensus is rather easy.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> “Where do we draw the line?” is more often than not a red flag for a continuum fallacy. It seems easier for us to engage the subject matter of how should we organize a PHB without having to first engage the line-drawing fallacy. Saying that we should not draw the line is not the same position as arguing that we should include everything. It’s simply criticizing the value, purpose, and what not of any question about the position of artificially drawn lines.




Yes. Continuum fallacy exists. However, physics solves that conceptually using field theory. At some point a PHB must be made. It will have a limited page count. It will not be completely inclusive. Someone has to decide what does in the physical book and what does not. Instead of pointing out problematic things, it's much more useful to present answers to the question: What goes into the 6e PHB, DMG, and MM?

In other words, I don't care if orcs can be construed as victims of colonial oppression. I care about what the MM/PHB entry says and how it affects the game I play at my table.


----------



## Aldarc

And as I have been saying, you can do all of that without asking silly questions like “where do you draw the line?”


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> And as I have been saying, you can do all of that without asking silly questions like “where do you draw the line?”




I see no reason why that metaphor doesn't fit. There is a very clear line that divides the two categories: "things that end up in the PHB" and "things that don't end up in the PHB."


----------



## Aldarc

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I see no reason why that metaphor doesn't fit. There is a very clear line that divides the two categories: "things what end up in the PHB" and "things that don't end up in the PHB."



I see no reason to ask a redundant question about what to include in the book.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> I see no reason to ask a redundant question about what to include in the book.



OK.

In your opinion, what items should go into the category, "thing that end up in the PHB?", so that the PHB would satisfy standards of inclusivity (defined however you define those standards)?


----------



## Aldarc

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> OK.
> 
> In your opinion, what items should go into the category, "thing that end up in the PHB?", so that the PHB would satisfy standards of inclusivity (defined however you define those standards)?



If I knew all that, then the 6e PHB would already be written and published.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that a beach without a line drawn in the sand would look like a beach without a line drawn in the sand. And when asked what organizing a 6e PHB without a line drawn in the sand would look like, I likewise say that I suspect that it would look a Nine Hells of lot like organizing a 6e PHB.



At about 8 billion grains of sand per square meter of beach, that's a lot of PHB pages.  @WayOfTheFourElements is right.  Page count will by necessity exclude people, since you cannot possibly include anywhere remotely close to everything they would want.  If you add in Orcs and Shaman, what race and class are you going to cut out(line drawn in the sand) to make room for them?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> If I knew all that, then the 6e PHB would already be written and published.




According to *your standards*. Certainly you have some suggestions so that we can all approach a satisfactory solution.


----------



## Remathilis

Aldarc said:


> And as I have been saying, you can do all of that without asking silly questions like “where do you draw the line?”



It be really cool of you to answer his question rather than beg it.

6e PHB: what goes in it.

Species: human, elf, drow, dwarf, halfling, orc, gnome, dragonborn, planetouched, goblin. Each race is built out of component parts using point buy so you can make your own.

Classes: warrior (builds for fighter, ranger, paladin/champion, barbarian/berserker and marshal/warlord), mage (builds for wizard, bard, warlock/pactbound, sorcerer), cleric (druid/shape changer, most domains), and rogue (thief, scout, assassin, monk/martial artist, and swashbuckler) classes are broad and allow you to buy class abilities to customize.

Alignment is gone.

Replace Intelligence and Wisdom with Knowledge and Will. Other scores maybe need review as well..

That's a start. You?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Remathilis said:


> It be really cool of you to answer his question rather than beg it.
> 
> 6e PHB: what goes in it.
> 
> Species: human, elf, drow, dwarf, halfling, orc, gnome, dragonborn, planetouched, goblin. Each race is built out of component parts using point buy so you can make your own.
> 
> Classes: warrior (builds for fighter, ranger, paladin/champion, barbarian/berserker and marshal/warlord), mage (builds for wizard, bard, warlock/pactbound, sorcerer), cleric (druid/shape changer, most domains), and rogue (thief, scout, assassin, monk/martial artist, and swashbuckler) classes are broad and allow you to buy class abilities to customize.
> 
> Alignment is gone.
> 
> Replace Intelligence and Wisdom with Knowledge and Will. Other scores maybe need review as well..
> 
> That's a start. You?




Thanks for engaging with the question. You rock!


----------



## MGibster

I really don’t think it’s fair to argue against inclusivity on the basis of literally not being able to include everything in a book.  And to be fair, nobody has made an argument that you must throw everything and the kitchen sink into the PHB.


----------



## FrogReaver

Aldarc said:


> If I knew all that, then the 6e PHB would already be written and published.




What’s so hard about answering the question about what you believe should be included in the PHB?


----------



## FrogReaver

MGibster said:


> I really don’t think it’s fair to argue against inclusivity on the basis of literally not being able to include everything in a book.  And to be fair, nobody has made an argument that you must throw everything and the kitchen sink into the PHB.




IMO. No one is doing that. What is being argued against is trying to fit infinite inclusivity into a finite book.

What that argument is pushing for is for others to take a stance about what inclusivity matters enough to fit into a finite book.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

MGibster said:


> I really don’t think it’s fair to argue against inclusivity on the basis of literally not being able to include everything in a book.  And to be fair, nobody has made an argument that you must throw everything and the kitchen sink into the PHB.




I'm not arguing that 6e shouldn't be more inclusive. That's fine. I simply want to understand the vision of an inclusive PHB, taken from the abstract to the concrete. One of the challenges will be page count.


----------



## Aldarc

Remathilis said:


> It be really cool of you to answer his question rather than beg it.



No. Begging the question is asking "But where do you draw the line?" as this often has a presumed answer. Asking "what should we include in our 6e PHB" is called 'publishing.' It's more complicated than just writing a wishlist of things that we might want included or believe should be included.



> That's a start. You?



I don't know. This is me being honest. I don't know what I would include. I don't know what I believe _should_ be included. I don't think that arguing more generally against the fallacious question of "where do we draw the line?" requires that I have a hard answer for "what is your list of things we should include in the 6e PHB?". 



WayOfTheFourElements said:


> According to *your standards*. Certainly you have some suggestions so that we can all approach a satisfactory solution.



My purpose is not to provide suggestions about what should be included, but to challenge the validity of the question "but where do we draw the line in the sand?"



FrogReaver said:


> What’s so hard about answering the question about what you believe should be included in the PHB?



Actually knowing or having an adequate answer for what I believe should be included in the PHB for starters. It seems like asking me, "what should be included in your unwritten novel?" 



FrogReaver said:


> IMO. No one is doing that. What is being argued against is trying to fit infinite inclusivity into a finite book.



No one is doing that either. So what are you really arguing against?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> No. Begging the question is asking "But where do you draw the line?" as this often has a presumed answer. Asking "what should we include in our 6e PHB" is called 'publishing.' It's more complicated than just writing a wishlist of things that we might want included or believe should be included.




What is your wishlist of things that you might want included or believe should be included in the 6e PHB what would satisfy your standards of inclusivity?


----------



## Sadras

There are people who like to critique without offering real solutions or ideas themselves (for whatever reason) and there are those that critique and provide something tangible to discuss or debate over. I prefer the latter.


----------



## Derren

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> What is your wishlist of things that you might want included or believe should be included in the 6e PHB what would satisfy your standards of inclusivity?



I think by now its obvious that many (most? all?) people who argue here for a more inclusive 6E do so to elevate themselves as they are fighting for inclusion and not because they have actual issues with how inclusive D&D is. Thats why they can't answer what 6e should do different.


----------



## FrogReaver

Sadras said:


> There are people who like to critique without offering real solutions or ideas themselves (for whatever reason) and there are those that critique and provide something tangible to discuss or debate over. I prefer the latter.




What’s more is that abstract ideas are fluid.  They can take any sort of shape. In a sense they are chaos. A concrete idea is solid. It’s order.

there’s no wonder that those with only an abstract idea of inclusiveness views those trying to turn that into a concrete idea as being against inclusiveness - because to them inclusiveness is an abstract idea that can take any shape and turning it into a concrete idea takes away a fundamental quality of that abstract idea.  That’s why discussion about turning it into a concrete idea of “this is what should be included” is viewed by some ad being against inclusivity. IMO


----------



## Remathilis

Aldarc said:


> Actually knowing or having an adequate answer for what I believe should be included in the PHB for starters. It seems like asking me, "what should be included in your unwritten novel?"




Yes, writers sit down all the time and start writing without any idea of what should be in the novel. No plan, no theme, no guide other than put words on the page hope you get Shakespeare.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

FrogReaver said:


> What’s more is that abstract ideas are fluid.  They can take any sort of shape. In a sense they are chaos. A concrete idea is solid. It’s order.
> 
> there’s no wonder that those with only an abstract idea of inclusiveness views those trying to turn that into a concrete idea as being against inclusiveness - because to them inclusiveness is an abstract idea that can take any shape and turning it into a concrete idea takes away a fundamental quality of that abstract idea.  That’s why discussion about turning it into a concrete idea of “this is what should be included” is viewed by some ad being against inclusivity. IMO




That one of the questions I'm trying to pose: Does the abstract nature of inclusiveness in D&D make a concrete, but still inclusive, PHB impossible?

If it's impossible, inclusiveness is not worth perusing.
If it's not impossible, I want to find common ground.


----------



## Remathilis

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> That one of the questions I'm trying to pose: Does the abstract nature of inclusiveness in D&D make a concrete, but still inclusive, PHB impossible?



Well, it depends. 

If inclusive means "use better language to describe orcs" then it's not.
If inclusive means "has rules for every conceivable thing a player would want to play" then yes.

That's the problem: people are mixing up out-of-game inclusivity (all players should be welcomed and not have hateful words spoil it) with in-game inclusively (any option people want to pretend to be should be validated). 

Nobody here is advocating out-of-game inclusively is bad. They're are lots of opinions on in-game inclusivity ranging from status quo to let it all hang out. But it's easy to argue for in game using out of game as a shield and vice versa.


----------



## Aldarc

Remathilis said:


> Yes, writers sit down all the time and start writing without any idea of what should be in the novel. No plan, no theme, no guide other than put words on the page hope you get Shakespeare.



And don't forget Shakespeare's motto: "But where do I draw the line?"



WayOfTheFourElements said:


> What is your wishlist of things that you might want included or believe should be included in the 6e PHB what would satisfy your standards of inclusivity?



I'm still not sure if this is the appropriate question to ask, because this question seems to presume a radically different sense of "inclusivity" than the OP's use of the word, and we should probably avoid any potential pitfalls that comes from equivocating between these two diverging senses. 

FWIW, I don't think that saying "Hey, we should include at least include a fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard in PHB 6e" actually engages the OP's premise regarding making 6e inclusive at all. IMHO, making 6e more inclusive is more about the intersection between the rules and flavor text of the game with how the game represents diverse genders, sexualities, ethnicities, cultures, disabilities, bodies, creeds, and so forth. In some regards, it is less about the list of PC archetypes we include and more about how we depict/write about the things we do choose to include. Simply including a shaman class, for example, is meaningless and antithetical to "inclusivity" if the game fiction frames it in a negative light or using harmful stereotypes. The orc has obviously been included in the 5e MM, but the issue of inclusivity is not in reference to its incorporation into the book but, rather, in reference to the rhetoric that frames it therein.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Aldarc said:


> And don't forget Shakespeare's motto: "But where do I draw the line?"
> 
> I'm still not sure if this is the appropriate question to ask, because this question seems to presume a radically different sense of "inclusivity" than the OP's use of the word, and we should probably avoid any potential pitfalls that comes from equivocating between these two diverging senses.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think that saying "Hey, we should include at least include a fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard in PHB 6e" actually engages the OP's premise regarding making 6e inclusive at all. IMHO, making 6e more inclusive is more about the* intersection between the rules and flavor text of the game with how the game represents diverse genders, sexualities, ethnicities, cultures, disabilities, bodies, creeds, and so forth.* In some regards, it is less about the list of PC archetypes we include and more about how we depict/write about the things we do choose to include. Simply including a shaman class, for example, is meaningless and antithetical to "inclusivity" if the game fiction frames it in a negative light or using harmful stereotypes. The orc has obviously been included in the 5e MM, but the issue of inclusivity is not in reference to its incorporation into the book but, rather, in reference to the rhetoric that frames it therein.




No. That's exactly what I'm asking. What does that look like? I see a lot of "does not include [colonialism/disrespect/harmful stereotypes/etc.", but very little explanation as to how that goal is realized.

I see a lot of deconstruction - which is fine. Deconstruction is a useful too. But in order for deconstruction to be meaningful and productive, it must also lead to construction. The forum has done a lot of the former (deconstruction), now I think it's time to move onto the latter (construction).


----------



## Remathilis

Aldarc said:


> And don't forget Shakespeare's motto: "But where do I draw the line?"




Well, Shakespeare certainly drew the line at criticizing the current monarch, less the line be drawn over his neck. He also drew the line at being too progressive, despite Shylock and Othello. All writing has boundaries.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Sadras said:


> Bold emphasis mine. I cannot believe everyone just seemed to skip over this.
> I'm genuinely curious - how does that work? Rules wise, monster stat wise, designing encounters...has he read everything in braille?
> I found this site from a quick and dirty google - looks like the person uses some sort of screenreading software (which is fantastic - first I have heard of it)



He has a special device that works like a laptop/tablet, but in Braille and without a screen. His new one is way better than his old one, but it's a niche market so improvements happen in fits and starts. We run mostly theater of the mind, and he's very good at describing things - even visually, although I can sometimes tell which book he pulled the description from. Using a map is... trickier, since we need to recap the relative position of everyone to the dm, which takes time, but it's not a fast-paced game in general, and frankly that's why we avoid maps unless all eight of us are present for a session. We usually roll dice for him. 

And the screenreading software (on his phone, usually, for live sessions in the Before Time) seems pretty good - it talks to fast for me to follow, but it can read dang near any digitized document. 

Honestly the only downside to having him as a dm is the rather excessive number of dogs that want to hang out with us in relatively small rooms.


----------



## Aldarc

Remathilis said:


> Well, Shakespeare certainly drew the line at criticizing the current monarch, less the line be drawn over his neck. He also drew the line at being too progressive, despite Shylock and Othello. All writing has boundaries.



Which is less about imaginary hard lines drawn in the sand and more about particular contexts. Again, what I would like to avoid is the fallacy that arguing against the question "where do we draw the line?" is tantamount to arguing for "everything is/should be permitted." 



WayOfTheFourElements said:


> No. That's exactly what I'm asking. What does that look like? I see a lot of "does not include [colonialism/disrespect/harmful stereotypes/etc.", but very little explanation as to how that goal is realized.
> 
> I see a lot of deconstruction - which is fine. Deconstruction is a useful too. But in order for deconstruction to be meaningful and productive, it must also lead to construction. The forum has done a lot of the former (deconstruction), now I think it's time to move onto the latter (construction).



I can't list everything, but I can list some things. Are you okay with that? 

Art direction, IMHO, is a key aspect regarding who gets depicted and how. It's one concrete positive step, for example, that D&D made to tackle misogyny: i.e., the end of what @Hussar calls 'cheesecake art.' D&D has been getting progressively better, overall, with this and ethnicity, and this is something that I would like to see continue and improved upon in 6e. But it can also depict the gender queer, people with different body types, or even disabilities. 

Art also plays a role in how we culturally read certain monsters. For example, if hobgoblins are primarily dressed as samurai or with vaguely Japanese aesthetics, then that subtly guides our reading of hobgoblins as Japanese. Or if lizardfolk are dressed as a clear stereotype of American Indian regalia - not saying that they are - that also shapes how we think about both lizardfolk and American Indians. So we should be mindful of how art shapes the fiction.


----------



## jmartkdr2

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> That one of the questions I'm trying to pose: Does the abstract nature of inclusiveness in D&D make a concrete, but still inclusive, PHB impossible?
> 
> If it's impossible, inclusiveness is not worth perusing.
> If it's not impossible, I want to find common ground.



It's only impossible if we assume absolute inclusiveness is 1) a goal and 2) the only goal.

I'd debate that even #1 is a goal - I don't feel the need to tolerate intolerance or categories of people defined by how they harm others, so I'm already not aiming for absolute inclusiveness. And #2 would be saying "fun to play" isn't a design goal for a game, which is almost tautologically false. 

I just want to make the game more inclusive (or, more accurately, less exclusive), without doing so at an unreasonable cost.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Rushing right now, so still two pages back in my responses.



FlyingChihuahua said:


> Also, on the current track of racial bonuses:
> 
> I feel like taking racial bonuses out takes something that I feel is important out. It removes the identity from the races and just makes Elves and Dwarves into Tall Pointy-Eared Human and Short, Hairy Human. I mean, yeah, they're related, but they aren't the same. Say for example we have an RPG where the primary races are all based on dogs, would a Great Dane and a Corgi having the same stat bonuses make sense and add to the game? I don't really think so. I do get and sympathize with people saying that picking Elf pigeon holes them too much into the dex-y classes, so I could see them adding essentially a floating modifier to them. Like, for example "As an elf, you have the choice to add +2 to DEX, INT, or CHA, and +1 to another of those stats that wasn't the one you put +2 into". They'd still have a gameplay niche, while also being more flexible to other ideas rather than just the DEX-y characters. I also like the idea of making racial traits a "point buy" of sorts, where you have a group of points (that would be the same across every race) to buy certain racial traits you'd like for your character, with a sidebar saying that, if the list of racial traits for that race doesn't fit your idea for your character or your world, you can always just grab other racial traits if your DM gives the OK.
> 
> Maybe this is focusing mostly on the gameplay side of things, but that's just the thing I'm looking at the most here, because that's what my brain focuses on. I'm also white so I'm completely blind to the opinions of minorities, especially on their grievances.




My issue with this is two-fold. 

1) We are all humans anyways behind the sheet

2) Then what makes an Elf, Tabaxi and Halflfing different from each other? If removing the +2 Dex means that the elf is now indistinguishable from a human (and by the way, a variant human can trivially get a +2 Dex) then what makes the +2 Dex races distinguishable?


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> It's worth remembering, though, that the vast majority of people in a by the book 5e dnd world wouldn't have access to any of that, except maybe the magical prosthetic. I can tell you for certain that a hat of disguise isn't gonna satisfy most trans people.
> 
> Still, what, if any disabilities are technically diseases or caused by a disease? Is it ablest to have an effect that removes or cures a disease remove or cure a disability?
> 
> How can we look at Eberron, and actually consider disabled folks when thinking about what sorts of wide magic inventions would exist?



I would say that how well these ideas are handled is more a factor of the _story_ being told about the character with the disability. And DnD has never been a game to dictate how stories are told. 

So I would probably say the answer to disabilities is to not include mechanics, but a sidebar in the PHB and/or DMG about how to handle these ideas with sensitivity as a character arc.


----------



## Umbran

Derren said:


> I think by now its obvious that many (most? all?) people who argue here for a more inclusive 6E do so to elevate themselves ...




*Mod Note:*

It is obvious that you should not be in this discussion any more.

Welcome to your week away from EN World.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> What’s so hard about answering the question about what you believe should be included in the PHB?



It should be a process undertaken with extensive playtesting and community feedback. Any answer from one of us is wholly useless.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> What’s so hard about answering the question about what you believe should be included in the PHB?




*Mod Note:*

Please stop badgering people.  You are not entitled to any particular response from another user.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Remathilis said:


> Yes, writers sit down all the time and start writing without any idea of what should be in the novel. No plan, no theme, no guide other than put words on the page hope you get Shakespeare.



You wouldn’t demand an author to know exactly what characters will be in the work years before they plan an sitting down to write it, though. Nor is anyone here an author D&D .


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> It should be a process undertaken with extensive playtesting and community feedback. Any answer from one of us is wholly useless.




then why even have a thread on the topic?


----------



## Remathilis

doctorbadwolf said:


> You wouldn’t demand an author to know exactly what characters will be in the work years before they plan an sitting down to write it, though. Nor is anyone here an author D&D .



So basically, no one should speculate on a piece of media that doesn't exist yet. Got it Rian.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Remathilis said:


> So basically, no one should speculate on a piece of media that doesn't exist yet. Got it Rian.



I mean he was right, but no, that isn’t what I’m saying, and I can’t really imagine that you don’t know that.


----------



## Aldarc

I would propose that further pursuing arguing my analogy will likely not be particularly fruitful. It may help to pause and reformulate the actual argument with each other rather engaging a tangent of a tangent.


----------



## Umbran

Remathilis said:


> So basically, no one should speculate on a piece of media that doesn't exist yet. Got it Rian.




*Mod Note:*
Someone just got a week-long ban in the thread. 

Maybe, just maybe, you want to show just a little more discretion, and rather less snarkiness to your fellow board users in this thread going forward.  

*That goes for everybody - if you just can't be respectful in this discussion any more, now is the time to simply walk away.*


----------



## Aldarc

I do think that D&D staff at WotC are probably attentive to the fact that _Ancestry & Culture: An Alternative to Race in 5e_ is a Mithral best seller on DriveThruRPG. Will it be the shape of "race" in 6e and onward? Maybe not, but I suspect that it will at least give them something worth considering when they take their next steps.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Chaosmancer said:


> Rushing right now, so still two pages back in my responses.
> 
> 
> 
> My issue with this is two-fold.
> 
> 1) We are all humans anyways behind the sheet
> 
> 2) Then what makes an Elf, Tabaxi and Halflfing different from each other? If removing the +2 Dex means that the elf is now indistinguishable from a human (and by the way, a variant human can trivially get a +2 Dex) then what makes the +2 Dex races distinguishable?



Well I feel that's fairly simple, the other racial traits you get from them. Which, to be fair, I did say you can pick an choose if you ask your DM, but I also said you have to ask your DM and maybe you could add a hard limit to how many you can grab from another race, like around 2 alternate traits or so. Remember this is just a non-game designer spitballing ideas, so don't expect them to be perfect and balanced.

Plus, there are things that Elves, Halflings, and Tabaxi do that aren't DEX-y. Simple example, but you could make a Tabaxi that's more of a lion than a jaguar, and you could say that Tabaxi gets +2 STR, +1 DEX. (heck, you could do this currently, if you have a player who wants to play a lion based tabaxi, just tell them to use the Bugbear's racial abilities. they fit pretty well, IMO.)


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> It should be a process undertaken with extensive playtesting and community feedback. Any answer from one of us is wholly useless.



With that philosophy there's no point in discussing a lot of things that are discussed here on a regular basis.

We aren't designing 6e.  It's a discussion about what sorts of things, feasible and unfeasible, we feel should be in 6e.  It doesn't take playtesting and feedback for that.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> You wouldn’t demand an author to know exactly what characters will be in the work years before they plan an sitting down to write it, though. Nor is anyone here an author D&D .



I would expect an author of a series, say George R.R. Martin, to have had at least SOME idea of what will be in this next book(if it ever get finished), 20 years ago.  

D&D is similar to a book series.  We can guess from prior books in the series(1e-5e) what might be in 6e.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> We aren't designing 6e.  It's a discussion about what sorts of things, feasible and unfeasible, we feel should be in 6e.  It doesn't take playtesting and feedback for that.




There is a difference between discussing "what sorts of things" broadly, perhaps with possible examples, and demanding folks commit to a specific set of things - the latter _is_ designing 6e, and does seem to have been what was being asked.


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> There is a difference between discussing "what sorts of things" broadly, perhaps with possible examples and demanding folks commit to a specific set of things - the latter _is_ designing 6e, and does seem to have been what was being asked.




I can’t speak for others but I can say that’s not what I was asking for.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I think a good start is not giving xp for killing or stealing things...


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> I can’t speak for others but I can say that’s not what I was asking for.




Funny. You asked, specifically and explicitly, what a user thought should be in the 6e PHB.  

That's a demand for a specific set of things in the next edition.  

If that's not what you intended, you present your desires... poorly.  Work on your delivery, please.


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> Funny. You asked, specifically and explicitly, what a user thought should be in the 6e PHB.
> 
> That's a demand for a specific set of things in the next edition.
> 
> If that's not what you intended, you present your desires... poorly.  Work on your delivery, please.




that’s a request for concrete things they want to see. That is what this discussion is about.

asking for concrete thoughts and ideas isn’t asking for a complete design of 6e.

my delivery was fine IMO.  But I believe any comments defending that stance wouldeither be against the rules or too close to the gray area. So we will have to agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## Azzy

roger semerad said:


> Also, while I'm talking about being welcoming to furries, it would really help if there was a canine race. The most plentiful types of furries are canines and felines, so having those two represented would be great. Having an open ended animal/person race that let you pick from a list of features to make any type of animal person would be ideal, but just a canine and feline race is a good start.




BECMI, and the later 2e conversion of Mystara had anthropomorphic canine folk called Lupin as both a monster and a player character class/race. So, they certainly have precedence and would easily be brought back to 5e.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> I disagree.  All three discussions I participated in - the orcs, the drow and the shaman discussions, all reached a consensus point.  Fairly quickly.  Reaching a reasonable consensus takes about five or ten pages.
> 
> It's the other 50 pages of "whataboutit's" that cloud the issue.   Once you can reduce the noise to signal ratio down to a reasonable level, reaching a consensus has been pretty simple and relatively easy.
> 
> Like I said, it's 10 pages of reaching a consensus, 40 pages of fairly pointless "whataboutit's" and 10 pages of people who cannot be bothered reading the thread or doing their own research asking for the proofs to yet again be brought forward for examination resulting in yet again a round of the same questions that had already been answered.
> 
> Strip away all that cruft?  Consensus is rather easy.



Sorry, this is not at all the case. To be frank, you seem to do this a lot,  declare your opinion to be the consensus and ignore the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. And I say this even though I agree with you on what should be done with this issue.

But the more radical opinions are not strawmen or whataboutism. Do you have half of the forum on ignore? A lot of posters are actually arguing for removal of racial bonuses or even more radical changes in the name of inclusivity. You can't just pretend that they don't exist. @Remathilis described the situation absolutely perfectly.


----------



## Azzy

UngeheuerLich said:


> The problem is:
> Where do you draw the line...




Where do you draw the line? Where is the end to that slippery slope? Are alligators potentially explosive?

There is a lot of handwringing over ideas bandied about by different members of the community, various individuals preferences, unrelated issues, and most importantly things that *WotC hasn't said they are going to do*. Where the line is drawn depends on the particular individual, but the majority of the conversation isn't really applicable to what WotC is actually doing or plan to do so that variable line remains entirely hypothetical and unmoored from our current reality. Let that sink in.


----------



## roger semerad

Chaosmancer said:


> Again, they aren't perfect, but Shifters have both the Wildhunt and Longtooth, which are more canine in appearance and ability. Far from perfect, but they are there.




There are some furries that really like the lycanthrope idea, but for most ( myself included ) it's kinda worst than no option at all. There are two core ideas to the archetype of Lycanthropes and Shifters. The first is a duality of mind/soul. They're not a singular being, they're an sentient being and an animal forcibly inhabiting the same body. There is always a war between the two, at best a shifter simply finds a balance between the two. Second, they are shapeshifters. As shapeshifters they have no one natural form. On top of that Shifters only exhibit their more animal like features for very short durations. Both of these concepts reinforce how unnatural they are.  They're not one harmonious normal being, they're multible things at once. A furry usually wants their furry form to be a normal part of the world.



WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?




Saying it would be uninclusive would be an overstatement, but if you want to be as welcoming as possible you need to have those races, and as many others as you can fit in.

Here's some things to think about. I haven't told my parents or brother that I'm a furry. It's not that I think they'd have a problem with it, they're accepting people. It's just that when you tell people it starts a long and sometimes uncomfortable process. First you have to dispel the idea that it's just about people boinking each other in mascot costumes, when that's barely even a thing. Then you have to explain what furries are, and take on the responsibility of being a good advocate for them. You become their lens through which they view the idea, and that can be a heavy burden for some. Then you have to go through the slow process of it becoming normal. Like they might at first try to overcompensate and bring it up all the time in conversations, or buy me things like a hat with cat ears ( please god no ). Eventually it just becomes a normal thing, but it takes time. I'd probably feel better if I went through it, but it's easier to just keep it private.

Now imagine a furry comes to a gaming group and the race they want to play is in a supliment, or worse needs to be home-brewed, and naturally the group asks why they want to play that. Right there in session zero, with people you might not know, you face the choice to have the conversation about being a furry. If a furry race is allowed by default, there is less of a chance that you'd have to justify why you want to play it. Leaving the furry conversation to a later date when you have built a rapport with that group and feel comfortable. It wouldn't be guaranteed, the group might still be playing in a setting where they're not present, but what's in the Player's handbook moves the needle about what's a normal part of the game.

If you create a new default setting for the 6th edition Player's Handbook it wouldn't be difficult to have a large number of races included. Currently the race entries spend a lot of words describing the history of that race and it's place in the world. That's all information that could be shifted to a culture entry instead. This would mean that the default setting would have to have cultures and nations made up of many different races, so no more exclusively elvish kingdoms and so forth. Then you could have about 6 different cultures detailed in the book that any race could belong to, with about 3 pages dedicated to each explaining their history and beliefs, and any mechanical benefits that culture provides. Each race entry could then be fitted maybe 2 to one page, maybe more. That would make it pretty easy to include up to 20 different races.


----------



## Alzrius

Aldarc said:


> I do think that D&D staff at WotC are probably attentive to the fact that _Ancestry & Culture: An Alternative to Race in 5e_ is a Mithral best seller on DriveThruRPG.




So is _Oriental Adventures_.


----------



## CleverNickName

Sheesh.  That's a lot of red text and mod warnings for an edition of D&D that isn't even being written yet.

I think that in future editions of the game, "race" and "racial adjustments" will go the same route that gender adjustments went: they will be considered outdated and unnecessary.  Then, the rules and game mechanics will be revised accordingly.  It's pretty much inevitable considering the way that public opinion on racial matters has shifted in recent years.

I mean, pretend you are the game designer.  Your boss sends you an e-mail one morning, saying that the development team and marketing department have decided that all racial bonuses to ability scores will not be used in the game anymore, and you are to carry that change through the rules.

So.  Would you remove all ability score bonuses at 1st level and re-balance the game so that they aren't needed?  Or would you move them to some other place in the game, like Background or Class?  Would you adjust the way ability scores are generated, so that those now-missing ability score bonuses are baked in?  Or something else?

Personally, I'd go with the second option because it's easier...just take those +2/+1 adjustments and move them to the class and subclass, or the Background, and call it a day.   But one thing I definitely _wouldn't do_ is refuse to do it until the need for the change had been explained to my satisfaction.  (Unless I had already received an offer letter from another game design company, I mean.)


----------



## Azzy

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?




What do you mean by "standard"? If you mean "in the PHB", then no, I don't think so. If you instead mean, "not presented as PC races at all", then that's be varying degrees of yes (depending on the individual). Fortuately, we already hace PC orcs (in verious products—the Volo's version is likely to be errataed to be the same as Eberron's and Wildmounte's). We have a few anthropomorphic "furry" races (tabaxi, kenku, leonid, tortle, and probably something else that I can't remember off the top of my head) in 5e, and it would be easy to add others from previous editions (like lupin, hengeyouki, etc.). While there's only so much space in the PHB for the races that could theretically be added to it without impacting other material, rules expansions and setting sourcebooks are a great means to expand the catalog of available races that can appeal to a wider audience.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

roger semerad said:


> Both of these concepts reinforce how unnatural they are.



Just want to point out that this isn't actually true for shifters. They are explicitly _natural_. Lycanthropes are a perversion of nature, but shifters are part of nature.


----------



## FrogReaver

CleverNickName said:


> Sheesh.  That's a lot of red text and mod warnings for an edition of D&D that isn't even being written yet.
> 
> I think that in future editions of the game, "race" and "racial adjustments" will go the same route that gender adjustments went: they will be considered outdated and unnecessary.  Then, the rules and game mechanics will be revised accordingly.  It's pretty much inevitable considering the way that public opinion on racial matters has shifted in recent years.
> 
> I mean, pretend you are the game designer.  Your boss sends you an e-mail one morning, saying that the development team and marketing department have decided that all racial bonuses to ability scores will not be used in the game anymore, and you are to carry that change through the rules.
> 
> So.  Would you remove all ability score bonuses at 1st level and re-balance the game so that they aren't needed?  Or would you move them to some other place in the game, like Background or Class?  Would you adjust the way ability scores are generated, so that those now-missing ability score bonuses are baked in?  Or something else?
> 
> Personally, I'd go with the second option because it's easier...just take those +2/+1 adjustments and move them to the class and subclass, or the Background, and call it a day.   But one thing I definitely _wouldn't do_ is reply to that e-mail and refuse to do it until the need for the change had been explained to my satisfaction.  (Unless I had already received an offer letter from another game design company, I mean.)




there are ways most any point can be brought up that doesn’t amount to telling your boss no you won’t do the thing they want you to do.

though I am probably one of the few that have challenged those having more authority than me and I was ultimately deemed correct. It was an ethical issue, one I would consider fairly minor but in a heavily regulated industry. 

Basically there are times and places to do what is right and there are times and places to do what your boss says.


----------



## jmartkdr2

CleverNickName said:


> Personally, I'd go with the second option because it's easier...just take those +2/+1 adjustments and move them to the class and subclass, or the Background, and call it a day.   But one thing I definitely _wouldn't do_ is refuse to do it until the need for the change had been explained to my satisfaction.  (Unless I had already received an offer letter from another game design company, I mean.)



If the goal is to offer a houserule for 5e in the interest of letting players make their game more inclusive (and promoting character variety), this is one of the easiest options. 

If the goal is to make 6e mostly a revision of 5e while being fundamentally the same (like the relationship between 2e and 1e), then it's worth considering, but it would probably behoove the dev team to consider things like more generous point buy or tweaking the DCs down to keep character creation simple.


----------



## Azzy

Remathilis said:


> Nah. Core mechanic in 6e. It's time to revive Player's Option: Skills and Powers give it it's due.




On a serious note, that wouldn't be a bad idea... I wouldn't put it in the PHB and instead leave as an expansion that can be opted into or out of. I would also make sure that it was done during the developement of the core rules instead of being a retroactive add-on like PO:S&P was. That way it would be less likely to be open to abuse since the system would already be specifically designed to handle it.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> that’s a request for concrete things they want to see. That is what this discussion is about.




A specific concrete list is designing the next edition.

We can talk about possibilities and examples without trying to pin people to "concrete lists".


----------



## CleverNickName

FrogReaver said:


> there are ways most any point can be brought up that doesn’t amount to telling your boss no you won’t do the thing they want you to do.
> 
> though I am probably one of the few that have challenged those having more authority than me and I was ultimately deemed correct. It was an ethical issue, one I would consider fairly minor but in a heavily regulated industry.
> 
> Basically there are times and places to do what is right and there are times and places to do what your boss says.



My point was that it's silly to challenge your boss by refusing to do what the boss is paying you to do...just as it would be silly for your boss to try to change public perception by refusing to give the public what it wants.  Your boss will simply hire someone else to do what they ask, and the public will simply find another product that gives them what they want.

The goal is to design a product that the public is willing to spend time and money on.  And the public is always a moving target.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> *Another serious question: Which groups should WotC be responsible for actively including?*
> 
> Certainly they are responsible for making sure that members of percieve racial groups do not feel like outsiders. At the same time, I'm not sure they are responsible to groups demanding demons and devils be excised from the game - as fighting demons and devils is one aspect of the game's core identity (see the image of "A Paladin in Hell" in the AD&D PHB).



No one that I've ever seen has demanded that demons and devils be removed from the game. Though you're clearly referring to the Satanic Panic, that is not what they were calling for. They were calling for the destruction of D&D. 

D&D should be inclusive to all racial groups, people of all sexualities, and all conditions, mental or physical. The part you're referring to is not needed to be changed. If people don't like Devils or Demons, they can just not include them in their games.


----------



## Campbell

I mean we have already seen what a more inclusive version of D&D might look like.






Obviously the individual solutions Wizards end up taking will likely be different, but we have already seen that you can make a genuine effort at this stuff without radically changing the game.


----------



## Azzy

Derren said:


> I think by now its obvious that many (most? all?) people who argue here for a more inclusive 6E do so to elevate themselves as they are fighting for inclusion and not because they have actual issues with how inclusive D&D is. Thats why they can't answer what 6e should do different.




Considering that many of us have already shared our ideas on the matter. methinks your comment is a tad spurious. If you may have missed what people have been suggesting (since the very first thread), then I suggest that you actually read the thread instead of commenting from ignorance.


----------



## Chaosmancer

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> According to *your standards*. Certainly you have some suggestions so that we can all approach a satisfactory solution.




How will the publishing industry change in the next ten years? Will digital printing obviate the need for page counts? In the world where Google Glass finally succeeds and everyone has constant 5g internet access, does having a wiki page spread make more sense than a physical text book? 

Predicting the future it hard, especially as the entire world is arcing towards a "new normal" right now.




FlyingChihuahua said:


> Well I feel that's fairly simple, the other racial traits you get from them. Which, to be fair, I did say you can pick an choose if you ask your DM, but I also said you have to ask your DM and maybe you could add a hard limit to how many you can grab from another race, like around 2 alternate traits or so. Remember this is just a non-game designer spitballing ideas, so don't expect them to be perfect and balanced.
> 
> Plus, there are things that Elves, Halflings, and Tabaxi do that aren't DEX-y. Simple example, but you could make a Tabaxi that's more of a lion than a jaguar, and you could say that Tabaxi gets +2 STR, +1 DEX. (heck, you could do this currently, if you have a player who wants to play a lion based tabaxi, just tell them to use the Bugbear's racial abilities. they fit pretty well, IMO.)





I agree, but I think I might have been unclear because I was rushing, or maybe I misunderstood.

There is an argument I keep seeing that if you remove the +2 Dex from Elves, then they become nothing more than "a human in a rubber mask", but this argument seems to ignore that Elves, Halflings, and Tabaxi all have that same +2.

So, if the other racial traits are enough to seperate an elf from a Tabaxi from a Halfling, then why isn't it enough for an elf to keep their identity without the +2?



roger semerad said:


> There are some furries that really like the lycanthrope idea, but for most ( myself included ) it's kinda worst than no option at all. There are two core ideas to the archetype of Lycanthropes and Shifters. The first is a duality of mind/soul. They're not a singular being, they're an sentient being and an animal forcibly inhabiting the same body. There is always a war between the two, at best a shifter simply finds a balance between the two. Second, they are shapeshifters. As shapeshifters they have no one natural form. On top of that Shifters only exhibit their more animal like features for very short durations. Both of these concepts reinforce how unnatural they are.  They're not one harmonious normal being, they're multible things at once. A furry usually wants their furry form to be a normal part of the world.




Ah, I always forget that the Shifters are connected to Lycanthropes. 

I can see your point about dual-natured versus single-natured, I wasn't thinking of it that way, and picture it more as a blending of different elements into a cohesive whole. 

I also tend to think of human psyche's as somewhat fractious, so the idea of being multiple things at once is more natural to me than a single thing. 

Still, thank you for the discussion.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

roger semerad said:


> Now imagine a furry comes to a gaming group and the race they want to play is in a supliment, or worse needs to be home-brewed, and naturally the group asks why they want to play that. Right there in session zero, with people you might not know, you face the choice to have the conversation about being a furry.* If a furry race is allowed by default, there is less of a chance that you'd have to justify why you want to play it. Leaving the furry conversation to a later date when you have built a rapport with that group and feel comfortable. *It wouldn't be guaranteed, the group might still be playing in a setting where they're not present, but what's in the Player's handbook moves the needle about what's a normal part of the game.




Interesting. I think that makes sense. Thanks for taking the question seriously.



roger semerad said:


> If you create a new default setting for the 6th edition Player's Handbook it wouldn't be difficult to have a large number of races included. Currently the race entries spend a lot of words describing the history of that race and it's place in the world. That's all information that could be shifted to a culture entry instead. This would mean that the default setting would have to have cultures and nations made up of many different races, so no more exclusively elvish kingdoms and so forth. Then you could have about 6 different cultures detailed in the book that any race could belong to, with about 3 pages dedicated to each explaining their history and beliefs, and any mechanical benefits that culture provides. Each race entry could then be fitted maybe 2 to one page, maybe more. That would make it pretty easy to include up to 20 different races.




That's for presenting your ideas in positive terms (I would like) instead of negative terms (I think _____ is problematic). That was very helpful.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Chaosmancer said:


> How will the publishing industry change in the next ten years? Will digital printing obviate the need for page counts? In the world where Google Glass finally succeeds and everyone has constant 5g internet access, does having a wiki page spread make more sense than a physical text book?
> 
> Predicting the future it hard, especially as the entire world is arcing towards a "new normal" right now.




I know I refuse to pay for digital things. If it isn't a physical product I can resell when I'm finished, it doesn't get my money. I'm probably not the only one who feels that way.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No one that I've ever seen has demanded that demons and devils be removed from the game. Though you're clearly referring to the Satanic Panic, that is not what they were calling for. They were calling for the destruction of D&D.
> 
> D&D should be inclusive to all racial groups, people of all sexualities, and all conditions, mental or physical. The part you're referring to is not needed to be changed. If people don't like Devils or Demons, they can just not include them in their games.




That was me trying not to be banned for talking about politics. I have learned that the mods and I have very different view on what qualifies as "talking about politics," so I've been trying to use more absurd examples.


----------



## Cadence

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I know I refuse to pay for digital things. If it isn't a physical product I can resell when I'm finished, it doesn't get my money. I'm probably not the only one who feels that way.




I pay, but expect to pay less.   If you were only going to get 50% of your money back when selling it, and only consider 20% of the enjoyment of reading from having a physical copy, then isn't the digital still worth 40% of the print cost?  (If you got 60% back and 25% of the value from holding, then 30%?).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> That was me trying not to be banned for talking about politics. I have learned that the mods and I have very different view on what qualifies as "talking about politics," so I've been trying to use more absurd examples.



I guess I'm not going to engage in absurd examples, then. If you have a real scenario that you would like answered, I'd be willing to try to discuss that, if appropriate.


----------



## TheSword

Campbell said:


> I mean we have already seen what a more inclusive version of D&D might look like.
> 
> View attachment 124493
> 
> Obviously the individual solutions Wizards end up taking will likely be different, but we have already seen that you can make a genuine effort at this stuff without radically changing the game.



I’m a big fan of Paizo and love the world building, however let’s be clear they approach inclusivity in a very similar way to D&D.

- Yes they changed the term race to ‘ancestry’ for PF2 but they have kept racial modifiers (with one additional floating modifier). Ancestry is used to mean exactly the same thing as race effectively in the game.

- They have post colonial lands. There really isn’t a lot of difference between the Mwangi expanse and Chult.

- They have monstrous humanoid creatures defaulting to evil.

- they have elves that actually spontaneously gain dark skin when they become evil.

- The have many, many, many tribal folk. From Nomen centaurs, to Khellid barbarians. These do have shaman and follow the regular stereotypes you would expect.

- They expressly detail cultures based on real world cultures - Osirion is Egypt, Galt is revolutionary France, Minkai is a China/japan hybrid. Etc etc. These also follow the regular stereotypes you would expect.

In essence, a lot of the things D&D are being criticized for are also a normal part of Golarion.

I love Paizo but they fundamentally aren't any different in what they publish than WOC. Which is unsurprising when so many people have written for both. I also personally don’t see some of the things above as problems if done well... I just know some people do seem to disapprove of them.


----------



## Umbran

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I know I refuse to pay for digital things. If it isn't a physical product I can resell when I'm finished, it doesn't get my money. I'm probably not the only one who feels that way.




That may hold for _gaming_ things.  But, the number of people who restrict themselves to that overall.. on an internet site, is probably slim.

Because that would mean you never went to the movies, didn't pay for cable or any streaming services.  I can't say I know anyone who's restricted themselves to airwave broadcasts (free) or DVD/Blu-Ray (pay for a physical item) for media.


----------



## Campbell

@TheSword

They are making a genuine effort to try to do a better job. That's all I expect.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Umbran said:


> That may hold for _gaming_ things.  But, the number of people who restrict themselves to that overall.. on an internet site, is probably slim.
> 
> Because that would mean you never went to the movies, didn't pay for cable or any streaming services.  I can't say I know anyone who's restricted themselves to airwave broadcasts (free) or DVD/Blu-Ray (pay for a physical item) for media.




Where I live, we have free (legal) streaming of all TV shows, movies, and books.


----------



## Umbran

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Where I live, we have free (legal) streaming of all TV shows, movies, and books.




"Free", except you pay taxes that cover all that, don't you?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Umbran said:


> "Free", except you pay taxes that cover all that, don't you?




Not really. We have a flat 20% tax dividend and salary. What we don't have is well-crafted IP laws. There's no law to make streaming illegal so long as the site cannot be accessed internationally.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I guess I'm not going to engage in absurd examples, then. If you have a real scenario that you would like answered, I'd be willing to try to discuss that, if appropriate.




I'm trying to find common ground between more traditional groups and groups that want to be more inclusive. So far, I've seen some good suggestions in this thread once I started asking better questions.

I'm honestly curious what a more inclusive PHB would look like. I see a lot of arguments about why the current game is problematic. Which is fine, but it's only half the job. Telling me that D&D tropes are problematic because they reflect colonialism does not tell me what an improvement would constitute and look like.

I'm trying to better understand.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Chaosmancer said:


> I agree, but I think I might have been unclear because I was rushing, or maybe I misunderstood.
> 
> There is an argument I keep seeing that if you remove the +2 Dex from Elves, then they become nothing more than "a human in a rubber mask", but this argument seems to ignore that Elves, Halflings, and Tabaxi all have that same +2.
> 
> So, if the other racial traits are enough to seperate an elf from a Tabaxi from a Halfling, then why isn't it enough for an elf to keep their identity without the +2?



Keep in mind, there are _other_ stats that you could put the +2 into like INT or CHA (or whatever the designers feel that Elves could be really good at) as well as the other races +2, which for Halflings I would say +2 CON or CHA and with Tabaxi you could say +2 to DEX, CHA, and STR. Again, might not be a lot to differentiate them, but A: that's what the other racial traits are for (Skill Proficiencies are the simple ones, but also other biological stuff like claws or advantages on saving throws against poison, as well as cultural stuff.) and B: This is just one idea for how they could do it from someone who is not a professional game designer. Other ideas do exist, we just haven't heard of them yet.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I'm trying to find common ground between more traditional groups and groups that want to be more inclusive. So far, I've seen some good suggestions in this thread.
> 
> I'm curious what a more inclusive PHB would look like. I see a lot of arguments about why the current game is problematic. Which is fine, but it's only half the job. Telling me that D&D trope are problematic because they reflect colonialism does tell me what an improvement would constitute and look like.
> 
> I'm trying to better understand.



Okay. So, let's go back to the OP:


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Alignment removed from humanoids at the very least. Possibly removed from dragons and other "monsters" but the extent to this is up for debate here.



So, this would make the races not have any alignment attached to them in a 6e PHB. Setting Books could assign general alignments to the races, but still be clear that PCs are outliers, and you can be any alignment you want. (A Monster Manual might have less alignment in the Monster Stat blocks, but you were asking specifically about the PHB)


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Possibly remove alignment in its entirety. I personally don't think we should be getting rid of it altogether, but to keep it mainly for fiends, celestials, and the other otherworldly creatures.



This to an extent. A 6e PHB, in my vision, would either get rid of alignment entirely, or still have it, but as a variant rule to the standard. It could possibly be moved the the DMG as an optional rule, like flanking. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Setting determining the culture and descriptions of the races, and not the base rules.



So, how this would play out is that the Race section of the PHB wouldn't list the culture of the races, just their normal physical appearance and mechanical traits. This isn't a major change, just removing the flavor paragraphs from the Races. This would make more room to fill the book with more races, so players get more options from the PHB. The DMG, Basic Rules, or an Appendix in the PHB would list the features of the races in the main setting that 6e is designed around. This isn't a major change, but is just a shift in where things are described. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Ability Scores being detached from races. There have been many suggestions for this, linking it to background or class, but I personally don't like this. I think allowing a player to choose the bonus to ability scores completely detached from race or any other choice would allow for more player freedom, and support creativity.



This would make it so the race doesn't get Ability Scores attached to it. (Hey, everyone, no one in particular. Don't get mad at me for mentioning this, or tell me this has nothing to do with inclusion. It's been discussed in the inclusion threads, mentioned by WotC in their Inclusivity statement, and I am just listing what a 6e PHB might look like.)


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Cause there to be less of a link between shamanism and the more evil races. This could be mostly solved by either making a shaman class and adding more shamans for more races, or just getting rid of evil races.



Basically, make Shaman a class. I think a PHB 6e will have to consider which classes fill large enough niches to be considered their own unique classes. If 6e has Druids, they should also have Shamans, IMHO. They should be distinct, so it's clear what shamans are. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Possibly changing the word "race" to Ancestry, Species, Heritage, Folk, People, Lineage, etc.



This is simple. Just change the name of Race to Ancestry, Species, or any other word that would better describe it. This has been mentioned on several occasions, and is a minor change. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Possibly rename certain classes (Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, Monk, Warlock)



Then, this one is also simple. If there are any names of classes that are problematic, they might want to consider renaming them. Barbarian to Berserker, Paladin to Knight, and so on. 

Overall, these are very minor changes, and wouldn't effect the book that much. Most of it is renaming, moving around text, and allowing for more character freedom when it comes to races. These changes aren't major, are not a huge deal to execute correctly, and are what I specifically think would work in a 6e PHB. 

Does this clear things up?


----------



## Chaosmancer

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Keep in mind, there are _other_ stats that you could put the +2 into like INT or CHA (or whatever the designers feel that Elves could be really good at) as well as the other races +2, which for Halflings I would say +2 CON or CHA and with Tabaxi you could say +2 to DEX, CHA, and STR. Again, might not be a lot to differentiate them, but A: that's what the other racial traits are for (Skill Proficiencies are the simple ones, but also other biological stuff like claws or advantages on saving throws against poison, as well as cultural stuff.) and B: This is just one idea for how they could do it from someone who is not a professional game designer. Other ideas do exist, we just haven't heard of them yet.




I think we are talking past each other. You seem to be agreeing with me that the +2 does not help define the race.


----------



## Deset Gled

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> *Another serious question: Which groups should WotC be responsible for actively including?*




It's important to note that different groups are "included" by handling them in very different ways.  Generally speaking, I don't think WotC is responsible for adding content to be inclusive of any specific group.  Rather, WotC is responsible for making sure the core rules are open to add content, and don't penalize or single out any group.  Specifically...

D&D should be gender inclusive.  Generally, this means not having bonuses, penalties, or mechanics for specific genders.

D&D should be sexually inclusive.  IMNSHO, D&D should also be PG.  This means sexuality should rarely come up in the rules; when it does, the mechanics should not be based on a specific sexuality.

D&D should be racially inclusive.  Generally, this means not having bonuses or penalties for real-world races.  It also means not having fantasy races/species that are expys of real-world races.

D&D should be culturally inclusive.  This means that if/when real-world cultures are referenced, they are used in a non-offensive way.

D&D should be disability inclusive.  This means it should be playable by people with disabilities.

D&D should be religiously inclusive.  Because D&D is a fantasy game, this means it should not include real world religions or expys of real world religions in the mechanics.

Obviously, it's the details that go beyond the "general" stuff above that are the hard parts.  Also, specific settings in D&D have a lot more issues to deal with (e.g. how a fantasy culture might handle sexuality), but those are issues that shouldn't affect the mechanics of the core game.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Deset Gled said:


> Obviously, it's the details that go beyond the "general" stuff above that are the hard parts.  Also, specific settings in D&D have a lot more issues to deal with (e.g. how a fantasy culture might handle sexuality), but those are issues that shouldn't affect the mechanics of the core game.




Thanks for your comments.

Would making the PHB, MM, and DMG as setting neutral as possible fix that problem? Or, to your mind, should the game actively promote more inclusive settings?


----------



## FrogReaver

Deset Gled said:


> It's important to note that different groups are "included" by handling them in very different ways.  Generally speaking, I don't think WotC is responsible for adding content to be inclusive of any specific group.  Rather, WotC is responsible for making sure the core rules are open to add content, and don't penalize or single out any group.  Specifically...
> 
> D&D should be gender inclusive.  Generally, this means not having bonuses, penalties, or mechanics for specific genders.
> 
> D&D should be sexually inclusive.  IMNSHO, D&D should also be PG.  This means sexuality should rarely come up in the rules; when it does, the mechanics should not be based on a specific sexuality.
> 
> D&D should be racially inclusive.  Generally, this means not having bonuses or penalties for real-world races.  It also means not having fantasy races/species that are expys of real-world races.
> 
> D&D should be culturally inclusive.  This means that if/when real-world cultures are referenced, they are used in a non-offensive way.
> 
> D&D should be disability inclusive.  This means it should be playable by people with disabilities.
> 
> D&D should be religiously inclusive.  Because D&D is a fantasy game, this means it should not include real world religions or expys of real world religions in the mechanics.
> 
> Obviously, it's the details that go beyond the "general" stuff above that are the hard parts.  Also, specific settings in D&D have a lot more issues to deal with (e.g. how a fantasy culture might handle sexuality), but those are issues that shouldn't affect the mechanics of the core game.




imo this is the best post of the thread so far


----------



## Deset Gled

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Would making the PHB, MM, and DMG as setting neutral as possible fix that problem? Or, to your mind, should the game actively promote more inclusive settings?




Not everything has a "neutral".  But in general, yes, I believe the core rules should be fairly neutral or generic.  For me, that's less about inclusivity and more about the D&D core being the basis that all the other settings are based off of.  WotC should promote the settings that sell best.


----------



## TheSword

Campbell said:


> @TheSword
> 
> They are making a genuine effort to try to do a better job. That's all I expect.



I think WOC are too


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Chaosmancer said:


> I think we are talking past each other. You seem to be agreeing with me that the +2 does not help define the race.



Yeah, which is why the +1 and the other racial bonuses exist. I just didn't elaborate on those because A: too much work and B: I think a lot of the focus has been on the bonuses to the main stats.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Alzrius said:


> So is _Oriental Adventures_.




I think there would be a problem not handling a 1001 nights setting (in the right way).
I mean, you just have to be careful to make sure that everything in it is as accurate as medieval fairytales with kings and knights and dragons.


----------



## FrogReaver

Deset Gled said:


> It's important to note that different groups are "included" by handling them in very different ways.  Generally speaking, I don't think WotC is responsible for adding content to be inclusive of any specific group.  Rather, WotC is responsible for making sure the core rules are open to add content, and don't penalize or single out any group.  Specifically...
> 
> D&D should be gender inclusive.  Generally, this means not having bonuses, penalties, or mechanics for specific genders.




I hope it's not deemed uninclusive to make this point because I think it's an important one that needs to be made.  The most interesting part of this one to me is that statistically women are physically weaker than men in upper body strength and yet we have all happily rejected that fact needing to be be mechanically defined in our games and not even verisimilitude itself is a reasonable argument against it.  Why is this?  Because we all want to see our female characters just as capable as our male ones.  None of us want to be told we must be inferior in any respect just because we may chose to play a female instead of a male.  I'm not sure that reason truly qualifies as inclusivity.  It feels more to me like a form of advocacy for our characters than inclusiveness.



> D&D should be sexually inclusive.  IMNSHO, D&D should also be PG.  This means sexuality should rarely come up in the rules; when it does, the mechanics should not be based on a specific sexuality.




Kind of agree.  I don't think this is actually a topic that can be discussed in enough detail on this forum to make a conversation on it worthwhile.



> D&D should be racially inclusive.  Generally, this means not having bonuses or penalties for real-world races.  It also means not having fantasy races/species that are expys of real-world races.




100% Agreed.  Though I want to add that we should probably be able to hear about and maybe even see some prominent D&D characters of various races in settings, campaigns, art etc.



> D&D should be culturally inclusive.  This means that if/when real-world cultures are referenced, they are used in a non-offensive way.




100% Agreed.



> D&D should be disability inclusive.  This means it should be playable by people with disabilities.




100% Agreed.



> D&D should be religiously inclusive.  Because D&D is a fantasy game, this means it should not include real world religions or expys of real world religions in the mechanics.




This one always strikes me as a bit odd.  I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up.  There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art.  I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.



> Obviously, it's the details that go beyond the "general" stuff above that are the hard parts.  Also, specific settings in D&D have a lot more issues to deal with (e.g. how a fantasy culture might handle sexuality), but those are issues that shouldn't affect the mechanics of the core game.




Yea, the details are difficult and depending on those exact details many could come out against what you refer to as inclusiveness and not necessarily because they are being uninclusive.  That makes it very hard indeed.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> I hope it's not deemed uninclusive to make this point because I think it's an important one that needs to be made. The most interesting part of this one to me is that statistically women are physically weaker than men in upper body strength and yet we have all happily rejected that fact needing to be be mechanically defined in our games and not even verisimilitude itself is a reasonable argument against it. Why is this? Because we all want to see our female characters just as capable as our male ones. None of us want to be told we must be inferior in any respect just because we may chose to play a female instead of a male. I'm not sure that reason truly qualifies as inclusivity. It feels more to me like a form of advocacy for our characters than inclusiveness.



It doesn't matter about the real world, though. D&D is a fantasy game. Even if females are normally physically weaker than males (I'm male, and am definitely weaker than the average female my age), D&D is the game where anyone can play anything. IMO, no punishments should be given to you based on race or sex in D&D. The general D&D community agrees with me. Previous editions had strength caps for women, and that does not bode well. It is uninclusive to suggest that this is a good idea. 


FrogReaver said:


> This one always strikes me as a bit odd. I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up. There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art. I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.



I'll just quickly point out that @Umbran said not to discuss this. Religion is a touchy subject, and if real world religions were included/represented in D&D, that would be heavily and extremely problematic.


----------



## jmartkdr2

FrogReaver said:


> I hope it's not deemed uninclusive to make this point because I think it's an important one that needs to be made.  The most interesting part of this one to me is that statistically women are physically weaker than men in upper body strength and yet we have all happily rejected that fact needing to be be mechanically defined in our games and not even verisimilitude itself is a reasonable argument against it.  Why is this?  Because we all want to see our female characters just as capable as our male ones.  None of us want to be told we must be inferior in any respect just because we may chose to play a female instead of a male.  I'm not sure that reason truly qualifies as inclusivity.  It feels more to me like a form of advocacy for our characters than inclusiveness.



Inclusivness often just mean not excluding - and in this case, it means not making women and girls feel unwelcome. Telling them that if they want to be as strong as the other characters they have to play a man is pushing them out, because it's the game itself telling them they are inferior. 

Nobody wants that. 



FrogReaver said:


> This one always strikes me as a bit odd.  I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up.  There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art.  I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.



Religion generally doesn't expect explicit representation; you can see yourself as the hero even if they don't go to the same church as you (or go to church at all), so religious issues are generally best handled by not including real-world religions. When you do, it's important to do so sensitively, but that's a long thread. 

Put it another way: I don't think anyone has ever argued that DnD isn't inclusive of Catholics, even though there are no Catholics in the Forgotten Realms. There just aren't any offensive parodies of the Church, and that's enough.

I would go so far as to say we shouldn't try to be inclusive of Muslims per se - we should try to be inclusive of Arabs and South Asians and Indonesians (etc).


FrogReaver said:


> Yea, the details are difficult and depending on those exact details many could come out against what you refer to as inclusiveness and not necessarily because they are being uninclusive.  That makes it very hard indeed.



Part of the reason we go for the easy stuff first is the more the basics are dealt with the clearer other issues become.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Yeah, which is why the +1 and the other racial bonuses exist. I just didn't elaborate on those because A: too much work and B: I think a lot of the focus has been on the bonuses to the main stats.




Okay, but, for example, Both Half-Orcs and Goliaths get +2 Strength and +1 Con. Same exact array. Are they identical though as PC races?


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Chaosmancer said:


> Okay, but, for example, Both Half-Orcs and Goliaths get +2 Strength and +1 Con. Same exact array. Are they identical though as PC races?



No.

They get the other stuff, like Proficiency in Intimidate and Brutal Critical for Half-Orcs, and Proficiency in Athletics and Stone's Endurance for Goliaths.

Granted, that's not _the most_ differences, but that's what both the other racial bonus are for (for H-orcs, I'd say Charisma for the same reason Tieflings get it, and Goliaths get Wisdom, because I feel like that fits.)


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> It doesn't matter about the real world, though. D&D is a fantasy game. Even if females are normally physically weaker than males (I'm male, and am definitely weaker than the average female my age), D&D is the game where anyone can play anything. IMO, no punishments should be given to you based on race or sex in D&D. The general D&D community agrees with me. Previous editions had strength caps for women, and that does not bode well. It is uninclusive to suggest that this is a good idea.




 It seems you’ve assigned me a position I didn’t actually post and don’t actually hold.

my post unequivocally was in support of female characters being just as strong as male ones.

the only question was about whether that was actually about inclusivity or player advocacy for their characters.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> It seems you’ve assigned me a position I didn’t actually post and don’t actually hold.
> 
> my post unequivocally was in support of female characters being just as strong as male ones.
> 
> the only question was about whether that was actually about inclusivity or player advocacy for their characters.



Ah, I must have misunderstood that then. Sorry. 

It's definitely about inclusivity. It makes women feel more welcome and less restricted in their player options.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Ah, I must have misunderstood that then. Sorry.
> 
> It's definitely about inclusivity. It makes women feel more welcome and less restricted in their player options.




you say that... But I’m a man and it makes me feel less restricted in my player options as well.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

FrogReaver said:


> you say that... But I’m a man and it makes me feel less restricted in my player options as well.



It does the same to me, but that might be because pretty much all the cool art I find that inspires me is of women.

No clue idea why, and it honestly frustrates me sometimes.


----------



## Cadence

FrogReaver said:


> I hope it's not deemed uninclusive to make this point because I think it's an important one that needs to be made.  The most interesting part of this one to me is that statistically women are physically weaker than men in upper body strength and yet we have all happily rejected that fact needing to be be mechanically defined in our games and not even verisimilitude itself is a reasonable argument against it.  Why is this?  Because we all want to see our female characters just as capable as our male ones.  None of us want to be told we must be inferior in any respect just because we may chose to play a female instead of a male.  I'm not sure that reason truly qualifies as inclusivity.  It feels more to me like a form of advocacy for our characters than inclusiveness.




Part of why this might not be a thing is that the level of versimilitude fail seems very small relative to how the numbers are used.

The difference in Str bonus between a Halfling and the typical Human is only a +1 in 5e. In PF it was +2 5/6th of the time and +4 the other 1/6th. The halfling doesn't even get the 3/4 multiplier for carrying capacity for being small in 5e. If the ability difference between a typical 3 foot, 40lb. halfling and a human adult is only represented by a +1 (or +2) - and there is nothing at all about how size variations within male humans affects things, for example - then how small should the difference be between an average human female 5'4" and 170 lbs and average human male 5'9" and 197 lbs (using American averages google spit out).

I imagine if the sexual dimorphism was as large as in gorillas (m/f weight ratio of 2.37) then it might be a thing. Or similarly, if you were doing a simulator of Olympic medalists in various sports like track or swimming, then separate stat distributions would be a thing. Of course in that case there'd be a huge effect by birth year too over the past century+.

As far as Str and verisimilitude, I'm still stuck on an Str 10 being able to carry 150 pounds just as easily as they would 0 pounds in 5e.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> you say that... But I’m a man and it makes me feel less restricted in my player options as well.



It does make it more open to play female characters in general, whether the player is male, female, or non-binary.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> There is a difference between discussing "what sorts of things" broadly, perhaps with possible examples, and demanding folks commit to a specific set of things - the latter _is_ designing 6e, and does seem to have been what was being asked.



I didn't get "demanding folks commit to a specific set of things" to be in 6e.  What I got from that statement was more of, "What sorts of things would you like to see in 6e?"  That's not a demand for commitment, but rather a request for the possible examples you mention. The whole point of this thread is to state and discuss possible examples of what you'd like to see in 6e.  I don't think anyone here expects what we talk about in this thread to be 6e design.


----------



## Maxperson

Azzy said:


> Where do you draw the line? Where is the end to that slippery slope? Are alligators potentially explosive?




It seems that you might be drawing the line here at a Strawman.  Drawing the line isn't about slippery slopes of any kind.  I have a 6 year old and when he gets upset with me I tell him it's okay to be upset, and even to show that he's upset.  I draw the line at throwing things, though.  No slippery slope involved.  When it comes to him being upset, A, B, C and D are fine, but X, Y and Z are not, because they cross the line I've drawn. 

Lines are an extremely common thing.  As humans we have them all over the place.  This we are okay with, that crosses our line.  Asking someone where they draw the line on this topic isn't engaging a slipper slope.  It's simply asking them to state where their personal line is drawn regarding the topic. Nothing more.


----------



## Eltab

Deset Gled said:


> Not everything has a "neutral".  But in general, yes, I believe the core rules should be fairly neutral or generic.  For me, that's less about inclusivity and more about the D&D core being the basis that all the other settings are based off of.  WotC should promote the settings that sell best.



Everybody who cannot stand Forgotten Realms is going to give you a nasty glare.

The "starter adventure" for such a description might be inspired by _Keep on the Borderlands_ (with something else - bandits? - replacing the Orcs).


----------



## jmartkdr2

FlyingChihuahua said:


> It does the same to me, but that might be because pretty much all the cool art I find that inspires me is of women.
> 
> No clue idea why, and it honestly frustrates me sometimes.



I'm in that same boat.


----------



## Hussar

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sorry, this is not at all the case. To be frank, you seem to do this a lot,  declare your opinion to be the consensus and ignore the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. And I say this even though I agree with you on what should be done with this issue.
> 
> But the more radical opinions are not strawmen or whataboutism. Do you have half of the forum on ignore? A lot of posters are actually arguing for removal of racial bonuses or even more radical changes in the name of inclusivity. You can't just pretend that they don't exist. @Remathilis described the situation absolutely perfectly.




No, no.  You would be mistaken.  I can, and do, ignore a number of posters who have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be constructive.  Not that I have them on ignore lists (although a couple are) but mostly, because it's easy to spot those who are just engaging in argument for the sake of arguing.  See, the racial bonuses stuff, for example, as @Remathilis correctly points out, is about in-game inclusivity - the notion that any character concept must be equally viable. Which, frankly, has nothing whatsoever to do with inclusivity, so, is very easily ignored.  

Like I said, once you strip away all the hoopla, over reaction, hyperbole, outright insults and attacks, and sidebars into la la land, achieving consensus is relatively easy.  Most of the needed changes to increasing inclusivity of D&D can be done pretty simply, quickly and easily.  All this other noise is just that - noise trying to distract from the real issues at hand.  And, once the noise reaches a certain level, you see people proclaiming that no changes can be made because people don't know what changes they want.  

I mean, the playbook couldn't possibly be clearer.  This same rhetorical song and dance has been going on for decades.  Fortunately, you have folks that quietly beaver away, do the job that needs to be done, and things get done despite all the noise and distraction.  Certainly not because of it.


----------



## Hussar

Campbell said:


> @TheSword
> 
> They are making a genuine effort to try to do a better job. That's all I expect.




And this needs repeating.  No, this is not a one and done thing.  This will come back again and again and again.  Of course it will.  It's an ongoing discussion.  It's a discussion that has been ongoing for a long time.  And, every time, you'll have the same sorts of people proclaiming that there really isn't any problem here at all and folks are just doing it to make themselves feel better, you'll have folks who refuse to accept any change, regardless of how minor, you'll have folks who will argue until their nose falls off that THIS TIME IT'S GONE TOO FAR.  

And then more reasonable heads will prevail, changes will be made and we move on and accept the changes as a good idea.  

How do I know?  Because I can look at the history of our countries for the past century or more and see it happen, again and again and again.  It just takes time and patience.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> would go so far as to say we shouldn't try to be inclusive of Muslims per se - we should try to be inclusive of Arabs and South Asians and Indonesians (etc).



Well, we should do, by making sure that when we have cultural influences that are deeply important to Muslims around the world in the game, we do so respectfully. 



FrogReaver said:


> you say that... But I’m a man and it makes me feel less restricted in my player options as well.



That has nothing todo with whether or not it lends to inclusiveness for women and girls. It very much does.


jmartkdr2 said:


> I'm in that same boat.



Yeah same here. Doesn’t help that Laurana (Dragonlance) was my first D&D hero that I looked up to, or that I wanted to be cool like Kitiara. And the best fantasy art seems to be female centered, and the female models in most games are much better done.


----------



## Deset Gled

FrogReaver said:


> This one always strikes me as a bit odd.  I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up.  There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art.  I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.




Because (IMNSHO) this is one of the areas I alluded to earlier where there is no real neutral position, other than simply not including it at all.  There are multiple reasons for this.  First, it would be nearly impossible to accurately and respectfully include all religions, so you would have to pick and choose which ones to include.  Second, many real-world religions are antithetical to each other, so it's impossible to represent one without excluding another. Third, there are some religions that find less accurate presentations of their important figures to be blasphemous.  Fourth, there are many standard mechanics in D&D that are more-or-less incompatible with various real religions (e.g. all the coming back from the dead, talking with gods, polytheism, etc).

Also, let's not forget that time in the 1980's when some people believed monsters in D&D were representative of real world religious characters.  It didn't exactly help the hobby.  I say it's best to just stay as far away from repeating that as possible.


----------



## Hussar

I'm not really sure why you would include real world religious iconography in the game.  We used to.  Go back to early Moldvay books and you'll see clerics holding crosses for example.  But, that's pretty jarring.  Why would a cleric of Pelor be holding a cross?

I get the sense that @FrogReaver , you're alluding to the fact that we are being inclusive to real world ethnic groups, so, why not include real world religions.  But, there's a problem here.  We're not actually including real world peoples into the game.  Depicting an NPC with dark skin doesn't mean that that NPC comes from Nigeria.  It's simply that we want the art to reflect the players.  There's no reason whatsoever that any human in our fantasy game is any particular color.  They could be pretty much anything.  However, for most of the history of the game, it was kind of like the old saw about Model T Fords - you could have any color as long as you wanted basic black.  You could have any color NPC in game art, so long as you wanted white NPC's.  

But, including different skin tones in the art doesn't mean that we're reflecting any specific real world ethnic group.  Including real world religious iconography would be injecting real world elements into the game world that have zero reason for being there.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> No, no.  You would be mistaken.  I can, and do, ignore a number of posters who have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be constructive.  Not that I have them on ignore lists (although a couple are) but mostly, because it's easy to spot those who are just engaging in argument for the sake of arguing.  See, the racial bonuses stuff, for example, as @Remathilis correctly points out, is about in-game inclusivity - the notion that any character concept must be equally viable. Which, frankly, has nothing whatsoever to do with inclusivity, so, is very easily ignored.



I agree that it has nothing to do with inclusivity but the the people who are arguing for it disagree. You cannot just ignore people you disagree with (especially as there is significant amount of them) and devlare that consensus has been reached.


> Like I said, once you strip away all the hoopla, over reaction, hyperbole, outright insults and attacks, and sidebars into la la land, achieving consensus is relatively easy.  Most of the needed changes to increasing inclusivity of D&D can be done pretty simply, quickly and easily.  All this other noise is just that - noise trying to distract from the real issues at hand.  And, once the noise reaches a certain level, you see people proclaiming that no changes can be made because people don't know what changes they want.
> 
> I mean, the playbook couldn't possibly be clearer.  This same rhetorical song and dance has been going on for decades.  Fortunately, you have folks that quietly beaver away, do the job that needs to be done, and things get done despite all the noise and distraction.  Certainly not because of it.



I have seen very few people saying that no changes should or could be made. People are simply disagreeing about the amount of changes that are needed.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

@FrogReaver , @Hussar
As someone who uses Christianity as the major religion in his games, I'm convinced world religious symbology has no place whatsoever in the core rules. Using Christianity in my world makes many players incredibly uncomfortable. They generally feel unsettled, nervous, and on edge when interacting with members of the clergy (which is exactly what I want).


----------



## Jeff Albertson

Hussar said:


> We're not actually including real world peoples into the game.




Bingo (but probably not for the reasons people such as yourself think of as reasons)!


----------



## Aldarc

Jeff Albertson said:


> Bingo (but probably not for the reasons people such as yourself think of as reasons)!



I suspect that your “gotcha!” is as substantive as when my cats “catch” the little red laser pointer light.


----------



## Jeff Albertson

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that your “gotcha!” is as substantive as when my cats “catch” the little red laser pointer light.




Gross.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sorry, this is not at all the case. To be frank, you seem to do this a lot,  declare your opinion to be the consensus and ignore the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. And I say this even though I agree with you on what should be done with this issue.
> 
> But the more radical opinions are not strawmen or whataboutism. Do you have half of the forum on ignore? A lot of posters are actually arguing for removal of racial bonuses or even more radical changes in the name of inclusivity. You can't just pretend that they don't exist. @Remathilis described the situation absolutely perfectly.



Your post here could have been written without the personal attack, limiting yourself to simply raising the counterpoint.  Continuing to post like that can earn you an involuntary vacation.


----------



## Hussar

Jeff Albertson said:


> Bingo (but probably not for the reasons people such as yourself think of as reasons)!




So, you think that we should only have images of white people in the game?  That we should not include images of anyone else?  

Or, do you think that in an RPG, where we make fantasy characters to play our game with, things like having art which reflects ALL players and not just one subset, might be a good idea?

Again, considering this is getting tied to real world religions, in a "gotcha" that was visible a mile away, I really don't think you want to go there.  

See, again, things like the orc issue isn't because we are complaining that orcs are representative of real world minorities.  That's the lie that people keep fabricating and pushing in order to confuse the issue.  The orc issue is because the language used to describe orcs is virtually the same as the language that was used to dehumanize various minorities and many points in time, around the world.  I dunno about you, but, I don't want my D&D books sounding like Klan textbooks.  Call me silly.  Maybe other people are comfortable with the language, I don't know.  But, you now know, without any equivocation, why the language should be changed.

So, do you still think that we shouldn't change the language in the books?  Do you believe that retaining this language somehow makes the game more welcoming to minorities?  Do you think that the game is improved by having direct links to the language of bigotry and eugenics?  

See, it's actually pretty easy to gain consensus.


----------



## Hussar

Crimson Longinus said:


> I agree that it has nothing to do with inclusivity but the the people who are arguing for it disagree. You cannot just ignore people you disagree with (especially as there is significant amount of them) and devlare that consensus has been reached.
> 
> I have seen very few people saying that no changes should or could be made. People are simply disagreeing about the amount of changes that are needed.




Again, you would be mistaken.  When the subject at hand is inclusivity, anything that "has nothing to do with inclusivity" can be ignored.  Heck, not only should it be ignored, it should be called out for derailing the discussion from what is the actual issue at hand - inclusivity.  And, when you cut out the folks who aren't actually discussing the issue at hand - inclusion - then yes, you can quite easily declare consensus because, frankly, those of us who have stayed on task and not dived down rabbit holes of hyperbole and hypotheticals, have quite nicely managed to resolve the problems.

There's a reason you don't see a lot of people saying that no changes should be made.  Those folks have already earned holidays from the boards.  En World has made a stand, and it's one that I whole heartedly support - gaming should be as inclusive as absolutely possible.  Folks that insist that we're just "making ourselves feel good" be damned.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Hussar said:


> See, again, things like the orc issue isn't because we are complaining that orcs are representative of real world minorities.  That's the lie that people keep fabricating and pushing in order to confuse the issue.  The orc issue is because the language used to describe orcs is virtually the same as the language that was used to dehumanize various minorities and many points in time, around the world.  I dunno about you, but, I don't want my D&D books sounding like Klan textbooks.  Call me silly.  Maybe other people are comfortable with the language, I don't know.  But, you now know, without any equivocation, why the language should be changed.




Even if one doesn't find issue with the flavor text, a seed (can't use race) of purely evil savages is incredibly boring from a story perspective. Calling all orcs evil by nature is lazy and trite. While I don't find current the flavor of orcs "problematic" in the slightest (orcs are not real; insisting we categorizing humans into groups is an unsettling proposition), I find many of the suggested replacements more compelling than the original and an overall improvement.


----------



## Jeff Albertson

Hussar said:


> So, you think that we should only have images of white people in the game?




Not one poster has even suggested such; why would you propose such a loaded question?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> Again, you would be mistaken.  When the subject at hand is inclusivity, anything that "has nothing to do with inclusivity" can be ignored.  Heck, not only should it be ignored, it should be called out for derailing the discussion from what is the actual issue at hand - inclusivity.  And, when you cut out the folks who aren't actually discussing the issue at hand - inclusion - then yes, you can quite easily declare consensus because, frankly, those of us who have stayed on task and not dived down rabbit holes of hyperbole and hypotheticals, have quite nicely managed to resolve the problems.
> 
> There's a reason you don't see a lot of people saying that no changes should be made.  Those folks have already earned holidays from the boards.  En World has made a stand, and it's one that I whole heartedly support - gaming should be as inclusive as absolutely possible.  Folks that insist that we're just "making ourselves feel good" be damned.



You and I both think that ability bonuses are not about inclusivity. But neither of us is the ultimate judge of that. I wouldn't be so confident to declare my preferred outcome to be the perfect and rational consensus approach while anything more is hyperbole and hypotheticals and anything less is out of touch conservative grognardism. I would love if the situation was as simple as you describe, but it really doesn't appear to be like that to me.

(I notice that a moderator had an issue with my earlier post. I am not exactly sure why, but if it came across as hostile or insulting I apologise. That certainly was not my intention.)


----------



## Sadras

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> As someone who uses Christianity as the major religion in his games, I'm convinced world religious symbology has no place whatsoever in the core rules. Using Christianity in my world makes many players incredibly uncomfortable. They generally feel unsettled, nervous, and on edge when interacting with members of the clergy (which is exactly what I want).




My intention for my next campaign after we finish the current one (early next year hopefully), will be to run a Translyvannia/Dracula game using A Guide to Transylvania pulling ideas from:

5e's Curse of Strahd;
I6 Ravenloft;
Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill;
3.5e's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft; and
perhaps even something from VtM line.

I will very much be using Christianity, Judaism and Islam in those games - converting the class of the cleric to a Priest, Rabbi or Imam respectively. There will be a number of other changes as well ofcourse. Definitely be using a Faith and Sanity score.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> This one always strikes me as a bit odd.  I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up.  There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art.  I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.




I think that it's because many people become rather tetchy when it comes to religion (especially their own). Even within a single religion, it can be quite sectarian and what is a respectful to one person can be extremely offensive to another. So, I don't think that representing real-world religions is the best idea. Rather, I think the cleric class and the DMG should express how different types of religion can look and work within the game and the game's fiction, and provide some examples of different types of religions from monotheism to animism and everything in between.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> the only question was about whether that was actually about inclusivity or player advocacy for their characters.




Both.


----------



## Jeff Albertson

Azzy said:


> I think that it's because many people become rather tetchy when it comes to religion (especially their own)




Maybe due to them being referred to as "tetchy", especially if it's "their" own.


----------



## Azzy

Jeff Albertson said:


> Maybe due to them being referred to as "tetchy", especially if it's "their" own.



But since no one reffered to _them_ as tetchy, that shouldn't be the case.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Sadras said:


> My intention for my next campaign after we finish the current one (early next year hopefully), will be to run a Translyvannia/Dracula game using A Guide to Transylvania pulling ideas from:
> 
> 5e's Curse of Strahd;
> I6 Ravenloft;
> Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill;
> 3.5e's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft; and
> perhaps even something from VtM line.
> 
> I will very much be using Christianity, Judaism and Islam in those games - converting the class of the cleric to a Priest, Rabbi or Imam respectively. There will be a number of other changes as well ofcourse. Definitely be using a Faith and Sanity score.




If you haven't already, check out the DM running the game, Nightwick Abbey. I think Evan is still running it and even switched over to 5e for a while (thought I think he's back to use OSR titles). I played in Evan's game 8-10 years ago. I think Evan will have some ideas you can steal.





__





						In Places Deep
					






					inplacesdeep.blogspot.com


----------



## clearstream

Weiley31 said:


> I wouldn't mind having a "free reign" to add a +2/+2 or the 5E standard of +2/+1 to any Ability Score of Choice during Character Creation. That way if I want a dumb Elf whose focus is STR, I can do it.
> 
> If I want a Charismatic Orc who can spin a mean yarn while being sharp at noticing things  like an eagle, then I can focus on WIS and CHA.
> 
> If I want female Drow whose Hardy and Intelligent and doesn't want to be a Cleric, I can go CON and INT.
> 
> If you still want to go by regular DND racial scores, then you can still do that as a variant rule. But this method gives you the option of spicing things up.



My concern is this. I want a charismatic orc is easy to agree on. I want a non-charismatic warlock is harder, especially for a novice who might not be aware of the mechanics implications.

Hence I favour stripping the bonuses out of race, but in some form keeping them in class. For example, maybe you have a discretionary +1 and a class-based +2? An interesting option would be to leave the class-based bonus until choosing path, and maybe offer some choice.


----------



## Jeff Albertson

Azzy said:


> But since no one reffered to _them_ as tetchy, that shouldn't be the case.




Ah, just "many", very good.


----------



## Azzy

Jeff Albertson said:


> Ah, just "many", very good.



Nope. Didn't refer to "many" of them as tetchy, either. Try reading my post again, but this time without going out of your way to find something to be angsty about.


----------



## jmartkdr2

clearstream said:


> My concern is this. I want a charismatic orc is easy to agree on. I want a non-charismatic warlock is harder, especially for a novice who might not be aware of the mechanics implications.
> 
> Hence I favour stripping the bonuses out of race, but in some form keeping them in class. For example, maybe you have a discretionary +1 and a class-based +2? An interesting option would be to leave the class-based bonus until choosing path, and maybe offer some choice.



This works fine for classes where there's a single key ability score (ie wizards) but gets trickier when a class can be played multiple ways with respect to ability scores (ie fighters) - and I think the later category is a lot bigger than the former. 

We already provide guidance for new players in the class descriptions - there's no need to reinforce that guidance with hard rules, especially if we want to make as many concepts playable as possible.

I'm also going to say: "I want to make a non-charismatic warlock" isn't something that I feel is needed in principal. Trying to make every class work with every ability array is a crazy-huge task that will require a ton of oddball subclasses and alternate features and a lot of weird, contradictory ideas like muscle wizards and charm-focused rangers and scrawny barbarians who get by on pure intellect (while raging). That's not a path that I'd like to see pursued. 

This is especially true when most of thise ideas are already well-represented by another class. There's no need to make a highly trained, emotionally even, heavy-armor wearing barbarian. Fighters are already a thing. 

You can get "any race/class combination is valid" pretty easily though, so that's a worthwhile goal.


----------



## FrogReaver

Azzy said:


> Nope. Didn't refer to "many" of them as tetchy, either. Try reading my post again, but this time without going out of your way to find something to be angsty about.




why do people like to deny what is in plain sight?


----------



## Remathilis

Azzy said:


> I think that it's because many people become rather tetchy when it comes to religion (especially their own). Even within a single religion, it can be quite sectarian and what is a respectful to one person can be extremely offensive to another. So, I don't think that representing real-world religions is the best idea. Rather, I think the cleric class and the DMG should express how different types of religion can look and work within the game and the game's fiction, and provide some examples of different types of religions from monotheism to animism and everything in between.



Go one step further: I think it's time for Thor, Apollo, Set, and Lugh to all say goodnight and retire from the PHB and planes. Remove all the Earth-based deities, even the "mythical" ones.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Remathilis said:


> Go one step further: I think it's time for Thor, Apollo, Set, and Lugh to all say goodnight and retire from the PHB and planes. Remove all the Earth-based deities, even the "mythical" ones.



That would also include: Pelor, Bahamut, Correlon Larethian, Tiamat, Asmodeus.

There's only, like, a handful of unique DnD deities. Trying to go for an all-trademaked pantheon would actually involve several long-standing DnD traditions.


----------



## Remathilis

jmartkdr2 said:


> Also: Pelor, Bahamut, Correlon Larethian, Tiamat...



Fictional D&D deities would be fine. No one's cultural heritage is being gamified there. You might have a stronger argument for entities like Tiamat and Asmodeus who are based on real world entities but the D&D version is very different.


----------



## GreenTengu

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Even if one doesn't find issue with the flavor text, a seed (can't use race) of purely evil savages is incredibly boring from a story perspective. Calling all orcs evil by nature is lazy and trite. While I don't find current the flavor of orcs "problematic" in the slightest (orcs are not real; insisting we categorizing humans into groups is an unsettling proposition), I find many of the suggested replacements more compelling than the original and an overall improvement.




It would certainly make more sense to at least say "Most are hostile to humans/elves/dwarfs because A, B, C, D" as it would allow them to be cooperative enough within their own society to functionally be able to raise children and thrive to the point of creating an army that is enough of a threat that it requires heroes to deal with it. Because no totally evil race that nonetheless has the same biological needs as humans and other animals could ever avoid being so self-destructive as to not really be capable of bothering anyone.

It also opens the door for other races to take up the role as villains. Honestly-- I think Dragonborn ought to be treated in that same way. Why would dragon-people be universally docile and subservient to all these small mammalian folk anyway? And Dwarfs could also be one hell of an antagonist force with their controlling the underground passages, superior mechanical knowledge and ability to see in pitched blackness.

It can always come with the caveat that some number of them have given up the old vices or grudges over the centuries and they and their children have settled in as just regular folk.


----------



## Chaosmancer

jmartkdr2 said:


> That would also include: Pelor, Bahamut, Correlon Larethian, Tiamat, Asmodeus.
> 
> There's only, like, a handful of unique DnD deities. Trying to go for an all-trademaked pantheon would actually involve several long-standing DnD traditions.




Might be worth it. I know the Raven Queen from 4e (not so sold on the 5e version) was one of my favorite deities ever, and I was blown away by Mercer's rewrite of the names of the Gods in the Tal'Dorei book. Calling the gods "The Lawbearer" or "The Archeart" is so much more evocative to me than just using a name.


----------



## Maxperson

Remathilis said:


> Go one step further: I think it's time for Thor, Apollo, Set, and Lugh to all say goodnight and retire from the PHB and planes. Remove all the Earth-based deities, even the "mythical" ones.



And all of the mythological creatures?


----------



## Remathilis

Maxperson said:


> And all of the mythological creatures?



Does anyone actually worship them? Are they part of a group's religion or personally held beliefs? Are people offended by the way that they are represented?


----------



## Azzy

Remathilis said:


> Go one step further: I think it's time for Thor, Apollo, Set, and Lugh to all say goodnight and retire from the PHB and planes. Remove all the Earth-based deities, even the "mythical" ones.



Given that their worship has made a comeback, I fully agree.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Remathilis said:


> Fictional D&D deities would be fine. No one's cultural heritage is being gamified there. You might have a stronger argument for entities like Tiamat and Asmodeus who are based on real world entities but the D&D version is very different.



So, no Bahamut (Sumerian), no Asmodeus (Hebrew), no Pelor (Finnish), no Correlon (Finnish), no Tiamat (Sumerian), no St. Cuthbert (Christian), no Tyr (Norse)...

EDIT: It seems my source was wrong on the Finnish deities. 

We're basically down to the Raven Queen and maybe Lolth.


----------



## Remathilis

jmartkdr2 said:


> So, no Bahamut (Sumerian), no Asmodeus (Hebrew), no Pelor (Finnish), no Correlon (Finnish), no Tiamat (Sumerian), no St. Cuthbert (Christian), no Tyr (Norse)...
> 
> We're basically down to the Raven Queen and maybe Lolth.



If the coin was flipped: what alignment and domains would you assign Jesus, Allah, Buddah, Brahmin, etc? 

That is a rhetorical question, please don't answer that.


----------



## Maxperson

Remathilis said:


> Does anyone actually worship them? Are they part of a group's religion or personally held beliefs? Are people offended by the way that they are represented?



A great many are part of the religion, yes.  Medusa.  Horses. Titans.  Etc.


----------



## Aldarc

jmartkdr2 said:


> So, no Bahamut (Sumerian), no Asmodeus (Hebrew), no Pelor (Finnish), no Correlon (Finnish), no Tiamat (Sumerian), no St. Cuthbert (Christian), no Tyr (Norse)...



I'm not sure if you properly researched the cultural origins of these deities. For starters, Bahamut and Tiamat are Babylonian and not Sumerian. I'm also not sure that neither Pelor nor Correlon are Finnish.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> So, no Bahamut (Sumerian), no Asmodeus (Hebrew), no Pelor (Finnish), no Correlon (Finnish), no Tiamat (Sumerian), no St. Cuthbert (Christian), no Tyr (Norse)...
> 
> We're basically down to the Raven Queen and maybe Lolth.



What? Pelor and Corellon are not Finnish, AFAIK they are made up. Mielikki is Finnish though.


----------



## Azzy

jmartkdr2 said:


> So, no Bahamut (Sumerian), no Asmodeus (Hebrew), no Pelor (Finnish), no Correlon (Finnish), no Tiamat (Sumerian), no St. Cuthbert (Christian), no Tyr (Norse)...
> 
> We're basically down to the Raven Queen and maybe Lolth.



I'm not seeing any Finnish roots for Pelor nor Correlon.


----------



## Deset Gled

Ignoring the problem of exactly where they come from, I'll throw out that Moloch, Belial, rakshasas, imps, djinn, and even the concept of devils and demons all come from other mythologies that were once (or still are) religions.  And that's just off the top of my head.  I'm sure there's more.

FWIW, despite my last couple posts saying that D&D shouldn't include real world religions, I'm completely fine with it borrowing mythologies that used to be religions.  The devil* is in the details.

*non-denominational


----------



## Deset Gled

Maxperson said:


> A great many are part of the religion, yes.  Medusa.  Horses. Titans.  Etc.




Horses?


----------



## Azzy

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if you properly researched the cultural origins of these deities. For starters, Bahamut and Tiamat are Babylonian and not Sumerian. I'm also not sure that neither Pelor nor Correlon are Finnish.




I thought that Bahamut was Arabic, and its name derived from the Hebrew Behemoth. While it helps hols up the world (it carries a giant ox on its back, which carries a gemstone, epon which is an angel that shoulders the world). Either way, it's more of a giant fish/whale/sea monster, not a god.


----------



## Maxperson

Deset Gled said:


> Horses?



Poseidon is the god of and creator of horses.


----------



## Aldarc

Azzy said:


> I thought that Bahamut was Arabic, and its name derived from the Hebrew Behemoth. While it helps hols up the world (it carries a giant ox on its back, which carries a gemstone, epon which is an angel that shoulders the world). Either way, it's more of a giant fish/whale/sea monster, not a god.



You're right. My slip-up.


----------



## clearstream

jmartkdr2 said:


> This works fine for classes where there's a single key ability score (ie wizards) but gets trickier when a class can be played multiple ways with respect to ability scores (ie fighters) - and I think the later category is a lot bigger than the former.



I'd separate design problems to overcome, from conceptual merit.



jmartkdr2 said:


> I'm also going to say: "I want to make a non-charismatic warlock" isn't something that I feel is needed in principal. Trying to make every class work with every ability array is a crazy-huge task that will require a ton of oddball subclasses and alternate features and a lot of weird, contradictory ideas like muscle wizards and charm-focused rangers and scrawny barbarians who get by on pure intellect (while raging). That's not a path that I'd like to see pursued.



What you say here seems contradictory. If we don't want muscle-wizards, why wouldn't it make sense to attach an Int bonus to the wizard class?



jmartkdr2 said:


> You can get "any race/class combination is valid" pretty easily though, so that's a worthwhile goal.



Agreed on that: the new system - if there is one - should open up scope for any race/class combination. It feels like a palpable design flaw that 5th funnels so much.


----------



## Deset Gled

Maxperson said:


> Poseidon is the god of and creator of horses.




Surely this is reductio ad absurdum, yes?  The fact that some mythology has a god _of_ XYZ is different than saying XYZ is a borrowed mythology.  Otherwise Helios and Gaia are gonna be big problems.


----------



## Maxperson

Deset Gled said:


> Surely this is reductio ad absurdum, yes?  The fact that some mythology has a god _of_ XYZ is different than saying XYZ is a borrowed mythology.  Otherwise Helios and Gaia are gonna be big problems.



A bit, but horses play a significant role in that religion.  Poseidon even fathered Pegasus.  Leaving horses aside a huge number of D&D monsters have religious/mythological origins.  If we're cutting out the gods, we should be cutting those out as well.


----------



## jmartkdr2

A thought I had - do we even need to have named deities in the Player's Handbook? 13th Age get by without any, and clerics really just need the domains spelled out. Even the current book only has them in the appendix. 

(I would probably leave the gods in existing settings alone for now - just because someone in Egypt might be offended by how we portray Horus doesn't mean they are and doesn't mean they don't want the god included at all.)


----------



## jmartkdr2

clearstream said:


> What you say here seems contradictory. If we don't want muscle-wizards, why wouldn't it make sense to attach an Int bonus to the wizard class?



That only works in the case of wizards, and I wouldn't want a special rule for assigning ability scores to a particular class. Easier to leave it out of classes entirely.

The point about muscle wizards was really that I don't want to try to fill in all the boxes of class x ability score. It was bad enough when 4e tried to fill in all the boxes for power source x role. In general, trying to fill all the boxes will get bad results.


----------



## fearsomepirate

Did renaming demons and devils in 2e get more evangelicals to play D&D? Bowldlerizing D&D isn't going to make a game that includes more people. It's going to make a game that more people find boring and uninspired. It's like trying make a cheeseburger everybody on earth likes equally.

Might as well take out the words "Dungeon" and "Dragon" for being too Eurocentric. Pretty much all the classes are "problematic" if not being equally drawn from/applicable to every culture is a problem. The weapon & armor system is built around European weapons. And no, "reskinning" doesn't work---there is no Zulu equivalent of plate armor, no Arab equivalent of the heavy crossbow, and certainly no Aztec equivalent of the mounted knight.  The whole conceit of the game is drawn from the fantasy novel, a largely Anglophone innovation, and attempts to retrofit all cultures' forms of storytelling into the framework are going to be about as successful as trying to make sushi out of a Big Mac.

I get it, this is now a mass-market product that serves as a tentpole for a billion-dollar corporation, got to sand off all the edges and sanitize it, can't hit those growth targets if it's not selling in India or Brazil. 

Eh, nobody cares what I think.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> Trying to make every class work with every ability array is a crazy-huge task that will require a ton of oddball subclasses and alternate features and a lot of weird, contradictory ideas like muscle wizards and charm-focused rangers and scrawny barbarians who get by on pure intellect (while raging).



It doesn’t require all that, at all. It literally just requires that each character choose a physical weapon stat and a Spellcasting stat during CharGen, and use those stats for those tasks, regardless of class. 


Maxperson said:


> Poseidon is the god of and creator of horses.





Deset Gled said:


> Surely this is reductio ad absurdum, yes?  The fact that some mythology has a god _of_ XYZ is different than saying XYZ is a borrowed mythology.  Otherwise Helios and Gaia are gonna be big problems.



Horses are sacred in quite a few cultures and faiths, from many Native American peoples (the creator created horses as a spiritual gift to mankind, IIRC), to many continental Celts, to the ancient Greeks.

If Thor can’t be in the book because I and others “worship“ him, then all sorts of things are on the table. Still, horses are kinda an odd choice, since they are a ubiquitous real life animal.


----------



## ZeshinX

fearsomepirate said:


> Did renaming demons and devils in 2e get more evangelicals to play D&D? Bowldlerizing D&D isn't going to make a game that includes more people. It's going to make a game that more people find boring and uninspired. It's like trying make a cheeseburger everybody on earth likes equally.
> 
> Might as well take out the words "Dungeon" and "Dragon" for being too Eurocentric. Pretty much all the classes are "problematic" if not being equally drawn from/applicable to every culture is a problem. The weapon & armor system is built around European weapons. And no, "reskinning" doesn't work---there is no Zulu equivalent of plate armor, no Arab equivalent of the heavy crossbow, and certainly no Aztec equivalent of the mounted knight.  The whole conceit of the game is drawn from the fantasy novel, a largely Anglophone innovation, and attempts to retrofit all cultures' forms of storytelling into the framework are going to be about as successful as trying to make sushi out of a Big Mac.
> 
> I get it, this is now a mass-market product that serves as a tentpole for a billion-dollar corporation, got to sand off all the edges and sanitize it, can't hit those growth targets if it's not selling in India or Brazil.
> 
> Eh, nobody cares what I think.




It's pretty much what I feel about it all.  D&D had its Satanic Panic, this is now its Moral Panic.  Not as catchy sounding, granted, but that's essentially what this is.  As the Satanic Panic passed, so too will this in time.  Whether D&D is in a better or worse place afterwards only time will answer.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

fearsomepirate said:


> Might as well take out the words "*Dungeon" and "Dragon*" for being too Eurocentric. Pretty much all the classes are "problematic" if not being equally drawn from/applicable to every culture is a problem. The weapon & armor system is built around European weapons. And no, "reskinning" doesn't work---there is no Zulu equivalent of plate armor, no Arab equivalent of the heavy crossbow, and certainly no Aztec equivalent of the mounted knight.  The whole conceit of the game is drawn from the fantasy novel, a largely Anglophone innovation, and attempts to retrofit all cultures' forms of storytelling into the framework are going to be about as successful as trying to make sushi out of a Big Mac.




I proudly and thoughtfully propose the title: *Torture Chambers and Tarragons*


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> A bit...




*Mod Note:*

There is a point where _reductio ad absurdum_, when not properly handled, runs afoul of Poe's Law. So, please reconsider its use on these topics going forwards. You are making it difficult for people to understand your point, and they are reporting you. Then, you have to worry about whether the moderator gets what you mean, and if not, you won't like the result.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Okay, this talk about if real world religions should be included in D&D has kind of gone off the rails. I don't think D&D should include real world religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and so on. D&D has definitely taken inspiration from real world cultures and religions, and that's necessary to a point. There's a difference between including a Pegasus and the Pope. 

D&D needs to be inspired by the real world to an extent, but going out of your way to put real life religions in the game is too far, IMO. 

So, please. If you want to continue discussing this facet of the topic, don't use slippery slope arguments saying that D&D needs to remove all references to all real world religions. That's not realistic.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Horses are sacred in quite a few cultures and faiths, from many Native American peoples (the creator created horses as a spiritual gift to mankind, IIRC)



That's interesting since horses went extinct in North America 10 to 15 thousand years ago, and were only reintroduced as an invasive species when Europe arrived on the scene.   

Did they add horses to their religion after that, or did horses stay in their stories for 10 to 15 thousand years until their return?


----------



## Remathilis

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Okay, this talk about if real world religions should be included in D&D has kind of gone off the rails. I don't think D&D should include real world religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and so on. D&D has definitely taken inspiration from real world cultures and religions, and that's necessary to a point. There's a difference between including a Pegasus and the Pope.
> 
> D&D needs to be inspired by the real world to an extent, but going out of your way to put real life religions in the game is too far, IMO.
> 
> So, please. If you want to continue discussing this facet of the topic, don't use slippery slope arguments saying that D&D needs to remove all references to all real world religions. That's not realistic.



Thank you.

My point was it's one thing to have centaurs, oni, angels or horses(?) Because they are not gods themselves, but it's another to say it's ok to have stats for Thor because he's "mythological" but not Jesus because that would offend people. Let's try to keep beings who were worshipped here on Earth out.


----------



## FrogReaver

Remathilis said:


> Thank you.
> 
> My point was it's one thing to have centaurs, oni, angels or horses(?) Because they are not gods themselves, but it's another to say it's ok to have stats for Thor because he's "mythological" but not Jesus because that would offend people. Let's try to keep beings who were worshipped here on Earth out.




What about cows?  I hear they are considered holy.  What about pigs?  I hear they are considered unclean.

but more importantly, this discussion went Quite a bit different direction than What I brought up. I wasn’t asking about the religious figures being represented, but the everyday believers.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Remathilis said:


> Thank you.
> 
> My point was it's one thing to have centaurs, oni, angels or horses(?) Because they are not gods themselves, but it's another to say it's ok to have stats for Thor because he's "mythological" but not Jesus because that would offend people. Let's try to keep beings who were worshipped here on Earth out.



Can we have stats for the rest of the Avengers though?


----------



## Remathilis

Crimson Longinus said:


> Can we have stats for the rest of the avengers though?



All but Hercules.


----------



## Cadence

Remathilis said:


> All but Hercules.




Was Ares formally a member too?


----------



## Maxperson

Remathilis said:


> All but Hercules.



We have him, too.

Fighting: unearthly 100
Agility:  excellent 20
Strength: unearthly 100
Endurance: unearthly 100.

I don't remember his mental stats.  I haven't played the original Marvel Superheroes since the 80s.


----------



## Remathilis

Cadence said:


> Was Ares formally a member too?



He was typically a villain.

Anyway, off topic.


----------



## Thirteenspades

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I also think that some campaign settings are going to have to change with the times. If Eberron and Exandria have non-evil orcs, and Toril still has a majority of evil orcs, I think that may have to change. As has happened before in Forgotten Realms lore, they could do an earth-shaking event. Maybe Lolth and Gruumsh die or are banished, loosing their control of Drow and Orc societies, allowing them to be a more free people.
> D&D should be inclusive, and if that comes at the cost of villainous races of people, that's okay for me. If the changes in the game's rules enhance, and not restrict, player options I will most likely be happy with the changes.
> I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, and this is meant to be a possible answer to the question many people have asked, "where does it end?" This thread is meant to be a part of the answer. It ends somewhere, and this is a step in that direction, hopefully.
> Obviously, feel free to debate the need for certain changes, argue over possible descriptions, and so on. Do keep it civil. Please do not turn this thread into a debate completely revolving around a small aspect of the changes that may come. I personally want to get something done during this eventful year. Please be openminded in this discussion. This is not us against them, it is us trying to figure something out.
> 
> Now, here are the changes that I have compiled from various threads that seem to be wanted:
> 
> Alignment removed from humanoids at the very least. Possibly removed from dragons and other "monsters" but the extent to this is up for debate here.
> Possibly remove alignment in its entirety. I personally don't think we should be getting rid of it altogether, but to keep it mainly for fiends, celestials, and the other otherworldly creatures.
> Setting determining the culture and descriptions of the races, and not the base rules.
> Ability Scores being detached from races. There have been many suggestions for this, linking it to background or class, but I personally don't like this. I think allowing a player to choose the bonus to ability scores completely detached from race or any other choice would allow for more player freedom, and support creativity.
> Change descriptions of orcs, depictions of hobgoblins, other evil races, and so on.
> Cause there to be less of a link between shamanism and the more evil races. This could be mostly solved by either making a shaman class and adding more shamans for more races, or just getting rid of evil races.
> Possibly changing the word "race" to Ancestry, Species, Heritage, Folk, People, Lineage, etc.
> Remove ability scores from classes.
> Possibly rename certain classes (Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, Monk, Warlock)
> If I missed anything else that should be included in the bulleted points above, please comment below, and I'll add it.
> 
> Any of these possible changes, and more, are allowed topics, as long as they're relevant to a possible 6e's changes. Up for discussion is the lore changes that may come, from a cataclysmic event changing the Forgotten Realms to make way for these changes, no lore change happening at all, or other possible options.
> 
> Please discuss below. While there have been many other threads on this topic, this thread is more meant to discuss possible changes for a next edition. How would a DMG in 6e look like? A Monster Manual? What different races should be included in the PHB? Will alignment be included, and should/will it be listed in the monster stat blocks or racial descriptions?



Removing alignments is like removing hit points, enemies, or magic. It's at the core of the gameplay experience.


----------



## Cadence

Thirteenspades said:


> Removing alignments is like removing hit points, enemies, or magic. It's at the core of the gameplay experience.




With no alignment languages, penalties for going against alignments, aligned weapons, or detect alignment on characters and many kinds of monsters anymore... is alignment a key thing for PCs anymore? I think it is certainly still important for any settings with the great wheel cosmology for that part of it.


----------



## Thirteenspades

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Okay. There has been quite a lot of discussion on this website and through the D&D community in general about what changes should be made to existing products, the current editions, and the next edition to promote inclusivity. A lot of the suggestions have been fought against, and for, by various members of the community. Now, while I agree with a lot of the changes that are being suggested, I think that timing is important here. I agree that we should change problematic descriptions in the current edition's books, like what is happening with Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation. I also think that most of the more major changes should be made in a 6e of D&D.
> 
> Now, this thread is to discuss the possible overall and compiled changes for 6e of D&D, for both lore and rule changes. It would range from ability scores being more open for characters (probably not connected to race) to describing races in a more vague way (which I have described in this thread). I also think that some campaign settings are going to have to change with the times. If Eberron and Exandria have non-evil orcs, and Toril still has a majority of evil orcs, I think that may have to change. As has happened before in Forgotten Realms lore, they could do an earth-shaking event. Maybe Lolth and Gruumsh die or are banished, loosing their control of Drow and Orc societies, allowing them to be a more free people.
> 
> D&D should be inclusive, and if that comes at the cost of villainous races of people, that's okay for me. If the changes in the game's rules enhance, and not restrict, player options I will most likely be happy with the changes.
> 
> I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, and this is meant to be a possible answer to the question many people have asked, "where does it end?" This thread is meant to be a part of the answer. It ends somewhere, and this is a step in that direction, hopefully.
> 
> Obviously, feel free to debate the need for certain changes, argue over possible descriptions, and so on. Do keep it civil. Please do not turn this thread into a debate completely revolving around a small aspect of the changes that may come. I personally want to get something done during this eventful year. Please be openminded in this discussion. This is not us against them, it is us trying to figure something out.
> 
> Now, here are the changes that I have compiled from various threads that seem to be wanted:
> 
> Alignment removed from humanoids at the very least. Possibly removed from dragons and other "monsters" but the extent to this is up for debate here.
> Possibly remove alignment in its entirety. I personally don't think we should be getting rid of it altogether, but to keep it mainly for fiends, celestials, and the other otherworldly creatures.
> Setting determining the culture and descriptions of the races, and not the base rules.
> Ability Scores being detached from races. There have been many suggestions for this, linking it to background or class, but I personally don't like this. I think allowing a player to choose the bonus to ability scores completely detached from race or any other choice would allow for more player freedom, and support creativity.
> Change descriptions of orcs, depictions of hobgoblins, other evil races, and so on.
> Cause there to be less of a link between shamanism and the more evil races. This could be mostly solved by either making a shaman class and adding more shamans for more races, or just getting rid of evil races.
> Possibly changing the word "race" to Ancestry, Species, Heritage, Folk, People, Lineage, etc.
> Remove ability scores from classes.
> Possibly rename certain classes (Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, Monk, Warlock)
> If I missed anything else that should be included in the bulleted points above, please comment below, and I'll add it.
> 
> Any of these possible changes, and more, are allowed topics, as long as they're relevant to a possible 6e's changes. Up for discussion is the lore changes that may come, from a cataclysmic event changing the Forgotten Realms to make way for these changes, no lore change happening at all, or other possible options.
> 
> Please discuss below. While there have been many other threads on this topic, this thread is more meant to discuss possible changes for a next edition. How would a DMG in 6e look like? A Monster Manual? What different races should be included in the PHB? Will alignment be included, and should/will it be listed in the monster stat blocks or racial descriptions?



5e has towed the line with generic, nonsensical style. At the cost of sense it simplifies to "appeal to a wider audience" and a lot of the art has sterile, safe style and blank, expressionless faces. I don't want my games sterile and safe. I want blood, guts, grit, and races that are actually evil. They're orcs, it better not offend anyone.


----------



## Thirteenspades

Cadence said:


> With no alignment languages, penalties for changing alignments, aligned weapons, or detect alignment on characters anymore... is alignment a key thing for PCs anymore? I think it is certainly still important for any settings with the great wheel cosmology for that part of it.



It might not be completely core for the mechanics but how will you know if something is actually evil? Not with the basic single paragraph lore 5e gives a heap of the time, anyway.


----------



## Deset Gled

FrogReaver said:


> but more importantly, this discussion went Quite a bit different direction than What I brought up. I wasn’t asking about the religious figures being represented, but the everyday believers.




1.  I don't know if it's really possible to represent a religious group with zero reference to their religion.  I also don't think it's a really meaningful distinction.

2.  There's really no need for it.  Inclusivity is about having an open door, not having a door with your name on it.


----------



## Thirteenspades

Thirteenspades said:


> It might not be completely core for the mechanics but how will you know if something is actually evil? Not with the basic single paragraph lore 5e gives a heap of the time, anyway.



Which brings me back to how 5e oversimplifies things.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

So a while back games commentator and academic Austin Walker blasted the concept of the yuan-ti on Twitter for evoking "Yellow Peril" tropes (despite most recent portrayals of yuan-ti looking like people of non-Asian descent; the most recent example I've found is the 3.5 Monster Manual). I haven't really seen anyone else but him and a single poster on another forum say anything about it, but just in case I thought I'd share something I just learned about.

"White Snake" is a 2019 Chinese animated film that focuses on a war between humans and "snake demons" that look pretty much just like yuan-ti.


Images spoilered just in case they're huge (I'm posting from my phone):



Spoiler
















I'm now obligated to watch it for inspiration for my future yuan-ti centric campaign.

The film's based on "The Legend of the White Snake" (a folktale dating back to at least the Ming Dynasty), and it's original title is "Báishé: Yuánqǐ" in pinyin.

Pretty sure I know where D&D got the name and concept for the yuan-ti now.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Thirteenspades said:


> It might not be completely core for the mechanics but how will you know if something is actually evil? Not with the basic single paragraph lore 5e gives a heap of the time, anyway.




By making decisions as a DM about your setting and your game.


----------



## Thirteenspades

Thirteenspades said:


> Which brings me back to how 5e oversimplifies things.



Another thing, it's not okay to stat Jesus because that allows characters in a fictional universe to kill something a lot of people believe in real life. Also, one reason so many people these days are offended by random things is because they have this over-inclusive ideaology. Satan could be statted (I believe he has) because the only people who worship HIM are psychos. If people fight the flow, they'll eventually change this notion that D&D can't have anything to do with the real world.


----------



## Thirteenspades

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> By making decisions as a DM about your setting and your game.



Which'll pile more and more work on the DM, the farther it goes. Paizo and Wizards already explicitly state that alignment is fluid.


----------



## Cadence

Thirteenspades said:


> It might not be completely core for the mechanics but how will you know if something is actually evil? Not with the basic single paragraph lore 5e gives a heap of the time, anyway.




When was the last edition that all monsters had to follow the alignment in their monster description? B/X?

Does it matter if the person who just kidnapped and enslaved you is CN vs. CE or NE?   Does it matter if the Gygaxian Paladin who is killing the prisoners who surrendered has LG on his sheet?  Does the Paladin get to kill the Death Slaad (CE) who surrendered  for being evil, but not the other (CN) slaadi who did?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Thirteenspades said:


> Another thing, it's not okay to stat Jesus because that allows characters in a fictional universe to kill something a lot of people believe in real life. Also, one reason so many people these days are offended by random things is because they have this over-inclusive ideaology. Satan could be statted (I believe he has) because the only people who worship HIM are psychos. If people fight the flow, they'll eventually change this notion that D&D can't have anything to do with the real world.




Thor is real, damn it. I wrote that I worshiped him on my 2009 census form.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Hexmage-EN said:


> So a while back games commentator and academic Austin Walker blasted the concept of the yuan-ti on Twitter for evoking "Yellow Peril" tropes (despite most recent portrayals of yuan-ti looking like people of non-Asian descent; the most recent example I've found is the 3.5 Monster Manual). I hadn't really seen anyone else but him say anything, but just in case I thought I'd share something I just learned about.
> 
> "White Snake" is a 2019 Chinese animated film that focuses on a war between humans and "snake demons" that look pretty much just like yuan-ti.
> 
> 
> Images spoilered just in case they're huge (I'm posting from my phone):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now obligated to watch it for inspiration for my future yuan-ti centric campaign.
> 
> The film's based on "The Legend of the White Snake" (a folktale dating back to at least the Ming Dynasty), and it's original title is "Báishé: Yuánqǐ" in pinyin.
> 
> Pretty sure I know where D&D got the name and concept for the yuan-ti now.



It's one of the best known classic Chinese mythology stories, and more of a tragedy than a tale about good vs evil. 

If you modify the lore to make Yuan-ti not always evil, you get around the main issue. But even in this thread I haven't seen anyone argue that we need to keep the evil races always evil (outside maybe fiends).


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Thirteenspades said:


> Which'll pile more and more work on the DM, the farther it goes. Paizo and Wizards already explicitly state that alignment is fluid.




That's the fun of being DM.


----------



## Alzrius

Thirteenspades said:


> Another thing, it's not okay to stat Jesus because that allows characters in a fictional universe to kill something a lot of people believe in real life.




I dunno, that one product _does_ have a five-star rating.


----------



## Cadence

Thirteenspades said:


> Another thing,




I don't think I've ever seen someone reply to their own reply to their own reply before.  That doesn't technically break any rules, so it isn't necessarily non-lawful indicating, but it sure feels more chaotic. Maybe I like obvious  alignment indicators more than I thought I did.


----------



## FrogReaver

jmartkdr2 said:


> It's one of the best known classic Chinese mythology stories, and more of a tragedy than a tale about good vs evil.
> 
> If you modify the lore to make Yuan-ti not always evil, you get around the main issue. But even in this thread I haven't seen anyone argue that we need to keep the evil races always evil (outside maybe fiends).




probably because this is a +thread and arguing against the premise is not allowed for +threads


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> That's interesting since horses went extinct in North America 10 to 15 thousand years ago, and were only reintroduced as an invasive species when Europe arrived on the scene.
> 
> Did they add horses to their religion after that, or did horses stay in their stories for 10 to 15 thousand years until their return?



That actually has been disproven, with the discovery of fossils in IIRC 2017 of horses from much later than that, as well as sightings of Natives with horse in the Carolinas in numbers before horses could possibly have gotten to there from escaped or lost Spanish horses, which would have had required the horses to escape or be lost, travel from what is now Mexico City, and repopulate, in 2 years or less.

In other words, the entire narrative that Europeans reintroduced natives to horses has always been bunk “science” based on Western biases.

Edit: a quick google helped me find a good article with links to sources. I’ll do the work for you this time, because I enjoy reading about it anyway.









						Yes world, there were horses in Native culture before the settlers came
					

Yvette Running Horse Collin’s recent dissertation may have rewritten every natural history book on the shelf. A Lakota/Nakota/Cheyenne scholar, Collin worked




					indiancountrytoday.com


----------



## Thirteenspades

Cadence said:


> I don't think I've ever seen someone reply to their own reply to their own reply before.  That doesn't technically break any rules, so it isn't necessarily non-lawful indicating, but it sure feels more chaotic. Maybe I like obvious alignment indicators more than I thought I did.



I'll take the middle ground and say Neutral Good.


----------



## Thirteenspades

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> That's the fun of being DM.



But when you take out alignment, that also removes the built-in capacity for storytelling. How can a bugbear be Lawful Good if it chaotically, evily enjoys roasting the heads of its enemies? Ahh, more time spent trying to make up a history for Bob the nice-guy Bugbear.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Thirteenspades said:


> Another thing, it's not okay to stat Jesus because that allows characters in a fictional universe to kill something a lot of people believe in real life.



He would be fine in three days though.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Thirteenspades said:


> But when you take out alignment, that also removes the built-in capacity for storytelling. How can a bugbear be Lawful Good if it chaotically, evily enjoys roasting the heads of its enemies? Ahh, more time spent trying to make up a history for Bob the nice-guy Bugbear.




What does it matter that's he's Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil? Both descriptions are boring. The important part is that he enjoys roasting heads! Saying that the bugbear is LG or CE adds absolutely nothing of interest.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Thirteenspades said:


> Another thing, it's not okay to stat Jesus because that allows characters in a fictional universe to kill something a lot of people believe in real life. Also, one reason so many people these days are offended by random things is because they have this over-inclusive ideaology. Satan could be statted (I believe he has) because the only people who worship HIM are psychos. If people fight the flow, they'll eventually change this notion that D&D can't have anything to do with the real world.



I mean...I beleive in Odin IRL but I’m fine with him having interpretations in games and other fiction. Hell, sometimes he is nonsensically the bad guy.

But others care deeply about such things, and that should be respected.


----------



## Chaosmancer

fearsomepirate said:


> Did renaming demons and devils in 2e get more evangelicals to play D&D? Bowldlerizing D&D isn't going to make a game that includes more people. It's going to make a game that more people find boring and uninspired. It's like trying make a cheeseburger everybody on earth likes equally.
> 
> Might as well take out the words "Dungeon" and "Dragon" for being too Eurocentric. Pretty much all the classes are "problematic" if not being equally drawn from/applicable to every culture is a problem. The weapon & armor system is built around European weapons. And no, "reskinning" doesn't work---there is no Zulu equivalent of plate armor, no Arab equivalent of the heavy crossbow, and certainly no Aztec equivalent of the mounted knight.  The whole conceit of the game is drawn from the fantasy novel, a largely Anglophone innovation, and attempts to retrofit all cultures' forms of storytelling into the framework are going to be about as successful as trying to make sushi out of a Big Mac.
> 
> I get it, this is now a mass-market product that serves as a tentpole for a billion-dollar corporation, got to sand off all the edges and sanitize it, can't hit those growth targets if it's not selling in India or Brazil.
> 
> Eh, nobody cares what I think.





Well, I'm going to disagree a little bit. 

See, for me there is a powerful difference in a person calling out "May Tymora smile on me" compared to "May The Changebringer smile on me." The titling of powerful forces makes them feel more powerful and less personal to me. The same thing with someone like Bane. I find there is a big difference between saying "They are cultists of Bane." compared to "They are cultists of the Strife Emperor, Lord of Chains." 

Also. Tangent. Crossbow potentially developed in China, and the Arab countries did have it. A lot of them just thought it wasn't a warriors weapon according to a six second google search.  




Thirteenspades said:


> It might not be completely core for the mechanics but how will you know if something is actually evil? Not with the basic single paragraph lore 5e gives a heap of the time, anyway.




Really? 

"Mind flayers, also called illithids, are the scourge of sentient creatures across countless worlds. Psionic tyrants, slavers, and interdimensional voyagers, they are insidious masterminds that harvest entire races for their own twisted ends. Four tentacles snake from their octopus-like heads, flexing in hungry anticipation when sentient creatures come near."

You couldn't tell these guys were evil unless you stuck a label on them specifically calling it out? I mean, scourge, tyrant, slaver, insidious mastermind, harvesting races for twisted ends.... I'm not exactly thinking they are going to be the good guys.  
I don't need a two word label to spell it out for me.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean...I beleive in Odin IRL but I’m fine with him having interpretations in games and other fiction. Hell, sometimes he is nonsensically the bad guy.
> 
> But others care deeply about such things, and that should be respected.



I've played a (video) game where Thor was the ambassador of the US to Japan and ended up nuking Japan for reasons I don't really remember.

I think because YHVH told him to do it to stop people from summoning demons?
Shin Megami Tensei gets can get weird, but they are also great.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Thirteenspades said:


> 5e has towed the line with generic, nonsensical style. At the cost of sense it simplifies to "appeal to a wider audience" and a lot of the art has sterile, safe style and blank, expressionless faces. I don't want my games sterile and safe. I want blood, guts, grit, and races that are actually evil. They're orcs, it better not offend anyone.



And absolutely no one is going to come to your table and force you to have good orcs. I'm not going to do it. I understand why you, and others, like easily defined bad guys. The thing is, the game is already readily inclusive for your preferred playstyle, but not mine and others who don't want black and white (in terms of good and bad. Editing just to clarify) humanoid races.


----------



## Thirteenspades

doctorbadwolf said:


> That actually has been disproven, with the discovery of fossils in IIRC 2017 of horses from much later than that, as well as sightings of Natives with horse in the Carolinas in numbers before horses could possibly have gotten to there from escaped or lost Spanish horses, which would have had required the horses to escape or be lost, travel from what is now Mexico City, and repopulate, in 2 years or less.
> 
> In other words, the entire narrative that Europeans reintroduced natives to horses has always been bunk “science” based on Western biases.
> 
> Edit: a quick google helped me find a good article with links to sources. I’ll do the work for you this time, because I enjoy reading about it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes world, there were horses in Native culture before the settlers came
> 
> 
> Yvette Running Horse Collin’s recent dissertation may have rewritten every natural history book on the shelf. A Lakota/Nakota/Cheyenne scholar, Collin worked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indiancountrytoday.com



I guess 6E should take out all references to horses, in order to respect Eastern cultures and properly represent them, because some (probably imaginary) people out there worship flamingos and we need to accept them. Or, even better, we can make up animals to put into our culturally relevant RPGs...
_ so no one knows what's real and what's imaginary... so fascists can take control of the world..._


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Thirteenspades said:


> Removing alignments is like removing hit points, enemies, or magic. It's at the core of the gameplay experience.



It really is not. Alignment wasn't in D&D when it was first introduced (hit points, enemies, and magic were), and is not essential to D&D. Also, I don't think the game would change a whole ton if it became an optional rule in the DMG besides Flanking.


----------



## Thirteenspades

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And absolutely no one is going to come to your table and force you to have good orcs. I'm not going to do it. I understand why you, and others, like easily defined bad guys. The thing is, the game is already readily inclusive for your preferred playstyle, but not mine and others who don't want black and white humanoid races.





AcererakTriple6 said:


> It really is not. Alignment wasn't in D&D when it was first introduced (hit points, enemies, and magic were), and is not essential to D&D. Also, I don't think the game would change a whole ton if it became an optional rule in the DMG besides Flanking.



And when D&D was first made, rules were theoretical. Alignment and all. Both clearly defined and abstract.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

AcererakTriple6 said:


> It really is not. *Alignment wasn't in D&D* when it was first introduced (hit points, enemies, and magic were), and is not essential to D&D. Also, I don't think the game would change a whole ton if it became an optional rule in the DMG besides Flanking.




Yes it was:





_Men & Magic_, page 9.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Thirteenspades said:


> It might not be completely core for the mechanics but how will you know if something is actually evil? Not with the basic single paragraph lore 5e gives a heap of the time, anyway.



When the necromancer starts raising undead and killing the local villages, you'll know they're evil without a marker saying that they're evil. When a Gold Dragon flies down to a city and starts incinerating it just because they felt like showing off their power, you know they're evil. If a human goes to a goblinoid settlement that has done nothing to provoke them, and starts slaughtering all of them, you know they're evil. 

Good and bad can exist in D&D without alignment.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

AcererakTriple6 said:


> When the necromancer starts raising undead and killing the local villages, you'll know they're evil without a marker saying that they're evil. When a Gold Dragon flies down to a city and starts incinerating it just because they felt like showing off their power, you know they're evil. If a human goes to a goblinoid settlement that has done nothing to provoke them, and starts slaughtering all of them, you know they're evil.
> 
> Good and bad can exist in D&D without alignment.




Bigot! Zombies *were* people too, you know!!!!!!!!!!

Zombie Lives Mattered


----------



## Thirteenspades

AcererakTriple6 said:


> When the necromancer starts raising undead and killing the local villages, you'll know they're evil without a marker saying that they're evil. When a Gold Dragon flies down to a city and starts incinerating it just because they felt like showing off their power, you know they're evil. If a human goes to a goblinoid settlement that has done nothing to provoke them, and starts slaughtering all of them, you know they're evil.
> 
> Good and bad can exist in D&D without alignment.





WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Bigot! Zombies *were* people too, you know!!!!!!!!!!



Trigot! When your players start fighting at the table because one scored a critical hit but the other cheated, how do you know who's evil?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Thirteenspades said:


> Trigot! When your players start fighting at the table because one scored a critical hit but the other cheated, how do you know who's evil?




Trial by combat.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Thirteenspades said:


> When




Dear, Thor! Do I really have to post the same picture on the same page?

Since 1974. No Good and Evil here:


----------



## Doug McCrae

Thirteenspades said:


> I don't want my games sterile and safe. I want blood, guts, grit, and races that are actually evil.



D&D has been too mainstream to be that for almost its entire history. At least as far back as 1e, content has been modified to avoid giving offence:

1) In a recent interview Tim Kask said the choices for Appendix N in the 1e DMG were partly influenced by concerns over what parents might find offensive. This is why the Gor books aren't listed.
2) D&D religion is pagan polytheism to avoid offending Christians.


----------



## Thirteenspades

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Dear, Thor! Do I really have to post the same picture on the same page?
> 
> Since 1974. No Good and Evil here:
> 
> View attachment 124527



Oops. Quadrigot.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Bigot! Zombies *were* people too, you know!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Zombie Lives Mattered



Did I say zombies were evil? (Also the last part of your post could be seen as offensive.)

A necromancer who creates undead just to destroy settlements is evil, even without a marker saying they are.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Yes it was:
> 
> View attachment 124526
> _Men & Magic_, page 9.



I mostly meant alignment in its current capacity. That page doesn't mention good or evil, only law and chaos.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Did I say zombies were evil? (Also the last part of your post could be seen as offensive.)
> 
> A necromancer who creates undead just to destroy settlements is evil, even without a marker saying they are.




depends on the settlements in question IMO.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Thirteenspades said:


> And when D&D was first made, rules were theoretical. Alignment and all. Both clearly defined and abstract.



All rules are theoretical. I don't see how that argument does anything to disprove mine.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Did I say zombies were evil? (Also the last part of your post could be seen as offensive.)
> 
> A necromancer who creates undead just to destroy settlements is evil, even without a marker saying they are.




Humor -> window -> defenestration.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> That actually has been disproven, with the discovery of fossils in IIRC 2017 of horses from much later than that, as well as sightings of Natives with horse in the Carolinas in numbers before horses could possibly have gotten to there from escaped or lost Spanish horses, which would have had required the horses to escape or be lost, travel from what is now Mexico City, and repopulate, in 2 years or less.
> 
> In other words, the entire narrative that Europeans reintroduced natives to horses has always been bunk “science” based on Western biases.
> 
> Edit: a quick google helped me find a good article with links to sources. I’ll do the work for you this time, because I enjoy reading about it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes world, there were horses in Native culture before the settlers came
> 
> 
> Yvette Running Horse Collin’s recent dissertation may have rewritten every natural history book on the shelf. A Lakota/Nakota/Cheyenne scholar, Collin worked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indiancountrytoday.com



Thanks for that.  It was a very interesting read and filled a gap in my knowledge.


----------



## Thirteenspades

Doug McCrae said:


> 2) D&D religion is pagan polytheism to avoid offending Christians.



And also because it pulls more from western fantasy than Christianity.


----------



## TheSword

Why don’t we forget all the angst and concentrate on real world harm and how we can avoid encouraging it or making people relive it in their published games?


----------



## Thirteenspades

AcererakTriple6 said:


> All rules are theoretical. I don't see how that argument does anything to disprove mine.



A lot of stuff, TSR expected that the DM assumed. That's why it was so rules-light.


----------



## Thirteenspades

TheSword said:


> Why don’t we forget all the angst and concentrate on real world harm and how we can avoid encouraging it or making people relive it in their published games?



But first, think: work to stop a couple angry parents who will be angry for a week (by changing the rules that effect everyone) or long-term actual issues that would actually effect people, and more than just the fact that they say they're effected.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

TheSword said:


> Why don’t we forget all the angst and concentrate on real world harm and how we can avoid encouraging it or making people relive it in their published games?




You do know this is a game about killing things are taking their stuff, right? The entire point of D&D is to inflict harm and benefit from it financially.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Thirteenspades said:


> A lot of stuff, TSR expected that the DM assumed. That's why it was so rules-light.



I mean, how does the fact that the rules were more vague back them disprove that alignment is not necessary to d&d?


----------



## Thirteenspades

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> You do know this is a game about killing things are taking their stuff, right? The entire point is to inflict harm and benefit from it financially.



Depends on the campaign.
And philosophy.
Is killing Graz'zt (who wants to rape and kill everything) not for the greater good?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Thirteenspades said:


> Depends on the campaign.
> And philosophy.
> Is killing Graz'zt (who wants to rape and kill everything) not for the greater good?




Again: Humor -> window -> defenestration.


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> That actually has been disproven, with the discovery of fossils in IIRC 2017 of horses from much later than that, as well as sightings of Natives with horse in the Carolinas in numbers before horses could possibly have gotten to there from escaped or lost Spanish horses, which would have had required the horses to escape or be lost, travel from what is now Mexico City, and repopulate, in 2 years or less.
> 
> In other words, the entire narrative that Europeans reintroduced natives to horses has always been bunk “science” based on Western biases.
> 
> Edit: a quick google helped me find a good article with links to sources. I’ll do the work for you this time, because I enjoy reading about it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes world, there were horses in Native culture before the settlers came
> 
> 
> Yvette Running Horse Collin’s recent dissertation may have rewritten every natural history book on the shelf. A Lakota/Nakota/Cheyenne scholar, Collin worked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indiancountrytoday.com




Are there any peer reviewed articles looking at those claims? I'm only on my phone and didn't turn any up. And I'd love to see the DNA tests on the horses for example (I'd love to contribute to a patreon/GoFundMe if they haven't been done yet because solid evidence to overturn the long time consensus would be really cool.)  Anyway, a single dissertation by itself doesn't generally feel like it is taken as sufficient evidence to overturn much of anything.  (See the problems psychology has had with even peer reviewed papers that weren't replicated or revisited).  Given the excitement I know from some anthropologists I know who study sites that push dates back, and how those who do phylogenetics on animals would probably love to be able to take claim for establishing evidence for her claim, it feels like any evidence of that type would get a lot of people anxious to get work published on it so they could get tenured or a good annual review.

One post I pulled up on it brought up some questions on selective use of sourcing and claims of reliability of oral tradition that felt a little difficult to credit. (It isn't my area though, and my experience is limited to reading about it in light of Norse myths and some things about the Bible).  In any case, if the scientists with a vested interest in horses dying off and being reintroduced have possible biases, it feels like someone attempting to back up their cultures traditions does too. And that waiting for more replication, review, and parallel evidence before being firmly declarative might be a thing.

(And seriously, I'll have to look more into the DNA testing of her horses and if they're looking into or opposed to it, and how they're seeking funds if so).


----------



## Thirteenspades

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I mean, how does the fact that the rules were more vague back them disprove that alignment is not necessary to d&d?



Hmm, this is meaty. Someone help me out here.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*

Folks, the absurd and slippery slope arguments are not constructive, and not in the spirit of a (+) thread.  It is a passive-aggressive negation, rather than a positive addition.

So, please, if you're not interested in actually working with people to improve inclusivity, it is time to disengage from the thread.  If, in your heart of hearts, you feel attempts to improve inclusivity are wrong headed, please go find some other discussion.  

Thank you.


----------



## TheSword

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> You do know this is a game about killing things are taking their stuff, right? The entire point of D&D is to inflict harm and benefit from it financially.



Nope, the point of d&d is to have fun.

Lets try and do that in a way that doesn’t remind disadvantaged minorities of the racism they experience in the real world.

Let’s not worry about whether Pelor is loosely based on an offshoot of the Sumerian god Cthopra and therefore offensive to the people of Nasiriyah, is what I’m saying.


----------



## Cadence

Thirteenspades said:


> But when you take out alignment, that also removes the built-in capacity for storytelling. How can a bugbear be Lawful Good if it chaotically, evily enjoys roasting the heads of its enemies? Ahh, more time spent trying to make up a history for Bob the nice-guy Bugbear.




Is it against the law where they're at to eat their enemies? Is it lawful in a sense to confirm to one's true nature? Is it evil if the meal would have died and not gotten back to it's kin for a funeral anyway,  it doesn't stop them from achieving the right place in the afterlife, and it saves a bit more of the local wildlife and livestock?

(Asking for one of my PCs who was a Bugbear and would with hold from eating humanoid where it was illegal or if he found through discussion that it would disturb his allies).


----------



## Thirteenspades

Cadence said:


> Is it against the law where they're at to eat their enemies? Is it lawful in a sense to confirm to one's true nature? Is it evil if the meal would have died and not gotten back to it's kin for a funeral anyway,  it doesn't stop them from achieving the right place in the afterlife, and it saves a bit more of the local wildlife and livestock?
> 
> (Asking for one of my PCs who was a Bugbear and would with hold from eating humanoid where it was illegal or if he found through discussion that it would disturb his allies).



Dm's choice and PC's choice is a balance so hard to maintain. Is it up to the DM? Is it up to the PC? What is law, chaos, good, evil, and RPG rules, anyway? I know that the decisions are up to individual groups but show discretion when deciding whether the evil creature type should be redeemed. What caused him to turn? Why? Was he/she born good? Why did they go against their race's ideas?


----------



## Alzrius

Maxperson said:


> Thanks for that.  It was a very interesting read and filled a gap in my knowledge.




For what it's worth, there's at least one rebuttal to this (albeit an informal one) out there.


----------



## FrogReaver

Alzrius said:


> For what it's worth, there's at least one rebuttal to this (albeit an informal one) out there.




nice article. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Cadence

Posts elsewhere on ableism in D&D have pointed out that some of the condition descriptions and/or pictures in the PhB and the madness condition descriptions in the DMG might need some revision.  This feels like one of those places I'd like WotC to hire a sensitivity reader trained in that area for 6e - not to remove the conditions or the idea of mental affliction as a thing induced by some monsters, but so that they can be done with care.


----------



## clearstream

jmartkdr2 said:


> That only works in the case of wizards, and I wouldn't want a special rule for assigning ability scores to a particular class. Easier to leave it out of classes entirely.
> 
> The point about muscle wizards was really that I don't want to try to fill in all the boxes of class x ability score. It was bad enough when 4e tried to fill in all the boxes for power source x role. In general, trying to fill all the boxes will get bad results.



If one sets aside any specific need for each class to have the same number of choices, it works for all classes. Fighters benefit from Str, Dex or Con; Rogues from Dex or Int; etc.

The "easier" argument doesn't seem right. It is easier - especially for novices - if the choices are narrowed and aligned with the mechanical consequences.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Remathilis said:


> Go one step further: I think it's time for Thor, Apollo, Set, and Lugh to all say goodnight and retire from the PHB and planes. Remove all the Earth-based deities, even the "mythical" ones.




This might be taking it a bit too far. I mean, books, shows, games, and other media uses gods and figures from real world mythology all the time. D&D isn't unique in that regard. 



jmartkdr2 said:


> A thought I had - do we even need to have named deities in the Player's Handbook? 13th Age get by without any, and clerics really just need the domains spelled out. Even the current book only has them in the appendix.
> 
> (I would probably leave the gods in existing settings alone for now - just because someone in Egypt might be offended by how we portray Horus doesn't mean they are and doesn't mean they don't want the god included at all.)




As fan of the deities, I wouldn't want them to be reduced to nameless entities (and that wouldn't make sense in the settings where the gods are actively worshiped by the races/species of the setting).

Also, just as a general thought, don't at least some of the settings, like Forgotten Realms and Planescape, have some connections to Earth? I know _On Hallowed Ground _features deities from some real world mythologies.


----------



## Wishbone

Cadence said:


> Posts elsewhere on ableism in D&D have pointed out that some of the condition descriptions and/or pictures in the PhB and the madness condition descriptions in the DMG might need some revision.  This feels like one of those places I'd like WotC to hire a sensitivity reader trained in that area for 6e - not to remove the conditions or the idea of mental affliction as a thing induced by some monsters, but so that they can be done with care.




Doesn't the issue then become simply hiring a sensitivity reader to launder ableist mechanics into less obviously ableist language? Putting people in a position to call out bad things without explicitly empowering them to change those things is not going to help WotC meaningfully alleviate anyone's concerns.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> Are there any peer reviewed articles looking at those claims? I'm only on my phone and didn't turn any up. And I'd love to see the DNA tests on the horses for example (I'd love to contribute to a patreon/GoFundMe if they haven't been done yet because solid evidence to overturn the long time consensus would be really cool.)  Anyway, a single dissertation by itself doesn't generally feel like it is taken as sufficient evidence to overturn much of anything.  (See the problems psychology has had with even peer reviewed papers that weren't replicated or revisited).  Given the excitement I know from some anthropologists I know who study sites that push dates back, and how those who do phylogenetics on animals would probably love to be able to take claim for establishing evidence for her claim, it feels like any evidence of that type would get a lot of people anxious to get work published on it so they could get tenured or a good annual review.
> 
> One post I pulled up on it brought up some questions on selective use of sourcing and claims of reliability of oral tradition that felt a little difficult to credit. (It isn't my area though, and my experience is limited to reading about it in light of Norse myths and some things about the Bible).  In any case, if the scientists with a vested interest in horses dying off and being reintroduced have possible biases, it feels like someone attempting to back up their cultures traditions does too. And that waiting for more replication, review, and parallel evidence before being firmly declarative might be a thing.
> 
> (And seriously, I'll have to look more into the DNA testing of her horses and if they're looking into or opposed to it, and how they're seeking funds if so).



The only part of the article relevant to modern horse DNA is the horse sanctuary stuff, which is really relevant to my point. It’s also not really a scientific claim made by Collin, but is rather just an interesting addendum about conserving horse lineages believed to be descended from ancient horses. 

So far as I know, they haven’t done any tests to check whether that belief is true or not, yet.

As for biases, the western/Spanish narrative has been getting debunked and then recontextualised since at least the 1800’s. It never had any particular weight of evidence to support it, but now that it’s being more publicly challenged, folks act like Native folk are the ones making extraordinary claims.

The Spanish never proved that introduced, or later reintroduced, horses to North America. They just claimed it and it was accepted by Western scholarship as truth.


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> The only part of the article relevant to modern horse DNA is the horse sanctuary stuff, which is really relevant to my point. It’s also not really a scientific claim made by Collin, but is rather just an interesting addendum about conserving horse lineages believed to be descended from ancient horses.
> 
> So far as I know, they haven’t done any tests to check whether that belief is true or not, yet.
> 
> As for biases, the western/Spanish narrative has been getting debunked and then recontextualised since at least the 1800’s. It never had any particular weight of evidence to support it, but now that it’s being more publicly challenged, folks act like Native folk are the ones making extraordinary claims.
> 
> The Spanish never proved that introduced, or later reintroduced, horses to North America. They just claimed it and it was accepted by Western scholarship as truth.




the use of sources by the author of the original article was well documented and it leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Umbran

Thirteenspades said:


> A balance so hard to maintain. Is it up to the DM? Is it up to the PC? What is law, chaos, good, evil, and RPG rules, anyway?




*Mod Note:*

Next time, read the moderator notes before posting.  This nonsense is not constructive, and you're done in the thread.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Thanks for that.  It was a very interesting read and filled a gap in my knowledge.



Yeah it’s something that a lot of Natives already knew but don’t talk about much outside of friendly circles, since Western folks just dismiss it out of hand as “unreliable oral traditions”.
But one of the big clues that shouldn’t have ever been dismissed is simply the prevalence of a sacred place for horses in Native cultures with basically no pre-colonial relationships to eachother. To claim that those arose as a result of reintroduction, and were in place within a couple generations at most, should have required some very hefty evidence from the start, because it is quite a claim. And yet, it was accepted without any resistance at all in academia until quite recently.


----------



## Umbran

SehanineMoonbow said:


> This might be taking it a bit too far. I mean, books, shows, games, and other media uses gods and figures from real world mythology all the time. D&D isn't unique in that regard.




Agreed.

All this, "Well, then you can't use X..." shows people have not heard (or in the heat of argument, have forgotten) the point.

It isn't that you cannot borrow from real-world traditions.  It is that you shouldn't do so willy-nilly, after reading a page of wikipedia thinking that makes you an expert.  Inspiration can be taken respectfully, conscientiously, with a bit of scholarship, and perhaps the involvement of folks from the culture you're taking inspiration from.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Umbran said:


> Agreed.
> 
> All this, "Well, then you can't use X..." shows people have not heard (or in the heat of argument, have forgotten) the point.
> 
> It isn't that you cannot borrow from real-world traditions.  It is that you shouldn't do so willy-nilly, after reading a page of wikipedia thinking that makes you an expert.  Inspiration can be taken respectfully, conscientiously, with a bit of scholarship, and perhaps the involvement of folks from the culture you're taking inspiration from.




Exactly. And removing it actually _lessens _the diversity, imho, because then that is basically ignoring the rich stories other cultures have to offer. Even if the fantasy setting is entirely made up, with original gods and lands, there is inevitably going to be _some _inspiration from the real world.


----------



## MGibster

doctorbadwolf said:


> Edit: a quick google helped me find a good article with links to sources. I’ll do the work for you this time, because I enjoy reading about it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes world, there were horses in Native culture before the settlers came
> 
> 
> Yvette Running Horse Collin’s recent dissertation may have rewritten every natural history book on the shelf. A Lakota/Nakota/Cheyenne scholar, Collin worked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indiancountrytoday.com




I don't think Yvette Collins' claims are exactly taking the academic world by storm.  There are numerous problems with her sources (their reliability and her interpretation) and her interpretations of archaeological evidence.  She really hasn't changed the current consensus that horses were extinct until their reintroduction by the Spanish.  But, to be fair, her dissertation was in 2017 and it takes longer than that for a paradigm shift to take hold.  If Native Americans had access to horses since the ice age, one wonders why there isn't any evidence they employed draft animals.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

MGibster said:


> I don't think Yvette Collins' claims are exactly taking the academic world by storm.  There are numerous problems with her sources (their reliability and her interpretation) and her interpretations of archaeological evidence.  She really hasn't changed the current consensus that horses were extinct until their reintroduction by the Spanish.  But, to be fair, her dissertation was in 2017 and it takes longer than that for a paradigm shift to take hold.  If Native Americans had access to horses since the ice age, one wonders why there isn't any evidence they employed draft animals.



Prolly the same reason why the Inca didn't have wheels.

Didn't really need them.


----------



## jmartkdr2

clearstream said:


> If one sets aside any specific need for each class to have the same number of choices, it works for all classes. Fighters benefit from Str, Dex or Con; Rogues from Dex or Int; etc.
> 
> The "easier" argument doesn't seem right. It is easier - especially for novices - if the choices are narrowed and aligned with the mechanical consequences.



Well, yeah, That's my point. Trying to make every class work with every ability score is a bad idea. Therefore, not doing that is a beter idea.


----------



## jmartkdr2

SehanineMoonbow said:


> This might be taking it a bit too far. I mean, books, shows, games, and other media uses gods and figures from real world mythology all the time. D&D isn't unique in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> As fan of the deities, I wouldn't want them to be reduced to nameless entities (and that wouldn't make sense in the settings where the gods are actively worshiped by the races/species of the setting).
> 
> Also, just as a general thought, don't at least some of the settings, like Forgotten Realms and Planescape, have some connections to Earth? I know _On Hallowed Ground _features deities from some real world mythologies.



My thinking was more "leave the names of gods as a setting detail" - but that gets to a question of whether there needs to be a defaults setting. Which is off-topic for this thread.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

MGibster said:


> I don't think Yvette Collins' claims are exactly taking the academic world by storm.  There are numerous problems with her sources (their reliability and her interpretation) and her interpretations of archaeological evidence.  She really hasn't changed the current consensus that horses were extinct until their reintroduction by the Spanish.  But, to be fair, her dissertation was in 2017 and it takes longer than that for a paradigm shift to take hold.  If Native Americans had access to horses since the ice age, one wonders why there isn't any evidence they employed draft animals.



You might wonder that, but you might then also wonder, if horses necessarily will be used as draft animals, why didn’t most Native cultures that used horses extensively post-colonization use them as draft animals?

And again, the claim that the Spanish (re)introduced horses was never actually supported by scientific study. It was just claimed and accepted.


----------



## 183231bcb

After reading the whole thread, here are my thoughts on what to change.  

*For alignment, I think three things are needed:*

1) Finish removing game mechanical effects of alignment.  They are already mostly gone, so it shouldn't be too hard to get rid of them completely.

2) In the monster manual entries representing an entire species, simply don't list alignment.  Alignment can still be included in the stat block for an _individual_.  Also, the description of an organization or nation in a campaign setting book could still list the most common alignment of members/citizens.  But an entire species simply doesn't get an alignment. 

Some people have suggested using 3.5's system of declaring species to be "often" or "usually" a particular alignment.  However, that doesn't really solve the issue, for a couple different reasons:

a)If the idea is that the society a particular race/species lives in encourages people to commit evil acts, and therefore they are usually evil, then it only makes sense to talk about the usual alignment of people who live in that society.  For example, if the culture in The Underdark encourages people to commit evil acts, then you could expect that drow who live in the Underdark are usually evil.  But if you meet a random drow who doesn't live in the Underdark, then there's no reason to expect them to lean towards any particular alignment due to a society they don't live in.  Hence, putting "usually evil" in the stat block for the generic drow doesn't make sense.  You could instead put the information about alignment tendencies in the description of the Underdark in the FR book.​​b)Additionally, the core Monster Manual is supposed to be useful for all D&D settings.  Even if most drow in the Forgotten Realms live in the Underdark, that information belongs in the FR book, not the Monster Manual.​​As an aside, three of my favorite fantasy comics are _Slightly Damned_, _The Roommate From Hell_, and _UnDivine_, so I don't see why angels or demons need to be treated differently than elves or drow.

3)In the introductory published adventures,  include a bunch of neutral and good NPCs who are the same race/species as the main villain.  If the main villain of the adventure is a dwarf, then have multiple good dwarves that the PCs meet in town.  If the main villain of the adventure is a lich, than include a good lich or two as NPCs the PCs can meet.  Any way you slice it, the authors of the early published adventures should make it clear that the villain is a villain based on what they _do,_ not based on their race or species.

As another aside, I find it amusing how, whenever someone suggests decoupling race from alignment, someone else says "You're saying we aren't allowed to have evil villains any more!  That will ruin the game!"  Putting aside the fact that neither forumites nor WotC can stop your gaming group from playing how you like, the idea many people have proposed (including me) is to eliminate evil _races, _not evil _characters._  If you want to run an adventure where the PCs have to stop Azkola the Conqueror, a lich who is trying to conquer the kingdom and enslave all its people, while torturing and killing anyone in her way, then Azkola is clearly evil based on what she _does_.  It doesn't matter whether liches are "always evil," "usually evil," or if 99.999% of all liches are _good._  That one lich is evil, so she can be the villain of your campaign.  

If you have trouble wrapping your head around how to make villains obviously evil without them being members of an evil race, I recommend looking at fantasy fiction outside the D&D bubble.  For example,

In _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ (and many of its adaptions), the Wicked Witch of the West is unambiguously evil.  We know this, because she enslaves an entire species of winged monkeys, uses them to enslave an entire country of winkies, and tries to kill a child on several occasions.  She is not morally ambiguous or sympathetic.  She is also a human, the same race/species as the protagonist (okay, maybe you could argue that Oz humans are a distinct race from Earth humans, but there are also good Oz humans).  And yes, Oz is in the public domain, so there are later writings by other authors where she is morally ambiguous (_Wicked_ by Gregory Maguire, or _Namesake_ by Isabelle Melancon and Megan Lavey-Heaton), or good (_Wicked_ the musical by Stephen Schwartz and  Winnie Holzman), but those aren't in Baum's original writings.
In _Peter and Wendy _(and most adaptions), Captain Hook is unambiguously evil.  We know this because he kidnaps and tries to murder children.  He is not morally ambiguous or sympathetic.  He is also a human, the same race/species as the protagonists.
In _Star Wars _(1977), Tarkin is unambiguously evil.  We know this because he blows up a planet full of civilians.  He is not morally ambiguous or sympathetic.  He is also the same species as the protagonist.
In Roald Dahl's _Matilda_ (and all of its licensed adaptions), Agatha Trunchbull is unambiguously evil.  We know this, because she physically assaults the children she is supposed to protect on a regular basis, and because she 



Spoiler: Matilda



murdered her brother-in-law so she could steal all his stuff and abuse her niece.


.  She is not morally ambiguous or sympathetic.  She is also the same race/species as the protagonist.
I could keep going, but I think you should get the idea by now.  Having evil _villains_ does not require having evil _races_.  


Aside from alignment, there are two other changes I'd recommend for inclusiveness:

1) Replace the name "race" with "species."  I don't think "ancestry" (used by Pathfinder 2) is any better than race, because that word also has a real-world use which is very different from what Pathfinder 2 uses it to mean.  Humans, elves, and dwarves are different species, so call them species.

2)Hire a diverse group of writers for both the game rules and the setting books.  That's the best way to ensure we get good inclusive content.

I'm also in favor of removing racial species ability score modifiers for reasons that have nothing to do with inclusiveness, and I think a new edition is the easiest time to make the change.  I wont' delve into why I want this change here, because it isn't really on-topic.


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> You might wonder that, but you might then also wonder, if horses necessarily will be used as draft animals, why didn’t most Native cultures that used horses extensively post-colonization use them as draft animals?
> 
> And again, the claim that the Spanish (re)introduced horses was never actually supported by scientific study. It was just claimed and accepted.




science can’t really support the non-existence of something from hundreds of years ago.  most science could say was that we have no evidence of horses in NOrth America before Europeans arrived.


----------



## Chaosmancer

jmartkdr2 said:


> My thinking was more "leave the names of gods as a setting detail" - but that gets to a question of whether there needs to be a defaults setting. Which is off-topic for this thread.




Well, I think it has a small place in this discussion. 

When I first read the 3.5 PHB, I was introduced to the "gods of DnD", and it was only years later that I learned that those were the gods of Greyhawk. Which, is fine, but if I was trying to play in FR, I didn't have any FR deities to reference.

I think 5e did a lot better in this regard by giving the domains, but they still have some really big problems with how they were written (how many people remember how messed up Tempest Clerics are supposed to be) because they are still trying to make a direct reference to certain deities and stories, while ignoring the fact that those gods might not exist in the particular setting. 

This might not be inclusive per se to groups of people, but it would be more inclusive to various settings if we could try and avoid more of that in the future.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Chaosmancer said:


> Well, I think it has a small place in this discussion.
> 
> When I first read the 3.5 PHB, I was introduced to the "gods of DnD", and it was only years later that I learned that those were the gods of Greyhawk. Which, is fine, but if I was trying to play in FR, I didn't have any FR deities to reference.
> 
> I think 5e did a lot better in this regard by giving the domains, but they still have some really big problems with how they were written (how many people remember how messed up Tempest Clerics are supposed to be) because they are still trying to make a direct reference to certain deities and stories, while ignoring the fact that those gods might not exist in the particular setting.
> 
> This might not be inclusive per se to groups of people, but it would be more inclusive to various settings if we could try and avoid more of that in the future.




Some deities are multispheric (exist in more than one setting), but have different lore around them. For example, there was an FR source book (can't exactly remember which one off the top of my head) that listed Lolth, but as she also existed in Greyhawk, there was a box that described the differences between the two Lolths. Other deities only exist in one setting. I think they were going for the more "universal" approach, but that means you also run the risk of getting rid of unique deity lore (_cough_ Mordenkenian's Tome of Foes).


----------



## GreenTengu

doctorbadwolf said:


> That actually has been disproven, with the discovery of fossils in IIRC 2017 of horses from much later than that, as well as sightings of Natives with horse in the Carolinas in numbers before horses could possibly have gotten to there from escaped or lost Spanish horses, which would have had required the horses to escape or be lost, travel from what is now Mexico City, and repopulate, in 2 years or less.
> 
> In other words, the entire narrative that Europeans reintroduced natives to horses has always been bunk “science” based on Western biases.
> 
> Edit: a quick google helped me find a good article with links to sources. I’ll do the work for you this time, because I enjoy reading about it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes world, there were horses in Native culture before the settlers came
> 
> 
> Yvette Running Horse Collin’s recent dissertation may have rewritten every natural history book on the shelf. A Lakota/Nakota/Cheyenne scholar, Collin worked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indiancountrytoday.com




Calling a common scientific consensus to be "bunk science" and offering your "proof" as an article that offers up as evidence-- a single eye-witness account from "the Carolinas" which is found among hundreds of accounts of Native American behavior that includes everything from devil worship to cannibalism (but the claim about seeing one guy on a horse one time fits the writer's agenda, so that's the one and only account to be called credible), "oral histories" that literally could have been made-up yesterday to fit their political agenda and just claimed to have been said for "countless generations" with no possible way to distinguish one from the other and.... a fossil found in one cave that could charitably be called a horse and was supposedly dated past when people thought they were extinct.

And the article itself puts the claim on exactly the same footing as the claim that Native Americans popped into existence out of thin air and are no way related to the rest of humanity because some scraps were found on a 100,000 year old mammoth bone that one scientist thought could have been made by some hominid species.

I really don't think you comprehend what "bunk science" is. It isn't "any science that goes against my creationist mythos". Singular eye witness testimony is never much evidence for anything-- and stories passed on 10th+ hand with no way to verify that it is even what was originally said is meaningless.

Horses are not inherently something related to Europeans. In fact-- both domesticated horse species in use today were domesticated by Asians. One was domesticated around 3500 BC in China and the other in 2000 BC in Mongolia and almost certainly done in response to the Chinese having horses. The thing is-- the last time migration by land was possible to the Americas was a full 10,000 years prior to either of those species being domesticated. And while domestication could have happened even earlier, 10,000 years earlier is quite a stretch. So unless there was a more recent migration of Mongolians into the Americas, they wouldn't have been able to bring horses. But-- if they did-- why did they not also bring over knowledge of how to make metals?

Which would mean that any supposed Native American horse species would have to be of an entirely separate lineage from both of the main two lineages. And 10,000 years more of genetic diversion would be super easy to verify with a simple genetic test. And not only that-- but that the Native Americans chose to domesticate the exact same genus of animal in the exact same way for the exact same purpose using the exact same tools independently of those who were doing it on the other side of the Pacific. So if we are to believe that any of these supposed Native American horse lineages that supposedly were bred in the thousands and spread across the entire continent are to have any descendants today, a simple genetic test would show conclusive evidence of this. If they were all extinct-- then there should be hundreds of skeletons of horses dating from 13,000 BC to 1200 AD. Not one bone found in one cave-- hundreds of virtually entirely intact skeletons scattered across the continent.

There have been found whole lineages of giant sloths as well as American cheetahs and camels, and giant versions of beavers, armadillos, wolves and bears-- how could the remains of all these animals be found multiple times, but no one has ever found the vast numbers of remains of horses? No-- let me guess-- it is some giant conspiratorial cover-up by the "scientific community" (as if scientists love anything more than to prove one another wrong) to hide the fact that creationism is real. 

I am not opposed to the idea inherently-- but when someone throws down what is clearly, on its face, crap "science" and blatant creationist propaganda and think they have proved something-- that needs to be called out.

May as well believe that all ancient human sites were created by aliens or that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel or some other wild, unsupported idea because one guy claimed it once.

And-- you know-- on a certain level I get the suspicion on behalf of the tribes. After all-- U.S. schools aren't really in the habit of telling children that Native Americans had their own dog breeds or reasonably large cities and vast trade networks, or that Native Americans excelled at agriculture and were responsible for breeding many of the grains and vegetables that have become staple foods for people around the world. But-- thing is-- the scientific community never opposed any of those ideas, it was the politics of those who got to decide what got taught in school that decided to bury those things and only those who really focused on studying those particular fields that knew about it. But these are things that actually happened. Enough study has been done to uncover and demonstrate all of that. And yet.... what has never been found? Pre-1500s horse breeding and riding.

Going the other way and asserting that creation myths and tribal propaganda that no one can demonstrate wasn't just made up one day during the last 200 years are all necessarily true is insane. That is truly bunk. Just like every time the remains of anyone from prehistory is found, every single tribe claims that individual is their personal ancestor in order to further this agenda in claiming they have "always" been there-- as if it actually matters if they have lived in the region for 15,000 years or infinite years actually changes anything about their current situation at all.


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> Why don’t we forget all the angst and concentrate on real world harm and how we can avoid encouraging it or making people relive it in their published games?




And, now you see exactly what I've been talking about.  10% discussion on reasonable, real world problems, 80% tail chasing hypotheticals, 10% denial that any problem exists at all.


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> The Spanish never proved that introduced, or later reintroduced, horses to North America. They just claimed it and it was accepted by Western scholarship as truth.




I agree that claims of history and archaeology and zoology and the like need to be judged based on the evidence.  And, if there is little or no evidence, unrefuted things should be state as conjucture or supposition.

If someone today were interested in whether Armadillos have lived continuously above the Rio Grande, the fossil record and the like could be consulted (apparently nothing after about 10,000 BC until the 1800s) and since it was recent enough then the DNA of that record can be compared to those currently here (at least the same genus). One can also look for evidence in the art and artifacts of those living there (lots of unambiguous Armadillos from a variety of times from numerous cultures in numerous countries south of the Rio Grande, none above it) and the written record (no reports before 1830s above the Rio Grande).   This doesn't seem to have led to any controversy, and presumably could be done for any animal.

At some point, as far as I can find, the fossil record for horses apparently stops, say, around 11k years ago.  (And I can't see what paleontologists and the like gain by not finding horses a few k more recent than 11k years ago, since it disrupts no particular theory and several other megafauna have more recent dates).

I imagine that the dating of several earlier horse related artifacts were more than slightly affected by the theory that horses were (re)introduced by the Spanish, so those dates would need to be adjusted. But, say there's nothing in particular to tie anything to horses between 11k years ago and year x sometime in the past 2,000 years, and around some year y after year x there is a lot in the record.  (And the DNA evidence is apparently leaning towards the pre-11k horses being the same species as the horses the Spanish brought, so conservationally, I guess they'd be considered reintroduced at worst?)

The next question feels like it's if there was a continuous presence that avoided the fossil and artifactual record or if there a reintroduction? So, is there an explanation for the gap in the fossil record? Are there older artifacts for some animals but not others that makes it plausible that horses would be avoided until year x? Is it plausible they lived in some region for millenia that we haven't found fossils in (a coast? an area we don't look at?) that we haven't found fossils in and they got out in away that makes them appear en masse around year y? If they were always here and lived in a small area and weren't driven to extinction, should there be genetic markers that can be found in the DNA of some modern horses in North America that aren't present anywhere else? If they were introduced, then when and from where? Siberia? China? Vikings? Spanish?

Assuming the dates on the evidence actually went that way -- Are there people who would never accept any scientific consensus that showed there was no continual presence? Are there people who would never believe any scientific consensus that said the reintroduction was before some particular year? Are there people who would never believe any scientific consensus that there was a reintroduction in or after 1492? Is it possible for anyone in any of those three groups to actually be seeking the truth?


----------



## Hussar

And, just to add a point - First Nations people most certainly DID use horses for draft animals as soon as they were introduced.  Farming around the Five Nations region (think Southwestern Ontario and Northwestern New Yorkish) drastically changed as soon as horses were introduced.

And, considering there was trade between the Five Nations and Central American native groups, you'd think some bright spark might have brought horses to Mexico at some point in the thousands of years.  Yet the Aztecs had no knowledge whatsoever of horses.

But, gack, look at me - chasing down some pointless rabbit hole.  Sorry.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Yeah. The horse discussion doesn't seem to have much to do with the thread anymore. Maybe bring it back on topic.


----------



## Cadence

Is Appendix E (Inspirational Readings) still really short on non-European inspired selections? Is it missing any obvious female authors and stories with female protagonists?  My knowledge of fantasy literature in the last 30 years is abysmal, are there any books with major LGBTQ+ characters listed and what obvious ones are missing?  Should we remove some books, remove some to a different section, or give warnings for some (Lovecraft? Lieber?).


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

There are a number of fantasy books that have LGBTQ+ characters in them these days (and some actually were written in the 90s).


----------



## Remathilis

Umbran said:


> Agreed.
> 
> All this, "Well, then you can't use X..." shows people have not heard (or in the heat of argument, have forgotten) the point.
> 
> It isn't that you cannot borrow from real-world traditions. It is that you shouldn't do so willy-nilly, after reading a page of wikipedia thinking that makes you an expert. Inspiration can be taken respectfully, conscientiously, with a bit of scholarship, and perhaps the involvement of folks from the culture you're taking inspiration from.




Isn't the problem though that one person's respectful scholarship is another's irresponsible perpetuation of harm? I mean, I'm sure Gygax and Cook thought they were being respectful, even having folks from the culture review Oriental Adventures in 1985, but 35 years later there were calls to remove it. They did the best they could in 1985, and apparently it wasn't good enough. This thread alone shows that a plurality, let alone consensus on what constitutes inclusion is hard to come by beyond the mission statement "we should be as inclusive as possible". The suggestions of what that looks like varies widely and it seems it's really easy to find issue with things in the game but far harder to suggest how to fix them.

And to be honest, I see why people feel they are walking on eggshells. Not because they are racist gorillas hell-bent on gatekeeping but because they aren't sure if what they thought was a respectable use of inspiration is in fact going to viewed as that. 

To whit: go check out the UA thread about the college of Spirits. There was a discussion on whether the "fortune teller medium" archetype it emulates further harmful stereotypes of Romani as "carnival gypsy fortune tellers" with Tarot cards and crystal balls. I'm fairly sure that wasn't the vibe WotC was going for, but after Curse of Strahd, people are far more alert to that potential it might be taken as offensive.

Personally, I don't feel I know where these new boundaries are. I don't want to offend or drive anyone from the game, but until three months ago I viewed orcs as not a problem as well. And these discussions keep happening: orcs, racial alignment, shaman, OA, Vistani, ability score bumps, etc. I have a hard time believing that TSR and WotC set out to perpetuate these issues, but here we are anyway. Tomorrow it could be how druids promote Eurocentrism or how having stats for Odin is disrespectful to neopagans. 

In short, it is beginning to feel like good faith attempts aren't good enough and some topics should best be avoided so as to not invite controversy.


----------



## Cadence

SehanineMoonbow said:


> There are a number of fantasy books that have LGBTQ+ characters in them these days (and some actually were written in the 90s).




I know the works are out there.   I just didn't know if appendix E had some on it or what the major ones would be to add.  Do you have some favorites?

(If it wasn't a modern setting Riordan's books have a variety of LGBTQ+ characters.)


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Remathilis said:


> Isn't the problem though that one person's respectful scholarship is another's irresponsible perpetuation of harm? I mean, I'm sure Gygax and Cook thought they were being respectful, even having folks from the culture review Oriental Adventures in 1985, but 35 years later there were calls to remove it. They did the best they could in 1985, and apparently it wasn't good enough. This thread alone shows that a plurality, let alone consensus on what constitutes inclusion is hard to come by beyond the mission statement "we should be as inclusive as possible". The suggestions of what that looks like varies widely and it seems it's really easy to find issue with things in the game but far harder to suggest how to fix them.
> 
> And to be honest, I see why people feel they are walking on eggshells. Not because they are racist gorillas hell-bent on gatekeeping but because they aren't sure if what they thought was a respectable use of inspiration is in fact going to viewed as that.
> 
> To whit: go check out the UA thread about the college of Spirits. There was a discussion on whether the "fortune teller medium" archetype it emulates further harmful stereotypes of Romani as "carnival gypsy fortune tellers" with Tarot cards and crystal balls. I'm fairly sure that wasn't the vibe WotC was going for, but after Curse of Strahd, people are far more alert to that potential it might be taken as offensive.
> 
> Personally, I don't feel I know where these new boundaries are. I don't want to offend or drive anyone from the game, but until three months ago I viewed orcs as not a problem as well. And these discussions keep happening: orcs, racial alignment, shaman, OA, Vistani, ability score bumps, etc. I have a hard time believing that TSR and WotC set out to perpetuate these issues, but here we are anyway. Tomorrow it could be how druids promote Eurocentrism or how having stats for Odin is disrespectful to neopagans.
> 
> In short, it is beginning to feel like good faith attempts aren't good enough and some topics should best be avoided so as to not invite controversy.




I see your point, and indeed, it is a risk, and can make people feel like they are walking on eggshells, but removing everything that _might _cause an issue--such as the druid example you used--also means fantasy, not just D&D, will become dull. Sure, you could argue that it would force people to be more creative, but, no matter how original the world they make is, it's going to draw inspiration from _some_ real world mythology/culture/history, etc, whether that's "medieval" Europe, Asia, Africa, or wherever. 

And again, D&D isn't the only media to use elements of real world mythology. Whether it's Avengers, Percy Jackson, Tales of the Otori...it's everywhere. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to be respectful, and proper representation (like LGBTQ+ and PoC) is needed in fantasy (and fantasy is getting more diverse), but I don't think we should throw everything out the window. While it can feel like "well, we can't do anything right, so why try?", I think removing things like Norse gods, druids, or any other "real world" element would in the end harm the genre, because it gets rid of that diversity.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And absolutely no one is going to come to your table and force you to have good orcs. I'm not going to do it. I understand why you, and others, like easily defined bad guys. The thing is, the game is already readily inclusive for your preferred playstyle, but not mine and others who don't want black and white (in terms of good and bad. Editing just to clarify) humanoid races.



Sure it is.  While they could have done it better, the monster alignment section says straight out that you can change monster alignment to suit your needs.  That's support for you.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Cadence said:


> I know the works are out there.   I just didn't know if appendix E had some on it or what the major ones would be to add.  Do you have some favorites?
> 
> (If it wasn't a modern setting Riordan's books have a variety of LGBTQ+ characters.)




I do  I am not familiar with Appendix E, so I don't know if any of these are on here, but, at the risk of derailing the thread, I'll list some:

Silk & Steel by Ariana Nash (this could also fall in the m/m romance genre category, but being as it's also epic fantasy, I'll list it)
Captive Prince by CS Pacat (same deal as S&S) 
Last-Herald Mage by Mercedes Lackey (this was written in the late 80s, and suffers from some stereotypes, but it's good)
Six of Crows duology by Leigh Bardugo
Something Dark and Holy by Emily Duncan 
Nightrunner series by Lynn Flewelling 
Merciful Crow by Margaret Owen 
Carry On by Rainbow Rowell 
Witchmark by CL Polk
Reverie by Ryan La Sala
Dragori trilogy by Ben Alderson 
Skybound saga by Alex London 
Shadow of the Fox trilogy by Julie Kegawa 
The Tarot Sequence by KD Edwards
Soulbound series by Hailey Turner


----------



## Maxperson

Alzrius said:


> For what it's worth, there's at least one rebuttal to this (albeit an informal one) out there.



Yeah, but I tend to look at site names and such, and a place called OneHotCupofJoe doesn't really give me a lot of confidence in their scientific ability.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Sure it is.  While they could have done it better, the monster alignment section says straight out that you can change monster alignment to suit your needs.  That's support for you.



It does say that, but they seemed to mostly forget that in Volo's. Making alignments not tied to the stat blocks would just be for the betterment of both play styles, IMO.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> It does say that, but they seemed to mostly forget that in Volo's. I think that making alignments not tied to the stat blocks would just be for the betterment of both play styles, IMO.



I'd like to see it stay in the stat block, but maybe they could list it as Suggested Alignment.  That would be sufficiently loose to support both I think.


----------



## Cadence

SehanineMoonbow said:


> I do  I am not familiar with Appendix E, so I don't know if any of these are on here, but, at the risk of derailing the thread, I'll list some:
> 
> Silk & Steel by Ariana Nash (this could also fall in the m/m romance genre category, but being as it's also epic fantasy, I'll list it)
> Captive Prince by CS Pacat (same deal as S&S)
> Last-Herald Mage by Mercedes Lackey (this was written in the late 80s, and suffers from some stereotypes, but it's good)
> Six of Crows duology by Leigh Bardugo
> Something Dark and Holy by Emily Duncan
> Nightrunner series by Lynn Flewelling
> Merciful Crow by Margaret Owen
> Carry On by Rainbow Rowell
> Witchmark by CL Polk
> Reverie by Ryan La Sala
> Dragori trilogy by Ben Alderson
> Skybound saga by Alex London
> Shadow of the Fox trilogy by Julie Kegawa
> The Tarot Sequence by KD Edwards
> Soulbound series by Hailey Turner




Thank you!

None of those were on the list - but a lot of it is the old 1e list.








						AppendixE
					

Visit the post for more.




					ironbombs.wordpress.com
				




I'm usually slow to try new authors, but I'll make a point to try a few of these.  Lately my new-to-me fantasy authors were either in short story collections or to pick one every few years from the old 1e list.  I need some more fantasy variety. (That, and I'm finishing the two detective/noir/crime series I've been on for a while).


----------



## doctorbadwolf

GreenTengu said:


> Calling a common scientific consensus to be "bunk science" and offering your "proof" as an article that offers up as evidence-- a single eye-witness account from "the Carolinas" which is found among hundreds of accounts of Native American behavior that includes everything from devil worship to cannibalism (but the claim about seeing one guy on a horse one time fits the writer's agenda, so that's the one and only account to be called credible), "oral histories" that literally could have been made-up yesterday to fit their political agenda and just claimed to have been said for "countless generations" with no possible way to distinguish one from the other and.... a fossil found in one cave that could charitably be called a horse and was supposedly dated past when people thought they were extinct.
> 
> And the article itself puts the claim on exactly the same footing as the claim that Native Americans popped into existence out of thin air and are no way related to the rest of humanity because some scraps were found on a 100,000 year old mammoth bone that one scientist thought could have been made by some hominid species.
> 
> I really don't think you comprehend what "bunk science" is. It isn't "any science that goes against my creationist mythos". Singular eye witness testimony is never much evidence for anything-- and stories passed on 10th+ hand with no way to verify that it is even what was originally said is meaningless.
> 
> Horses are not inherently something related to Europeans. In fact-- both domesticated horse species in use today were domesticated by Asians. One was domesticated around 3500 BC in China and the other in 2000 BC in Mongolia and almost certainly done in response to the Chinese having horses. The thing is-- the last time migration by land was possible to the Americas was a full 10,000 years prior to either of those species being domesticated. And while domestication could have happened even earlier, 10,000 years earlier is quite a stretch. So unless there was a more recent migration of Mongolians into the Americas, they wouldn't have been able to bring horses. But-- if they did-- why did they not also bring over knowledge of how to make metals?
> 
> Which would mean that any supposed Native American horse species would have to be of an entirely separate lineage from both of the main two lineages. And 10,000 years more of genetic diversion would be super easy to verify with a simple genetic test. And not only that-- but that the Native Americans chose to domesticate the exact same genus of animal in the exact same way for the exact same purpose using the exact same tools independently of those who were doing it on the other side of the Pacific. So if we are to believe that any of these supposed Native American horse lineages that supposedly were bred in the thousands and spread across the entire continent are to have any descendants today, a simple genetic test would show conclusive evidence of this. If they were all extinct-- then there should be hundreds of skeletons of horses dating from 13,000 BC to 1200 AD. Not one bone found in one cave-- hundreds of virtually entirely intact skeletons scattered across the continent.
> 
> There have been found whole lineages of giant sloths as well as American cheetahs and camels, and giant versions of beavers, armadillos, wolves and bears-- how could the remains of all these animals be found multiple times, but no one has ever found the vast numbers of remains of horses? No-- let me guess-- it is some giant conspiratorial cover-up by the "scientific community" (as if scientists love anything more than to prove one another wrong) to hide the fact that creationism is real.
> 
> I am not opposed to the idea inherently-- but when someone throws down what is clearly, on its face, crap "science" and blatant creationist propaganda and think they have proved something-- that needs to be called out.
> 
> May as well believe that all ancient human sites were created by aliens or that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel or some other wild, unsupported idea because one guy claimed it once.
> 
> And-- you know-- on a certain level I get the suspicion on behalf of the tribes. After all-- U.S. schools aren't really in the habit of telling children that Native Americans had their own dog breeds or reasonably large cities and vast trade networks, or that Native Americans excelled at agriculture and were responsible for breeding many of the grains and vegetables that have become staple foods for people around the world. But-- thing is-- the scientific community never opposed any of those ideas, it was the politics of those who got to decide what got taught in school that decided to bury those things and only those who really focused on studying those particular fields that knew about it. But these are things that actually happened. Enough study has been done to uncover and demonstrate all of that. And yet.... what has never been found? Pre-1500s horse breeding and riding.
> 
> Going the other way and asserting that creation myths and tribal propaganda that no one can demonstrate wasn't just made up one day during the last 200 years are all necessarily true is insane. That is truly bunk. Just like every time the remains of anyone from prehistory is found, every single tribe claims that individual is their personal ancestor in order to further this agenda in claiming they have "always" been there-- as if it actually matters if they have lived in the region for 15,000 years or infinite years actually changes anything about their current situation at all.



I’m not gonna read a clearly angry screed that starts with a barely legible run-on sentence, and seems to be hung up on some whacked out idea that anyone is claiming creationism.

Idk what your deal is, but hawk it to someone else.


----------



## Campbell

So I think you can write the entry for a given monster in a way that clarifies that you are speaking to the orcs that are likely to be adversarial to the PCs while hinting that not all orcs are like Monster Manual orcs. Basically strip out the essentialism. Then you absolutely can give them a listed alignment.

When you do the write up for PC orcs you can talk in more depth about orc culture and the diverse ways it expresses itself.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Campbell said:


> So I think you can write the entry for a given monster in a way that clarifies that you are speaking to the orcs that are likely to be adversarial to the PCs while hinting that not all orcs are like Monster Manual orcs. Basically strip out the essentialism. Then you absolutely can give them a listed alignment.
> 
> When you do the write up for PC orcs you can talk in more depth about orc culture and the diverse ways it expresses itself.



They'd also have to give stat blocks for most other races as opponent creatures. Setting books could also add specific monster stats based on world-specific lore (Gnoll Fang of Yeenoghu, Drow Matron Mother, etc).


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Cadence said:


> Thank you!
> 
> None of those were on the list - but a lot of it is the old 1e list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AppendixE
> 
> 
> Visit the post for more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ironbombs.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm usually slow to try new authors, but I'll make a point to try a few of these.  Lately my new-to-me fantasy authors were either in short story collections or to pick one every few years from the old 1e list.  I need some more fantasy variety. (That, and I'm finishing the two detective/noir/crime series I've been on for a while).




I'm always reading lol. Some of the ones I listed are YA, but they're good, imho.


----------



## Hussar

Remathilis said:


> In short, it is beginning to feel like good faith attempts aren't good enough and some topics should best be avoided so as to not invite controversy.




But, that's not really true though.  Good faith attempts are most certainly good enough.  No one is saying that Gygax and Cook are raging bigots for writing OA.  Just that, thirty some years later, what was a good faith attempt then isn't really good enough now.  Viewpoints change as more information comes to the fore and society's view of these changes also change.

IOW, there are all sorts of very good faith arguments about, say, the changes in orcs to make them more inclusive.  Most of the people really are discussing in good faith.

But, you have to ask yourself, (and by yourself, I mean everyone, not just you), is the point I'm bringing up ACTUALLY an issue or is it something hypothetical?  If no one is actually arguing that orcs should not be evil, then maybe, bringing up orc alignment isn't really the issue at hand.  Actually drilling down to the real issue at hand is where the boundaries are.

Actually, to be fair, there are no "boundaries".  Trying to define "boundaries" as in, "This is okay and that is not okay" is a rabbit hole in and of itself.  Stop trying to make a general statement and focus on the real issues and you'll find that conversation is so much more productive.  Identify what the real problem is with something, and then address THAT problem.  Stop trying to make rules for everything.  It won't work.  Every element is different and there is considerable nuance.

Take the the Appendix E argument - should the authors in Appendix E be there or not?  Now, @Cadence mentioned Lieber.  I'm not aware of any issue regarding Leiber's writing.  He doesn't come up at all and, in fact, I would generally hold up Leiber as being probably one of the best examples of a writer from the Golden Age that we can hold up as inspirational.  Leiber's writing and his personal life, AFAIK (and please correct me if I'm wrong) haven't been an issue before, so, I have no idea why he would be a problem now.

OTOH, Lovecraft most certainly IS problematic.  His fiction and his personal life are rife with bigotry and intollerance.  When he talks about the fish eyed abominations in Shadows of Innsmouth, he is SPECIFICALLY talking about my children.  So, yeah, I'd say I have a fairly large problem with his inclusion in Appendix E.  I would much rather see him removed.  Now, why Lovecraft and not,say, Howard?  Well, sure, Howard and Burroughs aren't exactly the epitome of cultural sensitivity, but, let's be honest, they are both more simply reflective of their times.  Howard and Burroughs don't really go out of their way to attack various minorities in the way that Lovecraft does.

So, for me, I'd remove Lovecraft from Appendix E, but, Howard and Burroughs can stay.  Maybe add a sidebar noting the issues with them, but, that's not a major problem.  Outright racist writing, or, like the descriptions in orcs, writing that mirrors outright racists, should probably not be enshrined in the game or placed in a position of honor with "Inspirational Reading."


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> Yeah, but I tend to look at site names and such, and a place called OneHotCupofJoe doesn't really give me a lot of confidence in their scientific ability.




it was a lengthy but good article.


----------



## Cadence

SehanineMoonbow said:


> I'm always reading lol. Some of the ones I listed are YA, but they're good, imho.




My problem with reading is when I start I have to finish... which isn't bad if it's just one book.  But if there is a new series I find I like it really cuts into getting work done and getting to bed on time for a while.  (I guess one good side effect of this spring being goofy is I didn't get in trouble for finally trying e-books through the library and finishing the couple dozen John Sanford Minnesota books the library had that I hadn't finished.).


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Since Oriental Adventures was mentioned, I'd like to take a moment to let people know the recently released video game Ghosts of Tsushima has been very well received by even Japanese critics despite it being a game about Japan made by Westerners.


----------



## Umbran

GreenTengu said:


> Calling a common scientific consensus...




*Mod Note:*

Starting with an appeal to science does  not save you from issues on making this personal, bringing in real world religion, and so on.  You've earned yourself a trip out of the thread.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

GreenTengu said:


> And-- you know-- on a certain level I get the suspicion on behalf of the tribes. After all--* U.S. schools aren't really in the habit of telling children that Native Americans had their own dog breeds or reasonably large cities and vast trade networks, or that Native Americans excelled at agriculture and were responsible for breeding many of the grains and vegetables that have become staple foods for people around the world. *But-- thing is-- the scientific community never opposed any of those ideas, it was the politics of those who got to decide what got taught in school that decided to bury those things and only those who really focused on studying those particular fields that knew about it. But these are things that actually happened. Enough study has been done to uncover and demonstrate all of that. And yet.... what has never been found? Pre-1500s horse breeding and riding.




Um...then why was I taught that in an American school 20 years ago?


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> science can’t really support the non-existence of something from hundreds of years ago.  most science could say was that we have no evidence of horses in NOrth America before Europeans arrived.




Science could add that we _do_ have evidence of loads of other fauna in North America from that period, and that the _utter lack of evidence_ of horses in the same record would need to be explained.


----------



## Umbran

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Um...then why was I taught that in an American school 20 years ago?




Because one person getting that information is not evidence of an overall habit in the school systems nationwide.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Hussar said:


> OTOH, Lovecraft most certainly IS problematic.  His fiction and his personal life are rife with bigotry and intollerance.  When he talks about the fish eyed abominations in Shadows of Innsmouth, he is SPECIFICALLY talking about my children.  So, yeah, I'd say I have a fairly large problem with his inclusion in Appendix E.  I would much rather see him removed.  Now, why Lovecraft and not,say, Howard?  Well, sure, Howard and Burroughs aren't exactly the epitome of cultural sensitivity, but, let's be honest, they are both more simply reflective of their times.  Howard and Burroughs don't really go out of their way to attack various minorities in the way that Lovecraft does.




Doesn't that just make Lovecraft more challenging and horrifying? He is writing horror after all. Personally, I find his views horrific.


----------



## MGibster

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Doesn't that just make Lovecraft more challenging and horrifying? He is writing horror after all.




I'm a big fan of Lovecraft, but even I can appreciate why he makes some people cringe and they have no desire to read his works.  One of my favorite stories, "Herbert West - Reanimator" includes a particularly painful to read description of a black boxer that's difficult to read.  Lovecraft's prose is challenging enough.  Nobody should feel obligated to put up with his racism though.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Hussar said:


> OTOH, Lovecraft most certainly IS problematic.  His fiction and his personal life are rife with bigotry and intollerance.  When he talks about the fish eyed abominations in Shadows of Innsmouth, he is SPECIFICALLY talking about my children.  So, yeah, I'd say I have a fairly large problem with his inclusion in Appendix E.  I would much rather see him removed.  Now, why Lovecraft and not,say, Howard?  Well, sure, Howard and Burroughs aren't exactly the epitome of cultural sensitivity, but, let's be honest, they are both more simply reflective of their times.  Howard and Burroughs don't really go out of their way to attack various minorities in the way that Lovecraft does.



On the flip side though, you also have Lovecraft's _undoubtable_ influence on the game. The Great Old One warlock mentions Cthulhu by name, Dagon is a fairly important Demon Lord and the creatures that the old Lords of Madness book talks about that were surely inspired by, if not based on many creatures that originated from Lovecraft.

Honestly, just getting rid of him from the appendixes could just come across as a bandaid on a gaping wound that is the influence of a virulent racist inspiring a large swath of not just Dungeons and Dragons, but _multiple generations_ of writers and storytellers, all inspired by someone who is pretty much unanimously considered a gigantic POS.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Cadence said:


> My problem with reading is when I start I have to finish... which isn't bad if it's just one book.  But if there is a new series I find I like it really cuts into getting work done and getting to bed on time for a while.  (I guess one good side effect of this spring being goofy is I didn't get in trouble for finally trying e-books through the library and finishing the couple dozen John Sanford Minnesota books the library had that I hadn't finished.).




Lol well, even busy people can find time to read, they just have to make it a point to do so, even if it's only 30 minutes in the morning or evening. Maybe set a timer for yourself (like a hour or two, or whatever time frame works) to read. That way, you will still get stuff done, but you can also reward yourself with a good book.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Hussar said:


> And, just to add a point - First Nations people most certainly DID use horses for draft animals as soon as they were introduced.  Farming around the Five Nations region (think Southwestern Ontario and Northwestern New Yorkish) drastically changed as soon as horses were introduced.
> 
> And, considering there was trade between the Five Nations and Central American native groups, you'd think some bright spark might have brought horses to Mexico at some point in the thousands of years.  Yet the Aztecs had no knowledge whatsoever of horses.
> 
> But, gack, look at me - chasing down some pointless rabbit hole.  Sorry.



If I could think of a gaming angle I might try to start a separate thread, because you raise points worth considering. 

I’ll simply note, instead, that what is bunk isn’t the idea of doubting that horses existed, even sparsely, in North America, during times that western scholarship has generally claimed they didn’t. Doubt is rarely bunk, by itself.

What is bunk is the academic habit of taking Western sources largely at their word, while requiring mountains of evidence from BIPOC. Oh, and I’ll note that I made no absolute statements about draft animals. Some Native communities did indeed use horses as draft animals. Others simply didn’t. It’s not especially strange. Some cultures never bothered with shoes until they met a culture that wore them. Others only used wheels for toys.

Now, that is actually a lead in to a gaming topic. How cultures don’t actually develop the same way when they have no early contact, and how we can apply that to worldbuilding.


----------



## Cadence

SehanineMoonbow said:


> Lol well, even busy people can find time to read, they just have to make it a point to do so, even if it's only 30 minutes in the morning or evening. Maybe set a timer for yourself (like a hour or two, or whatever time frame works) to read. That way, you will still get stuff done, but you can also reward yourself with a good book.




I need a timer that grabs the book and puts it in an extra-dimensional pocket until the next day (or something like that).  I don't seem to have the willpower unless a deadline is imminent.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FlyingChihuahua said:


> On the flip side though, you also have Lovecraft's _undoubtable_ influence on the game. The Great Old One warlock mentions Cthulhu by name, Dagon is a fairly important Demon Lord and the creatures that the old Lords of Madness book talks about that were surely inspired by, if not based on many creatures that originated from Lovecraft.
> 
> Honestly, just getting rid of him from the appendixes could just come across as a bandaid on a gaping wound that is the influence of a virulent racist inspiring a large swath of not just Dungeons and Dragons, but _multiple generations_ of writers and storytellers, all inspired by someone who is pretty much unanimously considered a gigantic POS.



At some point, I think, you just have to kick the author out of the club that they inspired.
Cosmic horror has grown vastly beyond Lovecraft. You can read modern authors like Gaiman and King and get plenty of cosmic horror inspiration that isn’t steeped in the fear that miscegenation would lead to a debased and monstrous humanity.


----------



## Wishbone

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Doesn't that just make Lovecraft more challenging and horrifying? He is writing horror after all. Personally, I find his views horrific.




Eh, nah it makes him an anti-Semite and racial essentialist whose work is in the public domain. Also, to put it out there, I don't think his writing was very good overall and haven't touched his stories since I was in high school.



FlyingChihuahua said:


> On the flip side though, you also have Lovecraft's _undoubtable_ influence on the game. The Great Old One warlock mentions Cthulhu by name, Dagon is a fairly important Demon Lord and the creatures that the old Lords of Madness book talks about that were surely inspired by, if not based on many creatures that originated from Lovecraft.
> 
> Honestly, just getting rid of him from the appendixes could just come across as a bandaid on a gaping wound that is the influence of a virulent racist inspiring a large swath of not just Dungeons and Dragons, but _multiple generations_ of writers and storytellers, all inspired by someone who is pretty much unanimously considered a gigantic POS.




Lovecraft's influence in modern day fantasy and horror is so much greater than it was when he was alive. Talking about his work without putting Lovecraft's views in the proper context is papering over how he sneaks in subtle and overt racist and colonialist concepts. That is all to say, if we can't get Lovecraft's influence out of modern fantasy, we should address Lovecraft's pernicious personal beliefs and how they influence his works and those works influenced by him (which I think a lot of scholarship has been doing a good job at lately).


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

I think it is important to be aware of problematic viewpoints of authors, and also to be aware of the time period they were written in (such as reading _Huck Finn _in high school). We can learn from history.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Take the the Appendix E argument - should the authors in Appendix E be there or not?  Now, @Cadence mentioned Lieber.  I'm not aware of any issue regarding Leiber's writing.  He doesn't come up at all and, in fact, I would generally hold up Leiber as being probably one of the best examples of a writer from the Golden Age that we can hold up as inspirational.  Leiber's writing and his personal life, AFAIK (and please correct me if I'm wrong) haven't been an issue before, so, I have no idea why he would be a problem now.




I was thinking about LGBTQ+ writers, and my brain skipped to LGBTQ+ content in D&D, and if someone asked why would you need to put sex into it all, and then to the argument that if LGBTQ+ romance is bad why is cis-het stuff ok, and then to obvious books that had cis-het stuff, and then to books that had it badly.

I read the first two big collected volumes of the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories (The Three of Swords and The Swords' Masters). They had their ups and downs, but the first got me to read the second, and I remember definitely liking _The Swords of Lankhmar._ But by the end of the second collection I wasn't sure I wanted to track down the last book. So then I read a few reviews of the Knight and Knave of Swords and parts of “The Mer She" and “The Mouser Goes Below” sounded... pretty bad. (Did she only look 13? That benefit of soft hands? Voyeuring on a former crush instructing her slave girls? I don't know for sure,  I didn't pick up that one  but that's what the reviews had.). And so I was thinking of whether it was appropriate to have (what one review called) "Fifty Shades of the Gray Mouser" on the list or if folks might want a warning.

I certainly didn't mean to imply the recommended Leiber books had the same type of issue as Lovecraft.  I don't mean to imply no books with sex should be on the list.  I was just imagining different things some folks might like to be warned about if we're thinking about inclusivity.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Cadence said:


> I was thinking ahead about LGBTQ+ writers, and my brain skipped to LGBTQ+ content in D&D, and if someone asked why would you need to put sex into it all, and then to the argument that if LGBTQ+ romance is bad why is cis-het stuff ok, and then to obvious books that had cis-het stuff, and then to books that had it badly.




This is an argument I have had with people more than once. Somehow, LGBTQ+ automatically equates to porn (which, in D&D, often comes with "I don't want sex and romance in my games", but I've usually only seen this sentiment invoked when we're discussing inclusion.) The inclusion of a gay or nonbinary character or non-straight romance doesn't automatically mean a steamy bedroom scene. It can be handled the same way as a heterosexual romance (that is the "default" of any relationship in fantasy, whether the book is heavy on romance or not) is. Or, if there _is _a steamy bedroom scene, if it's a cis man and woman, no one bats an eye. Make it gay, and suddenly it's porn and "doesn't belong". I've also seen "but the children" arguments, because two men kissing in a children's show is too explicit , even though most children grow up on Disney and have seen dozens of kissing scenes between a man and a woman.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

SehanineMoonbow said:


> I've also seen "but the children" arguments, because two men kissing in a children's show is too explicit , even though most children grow up on Disney and have seen dozens of kissing scenes between a man and a woman.



The "but the children" argument basically equates to "but we're homophobes!" (Nice post, btw)

In Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, Eberron: Rising from the Last War, and other 5e books there are examples of LGBTQ+ inclusion. I think there should be more of these in the books in 5e and all coming editions. They can definitely give inclusion to these characters in lore in 6e, and in other ways that I think would improve the game.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

AcererakTriple6 said:


> The "but the children" argument basically equates to "but we're homophobes!" (Nice post, btw)
> 
> In Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, Eberron: Rising from the Last War, and other 5e books there are examples of LGBTQ+ inclusion. I think there should be more of these in the books in 5e and all coming editions. They can definitely give inclusion to these characters in lore in 6e, and in other ways that I think would improve the game.




Thank you  And oh I know, most of the arguments stem from homophobia, otherwise, it wouldn't be an issue. 

Critical Role is pretty inclusive, and the later Forgotten Realms materials, like Dragon Heist, are getting better (the novels were too, before they ended the line, other than Drizzt). Ed Greenwood has always meant for the Realms to be inclusive and sexually and gender diverse, but it's only recently that WotC was more willing to show that (I've been a long time Realms fan). You have the Seldarine, the elven pantheon, who have always been depicted as having male and female forms (technically, all gods are beyond gender, but the Seldarine are the ones most depicted as such). I agree we can definitely see more of these characters.


----------



## Hussar

Hexmage-EN said:


> Since Oriental Adventures was mentioned, I'd like to take a moment to let people know the recently released video game Ghosts of Tsushima has been very well received by even Japanese critics despite it being a game about Japan made by Westerners.




Now, ask yourself why.



MGibster said:


> I'm a big fan of Lovecraft, but even I can appreciate why he makes some people cringe and they have no desire to read his works.  One of my favorite stories, "Herbert West - Reanimator" includes a particularly painful to read description of a black boxer that's difficult to read.  Lovecraft's prose is challenging enough.  Nobody should feel obligated to put up with his racism though.




My issue, primarily, is that the writer, not his work, but the writer himself, is being enshrined in the list of "Inspirational Reading" in the PHB.  Not sure, really, that Lovecraft's works are all that inspirational.  Note, there are tons of derivative works, lacking the rabid racism and bigotry, that deal with the Mythos, whose writers COULD be added to the list of things to read to inspire your D&D game.

------

I just wanted to add another thought here.

The problem that these threads seem to have, and why @Remathilis mentions having to walk on eggshells is the lack of focus when discussing issues.  @Remathilis mentioned removing all real world mythology from the game.  Why?  Is there a complaint about having Thor in D&D?  I'm not aware of one and, if there is, what is the SPECIFIC complaint?  "It might be offensive" is not the reason to change something.  That's very much not a good enough reason to change anything.  It's too vague, too broad and frankly, meaningless.

Take the Vistani issue.  There is a very specific issue here - the depiction of Vistani as thieving, lazy, drunkards veers pretty uncomfortably close to the real world depiction of the Romani people, who, for hundreds of years, have gotten the short end of the stick.  Now, does that mean you can never have a Vistani who is a thieving, lazy drunkard?  Nope.  You most certainly can.  What you shouldn't do, though, is have EVERY Vistani be that.  If you depict Vistani, then, well, depict all sorts, good and bad.  It's a pretty easy solution to a specific problem.

Or, the OA that was mentioned above.  Does this mean we can never have an Asian flavored setting in D&D?  Of course not.  The specific issue with the OA is the whole othering of cultures, fetishization, and the fact that the original OA book, despite purporting to be an "Oriental" book, is 99% Japanese flavored.  A new Asian flavored setting needs to be more even handed, pulling from a broader range of sources, and not pretending that the culture of a billion people in the real world doesn't exist.  Again, adding a disclaimer to the book is a simple and sufficient solution.

The reason people feel like they have to walk on eggshells is because people are not bringing up specific issues.  No one can deal with broad, vague issues.  It's not possible.  We need to focus on the concrete issues where you can definitively point to this or that in the book and say, "Yes, those words right there, that sentence?  That needs to change."  Otherwise, it's all punching fog and frustration.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Wishbone said:


> Lovecraft's influence in modern day fantasy and horror is so much greater than it was when he was alive. Talking about his work without putting Lovecraft's views in the proper context is papering over how he sneaks in subtle and overt racist and colonialist concepts. That is all to say, if we can't get Lovecraft's influence out of modern fantasy, we should address Lovecraft's pernicious personal beliefs and how they influence his works and those works influenced by him (which I think a lot of scholarship has been doing a good job at lately).



Forgive me for potentially moving the goal posts, but that doesn't really solve the issue I'm thinking of, which is amount of current media (and media that I especially enjoy, so this hits close for me) is inexorably tied to a huge bigot.

Sure, you can contextualize him and his stories all you want, but specific themes (the main one I'm thinking of is the theme of the universe not caring at all about you and your struggles, and how existentially terrifying that is) came from a vile person.


----------



## Cadence

SehanineMoonbow said:


> This is an argument I have had with people more than once. Somehow, LGBTQ+ automatically equates to porn (which, in D&D, often comes with "I don't want sex and romance in my games", but I've usually only seen this sentiment invoked when we're discussing inclusion.) The inclusion of a gay or nonbinary character or non-straight romance doesn't automatically mean a steamy bedroom scene. It can be handled the same way as a heterosexual romance (that is the "default" of any relationship in fantasy, whether the book is heavy on romance or not) is. Or, if there _is _a steamy bedroom scene, if it's a cis man and woman, no one bats an eye. Make it gay, and suddenly it's porn and "doesn't belong". I've also seen "but the children" arguments, because two men kissing in a children's show is too explicit , even though most children grow up on Disney and have seen dozens of kissing scenes between a man and a woman.




Things like the massive popularity of the Riordan books, with having major LGBTQ+ characters not even coming up in reviews I read except as a positive thing, and the freedom Jeremy Whitley at Marvel had for the teen-aimed Unstoppable Wasp comic to explore the relationship between two of the girls, gives me a lot of hope that it's getting better. I mean it feels way too slow, but then I remember that the Lawrence v. Texas decision was only in 2003.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Forgive me for potentially moving the goal posts, but that doesn't really solve the issue I'm thinking of, which is amount of current media (and media that I especially enjoy, so this hits close for me) is inexorably tied to a huge bigot.
> 
> Sure, you can contextualize him and his stories all you want, but specific themes (the main one I'm thinking of is the theme of the universe not caring at all about you and your struggles, and how existentially terrifying that is) came from a vile person.



He didn’t invent Cosmic Horror.

Tangentially, I’ve never understood why people fear cosmological insignificance and amechanistic universe in general. Why should I care that the universe is incapable of caring about me? It’s a machine I live inside of. Why would it ever matter, to me, whether the universe cares about me or not?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> Things like the massive popularity of the Riordan books, with having major LGBTQ+ characters not even coming up in reviews I read except as a positive thing, and the freedom Jeremy Whitley at Marvel had for the teen-aimed Unstoppable Wasp comic to explore the relationship between two of the girls, gives me a lot of hope that it's getting better. I mean it feels way too slow, but then I remember that the Lawrence v. Texas decision was only in 2003.



I've read almost every one of Riordan's books. The inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters in the series were a nice addition.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I've read almost every one of Riordan's books. The inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters in the series were a nice addition.




And it gets to be just something my son is reading. With no deal made out of it or anything. 

What's the closest someone in the US born at the start of the 70s would have come to that in a children's or YA book?  I can't remember anything.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I've read almost every one of Riordan's books. The inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters in the series were a nice addition.



I really like when D&D settings make some of the gods Queer. Like, gender fluid Corellon is cool, but Erathis and Melora are lovers in one of the podcast D&D worlds (Exandria, I think?) which is rad as hell. 

In one world I’m working on, Kord is gay, and has been the lover of many of the gods, and has an especially storied relationship with the as yet unnamed androgynous/Non-Binary god of Magic, Secrets, Thieves, Good Assassins, and Crows, who often presents as petite butch pixie who will stab you. (They’re one of the Gods of Revolution, who folks seek out when they are being oppressed and need to overcome that. They’re specifically the patron of knifing your oppressors in dark alleyways and taking their stuff.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

doctorbadwolf said:


> He didn’t invent Cosmic Horror.



Well he introduced it to the world at large, I'd personally argue that's as important, if not more so, than inventing it.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Tangentially, I’ve never understood why people fear cosmological insignificance and amechanistic universe in general. Why should I care that the universe is incapable of caring about me? It’s a machine I live inside of. Why would it ever matter, to me, whether the universe cares about me or not?




Have you ever had the fear that the people you care about couldn't give a damn about what you think?
Apply that to a cosmic scale.


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> Tangentially, I’ve never understood why people fear cosmological insignificance and amechanistic universe in general. Why should I care that the universe is incapable of caring about me? It’s a machine I live inside of. Why would it ever matter, to me, whether the universe cares about me or not?




Does it depend on having believed, or at least thought, there was something more first?

The last four pages of Watchmen issue 6 feels like they get at it some. "It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or desinty that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." And how that plays out for two different characters.

Well, I guess the whole series deals with the big questions. "Come... dry your eyes... and let's go home."


----------



## Hussar

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Forgive me for potentially moving the goal posts, but that doesn't really solve the issue I'm thinking of, which is amount of current media (and media that I especially enjoy, so this hits close for me) is inexorably tied to a huge bigot.
> 
> Sure, you can contextualize him and his stories all you want, but specific themes (the main one I'm thinking of is the theme of the universe not caring at all about you and your struggles, and how existentially terrifying that is) came from a vile person.




Personally?  My solution is to let Lovecraft die.  Stop mentioning him.  Stop enshrining him.  There are tons of other existential dread authors out there that we can use as excellent examples of tentacle horror.  In other words, separate the Mythos from the Man.  By and large, the Mythos stories, particularly ones told by other people, are great.  Sure, us gaming geeks might know who August Derleth is, but, most people have no idea.  Letting authors fade into history is pretty easy.

That way we can keep our cool horror and not have to pay homage to a vile human being.


----------



## Imaculata

It is always a bit of a touchy subject. Can you still enjoy the works of an author/artist/filmmaker when you know they did something terrible, or were a horrible racist?

I try to separate the work from the man. I can still enjoy any of Michael Jacksons songs, even though he probably was a creepy pedo. Harry Potter is still a great series of books and movies, despite the fact that Miss Rowling has recently revealed that she has some awful ideas. And I love Lovecraftian horror, despite Lovecraft being the racist that we all know he was. There are dozens of people that are like this; they made something great, but were not-so-great people.

Further more, I think it is important to remember who these people were and to critique them. It is one of the reasons I enjoy the movie Starship Troopers a lot, because author Robert A Heinlein had a lot of fascist ideas, which the movie ruthlessly takes apart. It is good to examine these works and the people who made them.

For example: I think Chaosium did a great job at honoring the origins of the mythos while distancing themselves from the creator in the introduction of newer versions of the Call of Cthulhu roleplaying game. I think that is the right way to approach these things.


----------



## Hussar

Imaculata said:


> It is always a bit of a touchy subject. Can you still enjoy the works of an author/artist/filmmaker when you know they did something terrible, or were a horrible racist?
> 
> I try to seperate the work from the man. I can still enjoy any of Michael Jacksons songs, even though he probably was a creepy pedo. Harry Potter is still a great series of books and movies, despite the fact that Miss Rowling has recently revealed that she has some awful ideas. And I love Lovecraftian horror, despite Lovecraft being the racist that we all know he was. There are dozens of people that are like this; they made something great, but were not-so-great people.




Agreed.  And that's always a personal choice.  But, again, in the specific question of should Lovecraft be included in the list of Inspirational Reading in the PHB, what do you think?


----------



## Imaculata

Hussar said:


> Agreed.  And that's always a personal choice.  But, again, in the specific question of should Lovecraft be included in the list of Inspirational Reading in the PHB, what do you think?




Absolutely, and for those reasons. Separate the work from the man. Lovecraft is still a huge inspiration for dozens of authors. We all know who he was, but we don't have to like the man to appreciate and be inspired by his works.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Agreed.  And that's always a personal choice.  But, again, in the specific question of should Lovecraft be included in the list of Inspirational Reading in the PHB, what do you think?



I don't mind seeing him on a list of people that D&D has drawn from, but I don't think he should be on a list called "inspirational."


----------



## Hussar

Imaculata said:


> Absolutely, and for those reasons. Separate the work from the man. Lovecraft is still a huge inspiration for dozens of authors. We all know who he was, but we don't have to like the man to appreciate and be inspired by his works.




Fair enough.  I find the works are a pretty racist too though.  Again, as I mentioned earlier, it's my children he's talking about in Shadows of Innsmouth.  If we're trying to be more inclusive in the game, maybe not including KKK fanfic in the inspirational reading is a good idea.


----------



## Imaculata

Hussar said:


> Fair enough.  I find the works are a pretty racist too though.  Again, as I mentioned earlier, it's my children he's talking about in Shadows of Innsmouth.  If we're trying to be more inclusive in the game, maybe not including KKK fanfic in the inspirational reading is a good idea.




Same deal with Heinlein. His fascist ideas all over his books, but the books are still considered important in scifi literature.


----------



## Hussar

Imaculata said:


> Same deal with Heinlein. His fascist ideas all over his books, but the books are still considered important in scifi literature.




But Heinlein isn't in Appendix E in the PHB.  Lovecraft is.


----------



## FrogReaver

SehanineMoonbow said:


> This is an argument I have had with people more than once. Somehow, LGBTQ+ automatically equates to porn (which, in D&D, often comes with "I don't want sex and romance in my games", but I've usually only seen this sentiment invoked when we're discussing inclusion.) The inclusion of a gay or nonbinary character or non-straight romance doesn't automatically mean a steamy bedroom scene. It can be handled the same way as a heterosexual romance (that is the "default" of any relationship in fantasy, whether the book is heavy on romance or not) is. Or, if there _is _a steamy bedroom scene, if it's a cis man and woman, no one bats an eye. Make it gay, and suddenly it's porn and "doesn't belong". I've also seen "but the children" arguments, because two men kissing in a children's show is too explicit , even though most children grow up on Disney and have seen dozens of kissing scenes between a man and a woman.




there’s a good portion of the world and even of developed countries that view homosexuality as immoral - at least on some level.

I think it’s easy to see where statements like the one you cites come from when this is taken into account.


----------



## Sadras

Personally I think it is important to know our history. Good and bad.
We don't stick our head in the sand like an ostrich and stop learning about humankind's attrocities.

When ones learns about the 2nd World War one doesn't skip the importance of the Nazi party during that period because of current neo-Nazi rhetoric.


----------



## FrogReaver

Hussar said:


> Now, ask yourself why.
> 
> 
> 
> My issue, primarily, is that the writer, not his work, but the writer himself, is being enshrined in the list of "Inspirational Reading" in the PHB.  Not sure, really, that Lovecraft's works are all that inspirational.  Note, there are tons of derivative works, lacking the rabid racism and bigotry, that deal with the Mythos, whose writers COULD be added to the list of things to read to inspire your D&D game.
> 
> ------
> 
> I just wanted to add another thought here.
> 
> The problem that these threads seem to have, and why @Remathilis mentions having to walk on eggshells is the lack of focus when discussing issues.  @Remathilis mentioned removing all real world mythology from the game.  Why?  Is there a complaint about having Thor in D&D?  I'm not aware of one and, if there is, what is the SPECIFIC complaint?  "It might be offensive" is not the reason to change something.  That's very much not a good enough reason to change anything.  It's too vague, too broad and frankly, meaningless.
> 
> Take the Vistani issue.  There is a very specific issue here - the depiction of Vistani as thieving, lazy, drunkards veers pretty uncomfortably close to the real world depiction of the Romani people, who, for hundreds of years, have gotten the short end of the stick.  Now, does that mean you can never have a Vistani who is a thieving, lazy drunkard?  Nope.  You most certainly can.  What you shouldn't do, though, is have EVERY Vistani be that.  If you depict Vistani, then, well, depict all sorts, good and bad.  It's a pretty easy solution to a specific problem.
> 
> Or, the OA that was mentioned above.  Does this mean we can never have an Asian flavored setting in D&D?  Of course not.  The specific issue with the OA is the whole othering of cultures, fetishization, and the fact that the original OA book, despite purporting to be an "Oriental" book, is 99% Japanese flavored.  A new Asian flavored setting needs to be more even handed, pulling from a broader range of sources, and not pretending that the culture of a billion people in the real world doesn't exist.  Again, adding a disclaimer to the book is a simple and sufficient solution.
> 
> The reason people feel like they have to walk on eggshells is because people are not bringing up specific issues.  No one can deal with broad, vague issues.  It's not possible.  We need to focus on the concrete issues where you can definitively point to this or that in the book and say, "Yes, those words right there, that sentence?  That needs to change."  Otherwise, it's all punching fog and frustration.




I disagree. We need to understand the principles driving the issues and proposed solutions. Only then can we stop punching fog and stop walking on eggshells.  Though by all means throw out as many examples as you want as the more examples you have the more the principles become clear.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Personally I think it is important to know our history. Good and bad.
> We don't stick our head in the sand like an ostrich and stop learning about humankind's attrocities.
> 
> When ones learns about the 2nd World War one doesn't skip the importance of the Nazi party during that period because of current neo-Nazi rhetoric.




But, again, time and place.

Do we put Mein Kampf on Inspirational Reading Lists? 

I'm not sure that "Inspirational Reading for D&D" is the right venue for teaching history.  And, frankly, it's certainly not being used to teach history as it is because the works are being presented as a simple list without commentary.


----------



## Hussar

FrogReaver said:


> I disagree. We need to understand the principles driving the issues and proposed solutions. Only then can we stop punching fog and stop walking on eggshells.  Though by all means throw out as many examples as you want as the more examples you have the more the principles become clear.




By the same token, @FrogReaver, you have repeatedly run into difficulties in these discussions where you are going off on some tangent that is not related to the issues at hand and then complain that you aren't sure what the problem is.

Instead of trying to understand the issues, why not simply fix the problem in front of you and move on?  Otherwise, we waste so much time trying to "understand the driving principles" that we never actually resolve any issues.


----------



## Imaculata

Hussar said:


> But Heinlein isn't in Appendix E in the PHB.  Lovecraft is.




Sure, but what I meant was that there are lots of authors with repulsive ideas. Should we never mention them again, and only mention derivative works?

It is true that their repugnant ideas sometimes make their way into their works in one way or another, but that doesn't mean there isn't stuff in those works worthy of reading. I don't think that mentioning Lovecraft in the PHB as a source of inspiration is a blatant approval of his racism either.



Hussar said:


> But, again, time and place.
> Do we put Mein Kampf on Inspirational Reading Lists?




It is certainly an important work of literature. I don't believe it (or any book) should ever be banned, as that book did. Also, I don't think a book like Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness is equal to some sort of fascist manifesto.


----------



## Aldarc

FrogReaver said:


> there’s a good portion of the world and even of developed countries that view homosexuality as immoral - at least on some level.



I hope you are not hiding any personal bigotry behind an argumentum ad populum in defense of homophobic bigotry. That said, my preference is not to abandon my fellow queers in those nations by giving any credence to what bigots here or in other nations think about queer sexualities.


----------



## Hussar

Imaculata said:


> Sure, but what I meant was that there are lots of authors with repulsive ideas. Should we never mention them again, and only mention derivative works?
> 
> It is true that their repugnant ideas sometimes make their way into their works in one way or another, but that doesn't mean there isn't stuff in those works worthy of reading. I don't think that mentioning Lovecraft in the PHB as a source of inspiration is a blatant approval of his racism either.
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly an important work of literature. I don't believe it (or any book) should ever be banned, as that book did. Also, I don't think a book like Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness is equal to some sort of fascist manifesto.




No, but, again, Shadows of Innsmouth is pretty much on target for telling my children that they are abominations.

But, I agree actually.  Some commentary in the PHB is probably a better way to go.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> But Heinlein isn't in Appendix E in the PHB.  Lovecraft is.



I just looked at the inspirational list, and now I'm wondering what it was that Terry Pratchett inspired.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> I hope you are not hiding any personal bigotry behind an argumentum ad populum in defense of homophobic bigotry.




Can we please refrain from these kinds of statements!


----------



## Imaculata

Hussar said:


> No, but, again, Shadows of Innsmouth is pretty much on target for telling my children that they are abominations.




I had no idea The Shadow over Innsmouth was that awful, because I've never read it. I do know it reflects a lot of Lovecraft's repugnant ideas regarding interracial marriage.


----------



## Wishbone

Swap Lovecraft as an inspirational work with a work that engages with the subtext of cosmic horror in a way that doesn't endorse his views and calls them out for all to see.

Misha Green is adapting _Lovecraft Country _by Matt Ruff into a television series on HBO which is getting rave reviews. It also makes business sense if the show is a hit like when WotC capitalized on _The Lord of the Rings_ movies or _Game of Thrones_ when they dominated the zeitgeist.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> there’s a good portion of the world and even of developed countries that view homosexuality as immoral - at least on some level.



That doesn't mean that we should just blithely accept their bigotry or acquiesce to it.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> there’s a good portion of the world and even of developed countries that view homosexuality as immoral - at least on some level.



That doesn't mean we should just blithely accept or acquiesce to such bigotry.


----------



## FrogReaver

Azzy said:


> That doesn't mean that we should just blithely accept their bigotry or acquiesce to it.




When one has a genuine moral or faith based objection to something that is not bigotry or phobia.

and going back to my point, that alone should be enough to understand where people come from when they say “what about the children”.


----------



## Umbran

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Forgive me for potentially moving the goal posts, but that doesn't really solve the issue I'm thinking of, which is amount of current media (and media that I especially enjoy, so this hits close for me) is inexorably tied to a huge bigot.




If, today, there was an author who was a huge bigot, you could just ignore their work (like, say, we can ignore F.A.T.A.L.).  

But you cannot actually remove history.  You can try to ignore or whitewash it, but you can't actually extract it.  Authors of the past who have been influential have their threads throughout our culture.  They are the _foundation_ of culture, and you can't remove that, any more than you can remove the foundation of a large building and have it still stand.

So, your best bet is to actually own it.  Pick it up, recognize the problems, and either re-contextualize them into assets (like _Lovecraft Country_ does) or at least don't propagate them.



> ... but specific themes (the main one I'm thinking of is the theme of the universe not caring at all about you and your struggles, and how existentially terrifying that is)




Existential horror was hardly his invention.  Heck, we build fires and come around them to tell stories and sing songs because the world out there is cold and dark and hostile and does not care about you.  Pretty much every culture in a temperate climate (and some in more tropical areas) have a holiday somewhere around the winter solstice in which they gather in community, eat food and burn things for warmth and light against the darkness.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> When one has a genuine moral or faith based objection to something that is not bigotry or phobia.




This is an unsupported assertion that cannot be debated under the rules of this forum.


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> I hope you are not hiding any personal bigotry...




*Mod Note:*

And I hope you are not hiding an attempt to cast apsersion on people so that their arguments are dismissed out of hand.  The implication here is not appropriate.  Don't do that again.


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> This is an unsupported assertion that cannot be debated under the rules of this forum.




I like this comment. Can I use it when others bring up something applicable?


----------



## Aldarc

Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> 
> And I hope you are not hiding an attempt to cast apsersion on people so that their arguments are dismissed out of hand.  The implication here is not appropriate.  Don't do that again.



The aspersions on the morality of LGBTQ+ people had already been cast.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FrogReaver said:


> When one has a genuine moral or faith based objection to something that is not bigotry or phobia.
> 
> and going back to my point, that alone should be enough to understand where people come from when they say “what about the children”.





If your morality or faith dismisses someone for what they are, with no regard to them as a person, but as simply a single aspect of them that you don't like.... 

Well, I will note that Religions change all the time over the course of history, and sometimes for very good reasons.


----------



## FrogReaver

Chaosmancer said:


> If your morality or faith dismisses someone for what they are, with no regard to them as a person, but as simply a single aspect of them that you don't like....
> 
> Well, I will note that Religions change all the time over the course of history, and sometimes for very good reasons.




I cannot have this discussion here.  You may private message me though.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> Instead of trying to understand the issues, why not simply fix the problem in front of you and move on?  Otherwise, we waste so much time trying to "understand the driving principles" that we never actually resolve any issues.




It is weird, because... folks have already set forth the basic solution.

Proceed in creation with scholarship, empathy, consideration, and the support of people who know better than you what issues are.  Get members of other cultures involved in your development.  Engage sensitivity readers. For older works, do the same, as time and resources allow.  Add in context for those things that are found to be troublesome.

This is not rocket science or brain surgery.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> When one has a genuine moral or faith based objection to something that is not bigotry or phobia.



The definition of the word bigotry makes to exemptions for those that believe that their bigotry is moral or religiously mandated. Religion and other ideologies have been used as justifications for many immoral things under the guise of "morality", from religious wars, treating other humans as less than human and thus deserving of being bred into slavery, and so on. If I were to do something awful, saying that I'm justified by my religion for doing so won't make it any less awful.


----------



## FrogReaver

Azzy said:


> The definition of the word bigotry makes to exemptions for those that believe that their bigotry is moral or religiously mandated. Religion and other ideologies have been used as justifications for many immoral things under the guise of "morality", from religious wars, treating other humans as less than human and thus deserving of being bred into slavery, and so on. If I were to do something awful, saying that I'm justified by my religion for doing so won't make it any less awful.




As umbran already pointed out, Having this debate is Against the rule.

feel free to pm me though.


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> The aspersions on the morality of LGBTQ+ people had already been cast.




*Mod note:*
_sigh_ 

Don't argue with moderation in-thread.

And, I state recognizing the irony - if you think "eye for an eye" is acceptable here... you are wrong.


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> It is weird, because... folks have already set forth the basic solution.
> 
> Proceed in creation with scholarship, empathy, consideration, and the support of people who know better than you what issues are.  Get members of other cultures involved in your development.  Engage sensitivity readers. For older works, do the same, as time and resources allow.  Add in context for those things that are found to be troublesome.
> 
> This is not rocket science or brain surgery.




maybe it’s the nitty gritty details of that solution that are an issue?


----------



## Wishbone

Umbran said:


> It is weird, because... folks have already set forth the basic solution.
> 
> Proceed in creation with scholarship, empathy, consideration, and the support of people who know better than you what issues are.  Get members of other cultures involved in your development.  Engage sensitivity readers. For older works, do the same, as time and resources allow.  Add in context for those things that are found to be troublesome.
> 
> This is not rocket science or brain surgery.




Once people agree on first principles deciding on how to implement a solution becomes the next hurdle. No less because WotC needs to anticipate what the world might look like when 6E gets released.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Well he introduced it to the world at large, I'd personally argue that's as important, if not more so, than inventing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever had the fear that the people you care about couldn't give a damn about what you think?
> Apply that to a cosmic scale.



But the notion of applying that to a cosmic scale is wholly absurd, to me. I can’t do it. The cosmos at large is an infinite landscape that has nothing at all to do with me.


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> But the notion of applying that to a cosmic scale is wholly absurd, to me. I can’t do it. The cosmos at large is an infinite landscape that has nothing at all to do with me.



I think there's a cultural context to it that you just don't share: Finding out the universe (God, really)  doesn't care about you is only scary if you already thought it (He) did. If you didn't start from that point of view, the whole "horrifying realization" thing falls apart.

Put another way - if you're Jewish, finding out Santa isn't real doesn't hurt as much.


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> But the notion of applying that to a cosmic scale is wholly absurd, to me. I can’t do it. The cosmos at large is an infinite landscape that has nothing at all to do with me.




If someone had previously thought that mankind was the pinnacle of creation, on the one world that really mattered, with an immortal soul that would march on forever if they kept faith... is there anything worse for them than to have their faith shattered by being shown they are less than a mote compared to the gaping universal emptiness around them?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> Does it depend on having believed, or at least thought, there was something more first?
> 
> The last four pages of Watchmen issue 6 feels like they get at it some. "It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or desinty that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." And how that plays out for two different characters.
> 
> Well, I guess the whole series deals with the big questions. "Come... dry your eyes... and let's go home."



I grew up in church. Wanted to be a pastor for quite a while. I am currently a neopagan. 

I really think it’s just something I’ll never understand because it requires an internal foundation that is different in me than in folks who experience that fear. I’ve come across such things before.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> I think there's a cultural context to it that you just don't share: Finding out the universe (God, really)  doesn't care about you is only scary if you already thought it (He) did. If you didn't start from that point of view, the whole "horrifying realization" thing falls apart.
> 
> Put another way - if you're Jewish, finding out Santa isn't real doesn't hurt as much.



It’s possible that on some level I never actually believed what I thought I believed, but that seems less likely than the idea that some fears just don’t work in some people’s heads.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> If someone had previously thought that mankind was the pinnacle of creation, on the one world that really mattered, with an immortal soul that would march on forever if they kept faith... is there anything worse for them than to have their faith shattered by being shown they are less than a mote compared to the gaping universal emptiness around you?



I guess. I guess I just don’t see how the vastness of space even diminishes that human spirit? I mean, the current consensus that we will never achieve warp drives or any other tech that gets around the light speed limitiation of space travel is a pretty hefty gut punch, but scientific consensus ends up wrong all the time.

I am pretty odd, though. Let’s not spend too much time on my odd little tangent. I’m a nihilistic* optimist who believes that gods are real but doesn’t derive meaning from them. It’s prolly just that I’m weird. 

*strictly in the sense of so-called greater meaning. Meaning is very real in a direct human context, but only in that context.


----------



## Wishbone

jmartkdr2 said:


> I think there's a cultural context to it that you just don't share: Finding out the universe (God, really)  doesn't care about you is only scary if you already thought it (He) did. If you didn't start from that point of view, the whole "horrifying realization" thing falls apart.
> 
> Put another way - if you're Jewish, finding out Santa isn't real doesn't hurt as much.




As someone who once inadvertently revealed Santa wasn't real to a few Christian friends in elementary school I appreciate this analogy.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lovecraft's cosmic horror goes further than the notion of an uncaring universe. It is alien and unknowable. Engaging in the futile effort to understand it "stuns the brain" or drives us insane.

The Colour Out of Space:

This was no fruit of such worlds and suns as shine on the telescopes and photographic plates of our observatories. This was no breath from the skies whose motions and dimensions our astronomers measure or deem too vast to measure. It was just a colour out of space—a frightful messenger from unformed realms of infinity beyond all Nature as we know it; from realms whose mere existence stuns the brain and numbs us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes.​​Following the ways of this universe means giving up our "laws and morals".

The Call of Cthulhu:

Mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom.​


----------



## Oofta

Wishbone said:


> As someone who once inadvertently revealed Santa wasn't real to a few Christian friends in elementary school I appreciate this analogy.




People really should use spoiler alerts on stuff like this.  My dream has been crushed!    

The next thing I know you'll be telling me that the Easter Bunny isn't real either!


----------



## MGibster

Hussar said:


> My issue, primarily, is that the writer, not his work, but the writer himself, is being enshrined in the list of "Inspirational Reading" in the PHB.  Not sure, really, that Lovecraft's works are all that inspirational.  Note, there are tons of derivative works, lacking the rabid racism and bigotry, that deal with the Mythos, whose writers COULD be added to the list of things to read to inspire your D&D game.




I understand your problem is with the man rather than his work, but it's rather odd that you doubt his work was inspirational given that you immediately call attention to all the derivative works by other authors that we could use instead of Lovecraft's.  Given that these derivative works wouldn't exist without Lovecraft, it seems self-evident that his work was and continues to be inspirational.


----------



## MGibster

doctorbadwolf said:


> But the notion of applying that to a cosmic scale is wholly absurd, to me. I can’t do it. The cosmos at large is an infinite landscape that has nothing at all to do with me.




It's rather absurd to me as well.  But sometimes it's fun to play a game where the universe works in an absurd way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

FrogReaver said:


> When one has a genuine moral or faith based objection to something that is not bigotry or phobia.




A bigotry wrapped in the cloth of faith is still bigotry.  Phobias in religious raiment are still phobias.

Part of the reason why slavery and white supremacy have the particular character and longevity that they do in the USA is tied up in certain strands of Christian “theology” that are _mostly_ rejected in modern religious scholarship.

Faith/morality-based bigotry is a huge chunk of why we had to have the _Loving _case to allow mixed-race marriage. It’s why inhabitants of US territories and protectorates are considered natural US citizens BUT don't have the full suite of rights as those born in the US itself...or abroad. (Weird, that kids born on German, Japanese or other sovereign nations’ soil have more rights than Puerto Ricans or the inhabitants of the US Virgin Islands, Guam or American Samoa.)

Hell...we’re even exporting it:








						Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push (Published 2010)
					

Human rights advocates say that three U.S. evangelicals helped set the stage for a bill to execute homosexuals.




					www.nytimes.com
				




And Christianity isn’t unique in this- distortions of the teachings of other faiths have been used to justify all kinds of evil, up to and including genocide.


----------



## MGibster

Maxperson said:


> I don't mind seeing him on a list of people that D&D has drawn from, but I don't think he should be on a list called "inspirational."




Why not?  It seems quite clear that Lovecraft inspired the creative work of many other artists.  That's what inspirational means.


----------



## Cadence

MGibster said:


> Why not?  It seems quite clear that Lovecraft inspired the creative work of many other artists.  That's what inspirational means.




Does a  list of inspirational church songs contain songs to inspire the person who will sing them? It would be odd if they were somehow songs that helped create the religion.

I can see someone seeing the name and thinking it was books to inspire them (until they read the paragraph explaining it).


----------



## Wishbone

Cadence said:


> A list of inspirational church songs are songs to inspire the person who sang them, they didn't inspire the religion.
> 
> I can see someone seeing the name and thinking it was to inspire them (until they read the paragraph explaining it).




Yeah, perhaps calling his work "foundational" or "influential" rather than "inspirational" clarifies things on Lovecraft and his influence.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> maybe it’s the nitty gritty details of that solution that are an issue?




It seems more to me like discomfort in uncertainty is an issue.

If you are seeking some foolproof set of things that can and cannot be included in game materials, with resulting absolute certainty that you'll be "safe" from criticism - you're just out of luck.  That's not how people work.  Seeking absolutes in the realm of human communications is not a reasonable endeavor.  you're selling into markets with millions of people in them - satisfying _ALL OF THEM_ with one product is not a reasonable goal.

We have a set of tools and processes content creators can use to make their products better.  Are they perfect?  No.  Are they 100% certain to yield results that nobody can find fault with?  No.  

Are they pretty likely to produce a product that won't raise a general furor over their content?  YES!  Will they keep content creators from being creative?  NO! 

Will they keep content creators from putting for their particular personal messages and ideas?  If those messages are dumb racist, homophobic, and/or misogynist twaddle?  Yes!  Otherwise?  NO!

In your product, you can list your research sources.  You can give credit to your Cultural Consultants and Sensitivity Readers just like your writers, designers, artists, and editors.  You can make it clear that you at least tried to do the right thing.  But, you actually have to try.


----------



## Azzy

MGibster said:


> Why not?  It seems quite clear that Lovecraft inspired the creative work of many other artists.  That's what inspirational means.



The fallacy here, is that we're not discussing a list of authors that have inspired other artists—we're discussing what works of fiction that players and DMs should seek as inspiration for their games. An author that includes racist, anti-Semitic, and other bigoted and xenophobic ideologies in his works isn't one we should tell people to look at for inspiration.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A bigotry wrapped in the cloth of faith is still bigotry.  Phobias in religious raiment are still phobias.
> 
> Part of the reason why slavery and white supremacy have the particular character and longevity that they do in the USA is tied up in certain strands of Christian “theology” that are _mostly_ rejected in modern religious scholarship.
> 
> Faith/morality-based bigotry is a huge chunk of why we had to have the _Loving _case to allow mixed-race marriage. It’s why inhabitants of US territories and protectorates are considered natural US citizens BUT don't have the full suite of rights as those born in the US itself...or abroad. (Weird, that kids born in German, Japanese or other sovereign nations’ soil have more rights than Puerto Ricans or the inhabitants of the US Virgin Islands, Guam or American Samoa.)
> 
> And Christianity isn’t unique in this- distortions of the teachings of other faiths have been used to justify all kinds of evil, up to and including genocide.




Agreed. I actually like the idea of religion--I think having a spirituality can be meaningful--and I have enjoyed studying Shinto and Japanese Buddhism (also one of the reasons I am a fan of D&D gods). So I don't think religion itself is the issue. The issue is the distortions of it, as you have said, taking things out of context and ignoring the history around the original text (some cultures that today view homosexuality as immoral, for example, historically did not), and using it to justify actions. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how you color it. We don't justify religious violence--we shouldn't with bigotry, either. 

But it sounds like this may be veering off into slippery territory, so I'll leave it at that. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> I really like when D&D settings make some of the gods Queer. Like, gender fluid Corellon is cool, but Erathis and Melora are lovers in one of the podcast D&D worlds (Exandria, I think?) which is rad as hell.
> 
> In one world I’m working on, Kord is gay, and has been the lover of many of the gods, and has an especially storied relationship with the as yet unnamed androgynous/Non-Binary god of Magic, Secrets, Thieves, Good Assassins, and Crows, who often presents as petite butch pixie who will stab you. (They’re one of the Gods of Revolution, who folks seek out when they are being oppressed and need to overcome that. They’re specifically the patron of knifing your oppressors in dark alleyways and taking their stuff.




This is awesome. I do believe it is indeed Exandrai that has Erathis and Melora as lovers.  And yup, Corellon being genderfluid (and really all the Seldarine are depicted this way, Corellon is just best known for it) has been canonical for a long time. In the source book _Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves,_ for example, describes the city as having statues of the Seldarine in both their male and female forms, as the elves can't understand why they would only be gender. This kind of representation speaks both to genderfluidity and homosexuality, as the gods could have relationships with one another (Sehanine and Corellon are often portrayed as lovers, and Sehanine is known to take on male form at times) while being of the same gender.


----------



## FrogReaver

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A bigotry wrapped in the cloth of faith is still bigotry.  Phobias in religious raiment are still phobias.




As Umbran recently put it: 

This is an unsupported assertion that cannot be debated under the rules of this forum.


----------



## Aldarc

FrogReaver said:


> As Umbran recently put it:
> 
> *This is an unsupported assertion* that cannot be debated under the rules of this forum.



You mean apart from the fact that he supported his assertion with historical evidence?


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

FrogReaver said:


> As Umbran recently put it:
> 
> This is an unsupported assertion that cannot be debated under the rules of this forum.



wait what how.

Bigotry is Bigotry.


----------



## FrogReaver

Aldarc said:


> You mean apart from the fact that he supported his assertion with historical evidence?




none of what was support of that assertion.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> As Umbran recently put it:
> 
> This is an unsupported assertion that cannot be debated under the rules of this forum.



While it's _possible _that your position cannot be stated under the rules of this forum, the (very well supported) assertion that bigotry doesn't become less bigoted just because one makes it part of one's faith certainly can be debated. I mean, it's an odd thing to want to debate, but you can do so.


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> While it's _possible _that your position cannot be stated under the rules of this forum, the (very well supported) assertion that bigotry doesn't become less bigoted just because one makes it part of one's faith certainly can be debated. I mean, it's an odd thing to want to debate, but you can do so.




not according to umbran


----------



## Ancalagon

I will say it before and I will say it again.

Dwarves having different bonuses than humans is a PROFOUNDLY ANTI RACIST STATEMENT.

In D&D humans are _all the same_.  Your ethnicity doesn't matter, game stat wise.  I don't know if that was the intent, but that's what the rules are.

Race is a social construct.  It has no scientific basis.  This is reflected by the D&D rules.    The big mistakes was calling elves, dwarves etc "races".  They aren't different races, they are different *species.* 

"But Ancalagon, that can't be because elves and humans can have babies!!!"

Nope.  Polar bears and grizzly bears can have babies too, but they still are different species.  

So that is what I would say.  Change the word "race" to "species".   (there are other changes needed of course).


----------



## Aldarc

FrogReaver said:


> none of what was support of that assertion.



He listed at least two actual positions of bigotry in US history that was concretely supported by Christian theological justifications. You can’t just claim that it was an unsupported assertion just because the actual historical evidence contradicts your thesis.


----------



## Wishbone

Reviewing my _Dungeon Master's Guide_ one thing glaringly jumps out at me that can and should be improved on for any new edition—this whole thing is out of order! It reads more like a how-to-manual for designing a setting rather than a run-through of how to actually DM the game.

Running the Game shouldn't be way back in Chapter 8, but in Chapter 1 since it puts the rules at the forefront and further highlights the value of inclusivity and mutual respect among people at the table. Hiding the rules that far back when they're likely to be the most commonly referenced thing in the book is just poor design work.


----------



## FrogReaver

Aldarc said:


> He listed at least two actual positions of bigotry in US history that was concretely supported by Christian theological justifications. You can’t just claim that it was an unsupported assertion just because the actual historical evidence contradicts your thesis.




when the evidence cited doesn’t actually support the position he’s taking I can.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Ancalagon said:


> I will say it before and I will say it again.
> 
> Dwarves having different bonuses than humans is a PROFOUNDLY ANTI RACIST STATEMENT.
> 
> In D&D humans are _all the same_.  Your ethnicity doesn't matter, game stat wise.  I don't know if that was the intent, but that's what the rules are.
> 
> Race is a social construct.  It has no scientific basis.  This is reflected by the D&D rules.    The big mistakes was calling elves, dwarves etc "races".  They aren't different races, they are different *species.*
> 
> "But Ancalagon, that can't be because elves and humans can have babies!!!"
> 
> Nope.  Polar bears and grizzly bears can have babies too, but they still are different species.
> 
> So that is what I would say.  Change the word "race" to "species".   (there are other changes needed of course).



The analogy I'd use (and have used) is comparing the different races in D&D to breeds of dog. They are all the same basic thing (dogs/humanoids) and can generally interbreed and produce new things, but they still are profoundly different in many ways. Enough to reasonably separate them and have it not feel arbitrary and bigoted.


----------



## FrogReaver

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The analogy I'd use (and have used) is comparing the different races in D&D to breeds of dog. They are all the same basic thing (dogs/humanoids) and can generally interbreed and produce new things, but they still are profoundly different in many ways. Enough to reasonably separate them and have it not feel arbitrary and bigoted.




good analogy. However...

I’m waiting for someone to come in and speak with some righteous indignation about how you just compared humans to dogs.


----------



## Umbran

Wishbone said:


> Once people agree on first principles deciding on how to implement a solution becomes the next hurdle.




And... isn't the job of third parties not actually involved in the content creation.  

We, as consumers, get to look at the final result, and decide if we like what we see.  However, we don't generally get to dictate the detailed production process, any more than a player of Overwatch gets to dictate the details of the software development process.


----------



## Aldarc

FrogReaver said:


> when the evidence cited doesn’t actually support the position he’s taking I can.



How does the historical evidence DannyAlcatraz cited not support the position he is taking?


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

I actually just read an article about what word fans think "race" should be replaced with. Species is one, along with words like folk or kin. I kind of like the sound "folk" has to it. Elf folk (they're often called the Fair Folk, anyway), dwarven folk, halfling folk, etc. This gets rid of "race", but, to me anyway, still invokes a sense of uniqueness and culture for each, well, folk.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

FrogReaver said:


> good analogy. However...
> 
> I’m waiting for someone to come in and speak with some righteous indignation about how you just compared humans to dogs.



Well, 1: I'm pretty sure literally nobody was thinking that except for you. and 2: Dogs are factually better than humans, so I don't know why someone _wouldn't_ want to be compared to them.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The analogy I'd use (and have used) is comparing the different races in D&D to breeds of dog. They are all the same basic thing (dogs/humanoids) and can generally interbreed and produce new things, but they still are profoundly different in many ways. Enough to reasonably separate them and have it not feel arbitrary and bigoted.




What I keep coming back to is that the bonuses in the book are for Player Characters, and that those are meant to be exceptional people anyways. So being more exceptional by being a strong elf doesn't really mean anything. 

I mean, I spent a good week debating with someone whose position was that the +2 mod was meant to shift the distribution curve of the 3d6 rolled stats, giving a slightly higher average to those races, which was picked before the person rolled their stats in order. 

Well, that isn't how DnD is generally played anymore, so since we have options to pick and choose our numbers instead of 3d6 in order, why don't we extend that to the racial ASI's? It will open up more concepts and potential characters, removing a barrier from people by expressing that it really is more important what someone has done than how they were born.


----------



## FrogReaver

Aldarc said:


> How does the historical evidence DannyAlcatraz cited not support the position he is taking?




As umbran previously stated. That assertion can not be further debated under the rules.

I would appreciate it if you stopped asking me questions that by answering would cause me to break the rules.


----------



## Wishbone

Umbran said:


> And... isn't the job of third parties not actually involved in the content creation.
> 
> We, as consumers, get to look at the final result, and decide if we like what we see.  However, we don't generally get to dictate the detailed production process, any more than a player of Overwatch gets to dictate the details of the software development process.




Sure, I'm not literally saying hand the reigns of product development over to the fandom. I think that's a bad idea, but the premise of this thread is feedback and suggestion from those of us who aren't decision makers.

Hence why the organization of the physical product in the DMG was something I brought up, because if we don't articulate the things that get in the way of us enjoying the game it becomes harder for the content creators to shape a product to anticipate the needs of the consumer base or even expand it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> As umbran previously stated. That assertion can not be further debated under the rules.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you stopped asking me questions that by answering would cause me to break the rules.



You made it an issue.


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> You made it an issue.




i disagree but I don’t think we can really debate that either.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Chaosmancer said:


> What I keep coming back to is that the bonuses in the book are for Player Characters, and that those are meant to be exceptional people anyways. So being more exceptional by being a strong elf doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> I mean, I spent a good week debating with someone whose position was that the +2 mod was meant to shift the distribution curve of the 3d6 rolled stats, giving a slightly higher average to those races, which was picked before the person rolled their stats in order.
> 
> Well, that isn't how DnD is generally played anymore, so since we have options to pick and choose our numbers instead of 3d6 in order, why don't we extend that to the racial ASI's? It will open up more concepts and potential characters, removing a barrier from people by expressing that it really is more important what someone has done than how they were born.



I mean, there's also that one table in the DMG about modifying NPC's to be certain races, and all of those have pluses to their stats (in addition to the normal racial features) so I don't think, in this case, the PC's being special is why they get those pluses.


----------



## Aldarc

FrogReaver said:


> i disagree but I don’t think we can really debate that either.



If you truly believe this, then I would strongly advise that in the future that you refrain from making drive-by “unsupported assertions” of your own regarding bigotry and then retreating behind mod comments when people actually challenge your assertions.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Impressed by the chutzpah of someone who, in a thread about making D&D more inclusive, and marked positive comments only, decides that this is the perfect moment to defend homophobia.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I mean, there's also that one table in the DMG about modifying NPC's to be certain races, and all of those have pluses to their stats (in addition to the normal racial features) so I don't think, in this case, the PC's being special is why they get those pluses.




Sure, but that is an optional DMG rule, compared to the stats which are front and center in the PHB. For player use. 

It really comes back to, how often do you actually bother to stat out an NPC? Do you bother to do the math to know how strong the butcher has to be to be able to lift that pig carcass he is putting into the cart? Or do you just assume that he is capable of doing it? Or how strong the hunter has to be to bring the stag they shot back to the settlement, along with how dexterous because they needed to kill it with a single shot with a longbow, and that isn't actually easy to do? 


So, with the idea that we generally don't bother with NPCs stats, we can look towards only PCs. And when we do we can quite quickly realize that there is little to no reason to prevent people from building characters which are equally effective, despite being different (race/species/kith/ect)


----------



## FrogReaver

Aldarc said:


> If you truly believe this, then I would strongly advise that in the future that you refrain from making drive-by “unsupported assertions” of your own regarding bigotry and then retreating behind mod comments when people actually challenge your assertions.




If you have the Privilege to assert something here then I believe I have the privilege to disagree, providing that what I say isn’t in support of racism or breaking some other rule.

So while We can disagree about whether something is X, the rules of the forum often prevent us from elaborating about why. 

so if you would like my assertions to stop I believe there are two outlets

1.  Report my post and let the mod decide if it’s against the rules.
2.  Stop asserting things that you know I will both disagree with and be incapable of defending due to forum rules.

Trust me. I don’t hide behind mod comments. I would love nothing more than to freely state my opinion, but I respect the mod comments and will not disregard them

I’ve even offered to take our disagreements to pm where I can be more open.


----------



## FrogReaver

Doug McCrae said:


> Impressed by the chutzpah of someone who, in a thread about making D&D more inclusive, and marked positive comments only, decides that this is the perfect moment to defend homophobia.




IMO. Calling others homophobes is not positive.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

FrogReaver said:


> IMO. Calling others homophobes is not positive.



Properly identifying the negative elements is a necessary step in building a positive environment.


----------



## FrogReaver

Crimson Longinus said:


> Properly identifying the negative elements is a necessary step in building a positive environment.




maybe it would be more inclusive to not use pejoratives when identifying negative elements?


----------



## MGibster

Cadence said:


> Does a  list of inspirational church songs contain songs to inspire the person who will sing them? It would be odd if they were somehow songs that helped create the religion.
> 
> I can see someone seeing the name and thinking it was books to inspire them (until they read the paragraph explaining it).




I don't know what this means.  I've read it several times but I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

FrogReaver said:


> maybe it would be more inclusive to not use pejoratives when identifying negative elements?



It was a descriptive term with clear meaning. Furthermore,  inclusivity logically cannot encompass the inclusion of bigots.


----------



## Wishbone

MGibster said:


> I don't know what this means.  I've read it several times but I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make.






Wishbone said:


> Yeah, perhaps calling his work "foundational" or "influential" rather than "inspirational" clarifies things on Lovecraft and his influence.




I understood Cadence was saying it would be better to replace inspirational with by a more apt word like influential or foundational to avoid the potential confusion Cadence mentioned.


----------



## MGibster

Wishbone said:


> I understood Cadence was saying it would be better to replace inspirational with by a more apt word like influential or foundational to avoid the potential confusion Cadence mentioned.




I didn't think it was unclear to begin with.  These are works we think will serve as inspiration for your own games because they inspired us.


----------



## FrogReaver

Crimson Longinus said:


> It was an a descriptive term with clear meaning.




so are most pejorative terms. That doesn’t mean you should use them in a discussion on inclusivity. The term anti-homosexual would be more accurate. Homophobe is a slur that isn’t actually factually true of most that have it applied to them.



> Furthermore,  inclusivity logically cannot encompass the inclusion of bigots.




that’s another discussion I don’t think we can actually have here.  I’m open to discussing that in pm though.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> assertion that bigotry doesn't become less bigoted just because one makes it part of one's faith certainly can be debated.




*Mod Note:*
Let me be clear - in a general sense, two thinking beings can debate this point.

However, doing so requires going into the particulars of faith systems - and that we cannot do on this site.  That's real-world religion, and we will not be allowing that.  

I hope that is clear.  If folks cannot drop this, they will be removed from the conversation.  It is time to move on to another point.


----------



## Cadence

MGibster said:


> I didn't think it was unclear to begin with.  These are works we think will serve as inspiration for your own games because they inspired us.




Something could be called inspirational because it had inspired the game (the current Appendix) or because it is suggested as reading to inspire others coming to the game.  Racist laden authors and works might have done the former, but be bad for the later.  If someone asks for something inspirational to read to get in the spirit of the game, and the PhB hands them racism or misogyny ... that seems sub-optimal. If they asked for historical sources, it feels different to do so.


----------



## MGibster

Cadence said:


> Something could be called inspirational because it had inspired the game (the current Appendix) or because it is suggested as reading to inspire others coming to the game.  Racist laden authors and works might have done the former, but be bad for the later.  If someone asks for something inspirational to read to get in the spirit of the game, and the PhB hands them racism or misogyny ... that seems sub-optimal. If they asked for historical sources, it feels different to do so.




Fair enough.  But however inspirational is viewed, I don't think this will satisfy those who wish to purge Lovecraft's name from gaming material.


----------



## FrogReaver

Cadence said:


> Something could be called inspirational because it had inspired the game (the current Appendix) or because it is suggested as reading to inspire others coming to the game.  Racist laden authors and works might have done the former, but be bad for the later.  If someone asks for something inspirational to read to get in the spirit of the game, and the PhB hands them racism or misogyny ... that seems sub-optimal. If they asked for historical sources, it feels different to do so.




Yea. I think the path to go is to use a different term there.  I don’t know that it ever has happened or ever will but it’s something I can see the potential in and is easy to avert.


----------



## FrogReaver

MGibster said:


> Fair enough.  But however inspirational is viewed, I don't think this will satisfy those who wish to purge Lovecraft's name from gaming material.




maybe the goal should be to give them less ammunition.


----------



## Cadence

MGibster said:


> Fair enough.  But however inspirational is viewed, I don't think this will satisfy those who wish to purge Lovecraft's name from gaming material.




I wonder if two lists would do it. One that is works key to the games origin, and one of the designers favorites they would recommend to be players.

For the key books, each could even have a sentence saying what it inspired (halflings, the magic system, barbarians, cosmic horror, thieves, whatever).  It could also have a note at the top saying that books from 50+ years ago contain racism and misogyny and bigotry that we wouldn't expect to read in a modern book, and folks searching them out should probably read reviews before picking them up.

Presumably the recommended favorites list would have been screened for that already.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> IMO. Calling others homophobes is not positive.



Not everything can be positive. Life isn't a pretty painting. 

People who hate, disparage, discriminate against, or contribute to the marginalisation of, Queer people, are homophobes. Simple as that.


----------



## MGibster

FrogReaver said:


> so are most pejorative terms. That doesn’t mean you should use them in a discussion on inclusivity. The term anti-homosexual would be more accurate. Homophobe is a slur that isn’t actually factually true of most that have it applied to them.




Someone who is anti-homosexual is a homophobe.  Sure, I suppose technically this person doesn't have a fear of homosexuals.  But so far as the definition of homophobe goes, that ship sailed a long time ago and we all understand what it means.


----------



## FrogReaver

MGibster said:


> Someone who is anti-homosexual is a homophobe.  Sure, I suppose technically this person doesn't have a fear of homosexuals.  But so far as the definition of homophobe goes, that ship sailed a long time ago and we all understand what it means.




maybe ask those being called that if they dislike being called that?


----------



## MGibster

FrogReaver said:


> maybe ask those being called that if they dislike being called that?




I'm not particularly concerned about their feelings in regards to having their bigotry called out.  If they don't like being called a homophobe then it's probably best that they reevaluate their anti-homosexual lifestyle.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

FrogReaver said:


> maybe ask those being called that if they dislike being called that?



I'll be honest.

I kinda... don't care about how homophobes feel about being called homophobes. There's a very simple way to stop being called a homophobe, and that is _to stop acting like a homophobe_.


----------



## FrogReaver

MGibster said:


> I'm not particularly concerned about their feelings in regards to having their bigotry called out.  If they don't like being called a homophobe then it's probably best that they reevaluate their anti-homosexual lifestyle.




that’s soo inclusive of you


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

FrogReaver said:


> that’s soo inclusive of you








						Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Doug McCrae

Cadence said:


> Something could be called inspirational because it had inspired the game (the current Appendix) or because it is suggested as reading to inspire others coming to the game.



Appendix N in the 1e DMG is both. It's an incomplete list of the works that inspired D&D and a recommended reading list for DMs.

1e DMG: "The following authors were of particular inspiration to me... From such sources, as well as just about any other imaginative writing or screenplay you will be able to pluck kernels from which grow the fruits of exciting campaigns."

Appendix E in the 5e PHB also appears to be both, while Appendix D in the 5e DMG is the latter - recommended reading.

5e PHB: "The following list includes Gary's original list and some additional works that have inspired the game's designers in the years since."
5e DMG: "Here are several inspiring works that can help you become a better storyteller, writer, performer, and mapmaker... For more inspirational reading, see appendix E of the Player's Handbook."


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

So anti-homosexuals/homophobes or racists should be allowed in safe spaces for LGBTQ+ or PoC because doing so is "inclusive"? Being a bigot is a personal choice--a mindset, which a person can work on changing. Race, sexual orientation and gender identity are not choices.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> that’s soo inclusive of you




*Mod Note:*

A little while ago, you were the one who brought up religion.  We didn't ding you for that.

This suggestion that we must tolerate bigotry does not fly.  Added to the rest, you're done in this thread.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Okay. Everyone, I'm the person who started the thread in case you hadn't noticed.

I've been gone for awhile, and the thread has grown 6 pages longer since my last post. That's fine, and it's taken me quite a bit of time to catch up. 

Stop the homophobia debate. Just stop. This isn't constructive, and doesn't help anything in this thread. 

Also, here's a general rule that can be applied to most situations:
We don't have to be inclusive to people who don't want to include others, no matter their excuse. So many of the other threads had arguments going on about this, but at the bottom line, you don't have to include racists, homophobes, bigots, or any other group of people whose purpose is to not include others. 

Furthermore, if you're told what the topic of the discussion is about, and you're told by the moderators that a tangent to the thread isn't supposed to be discussed for whatever reason, stop talking about it. Keep the discussion on topic. Frankly, I was disappointed that the 6 pages that didn't give much progress to what the discussion is about. The Lovecraft discussion is fine, but I don't want it to go in circles like it did in the other thread. The Appendix discussion, and whether or not we should include the names of authors and creators who were bigoted is a valid discussion, but please keep it constructive (it has been mostly here so far).


----------



## Aldarc

Are there perhaps more positive (and familiar) figures who have used the Cthulhu mythos without the same problematic undertones of Lovecraft who would be worth including in a list of fiction?


----------



## SehanineMoonbow

Aldarc said:


> Are there perhaps more positive (and familiar) figures who have used the Cthulhu mythos without the same problematic undertones of Lovecraft who would be worth including in a list of fiction?




Actually, there is an male/male romance series that was inspired by Cthulhu: the _Whyborne & Griffin _series by Jordan L Hawk. It's really good, imho.


----------



## Haldrik

Because Lovecraft is a reallife white supremacist, I prefer RPGs distance themselves away from his fiction.

One thing all fascists and other autocrats have in common is a pessimistic view of humanity.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Haldrik said:


> Because Lovecraft is a reallife white supremacist, I prefer RPGs distance themselves away from his fiction.
> 
> One thing all fascists and other autocrats have in common is a pessimistic view of humanity.



So does that mean that all pessimistic views of humanity are inherently fascist?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So does that mean that all pessimistic views of humanity are inherently fascist?



Absolutely not. I'm pessimistic (especially during this pandemic), but definitely not fascist.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

SehanineMoonbow said:


> Actually, there is an male/male romance series that was inspired by Cthulhu: the _Whyborne & Griffin _series by Jordan L Hawk. It's really good, imho.



Gaiman’s A Study In Emerald is really good.


----------



## Haldrik

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So does that mean that all pessimistic views of humanity are inherently fascist?



Some works are clearly a warning, so as to avoid a dystopia.

By contrast, Lovecraft embraces dehumanization and totalitarianism.

In reallife, Lovecraft obsesses about white supremacism and advocates for German N*zism.

Compare Magic The Gathering that officially deleted cards because of even an unintentional confluence of such tropes.


----------



## Cadence

Aldarc said:


> Are there perhaps more positive (and familiar) figures who have used the Cthulhu mythos without the same problematic undertones of Lovecraft who would be worth including in a list of fiction?





Thread asking for other cosmic horror suggestions...
Best Weird Fiction & Cosmic/Eldritch Horror (without H.P.) ?


----------



## Maxperson

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



And yet American society has been pretty tolerant of intolerance up until about 10 years ago with zero movement towards being destroyed by the intolerant.  In fact, the intolerant were marginalized and made virtually irrelevant up until about 4 years ago when the intolerance of the intolerant hit a new high and invigorated the intolerant.

I don't buy the premise of that paradox.  

I in no way support intolerance and think we should move to marginalize it again so that it's back to being less than it is today.


----------



## Haldrik

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I'll be honest.
> 
> I kinda... don't care about how homophobes feel about being called homophobes. There's a very simple way to stop being called a homophobe, and that is _to stop acting like a homophobe_.



Yes to debate.

No to hate.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> And yet American society has been pretty tolerant of intolerance up until about 10 years ago with zero movement towards being destroyed by the intolerant.




Except for the war fought because of it in the 1860s?  Or the lawfully elected legislatures murdered en masse in several states in the 1870s by the racists?  Or the presidential election that almost went out of control and was saved by formally letting the south be officially racist for another 60 years? (The north just did it unofficially).  Or the rise of the Dixiecrats and the fight for civil rights from the 1940s to 1960s with the assassinations and brutally suppressed peaceful protests and the riots?


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> Except for the war fought about it in the 1860s?  Or the lawfully elected legislatures murdered en masse in several states in the 1870s by the racists?  Or the presidential election that almost went out of control and was saved by formally letting the south be officially racist for another 60 years? (The north just did it unofficially).  Or the rise of the Dixiecrats and the fight for civil rights from the 1940s to 1960s with the assassinations and brutally suppressed peaceful protests and the riots?



There's a big difference between engaging in physical acts of intolerance and verbal ones.  Physical acts.  Vandalism, assaults, murders, slavery, etc. should be vigorously opposed and those engaging in them punished.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Maxperson said:


> There's a big difference between engaging in physical acts of intolerance and verbal ones.  Physical acts.  Vandalism, assaults, murders, slavery, etc. should be vigorously opposed and those engaging in them punished.



and by allowing those verbal acts, you radicalize people into making physical ones.


----------



## Maxperson

FlyingChihuahua said:


> and by allowing those verbal acts, you radicalize people into making physical ones.



History doesn't really show that, though.  You get the rare crazy who flips out and bombs some place or kills someone, but the vast majority of the bigots out there just talk a lot and get shouted down by more enlightened people.


----------



## Wishbone

Maxperson said:


> the vast majority of the bigots out there just talk a lot and get shouted down by more enlightened people.




Gonna have to disagree with you on that. Bigotry doesn't have to lead to outright physical violence to inflict harm.

It doesn't take that many bigots to get a platform and cause material harm to the people they are against or even the people they claim to be for. Redlining, disparities in public health, and lack of access to capital aren't problems that just started in the last 10 years after all.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Maxperson said:


> History doesn't really show that, though.  You get the rare crazy who flips out and bombs some place or kills someone, but the vast majority of the bigots out there just talk a lot and get shouted down by more enlightened people.



one place being bombed or one person being killed because they like hotdogs instead of tacos or vice versa is about 789,278,897,990 times too many.


----------



## Maxperson

FlyingChihuahua said:


> one place being bombed or one person being killed because they like hotdogs instead of tacos or vice versa is about 789,278,897,990 times too many.



Benevolent dictators and oppressors throughout history have used the same line to justify their oppression.  Punish the ones who break the laws by committing violence as is appropriate.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> There's a big difference between engaging in physical acts of intolerance and verbal ones.  Physical acts.  Vandalism, ass





Maxperson said:


> There's a big difference between engaging in physical acts of intolerance and verbal ones.  Physical acts.  Vandalism, assaults, murders, slavery, etc. should be vigorously opposed and those engaging in them punished.




There are still many people alive today who were fighting for their own civil rights in the 60s or saw their parents fighting for it. There are people alive who went through the Nazi death camps or had parents who did.  Most adults were around when gay sex between consenting adults was criminal in a score of states.  Marital rape was legal in every state during my lifetime.

The speech of people who want to support racism, misogyny, and bigotry is protected from government interference.  It isn't protected from legal actions by the public.  I would hope all those for evil convert their views to be accepting. I'll take them dying cold and alone in misery as a distant second choice.


----------



## Wishbone

Maxperson said:


> Benevolent dictators and oppressors throughout history have used the same line to justify their oppression.  Punish the ones who break the laws by committing violence as is appropriate.




Still, it seems a bit defeatist to throw up your hands and say nothing can be done when witnessing suffering in the world.


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> There are still many people alive today who were fighting for their own civil rights in the 60s or saw their parents fighting for it. There are people alive who went through the Nazi death camps or had parents who did.  Most adults were around when gay sex between consenting adults was criminal and a score of states.  Marital rape was legal in every state during my lifetime.
> 
> The speech of people who want to support such things is protected from government interference.  It isn't protected from legal action by the public.  I would hope they all convert their views to be accepting. I'll take them dying cold and alone in misery as a distant second choice.



Yes, and that speech should be protected.  And laws that are wrong should be resisted.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


----------



## Maxperson

Wishbone said:


> Still, it seems a bit defeatist to throw up your hands and say nothing can be done when witnessing suffering in the world.



I'm not saying nothing should be done.  When the intolerant gather, those that oppose them gather and use their own words to resist.  Intolerant words should be resisted with better words and by better example.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> I'm not saying nothing should be done.  When the intolerant gather, those that oppose them gather and use their own words to resist.  Intolerant words should be resisted with better words and by better example.




Fair.

Or, say, by showing them the door from one's own property or business or social circle or message board, if they continue to demonstrate defense of racism, bigotry, and misogyny.  Because they have no right to impose themselves in the privates spaces of those they hate. And those who have been historically oppressed shouldn't have to deal with it anymore.


----------



## Wishbone

Maxperson said:


> I'm not saying nothing should be done.  When the intolerant gather, those that oppose them gather and use their own words to resist.  Intolerant words should be resisted with better words and by better example.




I guess I'm unclear on your point here. Why did public intolerance only became a problem in the last 10 years?


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> Fair.
> 
> Or, say, by showing them the door from one's own property or business or social circle or message board, if they continue to demonstrate defense of racism, bigotry, and misogyny.  Because they have no right to impose themselves in the privates spaces of those they hate. And those who have been historically oppressed shouldn't have to deal with it anymore.



If someone should do that, sure.  I haven't seen anyone here defend those things, though.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> If someone should do that, sure.  I haven't seen anyone here defend those things, though.




I'm guessing if anyone here had done it blatantly the mods would have nuked them pretty quickly. 


Edit:misread it the first time.


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> I'm guessing if anyone here had done it blatantly the mods would have nuked them pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> Edit:misread it the first time.



Absolutely.  I don't think anyone has done it subtly, either. 

Now I'm wondering what you said the first time!  That edit has me curious.


----------



## Mistwell

Wishbone said:


> I guess I'm unclear on your point here. Why did public intolerance only became a problem in the last 10 years?




I think it's that our prevailing cultural orthodoxy on the philosophical approach to intolerance changed in this past decade. In recent years, people have become fans of Karl Popper's 1945 treatise on the paradox of tolerance.  Prior to that, the prevailing cultural consensus was the marketplace of ideas as advocated by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and John Milton. 

I am more of a Mill's and Milton fan than a Popper fan in approaching the topic.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Mistwell said:


> I think it's that our prevailing cultural orthodoxy on the philosophical approach to intolerance changed in this past decade. In recent years, people have become fans of Karl Popper's 1945 treatise on the paradox of tolerance.  Prior to that, the prevailing cultural consensus was the marketplace of ideas as advocated by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and John Milton.



For a reason, I might add.

It has been proven that challenging people's deeply held beliefs only causes those to grow stronger.


----------



## DnD Warlord

I am way behind but I will say I would like more 4E in 6e... the ability to attack with different stats, martial abilities that rival spells at every tier, and damage on a miss like half damage saves...


----------



## DnD Warlord

Sounds similar to SW SAGA. If well done, I could get behind that - but it wouldn't be D&D. Sounds fun, though.
[/QUOTE]
Imagine if every class got.  Combat feats and non combat talents... you got a generic list then each class got its own list... cantrips (at will spells) can be either (chill touch is a combat feat but presdadigatation is a non combat talent)


----------



## Maxperson

FlyingChihuahua said:


> For a reason, I might add.
> 
> It has been proven that challenging people's deeply held beliefs only causes those to grow stronger.



I wish people understood that.  These bigoted groups have swelled in size, activity and strength in the last 10 years due to the switch in tactics.


----------



## Mistwell

FlyingChihuahua said:


> For a reason, I might add.
> 
> It has been proven that challenging people's deeply held beliefs only causes those to grow stronger.




No, it has not "been proven" that we are unable to persuade people to change their minds about important topics of the day.  It's often difficult to do, and even more difficult to do it with the impersonal medium of the internet, but science hasn't "proven" that persuasion is not possible.

But more on point, changing the minds of the speaker we disagree with is not the point of the marketplace of ideas. The marketplace of ideas is that the best opinion wins out with the audience at large - not with the person we're dissenting from. The goal of spreading good speech to counter bad speech is to persuade other listeners, not the person making the bad speech. 

Williams Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow were not trying to persuade each other concerning their views on creation versus evolution. Ultimately, they were trying to persuade the public at large. That's the marketplace of ideas in action.  And it does work.


----------



## DnD Warlord

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Need I keep reminding people of this?
> 
> Barbarians are Melee Fighters With Big Dumb Super Modes. "Barbarian" is just the easiest and most on theme (medieval fantasy) name for that archetype.



Does it need to be?

I mean I refluffed barbarian as a Jedi like monk... rage became battle meditation


----------



## Wishbone

Mistwell said:


> No, it has not "been proven" that we are unable to persuade people to change their minds about important topics of the day.  It's often difficult to do, and even more difficult to do it with the impersonal medium of the internet, but science hasn't "proven" that persuasion is not possible.
> 
> But more on point, changing the minds of the speaker we disagree with is not the point of the marketplace of ideas. The marketplace of ideas is that the best opinion wins out with the audience at large - not with the person we're dissenting from. The goal of spreading good speech to counter bad speech is to persuade other listeners, not the person making the bad speech.
> 
> Williams Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow were not trying to persuade each other concerning their views on creation versus evolution. Ultimately, they were trying to persuade the public at large. That's the marketplace of ideas in action.  And it does work.




So since there's been broader adoption of many of the ideas put forward by protest movements it follows they're selling something most people are buying into in the marketplace, no?


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

DnD Warlord said:


> Does it need to be?
> 
> I mean I refluffed barbarian as a Jedi like monk... rage became battle meditation



That's still a melee fighter with a super mode.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Mistwell said:


> No, it has not "been proven" that we are unable to persuade people to change their minds about important topics of the day.  It's often difficult to do, and even more difficult to do it with the impersonal medium of the internet, but science hasn't "proven" that persuasion is not possible.
> 
> But more on point, changing the minds of the speaker we disagree with is not the point of the marketplace of ideas. The marketplace of ideas is that the best opinion wins out with the audience at large - not with the person we're dissenting from. The goal of spreading good speech to counter bad speech is to persuade other listeners, not the person making the bad speech.
> 
> Williams Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow were not trying to persuade each other concerning their views on creation versus evolution. Ultimately, they were trying to persuade the public at large. That's the marketplace of ideas in action.  And it does work.



 Yes, it has been proven, there's even a name for this phenomona. It's called The Backfire Effect.

And the Market Place of Ideas concept just runs into another problem with human psychology. That problem being confirmation bias. Each person will just see the person they supported having "won" the debate.


----------



## Maxperson

Wishbone said:


> So since there's been broader adoption of many of the ideas put forward by protest movements it follows they're selling something most people are buying into in the marketplace, no?



Certainly loud people.  I don't know if most people are or not, though.


----------



## Mistwell

Wishbone said:


> So since there's been broader adoption of many of the ideas put forward by protest movements it follows they're selling something most people are buying into in the marketplace, no?




Yes I would say the various forms of speech surrounding the BLM movement, which includes the protests, is persuading people to support their message. Do you disagree?


----------



## DnD Warlord

FlyingChihuahua said:


> That's still a melee fighter with a super mode.



Right but does it have to be called barbarian?


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

DnD Warlord said:


> Right but does it have to be called barbarian?



Can you think of a _better_ name for that archetype that fits within D&D?


----------



## Mistwell

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Yes, it has been proven, there's even a name for this phenomona. It's called The Backfire Effect.




It has not been proven. Even if you apply a name to it, that doesn't prove persuasion doesn't work. If naming something proved it were true, then my naming the marketplace of ideas philosophy would have proven it's true.



> And the Market Place of Ideas concept just runs into another problem with human psychology. That problem being confirmation bias. Each person will just see the person they supported having "won" the debate.




That's absolutely something each speaker needs to deal with in their speech if they want to be persuasive. All that does it make it difficult. If changing minds were easy, everyone would change their mind about everything all the time.

A college debate class confronts these issues head-on. In terms of proof, you can "prove" to you that persuasion of some people is in fact possible even when they have deep bias.

Have you never changed anyone's mind about anything which they were predisposed to be biased to believe prior to you trying to persuade them? I mean, even when a teenager, did you never persuade a parent to let you do something they were biased to be predisposed to say no to before you tried to persuade them otherwise?


----------



## Wishbone

Mistwell said:


> Yes I would say the various forms of speech surrounding the BLM movement, which includes the protests, is persuading people to support their message. Do you disagree?




No, I was asking a leading question to point out that the Marketplace of Ideas framework is still the primary one in effect.


----------



## Mistwell

Wishbone said:


> No, I was asking a leading question to point out that the Marketplace of Ideas framework is still the primary one in effect.




I don't disagree. It's en vogue these days for a lot of people to like the paradox of tolerance and think like FlyingChihuahua is arguing, but I don't think the marketplace of ideas is dead. Indeed, I think it's still the winning philosophy and will win out in the end against the other view. Which I suppose is what will prove it was correct


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Mistwell said:


> It has not been proven. Even if you apply a name to it, that doesn't prove persuasion doesn't work. If naming something proved it were true, then my naming the marketplace of ideas philosophy would have proven it's true.
> 
> 
> 
> That's absolutely something each speaker needs to deal with in their speech if they want to be persuasive. All that does it make it difficult. If changing minds were easy, everyone would change their mind about everything all the time.
> 
> A college debate class confronts these issues head-on. In terms of proof, you can "prove" to you that persuasion of some people is in fact possible even when they have deep bias.
> 
> Have you never changed anyone's mind about anything which they were predisposed to be biased to believe prior to you trying to persuade them? I mean, even when a teenager, did you never persuade a parent to let you do something they were biased to be predisposed to say no to before you tried to persuade them otherwise?



We're gonna have to agree to disagree here I feel.


----------



## Minigiant

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Can you think of a _better_ name for that archetype that fits within D&D?



Champion?

Part of me wants D&D to create 3 different warrior classes with 3 generic names.

Fighter for the Warrior with Action surge  
Champion for the Warrior with a Super Mode
Hero for the the Warrior with Stamina Points


----------



## Sadras

FlyingChihuahua said:


> And the Market Place of Ideas concept just runs into another problem with human psychology. That problem being confirmation bias. Each person will just see the person they supported having "won" the debate.




Bringing this back to D&D - if you consider Enworld as this Marketplace of Ideas, I'm sure many of us have benefited from the different styles and techniques other posters have shared here even if they were contrary to one's personal style, I know I certainly have - even with those I have and do challenge most on these boards. So good arguments do work.

I wish people were more open to more frank discussion than quickly accusing the other side of the worst.


----------



## DnD Warlord

So if I could write the basic ideas for 6e

I would make 8 classes 2 martial (figher/rogue) 2 divine (priest/paliden(champion))2 nature (druid(shaman)/ranger(wayfinder)) 2 arcane (wizard/warlock)
Each one gets one class that gets 3 or 4 combat feats (class features for combat) and 1 or 2 non combat talents (class features for non combat) then each class gets 1 on even level and 1 on odd levels.  
All spells, a bunch of 4e ‘powers’ all get written up as combat talents and non combat feats.

so maybe a warlock takes eldritch blast as a combat feat and detect magic as a non combat talent

a rogue may take sneak attack and sly flourish as combat feat and expertise in a skill as a non combat talent.

there will be 1 big list of both combat feats and non combat talents anyone can take. (Lucky, skilled, weapon prof, armor prof, ritual caster, languages)

each “power source” will have its own list... so arcane will have spells, and divine will have miracles ect...

each class will have its own list.

some of these will be always on bonuses some will be at will some will come back on short rest and some on long rest...  they will have prerequisite the same way warlock
invocations

HD will be lower (fighters d8s rogue d6 wizard d4 warlock d6). You only get a HD at odd levels at even levels you get a set amount (1,2 or 3) but everyone gets con scorehp at 1st level.   Most NPC only have con score (and low threat monsters) getting more HD is a bug

Example builds will be level 1-5 as choices already picked (that will also be free in srd ) 

Races will be broken down into heritage and culture. Heritage and culture will also have bonuses that level up with you.

backgrounds will be more generic. 


more skills and tool profs spelled out and give additional non combat abilities as they are prerequisite for some non combat talents


----------



## DnD Warlord

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Can you think of a _better_ name for that archetype that fits within D&D?



As I just spelled out just take rage and make it an option for fighters and rangers to take... but rename it (I don’t know if super mode works or not but maybe)


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

DnD Warlord said:


> As I just spelled out just take rage and make it an option for fighters and rangers to take... but rename it (I don’t know if super mode works or not but maybe)



But then you're losing out on the potential extra gimmicks that you can add to Rage.


----------



## DnD Warlord

FlyingChihuahua said:


> But then you're losing out on the potential extra gimmicks that you can add to Rage.



Did you read my whole idea?
Make “super combat mode” a combat feat anyone can take then put enhancements in each power source have ways to enhance it (martial being more rage like, arcane more blade song like, divine more battle meditation, ect) then build in som combat feats and non combat talents for other benefits

In the PHB it may not be fully fleshed out but you can hen have a bunch of splat books adding more (how many class features can we pull from this edition alone)


----------



## Minigiant

DnD Warlord said:


> I would make 8 classes 2 martial (figher/rogue) 2 divine (priest/paliden(champion))2 nature (druid(shaman)/ranger(wayfinder)) 2 arcane (wizard/warlock)
> Each one gets one class that gets 3 or 4 combat feats (class features for combat) and 1 or 2 non combat talents (class features for non combat) then each class gets 1 on even level and 1 on odd levels.




For inclusivity I'd go with 15 classes: 5 power sources and 3 classes in each

Arcane
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

Divine
Avenger
Cleric
"Paladin"

Martial
Champion(Barbarian)
Fighter
Hero

Nature/Primal
Druid
Ranger
Shaman or Warden

Skill
Bard
Noble
Rogue

This creates a class for each playstyle gimmick without a need for feat chains or power systems that confuse new players or turn off roleplayers.


----------



## jmartkdr2

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Can you think of a _better_ name for that archetype that fits within D&D?



Berzerker is the most common suggested alternative.


----------



## Wishbone

Minigiant said:


> For inclusivity I'd go with 15 classes: 5 power sources and 3 classes in each
> 
> Arcane
> Sorcerer
> Warlock
> Wizard
> 
> Divine
> Avenger
> Cleric
> "Paladin"
> 
> Martial
> Champion(Barbarian)
> Fighter
> Hero
> 
> Nature/Primal
> Druid
> Ranger
> Shaman
> 
> Skill
> Bard
> Noble
> Rogue
> 
> This creates a class for each playstyle gimmick without a need for feat chains or power systems that confuse new players or turn off roleplayers.




Bringing back the Avenger gets my endorsement. Though I miss the Monk as an option.


----------



## Minigiant

Wishbone said:


> Bringing back the Avenger gets my endorsement. Though I miss the Monk as an option.




For inclusivity's sake, I'd want a nonspellcasting divine class.

The Monk would be a subclass of the Hero. The Hero class is basically the X Points class. 
It would be Ki for Monks, Tactics for Warlords, Spirit for Samurai, or Arrows for Arcane Archers


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> For inclusivity's sake, I'd want a nonspellcasting divine class.
> 
> The Monk would be a subclass of the Hero. The Hero class is basically the X Points class.
> It would be Ki for Monks, Tactics for Warlords, Spirit for Samurai, or Arrows for Arcane Archers



I'd love to see Paladins lose their spells and just have special abilities that are in theme.


----------



## Minigiant

Maxperson said:


> I'd love to see Paladins lose their spells and just have special abilities that are in theme.




For inclusivity's sake, I'd keep Paladins as minor spellcaster who can sacrifice spell slots for smites and buffs.

The Avenger would be the purely no-spell divine class who glows and stabs heretics with big glowing greatsword.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> There's a big difference between engaging in physical acts of intolerance and verbal ones.




*Mod Note:*

Verbal abuse is still abuse.  And it can harm.  We do not support or tolerate racism on these forums.  If you really feel a need to defend people treating their fellow humans badly, do it on some other site, please.


----------



## Maxperson

There was no defense of it at all.  Anywhere.


----------



## Eltab

Wishbone said:


> Bringing back the Avenger gets my endorsement. Though I miss the Monk as an option.



A Monk is a Fighter who specializes in fighting with no weapon?


----------



## Imaculata

Azzy said:


> The fallacy here, is that we're not discussing a list of authors that have inspired other artists—we're discussing what works of fiction that players and DMs should seek as inspiration for their games. An author that includes racist, anti-Semitic, and other bigoted and xenophobic ideologies in his works isn't one we should tell people to look at for inspiration.




Is Lovecraft's work defined by his racism and xenophobia, or by his world building and Cthulhu mythos? Which of these two things is it you think people take inspiration from?

There are a whole lot of authors that have problematic views, but does that mean we must discard all their work? Can we not cherrypick what we do like when looking for inspiration?


----------



## Azzy

Imaculata said:


> Is Lovecraft's work defined by his racism and xenophobia, or by his world building and Cthulhu mythos? Which of these two things is it you think people take inspiration from?



Considering that Lovecraft's works are permeated with his racism and xenophobia, it's a moot point. By endorsing him by his inclusion on a suggested reading list (without some hefty disclaimers) you both tacitly supporting his ideology and are inviting others to read harmful depictions of themselves or their loved ones (see the earlier discussion about Shadow Over Innsmouth).


----------



## Jeff Albertson

Azzy said:


> Nope. Didn't refer to "many" of them as tetchy, either. Try reading my post again, but this time without going out of your way to find something to be angsty about.




Angsty; no; again, let's not get hysterical, especially when it comes to denial:

Azzy said:
"I think that it's because *many *people become rather tetchy when it comes to religion (especially their own)"


----------



## Imaculata

Azzy said:


> Considering that Lovecraft's works are permeated with his racism and xenophobia, it's a moot point. By endorsing him by his inclusion on a suggested reading list (without some hefty disclaimers) you both tacitly supporting his ideology and are inviting others to read harmful depictions of themselves or their loved ones (see the earlier discussion about Shadow Over Innsmouth).




I reject that notion. I don't agree that naming Lovecraft in a list of inspirational authors is equal to support of all his ideas, including his most repugnant ones. Just as listing Heinlein in a list of inspirational authors is not an approval of his ideas on fascism. I also disagree with the idea of discouraging people from reading books that contain racism or fascism.

I don't believe in cancel culture at all. Only by exposing ourselves to these works, and forming opinions about them, can we grow as people. Lovecraft remains an important author in the horror genre from whom dozens of modern writers take inspiration, most of which (or so I hope) are not horrible racists.

Author Stephen King has stated numerous times that several of his stories were inspired by the works of Lovecraft. Does that mean Stephen King supports Lovecraft's bigotry and racism?


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Imaculata said:


> I reject that notion. I don't agree that naming Lovecraft in a list of inspirational authors is equal to support of all his ideas, including his most repugnant ones. Just as listing Heinlein in a list of inspirational authors is not an approval of his ideas on fascism. I also disagree with the idea of discouraging people from reading books that contain racism or fascism.
> 
> I don't believe in cancel culture at all. Only by exposing ourselves to these works, and forming opinions about them, can we grow as people. Lovecraft remains an important author in the horror genre from whom dozens of modern writers take inspiration, most of which (or so I hope) are not horrible racists.
> 
> Author Stephen King has stated numerous times that several of his stories were inspired by the works of Lovecraft. Does that mean Stephen King supports Lovecraft's bigotry and racism?



I've observed a somewhat troubling trend where it seems like if you put put forth an idea in any context that isn't overwhelmingly negative, that means that you support that idea 100%. Like, for example in Civilization games, you could potentially run a fascist government (with policies such as, Music Censorship, Total War, Raj, Press Gangs, Police State, Propaganda, Gunboat Diplomacy, Martial Law, Native Conquest, etc. And that's just from Civ VI.) Some people, rather than think this as just the game flexing some historical cred and adding familiar names to game mechanics, means that they developers of the game tactility endorse those things.


----------



## Azzy

Jeff Albertson said:


> Angsty; no; again, let's not get hysterical, especially when it comes to denial:
> 
> Azzy said:
> "I think that it's because *many *people become rather tetchy when it comes to religion (especially their own)"




Perhaps you are having a bit of difficulty here. My sentence uses a different verb than what you seem to think it uses. Note that I use "become", not "are". I also used a qualifier about when the they "become" tetchy. If I had said, "Many people become upset when you try to make them eat dog food," whould you also construe said people as upset when you call them upset (in the absence of feeding them dog food) as you did as you did in your initial replied, "Maybe due to them being referred to as "tetchy", especially if it's "their" own."

I can only think that you would get angsty over that sentence if you are trying to read into it something that's not there, and then take it as some sort of indictment of some sort. There is nothing controversial about my statement—many people do get _very_ tetchy about religion, very quickly, when it is brought up or expressed. This is a Known Fact™. It's also why there's a very common adage of, “Never discuss politics or religion in polite company.” 

So, as you say, let's not get hysterical here.


----------



## Azzy

Imaculata said:


> I reject that notion. I don't agree that naming Lovecraft in a list of inspirational authors is equal to support of all his ideas, including his most repugnant ones. Just as listing Heinlein in a list of inspirational authors is not an approval of his ideas on fascism. I also disagree with the idea of discouraging people from reading books that contain racism or fascism.




Disagree all you want, but without some sort of disclaimer, you are inviting liability.



> I don't believe in cancel culture at all.




That's okay, cancel culture doesn't believe in you, either. Bad joke aside, "cancel culture" really isn't a thing—or, at least, it isn't a new thing. (Remember when the Dixie Chicks got "cancelled" a couple decades ago?). Ultimately, "cancel culture" is just a new term used to disparage the ire and boycotting of something that one personally likes.



> Only by exposing ourselves to these works, and forming opinions about them, can we grow as people.




Sure, to an extent (we don't need to watch Birth of a Nation to understand that the KKK is bad), and in proper context. If this reading list was part of an academic discussion on racism, this would be entirely appropriate. However, the context here is a reading list for a game that is marketed to a wide audience of people of ages, "races", sexes, genders, etc. Also, does someone that has been raped need to be suggested that they read a book that features rape, never mind a positive depiction of rape? So, then, are we okay with suggesting that someone that has been on the receiving end of racism read a book that oozes with racism? If we were to include such a book on the list, we could at least have the decency to clearly not that it contains some awful crap.



> Lovecraft remains an important author in the horror genre from whom dozens of modern writers take inspiration, most of which (or so I hope) are not horrible racists.




That's pretty irrelevant to a reading list for a game.



> Author Stephen King has stated numerous times that several of his stories were inspired by the works of Lovecraft. Does that mean Stephen King supports Lovecraft's bigotry and racism?



No, and I'm sure that he'd be quite up front that, despite influencing him, ol' H.P. was a steaming pile of trash as a human and that his books are also laced with trash ideology. He'd also probably have the decency to let you know about Lovecraft's nastiness before suggesting you read his work.


----------



## reelo

jmartkdr2 said:


> Berzerker is the most common suggested alternative.



No, that would be cultural appropriation...


----------



## Raduin711

reelo said:


> No, that would be cultural appropriation...



Appropriation from who?


----------



## Aldarc

Raduin711 said:


> Appropriation from who?



From posters who celebrate making false equivalences as part of their cultural heritage.


----------



## Hussar

Imaculata said:


> Is Lovecraft's work defined by his racism and xenophobia, or by his world building and Cthulhu mythos? Which of these two things is it you think people take inspiration from?
> 
> There are a whole lot of authors that have problematic views, but does that mean we must discard all their work? Can we not cherrypick what we do like when looking for inspiration?




_Disclaimer_ - I'm the one who has repeatedly mentioned his children when talking about Lovecraft.  I've done so very deliberately since, at least by two separate posters in these threads, I've been accused of fabricating the issue.  That I couldn't possibly be directly affected by this sort of thing, thus, I'm only doing it to make myself feel good.  Since, that's not true, and that I am directly affected by issues like this, perhaps I can now comment without having to justify myself to those who would turn these conversations into merry go rounds.  _Disclaimer_

No, of course not.  And, let's be 100% clear here.  NO ONE is suggesting that Lovecraft be banned or anything like that.  Like you say, his works are an important part of the history of the genre, and, anyone who is interested in the history of the genre should read them.  (Even if personally it makes me want to wash my eyes out with bleach every time I've done so)  There are no calls for censorship here.  No one is advocating "discarding" anything.

Now, what is being discussed is a list of inspirational reading in the Players Handbook of the Dungeons and Dragons game.  This is not an academic paper.  It is not a historical paper either.  It's simply a reading list of suggested authors for DM's and Players to read to get ideas on how to have a great game of D&D.  Lord of the Rings, Frietz Leiber, Elizabeth Bear and many others.  And, frankly, most of the authors on the list are perfectly fine and can be included without objection.  However, yes, Lovecraft is on this list.  Without context or commentary.  He's held up as equal to all these other fantastic authors which fill the fantasy genre.

I'm not sure that removing his name would greatly reduce the inspiration new players could get from reading these works.  I mean, if you actually read all the authors on the list, except for Lovecraft, you'd have a very strong grounding in the genre.  You'd have hit the high points, including Mythos stories, without having to get smacked in the face with authors telling you that you or your children or your spouse, or someone you know, is an abomination of nature that should have been strangled at birth.  

Are we actually losing anything inspirational by removing Lovecraft's name from the list of Inspirational Reading in the Dungeons and Dragons Game?  I don't believe that we are.  I think we gain far more than we lose.  This isn't about removing Lovecraft from the canon of genre works.  Of course he has a place there.  You cannot seriously be a scholar of fantasy genre without reading Lovecraft.  But, this list isn't about making people into fantasy genre scholars.  It's about readings that will inspire your game.  Not referencing Lovecraft, IMO, will not result in poorer games, and might just make it a tiny bit easier to introduce the game to people.


----------



## Azzy

Maxperson said:


> And yet American society has been pretty tolerant of intolerance up until about 10 years ago with zero movement towards being destroyed by the intolerant.  In fact, the intolerant were marginalized and made virtually irrelevant up until about 4 years ago when the intolerance of the intolerant hit a new high and invigorated the intolerant.




That's a very rose-tinted view of modern US history you have there.


----------



## Hussar

As a possible substitution, can I suggest that we remove H. P. Lovecraft and replace it with C. S. Lewis?  I think there's a fair body of work that has been inspired by Lewis in the genre and, really, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe features a pretty typical adventuring party.

Another possible option might be Mary Stewart and her Arthurian saga which has launched an entire sub-genre in fantasy - Arthurian fantasy.


----------



## Hussar

Azzy said:


> That's a very rose-tinted view of modern US history you have there.




I dunno.  His four year timeline might be kinda accurate.  Although, I think he's picked the wrong triggering event from four years ago that has empowered bigotry and racism and given it tacit permission to crawl out from under the rocks it was hiding under.


----------



## Wishbone

Imaculata said:


> I reject that notion. I don't agree that naming Lovecraft in a list of inspirational authors is equal to support of all his ideas, including his most repugnant ones. Just as listing Heinlein in a list of inspirational authors is not an approval of his ideas on fascism. I also disagree with the idea of discouraging people from reading books that contain racism or fascism.




We can call attention to the odious views that suffuse his works without actively discouraging reading them. And, if calling attention to that _does_ discourage people from reading them, then that's the individual person's choice to not read him. If any of my friends wanted to read Lovecraft and asked for a recommendation, I wouldn't omit that he was a horrible racist and antisemite or that those themes are foundational to his works.

To say he's an inspirational author uncritically without mentioning his odious ideas does run the risk of reasonable people assuming D&D is endorsing Lovecraft as a person and alienating the people he was directly saying are subhuman, which paints a certain picture of who is welcome in the hobby.

It's not as if we suddenly stopped reading _The Merchant of Venice_ or _Oliver Twist_ because people rightly pointed out that the works were grossly antisemitic even for their time. Engaging with them as pieces of antisemitic art became part of how we read them and talk about them. Why would Lovecraft be any different?



Imaculata said:


> I don't believe in cancel culture at all. Only by exposing ourselves to these works, and forming opinions about them, can we grow as people. Lovecraft remains an important author in the horror genre from whom dozens of modern writers take inspiration, most of which (or so I hope) are not horrible racists.
> 
> Author Stephen King has stated numerous times that several of his stories were inspired by the works of Lovecraft. Does that mean Stephen King supports Lovecraft's bigotry and racism?




I think this frame assumes a lot about how exposed people are to hurtful things in their daily life already. If we steer people towards offensive works without first pointing out the context and views of the author then we're not being very inclusive, nice, or accomplishing personal growth like you stated. They might miss out and think degenerate fish people are awesome and should be presented uncritically. Introductions and footnotes exist and can help people understand what they're getting into first. Or simply talking about his odious views beforehand and letting people decide if they want to read him for themselves.

If people asked for recommendations I would say you can skip Lovecraft and go straight to reading Stephen King without missing much beyond a few references that really don't matter much for the story. As to Heinlein, the only thing of his that jived with me was _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, and I'm sure that's changed in the last 15 years. Better yet, read something by Octavia Butler if you really are looking to expose yourself to interesting perspectives. There's a reason Lovecraft is having a more interesting second life being recontextualized by the very people he looked down on—people are engaging with his works precisely _because_ he's problematic. Also, that all his stuff is free probably helps.


----------



## Eltab

I'm not conversant with Lovecraft's writing.  Is / are there stories about Chthulu mythos where he does not stop off to insult a chunk of the human race?  If so, list those titles in the Recommended Reading appendix.

One other thought: putting a book in a Recommended Reading list and notating it "but don't read this" is self-contradictory.


----------



## DnD Warlord

D&D: Fan-Created Combat Wheelchair Establishes Baseline Inclusivity
					

Freelance writer Sara Thompson released a rule-set for the Combat Wheelchair, an item that makes D&D adventures more accessible and inclusive.




					www.cbr.com


----------



## Wishbone

Eltab said:


> I'm not conversant with Lovecraft's writing.  Is / are there stories about Chthulu mythos where he does not stop off to insult a chunk of the human race?  If so, list those titles in the Recommended Reading appendix.
> 
> One other thought: putting a book in a Recommended Reading list and notating it "but don't read this" is self-contradictory.




That gets at another thing WotC could improve for "Appendix E: Inspirational Reading" in the _Player's Handbook_—provide some kind of context on why they recommend the individual readings and how they influenced the game design. There's very little context and it isn't that helpful as presented outside of saying, "here's a list of things we read."

This should get you started as a primer on Lovecraft, including recommended readings and adaptations: Gods, Monsters and H.P. Lovecraft’s Uncanny Legacy.


----------



## Remathilis

Minigiant said:


> For inclusivity I'd go with 15 classes: 5 power sources and 3 classes in each
> 
> Arcane
> Sorcerer
> Warlock
> Wizard
> 
> Divine
> Avenger
> Cleric
> "Paladin"
> 
> Martial
> Champion(Barbarian)
> Fighter
> Hero
> 
> Nature/Primal
> Druid
> Ranger
> Shaman or Warden
> 
> Skill
> Bard
> Noble
> Rogue
> 
> This creates a class for each playstyle gimmick without a need for feat chains or power systems that confuse new players or turn off roleplayers.



My idea a bit not fleshed out.

There are four classes: warrior, cleric, rogue, mage. These classes set some basic options: HD, spellcasting progress, saves, basic proficiencies. Each class gives a pool of points to buy class features with. These features include weapon/armor proficiencies, abilities like rage, smite, turn undead, metamagic, etc. Some abilities have prerequisites like level or other abilities you need first, but if you belong to that class, you can spend your points to buy your classes abilitiesn. You can also poach off the other classes lists, but they cost more points than if you were a member of the normal class. So if your a warrior and want to pick up some spells to be an EK, it would cost you more to learn magic then if you were a mage. Some basic abilities are reprinted for multiple class lists as well. 

Warriors are the primary fighting type; d10 HD, Proficient in all weapons and light/medium armor. Some of the themes provide include Fighter, Battlerager, Oathsworn, Eldritch Knight, and Marshal. You can follow the theme or do you own thing.

For Rogue, you have d8 HD and a large selection of skills to be proficient in. You can buy a lot of skill-based abilities as well as skirmish and flashy abilities. The Thief, Bard, Assassin, Ranger, and Martial Artist are options. 

Mages can select Intelligence or Charisma as a casting stat and initially select either Arcane (elemental/combat magic) or Mesmerism (enchantment/illusion) spell lists. Mages can represent Wizards, Sorcerers, Beguilers, and Artificers. 

Clerics are primarily priest role who can pick Wisdom or Charisma as a casting stat and pick from Divine (healing) or Primal (buffing/summoning) magic. Most options here are focused on domains to represent Life, Nature, Trickery or War, but the Shapeshifter Spiritwalker, and Pactbound reside here to.

As the game grows, new archetypes with new abilities get added to the core classes. Eventually, a fifth class (psionicist) could be added. 
.


----------



## Jeff Albertson

Azzy said:


> Perhaps you are having a bit of difficulty here.




The only difficulty I am seeing is admitting what one did, just deal with it; no need to try to imply that a person has some sort of difficulty, yeesh, ablest much.


----------



## MGibster

Eltab said:


> I'm not conversant with Lovecraft's writing.  Is / are there stories about Chthulu mythos where he does not stop off to insult a chunk of the human race?  If so, list those titles in the Recommended Reading appendix.




If you didn't know anything about Lovecraft's person beliefs, I don't think there's anything objectionable in "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," "The Color Out of Space," or "The Dunwich Horror."  At least nothing more objectionable than what you'd find in an R.E. Howard story.


----------



## Azzy

Jeff Albertson said:


> The only difficulty I am seeing is admitting what one did, just deal with it; no need to try to imply that a person has some sort of difficulty, yeesh, ablest much.



Ah, so you're just trying to cause conflict. Good to note.


----------



## Jeff Albertson

Azzy said:


> Ah, so you're just trying to cause conflict. Good to note.




Not at all, just aiming for accountability and not offending certain groups, should be an aim for all of us.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> As a possible substitution, can I suggest that we remove H. P. Lovecraft and replace it with C. S. Lewis?  I think there's a fair body of work that has been inspired by Lewis in the genre and, really, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe features a pretty typical adventuring party..




I read Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Horse and His Boy probably at least a  dozen times over the years (the rest maybe only a few times each). And I made sure to read the first six books to my now 10yo (in the publication order because some of the writing itself is definitely set up for it to be read that way).  I've never looked into Lewis' views of Islam, but there"s some stuff here and there (especially Horse and His Boy and Last Battle iirc) that reads about Islam worse than  Tolkien's Orcs and Easterners do about the some Eastern groups in the real world  Although the Last Battle (book 7) might allow that Susan could have hope as an atheist stand in some day if she fixes that  (was it Gaiman who has a story addressing that) and the good ones from among the Muslim stand-ins are saved after learning the error of their ways.  My son can read that last one on his own.

This might be one where picking certain books to specifically list could be happier from an inclusion stand point.


----------



## TheSword

jmartkdr2 said:


> I think there's a cultural context to it that you just don't share: Finding out the universe (God, really)  doesn't care about you is only scary if you already thought it (He) did. If you didn't start from that point of view, the whole "horrifying realization" thing falls apart.
> 
> Put another way - if you're Jewish, finding out Santa isn't real doesn't hurt as much.



That’s only one part of cosmic horror though. How do you know you aren’t mad. Because you reference your behaviours, sensory inputs and opinions against what the rest of society expects and shares.

Now what if you were seeing things that everything you’ve been told up to this point says can’t exist. That other people don’t see and don’t believe when you tell them you’ve see it. Or worse pretend not to and you don’t know why. When you doubt even your ability to reason correctly and draw logical conclusions.

Cosmic horror isn’t just about fearing the lack of god, its about fearing what’s happening inside your head.


----------



## Wishbone

MGibster said:


> If you didn't know anything about Lovecraft's person beliefs, I don't think there's anything objectionable in "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," "The Color Out of Space," or "The Dunwich Horror."  At least nothing more objectionable than what you'd find in an R.E. Howard story.




Given that we do know about his personal beliefs, I'd still probably recommend those as the ones to read. The stories get pretty same-y if you read enough of the short stories close to each other. Dunwich Horror at least has a slightly positive ending and some characterization.

It's funny too since Howard's correspondence with Lovecraft apparently softened his own views on race by contrast.


----------



## DnD Warlord

Remathilis said:


> My idea a bit not fleshed out.
> 
> There are four classes: warrior, cleric, rogue, mage. These classes set some basic options: HD, spellcasting progress, saves, basic proficiencies. Each class gives a pool of points to buy class features with. These features include weapon/armor proficiencies, abilities like rage, smite, turn undead, metamagic, etc. Some abilities have prerequisites like level or other abilities you need first, but if you belong to that class, you can spend your points to buy your classes abilitiesn. You can also poach off the other classes lists, but they cost more points than if you were a member of the normal class. So if your a warrior and want to pick up some spells to be an EK, it would cost you more to learn magic then if you were a mage. Some basic abilities are reprinted for multiple class lists as well.
> 
> Warriors are the primary fighting type; d10 HD, Proficient in all weapons and light/medium armor. Some of the themes provide include Fighter, Battlerager, Oathsworn, Eldritch Knight, and Marshal. You can follow the theme or do you own thing.
> 
> For Rogue, you have d8 HD and a large selection of skills to be proficient in. You can buy a lot of skill-based abilities as well as skirmish and flashy abilities. The Thief, Bard, Assassin, Ranger, and Martial Artist are options.
> 
> Mages can select Intelligence or Charisma as a casting stat and initially select either Arcane (elemental/combat magic) or Mesmerism (enchantment/illusion) spell lists. Mages can represent Wizards, Sorcerers, Beguilers, and Artificers.
> 
> Clerics are primarily priest role who can pick Wisdom or Charisma as a casting stat and pick from Divine (healing) or Primal (buffing/summoning) magic. Most options here are focused on domains to represent Life, Nature, Trickery or War, but the Shapeshifter Spiritwalker, and Pactbound reside here to.
> 
> As the game grows, new archetypes with new abilities get added to the core classes. Eventually, a fifth class (psionicist) could be added.
> .



Did you read mine that he responded to making the classes all have 2 sets of options (combat feats and non combat talents) but class starting with a handful of each.   Give each class some basic profs and HD (lower then 5ehd) and make lists of both feats and talents you can draw from.


----------



## Imaculata

TheSword said:


> Cosmic horror isn’t just about fearing the lack of god, its about fearing what’s happening inside your head.




It's also about the idea that there are all powerful evils waiting out there, too horrible and unthinkable for us to comprehend, that could wipe us all out at a moments notice. A truth of which the mere realization would drive a man to insanity or suicide. We live in blissful ignorance of these waking nightmares.

I think Stephen Kings The Mist and John Carpenters In the Mouth of Madness come closest to this sort of existential horror.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> I think it's that our prevailing cultural orthodoxy on the philosophical approach to intolerance changed in this past decade. In recent years, people have become fans of Karl Popper's 1945 treatise on the paradox of tolerance.  Prior to that, the prevailing cultural consensus was the marketplace of ideas as advocated by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and John Milton.
> 
> I am more of a Mill's and Milton fan than a Popper fan in approaching the topic.



The marketplace of ideas didn’t work, when it comes to bigotry. It just gives them a platform. It doesn’t matter that we have better arguments, they aren’t relying on arguments in good faith to spread their message. 


Maxperson said:


> I wish people understood that.  These bigoted groups have swelled in size, activity and strength in the last 10 years due to the switch in tactics.



No. They’ve swelled over the last several decades due to what you’re advocating for. They’re easier to see over the last ten years because they’ve turned to recruiting online


FlyingChihuahua said:


> Yes, it has been proven, there's even a name for this phenomona. It's called The Backfire Effect.
> 
> And the Market Place of Ideas concept just runs into another problem with human psychology. That problem being confirmation bias. Each person will just see the person they supported having "won" the debate.



And yet, people change each others minds, every day.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Imaculata said:


> It's also about the idea that there are all powerful evils waiting out there, too horrible and unthinkable for us to comprehend, that could wipe us all out at a moments notice. A truth of which the mere realization would drive a man to insanity or suicide. We live in blissful ignorance of these waking nightmares.
> 
> I think Stephen Kings The Mist and John Carpenters In the Mouth of Madness come closest to this sort of existential horror.



Stephen Kong’s It is the closest I’ve come to understanding what’s so scary about it, and that’s because what kills Stanley isn’t the fear. You can live with fear. It’s the wrongness of it. It’s standing in the face of something that cannot be, but is, and having to reconcile that either by way of madness or death.

But King gets it quite right. Not everyone is even going to have that dilemma. Not everyone is going to have a hard time accepting that there are incomprehensible evils that could wipe us all out on a whim.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> I think he's picked the wrong triggering event from four years ago that has empowered bigotry and racism and given it tacit permission to crawl out from under the rocks it was hiding under.




*Mod Note:*

Dude.  Please stop.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> And yet, people change each others minds, every day.




Not generally during acrimonious argument.  A person may change their mind eventually, but typically not in the middle of being confronted in a situation where perceived loss of face is an issue.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Umbran said:


> Not generally during acrimonious argument.  A person may change their mind eventually, but typically not in the middle of being confronted in a situation where perceived loss of face is an issue.



Sure. However, that doesn't mean that the interaction wherein someone turtles up doesn't later lead to them changing their mind. 

Look at the Gay Rights movement. It succeeded with incredible speed in getting Queer people the right to marry, and changing the majority of Americans minds from opposing gay marriage to supporting gay rights in general in basically a decade, and it did so by confronting people and by telling bigots to shut the hell up.


----------



## Haldrik

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure. However, that doesn't mean that the interaction wherein someone turtles up doesn't later lead to them changing their mind.
> 
> Look at the Gay Rights movement. It succeeded with incredible speed in getting Queer people the right to marry, and changing the majority of Americans minds from opposing gay marriage to supporting gay rights in general in basically a decade, and it did so by confronting people and by telling bigots to shut the hell up.




The concerns about Gay and Trans persons, have always been around. The ancient world, the medieval world, even Victorian Britain, all remember gay and trans couples. The modern political framework mainly entered popular discourse during the sexual revolution of the 60s (1965-1975). So were part of a wider discussion about sexual ethics. Meanwhile, a modern urban economy made it possible to survive without having a large family for an agricultural economy. So new social institutions like egalitarian samesex marriages became thinkable.

I feel, the watershed moment of Gay and Trans equality was in 1990, at the march in Washington DC. From that moment on, things (slowly) became increasingly better for sexual minorities.

Recently, even socially conservative Supreme Court justices agreed that the prohibition against discrimination because of sex, necessarily included gay and trans, since what was acceptable for one sex, was denied to an other sex, which is precisely what the prohibition opposed.

So to reach this point took 30 years?! That is a long time. That is a generation.

Like technology, society is accelerating faster and faster. So, significant events will probably happen sooner in the future. At the same time, this means all of us will be struggling to keep our balance to deal with new and surprising situations.


----------



## Haldrik

If someone wants to make the world better ... in a sustainable way ... it is more about planting seeds. A person may never see the harvest of the fruit. It is still necessary to plant seeds.

People need to arrive at a worldview, in their own way, in their own time, after assessing the assumptions they currently have, and sorting them out one at a time.

I feel no one believes anything for no reason. There is always some grain of truth, or something genuinely at risk. So, sifting thru the dirt to find the bits of gold before dumping the dirt, is a useful process. Albeit painstaking.

There is a temptation to make threats and to do harm to "hurry" the process. But, if one already has enough power to do harm, then one already has enough power to be impossible to ignore. So doing harm is an illusionary option. Meanwhile, the results of hurrying can achieve the goal in the shortterm, but tends to end in a different situation in the future that is much worse in a different way.

I find that if coming from an honest place, acknowledging the humanity of a person, and communicating as effectively as possible, most people hear at a deep level, even if it takes a long time to process.

For me, to have faith in the Divine, means to have faith that my efforts to make the world better, matter, even if I dont currently see the results of an effort. At least on my better days, I trust the Divine to make good from my effort.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Haldrik said:


> The concerns about Gay and Trans persons, have always been around. The ancient world, the medieval world, even Victorian Britain, all remember gay and trans couples. The modern political framework mainly entered popular discourse during the sexual revolution of the 60s (1965-1975). So were part of a wider discussion about sexual ethics. Meanwhile, a modern urban economy made it possible to survive without having a large family for an agricultural economy. So new social institutions became thinkable.
> 
> I feel, the watershed moment of Gay and Trans equality was in 1990, at the march in Washington DC. From that moment on, things (slowly) became increasingly better for sexual minorities.
> 
> Recently, even socially conservative Supreme Court justices agreed that the prohibition against discrimination because of sex, necessarily included gay and trans, since what was acceptable for one gender, was denied to an other gender, which is precisely what the prohibition opposed.
> 
> So to reach this point took 30 years?! That is a long time. That is a generation.
> 
> Like technology, society is accelerating faster and faster. So, significant events will probably happen sooner in the future. At the same time, this means all of us will be struggling to keep our balance to deal with new and surprising situations.



The majority shifted over the course of less than a decade. Literally, in the mid 00's IIRC the majority still opposed gay rights, and by the mid 10's the overwhelming majority supported it. 

Today, opposing it is a fringe position.


----------



## Haldrik

doctorbadwolf said:


> The majority shifted over the course of less than a decade. Literally, in the mid 00's IIRC the majority still opposed gay rights, and by the mid 10's the overwhelming majority supported it.
> 
> Today, opposing it is a fringe position.



You are probably not wrong.

But this is an example of witnessing the "harvest".

The seeds were planted decades ago.


----------



## Haldrik

It seems to me, many traditional religions still havent sorted thru the sexual ethics. Precisely because traditional interpretations of ancient texts, are sacred.

They know hatespeakers have taken certain sacred verses out of context, to misinterpret them hateful, harmful, and evil ways.

The problem is deep, because interpreting to make a verse become evil and hateful makes it seem as if the Divine is evil and hateful. So hateful interpretations defame the Divine directly.

But as groups, many traditional religions still seem to be sifting thru what the compassionate, healthier, more authentic interpretations should be.


----------



## Wishbone

Haldrik said:


> The concerns about Gay and Trans persons, have always been around. The ancient world, the medieval world, even Victorian Britain, all remember gay and trans couples. The modern political framework mainly entered popular discourse during the sexual revolution of the 60s (1965-1975). So were part of a wider discussion about sexual ethics. Meanwhile, a modern urban economy made it possible to survive without having a large family for an agricultural economy. So new social institutions like egalitarian samesex marriages became thinkable.
> 
> I feel, the watershed moment of Gay and Trans equality was in 1990, at the march in Washington DC. From that moment on, things (slowly) became increasingly better for sexual minorities.
> 
> Recently, even socially conservative Supreme Court justices agreed that the prohibition against discrimination because of sex, necessarily included gay and trans, since what was acceptable for one sex, was denied to an other sex, which is precisely what the prohibition opposed.
> 
> So to reach this point took 30 years?! That is a long time. That is a generation.
> 
> Like technology, society is accelerating faster and faster. So, significant events will probably happen sooner in the future. At the same time, this means all of us will be struggling to keep our balance to deal with new and surprising situations.




Also worth acknowledging it took the AIDS epidemic and the deaths of 675,000 people in the US to date to get people to listen. Members of the LGBTQ+ community lead the fight for equality in the shadow of a systemic failure to respond to a pandemic and deserve more credit than the Supreme Court justices. It is understandable to see how people are skeptical of systems that see their lives as incidental.


----------



## Haldrik

Wishbone said:


> Also worth acknowledging it took the aftermath of the AIDS epidemic and the deaths of 675,000 people in the US to date to get people to listen. Members of the LGBTQ+ community lead the fight for equality in the shadow of a systemic failure to respond to a pandemic and deserve more credit than the Supreme Court justices. It is understandable to see how people are skeptical of systems that see their lives as incidental.



I dispute that a plague was "necessary".

Rather, people were generally compassionate enough and had enough of a worldview to be able to empathize with the victims of the natural disaster.

Sometimes, empathy because of a disaster can become exhausted.

It is to the credit of humanity, that this empathy has continued to deepen since.


----------



## Wishbone

Haldrik said:


> I dispute that a plague was "necessary".
> 
> Rather, people were generally compassionate enough and had enough of a worldview to be able to empathize with the victims of the natural disaster.
> 
> Sometimes, empathy because of a disaster can become exhausted.
> 
> It is to the credit of humanity, that this empathy has continued to deepen since.




I don't think the plague was necessary and it certainly wasn't my intention to suggest so in raising that your narrative overlooked the AIDS pandemic and the failed response. I'm saying it happened, and to not acknowledge it does a disservice to the dead and diminishes the agency from the LGBTQ+ people who are campaigning for things to improve while misattributing the credit for change to their audience. AIDS is an integral part of the narrative—we don't ignore the Holocaust when we talk about the creation of the state of Israel.


----------



## Eltab

Haldrik said:


> There is a temptation to make threats and to do harm to "hurry" the process. But, if one already has enough power to do harm, then one already has enough power to be impossible to ignore. *So doing harm is an illusionary option.* Meanwhile, the results of hurrying can achieve the goal in the shortterm, but tends to end in a different situation in the future that is much worse in a different way.



(emphasis added)

'Illusionary' is the wrong word; doing harm is fully real.  
Choosing to do harm to others in pursuit of your own goal stiffens resistance to your ideas.  There are IRL examples in the headlines of this.
Doing harm is a self-defeating option, and delays (or prevents) achieving the goal.

With the exception of this one line, I agree with your post.


----------



## Umbran

Jeff Albertson said:


> The only difficulty I am seeing is admitting what one did, just deal with it; no need to try to imply that a person has some sort of difficulty, yeesh, ablest much.




*Mod Note:*

How about everybody stop making this personal.  Please address the content of the post, not the person of the poster.


----------



## Umbran

Haldrik said:


> It seems to me, many traditional religions...




*Mod Note:*

It seems to me that real-world religions (traditional or otherwise) are not a valid topic of discussion on these boards.  Please stop.


----------



## Wishbone

Eltab said:


> Doing harm is a self-defeating option, and delays (or prevents) achieving the goal.




By harm do you mean the use of force against others?

Otherwise, that line of thinking seems to break down in my mind when we overly simplify harm as a simple binary when it's a complex continuum including persuasion, coercion, inducement/threat of the use of force, and the actual use of force. Successful nonviolent civil resistance groups have included many of these in their campaign strategies and are broadly successful.


----------



## Eltab

Wishbone said:


> By harm do you mean the use of force against others?
> 
> Otherwise, that line of thinking seems to break down in my mind when we overly simplify harm as a simple binary when it's a complex continuum including persuasion, coercion, inducement/threat of the use of force, and the actual use of force. Successful nonviolent civil resistance groups have included many of these in their campaign strategies and are broadly successful.



Using force, threatening to do so, 'cancel culture' (hassling third parties who are important in your life) - certainly are Harms.

Some coercions:
"I will make you an offer you cannot refuse" where the other fellow does what you want and gets nothing in return - is a Harm.
But a 'spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down' - offering a Good in exchange for the other fellow doing something he was considering-but-reluctant to do - gains you the chance to come back later and bring him another step along with you.  This is not a Harm.

Persuasion, or trying but failing at persuading, is not a Harm.


----------



## DnD Warlord

So does anyone want to talk about a hypothetical 6e


----------



## Remathilis

And the thread has devolved into the traditional sniping and real-world politics that drive most of these threads (and increasingly other threads) into the dirt. 

I do not envy WotC's predicament. They are going to have to thread a dozen different needles simultaneously going forward. Thanks to a bunch of unforced errors on thier part (such as staffing issues with Black and Mearls) they have a HUGE amount of scrutiny placed on them. Every project WotC is going to do going forward is going to face far-harsher readings than they saw a few years back even. I refer back again the College of Spirits and how people connected it to both the Vistani problem and the shaman problem. 

6e, if and when it comes, will be even larger as every voice is gonna want to influence the final product to suit their agenda, be it conservative or progressive. People are going to want thier view on alignments, their views on races/species, thier views on ability scores, on class names, on deities, on artwork, on conditions, etc. to be reflected. WotC changes too much they end with a 4e backlash. Change too little and they are out of touch. 

But for now, I think the (+) part of this thread is over. @AcererakTriple6 did a good job trying to get some positive feedback, but I think it just shows the divides run deep in the community.

Gods (all of them) help WotC when they have to do it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Haldrik said:


> You are probably not wrong.
> 
> But this is an example of witnessing the "harvest".
> 
> The seeds were planted decades ago.



What is your point? 

The change required active work over the last decade. It required getting in peoples face. It required allies telling their homophobic friends and family that their homophobia was gross and wrong. 

Your “seeds” theory doesn’t change that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

DnD Warlord said:


> So does anyone want to talk about a hypothetical 6e



IMO we are still many years away from a 6e, so I’m not surprised this discussion has been consumed by other topics tangential to that topic.


----------



## Wishbone

Eltab said:


> Using force, threatening to do so, 'cancel culture' (hassling third parties who are important in your life) - certainly are Harms.
> 
> Some coercions:
> "I will make you an offer you cannot refuse" where the other fellow does what you want and gets nothing in return - is a Harm.
> But a 'spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down' - offering a Good in exchange for the other fellow doing something he was considering-but-reluctant to do - gains you the chance to come back later and bring him another step along with you.  This is not a Harm.
> 
> Persuasion, or trying but failing at persuading, is not a Harm.




That's not really how the term coercion is used when it comes to strategy or the use of force.

Inducement is something like promising to buy a hypothetical 6E once WotC addresses a person's concerns, which is your "spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down" analogy.
Coercion (I guess specifically coercive diplomacy) includes things like threatening a boycott of a specific product or all WotC or Hasbro products until those concerns are addressed or even bringing complaints to those with authority ("hassling third parties").


----------



## Wishbone

doctorbadwolf said:


> IMO we are still many years away from a 6e, so I’m not surprised this discussion has been consumed by other topics tangential to that topic.




I think the topics are pretty relevant. The bit about use of force is applicable to further spelling out social encounters beyond the Persuasion, Intimidation, or attack roll options.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Haldrik said:


> I feel no one believes anything for no reason. There is always some grain of truth, or something genuinely at risk. So, sifting thru the dirt to find the bits of gold before dumping the dirt, is a useful process. Albeit painstaking.



But sometimes, people believe in things just to upset other people.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Wishbone said:


> I think the topics are pretty relevant. The bit about use of force is applicable to further spelling out social encounters beyond the Persuasion, Intimidation, or attack roll options.



They’re tangential in the sense that we aren’t talking about most of them in the context of 6e, really, but just D&D in general. Maybe I’m wrong, though. 

Either way, I think we are still firmly in the territory of 6e speculation being very much in vain.


----------



## Haldrik

doctorbadwolf said:


> IMO we are still many years away from a 6e, so I’m not surprised this discussion has been consumed by other topics tangential to that topic.



At the moment, I remain less interested in 6e until any difficulties with 5e are more fully understood. For example, I want 6e to get ability scores right, but that seems to still be a work in progress.

In the meantime, being more inclusive of reallife identity groups and touching on reallife worldviews that relate to identity groups, is immediately relevant to 5e too.


----------



## Haldrik

doctorbadwolf said:


> What is your point?
> 
> The change required active work over the last decade. It required getting in peoples face. It required allies telling their homophobic friends and family that their homophobia was gross and wrong.
> 
> Your “seeds” theory doesn’t change that.



To "harvest" takes effort too.


----------



## Azzy

Imaculata said:


> It's also about the idea that there are all powerful evils waiting out there, too horrible and unthinkable for us to comprehend, that could wipe us all out at a moments notice. A truth of which the mere realization would drive a man to insanity or suicide. We live in blissful ignorance of these waking nightmares.



Meh, I lived through the Cold War with the threat of nuclear annihilation. I also realize that we're one meteor away from extinction. Also, that climate change will have great impact on the future and that the human race is doing very little to address that issues. We're living in a pandemic, my mother is elderlyy, my brother is on oxygen, I have high blood pressure, too many people in my community are not behaving with concern, and my local and state government is doing a poor job of handling this crisis. There's also a multitude of other issues that I could list (if I cared enough to expend the effort—I've been out in the Florida sun all day, trying to avoid having a heat stroke so right now I can't be arsed to care—sorry), but I think you get the basic point. We are living with very real existential threats already and there are many people just pretend it doesn't affect them or that it's not their problem. Much of this sort of thing has driven some to depression, anxiety, and suicide. So, powerful cosmic evils? Whatever. Get in line, Cthulhu.

Also, as someone that actually suffers from a mental illness, the talk of madness and insanity makes me roll my eyes as it's very primitive, uninformed, and (unwittingly) reinforces some bad ideas and stigmas about mental health issues.

P.S. — Sorry if I come across cranky, working outside during this heat is not fun.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> For inclusivity I'd go with 15 classes: 5 power sources and 3 classes in each
> 
> Arcane
> Sorcerer
> Warlock
> Wizard
> 
> Divine
> Avenger
> Cleric
> "Paladin"
> 
> Martial
> Champion(Barbarian)
> Fighter
> Hero
> 
> Nature/Primal
> Druid
> Ranger
> Shaman or Warden
> 
> Skill
> Bard
> Noble
> Rogue
> 
> This creates a class for each playstyle gimmick without a need for feat chains or power systems that confuse new players or turn off roleplayers.



No artificer or psion? I think WotC could save a lot of trouble next time they're making Eberron be a setting in the next edition by having the Artificer be a base class.


----------



## Minigiant

Remathilis said:


> My idea a bit not fleshed out.
> 
> There are four classes: warrior, cleric, rogue, mage. These classes set some basic options: HD, spellcasting progress, saves, basic proficiencies. Each class gives a pool of points to buy class features with. These features include weapon/armor proficiencies, abilities like rage, smite, turn undead, metamagic, etc. Some abilities have prerequisites like level or other abilities you need first, but if you belong to that class, you can spend your points to buy your classes abilitiesn. You can also poach off the other classes lists, but they cost more points than if you were a member of the normal class. So if your a warrior and want to pick up some spells to be an EK, it would cost you more to learn magic then if you were a mage. Some basic abilities are reprinted for multiple class lists as well.
> 
> Warriors are the primary fighting type; d10 HD, Proficient in all weapons and light/medium armor. Some of the themes provide include Fighter, Battlerager, Oathsworn, Eldritch Knight, and Marshal. You can follow the theme or do you own thing.
> 
> For Rogue, you have d8 HD and a large selection of skills to be proficient in. You can buy a lot of skill-based abilities as well as skirmish and flashy abilities. The Thief, Bard, Assassin, Ranger, and Martial Artist are options.
> 
> Mages can select Intelligence or Charisma as a casting stat and initially select either Arcane (elemental/combat magic) or Mesmerism (enchantment/illusion) spell lists. Mages can represent Wizards, Sorcerers, Beguilers, and Artificers.
> 
> Clerics are primarily priest role who can pick Wisdom or Charisma as a casting stat and pick from Divine (healing) or Primal (buffing/summoning) magic. Most options here are focused on domains to represent Life, Nature, Trickery or War, but the Shapeshifter Spiritwalker, and Pactbound reside here to.
> 
> As the game grows, new archetypes with new abilities get added to the core classes. Eventually, a fifth class (psionicist) could be added.
> .




Well the point was to make inclusive names and class features for the classes.

The goal is to


Create a generic form of the Barbarian and convert the Barbarian and Berserker to subclasses in other to be inclusive to other types of "Wild Warriors" around the world. I suggested that the class be changed to the Champion and simply get Super Mode
The Barbarian would get *Rage*
The Berserker would get *Frenzy*
The Zealot would get *Zeal*
The Madman would get *Madness*
Totem Warrior would get *Spirit Trance*

Create more Priest types to incorporate priests from other parts of Earth in fantasy forms.
The Cleric would remain as a fantasy representative of fantasy analogs of Abrahamic organized religion structures.
They would get divine spellcaster role
Clerics would choose between *Divine Channeling, Runecasting, *or *Divine Covenant *

The Druid would take the nature spellcaster role and represent religions that  revere nature
The Druid would get it's own spell list
Druid would choose between *Wildshape, Primal Wrath, *and* Beast Companion.*

The Shaman would get the spiti caster role and represent spirit based religion from Mongolian shaman, Shinto priest, witch doctors, and medicine men
The Shaman would choose between *Spirit Companion*, *Seeker Bond* (seekers are now shamans because Kikyo), or *Vestige Binding* 



Only issue is where to put MesoAmerican priests? Aztec and Maya priests would need representation.


----------



## Azzy

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No artificer or psion? I think WotC could save a lot of trouble next time they're making Eberron be a setting in the next edition by having the Artificer be a base class.



But what other meaty mechanics would you put into it to entice people that aren't interested in Eberron to buy it? /cynicism


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Azzy said:


> But what other meaty mechanics would you put into it to entice people that aren't interested in Eberron to buy it? /cynicism



The races and mechanics and descriptions of the world would still be in an eberron setting book, along with setting specific magic items, subclasses, and monsters.


----------



## Minigiant

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No artificer or psion? I think WotC could save a lot of trouble next time they're making Eberron be a setting in the next edition by having the Artificer be a base class.




They would be used to sell Eberron and Dark Sun


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> They would be used to sell Eberron and Dark Sun



Do you think those books wouldn't sell without those classes in them?


----------



## Minigiant

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Do you think those books wouldn't sell without those classes in them?




Not as well. 
Not well enough for modern corporate standards anyway.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> Not as well.
> Not well enough for modern corporate standards anyway.



And this is just speculation, right? No evidence for this? 

I think it would make sense for them to sell less if they didn't have the new classes in it, but I also think that it would help the 6e's design process in the long run to have those classes in the PHB right off the bat.


----------



## Haldrik

Whatever psionics is, it has to be part of the gaming system from the ground up, from day 1.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> The marketplace of ideas didn’t work, when it comes to bigotry. It just gives them a platform. It doesn’t matter that we have better arguments, they aren’t relying on arguments in good faith to spread their message.




It did work. It worked great. It got rid of so much bigotry in our society, and other societies. Indeed, it kept going longer in some other countries, and got rid of more bigotry there.

Bigotry will always find a platform - I outlined the power of forbidden fruit. By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power. Which is what we've seen since the platform-denial started. An increase in bigotry rather than a decrease.

Some people just gave up on persuasion because it's difficult and requires working on ones persuasive skills, honing diplomacy, critical thinking, looking at which argument work better than others to persuade people, honestly listening to other people, and a host of things which are harder than they sound.

Again, the goal is not to persuade the other person making arguments. The goal is to persuade the larger audience to lean more towards your argument. If the other side's arguments are not in good faith, that makes persuasion easier. Let people see their bad faith arguments. Give them the platform to demonstrate their arguments are weak relative to yours. Don't deny them the platform to speak - that just sends the message you fear their message, and that it's stronger than it is, and that you don't want people to hear it for fear their argument will be more persuasive than yours.


----------



## Richards

Azzy said:


> I've been out in the Florida sun all day, trying to avoid having a heat stroke




Is that why you have a penguin as an avatar?  Wishful thinking?

Johnathan


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power.



This is dangerous nonsense.


----------



## Eric V

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is dangerous nonsense.



It _really _is...


----------



## Wishbone

Mistwell said:


> It did work. It worked great. It got rid of so much bigotry in our society, and other societies. Indeed, it kept going longer in some other countries, and got rid of more bigotry there.
> 
> Bigotry will always find a platform - I outlined the power of forbidden fruit. By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power. Which is what we've seen since the platform-denial started. An increase in bigotry rather than a decrease.
> 
> Some people just gave up on persuasion because it's difficult and requires working on ones persuasive skills, honing diplomacy, critical thinking, looking at which argument work better than others to persuade people, honestly listening to other people, and a host of things which are harder than they sound.
> 
> Again, the goal is not to persuade the other person making arguments. The goal is to persuade the larger audience to lean more towards your argument. If the other side's arguments are not in good faith, that makes persuasion easier. Let people see their bad faith arguments. Give them the platform to demonstrate their arguments are weak relative to yours. Don't deny them the platform to speak - that just sends the message you fear their message, and that it's stronger than it is, and that you don't want people to hear it for fear their argument will be more persuasive than yours.




If bigotry will always find a platform then people who are opposed to it are then obligated to make sure giving a platform to bigotry isn't incentivized by those in positions of authority and power. Disincentivizing people with hateful views from engaging in spreading hateful rhetoric is a legitimate tactic for persuading the larger audience. We're not obligated to give those who hate us a microphone and go point by point to underline why what they're saying is wrong to prove the merits of our argument that we shouldn't be hated.

If that's what it takes to persuade indifferent people that being indifferent to hate is wrong then it is easy to see the cracks in that system.


----------



## 183231bcb

I thought of one other thing I'd like to see, motivated by the large amount of discussion of Lovecraft.  While many people on this thread have noted HPL's racism, there's one other non-inclusive thing that often shows up in works inspired by Lovecraft: the conflation of mental illness/"madness" with "evil."  Some iterations of D&D have used CoC-inspired "sanity" scores as optional rules, which essentially conflates lack of "sanity" with being evil.  Pathfinder 1 does this too.  If 6e ever includes mention or discussion of mental illness, they ought to avoid doing it like CoC.


----------



## Wishbone

Mistwell said:


> It did work. It worked great. It got rid of so much bigotry in our society, and other societies. Indeed, it kept going longer in some other countries, and got rid of more bigotry there.
> 
> Bigotry will always find a platform - I outlined the power of forbidden fruit. By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power. Which is what we've seen since the platform-denial started. An increase in bigotry rather than a decrease.
> 
> Some people just gave up on persuasion because it's difficult and requires working on ones persuasive skills, honing diplomacy, critical thinking, looking at which argument work better than others to persuade people, honestly listening to other people, and a host of things which are harder than they sound.
> 
> Again, the goal is not to persuade the other person making arguments. The goal is to persuade the larger audience to lean more towards your argument. If the other side's arguments are not in good faith, that makes persuasion easier. Let people see their bad faith arguments. Give them the platform to demonstrate their arguments are weak relative to yours. Don't deny them the platform to speak - that just sends the message you fear their message, and that it's stronger than it is, and that you don't want people to hear it for fear their argument will be more persuasive than yours.




Also, here's a response from a friend who specializes in First Amendment law who is somewhat of a free speech absolutist and has some issues with that framing.



> I think there is a difference between giving someone with bigoted ideas a platform and just allowing them to speak. An old first amendment case says that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” which i think is correct. It is better to allow people to say bigoted things so that we can know who they are and push back.
> 
> But providing a platform is a bit different. Providing a platform legitimizes the speech, and while I think that allowing counter speech works well, I don’t think it’s bad for society to collectively take a stand against bigotry. And I also think given the popularity of people who 'persuade' others by talking more loudly and being belligerent rather than through the real quality of their arguments, I think there is legitimate concern that allowing bigotry on those types of platforms won’t necessary end well.
> 
> I also don’t know if there is more bigotry now than before. I think there is a concern that deplatforming could lead people to fringe sites and get radicalized and stuff, but I think that would still happen if you have that kind of speech on more legitimate sites. And I think that bigotry is simply more visible than before due to the internet, not necessarily more widespread.


----------



## Mistwell

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is dangerous nonsense.




Declaring it so doesn't make it so. But it does demonstrate you don't believe in persuading people and changing hearts and minds. This is not the sort of retort which can accomplish either. 

I cannot imagine how you think calling the art of persuasion "nonsense" and "dangerous" is a wise course?


----------



## Minigiant

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And this is just speculation, right? No evidence for this?
> 
> I think it would make sense for them to sell less if they didn't have the new classes in it, but I also think that it would help the 6e's design process in the long run to have those classes in the PHB right off the bat.




It's speculation.
But WOTC really markets their books with new classes and subclasses harder. So I would get they sell very well. 

And with how whiny the community can get about "which classes should be officially in the game" I could see them packaging controversial classes like psions and artificers in setting books to hit two birds audiences with one stone book.

It's not the same as when bard, barbarian, and druid were held back from the PHB and the monk even further.


----------



## Mistwell

Wishbone said:


> If bigotry will always find a platform then people who are opposed to it are then obligated to make sure giving a platform to bigotry isn't incentivized by those in positions of authority and power. Disincentivizing people with hateful views from engaging in spreading hateful rhetoric is a legitimate tactic for persuading the larger audience.




I think it's a weak tactic. I am not speaking to legitimacy, I am speaking to effectiveness. It doesn't disincentive people from speaking bigoted views - are you seriously suggesting denying platforms makes bigots not speak bigotry? All it does is shift their bigoted speech to forums where good speech isn't responding directly to them and to the audience they are appealing to. It just denies you the opportunity to counter their speech, while giving them the ability to tell their audience "They don't want you to hear our words because they fear what we have to say."



> We're not obligated to give those who hate us a microphone and go point by point to underline why what they're saying is wrong to prove the merits of our argument that we shouldn't be hated.




I never suggested anyone was OBLIGATED, I suggested an open debate is the most effective means of good speech defeating bad speech. A Lincoln-Douglass style debate where you show your willingness to directly confront views you disagree with, where each party speaks to the arguments of the other party, and where the good speech has the opportunity to counter the bad speech, is the most effective means of defeating bad speech.



> If that's what it takes to persuade indifferent people that being indifferent to hate is wrong then it is easy to see the cracks in that system.




It's not indifference.


----------



## Umbran

Mistwell said:


> I think it's a weak tactic. I am not speaking to legitimacy, I am speaking to effectiveness.




*Mod Note:*

This is not really about gaming.   The thread, and the site, is about RPGs, remember?

We have been allowing some leeway, but it is time to bring it back in, please.  Make it about gaming, or let it go, folks.


----------



## Mistwell

Edited after seeing mod comment


----------



## DnD Warlord

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No artificer or psion? I think WotC could save a lot of trouble next time they're making Eberron be a setting in the next edition by having the Artificer be a base class.



Useing my feat/talent character build idea an artificer could be just picking artificer like class features


----------



## Chaosmancer

Wishbone said:


> Also, here's a response from a friend who specializes in First Amendment law who is somewhat of a free speech absolutist and has some issues with that framing.




Exactly this.

Let them stand on the street corner and yell out why this or that is the downfall of society, or that if you treat women this way you can have lots of sex.

I'm not building them a stage and inviting them onto my lawn though. Plenty of other people doing that for them because they agree with them. Those of us who disagree don't need to make them more visible as well.

This is actually a problem in modern issues like Climate Change. The Scientific community has around a 90% agreement on the problems, but to be "fair" and "balanced" they bring on people with a limited understanding of science, to spot nonsense and make it seem like there is a big debate that needs to be resolved before we know tht


----------



## Hussar

Azzy said:


> Also, as someone that actually suffers from a mental illness, the talk of madness and insanity makes me roll my eyes as it's very primitive, uninformed, and (unwittingly) reinforces some bad ideas and stigmas about mental health issues.




I always kinda wondered about that.

D&D has never dealt with insanity very well.  Characters are almost never challenged that way - nobody has PTSD or whatever - unless it's some sort of "curse" or, more commonly, magical effect.  

OTOH, do we want that much realism in our fantasy supers game?  

To give an example (and a poor one at that), I recently cursed a couple of PC's in my Saltmarsh game.  They bathed in pools devoted to Baphomet, twice willingly and once coerced through a charm, and I handed them a curse.  The curse was that they were now tainted by Baphomet.  The taint did not mean that their behavior had to change in any way.  They were still perfectly free to do anything they wanted, except for one thing, they were not horrified by the taint, but, rather saw it as a blessing.  That was the sum total of the "insanity" I inflicted on the players.

Two of the players (one who was infected and one who wasn't) absolutely lost their collective naughty word.  How DARE I remove player agency.  How DARE I inflict a curse without warning.  On and on.  To the point, where it became the straw the broke the camels back and I stopped DMing for that group.  Just ruined any fun I was having.  ((Note, there were other issues as well.  Those are not pertinent to the discussion at hand))

But, that's the reaction of some players to the notion of adding an insanity to the characters.  Absolutely refused to go with it.  Hated it with a passion.  

I very, very much don't have an answer here.


----------



## Hussar

/edited due to moderation.  Good point.  I'm WAYYY off topic here.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Hussar said:


> OTOH, do we want that much realism in our fantasy supers game?



Personally, yes. I do want that amount of realism in my games. I've even had characters in my games (NPCs mainly, but an occasional PC) that has PTSD.


----------



## Haldrik

If the game mentions insanity or mental illness in any way, the designers have social responsibility to do so accurately and sensitively.


----------



## Azzy

Hussar said:


> I always kinda wondered about that.
> 
> D&D has never dealt with insanity very well.  Characters are almost never challenged that way - nobody has PTSD or whatever - unless it's some sort of "curse" or, more commonly, magical effect.
> 
> OTOH, do we want that much realism in our fantasy supers game?




I can't speak for others on this, but for me... No.



> To give an example (and a poor one at that), I recently cursed a couple of PC's in my Saltmarsh game.  They bathed in pools devoted to Baphomet, twice willingly and once coerced through a charm, and I handed them a curse.  The curse was that they were now tainted by Baphomet.  The taint did not mean that their behavior had to change in any way.  They were still perfectly free to do anything they wanted, except for one thing, they were not horrified by the taint, but, rather saw it as a blessing.  That was the sum total of the "insanity" I inflicted on the players.
> 
> Two of the players (one who was infected and one who wasn't) absolutely lost their collective naughty word.  How DARE I remove player agency.  How DARE I inflict a curse without warning.  On and on.  To the point, where it became the straw the broke the camels back and I stopped DMing for that group.  Just ruined any fun I was having.  ((Note, there were other issues as well.  Those are not pertinent to the discussion at hand))
> 
> But, that's the reaction of some players to the notion of adding an insanity to the characters.  Absolutely refused to go with it.  Hated it with a passion.
> 
> I very, very much don't have an answer here.




I think that maybe Ravenloft had the right idea. Instead of using sanity, like CoC, it used fear and horror checks.


----------



## Wishbone

Haldrik said:


> If the game mentions insanity or mental illness in any way, the designers have social responsibility to do so accurately and sensitively.




No less than for the financial reason that there may be employees, customers, or potential customers they're disrespecting by doing otherwise.



Azzy said:


> I think that maybe Ravenloft had the right idea. Instead of using sanity, like CoC, it used fear and horror checks.




Charisma or Wisdom saving throws for fear and horror saves representing sense of self or force of will?


----------



## Hussar

5e currently leaves things like Horror or Sanity checks as an optional rule in the DMG.  Honestly,  I think that's probably where it should stay.  D&D isn't really a game about dealing with the horrors of medieval life.  The average adventurer should be gibbering in the corner by about level 5 considering the horrors that that character has seen.  

This is one spot where I do think that DM's Guild is a better place to handle it.  Those that want more "realistic" or comprehensive rules can get them, and those that don't want to deal with those themes aren't forced to.

It's a touchy subject filled with LOTS of pitfalls.  I'm not entirely convinced that it has a place in the core game.


----------



## Raduin711

Minigiant said:


> Well the point was to make inclusive names and class features for the classes.
> 
> The goal is to
> 
> 
> Create a generic form of the Barbarian and convert the Barbarian and Berserker to subclasses in other to be inclusive to other types of "Wild Warriors" around the world. I suggested that the class be changed to the Champion and simply get Super Mode
> The Barbarian would get *Rage*
> The Berserker would get *Frenzy*
> The Zealot would get *Zeal*
> The Madman would get *Madness*
> Totem Warrior would get *Spirit Trance*




I would avoid madness entirely, as this may link mental illness with violence, which can be a harmful stereotype. And kid's gloves with the Totem Warrior, make sure that it is run by a sensitivity reader. Totems are a source of consternation for some first nations peoples, like mana and shamanism.


----------



## Wishbone

Hussar said:


> 5e currently leaves things like Horror or Sanity checks as an optional rule in the DMG.  Honestly,  I think that's probably where it should stay.  D&D isn't really a game about dealing with the horrors of medieval life.  The average adventurer should be gibbering in the corner by about level 5 considering the horrors that that character has seen.
> 
> This is one spot where I do think that DM's Guild is a better place to handle it.  Those that want more "realistic" or comprehensive rules can get them, and those that don't want to deal with those themes aren't forced to.
> 
> It's a touchy subject filled with LOTS of pitfalls.  I'm not entirely convinced that it has a place in the core game.




Now I'm imagining how jaded and disaffected the commoner who kept making their saves against random monsters coming from the forest to raid the village would be.


----------



## MGibster

Hussar said:


> 5e currently leaves things like Horror or Sanity checks as an optional rule in the DMG.  Honestly,  I think that's probably where it should stay.  D&D isn't really a game about dealing with the horrors of medieval life.  The average adventurer should be gibbering in the corner by about level 5 considering the horrors that that character has seen.




I agree, that's where it should stay.  D&D has always taken the Conan route when it comes to unfathomable horrors.  Just hit it with your axe.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> Declaring it so doesn't make it so. But it does demonstrate you don't believe in persuading people and changing hearts and minds. This is not the sort of retort which can accomplish either.
> 
> I cannot imagine how you think calling the art of persuasion "nonsense" and "dangerous" is a wise course?



Are you kidding? You said,


> By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power



And I quote that specific statement.

And now you’re trying to act as though I called  the “art of persuasion”(which sounds creepy as hell) dangerous nonsense? LOL

edit: spoilered the rest. Back to the topic. 


Spoiler



The statement I quoted is dangerous nonsense.

The marketplace of ideas is fine, as far as it goes, though it has limits of efficacy.

The idea that it is always the best tool, and that it is safe and effective as a tool against fascists and bigots is dangerous nonsense.

it is irresponsible in the extreme to socially allow bigots a platform. Platforms contribute to the spread of neo nazi and other white supremacist rhetoric and recruiting when they allow their platform to be used by these groups. The open forum of the internet has not helped decrease the prevalence of bigotry in our societies, it has allowed them the room to flourish.


----------



## Imaculata

183231bcb said:


> I thought of one other thing I'd like to see, motivated by the large amount of discussion of Lovecraft.  While many people on this thread have noted HPL's racism, there's one other non-inclusive thing that often shows up in works inspired by Lovecraft: the conflation of mental illness/"madness" with "evil."  Some iterations of D&D have used CoC-inspired "sanity" scores as optional rules, which essentially conflates lack of "sanity" with being evil.  Pathfinder 1 does this too.  If 6e ever includes mention or discussion of mental illness, they ought to avoid doing it like CoC.




I have never seen lack of sanity be conflated as evil in the works of Lovecraft, or in any of the roleplaying games inspired by his works, including Pathfinder. Where do you get this idea? If anything, sanity is depicted as a 2nd health bar. A way to indicate mental wounds in addition to physical wounds.

The Great Old Ones and their monstrous servants affect the sanity of simple mortals when looked upon, or fully understood. So people who serve these ghastly horrors are often insane to some degree as well. However, I don't see that as conflating madness with evil. The cultists that the heroes in these stories deal with were very much evil before they went mad.



MGibster said:


> I agree, that's where it should stay.  D&D has always taken the Conan route when it comes to unfathomable horrors.  Just hit it with your axe.




I strongly disagree. D&D is well suited for Lovecraftian horror. There are many ways to run a campaign, and while the default will always be classic swords and sorcery, the Lovecraftian horror approach is a ton of fun.

In my current D&D campaign I have on occasion flirted with Lovecraftian influences akin to Cthulhu. My players face an unknowable cosmic evil from the depths of the sea, whose mere depiction inspires terror in those who look upon such depraved imagery. It should go without saying that this can add a ton of atmosphere to a campaign.


----------



## Minigiant

Raduin711 said:


> I would avoid madness entirely, as this may link mental illness with violence, which can be a harmful stereotype. And kid's gloves with the Totem Warrior, make sure that it is run by a sensitivity reader. Totems are a source of consternation for some first nations peoples, like mana and shamanism.




D&D already links anger to violence. 

I was more thinking someone turning their brain off and attacking heedlessly, from irrational angles, and with strange rhythms. I choose not to use Maniac for obvious reasons. I pondered Wild Man but that is much like Barbarian and hinted that foreigners are brainless and driven by anger. Same with Savage.

Totem warrior would need a sensitivity ready.

The point is to offer more versions of the Super Mode while neither tying in to stereotypes of other cultures and less association to Rage.

Berserkers, zealots, sadistic killers, blood knights...


----------



## Raduin711

Minigiant said:


> D&D already links anger to violence.




I wasn't talking about anger. I was talking about madness, that is to say, mental illness.


----------



## reelo

Chaosmancer said:


> This is actually a problem in modern issues like Climate Change. The Scientific community has around a 90% agreement on the problems, but to be "fair" and "balanced" they bring on people with a limited understanding of science, to spot nonsense and make it seem like there is a big debate that needs to be resolved before we know tht




Isaac Asimov's piece on the "Cult of Ignorance", as well as the term "false balance" come to mind.
The notion that "democracy means my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."


----------



## Sadras

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Personally, yes. I do want that amount of realism in my games. I've even had characters in my games (NPCs mainly, but an occasional PC) that has PTSD.




So we want THIS much realism but having men being able to outcap women in STR is too far (a 1e mechanic). M'kay.

EDIT: We had an entire thread about shamans.
We had numerous posts about the implication of rape with half-orcs.
But the suggestion that we include PTSD and other real mental illness gets a free pass? How is that even ok?

Now I got thread banned because I suggested a 1e mechanic. Got called on anti inclusionary content (sexist). The implication being 1e players are sexist. Swell moderation.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> So we want THIS much realism but having men being able to outcap women in STR is too far. M'kay.




Is the snark really helpful?  I know, it gets frustrating, but, that's not helping anyone.

Frankly, personally, on the stat point thing, there is just not enough granularity between stats to have women and men have different stats.  And, frankly, in a game where a halfling can be as strong as a human, I'm not sure we can really differentiate men and women that much.  

But, I do understand your point.  If we're going to strip out some realism, what about others?  And, on this point, I think I agree with you.  I'd rather leave things like mental issues out of the core game, and let 3rd party publishers have that one.  D&D isn't really that kind of game where playing out someone's PTSD is expected by the tone or mechanics of the game.

Note, there ARE RPG's which do delve into this sort of thing.  But, again, I don't really think D&D is one of them.  This is a game of heroic fantasy after all.  It's not a generic ruleset to cover all things and all times.  I've been watching the discussion about classes and whatnot, and, honestly, I'm not sure I agree with a lot of it.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

What is the difference between a druid and shaman? Perhaps we should just rename the druid to shaman to alleviate the "only orcs and trolls have shamen" problem.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> What is the difference between a druid and shaman. Perhaps we should just rename the druid to shaman to alleviate the "only orcs and trolls have shamen" problem.



Sure. Makes sense.


----------



## Cadence

Sadras said:


> So we want THIS much realism but having men being able to outcap women in STR is too far. M'kay.






Hussar said:


> Frankly, personally, on the stat point thing, there is just not enough granularity between stats to have women and men have different stats.  And, frankly, in a game where a halfling can be as strong as a human, I'm not sure we can really differentiate men and women that much.




Yup...



Cadence said:


> Part of why this might not be a thing is that the level of versimilitude fail seems very small relative to how the numbers are used.
> 
> The difference in Str bonus between a Halfling and the typical Human is only a +1 in 5e. In PF it was +2 5/6th of the time and +4 the other 1/6th. The halfling doesn't even get the 3/4 multiplier for carrying capacity for being small in 5e. If the ability difference between a typical 3 foot, 40lb. halfling and a human adult is only represented by a +1 (or +2) - and there is nothing at all about how size variations within male humans affects things, for example - then how small should the difference be between an average human female 5'4" and 170 lbs and average human male 5'9" and 197 lbs (using American averages google spit out).
> 
> I imagine if the sexual dimorphism was as large as in gorillas (m/f weight ratio of 2.37) then it might be a thing. Or similarly, if you were doing a simulator of Olympic medalists in various sports like track or swimming, then separate stat distributions would be a thing. Of course in that case there'd be a huge effect by birth year too over the past century+.
> 
> As far as Str and verisimilitude, I'm still stuck on an Str 10 being able to carry 150 pounds just as easily as they would 0 pounds in 5e.


----------



## Cadence

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> What is the difference between a druid and shaman. Perhaps we should just rename the druid to shaman to alleviate the "only orcs and trolls have shamen" problem.




If classes are based on where the powers come from, then I can see a set-up where druids are the ones that get their powers from communing with nature and shaman's the ones who get their powers communing with spirits. In PF, for example, the spirits include Ancestors, Battle, Lore, and Tribe that wouldn't fit with a druid as I see them. While the spell lists may be fairly similar, Animal Companion and Shape Shifting seem mechanically different than having your spirit connection do something. It also feels like what kinds of spirits are out there could vary greatly from campaign world to campaign world and some may not have shamans at all, just like in some being connected to nature grants no magic, or in others there are no outer plains or gods to power clerics. 

This feels to me like the reason druids aren't just nature priests. Getting ones powers from a connection to the outer plains and channeling positive and negative energy feels very different from getting power from the world, talking to it, and changing shape.

My solution to the humanoids only have shamans problem would be to start giving the Orcs clerics if their divine casters are getting the power from worshiping Grummush, the lizard folk have druids if they are all about communing with their swamp environs, and maybe some humanoids commonly have shamans if they get their power from communing with their ancestors or tree spirits or fire spirits or whatnot.  Or maybe they all have a mix like humans do.


----------



## Mecheon

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> What is the difference between a druid and shaman. Perhaps we should just rename the druid to shaman to alleviate the "only orcs and trolls have shamen" problem.



Honestly, just bringing back something along the lines of 4E's shaman would also do the trick. Druid is its own thing and has had a D&D niche forever, but there's def a niche for the two of them given literately the most popular RPG out there at the moment has them differentiated

I'd def go with the spirit side of thing as their thing and maybe even tie a bit of the Binder side of things. Shamans deal with spirits, druids deal with nature. Shamans deal with specifics, druids deal with the wider. Close, but some differences between them


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements

Cadence said:


> If classes are based on where the powers come from, then I can see a set-up where druids are the ones that get their powers from communing with nature and shaman's the ones who get their powers communing with spirits. In PF, for example, the spirits include Ancestors, Battle, Lore, and Tribe that wouldn't fit with a druid as I see them. While the spell lists may be fairly similar, Animal Companion and Shape Shifting seem mechanically different than having your spirit connection do something. It also feels like what kinds of spirits are out there could vary greatly from campaign world to campaign world and some may not have shamans at all, just like in some being connected to nature grants no magic, or in others there are no outer plains or gods to power clerics.
> 
> This feels to me like the reason druids aren't just nature priests. Getting ones powers from a connection to the outer plains and channeling positive and negative energy feels very different from getting power from the world, talking to it, and changing shape.
> 
> My solution to the humanoids only have shamans problem would be to start giving the Orcs clerics if their divine casters are getting the power from worshiping Grummush, the lizard folk have druids if they are all about communing with their swamp environs, and maybe some humanoids commonly have shamans if they get their power from communing with their ancestors or tree spirits or fire spirits or whatnot.  Or maybe they all have a mix like humans do.




So shamans are more like warlocks (as defined by 5e)?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> So shamans are more like warlocks (as defined by 5e)?



I really think that there are already too many classes with a lot of conceptual overlap. I'd prefer fewer classes with customisation done via subclasses. I'd get at rid at least one of wizard, sorcerer or warlock and I would prefer shaman not to be a new class either.


----------



## Cadence

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> So shamans are more like warlocks (as defined by 5e)?




There is an overlap. If the view of the Shaman is that they work with a single spirit (like in PF?) then they would need some story work about why they are different. There might be differences in the relationship (works for vs. bound to), motivation (wants to further the spirits goals vs. works for the spirit because they want power), and spell types (arcane vs. divine). Is an Archfey, Demon Prince, or Great Old One basically a deity? If they are, and that's the spirit in question, is the relationship between a warlock and a shaman of this type any different than the difference between a warlock and a shaman of this type.

If the view of the shaman is that they work through the various spirits that exist, then that feels like it would be different.


----------



## Cadence

Crimson Longinus said:


> I really think that there are already too many classes with a lot of conceptual overlap. I'd prefer fewer classes with customisation done via subclasses. I'd get at rid at least one of wizard, sorcerer or warlock and I would prefer shaman not to be a new class either.




From a class combiner perspective, should Rogues/Thieves and Fighters be combined into a single "non-magical" class? What distinguishes them? 3.5 had options to let Rogue's sub out sneak attack for extra feats, and fighters do the opposite. Aren't there fighter options over the editions that have focused on Dex and Rogue ones that have focused on Str? Are they basically the same with one path having more HP and access to armor and the other having access to more skills?


----------



## Remathilis

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> What is the difference between a druid and shaman? Perhaps we should just rename the druid to shaman to alleviate the "only orcs and trolls have shamen" problem.



If we're going to keep the nature caster separate from the divine caster, then druid could be a subtype of shaman and could represent a variety of Shapeshifter types like skinwalkers as well.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Cadence said:


> From a class combiner perspective, should Rogues/Thieves and Fighters be combined into a single "non-magical" class? What distinguishes them? 3.5 had options to let Rogue's sub out sneak attack for extra feats, and fighters do the opposite. Aren't there fighter options over the editions that have focused on Dex and Rogue ones that have focused on Str? Are they basically the same with one path having more HP and access to armor and the other having access to more skills?



I don't think so. Fighters are tough front-line combatants that tend to wear robust armour and use big weapons, rogues are slippery sneaky gits that back stab people. It think this is a a big enough of a difference . Granted, the classic swashbuckler is kind of in awkward midpoint between the two.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Remathilis said:


> If we're going to keep the nature caster separate from the divine caster, then druid could be a subtype of shaman and could represent a variety of Shapeshifter types like skinwalkers as well.



Yes, this makes sense. A shaman is a person who communes with spirits and draws power from them. A druid is a shaman who focuses on nature spirits and skin-walking.


----------



## Remathilis

Cadence said:


> From a class combiner perspective, should Rogues/Thieves and Fighters be combined into a single "non-magical" class? What distinguishes them? 3.5 had options to let Rogue's sub out sneak attack for extra feats, and fighters do the opposite. Aren't there fighter options over the editions that have focused on Dex and Rogue ones that have focused on Str? Are they basically the same with one path having more HP and access to armor and the other having access to more skills?



Any time a discussion of "should x be a class" begins, it will inevitably end up down to two classes: spellcaster and nonspellcaster. At that point, you're just one move away from a classless system.

That said, I prefer IF we are going to remove classes, I prefer a 2e-inspired style of four superclasses that sets basic elements and the rest be either subclasses or customizable abilities you can select. Most of your classes can be represented as preselected packages or make your own. That way, if you don't like how an archetype is represented, you can do your own thing within the rules. Win/win.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> What is the difference between a druid and shaman. Perhaps we should just rename the druid to shaman to alleviate the "only orcs and trolls have shamen" problem.




My ''hot take'' would be to merge bards and druid as one class of loremaster, people leader and spellcasters in deep connection with the traditions of the world and folk magic fueled by communal connection of people, their past and their aspirations. Druids, shaman, skald, galdr, seidr etc would be from that class, to play character such as Merlin or other edge mages. Lets call them Mystics. They use speech, companions or music as spell focus.

Then you would merge cleric and warlock for casters granted powers through their devotion or service to a Power or Belief. No need to have patron and domains. Lets say you have class archetype like ''The Fiery One'': could be use for a priest of a God of fire, a demon from the burning hells, a volcano primordial, a effreeti lord or even a philosophy based around the idea that fire must be brought to the coldest, remotest places in the world to unite people together. Call them Avowed , Cultist or Acolyte. They use sacrifice and offering as spell focus.

Then merge Wizard and Sorcerer for those who use or are infused by the magic of the matter. Lets call them Mages. They are focused on the perceptible results of spellcasting; a the factual design of a spell is to create an effect. While the Mystics and the Avowed are more in negotiation with magic or its source, the Mages calculate, studies and thinker with magic around them or within them with the explicit expectation of a desired result. They use tangible esoteric tools  as spell focus.

Then merge Paladin and Rangers. Call them Warden because they are sworn to protect a cause: good vs evil, freedom vs tyranny, civilization vs wilderness or opposition to a specific foes. No matter which side they are on, the Warden is protecting a personal ideal and such focus gives them access to a small number of spells. The Warden is its own spell focus.

Then merge Rogue and Fighter. While other sacrificed their time to master an outside force, the Adventurer perfected one thing: themselves. Knaves, mercenaries, veteran soldiers and dungeon delver, they all focused on their own skills, earning a mastery of social, physical or weapon skill. While other succeed by the power of magic, the Adventurer is relying on its own wits, strengths and presence to resolve the situation they encounter.

Then, final hot take, merge the monk and barbarian to create a class focused on attaining a second-state to shrug off pain and normal worldly restraints. Be it with a trance, rage, cold fury or ecstasy, the Champion is able to forgo the use of mortal instruments such as weapons and armors and keep their mind focused on their goal.


----------



## MGibster

Imaculata said:


> I strongly disagree. D&D is well suited for Lovecraftian horror. There are many ways to run a campaign, and while the default will always be classic swords and sorcery, the Lovecraftian horror approach is a ton of fun.




I didn't agree that madness and Lovecraftian horror could never be used in D&D.  I agreed that such things should remain in the DM's Guide because cosmic horror and madness are not part of the normal D&D experience.


----------



## Fenris-77

MGibster said:


> I didn't agree that madness and Lovecraftian horror could never be used in D&D.  I agreed that such things should remain in the DM's Guide *because cosmic horror and madness are not part of the normal D&D experience*.



We must play with very different people. Some game nights I'm drooling down my bib and writing on the walls in feces before the snacks even get finished.


----------



## Cadence

MGibster said:


> I didn't agree that madness and Lovecraftian horror could never be used in D&D.  I agreed that such things should remain in the DM's Guide because cosmic horror and madness are not part of the normal D&D experience.




What are Illithids and Beholders?  Are they too mundane to be cosmic horror?


----------



## Fenris-77

Cadence said:


> What are Illithids and Beholders?  Are they too mundane to be cosmic horror?



There's always been a faint blush of cosmic horror on the D&D rose. It doesn't overwhelm the scent of moldering dungeon corridors, nor the musk or armor worn to long in the field, but it is part of the overall bouquet.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Cadence said:


> What are Illithids and Beholders?  Are they too mundane to be cosmic horror?



That's the thing, in Lovecract the cosmic horror shatters your mind and drives you mad, in D&D you kill it for the XP and loot.


----------



## MGibster

Cadence said:


> What are Illithids and Beholders?  Are they too mundane to be cosmic horror?




You remember the second Spider-Man movie with Doc Octopus as the villain?  There's a scene in an operating room where doctors are attempting to remove the tentacle contraption that's fused to Otto Octavius when they suddenly spring to life and start attacking the medical personnel.  It was almost like a scene from a horror movie, which makes sense given director Sam Raimi's history directing movies like The Evil Dead.  But Spider-Man 2 isn't a horror movie and the inclusion of Beholders and Mind Flayers doesn't make D&D a horror game.  

At it's core, horror is about creating an atmosphere that evokes fear.  Throwing a Mind Flayer into your typically D&D game isn't enough to turn it into horror because the player characters are just too damned capable.  Mind Flayers and Beholders really aren't any scarier than a myriad of other creatures one might encounter while playing D&D.  But you plop that Mind Flayer into the United States of the 1920s and suddenly we've got a horror situation brewing.  

I'm not arguing against the inclusion of horror elements in D&D as I agree it can be done and it can be done successfully.  I just don't think that's the default setting for D&D and such information is best relegated to the DM's Handbook under ideas for alternate styles of play.


----------



## Haldrik

Since Lovecraft is problematic,

and since insanity is hard work to design sensitively and accurately,

a different approach seems useful.



Personally, I tend to view Aberrants as Neutral Evil, as the missing species between Devil and Demon, seeking to disintegrate reality itself, namely the Material Plane, and doing so by means of evil wishes − and reality warping.

Aberrations are both the consequences of disintegrating reality, and the vehicles of temptation granting wish-like capabilities, at a price.


----------



## Wishbone

MGibster said:


> You remember the second Spider-Man movie with Doc Octopus as the villain?  There's a scene in an operating room where doctors are attempting to remove the tentacle contraption that's fused to Otto Octavius when they suddenly spring to life and start attacking the medical personnel.  It was almost like a scene from a horror movie, which makes sense given director Sam Raimi's history directing movies like The Evil Dead.  But Spider-Man 2 isn't a horror movie and the inclusion of Beholders and Mind Flayers doesn't make D&D a horror game.
> 
> At it's core, horror is about creating an atmosphere that evokes fear.  Throwing a Mind Flayer into your typically D&D game isn't enough to turn it into horror because the player characters are just too damned capable.  Mind Flayers and Beholders really aren't any scarier than a myriad of other creatures one might encounter while playing D&D.  But you plop that Mind Flayer into the United States of the 1920s and suddenly we've got a horror situation brewing.
> 
> I'm not arguing against the inclusion of horror elements in D&D as I agree it can be done and it can be done successfully.  I just don't think that's the default setting for D&D and such information is best relegated to the DM's Handbook under ideas for alternate styles of play.




I agree with this and would also like to add that that scene is fantastic. Especially after having watched way more of Sam Raimi's horror movies since the first time I saw _Spider-Man 2 _and forgetting the specifics of the scene.

Having a view of a mind flayer attacking a group of people while the PC's look on helplessly might be similarly effective in establishing the stakes for a horrendous moment in an adventurer's life. Perhaps describing the characters getting a flash vision from the victim and taking psychic damage in a wide area around a mind flayer successfully using Extract Brain on a target with mind flayers in the area getting temporary hit points to match? Drawing on the idea of taste-linked performance eating that allowed mind flayers to share the sensation of brain consumption with a public audience I remember from _The Illithiad_.


----------



## TheSword

I think we have to be very careful here that we don’t start telling people that they are having bad-wrong-fun. There are lots of things present in a d&d games which are unfortunate. Blindness, deafness, amputation, death, murder, kidnapping, etc etc. These things add gravity and risk to the challenges our characters face.

I sympathize with anyone living with a mental illness. Madness this should be part of the DMG as it is now, so that the DM can make common sense decisions about what is appropriate at their table. For instance I wouldn’t run Paizo’s ‘In Search of Sanity’ for my schizophrenic brother.

Out of the Abyss, uses involuntary madness as a curse of the gods... normally a loss of agency in a fictional sense. I’m pretty comfortable with this. They implement the rules by adding a flaw to the players character that they are requested to roleplay... but not forced to. The writers aren’t saying it is someone’s fault, or that they aren’t worthy because of it. It’s just a risk posed by that territory. I do think players should be warned in advance if that was the campaign that’s going to be run.

There are some settings, I’m thinking Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer 40k, etc where madness is a more important to the setting. This isn’t a problem provided people know what they’re getting into.


----------



## Fenris-77

MGibster said:


> I'm not arguing against the inclusion of horror elements in D&D as I agree it can be done and it can be done successfully.  I just don't think that's the default setting for D&D and such information is best relegated to the DM's Handbook under ideas for alternate styles of play.



Default setting? No. That said, there have been horror elements in the game form the get go. How heavily a DM leans into that is more about execution that what is present or not present in the base material.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> And now you’re trying to act as though I called  the “art of persuasion”(which sounds creepy as hell) dangerous nonsense? LOL




*Mod Note:*

I told everyone to make this about gaming.  That does not mean "take one last potshot and then make it about gaming.


----------



## Wishbone

Haldrik said:


> Since Lovecraft is problematic,
> 
> and since insanity is hard work to design sensitively and accurately,
> 
> a different approach seems useful.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I tend to view Aberrants as Neutral Evil, as the missing species between Devil and Demon, seeking to disintegrate reality itself, namely the Material Plane, and doing so by means of evil wishes − and reality warping.
> 
> Aberrations are both the consequences of disintegrating reality, and the vehicles of temptation granting wish-like capabilities, at a price.




What defines aberrations has so much wiggle room I'm a little unsure of the inherent value in keeping them as a distinct type in a hypothetical 6E. Are they cosmic horrors, psychic creatures, simply weird, or all of the above and more? If we're trying to unify aberrations by saying they're inhospitable to the reality of a setting it might be worth introducing ways they don't sit right with baseline assumptions for how we expect the rules to interact with monsters.


----------



## Cadence

Wishbone said:


> What defines aberrations has so much wiggle room I'm a little unsure of the inherent value as keeping them as a distinct type in a hypothetical 6E. Are they cosmic horrors, psychic creatures, simply weird, or all of the above and more? If we're trying to unify aberrations by saying they're inhospitable to the reality of a setting it might be worth introducing ways they don't sit right with baseline assumptions for how we expect the rules to interact with monsters.




The 1d4chan page kind of sums up the way it seems to have been done:






I'd kind of like the aberrations to be the creatures from the Far Realms (the alien things beyond the great wheel and the inner planes) and the things they touched and corrupted. 

Part of the problem I have sorting things is where all the chaosy-alien things fit in.  Is Limbo a plane exemplifying doing whatever they want, or one for destroying order?  Is there a great outer entropy that wants the universe to decay to nothing that even the inhabitants of Limbo would rebel against?  Are the things from the Far Realms something like a tentacly Borg with code that feels non-sensical that are trying to rewrite everything?    Are the far realms creatures and the greater entropy the two great things opposed to all of the rest of creation?


----------



## Haldrik

Wishbone said:


> What defines aberrations has so much wiggle room I'm a little unsure of the inherent value in keeping them as a distinct type in a hypothetical 6E. Are they cosmic horrors, psychic creatures, simply weird, or all of the above and more? If we're trying to unify aberrations by saying they're inhospitable to the reality of a setting it might be worth introducing ways they don't sit right with baseline assumptions for how we expect the rules to interact with monsters.




There is a trope that Aberrations physically warp their environment, even to the point that doorways stop being rectangular, and physically warp creatures that cooperate with them.


----------



## Wishbone

Cadence said:


> The 1d4chan page kind of sums up the way it seems to have been done:
> 
> View attachment 124583
> 
> I'd kind of like the aberrations to be the creatures from the Far Realms (the alien things beyond the great wheel and the inner planes) and the things they touched and corrupted.
> 
> Part of the problem I have sorting things is where all the chaosy-alien things fit in.  Is Limbo a plane exemplifying doing whatever they want, or one for destroying order?  Is there a great outer entropy that wants the universe to decay to nothing that even the inhabitants of Limbo would rebel against?  Are the things from the Far Realms something like a tentacly Borg with code that feels non-sensical that are trying to rewrite everything?    Are the far realms creatures and the greater entropy the two great things opposed to all of the rest of creation?




I agree with you. Aberrations as a catch all isn't my favorite thing and you pose good questions on how to go about building out the Far Realms and aberrations effectively. Dropping the 4E aberrant origin and Far Realm lore was a missed opportunity!

Defining aberrations as creatures whose existence is inherently inimical to the nature of reality on the Material Plane sort of maintains the catch-all quality while leaving room for things like slaad, daelkyr, and quori beyond the typical tentacle-faced Far Realm fare. Though I will say slaad being aberrations feels more like WotC had to pick a category after splitting outsider into fiend and celestial and then mostly based it on the way slaad reproduce.



Haldrik said:


> There is a trope that Aberrations physically warp their environment, even to the point that doorways stop being rectangular, and physically warp creatures that cooperate with them.




Hm, how would we implement that as an option without making it frustrating for the players or the DM? Aberrations draining characters of their hit dice every few turns?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Is the snark really helpful?  I know, it gets frustrating, but, that's not helping anyone.



I'm shocked that posters that are supposedly sensitive to others and generally tackle me and others on what is correct and acceptable today would put forward such an idea.


----------



## Haldrik

Wishbone said:


> Dropping the 4E aberrant origin and Far Realm lore was a missed opportunity!



In the context of removing noninclusive texts in 5e, perhaps removing racist supremacist Lovecraft material finds a new opportunity to drop Far Realms.

As far as I know, "aberrant" is a D&D term (not a Lovecraft one?).

If so, using "aberrant" to mean grotesque mutant, seems ok? The difference between "monstrosity" and "aberrant" seems to involve intelligence, similar to the difference between "beast" and "humanoid".





Wishbone said:


> Hm, how would we implement that as an option without making it frustrating for the players or the DM?



To actualize reality warping tropes.

At low tier, maybe mechanics of: difficult terrain, descriptions of sites and objects that are askew, a devils bargain that grant abilities but mutates a character to grant it, creations of cursed items, etcetera. Maybe exhaustion attack represents a temporary mutation, but a corpse at zero hit points fully mutates, while a Remove Curse can restore to original wholesome health.

At mid tiers, "summoned" creatures are actually locations warping, becoming new aberrants. Even if dead, their mutations remain. But Remove Curse can restore these kinds of aftermath.

At high tier, legendary actions can be the warping environment making attacks autonomously.

Something like that. Mostly normal mechanics can actualize the trope.

I feel a "curse" that can be cured, helps convey that the dehumanization is Evil (Neutral Evil), and that humanity can prevail when removing the curse.

But there can still be edgy characters, who choose to mutate to gain certain abilities. Player characters can be Good aberrants, who undergo the loss of humanity for altruistic motives. This resembles a Warlock Devil Pact, where it is possible to be a Good Warlock, if the player chooses this concept.


----------



## Umbran

Sadras said:


> So we want THIS much realism but having men being able to outcap women in STR is too far. M'kay.




*Mod Note:*

The snark is not helpful, and is reported for being pretty sexist stuff.  In a thread with so many problems, you can't realize you should hold off this, it is time for you to take a break from it.  Please find something you can engage with more constructively, as you won't be posting in this thread again.


----------



## Wishbone

Haldrik said:


> In the context of removing noninclusive texts in 5e, perhaps removing racist supremacist Lovecraft material finds a new opportunity to drop Far Realms.
> 
> As far as I know, "aberrant" is a D&D term (not a Lovecraft one?).
> 
> If so, using "aberrant" to mean grotesque mutant, seems ok? The difference between "monstrosity" and "aberrant" seems to involve intelligence, similar to the difference between "beast" and "humanoid".




I generally like the idea of the Far Realm and think there's a way to link it to ideas like primordial chaos, but that gets close to the Abyss and what 4E already did so I take your point.




			
				Haldrik said:
			
		

> To actualize reality warping tropes.
> 
> At low tier, maybe mechanics of difficult terrain, descriptions of sites and objects that are askew, and devils bargains that grant abilities but mutate characters to do so, create cursed items, etcetera. Maybe exhaustion represents temporary mutation, while reaching zero hit points, a corpse fully mutates, but Remove Curse can restore to health.
> 
> At mid tiers, "summoned" creatures are actually locations warping, becoming new aberrants. Even if dead, their mutations remain. But Remove Curse can restore these kinds of aftermath.
> 
> At high tier, legendary actions can be the warping environment making attacks autonomously.
> 
> Something like that. Mostly normal mechanics can actualize the trope.
> 
> I feel a "curse" that can be cured, helps convey that the dehumanization is Evil, and that humanity can prevail when removing the curse.
> 
> But there can still be edgy characters, who choose to mutate to gain certain abilities. Player characters can be Good mutants, who undergo the loss for good motives. This resembles a Warlock Devil Pact, where it is possible to be a Good Warlock, if the player chooses this concept.




Seems like a generally good idea to refluff things to suit their theme. The big conceptual themes behind monsters aren't always super present in the mechanical interactions with them, but that's probably more of something dropped in the transition from 3.5E to 4E than the fault of the designers of 5E in particular. I was having trouble picturing something other than adding another set of mechanics like psionics or ability drain onto the existing combat system.


----------



## Haldrik

Wishbone said:


> I generally like the idea of the Far Realm and think there's a way to link it to ideas like primordial chaos, but that gets close to the Abyss and what 4E already did so I take your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like a generally good idea to refluff things to suit their theme. The big conceptual themes behind monsters aren't always super present in the mechanical interactions with them, but that's probably more of something dropped in the transition from 3.5E to 4E than the fault of the designers of 5E in particular. I was having trouble picturing something other than adding another set of mechanics like psionics or ability drain onto the existing combat system.



Regarding aberrant mechanics, I would focus on warping and mutation, including impossible mutations.

Among the astral infernal domains, the Lawful Evil Devil domain has vivid flavor, and the Chaotic Evil Demon domain has vivid flavor. Making Aberrant the Neutral Evil infernal domain, gives compelling vivid flavor.

While the warping reminds one of Chaotic tropes, the Aberrant comes with socially cooperative tropes that reminds of Lawful. So the overall effect, is Neutral Evil, seeking the most evil possible, whether by individual power or by group power, with a kind of existentialist premise.

Essentially, an Aberrant is a kind of Fiend.

Note, there is such thing as a Good Fiend, including a Good Aberrant. Rare but notable.



Personally, I strongly prefer psionics to be ones own personal power. Thus referring to powers outside oneself is by definition nonpsionic, and more like a Warlock Pact. In short, I dislike psionic flavor that becomes "squick".

On the other hand, just like some Martial bodies can mutate into Aberrants, so can some Psionic minds mutate into Aberrants. Things like Aberrant Mindflayers that happen to be psionic, are fine. Just like Angels can be psionic. And Fey.


----------



## Haldrik

For the record, Mindflayers are right up there among Evil grotesque mutations. A head that is a squid, that controls a decapitated body? Slimy ick! Squick!

And the head-brain-psion tropes correlates ok. This is an Aberrant that happens to be psionic.



One could see this is a fulfillment of an Evil Wish. "Become a powerful psionic!" How does it happen? Victim of a Mindflayer. Perhaps the first Mindflayer was a Humanoid who lost ones humanity by wanting to become psionic, from then on a spawning predatory head.


----------



## MGibster

How does making changes to aberrations make D&D more inclusive though?


----------



## Haldrik

MGibster said:


> How does making changes to aberrations make D&D more inclusive though?



Purging away full-on white racist supremacism. One might as well have swastikas on Cthulhu.


----------



## Umbran

MGibster said:


> How does making changes to aberrations make D&D more inclusive though?




By removing the direct attributions to a racist jerk.


----------



## Haldrik

According to the Monster Manual, there are intelligent Monstrosities, including Minotaur and Yuan-Ti.

So, Aberrants seem to work better as a Fiend tag, like Devil and Demon.



This can help distinguish between tropes of Unaligned mutants versus Evil mutants.



That said, it is possible to describe both Minotaur and Yuan-Ti as fiendish.


----------



## Chaosmancer

I kind of like Aberrants as the new neutral evil, but I think we keep the Far Realms and some of the lore. For example, I like the idea that most of the Aberrations are the evils that consumed their own dimensions and are floating around in the Far Realms, seeking to absorb this dimension and utilize it for their own ends. 

Demons and Devils are of this dimension, Aberrations are beyond it. 

I also like devils being created because and having a PR campaign that they are the best line of defense against the Demons and the Aberrations. A "Hey, look, we are evil, but we are a better evil than those things, right?" It leans into my favorite parts of Infernal powers being about making a choice, by giving you a good reason to choose them. Literally, "better the devil you know"


----------



## MGibster

Umbran said:


> By removing the direct attributions to a racist jerk.




You're telling me someone opened D&D, saw there were creatures categorized as aberrations, and jumped directly to Lovecraft and white supremacy somehow?  That's absurd.


----------



## MGibster

Haldrik said:


> Purging away full-on white racist supremacism. One might as well have swastikas on Cthulhu.




So what does this say about the creators of the Call of Cthulhu role playing game or those who play it?


----------



## Umbran

Chaosmancer said:


> Demons and Devils are of this dimension, Aberrations are beyond it.




Funny use of the term "dimension".

You cannot walk, take a boat, or fly to The Abyss.  It is not on the same plane of existence.  I am not sure how you can call it the same dimension.


----------



## Umbran

MGibster said:


> You're telling me someone opened D&D, saw there were creatures categorized as aberrations, and jumped directly to Lovecraft and white supremacy somehow?  That's absurd.




You asked a question.  More than one of us has given you basically the same answer.  The fact that you do not understand it does not make it absurd.  

So long as this conversation is a fight to get past your persistently judgemental incredulity, I am not terribly interested in it.


----------



## MGibster

Umbran said:


> So long as this conversation is a fight to get past your persistently judgemental incredulity, I am not terribly interested in it.




I understand where you're coming from as I find it difficult fighting past your righteous indignation.


----------



## Wishbone

Chaosmancer said:


> I kind of like Aberrants as the new neutral evil, but I think we keep the Far Realms and some of the lore. For example, I like the idea that most of the Aberrations are the evils that consumed their own dimensions and are floating around in the Far Realms, seeking to absorb this dimension and utilize it for their own ends.
> 
> Demons and Devils are of this dimension, Aberrations are beyond it.
> 
> I also like devils being created because and having a PR campaign that they are the best line of defense against the Demons and the Aberrations. A "Hey, look, we are evil, but we are a better evil than those things, right?" It leans into my favorite parts of Infernal powers being about making a choice, by giving you a good reason to choose them. Literally, "better the devil you know"




Haldrik's idea of aberrations taking the flag for NE daemons certainly would give an out of game justification for why ultroloths look like grey aliens and why the yugoloths don't have much in common with one another. Poor yugoloths never can keep up with those devils and demons in the most important front of the Blood War—PR.



MGibster said:


> So what does this say about the creators of the Call of Cthulhu role playing game or those who play it?




I personally don't have a problem with people playing _Call of Cthulhu_, but people have every right to be turned off from buying a product with the name of one of Lovecraft's most prominent creations on it. _Delta Green _has always vaguely interested me for the premise, though I've never played.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Wishbone said:


> Haldrik's idea of aberrations taking the flag for NE daemons certainly would give an out of game justification for why ultroloths look like grey aliens and why the yugoloths don't have much in common with one another. Poor yugoloths never can keep up with those devils and demons in the most important front of the Blood War—PR.




That and the whole NE Yugoloth as uncaring evil and nihilistic creatures fit wells with the idea of unfathomable evil: the human mind can kinda understand evil for a goal, with an end game, but evil just for the sake of evilness is pretty hard to grasp. You could add the whole 4e's abominations to them: they were created living-weapons made by both camps of the God vs Primordials. In this new version of the Yugoloth, they could craft abominations as weapon sold across the planes to fuel cosmic wars.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Umbran said:


> Funny use of the term "dimension".
> 
> You cannot walk, take a boat, or fly to The Abyss.  It is not on the same plane of existence.  I am not sure how you can call it the same dimension.





Well, I'm not sure the exact right term to use here. It isn't like Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, Mystara, Darksun ect use the same exact cosmology. 

If you want me to say "from outside this crystal sphere of influence but not one of the planes of existence we are typically familair with which may also lay outside of that crystal sphere" I can. But I think my point was understood.



vincegetorix said:


> That and the whole NE Yugoloth as uncaring evil and nihilistic creatures fit wells with the idea of unfathomable evil: the human mind can kinda understand evil for a goal, with an end game, but evil just for the sake of evilness is pretty hard to grasp. You could add the whole 4e's abominations to them: they were created living-weapons made by both camps of the God vs Primordials. In this new version of the Yugoloth, they could craft abominations as weapon sold across the planes to fuel cosmic wars.




That is an interesting direction to take them, less armies and more like the Daelkyr of Eberron, crafting horrors.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Chaosmancer said:


> That is an interesting direction to take them, less armies and more like the Daelkyr of Eberron, crafting horrors.




You know what? I'd keep the whole army thing, but make them more like war profiteers and gun runners, selling abominations and the services of the yugoloth armies to both sides. The Dealkyr and other Elder Evils would be nice Yugoloth leaders.


----------



## Haldrik

vincegetorix said:


> That and the whole NE Yugoloth as uncaring evil and nihilistic creatures fit wells with the idea of unfathomable evil: the human mind can kinda understand evil for a goal, with an end game, but evil just for the sake of evilness is pretty hard to grasp. You could add the whole 4e's abominations to them: they were created living-weapons made by both camps of the God vs Primordials. In this new version of the Yugoloth, they could craft abominations as weapon sold across the planes to fuel cosmic wars.




So, Yugoloth as an Aberrant species that is mercenary.

For some reason, it took me time to get used to the idea, but it makes so much sense.

I like it alot.


----------



## Eltab

The only NE Daemon with a distinct "personality" that I can think of offhand is Charon (embodiment of death by old age).  Having aberrations as NE would fit them - all about themselves and no concern for anybody else - and fill a conceptual void.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Haldrik said:


> Since Lovecraft is problematic,
> 
> and since insanity is hard work to design sensitively and accurately,
> 
> a different approach seems useful.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I tend to view Aberrants as Neutral Evil, as the missing species between Devil and Demon, seeking to disintegrate reality itself, namely the Material Plane, and doing so by means of evil wishes − and reality warping.
> 
> Aberrations are both the consequences of disintegrating reality, and the vehicles of temptation granting wish-like capabilities, at a price.



like Pathfidner daemons?


----------



## Cadence

vincegetorix said:


> That and the whole NE Yugoloth as uncaring evil and nihilistic creatures fit wells with the idea of unfathomable evil: the human mind can kinda understand evil for a goal, with an end game, but evil just for the sake of evilness is pretty hard to grasp.




Are the CN Slaadi and CE Demon motivations that much more fathomable?  (Is chaos more likely to  lack goals and an endgame?)


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Cadence said:


> Are the CN Slaadi and CE Demon motivations that much more fathomable?  (Is chaos more likely to  lack goals and an endgame?)





Sladdi are a weird bunch, but they have an endgame: breed. On the opposite, it feels that I they were to face extinction they would probably just go ''...meh''. 

The endgame of demons is annihilation, you can go to a demon and ask him ''so...why are we doing this again?'' and he'll say ''I do evil so that your universe will be consumed by nothingness''.

Go to an aberrant yugoloth with the same question and he'll go ''I dunno man, because I can? I dont really think of it, I make weapon and go kill stuff because...I really dont know dude''. Maybe they do have a reason and goal, but its beyond our comprehension to do evil for absolutely no-reason, not even for the lol.

I see these things like this:

Beastie Boys: ''no sleep 'till Brooklyn''
Devils: ''no sleep till total domination''
Demons: ''no sleep till total anihilation''
Slaadi: ''no sleep till one more of us, again an again''
Yugoloth: ''no sleep till.....-blank-''.


----------



## Wishbone

vincegetorix said:


> Sladdi are a weird bunch, but they have an endgame: breed. On the opposite, it feels that I they were to face extinction they would probably just go ''...meh''.
> 
> The endgame of demons is annihilation, you can go to a demon and ask him ''so...why are we doing this again?'' and he'll say ''I do evil so that your universe will be consumed by nothingness''.
> 
> Go to an aberrant yugoloth with the same question and he'll go ''I dunno man, because I can? I dont really think of it, I make weapon and go kill stuff because...I really dont know dude''. Maybe they do have a reason and goal, but its beyond our comprehension to do evil for absolutely no-reason, not even for the lol.
> 
> I see these things like this:
> 
> Beastie Boys: ''no sleep 'till Brooklyn''
> Devils: ''no sleep till total domination''
> Demons: ''no sleep till total annihilation''
> Slaadi: ''no sleep till one more of us, again an again''
> Yugoloth: ''no sleep till.....-blank-''.




Yugoloths do it for the lulz. What they do with the lulz is a mystery.


----------



## Haldrik

vincegetorix said:


> Devils: ''no sleep till total domination''
> Demons: ''no sleep till total anihilation''
> Slaadi: ''no sleep till one more of us, again an again''
> Yugoloth: ''no sleep till.....-blank-''.




Aberrant (Yugoloth): "no sleep till ... mutation"


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Wishbone said:


> Yugoloths do it for the lulz. What they do with the lulz is a mystery.




That's the thing though, they do not. They are exemplar of apathy and dispassion. They dont even get a kick out of it.


----------



## Haldrik

vincegetorix said:


> That's the thing though, they do not. They are exemplar of apathy and dispassion. They dont even get a kick out of it.



But that is an Aberrant trope too: warp and corrupt ... dispassionately.


----------



## Remathilis

Haldrik said:


> Purging away full-on white racist supremacism. One might as well have swastikas on Cthulhu.



Right. Getting rid of Clerics of Thor because actual people today still worship him is overreacting, but getting rid of Great Old One Warlocks because the guy who created Cthulhu was racist is necessary.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Haldrik said:


> Aberrant (Yugoloth): "no sleep till ... mutation"




I'd go with ''C-C-C-C-CHanges, turn and face the strange''. 

But yeah, somekind of evolutionary endgame that is beyond the reach of the human's mind is pretty on point with the idea of Aberrant(Yugos). When you look at the mindset of other aberrant, such as the aboleth and beholders, there's always that theme of evolution and ''betterment''. 

The thing I love the most with this idea is that it gives a place for the Far-Realm on the Great Wheel without having it be outside the standard planar configuration. And, if you look at the usual Yugoloth-inhabited planes, they fit really well with the notion of a maddening void with strange non-eucledian geography as often seen in the Mythos lore.


----------



## Mecheon

vincegetorix said:


> Sladdi are a weird bunch, but they have an endgame: breed. On the opposite, it feels that I they were to face extinction they would probably just go ''...meh''.



Y'know, I really liked 4E's interpretation of the Slaad in that they were trying to tear down the walls of the multiverse and restore reality to its primal state. No laws of physics. No boundaries. No stuck in limited forms, instead free to be and to do and to wander was one wants, with no more multiple realities chained in their various 'rules' and 'laws' but instead a quagmire of an infinite possibility.


----------



## Haldrik

@Remathilis

Not sure what point you are making. Rephrase?


----------



## Haldrik

Remathilis said:


> Getting rid of Great Old One Warlocks because the guy who created Cthulhu was racist is necessary.




Actually, Great Old One Warlocks can still be around. They make a Fiend pact, with an Aberrant, such as a Yugoloth.


----------



## Remathilis

Haldrik said:


> @Remathilis
> 
> Not sure what point you are making. Rephrase?



I have a hard time following the outrage train on this one. 

We are discussing the place of aberrations in D&D because someone MIGHT connect aberrations to the Mythos and because the creator of the Mythos was racist, they might get offended by that. 

Yet giving stats (including an alignment) to some real religious figure in neopaganism is ok, because comic book movie.

If there is one constant I find among all these threads, it's that I can never predict what things will incite torches and pitchforks and what will be greeted with a collective shrug.


----------



## Haldrik

Remathilis said:


> I have a hard time following the outrage train on this one.




Really?

If there was a D&D plane called "Ku Kl*x Klan", you would have a hard time following the outrage?

Really?

Lovecraft is a problematic source.

WotC does well to keep it away.


----------



## Eric V

There are no torches and pitchforks.  That's hyperbole, and not helpful.

The place of aberrations is being discussed.  No one wants to get rid of them.  People don't want the "inspirational reading list" to direct people to someone who, even for his time, was severely racist.  If it means a tweak to aberrations, so be it.

There.


----------



## Minigiant

Isn't yugoloths all about selfish power and wealth

whereas aberrations are just abnormal that their minds and/body barely fit the broad definition of what constitutes as normal..

Devils- LE Pride
Demons- CE Wrath
Yugoloths-NE Greed

"B-b-b-b-but you can't just field chariots!"
Aberrations- BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION!


----------



## Hussar

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> So shamans are more like warlocks (as defined by 5e)?




I'd argue that shaman are maybe closer to Oath of Ancients Paladins, at least flavor wise.  Obviously mechanically there's some differences.



Cadence said:


> What are Illithids and Beholders?  Are they too mundane to be cosmic horror?




Answer:  What are monsters that almost never get used Alex?


----------



## Haldrik

Minigiant said:


> Aberrations- BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION!



Lovecraft is comprehensible.

Cthulhu = white racist supremacism that philosophizes that might-makes-right for the sake of an "amoral" (N*zi Nietzsche) brutal violent takeover, where other humans are hapless "sheep".

No mystery about it.

Neutral Evil it is.


----------



## Minigiant

Haldrik said:


> Lovecraft is comprehendable.
> 
> Cthulhu = amoral (N*zi Nietzsche) white racist supremacism − philosophizing that might makes "right" and other humans are hapless "sheep".
> 
> No mystery about it.




That's why we should move away from him.
It's.. his ideas are against the lore of the Far Realm.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Minigiant said:


> Isn't yugoloths all about selfish power and wealth




In theory and in the general lore, yes they are. And that makes them a little to close to devils to my taste. That's why I'm suggesting finding them another niche, the one of ''alien evil'' rather than putting them in the little-less-power hungry-than-devils-a-little-less-random lol-than-demons corner.


----------



## Remathilis

Haldrik said:


> Really?
> 
> If there was a D&D plane called "Ku Kl*x Klan", you would have a hard time following the outrage?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Lovecraft is a problematic source.
> 
> WotC does well to keep it away.



The Mythos are public domain. There is more Non-Lovecraft stories in the world then ones penned but him. The Mythos have been reclaimed from Lovecraft, and increasingly by people of color. 

What you're setting though is a dangerous prescident. If we are to remove derivative works based on what their author's were like, be ready to start cleaning out a lot. We've discussed Tolkien and his views on race in multiple orc threads: should we remove dwarves, elves, orcs, and hobbits? Bram Stoker had some outdated views on race and gender, guess we get rid of vampires. The Bible has a lot of text that isn't very inclusive; goodbye Heaven, Hell, angels and demons. 

Eggshells man, eggshells...


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Haldrik said:


> Really?
> 
> If there was a D&D plane called "Ku Kl*x Klan", you would have a hard time following the outrage?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Lovecraft is a problematic source.
> 
> WotC does well to keep it away.



Well, don't neo-nazi's support norse neo-paganism?

That sounds like a good enough reason for getting rid of the norse pantheon in D&D if we should get rid of cosmic horror because the popularizer was a racist.


----------



## Minigiant

vincegetorix said:


> In theory and in the general lore, yes they are. And that makes them a little to close to devils to my taste. That's why I'm suggesting finding them another niche, the one of ''alien evil'' rather than putting them in the little-less-power hungry-than-devils-a-little-less-random lol-than-demons corner.




I think the difference is goal.

Devil's are building power for a goal. The goal might be secret or known to a few. But Asmodues isn't being evil and amassing power just for his own sake. There is a bit of self righteousness in it. Devil's believe they deserve power because it will be used properly.

Yugoloths are all about the money. CREAM. They actively pursue the status quo to keep the money train going. Yugoloths will actively disrupt world domination because no war means no war profiteering.


----------



## Haldrik

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Well, don't neo-nazi's support norse neo-paganism?
> 
> That sounds like a good enough reason for getting rid of the norse pantheon in D&D if we should get rid of cosmic horror because the popularizer was a racist.




There is a difference between white supremacists supporting neo-paganism,

versus importing an actual white supremacist document. Even if lampshaded or dog-whistled.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> You asked a question.  More than one of us has given you basically the same answer.  The fact that you do not understand it does not make it absurd.
> 
> So long as this conversation is a fight to get past your persistently judgemental incredulity, I am not terribly interested in it.




Look, as someone who has argued pretty strongly for pulling Lovecraft's name out of the game, I have to say, I am also in the boat thinking that this is going too far.

Number one, beholders, as a specific example, aren't inspired by anything Lovecraftian, despite being aberrations.  You can read the entirety of Lovecraft from front to back and not see a single reference to a beholder or anything resembling beholders.  So, why would the Far Realms, where beholders are supposed to come from, (a "beyond known reality - a trope that Lovecraft certainly didn't invent) be problematic?  Mind Flayers are Lovecraftian in the sense of being tentacle horrors, but, again, Lovecraft hardly has a monopoly on that. 

Cthulhu is mentioned (AFAIR) a single time in the PHB under GOO warlocks.  Pull that reference out and everything is fine. 

The key here is SMALL changes.  We don't need to completely rewrite things because, well, that's not answering specific issues.  "Inspired by Lovecraft" is an unprovable position.  Mind Flayers are just as much Japanese Hentai anime as they are Lovecraft.  Sure, they are inspired by mythos stories (Brian Lumley was the inspiring author - google) but, again, Mythos stories aren't really the issue.  I want to keep those - or at least those stories that aren't grounded in racism.  I would just rather that direct references to Lovecraft were removed.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Haldrik said:


> There is a difference between white supremacists supporting neo-paganism,
> 
> versus importing an actual white supremacist document. Even if lampshaded or dog-whistled.



So only the original interpretation of a subject matters? You can't _ever_ reclaim something ever?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Minigiant said:


> Yugoloths are all about the money. CREAM. They actively pursue the status quo to keep the money train going. Yugoloths will actively disrupt world domination because no war means no war profiteering.




And that's all good. For my part, I think that having them based on greed is boring, I just cant understand (heh!) why a race would need money when they live in the hellhole they are. But then you have Mammon whose whole deal is greed, and is a Devil lord.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

vincegetorix said:


> And that's all good. For my part, I think that having them based on greed is boring, I just cant understand (heh!) why a race would need money when they live in the hellhole they are. But then you have Mammon whose whole deal is greed, and is a Devil lord.



Well, Money is only one aspect of Greed.

(and also, I would say that Mammon is more Gluttony than Greed, but that might be a subjective thing.)


----------



## Minigiant

vincegetorix said:


> And that's all good. For my part, I think that having them based on greed is boring, I just cant understand (heh!) why a race would need money when they live in the hellhole they are. But then you have Mammon whose whole deal is greed, and is a Devil lord.




I think the difference is goals.

Mammon is filthy rich and his greed is insatiable. However he wants the wealth for a reason: to topple and replace Asmodues.

There is no goal for the daemons. They already see themselves as perfect and the state of the world as near perfect. So all there is left is to gather wealth for selfishness sake.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Well, Money is only one aspect of Greed.




Still, I have a hard time understanding how a creature that is all about envy and their needs and wants can be described a dispassionate or apathetic. 

Anyway, its just a matter of preference. I love to have a place in the great wheel cosmology for far-realmsian creatures and I personally think the yugoloth fits the bill without too much modification to their lore.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Minigiant said:


> I think the difference is goals.
> 
> Mammon is filthy rich and his greed is insatiable. However he wants the wealth for a reason: to topple and replace Asmodues.
> 
> There is no goal for the daemons. They already see themselves as perfect and the state of the world as near perfect. So all there is left is to gather wealth for selfishness sake.



Well that's literally the exact opposite of what I was thinking.

Mammon wants money because he just wants money. The Yugoloths want money (or I guess in their case, souls) because it gives them more power, and _that's_ what they're greedy for.


----------



## Haldrik

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So only the original interpretation of a subject matters? You can't _ever_ reclaim something ever?




When it comes to this racist supremacist crap, it is extremely difficult to reclaim something.

Think of all the contaminated heritages ruined by N*zis appropriating them: Roman military salute, Asian swastika, and so on.

Even being European is now suspect. Nevermind being German.

A burning cross, or a white hood, conveys supremacist connotations.

Even being a White American is suspect.

Perhaps it will take generations before these symbols and identities can be free from the damage done by supremacists.

If only there would be a reallife Remove Curse spell!


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

vincegetorix said:


> Still, I have a hard time understanding how a creature that is all about envy and their needs and wants can be described a dispassionate or apathetic.
> 
> Anyway, its just a matter of preference. I love to have a place in the great wheel cosmology for far-realmsian creatures and I personally think the yugoloth fits the bill without too much modification to their lore.



I still say Pathfinder Daemons are the best interpretation of Neutral Evil Outsiders.

Beings embodying different forms of death and want to _every_ thing to die, including eventually, themselves.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Haldrik said:


> When it comes to this racist supremacist crap, it is extremely difficult to reclaim something.
> 
> Think of all the contaminated heritages ruined by N*zis appropriating them: Roman military salute, Asian swastika, and so on.
> 
> Even being European is now suspect. Nevermind being German.
> 
> A burning cross, or a white hood, conveys supremacist connotations.
> 
> Even being a White American is suspect.
> 
> Perhaps it will take generations before these symbols and identities can be free from the supremacist connotations.
> 
> If only there would be a reallife Remove Curse spell!



So asian people using swastikas are racist until proven otherwise?

Being german means that you are naturally predisposed to be a horrible person?

_living in a country_ means that people should take a second look at what your are doing just in case it could be racist?

I'm... honestly speechless. The only person who I think could be more prejudiced is is an actual racial supremacist. As I said in another thread (I think even this one) the solution to prejudice _is not more prejudice_.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I still say Pathfinder Daemons are the best interpretation of Neutral Evil Outsiders.
> 
> Beings embodying different forms of death and want to _every_ thing to die, including eventually, themselves.




Yeah, I also prefer the PF's outsiders to the D&D ones. The CN Protean are so much cooler than the Slaadi!


----------



## Wishbone

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So asian people using swastikas are racist until proven otherwise?
> 
> Being german means that you are naturally predisposed to be a horrible person?
> 
> _living in a country_ means that people should take a second look at what your are doing just in case it could be racist?




Denazification was a thing that happened to prevent that very sort of thing from happening again, which I guess isn't against your point but feels important to add in to the conversation.


----------



## Wishbone

vincegetorix said:


> Yeah, I also prefer the PF's outsiders to the D&D ones. The CN Prometheans are so much cooler than the Slaadi!




Renbuu at least seems like a cool guy.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Wishbone said:


> Denazification was a thing that happened to prevent that very sort of thing from happening again, which I guess isn't against your point but feels important to add in to the conversation.



But do taking steps to prevent something from happening again mean that germans are naturally predisposed to be genocidal maniacs? Especially since going by events going on around the same time that problem seems to be more of a "human being" thing rather than a "german" thing?


----------



## Wishbone

FlyingChihuahua said:


> But do taking steps to prevent something from happening again mean that germans are naturally predisposed to be genocidal maniacs? Especially since going by events going on around the same time that problem seems to be more of a "human being" thing rather than a "german" thing?




No, of course they're not.

As I understand it the argument was conditions were ripe for the rise of a despot who took advantage of the situation and promoted fear in the people to achieve horrendous things against specific subsets of the population. The Holocaust was _specifically_ a genocide carried out by members of the legitimate German government empowered by the people who elected them, and in the aftermath they determined to productively teach the citizens of the state to recognize the signs building to the specific sort of genocide their government had carried out. That other genocides happened doesn't abdicate the society who perpetrated the genocide from some kind of public reckoning with being complicit in the actions carried out.


----------



## Wishbone

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So asian people using swastikas are racist until proven otherwise?




Missed this first part—as a Jewish person my gut reaction would certainly be to feel threatened by someone displaying a swastika. I'd accept it depending on the exact nature of representation and religious or cultural significance but a lot depends on the context and on how tone deaf the conversation is to my concerns. Also, if I'd be comfortable enough to even figure out the intent behind wearing a swastika is really going to depend on them.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Remathilis said:


> I have a hard time following the outrage train on this one.
> 
> We are discussing the place of aberrations in D&D because someone MIGHT connect aberrations to the Mythos and because the creator of the Mythos was racist, they might get offended by that.
> 
> Yet giving stats (including an alignment) to some real religious figure in neopaganism is ok, because comic book movie.
> 
> If there is one constant I find among all these threads, it's that I can never predict what things will incite torches and pitchforks and what will be greeted with a collective shrug.




I think it is simpler than that. 

Personally, I don't connect most of the Aberrations to Lovecraft at all. And I think out of all of them in the books... only Cthulu is a direct reference to his work. 

So, removing Lovecraft from DnD is pretty much just not using Cthulu. But Cosmic Horror is a genre with legs, and someone came up with the idea of moving them into the NE spot that is normally.... filled? with the very uninspiring Yugololths and we are running with it a bit because it is a great idea. And connecting Yugololths to abberrations to bio-weaponry and such is a great spot for them with lots of space to explore interesting themes and ideas.  



Hussar said:


> Look, as someone who has argued pretty strongly for pulling Lovecraft's name out of the game, I have to say, I am also in the boat thinking that this is going too far.
> 
> Number one, beholders, as a specific example, aren't inspired by anything Lovecraftian, despite being aberrations.  You can read the entirety of Lovecraft from front to back and not see a single reference to a beholder or anything resembling beholders.  So, why would the Far Realms, where beholders are supposed to come from, (a "beyond known reality - a trope that Lovecraft certainly didn't invent) be problematic?  Mind Flayers are Lovecraftian in the sense of being tentacle horrors, but, again, Lovecraft hardly has a monopoly on that.
> 
> Cthulhu is mentioned (AFAIR) a single time in the PHB under GOO warlocks.  Pull that reference out and everything is fine.
> 
> The key here is SMALL changes.  We don't need to completely rewrite things because, well, that's not answering specific issues.  "Inspired by Lovecraft" is an unprovable position.  Mind Flayers are just as much Japanese Hentai anime as they are Lovecraft.  Sure, they are inspired by mythos stories (Brian Lumley was the inspiring author - google) but, again, Mythos stories aren't really the issue.  I want to keep those - or at least those stories that aren't grounded in racism.  I would just rather that direct references to Lovecraft were removed.





125% agree



FlyingChihuahua said:


> So asian people using swastikas are racist until proven otherwise?




I hate to tell you, but there are many Hindus who have gotten in severe trouble for using the _sauwastika_ which has been one of their holy symbols for centuries, because the Nazi's took it, literally twisted it (the _sauwastika_  sits on an edge, the swastika on a point) and it become globally known. 

And without some pretty extensive educating, there is really no way to "reclaim it" in the public conscious.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Wishbone said:


> Missed this first part—as a Jewish person my gut reaction would certainly be to feel threatened by someone displaying a swastika. I'd accept it depending on the exact nature of representation and religious or cultural significance but a lot depends on the context and on how tone deaf the conversation is to my concerns. Also, if I'd be comfortable enough to even figure out the intent behind wearing a swastika is really going to depend on them.



By doing that, aren't you taking away from them more so than the nazis?

The swastika, as a symbol, has been around for literally thousands of years and is a major bit of iconography, particularly for eastern religions like Buddhism. By automatically assuming that someone with a swastika is a white supremacist, you are taking it away from people who have been using it for far long, and for far better reasons than then nazis.

And honestly, there is a fairly easy way to tell if someone with a swastika is a white supremacist. It's right there in the name, unless they are aggressively stupid.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Chaosmancer said:


> I hate to tell you, but there are many Hindus who have gotten in severe trouble for using the _sauwastika_ which has been one of their holy symbols for centuries, because the Nazi's took it, literally twisted it (the _sauwastika_  sits on an edge, the swastika on a point) and it become globally known.
> 
> And without some pretty extensive educating, there is really no way to "reclaim it" in the public conscious.



I know that, and honestly, just letting nazis have it means that you're letting the nazis win.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I know that, and honestly, just letting nazis have it means that you're letting the nazis win.




But this isn't something that you can just decide. 

If I walked into a school with a bandanna with a _sauwastika_ on it, they aren't going to accept me saying that it is a hindu symbol that I'm wearing, they are going to say it is nazi propaganda, and I'd probably lose my position as a substitute teacher. 

Is it sad? Yes, but it is reality. Because most Americans aren't highly educated on Hinduism or Buddhism and they will assume I'm lying and trying to cover up my Neo-Nazi beliefs before they will that this is a different symbol.


----------



## Wishbone

FlyingChihuahua said:


> By doing that, aren't you taking away from them more so than the nazis?
> 
> The swastika, as a symbol, has been around for literally thousands of years and is a major bit of iconography, particularly for eastern religions like Buddhism. By automatically assuming that someone with a swastika is a white supremacist, you are taking it away from people who have been using it for far long, and for far better reasons than then nazis.
> 
> And honestly, there is a fairly easy way to tell if someone with a swastika is a white supremacist. It's right there in the name, unless they are aggressively stupid.




Firstly, I wanted to point out that this isn't a simple abstract conversation for me and it is far more affecting for me than it might be for anyone who doesn't have a relationship with the symbol of the Nazi party specifically targeting people who shared their religious identity and cultural background. Just to be clear on that.

We should never discount the power of aggressive stupidity when considering why someone may hate another person.

I'm not automatically assuming the person is a white supremacist. I'm recognizing the display of a symbol that has been coopted by a prominent white supremacist group and making a determination based on context about my own safety and proximity to someone who may wish to do me or my family harm.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua

Wishbone said:


> Firstly, I wanted to point out that this isn't a simple abstract conversation for me and it is far more affecting for me than it might be for anyone who doesn't have a relationship with the symbol of the Nazi party specifically targeting people who shared their religious identity and cultural background. Just to be clear on that.
> 
> We should never discount the power of aggressive stupidity when considering why someone may hate another person.
> 
> I'm not automatically assuming the person is a white supremacist. I'm recognizing the display of a symbol that has been coopted by a prominent white supremacist group and making a determination based on context about my own safety and proximity to someone who may wish to do me or my family harm.



Honestly?
Fair.

you hit me in my "humans are natural idiots" spot.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> Look, as someone who has argued pretty strongly for pulling Lovecraft's name out of the game, I have to say, I am also in the boat thinking that this is going too far.




Yes, well, you missed the point.  He asked how it made things more inclusive.  I answered.

That doesn't mean it is the only possible inclusive choice, or that it is the best such choice.  Nothing in what I said indicates that.

So, really, you've written paragraphs over a strawman.


----------



## MGibster

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Well, don't neo-nazi's support norse neo-paganism?
> 
> That sounds like a good enough reason for getting rid of the norse pantheon in D&D if we should get rid of cosmic horror because the popularizer was a racist.




There are plenty of neo-pagans who are against white supremacist hijacking their religion along racial lines.  I don't think it's a fair association here.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*

And... swastikas are not about gaming.

Thread closed.


----------

