D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[Hussar]

Because you're looking at the argument as though it is saying D&D is racist. That's not the argument being made. The argument is that D&D draws from racist source material (as many things in our modern world still do). This is a problem with the source material, which D&D has done a lot to overcome, but more could be done.

Not seeing the validity of an argument and not agreeing with an argument are two different things. If you're not seeing the validity of an argument, I tend to find that's because you're either reading it wrong, or not really taking the time to consider it. Or it is quite possibly, the worst argument ever put forward, but even simplified down to: D&D retains racist elements because those elements exist in the material it draws from; I don't see how someone can find that as invalid given that you'd either have to be unaware of the racism in the historical material, or not think it was racist.

This, right here, this is the issue.

All the ludicrous slippery slope arguments are just that, ridiculous. And, frankly, pretty sad.

 

[Alzrius]

Instead of providing glib snark, you should consider making a more helpful contribution to the discussion at hand by suggesting your own understanding of the subject of wrong-doing in the matters of offensive remarks.

Using satire to expose a particular argument's weaknesses is a helpful contribution to the discussion at hand, even if the argument being undercut happens to be one you support. Likewise, if you want to see my understanding on the subject of, not of perceived wrong-doing but on whom responsibility for that is incumbent on, I've already posted it earlier in this thread.

 

[Hussar]

No. You have the ethical responsibility to actually show the level of harm caused before calling for the eradication of something. How do you know that your solution will be effective if you don't know the scope of the problem?

You can call race in D&D problematic, but that's a useless term that only means 'I don't like it.' If you can't actually show what the harm is, along with the scope of that harm, you shouldn't advocate for a solution that's as draconian as the one you claim here. This is the logical equivalent of stomping your feet and demanding candy.

Race in D&D may be an issue. It may be something worth addressing. Declaring it such isn't sufficient. Do some work to support your claims other than saying the source material is racist or that people might feel pushed out of the hobby. People are pushed out of the hobby for all kinds of reasons (mostly being in crappy groups, but hey, different thread topic), unless you can show that race distinctions in D&D is a pervasive issue and has harmed more than a small handful of people (and, most importantly, can do it without reference to critical theory -- what a load of crud that is), then you cannot be taken seriously as someone calling for a radical change to the hobby.

I did actually post the level of harm earlier - the fact that D&D fandom is, despite decades of play, overwhelmingly white. With millions of players to draw from, racial lines should be reasonably representative. But, as I posted earlier, if you look at pictures from conventions, it certainly isn't. ((Note, somehow this also got tied into gender issues, and i'm not sure why))

If race and depictions of race is not a problem in D&D, then how do you explain that D&D, is an overwhelmingly white hobby? Why isn't it appealing to other ethnicities? I mean, I see Magic the Gathering played here in Japan all the time. I've never seen a single D&D product in any hobby shop. Perhaps in Tokyo or Osaka, but, where I live? Not a single one. All sorts of board games and CCG's, but, not a single RPG.

Are you saying race plays absolutely no role here?

I'm glad to hear you say that, because your posting in this thread causes me offense; not the contents of your posts, but rather that you're posting in this thread at all. I'd like you to change that behavior and cease posting here, otherwise you'd continue offending me, and thus very much be at fault. I'm not interested if you disagree that you posting here is offensive, that doesn't help (just the opposite).

Since you believe that someone should comply and cease what they're doing when told they're causing offense, I trust you not to post anything further in this thread.

Well, the argument does hinge on the honesty of the person doing the complaining. But, I think you nicely highlight why this issue has so much pushback. It really looks like many of the posters here are arguing based on the idea that since they, personally, don't see a problem, any problem that may exist only exists in the other person's mind. It's not a real issue. I think, through your "satire" you've actually perfectly encapsulated your side of the issue's mindset. "I don't see a problem, and I'm not racist, so, nothing I like could possibly carry racist connotations. Any complaints must only exist in the complainer's mind".

I mean, good grief, EN World has a shopping list of behaviours that we are not allowed to engage in and a nice little button on the bottom of every post to report behaviour. By your logic, those shouldn't exist.

 

[Aldarc]

Using satire to expose a particular arguments weaknesses is helpful to the discussion at hand, even if the argument being undercut happens to be one you support. Likewise, if you want to see my understanding on the subject of, not of perceived wrong-doing but on whom responsibility for that is incumbent on, I've already posted it earlier in this thread.

I would prefer that you address my concern directly as opposed to dismissively sending me on scavenger hunt for a promised buried kernel of gold. As to the matter of your "satire," Hussar addressed that point nicely.

 

[Alzrius]

I would prefer that you address my concern directly as opposed to dismissively sending me on scavenger hunt for a promised buried kernel of gold.

You know you can look up a person's posting history in their profile, right? That said, it's not unreasonable for you to ask for a link to the post I was referring to, so here you are.

As to the matter of your "satire," Hussar addressed that point nicely.

He really didn't; see below.

Well, the argument does hinge on the honesty of the person doing the complaining.

There's a point to be raised here regarding the determination of someone's honesty, but it's tangential enough that I don't think that particular issue needs to be dug into with any depth.

But, I think you nicely highlight why this issue has so much pushback. It really looks like many of the posters here are arguing based on the idea that since they, personally, don't see a problem, any problem that may exist only exists in the other person's mind. It's not a real issue.

You're stepping right into a mess of "subjectivity vs. objectivity" that really doesn't lead to anything useful. Implying that one side (yours) sees that something is a "real" issue, whereas the other side (mine) thinks that it "only" exists in the other person's mind - because as we all know, personal offense has an objective existence that dwells independent of a conscious mind - is a tangent that's ultimately best left to the philosophers.

And make no mistake, it is completely tangential, since that's not what the argument is. Rather than a question of "is this a 'real' problem or not," the question is "what, if anything, should be done about it, and why?"

I think, through your "satire" you've actually perfectly encapsulated your side of the issue's mindset. "I don't see a problem, and I'm not racist, so, nothing I like could possibly carry racist connotations. Any complaints must only exist in the complainer's mind".

Except that you've wildly misread my side of the issue's mindset; see above.

I mean, good grief, EN World has a shopping list of behaviours that we are not allowed to engage in and a nice little button on the bottom of every post to report behaviour. By your logic, those shouldn't exist.

Ah, the reductio ad absurdum, lightly seasoned with just a hint of exasperation. Allow me to offer you some of my own vintage of that particular brand: By your logic, those buttons should automatically implement the change that you report, rather than having a moderator look them over. After all, looking them over implies that the problem isn't real, and only exists in the mind of the complainer.

 

[Aldarc]

You know you can look up a person's posting history in their profile, right? That said, it's not unreasonable for you to ask for a link to the post I was referring to, so here you are.

Yes, I am aware, but since it was not clear enough for you, I'll be more explicit. Telling me that I can look up your posting history is precisely what I meant by "dismissively sending me on scavenger hunt for a promised buried kernel of gold."

He really didn't; see below.

I disagree nor do I find your own post a logical reply, but I would prefer to move back to the discussion at hand surrounding the issue of 'race' in gaming.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, I am aware, but since it was not clear enough for you, I'll be more explicit. Telling me that I can look up your posting history is precisely what I meant by "dismissively sending me on scavenger hunt for a promised buried kernel of gold."

You overlooked the part where I provided you with a link to the post in question. That wasn't a dismissal, it was pointing out that I'd previously responded to the issue you raised.

I disagree nor do I find your own post a logical reply, but I would prefer to move back to the discussion at hand surrounding the issue of 'race' in gaming.

I disagree that my post is not a logical reply. Likewise, I'm of the opinion that this goes to the very heart of the issue concerning "problematic" elements in gaming.

 

[Hussar]

Implying that one side (yours) sees that something is a "real" issue, whereas the other side (mine) thinks that it "only" exists in the other person's mind - because as we all know, personal offense has an objective existence that dwells independent of a conscious mind - is a tangent that's ultimately best left to the philosophers.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467387-The-word-%91Race%92/page24#ixzz3kGCcJXou

Except for the rather lengthy list of posts in this thread alone saying exactly this - that the problem doesn't actually exist and that any complaints can be dismissed as entirely existing in the other person's mind because an attempt was made not to offend. Apparently we can dismiss criticisms of offensiveness by stating that we weren't trying to offend.

I mean, look at this thread alone - people flat out dismissing any example of connections to racism. D&D is heavily based on sword and sorcery fiction, yes? S&S fiction is heavily, heavily leavened with incredibly racist attitudes. AFAIC, it should come as a surprise to no one that some people might see some problematic word usage in D&D.

Now, I do agree, what should be done about it. Well, a few pages back, someone posted a pretty reasonable example of talking about "species" without using the word race. I'm pretty sure some bright spark can write the game in such a way that we take out the word race. After all, isn't it funny that when applied to PC's, races are are singular, with possible sub-races. But, when we talk about monsters, we use type, not race. There's no "race of giants". Giant is a type that includes all sorts of monsters. Dragon is a type that includes all sorts of scaly critters.

Why can't we replace race with type? All the PC races are humanoids. Why do we even need to mention race. You have Name, Type:Humanoid (elf), Class: on a character sheet instead of Name: Race: Elf Class.

If it's good enough for the Monster Manual, why isn't it good enough for the PHB?

 

[Alzrius]

Except for the rather lengthy list of posts in this thread alone saying exactly this - that the problem doesn't actually exist and that any complaints can be dismissed as entirely existing in the other person's mind because an attempt was made not to offend.

There's also a lengthy lists of posts in this thread alone saying exactly the opposite of this - that the problem has an independent, objective existence and that any opinions that personal offense is a subjective judgment made in the mind of a given individual are disingenuous and made out of either ignorance or bad faith.

That's an existential argument, one that has no real means of resolution, and not one that I'm particularly interested in. What I am interested in is the discussion of what, if any, practical measures should be taken when someone raises this issue, and why.

Apparently we can dismiss criticisms of offensiveness by stating that we weren't trying to offend.

Sometimes we can dismiss criticisms of offensiveness with a lot less than that.

I mean, look at this thread alone - people flat out dismissing any example of connections to racism. D&D is heavily based on sword and sorcery fiction, yes? S&S fiction is heavily, heavily leavened with incredibly racist attitudes. AFAIC, it should come as a surprise to no one that some people might see some problematic word usage in D&D.

The issue of how and/or why the "problematic" content is there to begin with isn't something that I think is very relevant. I suppose some people might want to discuss that particular angle in terms of how to be better gatekeepers in the future, but I see that as an endeavor that's both impractical (since it involves a lot of guesswork about what people will find offensive in the future) and not very worthwhile, since I think that gatekeeping ideas/themes hurts more than it helps.

Now, I do agree, what should be done about it.

I'm taking that to mean that you do agree that we should discuss what sort of action should be taken, if any, and why.

Well, a few pages back, someone posted a pretty reasonable example of talking about "species" without using the word race. I'm pretty sure some bright spark can write the game in such a way that we take out the word race. After all, isn't it funny that when applied to PC's, races are are singular, with possible sub-races. But, when we talk about monsters, we use type, not race. There's no "race of giants". Giant is a type that includes all sorts of monsters. Dragon is a type that includes all sorts of scaly critters.

Why can't we replace race with type? All the PC races are humanoids. Why do we even need to mention race. You have Name, Type:Humanoid (elf), Class: on a character sheet instead of Name: Race: Elf Class.

If it's good enough for the Monster Manual, why isn't it good enough for the PHB?

Slow down, you're putting the cart before the horse. First, can you establish why any changes should be made to begin with? Presumably you think that the people asserting a link between the word "race" in D&D and real-world racism have a valid point; can you demonstrate why that is?

I think we can all agree that, when someone posits that a change should/needs to be made, it's incumbent on them to demonstrate why that is, rather than them simply asking why can't they make a change.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

As I read it, a couple of you seem to be being willfully and aggressively obtuse, and are edging into the realm of badgering, possibly for purposes of getting other people to quit, so that you 'win". This is not something we consider discussion in good faith, and aren't apt to tolerate it for very long. Let us be clear that some of you have been reported for this, and we are now watching rather closely to see how you continue.

Be kind to each other, people. It is pretty simple.