D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[Remathilis]

What I don't really get is the idea that if some influences were taken from Lovecraft or Howard, that the material influenced is racist. If D&D and a game take from Lovecraft the idea of the ancient alien unknown horrors that man cannot understand or deal with without going insane exist that is not taking Lovecraft's racist attitudes towards non European ethnic groups. What racism is in D&D from Howard and Lovecraft and other older fictional influences? That orcs and other monsters are evil? Do people think the game designers were/are substituting them for a real ethnic group considering typical human ethnic groups are already in the game under the broad human race?

Its a substitution game.

D&D orcs are evil (and you should slay them).
D&D orcs are based on Tolkien orcs.
Tolkien orcs can be a metaphor for certain ethnic groups. (Commonly Mongol or Dark-skinned ones)
Ergo, D&D assumes certain ethnic groups are evil (and you should slay them).

Make more sense now?

Of course, you can justify anything given enough substitution.

D&D is about gaining power through leveling.
D&D used to give you XP for finding gold.
The best way to get gold is to steal it from enemies.
Ergo, stealing is the best to gain power. Kleptocracy for the win!

 

[Bagpuss]

Its a substitution game.

D&D orcs are evil (and you should slay them).
D&D orcs are based on Tolkien orcs.
Tolkien orcs can be a metaphor for certain ethnic groups. (Commonly Mongol or Dark-skinned ones)
Ergo, D&D assumes certain ethnic groups are evil (and you should slay them).

Make more sense now?

I think the point is can be and it is up to the players, if they take it that way, not a view forced on you by the material.

I think the vast majority of groups never see it as that. They realise orcs are a fantasy construct that have no parallel in the real world. That's because the vast majority of people can separate fantasy from reality.

Even if Tolkien intended it like that, you can ignore his opinions and detach it from the author's intent, because you aren't racist. Even if orcs are intellectually and culturally inferior, it doesn't force you to assign those values to real world race, because making the separation between fantasy and reality, is very easy to do.

The only groups that might possibly see orcs representing some real world ethnic group are ones that are already racists, it isn't D&D making them racist.

I don't see why D&D needs to change something like that as it isn't going to change these people's views.

Now more inclusive imagery more racial/gender diversity in art like you see in the new Player's Handbook is a great thing and that I can get behind, but removing words like "race" is pointless.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think the point is can be and it is up to the players, if they take it that way, not a view forced on you by the material.

I think the vast majority of groups never see it as that. They realise orcs are a fantasy construct that have no parallel in the real world. That's because the vast majority of people can separate fantasy from reality.

Even if Tolkien intended it like that, you can ignore his opinions and detach it from the author's intent, because you aren't racist. Even if orcs are intellectually and culturally inferior, it doesn't force you to assign those values to real world race, because making the separation between fantasy and reality, is very easy to do.

The only groups that might possibly see orcs representing some real world ethnic group are ones that are already racists, it isn't D&D making them racist.

I don't see why D&D needs to change something like that as it isn't going to change these people's views.

Now more inclusive imagery more racial/gender diversity in art like you see in the new Player's Handbook is a great thing and that I can get behind, but removing words like "race" is pointless.

But by that same turn, can't we then argue that even the most overtly racist material isn't racist at all so long as it's titled "fantasy"? And then proceed to blame the reader for holding racist views instead of addressing the material that promotes those views? Or that there is some failure on the part of the reader for them being incapable (either by arguing that they're an idiot or that they're mentally handicapped) of separating reality from fantasy? It seems like a poor excuse to basically say "hey it doesn't matter if the material is racist, it only matters if you are a racist!"

NOTHING is going to change people's views. We can however, not promote their views.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I always thought intent is what matters most in these cases. Does anyone think that the use of the word race in D&D is intended to offend?

No? Okay then.

 

[Bagpuss]

But by that same turn, can't we then argue that even the most overtly racist material isn't racist at all so long as it's titled "fantasy"?

You could try, but really you would be setting up a strawman to attack. Is D&D the most overtly racist material? No. Is it even mildly racist (in it's most current form)? No.

NOTHING is going to change people's views.

If you really believed that you wouldn't see any point in changing things you view as problematic. Of course people's views can change, but that it far more likely to happen from the company they keep (the people they game with) and the images they see, like the numerous PoC and female characters in the current PHB. Than something that doesn't have a real world equivalent like fantasy races.

We can however, not promote their views.

Please show me what in D&D promotes racism? Quote me one line from either of the current core books or point to an illustration.

Heck go back to 3rd Edition if you like.

If you really have to go back to 1st edition, which I'll admit lacks a lot of diversity, but lacking diversity isn't the same as promoting racism. Now the random Harlot table certainly points to sexism, but I can't recall much racism then either.

 

[Leatherhead]

But by that same turn, can't we then argue that even the most overtly racist material isn't racist at all so long as it's titled "fantasy"? And then proceed to blame the reader for holding racist views instead of addressing the material that promotes those views?

Have you ever heard of Death of the Author?

 

[Hussar]

In Japan?! I would certainly say that. You are seriously claiming that Japanese people in Japan are turned off D&D by its racism? That is utterly ridiculous.

Think about it from their point of view. The entire game is based on a Western point of view. Even things like "Oriental Adventures" or whatnot are still strongly leavened with Western sensibilities. When, for much of the history of the game, every depiction of the "heroes" are white, with the occasional black or middle eastern image. The only "Eastern" influence in the game is the Monk and that's seen lots of controversy with people flat out claiming that it has no place in D&D.

Everything, from the system of dieties (where's animism for example), the classes, and the races is tied dead in the middle of Western sensibilities. Look at something like Final Fantasy. It's not like RPG's are unheard of in Japan - they have an entire genre of video games after all. Yet RPG's have made zero traction here. I can find local clubs playing Catan and Magic, and every store carries some version of Final Fantasy. But, not a single D&D book?

What would you say is the reason?

 

[Hussar]

Suggest something that you can replace it with. That carries the same meaning, yet some how won't carry the same connotations. Because generally is something means the same it will come with the same issues or gain them eventually.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467387-The-word-%91Race%92/page25#ixzz3kLVV0yHh

What's wrong with Type? It works for the Monster Manual and carries, AFAIK, no connotations. So, instead of choose Race, Class, Background, you choose Type, Class, Background.

A fairly innocuous change IMO.

 

[Sunseeker]

Have you ever heard of Death of the Author?

I have not, so I googled it. After a brief review, from the perspective of both a political scientist and a writer, I disagree with the premise.

You could try, but really you would be setting up a strawman to attack. Is D&D the most overtly racist material? No. Is it even mildly racist (in it's most current form)? No.

The actual level of racism is irrelevant to the discussion. Your point was that if it is fantasy then one should be able to say "this is fantasy, real life is[should] not be like this". My point was that your argument was equally applicable regardless of the level of racism, or how overt or covert it is in the writing. So attempting to argue that your original comments are more applicable to D&D because it is "less racist" than say, Lovecraft, doesn't mean squat.

If you really believed that you wouldn't see any point in changing things you view as problematic.

I do really believe that. But my belief that I can't change your mind does not preclude you from changing your mind. Nor is it to say minds can't be changed.

Of course people's views can change, but that it far more likely to happen from the company they keep (the people they game with) and the images they see, like the numerous PoC and female characters in the current PHB. Than something that doesn't have a real world equivalent like fantasy races.

Argument of convenience. You're saying the books can affect how people think except when they can't and that only happens when it fits your argument. Either the books can change the way people think or they can't. If changing the artwork can change the way people think, then so can changing the language.

Please show me what in D&D promotes racism? Quote me one line from either of the current core books or point to an illustration.

Heck go back to 3rd Edition if you like.

If you really have to go back to 1st edition, which I'll admit lacks a lot of diversity, but lacking diversity isn't the same as promoting racism. Now the random Harlot table certainly points to sexism, but I can't recall much racism then either.

No. I'm not playing this game. I'll quote something, you'll tell me it's not really racist and tell me to quote something else ad infinitum.

D&D isn't promoting racism on purpose. I've said this in EVERY SINGLE POST I've made in this thread. It does it unintentionally through artifacts retained from the source material.

 

[Bagpuss]

What would you say is the reason?

Because as an idea RPGs are so easy to copy, and so local ones tend to take off much better, than just plain translations of one based on other cultures.

Which was why say Sword World (latest edition was 2008, 1st edition 1989) took of much better in Japan. Not that you don't get vanilla D&D translated into Japanese. If there wasn't a market, they wouldn't translate it.

Or say Das Schwarze Auge in Germany which outsells D&D, first published in 1984, 5th edition having just been released.

Or in Sweden you have Drakar och Demoner, from 1984, which started as a translation of Basic RPG.

It doesn't make D&D racist, it was just aimed at a different audience.