D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[KarinsDad]

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!"

People have yet to illustrate (let alone prove) that any of the D&D material is racist. Using the word race does not do that.

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

Where exactly does D&D promote racist views? Exactly? Which page?


Someone throws a pebble into the D&D community pond and shadows appear where none existed before.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Innocuous?!? My brother was killed in a typewriting accident! I can't stand to even hear that word anymore!!

And the world must change to match my sensibilities!!!

 

[Remathilis]

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?

Did I hallucinate Record of the Lodoss Wars? Did I fever dream Sword World? Did someone pull my leg on Final Fantasy I-V and Dragon Quest? I guess I spent all those years in college staring at static on the TV and imagining Candle Cove!

Are you trying to tell me the Japanese can make western-inspired anime, manga, video games, and their own RPGs, but thought D&D was racist? Somehow, I don't buy it.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

Sword World is the big one, but there's plenty of other native Japanese table-top RPGs like Meikyuu Kingdom and Nechronica, Ryuutama, Kantai Collection (showing that popular IPs can also get tabletop adaptations), Grancrest, and quite a few others.

Also, as you noted, Hobby Japan did good business translating D&D into Japanese as well, before WotC yanked their license with the release of 5E.

 

[MG.0]

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.

There are purple gremlins hiding in the pages of the PHB. I would tell you where they are, but you would just say they aren't there, so I won't.

Meanwhile, I think it is a moral imperative that we remove all traces of gremlins from the PHB.

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

And my point is it isn't equally applicable, hence the strawman. Clearly some works can be racist, D&D isn't one of them. If you argue orcs (for example) represent a real world ethnic groups then that is something you are imposing on the work, not something the work imposes on the reader.

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.

Is Call of Cthulhu a racist RPG or have problematic elements due to being based on Lovecraft's work?

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.

No I'm saying they can and can't based on if there is some real world parallel, so seeing more PoC and women in adventuring roles that would have traditionally been white males in the past, might prompt people to consider a less eurocentric world setting. But for most people seeing elves being say immortal, and more intelligent, isn't going to make them racist, since there aren't any elves in the real world.

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.

Agreed, it's why lots of RPGs nowadays, have character examples given using female pronouns, for example. But the word "race" isn't an issue, unless you bring some additional meaning outside that intended in the game.

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.

You aren't even going to try with the Monk class being cultural appropriation? I would have thought that was an obvious one.

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.

But you aren't willing give an example of said artifacts?

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

Because they already use Type, for something else.

Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Hobgoblins are all part of the Humaniod Type.

So you need another word to distinguish between them.

 

[Remathilis]

There are purple gremlins hiding in the pages of the PHB. I would tell you where they are, but you would just say they aren't there, so I won't.

Meanwhile, I think it is a moral imperative that we remove all traces of gremlins from the PHB.

Burden of Proof is on you to provide concrete examples. Otherwise, we have no proof these gremlins exist except your testimony. Moreover, if we can't see them, we can't fix them, and no imperative exists.

 

[Paraxis]

Could they use other words yes, should they use another word, no they shouldn't. People need to stop bowing down to the minor annoyances of others and just tell them to take it or leave it, the number of people who would leave it are small and honestly if they are going to act that way I don't want them associated with my hobby.

Lineage, origin, heritage, ancestry, or bloodline could all work. But there is nothing at all wrong with the word race, so why stop using it.

 

[evileeyore]

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.

An unsupported argument is one not worth making.

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.

Citation needed.