D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[MG.0]

Part of the bit that bugs me is that the radical stereotypes D&D has are backed up by the mechanics. The stereotype is that elves are more agile then normal and the mechanics of the game the +2 to dex back that up. It makes the in world stereotyping right because it's true.

That's a racial difference, hardly a "radical stereotype". It's the same as saying Storm Giants are stronger than humans.

You can certainly make elves that are different if you find them boring. You can make weak giants too, but they probably wouldn't be very interesting.

Ya.. think about the kind of message that sends.

It sends the message that elves are more dextrous than humans; nothing more.

 

[MG.0]

To what? Not to the issues around the use of "race" in D&D.

Yes it is irrelevant. I've studied Lovecraft's works for years.

Please explain in detail how you feel H.P. Lovecraft's use of race affects D&D materials, including citing a piece of text from a core book.

 

[pemerton]

You are contending that it is the word itself that is the problem. Someone who has issues with the concept of identifying groups of people based on hereditary traits is not hung up on the word itself but the concept. Call it People, species, bioform, whatever you still have the same issue and, while I do think people tend to be rather foolish, I don't think they are foolish enough to be fooled by using a euphemism.

<snip>

if you don't represent it mechanically, then there is no point. Are you going to still have groups of similar peoples living in their own cities. Are elves and dwarves still going to dislike and distrust eachother but set aside th (edit) those differences when orcs show up? Then you still have the issue of race in your game. If you don't like those things then by all means remove them from your game.

I mostly agree with your first paragraph (not so much about people being foolish, but about the issue not being just one of terminology). Changing the game from one in which their is a type of moral/cultural hierarchy of "races" into one in which there is a hierarchy of "species" won't make any significant difference.

I think the second paragraph I've quoted slightly misses the point, though. The concern isn't that the game presents racial strife; it's that it validates racialised thinking, including real-world racialised thinking that is projected onto the gameworld thinly veiled by Tolkien-esque tropes (of elves, dwarves, orcs etc).

 

[Uller]

Yes it is irrelevant. I've studied Lovecraft's works for years.

Please explain in detail how you feel H.P. Lovecraft's use of race affects D&D materials, including citing a piece of text from a core book.

Clearly Orcs are "swarthy" and I'm sure there is some cyclopean geography in there somewhere. [emoji12]

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't think you would want to remove racial modifiers. People like the options they give. You know it's another way to customize your character. You can tweak things though. Part of the bit that bugs me is that the radical stereotypes D&D has are backed up by the mechanics. The stereotype is that elves are more agile then normal and the mechanics of the game the +2 to dex back that up. It makes the in world stereotyping right because it's true. Ya.. think about the kind of message that sends. You could try and tweak things so that the stereotypes the setting has don't always meet up with the mechanical reality. That gives out a different vibe. (It's a thing you see in some settings already.)

The message it sends is one fantasy race is better in some areas than others. Not sure how that is a problem or a reflection on real life human racial issues. The sterotypes don't always work. A PC fighter who is an elf with a 9 DEX is not to the stereotype. A halfling with a 16 STR, etc. In Tolkien elves were better at pretty much everything, and immortal. But D&D isn't Tolkien.

 

[nomotog]

That's a racial difference, hardly a "radical stereotype". It's the same as saying Storm Giants are stronger than humans.

You can certainly make elves that are different if you find them boring. You can make weak giants too, but they probably wouldn't be very interesting.



It sends the message that elves are more dextrous than humans; nothing more.

It's not that elves have a +2 to dex. It's more about how your racial modifiers will match up with your racial stereotypes. It gives off a vibe that stereotypes are accurate.

(Weak giants would be kind of interesting. You know because you see a giant you expect big strong and dumb, so you could surprise your players by taking what they expect and delivering something different.)

 

[pemerton]

Please explain in detail how you feel H.P. Lovecraft's use of race affects D&D materials, including citing a piece of text from a core book.

ENworld has board rules that place limits on what can be posted and discussed.

But I'll point you to the presentation of orcs in the AD&D MM:

Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general . . . They take slaves for work, food and entertainment (torture, etc) . . . Orcs favour unpleasant colours in general. . . . As orcs will breed with anything, there are any number of unsavoury mongrels with orcish blood.​

The relationship between that description of orcs, and broader racialised conceptions of savagery, cannibalism, degeneracy, the fecundity of the degenerate, etc, seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Orcs are a monster race created in the image of their foul god Grummish.

 

[pemerton]

Orcs are a monster race created in the image of their foul god Grummish.

THe last I knew orcs weren't real. They are a fiction, authored by a real human being with a real history and culture, influenced by actual ideas.

In other words, the in-fiction perspective has no real bearing on this issue.

There are some people who see Wagner's and Tolkien's dwarves as involving anti-Semitic stereotype. You can't settle the debate just by pointing out that, within the fiction, dwarves aren't Jews.

The same goes for REH's hook-nosed Shemite thieves and traffickers in women.

The racialised nature of Tolkien's orcs (with their swarthy skin, bandy legs and scimitars), and the threat they pose to the people and culture of "the West", is obvious. That D&D's orcs are a direct derivative of Tolkien's is likewise obvious. Whether D&D's orcs carry the same connotations as Tolkien's is the salient discussion.

I don't think the answer to that question is immediately obvious, but you certainly can't resolve it by pointing to the nature of orcs in the fiction.

 

[MG.0]

ENworld has board rules that place limits on what can be posted and discussed.

But I'll point you to the presentation of orcs in the AD&D MM:

Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general . . . They take slaves for work, food and entertainment (torture, etc) . . . Orcs favour unpleasant colours in general. . . . As orcs will breed with anything, there are any number of unsavoury mongrels with orcish blood.​

The relationship between that description of orcs, and broader racialised conceptions of savagery, cannibalism, degeneracy, the fecundity of the degenerate, etc, seems pretty clear to me.

There is no indication of any relationship to cannibalism or degeneracy. The description certainly doesn't indicate those qualities. Of those, only degeneracy would provide a clear link to Lovecraftian style, so is not a valid example. Orcs being nasty and breeding a lot is hardly proof of influence by Lovecraft's views on race.