D&D General Fantasy Racism in D&D

[billd91]

Honestly, isn't a lot of real-world racism primarily cultural and less about skin tone, even in the US? As in a lot of objections on minorities boil down to "they aren't like us (culturally)"?

I'm beginning to wonder more and more if most racism really is some form of xenophobia actually.

At one point, yes, lots of real world xenophobia is cultural, not skin tone. But as time has gone on, particularly in the US, you see groups that were once the subject of a lot of xenophobic bigotry get accepted into the broader racial majority community. Think of examples like the Irish, Polish, and Italian immigrants to the US. Lots of bigotry from the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who immigrated before them - but now largely accepted and unlikely to face a lot of barriers to their privileges as fellow white people. But then, it's hard to tell by looking at them that they aren't technically WASPs - and thus the xenophobia dies down a bit while racism stays put.

That said, of course, there are variations involved here. Some groups have been integrated into the WASPy community more than others. It's still possible to be stopped by a cop for "driving while Hispanic" if you're Portuguese. It's still possible to be thought of as being behind some big, banking conspiracy if you're Jewish. And in both cases still benefit from having some degree of white privilege (at least in contrast to other more underprivileged racial groups). So I wouldn't chalk too much up to some kind of ecumenical xenophobia based on culture - that is far more mutable and less ubiquitous than racism based on skin color.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

At one point, yes, lots of real world xenophobia is cultural, not skin tone. But as time has gone on, particularly in the US, you see groups that were once the subject of a lot of xenophobic bigotry get accepted into the broader racial majority community. Think of examples like the Irish, Polish, and Italian immigrants to the US. Lots of bigotry from the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who immigrated before them - but now largely accepted and unlikely to face a lot of barriers to their privileges as fellow white people. But then, it's hard to tell by looking at them that they aren't technically WASPs - and thus the xenophobia dies down a bit while racism stays put.

That said, of course, there are variations involved here. Some groups have been integrated into the WASPy community more than others. It's still possible to be stopped by a cop for "driving while Hispanic" if you're Portuguese. It's still possible to be thought of as being behind some big, banking conspiracy if you're Jewish. And in both cases still benefit from having some degree of white privilege (at least in contrast to other more underprivileged racial groups). So I wouldn't chalk too much up to some kind of ecumenical xenophobia based on culture - that is far more mutable and less ubiquitous than racism based on skin color.

Okay, great post, but let's stay on topic, please.

 

[billd91]

I feel the biggest reason for this is the loss of flavor of the races, with too many players looking at them as simply "funny looking humans," rather than a completely different species from humanity. The dwarven (or whatever) mindset should be pretty alien to most players, which is why they made entire books in earlier editions to describe these differences (and add racial specific mechanics). These mindsets lead the dwarves to be inherently lawful good, elves chaotic good, and orcs chaotic evil with some breaking away from the norm (especially PCs, who's standard is to break the norm).

Honestly, I think it's to be expected, gamers being who they are. We're all human - anything we play is ultimately going to be some variation of humans that look funny - even if they don't look human at all like Hivers in Traveller. Any attempt to get into another species's mindset is going to be tough and ultimately translated through our own human mindset.

Add to that - any attempt to define a mindset of another species or how to portray it will ultimately be labeled as stereotypical. And it pretty much is since it would be trying to portray how a typical dwarf, droyne, goblin, vargr, whatever differs in culture and behavior from those of us raised in the latter half of the 20th/first quarter of the 21st century. Now, factor in all those gamers who will utterly refuse to play to a stereotype because they're too contrarian, too woke, too full of themselves, or too focused on the mechanical reasons for picking the species and you are going to s ee a lot of flavor loss and a lot of "funny looking humans".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Playing D&D is often a bit of a power fantasy - you face dangers and defeat them with your cunning, your awesome combat skills and impressive spells, all things we can't do in real life. What if one of your player's fantasy is to be different but not be punished for it?

This is why it's important to talk with your players about their desires and expectations and build a campaign that works for everybody. But there's room in this hobby for both dark settings and optimistic settings. I don't think we need to push back against one or the other with what-ifs.

 

[BookBarbarian]

We haven't explored it in my games yet, but I just started a Half-Orc Paladin in a new campaign and in his backstory he was unable to join a specific knightly order due to feelings towards local orcs.

We'll see if anything comes of it.

 

[lewpuls]

There are two definitions of "racist". One is, saying something about an entire race that is untrue (is racism). The other is, saying anything that implies that every race isn't exactly the same ("equal") is racism. For the latter, a simple description like "exotic" is a racist description.

The second is a stupid definition that ignores reality. But so many people try to ignore reality these days. . .

So, if orcs truly are evil, calling them evil is not "racist". Even though that makes them different from others. (And as someone pointed out, orcs are a species, not a race. Xenophobia is not racism, it's something else.)

Furthermore, the gods are manifest in FRPGs, as opposed to the real world where they are, um, ideas without proofs/manifestations. If my gods are good, and they say that orcs should be exterminated, I'm good with that.

I've seen people argue that we cannot know for sure our gods are good, but at some point you've got to make a choice rather than split hairs.

 

[GrahamWills]

There are two definitions of "racist". One is, saying something about an entire race that is untrue (is racism). The other is, saying anything that implies that every race isn't exactly the same ("equal") is racism.

Sorry, I'm going with the usual definition of racism. Most definitions of racism are of the form "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group"

You can be a racist by telling only certain facts about people and ignoring others. Being truthful is not enough; Stating that races are different is not enough to be racist, not is lying about races. racism is being unfair to a person based on their race. If your town bans "any person with tusks" from entering town, the town is being racist even though it's based on well-known facts, because the town is discriminating against people based on their membership of a group.

Racism is not about truth or lying; it is about being unfair to people based on their race -- basically a pretty simple principle.

If I the town bans evil people, that's not racist because they are discriminating based on behavior. But banning orcs, while not banning other evil races, is racist. Basically, if it's clear their negative actions are based on race, not behavior, it's racism.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If my gods are good, and they say that orcs should be exterminated, I'm good with that.

And that is racist. That's discrimination against a people based on race. Orcs throughout the D&D worlds differ on the evil scale.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Furthermore, the gods are manifest in FRPGs, as opposed to the real world where they are, um, ideas without proofs/manifestations. If my gods are good, and they say that orcs should be exterminated, I'm good with that.

I've seen people argue that we cannot know for sure our gods are good, but at some point you've got to make a choice rather than split hairs.

You can tell whether a god is good by their actions, same as anybody else. Mass killing? Doesn't really qualify. Doesn't even matter who's getting killed. In real life, if somebody advocates a strong "just shoot all the criminals" position, I think most of us would agree that this is not a good person.

 

[delphonso]

I mean, part of a "good" god are tales of protection, which often means violence. Even ignoring the violent world of DnD, good gods in human history might have called for extermination and violence within that religion. There's a level of contextualization that could make such statement acceptible.

Ezekiel 35 7-9
7 I will make Mount Seir a desolate waste and cut off from it all who come and go. 8 I will fill your mountains with the slain; those killed by the sword will fall on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines. 9 I will make you desolate forever; your towns will not be inhabited. Then you will know that I am the Lord.