Okay, maybe I was a bit vague in what exactly I do not agree with. I was referring to how Crawford sees innate advantages as being like racist narratives. That's where I call bs.
I'm not opposed to giving players more options to customize their characters further, but the reasoning behind it is, in my opinion, like pouring the baby out with the bathwater.
Part of the problem is that, again, some of these situations lead to
literally re-using real-world bigotry when discussing fictional-world things. Consider, for example, the way the "fictional" Varisian culture is portrayed in Golarion. It was, pretty much without exception,
every harmful stereotype about the Roma peoples. Up to and including deeply concerning stuff like a strong presumption of criminal activity (that the authors poorly retconned, AIUI).
Or, for a more pointed example: real-world genocide has been justified with the idea that there are different, mixable groups of sapient beings, and that only one set of those is acceptable while others are
unworthy of life. It is, quite literally, a core tactic of "ethnic cleansing" programs to portray different ethnic groups
as though they were a completely different species. So, if
literal, actual genocidal rhetoric does this, it's really REALLY not much of a leap to ask, "So...what's different about this thing in D&D? Both of them designate a target group of sapient, humanoid beings for unchecked violence, often specifically with the goal of occupying the land on which they live and taking away the valuables they possess."
That's pretty uncomfortably close to the way
numerous real atrocities were conducted in human history. There's a pretty clear pattern: demonize the natives (sometimes literally equating them with demons!), claim their territory, treat all opposition purely as violent raiding rather than armed responses, trivialize or dismiss all social structures/monuments/environmental management as fake or induced or stolen from someone else, specifically categorize their native religions as horrible and brutal and evil-loving, etc. And wouldn't you know it: the deities of gnolls, orcs, and kobolds are all treated that way (Yeenoghu is a demon lord, Gruumsh is evil, Tiamat is evil); they're almost always native to whatever territory they occupy and driving them out of territory they've occupied for centuries or millennia is portrayed as an unalloyed win for good and justice; they have "barbaric" practices and all their activities tend to be summarized as "raiding" or "recovering from previous raiding," and they
never build any temples or cities or roads or monuments, but do occasionally steal such works
left behind by long-absent advanced precursor civilizations. And as a result of this list of things, they are acceptable to kill on sight without a second thought.
Note, when I mention these things, I
am not saying that someone who enjoys a casual game of D&D where you fight Obvious Bad Guys and save Designated Damsel'd Victims (or take over the ransom yourself, or whatever) is in any way morally wrong. I mean, I've played hundreds of hours of
Payday 2, a game where you are literally sitting on piles of hundreds of millions of dollars but continue to slaughter
hundreds of private security dudes and public LEOs in order to steal valuable goods or commit election fraud--and I
enjoyed those hours of play. I am NOT saying that engaging in a fictional demonstration of a thing with moral question marks on it is
inherently bad. That would make me a hypocrite, which I'd rather not be if I can avoid it.
What I am saying is that having these things
hard-coded into the game's fundamental rules, particularly when it's all implication without nuance, concerns me. With
Payday, I go into it
knowing that what I am doing in the virtual space is a fantasy about amoral naughty words doing immoral things for fun and profit. I
know where to draw the line. With D&D, that's not as clear. It is easy to say "these species are fictional," but the bright lines aren't present. Unless we do things with eyes fully open, mindful of our choices, it is easy to accidentally internalize thoughts or patterns that may be harmful--to ourselves or to others.
The lesson here is not to "sanitize" gaming or the like. Or at least it shouldn't be. That would just be a different kind of problem--namely, pretending the problem never existed and that everything has always been good and right since the beginning of time. (This is a common tactic for one civilization conquering and subjugating another, once the subjugation is complete: instead of depicting the subjugated as demons, which is implicitly empowering, force them into a "helpless victim OR willing participant OR crazy radical" trilemma, neatly negating any chance of true criticism or honest history--weak, willing, or wicked, you might say.)
Instead, the lesson should be for us to ask: Why do we play this way? Are there other ways to play? Can we enjoy different kinds of stories, or different approaches, or a more nuanced take on how we currently play?
Again, to use the example of my home setting,
Jewel of the Desert aka the Tarrakhuna and its environs: I specifically set out to make a world that was very inclusive in most ways. I have had orc guard-captains, dwarf mining conglomerate owners, ogre caravanserai keepers, elf assassins, genasi alchemy shop owners, a woman on the most prestigious throne of the land, etc. I have made a religion with a specific reason why it accepts people of all races and all gender identities and orientations (the One, infinite creator of all things, cannot be understood fully by non-revelatory mortal knowing, so They are understood by Their infinitely-many facets--which may individually have masculine or feminine traits, but the One is too
big, too
much for a limited concept like mortal gender).
Part of this is because providing such a world is important to my players. Another part is just that I find this a more interesting milieu to play in--and, despite what some might think, it
is inspired heavily by real history (in this case, the Islamic Golden Age and more than a little of the incredible cultural, philosophical, scientific, and religious attainment of Al-Andalus). And, finally? I find it
interesting to challenge myself to answer: WHY are demons kill-on-sight? WHY are black dragons inherently Bad News, while gold dragons are awe-strikingly brilliant allies of good? I mean, I
could just say "they are" and be done with it, but that's...boring. Actually digging in and asking these questions has led the game in so many interesting directions, I can't even begin to count them. We couldn't have the fights, funnies, or follies we've had if my players and I hadn't asked these questions and rigorously pursued the answers.
