D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Gothic Lineages & New Race/Culture Distinction

The latest Unearthed Arcana contains the Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood races. The Dhampir is a half-vampire; the Hexblood is a character which has made a pact with a hag; and the Reborn is somebody brought back to life.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Perhaps the bigger news is this declaration on how race is to be handled in future D&D books as it joins other games by stating that:

"...the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage."

 

[Mind of tempest]

Curious.

I got a very strong vibe that the red men of Mars are supposed to be an idealized honorable aristocratic culture, very much like the lost cause narrative the American south tells about itself--it's why John Carter fits in with them; they have basically have the same values that he has. The Zodangans, for example, are described as nobly fighting to the last man to protect their way of life as they are conquered.



I have very much the same objection to your argument as Remathilis's @Aldarc

If the encountering lost civilizations and strife in a warlike land plotting of JCoM doesn't broadly map onto real world cultures--even if it is informed by western colonialism--why is it objectionable? (and feel free to state which societies on Barsoom map to what real world cultures, if I'm being obtuse here)

I feel like a plot structure and style of narrative itself can't be racist if there are no racial judgments being made or objectionable race politics within the cast of characters (aka. the mighty whitey issue, which I mentioned previously).

And as a reminder, I am not saying that nothing in the series is objectionable. I just think it isn't the type of story itself.

perhaps if we had an example to analyze it would be easier to determine.

 

[squibbles]

The first step is to identify the most egregiously problematic aspects that are rooted in these colonial and racist tropes. From there, I would consider how these tropes could be subverted in more positive or deconstructive ways. We could begin by questioning some of the narrative framing of Barsoom: Is Barsoom actually dying and in need of saving? Is the earthling (e.g., John Carter, Flash Gordon, etc.) actually helping or are they making things worse? Does the earthling actually understand the Martian ecology or diverse cultures on Barsoom or are they misunderstanding things through a lens of ignorance? Are there better ways to understand and discuss the peoples of Barsoom instead of their color?

There is a lot of gold to be mined by doing this with fiction. And I suspect I would enjoy reading a subversion of the Barsoom series.

But modern interaction with past storytelling styles should be a "yes, and" not a "no". Not everything needs to be deconstructed or subverted. A Barsoom that really is dying and a super-jumping earthling who really can help, don't need to be off the table.

And I recognize that you qualified your argument with "most egregiously problematic", fair enough.

 

[Arial Black]

No. Please allow me to lay out the problem:

1. For centuries (millennia?) subjugation of other people has been rationalized through the same de-humanizing tropes and language: they are primitive, they are savage, they breed like rabbits, they are ugly, the are inherently evil, they can't control their emotions, etc. etc. etc. They are not really human, and thus it is ok to kill/enslave/exploit them.
2. Those associations have been used for so long that most of us don't see anything controversial about it.
3. Thus, when writers...whether we mean RPG writers or Tolkien...want to describe "the bad guys" the most effective way to convey that image is to use that language, possibly without fully understanding why that language works.
4. For the largest RPG audience, the ethnic group most associated with oppression will probably be africans, or african-americans. So when we talk about it, we're going to see that connection. But the same language has been used to justify subjugation and genocide against "more primitive" cultures around the world, not just against africans, and not just by western europeans/americans.

In other words, the strategy used to de-humanize mongols was...surprise!...the same strategy used to de-humanize africans. So when Tolkien was tapping into that subconscious bias when he was basing his orcs off of mongols, he was perpetuating the exact same insidious mythology that sits in peoples' subconscious when they say, "It's not systemic racism...those people really are more likely to commit crimes." Or whatever the claim is.

Yeah, Tolkien (consciously or not) was tapping into those subconscious biases. That's what writers do! They use tropes as a way to harness the subconscious of readers to get their messages across more efficiently.

Tropes are not, in and of themselves, bad.

In this case, Tolkien wanted us to think of orcs as bad, because he was creating villains. Villains have to be bad, or they wouldn't be villains. It cannot be wrong to have villains in your story!

But just because orcs are portrayed as bad, and africans have been portrayed as bad, does NOT mean that orcs are portrayed as africans!

 

[Guest 6801328]

lol where does that garbage* even come from.

Never in my life, MY WHOLE 40ish year life, have I associated a fantasy race, with a real group of people.

Not one time.

I answered this (to somebody else) earlier in the thread:

No. Please allow me to lay out the problem:

1. For centuries (millennia?) subjugation of other people has been rationalized through the same de-humanizing tropes and language: they are primitive, they are savage, they breed like rabbits, they are ugly, the are inherently evil, they can't control their emotions, etc. etc. etc. They are not really human, and thus it is ok to kill/enslave/exploit them.
2. Those associations have been used for so long that most of us don't see anything controversial about it.
3. Thus, when writers...whether we mean RPG writers or Tolkien...want to describe "the bad guys" the most effective way to convey that image is to use that language, possibly without fully understanding why that language works.
4. For the largest RPG audience, the ethnic group most associated with oppression will probably be africans, or african-americans. So when we talk about it, we're going to see that connection. But the same language has been used to justify subjugation and genocide against "more primitive" cultures around the world, not just against africans, and not just by western europeans/americans.

In other words, the strategy used to de-humanize mongols was...surprise!...the same strategy used to de-humanize africans. So when Tolkien was tapping into that subconscious bias when he was basing his orcs off of mongols, he was perpetuating the exact same insidious mythology that sits in peoples' subconscious when they say, "It's not systemic racism...those people really are more likely to commit crimes." Or whatever the claim is.

EDIT: Oops, @Arial Black quoted me in full just above.

 

[ART!]

lol where does that garbage* even come from.

Never in my life, MY WHOLE 40ish year life, have I associated a fantasy race, with a real group of people.

Not one time.

Maybe not you, or maybe not overtly, but the argument (as I understand it) is (at least in part): if a fictional "race"* is dark(er than caucasian)-skinned and is portrayed as inherently savage (or even just "exotic"), this both draws on and reinforces real historical stereotypes (used as an excuse historically and currently for domination, subjugation, abuse, and genocide). As a result, depicting such "races" in that way makes things worse for real dark-skinned people by furthering those stereotypes. Basically: those who deal in dark-skinned savage stereotypes are contributing to real-world racism.

*(a purely cultural and not scientifically useful concept)

 

[Guest 6801328]

But just because orcs are portrayed as bad, and africans have been portrayed as bad, does NOT mean that orcs are portrayed as africans!

I still don't think you are understanding. It's not simply that they are both portrayed as bad. It's that the way they are portrayed as bad...the language that is used...is the exact same way that "other people" are always portrayed as bad, in order to rationalize oppression. And in western countries, the strongest example of that, and one that continues to reverberate, is the african american community.

EDIT: As I said above, there are still people who say, in effect, "No, I'm not racist! It's just that Group X is prone to violence." Or "has no ambition" or "doesn't commit to relationships" or "isn't very bright" or "loves to drink" or whatever. Sound familiar?

That said, I'm guessing that there are many, many other cultures still getting the short of the stick who feel the same way about this language as the african american community does. And native americans reading this? Yeah, we used the same language to describe them.

 

[Scribe]

No, I'll never buy it. There is zero, literally zero, connection to me between Orcs, and any real world segment of the population.

Zero.

If people want to bemoan something like Arabian Nights vs a mythical 'Near East' culture of humans, you at least have a leg to stand on.

Orcs = Black people is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet.

If we are talking about 'language of the oppressor/oppressed' that is STILL something different.

 

[Arial Black]

I'm done. I'm not going to argue this anymore. People are twisting my words, and it's just not working.

Rogues are based off of Dexterity, and it is the most important ability scores to them mechanically. A half-orc rogue that wants a higher dexterity than the typical half-orc should be allowed to have that higher Dexterity bonus and not have people scream at them "Strength is useful for rogues, too! What if you have to carry a bunch of stuff!?!?"

I am not saying that a character is playing the game wrong if they choose to play a rogue with their highest ability score being Charisma or Strength. If they're having fun playing their character that way, they are playing the game correctly. However, it goes both ways. If a Tiefling character would have more fun having a higher Dexterity than Charisma as a rogue, people need to stop screaming at them "mInMaXeR!!!", "YoU jUsT wAnT tHe HiGhEsT DPR!!!", and "cHaRiSmA iS uSeFuL, too!".

If you have more fun with a 20 Charisma Rogue than a 20 Dexterity rogue, all power too you. However, people like @Crimson Longinus and the others need to stop telling me that their fun should/needs to be my fun.

Make sense? Can we finally stop this ridiculous tangent?

If you want to limit this to combat effectiveness, what's less effective about a Str/Con-based rogue in combat? Swapping more hit points for one point of AC, and having exactly the same weapon stats with a finesse weapon using strength?

 

[Vaalingrade]

lol where does that garbage* even come from.

Never in my life, MY WHOLE 40ish year life, have I associated a fantasy race, with a real group of people.

Not one time.

I didn't know pistol shrimp were a thing until a few years ago. Doesn't mean they didn't exist just because I was never exposed to them. And yelling that I never knew about them won't make them extinct.

Also, orcs are stand-in punching bags for multiple world-in people. Basically if you were ever considered a 'tribal' orcs are you and an analog for why you need to be civilized or exterminated.

This was of course not Tolkien's intention. his orcs were made not born and never really allowed a culture by their creators. However later creators, including D&D retrofitted pulp adventure tropes including the idea of 'tribal subhumans' and 'savage raiders' onto them, creating the problem we have today of orcs being thinly veiled othering that you get to racism to death without guilt.

 

[squibbles]

[...] rewriting of the story to not be so... 1920's... or 2018... would be to make it so the protagonist is an observer rather than catalyst; that the friendly natives have to correct their view of their cultures and their problems [...]

From a purely literally perspective though, to make John Carter an observer rather than catalyst is to remove his agency as the protagonist. [...]

I think an adaptation of John Carter of Mars that treated him like Mad Max in Fury Road, where the story is about Furiosa and the women she frees but Max has clear motivations and an agenda of his own, could work in a cool way.

perhaps if we had an example to analyze it would be easier to determine.

I'm not sure what you're asking for exactly, but the Barsoom Wikipedia page has a rundown of the series peoples and cultures. (incidentally, I don't feel like its description of the green martians as "primitive" and "intellectually unadvanced" is entirely fair)