D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Ralif Redhammer]

I've booted players for racism and sexism, so yeah, being a gamer is no barrier to intolerance. There are bigots in every sort of scene, subgroup, or subculture, and they have to be rooted out. Because their very presence is corrupting. If you choose to game with bigots, you run the real risk of good people being driven away. And then you're stuck with just the awful.

so yeah, finding bigotry in our community is easy. Which again, is very sad. And IMO, cannot simply be ignored because it doesn't impact me. As a while male, that would be me using my inherent privilege to ignore how others not like me are being disparately treated. So I'll call it out when I see it, and as an indie publisher who is a fan of the OSR, use my tools and resources to fight it in the OSR when I see it by working to make my products better, and more inclusive.

 

[JEB]

Indeed. In fact, groups like white nationalists intentionally look towards outcasts as potential recruits. A place where they can finally belong and be part of a group, and to emphasize how "they" have been treating your wrong and unfair they've been to you. It's recruiting 101.

Something to consider in how we, as a society, treat folks who have unpopular, even unpleasant opinions. There are folks with much worse outlooks, and much nastier goals, who may take advantage when such folks feel marginalized.

 

[Charlaquin]

Out of curiosity, is the article in question actually claiming that D&D players are racist? Or is it claiming that D&D has racist underpinnings? Cause the former is a much less meaningful thesis.

 

[Mannahnin]

I think that's beyond splitting hairs.

In a D&D context, the difference between ogres and orcs is literally just one is a little taller and even stronger. They're both brutish humanoids. . .like people, except more muscular, and taller, and hairier, and uglier, and scary and violent. In a generic D&D context, just add a few more hit dice to the Orc and you've got an Ogre.

You've missed my point. Evidently I need to communicate better.

There is a critical distinction between a singular monster in a story and an entire race or species of humanoid creatures who are monstrous.

A singular ogre or orke from myth or legend is not and cannot be equated to a "race" of people. Once Tolkien created a whole species of "Orcs" that creation ALSO brought with it the new moral quandary of why and how an entire people are evil and servants of evil. Which itself has unpleasant echoes in reality*. D&D has continued this on a larger scale, making, for example, singular monsters like the Minotaur or Medusa into species. This carries with it the same moral quandary.

*(just today in a FB group for events and happenings in my city there was a story about a guy accused of animal cruelty, with a picture, and racist idiots in the group were making comments about this being normal "where he comes from". Naturally their guesses about where he comes from were entirely the wrong continent.)

 

[DemoMonkey]

If you want to demonize something/someone in Western culture, you make an accusation of being racist, fascist, or having an inordinate fondness for playgrounds.

Whether it is actually true is secondary to the fact that these are the un-counterable insults of our modern times. If you are accused of any of these things, you are guilty without the chance of being proven innocent. You are DOUBLY guilty if you deny it.

It's really very effective.

(I could cite possible historical precedents, but that would turn this discussion particularly ugly spectacularly quickly. I will leave that for braver students of history than myself.)

 

[turnip_farmer]

Out of curiosity, is the article in question actually claiming that D&D players are racist? Or is it claiming that D&D has racist underpinnings? Cause the former is a much less meaningful thesis.

The article's view:

"It’s a game that was dominated by white dudes for decades and, because of that, it’s got some baggage. Some of its concepts—evil races, descriptions of orcs and half-orcs that mirror racist stereotypes, and the concept of racial disadvantages—don’t make sense anymore in a modern context. The game's publisher, Wizards of the Coast (WotC), knows that and is trying to move Dungeons & Dragons into the future. But many of its efforts seem half-hearted, and a lot of the work of making Dungeons & Dragons more inclusive has fallen to its fans."

 

[Oofta]

You've missed my point. Evidently I need to communicate better.

There is a critical distinction between a singular monster in a story and an entire race or species of humanoid creatures who are monstrous.

A singular ogre or orke from myth or legend is not and cannot be equated to a "race" of people. Once Tolkien created a whole species of "Orcs" that creation ALSO brought with it the new moral quandary of why and how an entire people are evil and servants of evil. D&D has continued this on a larger scale, making, for example, singular monsters like the Minotaur or Medusa into species. This carries with it the same moral quandary.

But then that gets into the whole "can we say demons are evil" argument. Which never really seems to go anywhere.

If you want a default bad guy you only have so many options. A campaign-spanning evil organization isn't going to work because D&D isn't set up like that. Even in individual campaigns I can say "Bad, nasty, evil cultists" but what is a cult but a religion you don't ascribe to?

I don't think there is a good answer. If you want a game with white hats vs black hats (not everyone does) you need black hats. There has to be some way of identifying who the black hats are, no matter what option you choose it could be seen as a sign of bigotry.

 

[Charlaquin]

The article's view:

"It’s a game that was dominated by white dudes for decades and, because of that, it’s got some baggage. Some of its concepts—evil races, descriptions of orcs and half-orcs that mirror racist stereotypes, and the concept of racial disadvantages—don’t make sense anymore in a modern context. The game's publisher, Wizards of the Coast (WotC), knows that and is trying to move Dungeons & Dragons into the future. But many of its efforts seem half-hearted, and a lot of the work of making Dungeons & Dragons more inclusive has fallen to its fans."

Right, so that’s a very different thesis than “D&D players are racist.” It isn’t even claiming “WotC is racist.” It’s a matter of looking critically at the outdated assumptions D&D is built on, not calling anyone in particular out as racist.

 

[MGibster]

"Fake geek girl" and "not D&D" or "not real roleplaying" put the lie to the idea that we have been particularly welcoming.

It's difficult to reconcile the idea that we're not particularly welcoming while simultaneously cheering about the booming success of 5th edition with all the new players.

 

[Mannahnin]

But then that gets into the whole "can we say demons are evil" argument. Which never really seems to go anywhere.

If you want a default bad guy you only have so many options. A campaign-spanning evil organization isn't going to work because D&D isn't set up like that. Even in individual campaigns I can say "Bad, nasty, evil cultists" but what is a cult but a religion you don't ascribe to?

I don't think there is a good answer. If you want a game with white hats vs black hats (not everyone does) you need black hats. There has to be some way of identifying who the black hats are, no matter what option you choose it could be seen as a sign of bigotry.

I don't think this is true at all. No doubt I've missed a lot of discussions you've been in, though. I'm pretty new to ENworld.

There are some enemies which it makes sense to have as supernatural evil or as able to be killed or destroyed without moral qualms. Demons. Undead. Constructs.

Then there are enemies who wilfully choose to do wrong and threaten others, like those cultists. (Speaking as someone who's studied comparative religion and sociology, yes, in a sociological sense a cult is just a small religion, but a cult which kidnaps and sacrifices people is still evil). Or like bandits. Or marauding raiders.

Then there are predatory alien creatures with whom we can't communicate (Ropers, for example, among many other abberations). Unnatural creatures of inimical magic who prey on humans and can't be reasoned with.

All of these are good options for antagonists without the same quasi-racist baggage/implications of describing an entire living, speaking & reasoning species as evil. IIRC James Maliszewski in his Dwimmermount campaign went with Orcs (his are pig-faced) being genetically-modified swine/boars anthropomorphized by magic and possessed by demonic spirits.

I think even in a regular D&D campaign world you could still reasonably have Orcs as black hats if your world also includes orcs of different cultures who aren't black hats. If THESE particular orcs are villains for cultural reasons/out of choice, but these OTHER orcs are not, then you avoid the racial essentialist stuff. I don't have to identify the villains by their tusks or green skin. I can identify them by the Eye of Gruumsh painted on their shields.