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

[MGibster]

I think you have to get a trespass notice. Mate had a gamestore and one guy was a pain but legally couldn't ban him from the store.

Here in the US, a business generally has a right to refuse service so long as the refusal is not based on the customer belonging to a protected class (race, color, religion, whether they're veterans, national origin, or sex). I know one of our former game stores in my area banned a few people (for what I'm not exactly sure though I heard rumors). If a business owner asks someone to leave the premises and they refuse it's trespassing in most states and at that point the police are usually called.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here in the US, a business generally has a right to refuse service so long as the refusal is not based on the customer belonging to a protected class (race, color, religion, whether they're veterans, national origin, or sex). I know one of our former game stores in my area banned a few people (for what I'm not exactly sure though I heard rumors). If a business owner asks someone to leave the premises and they refuse it's trespassing in most states and at that point the police are usually called.

Kinda works same way here but they normally need a decent excuse to call police.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Or more to the point... the game and most of the players weren't intending to be racist.

But because cultural mores change over time... parts of the game and some of the attitudes of the OSR/Old D&D might now be considered racist at this point in time.

So if you are a part of the OSR/Old D&D and that matters to you... that parts of the game you enjoy have undertones of racism... all you need to do is to see what people are talking about when it comes to racism in OSR/Old D&D and choose to change the bits in your game and your attitudes towards them that could be considered racist without getting bent out of shape over it.

Of course we know that's hard... heck, people here on the boards get bent out of shape by rules changes or additions all the time even without ones with any racial undertones. And our defense mechanisms and hackles immediately jump up when any potential racism is implied. But really, what's worse? Pretending that the rest of society just doesn't "get it" and going about your business the same as you ever did... or acknowledging the potential and making small changes along the way just to keep yourself in check?

I know for me personally... I'm always seeing things in media that someone is decrying as -ist or an -ism and I sigh heavily and think "Really? You're getting upset about that, now?!?" But then I take a moment to just think whether whatever that is is actually any kind of a big deal that impacts my life in any way shape or form and I realize that no it doesn't. So going along with the idea is no skin off my back if others believe it to be important in making more people happy.

And while I know there's a lot of folks desperately afraid of the whole "slippery slope" argument where they think society's going to break off and sink into the ocean if we "allow" this change to our mores to occur... trying to bring it to a screeching halt is rather pointless. Because the people pushing for these changes to our societal mores are usually younger than you and will outlive you. So you can try and fight the changes all you want, but eventually you're gonna die and the younger people will be able to keep those changes in place without you there to cockblock them anymore. So why make yourself miserable for the few years remaining in your life by trying to swim against the current and trying to prove to the young folks that this thing they believe is all wrong and they're going to hell if they continue it?

Long story short...
..
Because I still count FOUR lights...not FIVE.
I'm not going to 'go with the flow' just because it's easier for others (or me, necessarily).
..
(yes, that's a 1984 reference).
..
EDIT: ((snip stuff; never mind))
EDIT EDIT: ((Ooops on the lights thing... I was picturing Picard but said 1984...stupid brain doing stupid brain stuff! )).
..
^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[BookTenTiger]

Hiya!

Long story short...
..
Because I still count FOUR lights...not FIVE.
I'm not going to 'go with the flow' just because it's easier for others (or me, necessarily).
..
(yes, that's a 1984 reference).
..
EDIT: ((snip stuff; never mind))
..
^_^

Paul L. Ming

So two things...

1) That's a Star Trek reference, not a 1984 reference. In the (very, very good) Next Generation episode "Chain of Command," Picard is being tortured by a Cardassian, who is trying to make Picard see four lights as five. The writers of that episode referenced 1984, in which the main character is being forced into doublethink by having to agree that 2+2=5.

2). Racism is the Big Brother in this situation. Racism is the five lights. Racism is the 2+2=5. Racism is the illogical forced onto the masses in order to benefit those in power. Racism is the corruption in the system. Even in the system of the roleplaying game we love, D&D.

To quote another brilliant writer, James Baldwin, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

It is okay to love D&D and, through that love, critique its system, which perpetuates the idea that an entire "race" of people can be defined by a single culture. It's okay to love D&D and acknowledge that it, like many systems in our society, carries racist ideas that can be identified and kicked to the curb.

 

[ccs]

Thing is, Basic and 1e made a point of highlighting this "change whatever you like" aspect.

I'm not so sure it's as prominently stated in the more recent editions (3e and forward), in which an underlying design goal seems to be conformity across tables. The organized-play influence, maybe?

You didn't READ what I was replying to (I did quote it) did you? The person I was responded to is under the mistaken notion that there was nothing in the game in the late '70s/'79 indicating orcs etc could be of differing alignments.

And I'm sure there's such words of advice in 2e, & 3x. I just can't quote them without digging out retired books 1st. (retired because when I'm playing old school D&D it's 1e, when I'm playing 3x it's actually PF)

 

[reelo]

The person I was responded to is under the mistaken notion that there was nothing in the game in the late '70s/'79 indicating orcs etc could be of differing alignments.

In B/X Orcs aren't evil. They're Chaotic. Good and Evil don't exist in B/X, only the Law/Chaos axis. Heck, Chaotic PCs can even employ Orcs and Goblins as Mercenaries. Plus, there's this thing called "Reaction Roll". If you stumble upon a group of Orcs, the DM first rolls reaction. They could turn out to be friendly or indifferent, while still being Chaotic.

 

[TheSword]

Can I ask what moves people think WOC have taken so far? I have the following.

• Public statement on website articles acknowledging past and promising to change.
• Warning on all previous edition content that is may be problematic.
• Better representation of PoC in artwork in all books. Particularly among PHB characters.
• Small changes to vistani in Curse of Strahd
• Tasha’s guide ability to swap about abilities for races including set ability scores
• Custom race template that can replace other racial abilities.
• Statement on website articles that creatures can be any alignment (though not yet in a monster book)
• Tentative dipping toe into water regarding lineage.

I would think these would be a good start. Having read the wired article this would seem to address several of the issues raised.

Is there anything I’ve missed?
What should they be doing next?
Have taken any steps backward?

 

[Remathilis]

Can I ask what moves people think WOC have taken so far? I have the following.

• Public statement on website articles acknowledging past and promising to change.
• Warning on all previous edition content that is may be problematic.
• Better representation of PoC in artwork in all books. Particularly among PHB characters.
• Small changes to vistani in Curse of Strahd
• Tasha’s guide ability to swap about abilities for races including set ability scores
• Custom race template that can replace other racial abilities.
• Statement on website articles that creatures can be any alignment (though not yet in a monster book)
• Tentative dipping toe into water regarding lineage.

I would think these would be a good start. Having read the wired article this would seem to address several of the issues raised.

Is there anything I’ve missed?
What should they be doing next?
Have taken any steps backward?

Icewind Dale removed the Alignment section from the goliath racial traits and the statblocks of generic humanoids.

 

[Haffrung]

I agree that in D&D orcs are not being used as an allegory or replacement for one kind of human being. At the same time, the way orcs (and drow, and elves, and halflings...) are described uses the practice of ascribing the values of a culture to one singular "race." And whether this race or culture is real or imaginary, the act of ascribing the values of a culture to a single race is, in itself, a harmful practice.

The big difference to me is in the following two models:

A) orcs are barbaric raiders

B) there are barbaric raiders, and some of them are orcs

In example A, the "race" of orcs is being defined by the values of a culture (barbaric raiders). In B, the values of a culture are separated from race.

Obviously no orcs in real life are being harmed by being depicted as barbaric raiders. But I would argue that the very act of ascribing the values of a culture to a single race is harmful, and it's harmful to those who act it out playing the game because it's an unhealthy practice.

OK. But what you're describing is pretty much a human universal in storytelling. D&D was not developed by 21st century sociologists. It was a tactical wargame influenced by European folklore and mid-20th century fiction pulp fiction. But even if its cultural genesis was Japanese epics, the Thousand and One Nights, or Indian folklore, it would feature that same trait of making monsters monstrous rather than diverse and nuanced populations worthy of empathy and tolerance.

In other words, the things that are bad about D&D's assumptions are bad about virtually all traditional storytelling. And it should be regarded in that context, and not as some peculiar defect of D&D or its cultural influences.

And if we're examining culture and storytelling at that level, them we should revisit the notion of villainy altogether. Personifying our fears and hates in the character of a villain is a deeply-rooted human impulse. Put a face to our fears in the form of a character, and then vanquish that character. Kill them. It's as old as stories. It also runs contrary to enlightened modern notions of where the source of our problems lie and the best way to deal with them. Should we expunge villainy itself from fiction as 'problematic?'

 

[Haffrung]

Obviously no orcs in real life are being harmed by being depicted as barbaric raiders. But I would argue that the very act of ascribing the values of a culture to a single race is harmful, and it's harmful to those who act it out playing the game because it's an unhealthy practice.

It may well be harmful. But you realize it's found in virtually all storytelling in every culture on earth, right? When the protagonists discover a new group of people, they demonstrate pretty narrow traits because that's how you dramatize. The new group are brawny or weak, gentle or aggressive, trustworthy or duplicitous, greedy or openhanded. That's how fiction works - you can't give all groups all human traits in equal proportions, or they're no longer distinguishable anymore in a dramatic sense. And if they're not distinguishable, they don't serve their essential dramatic purpose, which is to compare and contrast behaviours.

By expunging this approach from D&D, WotC will be in the vanguard of a new way of approaching popular storytelling, not lagging behind. Something as deeply ingrained in the storytelling of every human culture will take generations to change.