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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oofta

Legend
No, I didn’t.

No, it isn’t.

Irrelevant. You can subvert what a ghoul is for a given world, but that doesn’t change what it is in general. The core books talk about the general case.
That D&D Devils aren’t a species or a lineage or any other such type of thing isn’t a preference, it’s the default lore for D&D. Orcs, otoh, are a species of living creature that breed like RL mammals, have familial and other attachments, raise their children, etc.
The two are inherently different cases.

Okay. I didn’t do any of that, either. 🤷‍♂️

Are you denying that you wrote "Why do you keep repeating this nonsense" and "Why do you not understand"?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
It depends on what you mean by "major," and by "cultural," and by "impact." Because one could argue that D&D generates millions of dollars annually, and has become a mainstream hobby now--and therefore, it has already had a significant impact on popular culture.
Plus we have a topic here discussing a universe without D&D until now and it's rather hard due to how many things were influenced by it.

So D&D's impact is major already.
 
Last edited:

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?
1e was also the edition with gender-based strength limits, race-class restrictions, ability score prerequisites, race-class level limits, and so on. And Basic had most of that and race-as-class. And 1e says that stuff is for balance, IIRC, so you're told not to change those things in particular. I would not point to 20th century editions if I wanted to highlight a progressive design, and every edition has included some form of rule 0. If anything these early editions appear to emphasize it more simply because the rulebooks were shorter.

If the game wanted to maximize DM control, why alignments in the Monster Manual at all? Sure, it makes sense for undead, celestials, fiends, and so on... but why the humanoids?

That's a rhetorical question, of course. I understand why the game needs bad guys. But I also think it's kind of key to the question at hand.
 


Bagpuss

Legend
Humans are the "default race," and all the other races are defined by how they vary from humans. Sometimes this is physical (pointy ears, wings, etc).

Often though, other "races" vary from humans culturally. Dwarves are traditional, halflings are plucky, orcs are savage.

I think you will find all races in D&D vary from humans physically, because otherwise they would just be human. Race in D&D is used much more like species in reality. So it has little to do with the American idea of race.

Most races also differ culturally from humans, these are often presented as mono-cultures*, although some races have subraces, like Dwarves and Elves, and these again have separate cultures and often separate physical attributes.

*They are normally only presented as mono-cultures in the PHB, when you see all the different rich and detailed settings of D&D it becomes clear that not all Dwarves and Elves are the same. But you only have so many pages in the PHB and you need to establish a base line so you can show how other groups move away from that.

And if you are half of one of those races? You still carry those stereotypes. You are defined as a half-orc, a half-elf.

This, then, is what I find very American about race in D&D. It's used as an othering tool. It's used to conflate physical differences and cultural differences. And it's used to define how player characters get to treat others. And it's tied inexorably to skin color!

Except it isn't dark skinned humans aren't evil in D&D, Wood elves and gnomes according the the PHB have dark skin both considered Good aligned, as are Dragonborn regardless of their chromatic (inc. Black) or metallic origin.

You can kill a drow because they are evil. How do you know they are evil? They are cursed with black skin!

Well and the fact their culture and society is bound to worship Lolth the Spider Queen, an evil deity.

Do you even know why they are dark skinned? Because they are based on Norse mythology of the Dökkálfar, dark skinned elves that live underground. The myths and folklore that D&D is based on are all considerably older than Lord of the Rings, and older still than the slave trade (well the African slave trade anyway, the Norse took slaves from the European people they raided (lots of people did back then)). Dwarves and gnomes and loads of stuff can be traced back to European folklore before Europe had even started empire building.

Dark is associated with evil, and light good because the night was bloody scary when wolves could drag people away from camp fires, it has nothing to do with skin colour. These myths and folklore were built on deep seated fears from pre-history.

Of course, this is not universal. But it is systemic. The very existence of Drizzt shows that in order for a Drow to be anything but evil, they have to turn against their whole society.

Again because that society worships a Chaotic Evil deity.

To me, race in D&D is very Americanized because it echoes so many ways race was used to enslave, kill, discriminate against, and segregate people based only on their ancestry or skin color. Race in D&D is Americanized because it conflates "dark" with "evil." And Race in D&D is Americanized because it's obsessed with bloodlines and ancestry.

And yet oddly it isn't these dark skinned races that are kept as slaves, almost always in the D&D it is the evil races that are keeping slaves, and you know why, because keeping slaves is evil, D&D teaches slavery is evil, doesn't sound like support of racist ideas to me.
 
Last edited:

Remathilis

Legend
The sky is very much not falling.
Yet.

Listen, I want to see inclusiveness be a part of the hobby, but I do question how much of the game will change to accommodate it. I'm assured by others that it will be fine if we remove the alignment tag off orcs or allow races to put ability score mods where they please, but tomorrow another thing must change to allow inclusiveness. The lineage UA has already implied that future races (er lineages) will lack racial ASI, proficiencies, alignment tendency and languages.

Today we say orcs are no longer majority evil. Tomorrow we say ogres perpetuate the same tropes and they must treated similarly. Maybe vampirism or lycanthropy becomes a metaphor for chronic illness or disability, or the succubus a symbol of mysoginy. I don't think I'm over-exaggerating to wonder what's next and to think on how to future-proof things. And to wonder, despite reassurance that "ze game will remain ze same", what else will need to change to fix those deep seated issues.
 



Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yet.

Listen, I want to see inclusiveness be a part of the hobby, but I do question how much of the game will change to accommodate it. I'm assured by others that it will be fine if we remove the alignment tag off orcs or allow races to put ability score mods where they please, but tomorrow another thing must change to allow inclusiveness. The lineage UA has already implied that future races (er lineages) will lack racial ASI, proficiencies, alignment tendency and languages.

Today we say orcs are no longer majority evil. Tomorrow we say ogres perpetuate the same tropes and they must treated similarly.
One can only hope.
Maybe vampirism or lycanthropy becomes a metaphor for chronic illness or disability, or the succubus a symbol of mysoginy.
The better question than “is X a metaphor for Y” is, “does the way X is presented perpetuate harmful messages about Y?” If the answer is yes, then the presentation of X should be changed.
I don't think I'm over-exaggerating to wonder what's next and to think on how to future-proof things. And to wonder, despite reassurance that "ze game will remain ze same", what else will need to change to fix those deep seated issues.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing to do. I’m just a little perplexed by you continuing to present such changes in a negative light.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I don’t think that’s a bad thing to do. I’m just a little perplexed by you continuing to present such changes in a negative light.

Because change is scary.

Change too much and the game no longer honors it's ancestry, you split the fanbase and you get the civil wars that are consuming other media properties (Star Wars for a good example). Change too little and you aren't helping those who need it.

5e is a good system, true to it's roots while being accessable to many. WotC sought to make it an evergreen edition. But I fear the drumbeat demanding change will hasten WotC to make a new edition to satisfy it's critics, and that new edition may make the same mistakes 4e made about sweeping radical change to mechanics and lore.

So yeah, I'm concerned about what the ripple effect is going to look like. In an era where most of my interests and fandoms dating back to childhood have recently become battlefields for culture wars, you'll have to excuse me being a little anxious.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top