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

[BookTenTiger]

Games are culture. Culture affects the way we see the world. I do think D&D could do a better job of addressing the casual violence towards the "uncivilized". I worry though that rather than address it and provoke understanding we are more likely to see Disney style sanitization that avoids the issue entirely.

Have you seen what Disney does to its villains???

 

[HJFudge]

Games are culture. Culture affects the way we see the world. I do think D&D could do a better job of addressing the casual violence towards the "uncivilized". I worry though that rather than address it and provoke understanding we are more likely to see Disney style sanitization that avoids the issue entirely.

Certainly culture does.

But culture influences our games. Our games do not influence our culture. Art imitates life not so much the other way round.

If you wish to address casual violence in a game, you very much can right now! It makes for interesting campaigns, in my view. The paladin having to wrestle with 'what is right?' makes them, for me, fun to play. At what point is it okay to kill? At what point is it okay to strike first? Is it never okay?

How much evil would you be willing to do to save your family? A variation on the trolley problem and all its permutations but in a D&D setting is fun, for me.

That said, though, again...not everyone enjoys campaigns like that. Sometimes they just wanna kill the bad guy, save the dragon from the princess, and ride off into the sunset with their new epic items. That's okay too.

 

[Mecheon]

What the hell am I supposed to use as the generic evil non-human humanoid antagonists then?

Do you really need generic evil non-human humanoid antagonists?

Just make 'em human bandits or members of an evil empire who they're enforcing the will of.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

What the hell am I supposed to use as the generic evil non-human humanoid antagonists then?

Do you need one in the first place?

I'd suggest Skyrim style bandits but approximately half of them are human (the other half being elves and orcs, don't remember seeing any argonian or khajiit bandits in the overworld), so apparently not good enough for your purposes?

 

[ccs]

Do you really need generic evil non-human humanoid antagonists?

Let's assume I do.
If for no other reason than just to break up the monotony of killing yet more human bandits, low lv undead, & lesser devils/fiends.

Just make 'em human bandits or members of an evil empire who they're enforcing the will of.

I'm not running GoT, I'm running D&D.
Home of all manner of monstrous humanoids (many with a penchant for eating humans/elves/etc) & many whom the evil empires find quite suitable as troops.

 

[ccs]

Do you need one in the first place?

As I said, let's assume that answer is yes.

The question though is if you strip those out, what takes their place? And what's after that when you lot decide this new default evil thing should be promoted to playable character/"people" status.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Our games do not influence our culture.

This is so blatantly false that the rest can’t even be considered.

Yes, they do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What the hell am I supposed to use as the generic evil non-human humanoid antagonists then?

Bad...people?

like...death/murder/blood cultists, ethno-supremacists, authoritarians, etc?

like...they do tend to wear uniforms. It’s not hard to tell them from the average villager.

 

[The Green Hermit]

In D&D?

Not in D&D. I was talking about general myths and lore.

 

[HJFudge]

This is so blatantly false that the rest can’t even be considered.

Yes, they do.

Oh yes!

I remember when WOTC removed/changed lore in the game and it changed our culture, precipitating a racial reckoning.

Or when that one video game came out and suddenly our cultural mores and values were shaped anew.

No. To think this is the case is absurd. These changes happened because our culture changed not the other way around. Games reflect our culture.