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

[Sacrosanct]

I don't think anyone is saying orcs can't be evil, or ruthless, or murderous. But lots of people are saying they shouldn't inherently be that way. As is the way of too many conversations, we tend to focus on the extremes, even if those aren't positions people are actually making *.

*Well, one or two people might be making them, but there are always outliers and I don't pay too much attention the rare outlier.

 

[Oofta]

Ok sure. So the first isn’t about removing racism though is it? Because alignment has been divorced from race. It’s because some people don’t like alignment. Which is a whole different beef.

The second has already happened as far as I can see and is now policy.

While the third, I have no earthly idea how you would measure that. As it will depend entirely on how people choose to play the game.

The game isn't perfect, there are issues that should be discussed like the fluff text on half-orcs. It should be made clear that the alignment/culture of any race or monster (playable or not) is just the default.

But I think the problem of racism is one that can't be fixed. If My Little Pony can be associated with white supremacist's, just about anything can be.

 

[TheSword]

I don't think anyone is saying orcs can't be evil, or ruthless, or murderous. But lots of people are saying they shouldn't inherently be that way. As is the way of too many conversations, we tend to focus on the extremes, even if those aren't positions people are actually making *.

*Well, one or two people might be making them, but there are always outliers and I don't pay too much attention the rare outlier.

So all humanoids having “any alignment” fixed this.

 

[Scribe]

I don't think anyone is saying orcs can't be evil, or ruthless, or murderous. But lots of people are saying they shouldn't inherently be that way. As is the way of too many conversations, we tend to focus on the extremes, even if those aren't positions people are actually making *.

*Well, one or two people might be making them, but there are always outliers and I don't pay too much attention the rare outlier.

What I almost never see discussed is the reality of species defining gods in all this.

If a specific species is warlike, or something (orc or drow) and there is a god sitting there that defined how that species is going to function are we going to have to throw that away on the alter of progress?

I'll note the wall of the faithless was errata removed from the Sword Coast book recently.

Are we just going to have Wizards drop things some people are uncomfortable with?

If my orcs raid, pillage, destroy and despoil, but I never call them evil (even with an Evil god) is that OK?

 

[Oofta]

So all humanoids having “any alignment” fixed this.

Why stop at humanoids?

 

[Sacrosanct]

So all humanoids having “any alignment” fixed this.

Pretty much. And seems a super easy fix. to be honest, I'm not sure why it's created such a hubbub. If intelligent humanoids are "any alignment, largely based on culture", then that removes the "all orcs are evil" while still allowing you (general you) to play your game with all orcs evil if you want.

What I almost never see discussed is the reality of species defining gods in all this.

If a specific species is warlike, or something (orc or drow) and there is a god sitting there that defined how that species is going to function are we going to have to throw that away on the alter of progress?

I'll note the wall of the faithless was errata removed from the Sword Coast book recently.

Are we just going to have Wizards drop things some people are uncomfortable with?

If my orcs raid, pillage, destroy and despoil, but I never call them evil (even with an Evil god) is that OK?

Humans are probably the most warlike species on the planet, and we aren't default evil, right? I don't think warlike automatically equals evil. Depends on whose side you're on right? LOL. One person's paladin is another's infidel and all that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It reminds me of this. Several years ago I did a couple of adventures where the PCs play the monstrous humanoids, from their perspective, and one of the pieces of art I commissioned was this. It really is all about perspective, isn't it? I mean, traditionally, any party of PCs will instantly attack and kill goblins on sight, no questions asked. Is that "good" behavior? (meaning, humans have been encroaching on goblin lands for years, killing them and taking their property, so can the goblins be blamed for trying to fight back, even if that style of fighting is hit and run ambush tactics?) I know for most gamers, we don't want to worry or think about things like that and we just want a traditional heroic fantasy, but if one were to give that some thought...

 

[Oofta]

It reminds me of this. Several years ago I did a couple of adventures where the PCs play the monstrous humanoids, from their perspective, and one of the pieces of art I commissioned was this. It really is all about perspective, isn't it? I mean, traditionally, any party of PCs will instantly attack and kill goblins on sight, no questions asked. Is that "good" behavior?

View attachment 133136

Which is absolutely a valid way of playing the game. Other people just want simplistic good guys and bad.

Why can't we have both?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Which is absolutely a valid way of playing the game. Other people just want simplistic good guys and bad.

Why can't we have both?

totally can. Is anyone saying you can't play your game with inherent evil humanoids if you want?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean, traditionally, any party of PCs will instantly attack and kill goblins on sight, no questions asked. Is that "good" behavior?

Great picture!

The answer is, IMO, it depends. How much emphasis are you putting on "traditionally?"

I think that there are two ways to look at this:

1. The campaign setting, like the real world, has moral nuance. An orc, or a goblin, or a humanoid is not necessarily "evil." They just have different motivations than we do. Humans have fought each other throughout history without being "evil," and it's certainly possible that a goblin attack on the local village wasn't because the goblins are, and always will be, the baddies, but because the humans encroached on their territory and put their village on the goblin's sacred land. Who knows?

2. The campaign setting is not the real world. It's fantasy archetypes. There is real "good" and real "evil," and baddies are baddies. Nuance is just the name of the Elvish Mage, and if orcs weren't made to be killed, Gygax wouldn't have created them out of XP.

shrug I think people can, and do, play the game differently. I think that (1) is certainly more prevalent now, and, tbh, it's been pretty hard to keep up the (2) ever since "monstrous races" became playable with a choice of alignment.