Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I sure hope so!
D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.
- Status
Argyle King
Legend
I had thought Drow coloration was intended to be a palette swap of High Elves. (I based this upon how they were described in the 3rd Edition books.)
Note: Some of what follows includes descriptions which are stereotypical in nature. I am not in any way endorsing said stereotypes. My intent is to use language which I'm guessing may have fit the mentality of how a creature (or characters) were drawn during a different era.
However, there exists (older) D&D artwork which does not illustrate them as described, instead choosing to incorporate some African-American features. I have no evidence to back this up, but -if I had to guess- I think that a lot of Drow women were stand-ins for the stereotype of a "strong powerful black woman," and it was an exploration of some artist's fantasy to think about being dominated by a strong woman. Here is an example.
Drow are (in fluff) described as something of a perversion of "normal" (for a lack of better words) society, so, through the lens of an older American culture, the idea of a domineering, voluptuous, and dark-skinned woman ruling over males would have been counter-culture to the "norm" of a light-skinned ("white") male, at the head of the household, and with his lithe and dainty housewife. I believe there is some evidence of this found in looking at what the beauty ideals of that period of time were, and by looking at what were considered the traits of a "good woman" of the time. There is historical evidence to show that beauty norms were often constructed in such a way that African-American women were allowed to be viewed as sexual objects, but they were not allowed to fit into the categories associated (at those times) with being pure, womanly -or whatever buzzword was used at the time. I have no evidence at all to suggest this had anything to do with why an artist decided to start incorporating (what could be seen as) African-American features into the dominatrix look of D&D Drow matriarchs, but that's my random guess at what might be a motivation (based upon having casually studied the subject and having some anecdotal experience with a mixed family).
(Though, there could be some argument that the picture was loosely based on Tina Turner's character from Mad Max; that can be seen here.)
I'm inclined to believe there is less of a problem when Drow are portray as illustrated here.
Though, that too leads to problems because it leads to the idea that the majority of D&D creatures have European features. What is the answer to having more diverse features but also being against certain features being used in artwork? Is it better for a product to ask for an art direction which is wholly alien from the features seen around us in day-to-day life? I'm not asking these questions to be funny or dismissive.
I'm genuinely curious because most of these discussions have a tendency to point out what is "wrong," without offering much of a solution for how to build a game/product in a way which corrects the problems -and does so in a way which still produces a product recognizable enough for an audience to connect with. I believe that most successful fantasy -even if it's some completely gonzo fantasy- still has some underlying human element (whether that be in emotion, look, tone, or whatever) upon which to build and with which to bring in an audience.
Another interesting question which arises is whether or not diversity includes inclusivity in being villains.
Obviously an entire race/ethnicity/identity should not be vilified; however, I'm curious to hear those advocating for more diversity among the heroes of a story are also okay with someone who looks or lives as they do being chosen to be the "bad guy" of a story. Would a contemporary audience automatically assume offense in response to villain who were part of a marginalized group? Is it considered out of bounds to (say for the sake of example) have the evil wizard in the tower be trans? How do villainous characters intersect with a push toward diversity?
Note: Some of what follows includes descriptions which are stereotypical in nature. I am not in any way endorsing said stereotypes. My intent is to use language which I'm guessing may have fit the mentality of how a creature (or characters) were drawn during a different era.
However, there exists (older) D&D artwork which does not illustrate them as described, instead choosing to incorporate some African-American features. I have no evidence to back this up, but -if I had to guess- I think that a lot of Drow women were stand-ins for the stereotype of a "strong powerful black woman," and it was an exploration of some artist's fantasy to think about being dominated by a strong woman. Here is an example.
Drow are (in fluff) described as something of a perversion of "normal" (for a lack of better words) society, so, through the lens of an older American culture, the idea of a domineering, voluptuous, and dark-skinned woman ruling over males would have been counter-culture to the "norm" of a light-skinned ("white") male, at the head of the household, and with his lithe and dainty housewife. I believe there is some evidence of this found in looking at what the beauty ideals of that period of time were, and by looking at what were considered the traits of a "good woman" of the time. There is historical evidence to show that beauty norms were often constructed in such a way that African-American women were allowed to be viewed as sexual objects, but they were not allowed to fit into the categories associated (at those times) with being pure, womanly -or whatever buzzword was used at the time. I have no evidence at all to suggest this had anything to do with why an artist decided to start incorporating (what could be seen as) African-American features into the dominatrix look of D&D Drow matriarchs, but that's my random guess at what might be a motivation (based upon having casually studied the subject and having some anecdotal experience with a mixed family).
(Though, there could be some argument that the picture was loosely based on Tina Turner's character from Mad Max; that can be seen here.)
I'm inclined to believe there is less of a problem when Drow are portray as illustrated here.
Though, that too leads to problems because it leads to the idea that the majority of D&D creatures have European features. What is the answer to having more diverse features but also being against certain features being used in artwork? Is it better for a product to ask for an art direction which is wholly alien from the features seen around us in day-to-day life? I'm not asking these questions to be funny or dismissive.
I'm genuinely curious because most of these discussions have a tendency to point out what is "wrong," without offering much of a solution for how to build a game/product in a way which corrects the problems -and does so in a way which still produces a product recognizable enough for an audience to connect with. I believe that most successful fantasy -even if it's some completely gonzo fantasy- still has some underlying human element (whether that be in emotion, look, tone, or whatever) upon which to build and with which to bring in an audience.
Another interesting question which arises is whether or not diversity includes inclusivity in being villains.
Obviously an entire race/ethnicity/identity should not be vilified; however, I'm curious to hear those advocating for more diversity among the heroes of a story are also okay with someone who looks or lives as they do being chosen to be the "bad guy" of a story. Would a contemporary audience automatically assume offense in response to villain who were part of a marginalized group? Is it considered out of bounds to (say for the sake of example) have the evil wizard in the tower be trans? How do villainous characters intersect with a push toward diversity?
And most of the people seeing issues aren’t part of the demographic that they’re alleging is being impacted either. So if we’re agreed that white people aren’t qualified to speak on the subject, that goes for both sides.
As far as I can tell only one person of colour has commented on the issue (post #12), but presumably his opinion is being discounted because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Scribe
Legend
This is why I won't get planescape.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I doubt that the alignment system "is on life support" as you describe, @Remathilis. But if I'm wrong, it's easy enough for me to add back in. (shrug)
Sacrosanct
Legend
Yeah, if only there were people of various minority groups who have expressed these same problematic issues....
You've got to be kidding me. You do realize that this topic has been around a lot longer than this particular thread, right? With many other participants over many different platforms over the years?
Bagpuss
Legend
Well it is if you were brought up CoE and had never heard of the Curse of Ham until you mentioned it. Seems another US culture thing. Edit: Also checked with my RC wife and she’s not heard of it either.
Eberron from the very beginning stripped off the "always" dial from creature alignment and attitude for anyone that was native to it. Anyone who was a bad guy or bad girl was an individual who made a choice to be bad or was corrupted by extra-planar bad things. You could be an evil Human, evil Orc, evil Elf, evil Gnoll, evil Warforged, evil Gnome, evil Gold Dragon etc. etc. etc. But no entire group native to the land of Eberron was called evil "just because".
And the game did not break down because of it, nor did it cause any sort of uproar or issue with the playerbase.
So if in subsequent books and/or editions down the line WotC adapts Eberron's methodology over to the base game... I really don't think we're going to see any problems. Because the number of players who think the game needs to have "always evil" native creatures is not actually that large... PLUS if it's not in the book they're going to just add them in themselves anyway. If they think orcs in general should be evil... then they'll make them evil. Regardless of what the books say.
At the end of the day... this to me all comes down to one primary thing... ego. We LIKE it when the things we enjoy are written "for us". When the game's attitude matches our own, it feels good. When our attitude is matched by the game it means we are a part of the full culture of what we like. But if we ever have preferences the game doesn't support, it means to get what we want we have to go "against the current" and create our own version instead. And that means we are (at least in this instance) no longer a part of the greater culture of the game. We feel abandoned... just like the 3E players did when 4E came out or the 4E players did when 5E came out.
And while all of us could play whatever "older version" we prefered... our egos still take the hit. And which is why people try so desperately NOT to see changes come to D&D... so they never have to be the one to get left behind. Unfortunately though... it's going to happen to all of us sooner or later in some form or fashion.
And the game did not break down because of it, nor did it cause any sort of uproar or issue with the playerbase.
So if in subsequent books and/or editions down the line WotC adapts Eberron's methodology over to the base game... I really don't think we're going to see any problems. Because the number of players who think the game needs to have "always evil" native creatures is not actually that large... PLUS if it's not in the book they're going to just add them in themselves anyway. If they think orcs in general should be evil... then they'll make them evil. Regardless of what the books say.
At the end of the day... this to me all comes down to one primary thing... ego. We LIKE it when the things we enjoy are written "for us". When the game's attitude matches our own, it feels good. When our attitude is matched by the game it means we are a part of the full culture of what we like. But if we ever have preferences the game doesn't support, it means to get what we want we have to go "against the current" and create our own version instead. And that means we are (at least in this instance) no longer a part of the greater culture of the game. We feel abandoned... just like the 3E players did when 4E came out or the 4E players did when 5E came out.
And while all of us could play whatever "older version" we prefered... our egos still take the hit. And which is why people try so desperately NOT to see changes come to D&D... so they never have to be the one to get left behind. Unfortunately though... it's going to happen to all of us sooner or later in some form or fashion.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It's more 15th century Catholic than American. It just ended up as a justification for slavery of Africans, so, of course it made its way here and took root. And its persistence into the 20th century had a lot more to do with the Mormons using it to justify not ordaining black priests (as late as 1978) than American culture, per se.
Scribe
Legend
Right. However I wonder if people who want that basic 'these are good, these are bad, they fight' even play Eberron?
- Status
Similar Threads
