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

[Sacrosanct]

This is remarkably easy to do!



You are accusing me right here of being a bigot.

What part of this did you miss:

I want to be very clear that I'm not saying you are doing this.

I mean, I don't know how it's possible for me to have been more clear on this. I literally said I wanted to be very clear...

 

[bedir than]

You are accusing me right here of being a bigot.

The explicit phrase "I'm not saying you are doing this." exists

 

[Oofta]

Once again, no one is saying you have to get rid of alignment (some have said they'd like to, but that's not what's being argued. What's being argued is changing it to any alignment). When something says "any alignment", that means you get to chose what alignment you want to give them, based on your preference. Alignment is still there.

Why do you keep ignoring this and repeating the same strawman?

Several people have said that all humanoid creatures should have "any alignment".

I was talking about, have always talked about, continue to clarify "taking away alignment as the default for a monster".

 

[Mind of tempest]

I just think it would be pointless if you didn't. The lore describes a CE culture for orcs and explains why they are the way they are. They were created a pissed off god to kill and destroy. Removing alignment is just removing one tiny, tiny part of their lore that can be derived from the lore for anyone that cares.

For campaign specific groups like Eberron you can tell a richer story.

so what they're just speed bumps made of xp then?

 

[HJFudge]

What part of this did you miss:



I mean, I don't know how it's possible for me to have been more clear on this. I literally said I wanted to be very clear...

This...is true. My apologies. I was wrong. clinks glass

I'll even let the exchange stand since it is a good object lesson in 'reading anothers post ENTIRELY'

 

[Oofta]

so what they're just speed bumps made of xp then?

I don't even know what you're trying to say.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Several people have said that all humanoid creatures should have "any alignment".

I was talking about, have always talked about, continue to clarify "taking away alignment as the default for a monster".

Uh...no you haven't. I mean, your post that I quoted was not monsters, it was humanoids:

"I wouldn't say it's so much accusations of bigotry as much as the one and only solution is to get rid of alignment for humanoids."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, did he became racist because he read some text about Drows, or was he FUBAR way before ever hearing about d&d?

Yeah it's impossible to say, isn't it? But I got the impression he was a racist first and D&D just let him play out his sick ideas, potentially reinforcing them.

And here’s one with straight hair. First official monster manual depiction. Again, does this look anything like African-American caricatures, or is it an evil elf with black skin?
View attachment 133147

You asked a question about a specific piece of art. I feel that due to the hair, it was extremely clearly derived from an attempt at a "black elf" (in the sense of the human race). So that shows, literally from the first piece of art, this was a problem.

I agree that this style, the comic-book, surprisingly mustachioed, style of Drow, didn't look like that. So we had two strands of art. But that's without getting into other issues Drow had with being sort of implied to be black, which I'm not going to go over here, because they've been covered at such length in previous threads.

Apparently My Little Pony is also quite popular with neo-Nazis as well. People will find a way to project their racism into any game.

Definitely, and if they'd just been D&D playing without any actual ideological link, I'd say "Oh well, nazis gonna nazi". But they specifically enjoyed the whole justified destruction of inferior races deal, which has unfortunately been kind of a running theme in some D&D stuff, especially pre-1990s. It always grossed me out, but I even bumped into it with a player I played with (the "orc baby" incident I've often written about), who really should have known better. In defense of D&D, 5/6 people in the group disagreed with him (me and the rest of the players) and thought he was nuts. But I've seen plenty of people online who has similar opinions.

It's a bad example, period. Not only does it not match the description of drow as originally presented in 1978's G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King (where that picture comes from), but as early as 1981's G1-3 Against the Giants, it was replaced with corrected artwork (which had no problem showing an individual with black skin against a black background). Here's a comparison of the original versus the replacement picture:

EDIT: So I'm not sure why the linked image was posted at such a reduced size; right-click and choose "view image" for a non-eyestrain version.

Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

On the contrary, I think it makes it an extremely good/interesting example.

Clearly people thought it was problematic on a couple of levels (both incorrect and potentially a bit racist) early on in D&D's history. Yet the same people published plenty of material that made closer passes to Drow = black people.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I wouldn't say it's so much accusations of bigotry as much as the one and only solution is to get rid of alignment for humanoids. No other option is worth discussing. If you don't accept that, well too bad you're being left behind and you are out of step with reality.

The problem I see is that if you get rid of alignment then you have to also redo all the fluff text. Rewrite all the lore, get rid of Gruumsh and Maglubiyet and Yeenahu.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of what's being argued either. Also keep in mind no one in this thread (as far as I know) works for WotC or is an academic. People are just throwing out ideas, agreeing or disagreeing, and building on those ideas.

As for name-calling, I think it's the system that is being labeled, not the players or even the posters in this thread. Please provide me with some quotes if I'm wrong.

Regarding redoing fluff text, I think that's a process that has happened and will continue to happen! That said, how could this be done without producing a new edition? I would guess that WotC will put together some kind of new Lineage book that has new rules for Lineages, "monstrous humanoids," and new fluff text. Honestly I think it's a really exciting possibility.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I don't even know what you're trying to say.

the assumption that they are made to be killed for xp the reason they were put in the game.
why have a thing made only to be used in that way if they are sufficiently civilised to have half breed kids who are more or less fine?
it seems slightly strange given how different orc are now in modern fantasy.

the closet orc you seem to be describing is called a dark spawn and they are closer to zombies or a bioweapons than a person.