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

[Deset Gled]

You're just making an artificial line. Much like at one time people from eastern Europe were not considered "white", or how Irish immigrants were discriminated against. Then the line changed and Irish and Slavs were considered "white" and "good".

I don't have a problem with evil orcs or evil fiends in my campaigns. But I think any line we draw between them is completely arbitrary and just as valid a topic as any discussion of racism in D&D. That's why I continue to repeat that we should just make it clearer that alignment is just a default, do what makes sense for your campaign.

There's always an artificial line. That's how this works. All I want in D&D is for someone to tell me where the artificial line is. I wanna kill bad guys and take their stuff.

These bad guys are too Irish? Sure, change them, move the line, do what you have to do. These bad guys are too black? Too white? Too Christian? Too Muslim? Too Asian? Fine. I'll change whatever I need to in the game to make it not offensive. But at the end of the day I need the line. I just want to play a game without worrying about the moral quandary of what happens to the mother and children of every mook and monster.

 

[Oofta]

Comparing one to the other is beyond in appropriate. It is immoral. If you won’t stop doing it I guess I’ll have to go back to limiting our ability to interact directly.

It's only inappropriate because you've decided where you draw the line.

In any case, this isn't going anywhere, I simply disagree.

 

[GreyLord]

But Tieflings aren't the demons and devils. Sins of the father and all that, right? I feel like that's also part of their appeal.

Half-Orcs were not Orcs either w ith that reasoning. But eventually we see how that evolved.

Tieflings as a core playable race have only been around for 2 editions thus far. Orcs didn't even start to become as we see them till the latter half of 2e (some would say a BIG inspiration leading to that was with a little leatherette that came out).

We don't even see the questions of what we are asking about with Orcs until 5th edition. Tieflings and their origins are still 3 editions behind.

 

[Oofta]

Fiends are created from the souls of evil creatures, to further the spread of evil.

Mindflayers torture and dominate slaves to eat the living brains for sustenance.

Succubi take advantage of their alluring appearance to drag souls back to the abyss for consumption.

Hags enchant ( read rape) men to procreate and murder and eat human flesh.

Beholders genetically believe all creatures that don’t look identical to them are abominations deserving of destruction or enslavement.

If it’s uninclusive to have these creature default to evil then I really don’t know what to say.

Orcs were created by a vengeful god to wage endless war to further the spread of chaos and death. How is that different?

 

[MGibster]

Orcs were created by a vengeful god to wage endless war to further the spread of chaos and death. How is that different?

Just like my ancestors. In fact, I can trace my lineage to the Orkney Islands of Scotland. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[TheSword]

Orcs were created by a vengeful god to wage endless war to further the spread of chaos and death. How is that different?

Because that isn’t how they are portrayed nor is it the default origin story, plus it ignores the racist archetypes drawn upon to create them.

Mindflayers aren’t drawn from racist archetypes. Beholders are the opposite of a racist archetype... they’re the ultimate racist! Abyssal lords aren’t racist archetypes.

Most of all, people of colour playing in d&d sessions aren’t reminded of racism in the real world when the party kills a dragon. They are when the orcs get butchered just for being orcs.

Anyway @Oofta this has been asked and answered many many times.

 

[MGibster]

Most of all, people of colour playing in d&d sessions aren’t reminded of racism in the real world when the party kills a dragon. They are when the orcs get butchered just for being orcs.

Who butchers orcs just for being orcs? Are there any officially published adventures where PCs are encouraged to attack orcs just for being orcs or are they raiding or otherwise causing problems?

 

[Scribe]

Tieflings aren’t demons. In modern D&D they aren’t even descendants of fiends. They’re literally people who got marked by deals with devils. Which has elements of witch trial type thinking that people largely use to subvert and “own” and tieflings have thus become important to a lot of pagan and queer D&D players.

This is all just retcon or revision by Wizards though.

Tieflings absolutely were of 'fiendish blood', and where do they get that? From a long enough family tree going to a Fiend. So like, the Succubus that isnt 'people' enough.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The notion that Black Americans look and act like orcs is so odious and incredible that the first time I came across it on an RPG forum a couple years ago I thought I’d stumbled onto a Stormfront forum. I’d be astonished if average Black Americans drew that analogy. I expect the few people who do have spent years studying sociology or critical theory and have trained themselves to examine every fragment and thread of culture through the lens of race.

I mean, that's great but there seem to be plenty of black members of the D&D community that see this as well. The sort of critique that "You're the real racist for seeing this as racist" feels like a terrible deflect.

Which can be a useful exercise. But can also lead to making connections based on the flimsiest of assumptions. Maybe the kraken in Clash of the Titans is just a monster, and not a stand-in for international jewry. Maybe the alien mother in aliens is just a monster and not a symbol of the burden of birthing and child-rearing imposed by a patriarchal societies. Maybe orcs and drow are just monsters and not the personification of egregious stereotypes about Black Americans.

Why do we need to go to a slippery slope when we can just deal with what we are dealing with? Why does it always have to suddenly extend to "What if we look at EVERYTHING!" instead of just looking at what we are talking about right now?

If the conversation needs to take place at some point, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't. But the whole idea is just a distraction rather than actually engaging in the argument. It's the same with the Vistani, but instead of "What will it change?" we go to "Where does it end?"

Well, orcs all come from Jotunheim in my campaign. Does it matter? It's also just saying, again, that some creatures are human because of where they come from and others are not.

As far as culture for fiends, very little is written about it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We just don't have a lot of details on it because most campaigns don't deal with it much. I'm having to fill in details right now for my current campaign.

I mean, are they more recognizable as an actual culture that could exist on Earth? Do they feel like a real people instead of a greater metaphysical power? This whole thing seems like a distraction instead of actually engaging with the argument. It's just very "Whatabout".

Why not just talk about what we are currently talking about instead of moving on to something no one has yet to mention?

 

[GreyLord]

Because that isn’t how they are portrayed nor is it the default origin story, plus it ignores the racist archetypes drawn upon to create them.

Mindflayers aren’t drawn from racist archetypes. Beholders are the opposite of a racist archetype... they’re the ultimate racist! Abyssal lords aren’t racist archetypes.

Most of all, people of colour playing in d&d sessions aren’t reminded of racism in the real world when the party kills a dragon. They are when the orcs get butchered just for being orcs.

Anyway @Oofta this has been asked and answered many many times.

Just to be clear, I'm not on either side here...but when I read I have things that spark my thoughts...

I can still be swayed either way (which may be good or bad I suppose depending on how you look at it). I do see the points regarding Orcs and racism, but I also think the same arguments could be utilized otherwise as well, from what I've read thus far in the thread.

Bringing up Orcs and Tieflings again...many are using language used about Orcs in prior editions. How do we know the things that are being written today won't be offensive in the future?

Killing a Dragon could be a bad thing in some Asian Cultures, and dictating that Dragons are evil could be seen in a similar light as racist against those types of cultures.

I'm not sure with Mind flayers, but there are cultures that consider eating brains as a Holy thing, even human brains. Some eat brains during funerals.

In fact, we eat sentient creature brains...does that make Humans evil? We raise cattle, sheep, and other animals and some eat the brains of those animals. Does that make them evil?