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

[doctorbadwolf]

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

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

No, it is inappropriate because you are comparing stuff like the Vistani and volo’s orcs, legitimately racist elements of the game, to complete nonsense that literally only serves to distract from that important discussion.

That is a disgusting thing to do.

 

[Remathilis]

This is exactly the problem with engaging with that asinine, backward, distraction of an argument about demons. It does not matter, but it is becoming what the thread is about anyway, purely via repetition.

It’s pure BS whataboutist nonsense.

Take a moment to read the description of succubus/incubus in the 5e MM. Then read the gnoll entry. One is a humanoid the other a fiend. One is spawned by feasting on demon flesh, one is born of sexual union with it's own kind. One has an average int of 6, the other 15. One can make long term plans and keep up elaborate ruses, the other are barely controlled instruments of destruction nobody willingly associates with.

One of them can be any alignment, the other is nearly uniformally evil. Which is which and why?

.

 

[Oofta]

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.

All I'm doing is repeating what the MM states. The lore (obviously) doesn't pertain to all campaigns.

When Gruumsh claimed the mountains, he learned they had been taken by the dwarves. He laid claim to the forests, but those had been settled by the elves. Each place that Gruumsh wanted had already been claimed. The other gods laughed at Gruumsh, but he responded with a furious bellow. Grasping his mighty spear, he laid waste to the mountains, set the forests aflame, and carved great furrows in the fields. Such was the role of the orcs, he proclaimed, to take and destroy all that the other races would deny them. To this day, the orcs wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk.​

​

I don't see any reason to think orcs any more drawn from racist stereotypes than any other creature other than what people project into them. In Tolkien's time the accusation (that Tolkien rejected) as that they represented eastern Asians. Now, for some reason, they represent people of color. They're the Rorshach of monsters.

In any case I just jumped back in because I think the whole "these creatures are effectively human because they're like us but these are not because they're too different" is fundamentally just as racist as anything else.

 

[Morrus]

[videos snipped]

Why are you posting political content on this site? Don't post again in this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

In DC comics, until fairly recently, Diana (Wonder Woman) was formed from clay with the power of goddesses. Does that mean that in the DC universe it’s racist to say that dirt is not people? Obviously not.

D&D fiends are elementals. Their elements are types of evil.

 

[Argyle King]

Well, no. Good and evil were objective forces in past editions of D&D. When you cast detect evil, the results were the same regardless of what culture you were from. But I will admit that I have never looked to D&D to provide a nuanced look into such issues that might have moral shades of grey. For me, It's always been a high fantasy game of good versus evil with little in the way of moral ambiguity. There were no baby goblin dilemmas in my campaigns.

I might agree that was true before. However, it appears as though the contemporary view on the game is changing.

 

[Argyle King]

In DC comics, until fairly recently, Diana (Wonder Woman) was formed from clay with the power of goddesses. Does that mean that in the DC universe it’s racist to say that dirt is not people? Obviously not.

D&D fiends are elementals. Their elements are types of evil.

I'm asking to clarify because I do not want to conflate your position with that of others.

In your mind, is it logically valid (when discussing the game world) to take into consideration how things are established to work in-game/in-fiction?

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Also Daelkyr creations like Mindflayers & Beholders are so deep into starfish alien territory that they are literally cited on the tvtropes page for starfish aliens

Spoiler

Dungeons & Dragons:

• The 3.5 Edition supplement "Lords of Madness" describes aliens of forms various and sundry. These include: the Aboleth, hermaphrodite catfish/eel/squid spawn of the Far Realm with Genetic Memory; Illithidae, a genus of creatures related to the iconic mind flayers, a group that includes gigantic, pulsing, psionic brains and the deceptively innocuous mind flayer larvae; Tsochari, a parasitic lifeform from a cold and distant planet who enter and control the bodies and minds of spellcasters for some sinister purpose; the Silthilar, an ancient race of wizard-scientists who have transformed themselves into hive-minded swarms in response to a particularly virulent magical plague; and the Beholderkin, insane levitating spheres with many eyes in disturbing places.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm asking to clarify because I do not want to conflate your position with that of others.

In your mind, is it logically valid (when discussing the game world) to take into consideration how things are established to work in-game/in-fiction?

Sure. I will warn, however, that I have no patience for rhetorical games.

 

[GreyLord]

No, it is inappropriate because you are comparing stuff like the Vistani and volo’s orcs, legitimately racist elements of the game, to complete nonsense that literally only serves to distract from that important discussion.

That is a disgusting thing to do.

If you knew much about certain Cultures, you would see that the description of Tieflings could actually be seen as EXTREMELY racist, especially once people draw the similarities between certain minority groups in the world today and the Tiefling description.

Including things such as being swindlers, thieves, etc...and being minorities among minorities or living in the slums is actually very similar in the type of phrasing that people look back on Orcs as being representative of racism today.

I am not going into detail here (edit explanation: partly because to do so could be construed as racist even as pointing it out regarding how it could be seen as racism towards certain groups, and that's an area I really don't want to get into at this point), but you could see direct parallels between how people look at how Orcs were portrayed in prior editions and how Tieflings are being portrayed today, even in 5e.

Read the PHB Tiefling description. It is actually quite comparable to the Vistani's older descriptions, even if the "appearance" is slightly different in description.