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

[Oofta]

I mean, the better thing would be to improve representation generally, so that marginalized people have characters they can identify with that aren’t monsters.

But ... and I'm trying to understand here ... isn't the premise that disaffected people identify with disaffected races because those races face bias? Take that bias away and why would they still identify with them? After the "grandfather in" period is past.

I mean there are things I agree with, no playable race should have a negative modifier or most should have it as one example I haven't mentioned. Beyond that? What could you change but make everybody the same which to me would be generic, boring and eliminate the need for different races.

 

[MGibster]

And in combination with that, the extremely over the top physical change from 2e/3e to 4e, results in a lineage that is seemingly always to be judged as other, and pushed to the fringes of any human society they are allowed to settle in.

Its a bad look, imo.

Bad in what way? Because it looks to me like an interesting set up for a character.

 

[Scribe]

It speaks to many of the same concepts we covered in the massive "UA Thread of 3000 Posts" @Oofta

Bad in what way? Because it looks to me like an interesting set up for a character.

In the same way as people are not happy about Orcs, or Gnolls. Its establishing a singular view on a lineage, which is negative.

MY view on Tieflings remains the 2e/3e/Planescape vision. I reject the current one outright, and have since 4e dropped, but if one views the current Tiefling as acceptable, I see no reason why Orc's would not also be acceptable.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Maybe? I mean, it’s certainly something that draws me to such characters. As I said in the other post, I love Tieflings, and that’s absolutely an element of them that appeals to me. Heck, I’d even say Tieflings would lose something if that element was removed. The thing is, I don’t think the goal should be to excise all prejudice from the setting. It should be to insure that the in-fiction prejudices aren’t objectively correct within the setting. It’s fine with me if there is a cultural bias against Tieflings, or Orcs, or whatever, as long as the fiction demonstrates those biases to be misplaced.

Yeah, this needs to be emphasized: I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that there can be no prejudice or racial tension in a fictional setting. You can have people dislike or be distrustful of peoples or races: that's not hard to setup and its easy to find good hooks as to why they might be. But the problem with how the fiction with some races is designed is that we know, out-of-universe, that they're correct to think that way. Having someone think Orcs are barbarous monsters that are only a step above animals is different when you also have the narrator saying "Yeah, that dude is absolutely right."

Thank you. I had forgotten the name of that argument.

Defenses of "that's how it is in the fictional world!" beg the question of WHY it is that way in the fictional world.

To see why this, and other appeals to, "it is a fiction" don't fly as a broad justification, consider the following:

A person comes into their job one day, and hangs a picture of their boss in the shared kitchen area, and plays darts with the boss as the target. When the boss asks, the explanation, "Well, you shouldn't be offended, because while that looks like throwing darts at you, it is really just a fictional thing that looks like you. We can do anything to a fiction, and not have it mean anything in the real world," is still going to end up with you looking for a new job the next day. And rightfully so.

Your internal excuse for a fictional thing is not relevant to real people outside the fiction. Your choice to make a fiction that looks just like abuse is what's relevant, as is how you defend that choice.

I'm glad Olsen named it because it's so damn common when arguing fiction. Lord knows I fell into it when I was younger.

 

[MGibster]

In the same way as people are not happy about Orcs, or Gnolls. Its establishing a singular view on a lineage, which is negative.

Fair enough. I don't think we'll ever please everyone short of making every race/lineage as bland as Wonderbread. If they're just humans with horns or tails then what's the point of their existence?

MY view on Tieflings remains the 2e/3e/Planescape vision. I reject the current one outright, and have since 4e dropped, but if one views the current Tiefling as acceptable, I see no reason why Orc's would not also be acceptable.

I haven't picked up a 2E book in more than twenty years. But how different were tieflings back then? They were still of infernal ancestry, right?

 

[Voadam]

I haven't picked up a 2E book in more than twenty years. But how different were tieflings back then? They were still of infernal ancestry, right?

Fiendish ancestry that varied, succubus ancestry being most common I believe (which were demons up until 4e).

Also the looks varied from one to another with some being subtle fiendish aspects and others having the cloven hoofs or tails.

 

[Scribe]

I haven't picked up a 2E book in more than twenty years. But how different were tieflings back then? They were still of infernal ancestry, right?

There was no mandate that you looked like a literal devil walking around town. Your features could be as obvious, or subtle, as you liked, but you had a -2 Cha modifier as you were 'unsettling'.

Contrast to now, you walk around with a massive rack on your head, tail swinging in the breeze and crimson skin, everyone hates you, but you somehow have a +2 Cha modifier....

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, this needs to be emphasized: I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that there can be no prejudice or racial tension in a fictional setting. You can have people dislike or be distrustful of peoples or races: that's not hard to setup and its easy to find good hooks as to why they might be. But the problem with how the fiction with some races is designed is that we know, out-of-universe, that they're correct to think that way. Having someone think Orcs are barbarous monsters that are only a step above animals is different when you also have the narrator saying "Yeah, that dude is absolutely right."

Here's where my point of confusion is. Is it morally permissible to insert anything into a fictional game space such that your standard adventuring party can feel justified dropping a fireball on it without interrogating it first? If so, where does that line occur where such a description becomes problematic?

From what I've gathered, I can drop a fireball on demons, no problem. Same thing with undead and most constructs. But fireballing orcs would be problematic. Is the line anything humanoid? Anything sapient and not directly burning down a village?

 

[Scribe]

Here's where my point of confusion is. Is it morally permissible to insert anything into a fictional game space such that your standard adventuring party can feel justified dropping a fireball on it without interrogating it first? If so, where does that line occur where such a description becomes problematic?

From what I've gathered, I can drop a fireball on demons, no problem. Same thing with undead and most constructs. But fireballing orcs would be problematic. Is the line anything humanoid? Anything sapient and not directly burning down a village?

The line is whatever people want honestly, but there are 2 primary arguments IMO.

1. No in game lineage should lean into the negative stereotypes, of a real world analog.
2. No in game lineage should be monolithic in how it is portrayed.

Now some folks dont want to get into the weeds of sapience, but I think its a valid point of discussion.

That all said, there is a setting where these issues are resolved, and one day, we shall return there.

 

[Oofta]

It speaks to many of the same concepts we covered in the massive "UA Thread of 3000 Posts" @Oofta



In the same way as people are not happy about Orcs, or Gnolls. Its establishing a singular view on a lineage, which is negative.

MY view on Tieflings remains the 2e/3e/Planescape vision. I reject the current one outright, and have since 4e dropped, but if one views the current Tiefling as acceptable, I see no reason why Orc's would not also be acceptable.

Which, again goes back to clarifying that alignment and fluff is the optional default.

I can see for some iconic monsters/races you could add a bit more text or sidebar similar to what they did with the drow. But there are limitations to how much that can be done. I mean, what happens when the next supplement comes out and you can play a succubus or cambion or ... well whatever.