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

[Justice and Rule]

Well, that is an interesting question. If orcs become more interesting (more Eberron and Warcraft, less GRRR), what can fill in as a generic bad guy? (I think generic bad guy is still a necessary role in D&D.)

Maybe something like grimlocks? Gnolls would seem to fill that role well too.

Grimlocks would be cool. I suppose Trogs might also work in that sense. Derro are another good one.

I'd rather see Gnolls get the "Let's make them a broader culture" sort of deal, but a lot of that is because Space Hyenas were my go-to race in Stellaris.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Quite. I like plenty of problematic media, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a bad person, well not in that way, and yet that media remains problematic. And that's why we say "problematic", not "evil" or whatever.

I mean, Lovecraft is the #1 poster-boy for this. Plenty of modern authors have engaged with his stuff, and clearly see some value at least in the wild-ness and weirdness of it, not all of them white, but they've done so in ways that don't repeat the racism, but rather interrogate it or come at from a different angle.

Yeah, seriously. Even new adaptations of that stuff, like Delta Green, still have to work around some of the stuff in the Mythos because it's bad. Tcho-Tcho, man.

Ok. Sure. But I don’t think having a general description with a caveat is necessarily making a less inclusive game in any way that effects the world or large groups of players.

consequently, I am more interested in what makes a better game. It is and has always been a game with character classes and stat blocks with alignment and general inclinations of different species related behavior. Leaving it alone now is “less work.”

as to your assessment about drizzt, I don’t know what to tell you. I am sorry you don’t like him? I tired of him after a good many books and his endless exposition. However he has been a force in D&D fiction over many years. I don’t think WOTC wants to disown him anytime soon.

it is undeniable that a lot of his appeal is that he played against type and crushed expectations.

I support inclusiveness and treating people well but do not think dismantling pretend species does anything to further things in that regard. At all. I also don’t think it’s any sin to enjoy shared expectations and fiction in fantasy which can be modified.

further it’s all purely opinion based. Do we have to have disclaimers and no alignment or behavioral tendency for any monsters? Or is it just the bipedal ones? Or just the ones that aren’t undead? Or just the ones that can be PCs?

do we need to get rid of aliens in fiction when we only see the ones that want to conquer earth? If we don’t are we making a less inclusive movie experience that alienates (pun intended) the audience?

I don’t expect nor desire any answers here because it is pointless. We get what WOTC produces. Then we decide if we like it and buy it or not.

but to reduce the choice to “a simple game” vs something desirable seems uncharitable at best. Many of us have been using stat blocks and alignment for decades. How many would say their game is simple?

is it really just black and white? We either do away with alignment and species typical behavior (that can and is modified campaign to campaign) or we have a “simple” and “uninclusive” game?

I prefer alignment in games and general species typical behavior describes without making statement about the quality of games that do otherwise. I like the shared nature of the fiction, the ease of use and the familiarity that can help create novelty and the unexpected. It is as simple as that.

Like, people keep saying this is just pretend make-believe races, and I get that... but if that's the case, then why are we arguing so hard about changing one? Like, really: if this is all just a thing that doesn't matter, then why does anyone really care what we change Orcs into?

This whole thread feels like it's dancing around people feeling like they are being called "bad" or something, but that's not what the people who want to change it are trying to say. No one is saying you're a bad person for liking how Orcs are or using them as just straight up bad dudes. That's your choice at your table, and I'm not judging anyone on that.

But changing what Orcs are right now harms no one and, in my opinion, helps the game and makes it more recognizable to what is the current pop-culture understanding of Orcs (Which, I'd argue, is probably the Warcraft version). What's the real fight about here?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yeah, seriously. Even new adaptations of that stuff, like Delta Green, still have to work around some of the stuff in the Mythos because it's bad. Tcho-Tcho, man.



Like, people keep saying this is just pretend make-believe races, and I get that... but if that's the case, then why are we arguing so hard about changing one? Like, really: if this is all just a thing that doesn't matter, then why does anyone really care what we change Orcs into?

This whole thread feels like it's dancing around people feeling like they are being called "bad" or something, but that's not what the people who want to change it are trying to say. No one is saying you're a bad person for liking how Orcs are or using them as just straight up bad dudes. That's your choice at your table, and I'm not judging anyone on that.

But changing what Orcs are right now harms no one and, in my opinion, helps the game and makes it more recognizable to what is the current pop-culture understanding of Orcs (Which, I'd argue, is probably the Warcraft version). What's the real fight about here?

Warcraft sucks. Whole fight right there.

jokes aside, you have a point about what people recognize as orcs now is less like what many of use have enjoyed before. You do have to know your audience.

as to associations with being called bad there are too many to list points on this site and others where people are in fact called racists for liking the game a certain way. Where it is not straight up said anyone can get the gist of what is being said. It’s not uncommon at all.

but you’re right. If more people want Warcraft orcs, give it to them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Grimlocks would be cool. I suppose Trogs might also work in that sense. Derro are another good one.

I'd rather see Gnolls get the "Let's make them a broader culture" sort of deal, but a lot of that is because Space Hyenas were my go-to race in Stellaris.

View attachment 133257

Is that a mod? I don't remember space-hyenas being in Stellaris! Looks good if so!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

as to associations with being called bad there are too many to list points on this site and others where people are in fact called racists for liking the game a certain way. Where it is not straight up said anyone can get the gist of what is being said. It’s not uncommon at all.

I think maybe people just need to get over this stuff.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks you're a racist. Whoever you are. It's not worth thinking about. But point is, they times they are a-changing, and why get in the way of that, and why over Orcs of all things, who in D&D, have been incredibly boring.

I don't think anyone wants Warcraft Orcs though mate. Especially as they are often racially coded as black people (let's not even get into that in this thread lol).

I think the best suggestions are either just a more complex default culture, or basically nick the one from Eberron.

 

[Argyle King]

Another question I have:

Is there a point to still having Orcs (and Elves)?

If they're (for good or for ill) being used as a stand-in for some version of humans, would it be better to simply represent more human cultures?

Though I think that then also makes it seem a little weird that humans have variations of culture, but other species don't.

The Banestorm setting explores this a little bit. Dwarves, elves, and orcs exist alongside various religions and local cultures. Whether or not it does so well is subjective, but it at least presents the idea that a dwarf and a human who are members of a religious group might have more in common than two dwarves from different parts of the world. Looking at how the inherent culture attributed to a "race" intersects with cultural factors is interesting. Though, it may also be far beyond the scope of what the average D&D players cares about while rolling dice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Another question I have:

Is there a point to still having Orcs (and Elves)?

If they're (for good or for ill) being used as a stand-in for some version of humans, would it be better to simply represent more human cultures?

Though I think that then also makes it seem a little weird that humans have variations of culture, but other species don't.

The Banestorm setting explores this a little bit. Dwarves, elves, and orcs exist alongside various religions and local cultures. Whether or not it does so well is subjective, but it at least presents the idea that a dwarf and a human who are members of a religious group might have more in common than two dwarves from different parts of the world. Looking at how the inherent culture attributed to a "race" intersects with cultural factors is interesting. Though, it may also be far beyond the scope of what the average D&D players cares about while rolling dice.

I think there is, but only because it would wreck too many popular settings to remove them, and too many players like playing elves. That said if I had the power to entirely cut one thing from D&D, it would almost certainly be elves. Well, probably I'd get conflicted between that and Vancian magic, but let's say elves.

If you were making a new fantasy setting, I doubt either would make the cut. D&D settings have been showing culture and race as different things since the 1980s at least, so I think just having more cultures which cut across racial bounds would be good. Even Eberron has some problems where some cultures are racial-specific for no clear reason (others, there is a clear reason, like the elves).

 

[Scribe]

Derro are another good one.

Heh we want to get into things, why is it OK to state an entire lineage flat out is not only evil but one of their primary hooks is various levels of mental illness?

(Note, I love the Derro, I played one in a homebrew for Out of the Abyss as mental illness is a very big issue in my family so if there is a lineage that I identify with, this is it.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Heh we want to get into things, why is it OK to state an entire lineage flat out is not only evil but one of their primary hooks is various levels of mental illness?

(Note, I love the Derro, I played one in a homebrew for Out of the Abyss as mental illness is a very big issue in my family so if there is a lineage that I identify with, this is it.)

I don't think anyone thinks the "mental illness" hook of the Derro is really okay, and they'll certainly be revised to be not-all-evil in future. When someone other than you and me remembers they exist and are different from the Duergar! I also love the poor little big-eyed bastards.

I think it would be better to make it so they're culturally always eating mushrooms which make them hallucinate or something if they want to retain that aspect.

That said this blog made a decent case for "Maybe just delete Derro" based on their 2E description (but I think he misunderstands "for breeding" - pretty sure that means chattel slavery, not what he thinks):

 

[Oofta]

Another question I have:

Is there a point to still having Orcs (and Elves)?

If they're (for good or for ill) being used as a stand-in for some version of humans, would it be better to simply represent more human cultures?

Though I think that then also makes it seem a little weird that humans have variations of culture, but other species don't.

The Banestorm setting explores this a little bit. Dwarves, elves, and orcs exist alongside various religions and local cultures. Whether or not it does so well is subjective, but it at least presents the idea that a dwarf and a human who are members of a religious group might have more in common than two dwarves from different parts of the world. Looking at how the inherent culture attributed to a "race" intersects with cultural factors is interesting. Though, it may also be far beyond the scope of what the average D&D players cares about while rolling dice.

Speaking of dwarves, in my campaign I do have tweaks to the cultures. Some major, some minor. But because we have a common starting point (I use slightly tweaked FR/Greyhawk deities for non-human races) I can say these are standard dwarves except. That way several hundred words of text still apply, I only need to explain the difference for a lot of people.

On the other hand, dwarves from the far north are completely different. While they respect their brethren, they don't believe in gods per se but in the elements of nature earth, air, water, fire. Gods such as Moradin are just images the other dwarves have constructed, they're manifestations of the basic elements.

So on and so forth. But I still fall back on the basic tropes most of the time because it makes the groups that go against the grain stand out.