D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Jfdlsjfd]

I love how you think this is a rational argument, rather than a demonstration of people's inadequacies and reactionary nature.

And you're putting it to literally the first person in the thread who even mentioned the racism/racialism distinction. Racism is an acceptable word for what is being described. In context, the meaning is obvious and inarguable.

Blame me for my inadequate vocabulary, but whenever someone says having difference between elves and humans is racist, even though it's a perfectly good word and carries no negative connotation (I won't argue on the meaning of English words with you), it sounds like an accusation to my ears. Like eradication of smallpox is rarely celebrated as "the smallpox genocide", I feel a bad vibe about the word "racist".

 

[Scribe]

LOL of course the OP and title are inflammatory, it's their MO every time.

Just shrug and roll with it, don't take the bait.

 

[Oofta]

I love how you think this is a rational argument, rather than a demonstration of people's inadequacies and reactionary nature.

And you're putting it to literally the first person in the thread who even mentioned the racism/racialism distinction. Racism is an acceptable word for what is being described. In context, the meaning is obvious and inarguable.

Any time someone says their interpretation and opinion and "obvious and inarguable" I can't help but to shake my head. It may be "obvious and inarguable" to you. Try to explain that to me, or to other people, that it comes off and sounds like an accusation of racism and you just dismiss it? Not particularly persuasive.

 

[Bolares]

Oh look, it's this morning again!

Everyone here know what the thread is about. Are we really gonna keep arguing about the title or keep having an interesting conversation?

 

[CleverNickName]

Oh look, it's this morning again!

Everyone here know what the thread is about. Are we really gonna keep arguing about the title or keep having an interesting conversation?

I don't have much else to say about it; I pretty much said my piece back on page 3. (shrug) But in the interest of putting the thread back on track, I can elaborate.

Those of us who are Dungeon Masters can help address this issue from our side of the screen, simply by being careful about how we describe the foes and factions in the game. Instead of blankly using a creature type or ancestry to indicate the Bad Guys and the Good Guys on the battlefield, use more descriptive and thoughtful phrasing. Instead of saying "the orcs attack" over and over again, dig a little deeper and say something like "the bandits attack" or maybe "the Emerald Claw soldiers attack." A faction name would be much more interesting (and more accurate) anyway.

It's not an instant fix, but I think that if we stop naming a particular race as shorthand for 'enemy,' we will take several big steps toward addressing the issue. ("The issue" being the way a particular race is perceived and represented in your game world.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Any time someone says their interpretation and opinion and "obvious and inarguable" I can't help but to shake my head. It may be "obvious and inarguable" to you. Try to explain that to me, or to other people, that it comes off and sounds like an accusation of racism and you just dismiss it? Not particularly persuasive.

So here's the problem.

Even if you initially read it that way, at this point, you know that was a misreading, that if we want to put in the most correct English, which no-one here uses, btw, we all (including you and me) don't use perfect English, then it's "Factionalism rather than racialism".

You know that is what the meaning is.

It is not in dispute.

So continuing to dispute is outright bad faith arguing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll just say it here.

That's an excuse.

Humans being adaptables doesn't mean all elves line up into 3 groups politically and culturally: high wood and dark.

Unless mind controlled by gods, even inhuman elves, dwarves, halflings , and orcs would split into more than 3 factions.

My fey elves, gnomes, and other fey have 14 fey nations, one for every month in the fey calendar. And they are weird as heck.

Maybe all the nonhuman races just aren't important enough to your campaign to have lots of cultural subdivisions. They were created both as a contrast from humans and as a way to highlight a human trait by exaggeration. Are we now saying that using them that way is wrong? Yes or no?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Blame me for my inadequate vocabulary, but whenever someone says having difference between elves and humans is racist, even though it's a perfectly good word and carries no negative connotation (I won't argue on the meaning of English words with you), it sounds like an accusation to my ears. Like eradication of smallpox is rarely celebrated as "the smallpox genocide", I feel a bad vibe about the word "racist".

That's because "genocide" only applies to humans (or in a fantasy/SF setting, similarly intelligent beings):

Genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's not in debate. If someone said "The smallpox genocide" in English, they'd likely be referring to the semi-intentional way smallpox wiped out probably the majority of the Native Americans.

If you said "The genocide of smallpox", you'd just be using completely the wrong word, using it to mean something it never means. Eradication, annihilation or "wiping out" or something would be correct.

 

[CleverNickName]

...or not. I guess we could just keep throwing barbs at each other until the moderators close it in disgust.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Never mentioned anything but Orcs?
BLM all over again

Mod Note:

You just had to dip into RW politics with a dog whistle? Not advisable.