D&D 5E D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism

[Cadence]

The common conversation goes that in the dark days of the past, people played D&D like "Those orcs are all murderers and thieves! Let's kill them all and take their stuff!" And that was a horrible thing and we have to rewrite the game so that orcs are no longer evil raiders that want to steal pretty young white women.

And which way is it supposed to be now? Do we condemn that kind of fantasy and demand it gets changed, or do we file it away under "they do it to escape their lives and only mean it as harmless fun"?
Can't eat the pie and have it too.

I don't think the problem is particularly that the orcs were all murderers and thieves in the games.

It feels like it's been argued on other threads on here that orcs as a group were described in game materials using, almost word for word, descriptions used by real world racists and eugenicists in the 1600-1900s to describe various minority groups. And that those descriptions when applied to real life groups were used to justify actual real life genocide.

It may well be that if the language choices in the game materials had been different over the last few decades, and the orcs weren't described in those ways, that it wouldn't be a problem. But the language was used, it was noticed, and it's hard for some to un-see.

One solution is to ask people whose ancestors were driven from their land, stolen from their land, enslaved, impoverished and/or killed to get over it and ignore everything that followed through at least the 1960s and is easily easily argued to still be affecting things today (when many of those who experienced the 60s and before are still alive).

Another is to ask if there are ways to take those analogs for real life racism and atrocities out of the games so it isn't shoved in the faces of those who can't unsee it. Like maybe not portraying entire groups of "people" that can breed with "real people", and that have a culture and sentience, as being lesser and evil and killable by the "good folks" if they get even a bit out of line (oh no, not those few PCs or NPCs over there, they're with us, they're the good ones).

And of course, it doesn't help anything that it's easily noticed that the orcs aren't particularly different from any of the other humanoids that have families and socieities and the like.

Doesn't mean we need police at individual tables making sure folks craft their game world in only an approved style. But it kind of feels like its a thing that maybe the owner of the IP might look at when putting the game together.

 

[Mordhau]

You can escape to a world that doesn't have any of the real world issues of racism, slavery, genocide etc.

Or you can escape to a world that does have all of these things, but you're a superheroic fantasy badass who can actually do something about them.

They're both escapism.

 

[Bohandas]

Fantasy is escapism, not homework. It allows us to explore human themes without taking up the same cognitive category as the burdens of real-life.

I personally think exploring human themes is a rather shallow implementation of the speculative fiction genre. I'd rather hear more about the Mi-Go, or how magic works, or the author's vision of Hell.

 

[Charlaquin]

General "you", or specific "you" = me?

General “you.” Sorry, I try to remember to use “one” instead of the general “you” to avoid that ambiguity, but it can make phrasing awkward, and sometimes I just forget.

 

[Scribe]

General “you.” Sorry, I try to remember to use “one” instead of the general “you” to avoid that ambiguity, but it can make phrasing awkward, and sometimes I just forget.

Saying "One must also remember..." also makes me feel like I'm a Noble...so thats a win win.

 

[DarkMantle]

General “you.” Sorry, I try to remember to use “one” instead of the general “you” to avoid that ambiguity, but it can make phrasing awkward, and sometimes I just forget.

Oh no worries! That's why I just ask up front. I blame the English language really for the ambiguity

 

[Bluebell]

Absolutely, there is nothing wrong with wanting escapism. But a big part of this debate is about who is allowed to get escapist fantasy and who has to put up with elements that prevent it from being escapist for them.

It's not just that "society" in general has changed its mind on what's acceptable. It's that players of color, female and non-binary players, queer players, and other minorities have been pushing to make the game more accessible to them. And it's hard to do that when the game seems to replicate the exact same prejudice that they face in their daily lives.

And yeah, for some people it's cathartic to face that prejudice and play someone who is able to do something about it. For other people, it just reminds them of their actual trauma and they'd rather not have it included at all.

For me, my escapism is being able to play a character who is marginalized and misunderstood and yet gets to be the hero anyway. I loved playing a soft, loving half-orc and stripping down the stereotypes of a big, violent race. I love playing a female bearded dwarf as a means of exploring gender identity.

 

[Malmuria]

I personally think exploring human themes is a rather shallow implementation of the speculative fiction genre. I'd rather hear more about the Mi-Go, or how magic works, or the author's vision of Hell.

Really? I think the best speculative fiction is that which offers very sharp social commentary

 

[Sulicius]

OP’s primary assumptions are wrong.

Humans evolved huge brains to make sure they could use their cognitive power. To what ends or why exactly isn’t fully agreed on, but the improvement of social learning is the biggest one. Evolutionary psychology is a very debated topic among scholars, and most non-scholars simply use it to confirm their own beliefs.

We are NOT AT ALL averse to uncertainty. We love it. Many studies prove it. Need unscientific proof? Gambling is very popular, and its latest incarnations, crypto currency and lootboxes are dopamine sources. Second proof: we roll dice in D&D. We like uncertainty quite a lot.

Most of the other points make sorta sense, as it people do like to simplify a narrative, case in point the very reason this thread was made.

The second set of assumptions could really use some proof. It seems like a lot of successful fantasy fiction would deal with certain subjects that are complicated, like honor, loyalty, morality and duty. Classic subjects, but people rarely complain about stories being too complex. Or am I wrong about this? I don’t have time to research this.

To become a writer is a profession for someone who can spend a lot of time while not directly getting paid for it. Any person views the world through their own experiences and those of their close relations. Poorer people tend to have to make money quickly, as they do not have funds to cover a time not getting paid. Writing is not a poor person’s profession usually. And as it happens, most fantasy D&D is based on is written in countries where people of certain skin colors have better socioeconomic status. And through their experiences, they do not recognize themselves as much in the skintones of the “evil race” examples of Drow and Orc. Less recognition = less empathy. Though not as specific, this is well researched. Please do tear my apart about the socioeconomic status of writers. I am probably not informed wel enough. The line of reasoning might hold up.

The stuff about stereotypes I am only confused by the last point. What do you mean by ultra-human? Very human-like? Wouldn’t that make them more relatable?

Then some more assumptions that sound very personal about the game and some more evolutionary psychology. I don’t like what these things are implying. What can’t we unlearn?

Finally: it is never fun to see that what you enjoy has problematic parts to it. I very much enjoy Sinterklaas, my nation’s holiday where people do blackface. Luckily, we are shifting away from that. Some people do not agree. “This is a children’s tradition. I like this tradition. I do not consider myself racist, hence, this tradition cannot be racist.” It’s a normal line of reasoning. I myself struggle with my enjoyment and consumption of meat and the suffering of thousands of animals. Just because it is considered easier not to think about it, doesn’t make it not problematic.

And finally finally, just because WotC believes it is right (and financially safer) to decrease the pressure on fantasy racial stereotypes, doesn’t mean your game can’t involve stereotypes.

 

[Sulicius]

I find the whole idea of escapism very strange.
And even if it's an actual thing, why would people immerse themselves in worlds of brutal violence and senseless killing to relax and distract themselves from their own daily life.
The wish fulfillment that I see catered to with "kill the faceless hordes of evil" is getting away with whatever you want without having to justify your actions. Which does not seem healthy.

Mostly, I see people perceiving the appeal of heroic fantasy fiction in general an RPGs in particular to see great wrongs being put right successfully. Where is the reward when the success falls into your lap without having actually faced the issues that you're trying to overcome?

Displacing your frustration and feeling empowered (even in a fictional world) lower stress. Less stress is better health. I wish it were different, but the research has been done. This almost only happens between a frustrated person (or animal) and those of lower status. This can even form chains, starting at a stressed CEO and ending with a mistreated child or spouse. It’s better to have made-up enemies at the end of that chain.