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

[Malmuria]

Most of those words apply to the worst gangs out there. I doubt many if even any here have problems describing those gangs that way. IMO this demonstrates that it's not actually that such words that once were used to wrongly describe a racial group. There's something more going on there.

(This may be straying off topic, but the language used to describe gangs is often racially coded; describing them as inherently evil takes away a massive amount of context into how and why people join gangs; and best practice is to arrest and rehabilitate members, starting with the top, rather than for vigilante “adventurers” to summarily kill members (though I understand there are certain genres, like the Western and some strains of cyberpunk, that are built around that last point)

 

[Malmuria]

It feels like it's the describing an entire race of beings who can, say, interbreed with humans as those things and labeling them sub-human and killable, that gets brought up as objectionable, because that's close to what happened to a lot of real world people.

For some other words it's that they are often used in the place of slurs by some and have become tainted (Savage against 1st Nations, Thug against young African American males).

“Thug” is in fact a Bengali word imported into English by British colonial officials needing to describe the criminality of those they ruled over, including anti-colonial activists. It’s usage is originally and inherently colonial in that way.

 

[FrogReaver]

(This may be straying off topic, but the language used to describe gangs is often racially coded; describing them as inherently evil takes away a massive amount of context into how and why people join gangs; and best practice is to arrest and rehabilitate members, starting with the top, rather than for vigilante “adventurers” to summarily kill members (though I understand there are certain genres, like the Western and some strains of cyberpunk, that are built around that last point)

Note - I didn't say all gangs.

 

[DarkMantle]

I don’t think massacring (which is the word I used) sapient beings just because they are “inherently evil” is at the core of dnd. What I’m talking about is adding context when presenting players with a decision, which prompts them to engage with their character’s perspective and background as well as their own creativity when deciding how to approach a problem.

Ya I aso think D&D does an absolutely terrible job of providing this context.

In the Wild Beyond The Witchlight, probably the best official product supporting non-violent gameplay, there is a fascinating lack of guidance around moral choices. It's totally up to the gaming group to align with their sensibilities. But the adventure as written, in my opinion, is almost awkward how it avoids this re: Capital E evil big bosses.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Here's a question: what is so important about using those words? What's the attraction that absolutely requires using those words to the point that one has to ignore, attack and dismiss the reasons put forth not to?

 

[FrogReaver]

“Thug” is in fact a Bengali word imported into English by British colonial officials needing to describe the criminality of those they ruled over, including anti-colonial activists. It’s usage is originally and inherently colonial in that way.

Words change meanings over time.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's a question: what is so important about using those words? What's the attraction that absolutely requires using those words to the point that one has to ignore, attack and dismiss the reasons put forth not to?

The objection comes from being told not to use those words for what IMO can be most graciously described as misguided reasons.

 

[FrogReaver]

It feels like it's the describing an entire race of beings who can, say, interbreed with humans as those things and labeling them sub-human and killable, that gets brought up as objectionable, because that's close to what happened to a lot of real world people.

Fantasy vs Reality - I can separate the 2.

For some other words it's that they are often used in the place of slurs by some and have become tainted (Savage against 1st Nations, Thug against young African American males).

Thugs isn't a term exclusive to a certain criminal black Americans. It applies to neo-nazi thugs just as well.

 

[Cadence]

Fantasy vs Reality - I can separate the 2.

I'm pretty sure most of us can. Implying others here can't would be inane, so I assume that's not what you're doing.

Thugs isn't a term exclusive to a certain criminal black Americans. It applies to neo-nazi thugs just as well.

The problem is that it's applied by some (including pretty famous popular politicians) to any African American males they don't like, regardless of if they're doing anything criminal. And it's used to stereotype the entire age group.

 

[DarkMantle]

We've always known words that are impermissible to say. They used to be everyday words, and now they're not.

Then there were the problematic words. You could say them, but at your own risk. This is not exclusive to D&D community. I don't say "guys" at work anymore. We say "hey folks" or "hey team" at work. There was sensitivity training around this. Up here in Canada, all the big companies were doing this.

Now add a host of racially charged words. Welcome to 2020s. Racially charged words as problem words are here to stay. Might as well get used to it. It just takes time.