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

Charlaquin · Feb 23, 2021

Scribe said:
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.

Because with Tieflings the prejudice against them is wrong. With orcs, it’s justified within the setting. The problem isn’t that prejudice exists in the fictional setting, it’s that, in some cases, the setting treats that prejudice as justified.

Voadam · Feb 23, 2021

The world narrative on the monsters can vary a lot and indicate different alignment set ups that make sense.

Vampires can be Buffy the Vampire Slayer style corpses possessed by evil spirits and be all evil.

Vampires can be World of Darkness people with a supernatural curse thrown onto them who have to deal with it and be any alignment.

Orcs can be Eberron style any alignment with a neat history of druidism.

Orcs can be Warhammer 40K style out of control humanoid biological weapons with a genetic drive to die in battle and a mental pathway for group aggression to build up in coordination.

Orcs can be touched by Gruumsh with a predisposition to evil.

Lanefan · Feb 23, 2021

Umbran said:
You realize that biology has nothing to do with the issues at hand, right?

It looks, walks, talks, and acts like a person. The issues are about how we treat PEOPLE.

The issues are about how we treat fictional monsters, from Orcs to Mindflayers to Succubi to Leprechauns. Or even Dwarves and Elves and Hobbits, for all that: are we now to say Elves are racist for their attempts to keep non-Elves out of their forests (a common trope)?

TheSword said:
I’m sorry no it doesn’t act like a person: for the reasons I said before. It superficially resembles a person in appearance. But in many crucial ways it is utterly alien.

Nobody that I’m aware of are claiming that demonic Succubi should be reclassified as anything other than evil.

This argument is being used to try and delegitimise reasonable claims that humanoids shouldn’t be viewed as any alignment.

I think it’s wrong and flawed. We weren’t asking for the baby to be thrown out with the bath water.

As I've already pointed out upthread with the mindflayer example, while throwing the baby out with the bathwater might not be what you're asking for it's still what you're probably going to get.

Morrus · Feb 23, 2021

TwoSix said:
Because I want things in my D&D games that the PCs can kill on sight without requiring justification to do so.

That's kinda weird, but OK. Put things in your D&D games that the PCs can kill on sight without requiring justification to do so. Problem solved!

Man, that was easy.

I'd like to know if that's what the current standard is.

So, whatever you do in your own game, it's vital that you know what everybody else does too? Because that affects your enjoyment of your own game in some manner?

Democratus · Feb 23, 2021

TwoSix said:
Because I want things in my D&D games that the PCs can kill on sight without requiring justification to do so. If orcs are problematic to fill that role, I'm asking what isn't problematic. Or, if killing things on sight is always problematic, I'd like to know if that's what the current standard is.

There are editions of D&D where this is totally fine.

Orcs, gnolls, trolls, red dragons in many OSR games are evil to the bone. You can kill them with impunity.

Sounds like the new trend is to create a different narrative world (and thus a different kind of adventure) in the newest edition. Which is fantastic. More variety and choice in the kind of game you want to play.

Win-win.

Oofta · Feb 23, 2021

TwoSix said:
Because I want things in my D&D games that the PCs can kill on sight without requiring justification to do so. If orcs are problematic to fill that role, I'm asking what isn't problematic. Or, if killing things on sight is always problematic, I'd like to know if that's what the current standard is.

Personally? I'd say whatever your group has fun with is the current standard for your group.

Scribe · Feb 23, 2021

Lanefan said:
are we now to say Elves are racist for their attempts to keep non-Elves out of their forests (a common trope)?

Someone find the quote that Elves are racist by canon please, om on my phone.

Scribe · Feb 23, 2021

Charlaquin said:
Because with Tieflings the prejudice against them is wrong. With orcs, it’s justified within the setting. The problem isn’t that prejudice exists in the fictional setting, it’s that, in some cases, the setting treats that prejudice as justified.

It's justified by unreliable narrator no?

Not word of God?

Charlaquin · Feb 23, 2021

TwoSix said:
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 probably varies from person to person. For me, it’s natural beings. Creatures native to the material plane should have their alignments defined by their actions. Extraplanar beings can have their actions determined by their alignment. We can also probably make special exceptions for natural creatures whose very existence is antithetical to that of other sapient beings, like mind flayers and fascists.