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

HJFudge said:

Serious question:

Aside from how they look, what IS the difference? If Ogres and Humans and Centaurs all built cities and raised families and were of a similar culture, why would you not interchange them?

Click to expand...

The question may be meant seriously, but it’s so outlandish to me that I don’t even know how to begin answering it. They are so clearly, starkly, physically different from one another, I can’t even imagine why you would ever consider treating them interchangeably. Maybe if it was between like... I don’t know, Goliaths and Firbolgs or something, it might be worthwhile to consider if they’re meaningfully different enough without inherent ethno-cultures. But I can’t fathom how you could not see meaningful differences between humans, ogres, and centaurs that aren’t cultural.

HJFudge said:

If each had the same culture the way they would behave would be, well, so similar as to be almost indistinguishable (as large groups).

Click to expand...

Seriously? You can’t imagine how humans, giant-folk, and horse people might act differently despite having broadly similar cultures?

HJFudge said:

Is this not the ideal, in your argument, that no sentient race holds the place as 'enemy' according to official lore?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

HJFudge said:

That in each kingdom or empire, friend or enemy is a product not of how they look or their race, but of the group/culture they belong to? So on both sides in a war you'd have races of all types?

Click to expand...

I don’t know why who’s on what side of a war is the thing this comes down to for you, but sure?

Charlaquin said:

The question may be meant seriously, but it’s so outlandish to me that I don’t even know how to begin answering it. They are so clearly, starkly, physically different from one another, I can’t even imagine why you would ever consider treating them interchangeably. Maybe if it was between like... I don’t know, Goliaths and Firbolgs or something, it might be worthwhile to consider if they’re meaningfully different enough without inherent ethno-cultures. But I can’t fathom how you could not see meaningful differences between humans, ogres, and centaurs that aren’t cultural.

Click to expand...

They are physically different. Why would there physical differences dictate how you treat them? Do you...usually treat people differently based on how they look?

Charlaquin said:

Seriously? You can’t imagine how humans, giant-folk, and horse people might act differently despite having broadly similar cultures?

Click to expand...

Not in any meaningful way, since we act how we do based on our culture (broadly speaking). A giant may duck a bit lower passing through a door but what about his giantness would make him act differently? Maybe eat more, perhaps I guess. But none of that is a meaningful difference.

The plucky giant bard would be plucky, the plucky centaur bard would be...plucky...the plucky human bard would ALSO be plucky. Their physical appearance would not dictate their actions.

If it DID, if suddenly all the giants started acting brusque just because they were giants then we are back to the issue you railed against and wished to avoid.

The moment you can LOOK at a creature and suddenly KNOW how they are...well, how is that different than looking at an Orc and the party suddenly treating them as evil? So obviously, defining a creature/NPCs action solely by their appearance is to be avoided if we are to take the argument you are making as correct.

Then his question remains: What narrative function would an Ogre serve? It would no longer serve one, not a meaningful one anyway. Of course, there would be other narrative tools one could use. Namely, making all of one kingdom/culture have uniforms that denote them as 'baddies', so instead of seeing a party of orcs and going 'bad guys!' the party would see a party of mixed races that wore the enemy uniform and go 'bad guys!'

Charlaquin said:

Yes, it is.

I don’t know why who’s on what side of a war is the thing this comes down to for you, but sure?

Click to expand...

It was an example.

Vaalingrade said:

Maybe it's a dumb question, but... why isn't Planescape a setting on it's own?

Admittedly, I started playing in 3e and I know it was a setting on it's own before then, but why is Planescape haphazardly stapled on to the main game, forcing us to pretend to care about alignment and Sigil and some angry lady with a maze fixation minotaurs envy instead of just being it's own thing.

Dark Sun doesn't make us use Defiler magic all the time. FR doesn't make D&D core have ten million gods. Eberron and Spelljammer don't force all games to be awesome. So why does Planescape get to dictate the core?

Click to expand...

To be honest, I think the planes have been a part of the game for a long long time. Where the gods live and what happens to us when we die are natural questions to ask and several early modules involved visiting gods in their homes.

The Planescape setting just ditched the conceit that you needed the prime material planes at all, and that there was a whole cosmopolitan network of gate towns and cities (Sigil) that bridged the gaps between the planes.

So the planes and aligned creatures like Slaad, Modrons, Devils, Demons, Devas etc already existed before Planescape. That setting just drilled down into them. It took the manual of the planes and expanded what that would actually mean in practice.

The settings popularity was helped by the amazing art of Toni DiTerlizzi and one of the finest pieces of story telling in a CRPG in Torment. “What can change the nature of a man?” It was these kinds of big questions that defined the setting, certainly for me. With factions arguing over the nature of the multiverse.

As a result a huge amount of setting detail, which planes are which, the creatures, etc are already in the core 5e game.

Charlaquin said:

They are so clearly, starkly, physically different from one another, I can’t even imagine why you would ever consider

Click to expand...

they should all have the same range of physical attributes.

Charlaquin said:

Maybe? I mean, it’s certainly something that draws me to such characters. As I said in the other post, I love Tieflings, and that’s absolutely an element of them that appeals to me. Heck, I’d even say Tieflings would lose something if that element was removed. The thing is, I don’t think the goal should be to excise all prejudice from the setting. It should be to insure that the in-fiction prejudices aren’t objectively correct within the setting. It’s fine with me if there is a cultural bias against Tieflings, or Orcs, or whatever, as long as the fiction demonstrates those biases to be misplaced.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent argument that makes a lot of sense. But I wonder what the professor in that Wired article, who noted the PCs performing racism towards a tiefling, would think of it?

Oofta said:

Most fiction defines defaults though. It makes things easier to comprehend and fit into a story. Klingons are fierce and warlike, Vulcans are logical and conservative, so on and so forth. It's hardly unique to D&D to have mono-worldviews by species. Many sci-fi games such as Mass Effect do it as well.

They may not categorize it as alignment but for all practical purposes it is.

Click to expand...

"Defining defaults" often bears little to no difference from "telling people what they're supposed to be."

There is no such thing as a default state of being.

HJFudge said:

Serious question:

Aside from how they look, what IS the difference? If Ogres and Humans and Centaurs all built cities and raised families and were of a similar culture, why would you not interchange them?

If each had the same culture the way they would behave would be, well, so similar as to be almost indistinguishable (as large groups). Is this not the ideal, in your argument, that no sentient race holds the place as 'enemy' according to official lore?

That in each kingdom or empire, friend or enemy is a product not of how they look or their race, but of the group/culture they belong to? So on both sides in a war you'd have races of all types?

Click to expand...

I'd just like to point out that there have been several contemporaneous human nomadic pastoralist cultures in real-world Asia that are distinct (never mind them being distinct from nomadic pastoralists in the Americas—or other places and times). And that's with only humans, just imagine what could be with species that have distinct physical advantages, disadvantages, and needs.

Charlaquin said:

The question may be meant seriously, but it’s so outlandish to me that I don’t even know how to begin answering it. They are so clearly, starkly, physically different from one another, I can’t even imagine why you would ever consider treating them interchangeably.

Click to expand...

You realize that is almost exactly the same language used to justify segregation and apartheid several decades ago.

They even had "science" to back it up.

If the only excuse one has is that something is physically different...but all other things being the same (for example, they all have families, build cities, have the same culture, etc) and the excuse falls onto looks only...well...some very icky reading from several decades ago about why segregation was not only necessary, but scientifically backed up (and the same could go for slavery) would quickly show that these are the same reasons people justified racism for a LOOOONG time.

It was much better when the difference between monsters and humans was not justified due to looks, but due to the very nature they were composed of.

A comparison would be between that of a Polar Bear and a Human. Sure, you can try to reason with that hungry polar bear over there, and try to treat it as your best pal, but when it gets close there's probably going to be a LOT of painful screaming from the Human, or that human better have a way to defend themselves.

The difference between a Polar Bear and a Human boils down to the very nature of the beast and what drives them to act. The Polar bear is inherently more dangerous than the single human if based on normal circumstances. It is not a creature to be pals with and one that is hanging around Human towns is probably one the Humans want to get rid of.

This could be held with many other creatures...such as Tigers or Lions who get a taste for man. Crocodiles in the River...etc.

This is the same template applied to monsters in Early D&D, and WHY monsters were seen as such.

HOWEVER, in typical irony, as seen in real life and occasionally modules...though creatures, animals, and monsters may be dangerous, ultimately the greatest evil tends to stem from man...

And that too is the difference between a Polar Bear (or Tiger or Lion) and Man. Polar Bears are acting as their nature drives them, and as such are a threat in a direct physical sense when you see one. They are even, to a degree, highly predictable because they share that nature with one another. Man, in his chaotic way is FAR more unpredictable and though perhaps not as physically menacing...is able to do FAR GREATER evil than any Creature, animal...and even in fantasy...most Monsters.

At the end of the day, in BECMI's Basic module first introduction...it isn't the goblins you truly need to fear...but Bargle himself!




PS: But then, times have changed since BECMI was made, and today...and how monsters ability to act and their relationship to humans, animals, and other things have also changed. Instead of viewing them more as we view how animals would act on their nature, we tend to view them more as how we view humans act on theirs...and in a way...that has changed a LOT about how we should describe them and publish about them today, which I think has a great deal of strong feelings in any direction you travel as this thread seems to make obvious.

Azzy said:

I'd just like to point out that there have been several contemporaneous human nomadic pastoralist cultures in real-world Asia that are distinct (never mind them being distinct from nomadic pastoralists in the Americas—or other places and times). And that's with only humans, just imagine what could be with species that have distinct physical advantages, disadvantages, and needs.

Click to expand...

Okay, so there are a lot of cultures.

But were those cultures based on physical differences?

Environmental, yes. Technological, yes. But physical? No.

So certainly, you can portray the Ogre as coming from a certain style of society. But then the question becomes: Why that culture/society and not another? Why are there no civilized Ogre kingdoms who treat others with respect and rely on trade? Or, why are there not pastoral/druidic Ogre tribes that roam the tundra et al?

As soon as you say "Well this race is big and strong so of course there gonna act a certain way" this goes into the 'orcs bad' territory.

You cannot have a race's (or more specifically, species) culture be based on physicality. Not and have it be consistent with the ideology expressed and argued here.

In my humble opinion, this is something each table should be in control of. To ask a company to make their default setting fix all these issues either means races (species) cannot have a single culture, but in fact must be represented in being present in a wide array of cultures. Which, well, means the species loses its narrative ability in the way the poster was worried it would. If you are fine giving up that narrative tool, that's fine. But just recognize that this is one of the side effects of fixing the perceived issue.

Charlaquin said:

I see your point, these three things would be completely interchangeable if they could have similar cultural tendencies.

Click to expand...

You just had to bring up centaurs and climbing ropes didn't you?