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

Justice and Rule said:

I feel like this is a meaningless distinction. The concept of an "Orc" as a physical creature is known, but we need not have to immediately default to "This is a bloodthirsty creature that has no concept of empathy or love" for what they are beyond their physical attributes.



I mean, you could just give examples of different Orc cultures. Like, if we are doing this for people who might be building their own world, why not give them inspiration for what they can do, not try to shackle them to what has already been done?

Click to expand...

How many different cultures should we have per race? Keeping in mind that if the answer is "two", the monster manual will need to be about 200 pages longer, to account for twice as much fluff text.

Charlaquin said:

Look, if you want simple, uncomplicated good vs evil games, no one is stopping you. Do whatever you want in your own game. But it’s much easier to remove nuance if you don’t want it than to add it where it doesn’t exist, and having a default where there aren’t entire races of inherently evil people makes the game more inclusive.

Click to expand...

This. Like, if you want to have a game where Ogres have no feelings and you don't feel bad for killing them, you do you. There's no one stopping you. Having an emotional breakdown because people are saying that maybe adding nuance to races rather than just having them fit into neat "Don't feel bad for killing these" slots isn't destroying the game or how drama is created, it's expanding things out more broadly.

Like, can a Medusa be cruel? Sure. Does that have to be an intrinsic part of her race? Not really. A medusa can be cruel because they are a bad person, because they feel wronged and want to take it out on those who they feel wronged them, because that's what people think about them and they've decided that they'll be the monster people think they are.

Do Elves and Dwarves have to dislike each other just because Elves and Dwarves do that? Like, if that's how it goes then that feels cheap. That's what I was talking about when I say "Give consideration to why you are putting prejudice into your game". Elves and Dwarves shouldn't hate each other because Elves and Dwarves always hate each other, there should be some reason, some idea of why they don't like each other. Their cultures clash? They have an ancient grudge? They desire the same things and see each other as long-time rivals?

Can Ogres be brutes? Sure. But it's not just what they are, but rather what's around them. Maybe they feel they have a religious obligation, maybe they were used by warlike cultures and just don't know any other way of being, maybe they just think they should rule over small stuff. Those are all still options, but none of it has to be tied to them like it were actually in their genes.

Like, none of this precludes playing it the old way. You can just be what you are.

Bagpuss said:

Okay but the only orcs you've ever met are those marauding orcs is it still not justified?

Isn't their marauding existence antithetical to the life of other sapient beings?

In fact what if the lore of the game world is that only marauding orcs exist in the game world is it still not justified?

Click to expand...

I mean, the whole point of opening up the concept of Orcs is to make it so that they aren't just mindless marauders. If you want to keep them there, that's fine. But what we are talking about is getting away from the racial essentialism bound up in that trope.

Bagpuss said:

And if "always marauding" orcs is problematic to exist in a game world why are Mind Flayers fine to exist?

Click to expand...

Do mindflayers get racially coded like Orcs?

TwoSix said:

I think orcs are specifically problematic because of half-orcs. The fact that they can interbreed with humans moves them from monstrous into a more liminal space where they're considered as much people as monsters.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and how traditional Half-Orcs have been handled has been... not good. Much better in recent years, but wow.

TwoSix said:

No one generally raises the issue of monoculture with hobgoblins or bugbears because they're rarely PCs and don't interbreed with humans.

Click to expand...

Hobgobbos are underrated. Just wanted to say taht.

jmartkdr2 said:

How many different cultures should we have per race? Keeping in mind that if the answer is "two", the monster manual will need to be about 200 pages longer, to account for twice as much fluff text.

Click to expand...

If I were to do multiple cultures, they would likely be shorter entries given that I'm trying to give inspiration rather than set out an in-depth canon. As it were, I think I could probably 2-3 on that page without being too bad.

PsyzhranV2 said:

Don't know enough about Yautja/Predators to comment on the species and culture as a whole, but the dynamics of "alien hunter hunting down humanity's best warriors as a challenge" are pretty different from the racially coded language used to describe orcs and goblins.

Click to expand...

They literally do trophy hunts of other sentient species for fun. How is that not evil as D&D defines it?

Umbran said:

Have you not gotten the point that globally attaching specific function to race is the problematic thing?

Racial monoculture seems a pretty cliche notion at this point, and without mass comunication, make very little sense over significant distances. Dramatic functions can be determined locally, where the PCs happen to be adventuring now, rather than globally.

Click to expand...

Kind of depends, culture can come from the physical nature of the creature. At the crudest level kobold tunnels, will likely have lower ceilings, and this is likely true for kobolds the world over, in pre-history they might have develop traps to deal with larger opponents because they are smaller and weaker, and this remains true for tribes that haven't met in centuries.

I highly recommend reading the Kafer Sourcebook for 2300AD for how physiological differences can lead to psychological ones and lead to a different culture. The Kafer's in the 2300AD setting, don't have adrenaline as a hormone that prepares the body for fight or flight, but have something similar except their hormone increases intelligence. Continued exposure to the hormone from for example being in a war can lead to sustained increased intelligence, thus all their scientists and leaders military vets. Hitting subordinates so they understand, as physical danger and injury increases intelligence is common, and not considered abuse, which ain't great for the human prisoners they capture.

PsyzhranV2 said:

Single biome planets are usually bad, but for different reasons than the discussion being had here (mostly I find the idea silly and implausible from a ecological and meteorological standpoint, at least account for the overall climate being more chilly towards the poles).

Klingons, Vulcans, and Kree could use some work, yes. But at least they're treated with respect for the most part AFAIK?

Daleks I'm fine with. Somebody who know more about Dr. Who might have an opinion to the contrary, but as far as I'm concerned they're genocidal imperialists, so they have it coming.

Don't know enough about Yautja/Predators to comment on the species and culture as a whole, but the dynamics of "alien hunter hunting down humanity's best warriors as a challenge" are pretty different from the racially coded language used to describe orcs and goblins.

Click to expand...

The Daleks are a mono-culture specifically because they got to extreme lengths to wipe out any Daleks who aren't part of the mono-culture. They're the ultimate expression of genocidal, almost omnicidal imperialists, who who want to kill everyone and everything that isn't like them, including other Daleks who aren't like them. Notably when hybrid Daleks did turn out to be not genocidal monsters, the main Daleks wiped them the hell out. They absolutely have it coming.

As Predators, well, I'm not a deep Predator expert, but last I checked, the main issue was that we only interacted with the ones who came to hunt us, and it was entirely unclear if the species was a mono-culture, or if these guys were the equivalent of big-game hunters, or if this was some weird subculture or cult or whatever. Imagine if the pre-warp Klingons only knew about humans because some psychopathic cult was landing people there, in masks, armed with phasers, shields, and camo, and hunting them. They might think all humans were like that, but it'd be because it's the only ones they met.

(I think there have been some attempts to give the Predators more ridiculous backstories where they are a mono-culture, but I don't think any of those are really regarded as canon.)

Monocultures are more inherently lame/boring than inherently problematic.

Oofta said:

They literally do trophy hunts of other sentient species for fun. How is that not evil as D&D defines it?

Click to expand...

The ones who are hunting us are definitely evil. What's unclear is how typical they are of their culture, and whether that culture is the dominant culture or a subculture or whatever.

Different takes on them have offered different answers. C.f. my klingon-hunting human example above. Sure, said klingon-hunter would be evil, but are "humans" evil? Or just the specific "klingon-hunters"?

Ruin Explorer said:

The Daleks are a mono-culture specifically because they got to extreme lengths to wipe out any Daleks who aren't part of the mono-culture. They're the ultimate expression of genocidal, almost omnicidal imperialists, who who want to kill everyone and everything that isn't like them, including other Daleks who aren't like them. Notably when hybrid Daleks did turn out to be not genocidal monsters, the main Daleks wiped them the hell out. They absolutely have it coming.

As Predators, well, I'm not a deep Predator expert, but last I checked, the main issue was that we only interacted with the ones who came to hunt us, and it was entirely unclear if the species was a mono-culture, or if these guys were the equivalent of big-game hunters, or if this was some weird subculture or cult or whatever. Imagine if the pre-warp Klingons only knew about humans because some psychopathic cult was landing people there, in masks, armed with phasers, shields, and camo, and hunting them. They might think all humans were like that, but it'd be because it's the only ones they met.

(I think there have been some attempts to give the Predators more ridiculous backstories where they are a mono-culture, but I don't think any of those are really regarded as canon.)

Monocultures are more inherently lame/boring than inherently problematic.

Click to expand...

Monocultures are an oversimplification of culture and (imaginary) species. Just like AC, HP, Ability Scores, Skills, Classes, Levels. In other words just like the rest of D&D.

Justice and Rule said:

If the books were good, wouldn't he? I mean, is Drizzt's only characteristic that "He's the good Drow"?

Click to expand...

And he wields dual scimitars!! Don't forget that...

PsyzhranV2 said:

Single biome planets are usually bad, but for different reasons than the discussion being had here (mostly I find the idea silly and implausible from a ecological and meteorological standpoint, at least account for the overall climate being more chilly towards the poles).

Klingons, Vulcans, and Kree could use some work, yes. But at least they're treated with respect for the most part AFAIK?

Daleks I'm fine with. Somebody who know more about Dr. Who might have an opinion to the contrary, but as far as I'm concerned they're genocidal imperialists, so they have it coming.

Don't know enough about Yautja/Predators to comment on the species and culture as a whole, but the dynamics of "alien hunter hunting down humanity's best warriors as a challenge" are pretty different from the racially coded language used to describe orcs and goblins.

Click to expand...

Daleks are just the endpoint of fascism as aliens, as they just want to remove anything that is not them, not necessary for them and they care about purity for some mad reason.

Oofta said:

Monocultures are an oversimplification of culture and (imaginary) species. Just like AC, HP, Ability Scores, Skills, Classes, Levels. In other words just like the rest of D&D.

Click to expand...

Sure, and they're not a problem unless they're a problem (i.e. both a monoculture and problematic), they're just a bit boring/lame.

D&D has historically been pretty good with having non-mono-cultures too. Again I point you back to 1989's Time of the Dragon, where we have elves, and they're NOT A MONO-CULTURE!!!!!!! In fact, for example, there are several different cultures involving elves and/or half-elves - some of them the same "race" of elf too!

The steppe-barbarian stuff is particularly good, and clearly RL-inspired, as you have multiple steppe-barbarian cultures, some of which are largely one race, some of which aren't, and the largest one is dominated by elves and half-elves (but with plenty of humans).

We've often had X raised by Y or an enclave of X in a city of Y in D&D too, where they aren't a mono-culture.

Bagpuss said:

And he wields dual scimitars!! Don't forget that...

Click to expand...

Add in being an emo Marty Stue and that's pretty much all you need to know.