D&D 5E (2014) American Civil War Setting

[TwoSix]

*note, I'm not calling you a racist (that's just his quote), but I mention it because you seem to be more offended that I'd point out what you're doing can be offensive to people then the fact that you're actually defending cultural appropriation or racial stereotypes based on "we've always done it." If you can't see how assigning slaves as orcs is offensive, then I double down on my claim that white privilege is blinding you. It should be pretty obvious, I'd think.

Only one person mentioned slaves as orcs, and it wasn't the OP or the quoted poster. Morrus wanted to know why the British got stuck as the orcs.

That being said, making the British one race and the colonists a second race doesn't make much sense in terms of a viable alt-American Revolution.

 

[Morrus]

so maybe take your social justice paladin schtick down a notch, eh?

When you use the term “social justice warrior” (or paladin or whatever) to describe those who disagree with you, you’re way out of line. Don’t do that. If you can’t address the actual point rather than throwing around names, don’t post.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

MostlyHarmless42 & Blue covered my main concerns, and Sacrosanct hit another nail.

If you divvy up the sides in a ACW setting based on D&D species, you're going to get into problematic social territory pretty quickly unless your game group is pretty homogeneous OR extremely adult. (NOTE: been gaming since 1977; never met a group in the latter category.)

Better that you either adopt the "multicultural" approach suggested upthread OR have one non-PC villain species- illithids, for example- be the main slavers so that PCs don't encounter difficulties simply because of the racial composition of their adventuring party.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Only one person mentioned slaves as orcs, and it wasn't the OP or the quoted poster. .

No, but two things

1. He's defending it based on "it's always been done"
2. Just shows how quickly this thread can produce offensive responses. Which is why I think such a topic is a pretty awful thing to discuss. We're not talking ancient history here. We're talking about people's actual recent ancestors from just a couple generations ago. So when you say one ethnic group that was routinely described as sub human, ape-like, and crude and barbaric, then assign a fantasy race to represent that ethnic group that is sub human, crude, barbaric, and ape-like as their primary qualities, are you honestly saying you don't see a problem with that?

 

[Greg Benage]

1. I'm also not sure if you're talking Colonial period or ACW.

2. Assuming the former, I'd make it a national rather than racial conflict. You have three imperial nations comprised of a variety of high-fantasy races, you have a Colonial wannabe nation comprised of a variety of high-fantasy races, and you have indigenous nations comprised of a variety of high-fantasy races.

Bonus: I'd also borrow more inspiration from the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War, because that's what I'm doing and it's awesome.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If the enslaved race is a non-PC race that has also had a huge empire in the past, that would defuse the "racial superiority" aspect of RW American slavery.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, I’m going to close this. I’m *really* uncomfortable with any suggestions that one group of real people is human and others are non-human, even in a gaming context. I think it’s best to not portray real world people in that manner. And people are already throwing round “social justice warrior” insults at those who don’t feel great about being cast as non-human. I can’t see it getting any better.