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

[Lyxen]

It feels like several of those words are either marked as obsolete/rare or offensive for the definitions that seem closest, or have other common definitions that are derogatory and could easily also have been meant.

They might have been recently tagged that way in some specific countries. Deal with it locally, and don't bother people from all other the world speaking international english.

There are a bunch of definitions for Savage in the OED, but it notes notes that some usages are now avoided as "offensive, except in historical reference to the language or attitudes of the past".

And how is this definition offensive ? Are you playing TRRPG where all creatures and monsters from the multiverse are all perfectly civilised ? This is simply ridiculous. Also, even the footnote describe is as historical OR offensive. I'm not using that in an offensive way, and accusing me of doing it is slander. I'm using it as a reference to historical tribes, society, regions, etc. as is perfectly normal in a TTRPG where such states of society

See Merriam-Webster or Oxford, and note that the "offensive" part is considered old-fashioned anyway, meaning that it's not a new evolution of the word. And even accusing me of using it in an offensive fashion is a blatant insult. Don't.

As for exotic, again see Merriam-Webster and Oxford, and note that both are actually very positive, with zero negative connotations there. And again, are you going to pretend that, in a TTPRG, all the NPCs encountered are neighbours of an infinite universe ? That they don't come from another country ?

I don't believe that national prejudices are welcome anywhere, and they should not be on this site.

 

[Lyxen]

Alright. Here's an explicitly UK dictionary definition of "stereotype," listing all senses provided for the noun form of the word.

1. • a method of producing cast-metal printing plates from a mould made from a forme of type matter in papier-mâché or some other material
   • the plate so made
2. another word for stereotypy
3. an idea, trait, convention, etc, that has grown stale through fixed usage
4. sociol a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly

So, are you prentending that, in your fantasy world, all people know everything about all other groups, and are not using broad generalisations ? That, in your campaign world description, you are not using simplistic generalisations ? So please show me descriptions of people in your fantasy world, I'll judge on proofs, not on theory.

Moreover, here are other definitions that I have found:

• Wikipedia: "Social psychology defines a stereotype as a generalized belief about a particular category of people.[2] It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group.[citation needed] The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate."
• Merriam-Webster: "something conforming to a fixed or general pattern - especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment"

So, if I describe that a culture is often wearing long horizontally striped robes of pastel colors, it's a stereotype based on apparence. It might often be false, but at least, it's a pattern and some individuals wear it.

Please tell me what harm is being done here. And also, how you go about describing cultures in your fantasy world, since this is a discussion about TTRPGs. I would be very curious to see how you do this without broad strokes like the above. ALL the fantasy settings of D&D do it. I can't even give you a list, but here are a few, I don't have to go far in almost every single official publication to find the use of stereotypes:

• Waterdeep - Dragon Heist: Waterdavians generally hold adventurers in high regard.
• Icewind Dale : The people of Ten Town wear layers of woolen clothing often topped of with fur coats. Residents in a three-snowflake town are friendly and helpful, by and large. Conversely, a one-snowflake town is full of unhelpful, unfriendly folk.
• Curse of Stradh: Barovians are deeply invested in their homes and traditions. They are wary of strange people and customs.

All of these are clearly, obviously stererotypes. And they are incredibly useful in running the adventures. And none of them are offensive. They are just stereotypes, extremely useful tools to describe people, populations and cultures in the context of a TTRPG.

But once more, I would be very interested in seeing how you describe cultures in your fantasy world without using stereotypes. Please show us.

If you're going to use the forum's point of origin as an argument, it would be rather more helpful if the dictionaries of that land actually agreed with you. (This is from the Collins English Dictionary, to be specific.) For the record, the definitions from both Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries also explicitly call out that "stereotype" is especially used when the presumed group characteristic is "wrong" or "harmful," and the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy does similarly: "A too-simple and therefore distorted image of a group, such as “Football players are stupid” or “The English are cold and unfriendly people.”" and "A generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group."

Actually, this is a lie:

• Oxford: "a fixed idea or image that many people have of a particular type of person or thing, but which is often not true in reality"
• Cambridge: "a set idea that people have about what someone or something is like, especially an idea that is wrong"

So, there is no "harmful" there, and I recognise another of these words which are bandied around in other thread about the impact of offensive writing. Second, about the "wrong" thing, well, you are clearly using that word wrongly, the common trend in all these definition is not that it does not mean "bad", but that it means "incorrect", as if the stereotype incorrectly describes even the majority of the population. Which is fine, in the TTRPG examples above, there are certainly helpful and friendly folks in one-snowflake towns. But maybe most are not, or maybe it's just the image that the town has. In any case, it is USEFUL, it adds to verisimilitude, you can use them or subvert them at will, and I don't believe that you can describe a fantasy culture without them.

Furthermore, at least according to the actual dictionary of the Académie française

Hmmm, that dictionary is well known for recording the use of words at least 50 years in the past. However, using common French dictionaries say:

• Larousse: "Caractérisation symbolique et schématique d'un groupe qui s'appuie sur des attentes et des jugements de routine." = "Symbolic and schematic characterization of a group based on routine expectations and judgments."
• Robert: "Opinion toute faite réduisant les particularités. ➙ cliché." = "Ready-made opinion reducing particularities. ➙ cliche."

So, obviously, my mastery of english is way above your mastery of French, including what French dictionaries are actually used in everyday life...

An

So...yeah. In French, "stereotype" doesn't even mean the meaning you're using it for. And in English (whether UK or US) and German, it means exactly what people are telling you it means. Maybe, instead of dying on this hill, just use the less-loaded term?

So yeah, you have no idea what you are talking about. So, instead of using a word (which one, generalisation, which does not mean anything) wrongly, why don't you use the proper word as intended instead of perpetuating false and biased ideas about it ?

And once more, because this is a D&D forum, ESPECIALLY in the case of describing the cultures of a fantasy world, it is an extremely useful tool.

 

[Lyxen]

Furthermore, at least according to the actual dictionary of the Académie française, "stéréotype" doesn't even refer to people at all; it refers to ideas, fashions, or behaviors that have become staid or lost their meaning--and the same goes for more recently-updated ones (since the aforementioned dictionary's 9th edition only reaches "savoir" and therefore the above definition is from 1935) such as Trésor de la langue française informatisé, which (again, ignoring the irrelevant A and C definitions, which relate to book-printing and to construction respectively) gives as definitions:

Oh, yes, I forgot about this one. First, this resource is unknown to me, but you should have seen on the front page of the site that it's a dictionary from the nineteenth and twentieth century, so hardly a proper reference these days. Nonetheless, is still gives the following definition: "PSYCHOL., SOCIOL. Idée, opinion toute faite, acceptée sans réflexion et répétée sans avoir été soumise à un examen critique, par une personne ou un groupe, et qui détermine, à un degré plus ou moins élevé, ses manières de penser, de sentir et d'agir. Synon. cliché."

Translated: "PSYCHOL., SOCIOL. Idea, ready-made opinion, accepted without reflection and repeated without having been subjected to critical examination, by a person or a group, and which determines, to a greater or lesser degree, their ways of thinking, feeling and acting . Synon. cliche."

So...yeah. In French, "stereotype" doesn't even mean the meaning you're using it for.

Actually it does, you should read a bit more on the subject before saying things like the above.

Of course, when describing fantasy cultures for a TTRPG, it will be mostly cliches, as demonstrated in most supplements published...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't believe that national prejudices are welcome anywhere, and they should not be on this site.

The problem is that this isn't an issue of "national prejudice", it's an issue of how the word is understood across a large proportion of English speakers, and how it has been used historically, and by historically, I mean right up into the present day.

The idea that "savage" being often offensive in how it is used is somehow limited to, I dunno, America, or some part of America is simply incorrect. Surprising that someone who thinks so highly of their abilities with English isn't aware of this.

In the end, too, D&D is a game produced in a specific country by a specific culture, and will inevitably be influenced primarily by that culture and its attitudes. The idea that it could exist in some ethereal "international" space, somehow floating above actual countries and culture is not a rational one.

EDIT - To clarify further, the present real-world situation is that it's still broadly acceptable to use savage (or even "barbaric", though that borders on political dogwhistle in all primary English-speaking countries) to describe, say, an attack or the like, albeit some people may cringe slightly, as it sounds a bit grandpa and other words like "horrific" do the same job. It is not, however, broadly acceptable to describe people or cultures as "savage", and indeed it has not been actually-okay since, what, the 1990s?

You also repeatedly incorrectly claim "savage" as used to describe people or culture is "useful". This is not right. Because of its wild historical misuse, "savage" is just a confusing and misleading word. Peoples and cultures, especially tribal ones, have been described as "savage" so frequently that it's lost meaning. A largely pacifistic tribe which dresses in a way a 1700s English guy might find "outlandish" gets called "savage", and a bunch of screaming Norsemen raiding churches and monasteries get called "savage", and a fairly reasonable and straightforward highly organised group of people, who are easy to negotiate with, have elaborate laws, but say, kill their enemies, who happen to be white people, get called "savage". It's a word that's been slung around wildly and idiotically. So you insisting on using it is just silly. Even without the offensive elements, it's a word which has lost real meaning. No amount of pointing to a dictionary definition is going to defeat that misuse, especially as 99% of English speakers don't know the dictionary meanings of words, they only know the real-world usage of words. That might different in France. French has a tiny number of words, and has a central body standardizing their usage. English has many, many, many times more words in common usage (millions compared to 200k), and no standardizing body. So perhaps your misunderstanding stems from thinking that Dictionary >>>> Real World Usage. In French, perhaps. In English? No. Never. Real World Usage >>>> Dictionary. If most people use a word "incorrectly" by dictionary standards, the meaning of the word changes*.

(The word "primitive" has similar issues, again, even if we strip it of offense. It tells you more about the speaker than the object of discussion. Extremely complex societies with elaborate rules and often significant technologies get called "primitive" right next to deep-paleolithic peoples, and even with say, the paleolithic people, the sheer complex of techniques involved in flaking flint and so on can get missed because of the piles of silly associations the word "primitive" has acquired. It's not a very useful word. If you describe a society as "primitive", all I can tell is they probably don't use metal tools a great deal, because it's such misused/abused.)

* = If you doubt this just search on "words which have changed meaning" on Google.

 

[Cadence]

They might have been recently tagged that way in some specific countries. Deal with it locally, and don't bother people from all other the world speaking international english.



And how is this definition offensive ? Are you playing TRRPG where all creatures and monsters from the multiverse are all perfectly civilised ? This is simply ridiculous. Also, even the footnote describe is as historical OR offensive. I'm not using that in an offensive way, and accusing me of doing it is slander. I'm using it as a reference to historical tribes, society, regions, etc. as is perfectly normal in a TTRPG where such states of society

See Merriam-Webster or Oxford, and note that the "offensive" part is considered old-fashioned anyway, meaning that it's not a new evolution of the word. And even accusing me of using it in an offensive fashion is a blatant insult. Don't.

As for exotic, again see Merriam-Webster and Oxford, and note that both are actually very positive, with zero negative connotations there. And again, are you going to pretend that, in a TTPRG, all the NPCs encountered are neighbours of an infinite universe ? That they don't come from another country ?

I don't believe that national prejudices are welcome anywhere, and they should not be on this site.

I was was quoting from the full Oxford English Dictionary. English doesn't have a formal language academy or the like, but the OED seems about the closest thing if one were forced to choose just one.

Following that, would it be some combination of whatever style guide the BBC and major US news organizations use? I haven't googled those. I'm guessing they are similar, but will check later. [Edit: See #168 below].

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

So, are you prentending that, in your fantasy world, all people know everything about all other groups, and are not using broad generalisations ? That, in your campaign world description, you are not using simplistic generalisations ? So please show me descriptions of people in your fantasy world, I'll judge on proofs, not on theory.

As an aside, I think they don't. While it's true that in the past, fantasy humans NPCs were described as regular humans in a fantasy settings, evolving social structures akin to the one we saw in real life, it's no longer the case. I have noticed that fantasy humans are much more morally advanced than real, current societies, let alone past ones.

1. they don't seem to have noticeable gender bias in professional fields, including ones where physical labor is expected and where we do have requirement in real life that, in effect if not in intent, limit gender parity;
2. they don't seem to have noticeable gender bias as a social construct (for example, in laws);
3. they are extremely cosmopolitan, to the point that each city, even smaller ones, is home to multiple species [in real life, the competing species of Neanderthal was dealt with, either by assimilation or extermination, and I am pretty sure the politicians who pertuate racist views wouldn't like elves or dwarves if they can't stand someone whose perceived skin color doesn't match their own];
4. there is very few mention of xenophobia, even when neighbouring countries are at wars at some point -- and with the size of minorities they hold with the great melting pot their city is, it's strange they never developped measures against other nationals like happened in real life and left marks in the population;
5. there is very few religious strife akin to what was observed in real life, even when pantheons are sometime actively at odds with each other. It's not inexistant, it's just very seldom and usually restricted to "we don't like followers of the god of murder here..."
6. there is few social oppression -- though it's the weakest example. Paizo's world Golarion never invented slavery ever, canonically, and where it's practiced in other worlds, it is never tolerated by neighbours. There is few evidence of extreme social unequalities in description -- it's the "happy past times" où il n'y aura point de laboureur en mon Royaume qui n'ait moyen d'avoir une poule dans son pot, to quote Henri IV. You do get raiders, but they are rarely forced to turn to crime by famine or being just mercenary soldiers cheated of their pay the legitimate government;
7. there is very few prejudice against magic users, even while there is a clear divine vs arcane magic divide...

There is a strange prevalence of monarchy, so they obviously don't enjoy civil rights and they don't seem to have problem with putting people to death or bands of adventurers taking arms and doing things outside legal authority, but if the social system they live in never produced anything problematic, they would have little reason to question it.

For the monarchy part, it may be explained because the authors thinks of monarchy like in some real-world countries where the sovereign hold mostly symbolical power, not absolutist monarchy, and we aren't really explained the details of lawmaking.

So, those fantasy humans, homo sapiens melius, could very well not be able to think in stereotypes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have noticed that fantasy humans are much more morally advanced than real, current societies, let alone past ones.

Yeah this is part of what I was trying to get at earlier. A lot of fantasy societies, including various ones in D&D settings, are actually far kinder and more open-minded than the historical "real world" typically is seen. Dragging in real-world prejudices from specific cultures because one thinks they're "more realistic" is simply silly and does those settings no favours.

One example might be the Forgotten Realms, where, canonically polyamory (include whole massive "polycules" involving 20+ people), swinging/spouse-swapping, all forms of homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality and so on are generally ok with most people and societies, as Greenwood as outlined (he was contradicted by another FR author at least once but Greenwood is the primary author here). And both genders are equally educated and have equal protection in law in the vast majority of societies in the FR, with a handful of extremist counter-examples, most of which are, IIRC, female-dominated rather than male-dominated. Also being religious, even a monk/nun doesn't mean you can't have relationships in the FR, though you might be asked to wait on marriage until you've achieved some goal as part of your training etc. Ed I believe summarized it by saying generally all matters of adult sexuality are "not a big deal" in Realms, and he specifically contrasted it to our world in this matter.

 

[Cadence]

I was was quoting from the full Oxford English Dictionary. English doesn't have a formal language academy or the like, but the OED seems about the closest thing if one were forced to choose just one.

Following that, would it be some combination of whatever style guide the BBC and major US news organizations use? I haven't googled those. I'm guessing they are similar, but will check later.

Here's the follow-up:

The BBC style guide notes that for things it doesn't cover that "The Oxford English Dictionary is otherwise the preferred reference".

It doesn't have savage, primitive, or exotic in it, and so would default to the OED as I indicated above

The AP style guide also lacks them. It uses the 5th Edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary (Chicago Manual of Style uses the 11th of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). It shows primitive as a noun being derogatory, but not as an adjective. It does not note either exotic or savage as derogatory - and so would not come down on the usage in the same way as I would view the BBC/OED combination.

I wonder if that will be different if we look back in a decade.

----

I am hardly holding it up as authoritative, but Buzzfeed's style guide says it "aims to provide a prevailing, and evolving, set of standards for the internet and social media." It notes:

savage: Avoid this racial slur, even in casual contexts that aren't referring to people (e.g., do not use "savage burn" or "these memes are savage")

Here's one on how it is viewed by some in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/offensive-term-remove-urban-planet-1.5305540

It is similarly mentioned in the context of Native Americans at: 7 things you should never say to a Native American

----

Primitive is called out as unacceptable for describing people by the Association of Social Anthropologists who joined the Survival International campaign to stop using it:

"Terms like 'stone age' and 'primitive' have been used to describe tribal people since the colonial era, reinforcing the idea that they have not changed over time and that they are backward. This idea is both incorrect and very dangerous. It is incorrect because all societies adapt and change, and it is dangerous because it is often used to justify the persecution or forced 'development' of tribal peoples. The results are almost always catastrophic: poverty, alcoholism, prostitution, disease and death."

----

There are a number of websites on why labeling a person as exotic may have negative connotations to the person recieving it, especially when it is used about the appearance of a member of a racial minority.

----

So, none of the four seem like they'll get you universally condemned for using them (which seems good, because who can keep up with everything), but that once it's pointed out, I'm not sure why a publisher wouldn't just switch to another word and avoid the issue.

 

[Lyxen]

The problem is that this isn't an issue of "national prejudice", it's an issue of how the word is understood across a large proportion of English speakers, and how it has been used historically, and by historically, I mean right up into the present day.

Proof that it is a "large proportion of English speakers" ? And not just a minority of people trying to push their ideas ?

The idea that "savage" being often offensive in how it is used is somehow limited to, I dunno, America, or some part of America is simply incorrect. Surprising that someone who thinks so highly of their abilities with English isn't aware of this.

Being aware that a minority is pushing their ideas does not mean that I agree with it spreading all over the world.

In the end, too, D&D is a game produced in a specific country by a specific culture, and will inevitably be influenced primarily by that culture and its attitudes.

My my my, isn't that extremely nationalist as aa view ? Are you sure that this aligns with an inclusive view of the game ?

The idea that it could exist in some ethereal "international" space, somehow floating above actual countries and culture is not a rational one.

My, how inclusive ! This really confirms my view of the subject, you only want to push YOUR personal views and that of a minority. I, on the other hand, would very much like to have D&D be really inclusive, to be played with friends all over the world, as I have actually done in 4 continents. And for that, I really don't need good words used all over the world to be distorted by narrow, specific, nationalists views. It does not help.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Proof that it is a "large proportion of English speakers" ? And not just a minority of people trying to push their ideas ?



Being aware that a minority is pushing their ideas does not mean that I agree with it spreading all over the world.



My my my, isn't that extremely nationalist as aa view ? Are you sure that this aligns with an inclusive view of the game ?



My, how inclusive ! This really confirms my view of the subject, you only want to push YOUR personal views and that of a minority. I, on the other hand, would very much like to have D&D be really inclusive, to be played with friends all over the world, as I have actually done in 4 continents. And for that, I really don't need good words used all over the world to be distorted by narrow, specific, nationalists views. It does not help.

So do you have any actual argument for your position?

It seems like you are:

1) Demanding proof despite your failure to offer any. That's worthless, especially given you were the one making the original assertion.

2) Making weird assertions about my views on "inclusiveness" and "nationalism" that make no sense. No, it's not "nationalist" to point out that a specific culture is the primary influence on D&D. It's ignorant and silly to not acknowledge that. It's precisely the kind of issue you're complaining about, actually - people being unrealistic - and you're being completely unrealistic.

You talk about "good words used all over the world", but you're deeply ignorant about the real-world usage of these words, like painfully so, among primary English-speakers, and you apparently don't understand that those words have been debased to the point of uselessness, despite me pointing out at length.

3) Ad-hominem attacks on my character. I've avoided commenting on your character or intentions. I don't know what they are. But you are clearly ignorant about these issues.

As an aside, this is not the first time I've seen a European who spoke excellent English and was highly educated repeatedly assert that he "knew better" than actual primary English speakers, and then rely on dictionary definitions to try and make his point, failing to comprehend that dictionary definitions often lag decades behind real-world usage and/or fail to include idiom or "novel" usage (even if that usage is decades or in some cases centuries old). It's always a little sad, but I'm sure primary English-speakers have done it to others far more often! Indeed I did once see a British guy trying to insist he was using a Japanese word correctly over multiple actual Japanese people say "Nope...".