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

[Baron Opal II]

Convenient way to shift blame from the creators of the actual IP, that.

I'd imagine because it ignores that the original writers are the ones who decided that certain races are Always Evil or Always Good in the first place.

No, it doesn't. It's a statement of personal responsibility for the game you run from the materials you purchased.

There is this weird dichotomy in these discussions. It's either all one way or the other.

• Yes, there are gaming books or resources that have objectional or inappropriate content by today's standard.
• Yes, this should be addressed. There are several avenues for such, from individual to corporate.
• Yes, each table, who are presumably a group of friends or at least friendly strangers, should have a conversation about what is important to them. This not only includes what they want from a game but also what they consider objectionable or insulting.
• Yes, each DM, who is the major content creator as well as rules arbiter, has final say in how they wish to run their game. It is they who pick and choose each element and how those elements are expressed. Shockingly, the DM might actually change what is in the books to more align them with their vision of the game. This might even include removing or adjusting thing deemed objectionable by themselves or others.
• Yes, the players can walk away at anytime. Preferably first stating that certain things are objectionable or insulting and giving the DM an opportunity to address these issues.
• Yes, a D&D game which is equal parts communication and random determination should have communication about these issues. Hopefully, this increases the player pool and gives me more opportunity to run games well into my dotage.
• Yes, I have absolutely no say in what or how you run your game. Unless I'm playing- then I hope you would listen to my concerns.

Happy?

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, it doesn't. It's a statement of personal responsibility for the game you run from the materials you purchased.

The problem is that 'personal responsibility' is usually just a shield used to dodge social responsibility. The book can explicitly tell the kid that something is cool and they should do it, but that's okay because parents clearly have perfect mind control over their kids to prevent outside influences.

• Yes, there are gaming books or resources that have objectional or inappropriate content by today's standard.
• Yes, this should be addressed. There are several avenues for such, from individual to corporate.
• Yes, each table, who are presumably a group of friends or at least friendly strangers, should have a conversation about what is important to them. This not only includes what they want from a game but also what they consider objectionable or insulting.
• Yes, each DM, who is the major content creator as well as rules arbiter, has final say in how they wish to run their game. It is they who pick and choose each element and how those elements are expressed. Shockingly, the DM might actually change what is in the books to more align them with their vision of the game. This might even include removing or adjusting thing deemed objectionable by themselves or others.
• Yes, the players can walk away at anytime. Preferably first stating that certain things are objectionable or insulting and giving the DM an opportunity to address these issues.
• Yes, a D&D game which is equal parts communication and random determination should have communication about these issues. Hopefully, this increases the player pool and gives me more opportunity to run games well into my dotage.
• Yes, I have absolutely no say in what or how you run your game. Unless I'm playing- then I hope you would listen to my concerns.

Happy?

The issue is that it's a given a DM can fix things, but 1) what happens when the DM is either cool with it or ignorant? 2) Why should they have to when the creators could just take some responsibility themselves, and 3) DMs learn to DM either from books or playing in games themselves. If the books teach them these things, they don't know to not do that.

 

[Baron Opal II]

The problem is that 'personal responsibility' is usually just a shield used to dodge social responsibility. The book can explicitly tell the kid that something is cool and they should do it, but that's okay because parents clearly have perfect mind control over their kids to prevent outside influences.


The issue is that it's a given a DM can fix things, but 1) what happens when the DM is either cool with it or ignorant? 2) Why should they have to when the creators could just take some responsibility themselves, and 3) DMs learn to DM either from books or playing in games themselves. If the books teach them these things, they don't know to not do that.

1) Then I guess they need to listen to their players when they state they have a problem with it.
2) Already stated, point 2, barring time machines.
3) Seriously? What are the first books you think are going to be used to learn how to play D&D in 2022? You think the 5e PHB, MM, DMG are problematic to the point of serious revision?

 

[nevin]

The argument that leaves it all in the DMs hands misses the point.

Do dm’s never use a module? Setting book? Never use any published material?

Putting it all on dms means that you expect every dm to vet every single thing they use at the table.

That’s not reasonable. After all the reverse also works. Dms can certainly over rule published works at their table so not having monolithic evil races in no way affects the role of the dm.

The game is and always has been the game that isn't a video game. That means yes the DM running the game decides. Does it suck when players come to your table with a book and you have to tell them no they can't play thier overpowered class that doesn't fit the game. yes. But that's part of the job. The DM prepares the game, decides what is allowed and what isn't, and makes rulings when the rules don't fit the crazy stuff the players want to do. If you want rules for every situation play an MMO. In my experience most people play D&D because they can do crazy naughty word they can't do in WOW or Final Fantasy.

Now I will admit this causes a problem. Inexperienced DM's need help and and supplements that give them training wheels. And it empowers the narcississtic I'm writing a book and/or everyone is going to do what I want because I have a vision. But the only solution for the second is find another game. You can't write enough rules to make those games fun.

 

[Faolyn]

No, it doesn't. It's a statement of personal responsibility for the game you run from the materials you purchased.

I'm going to disagree, because of this:

There is this weird dichotomy in these discussions. It's either all one way or the other.

• Yes, there are gaming books or resources that have objectional or inappropriate content by today's standard.
• Yes, this should be addressed. There are several avenues for such, from individual to corporate.

Because it is up to the company to not produce objectionable or inappropriate elements. Or to expect me to not purchase their material, if it is objectionable or inappropriate.

This isn't the same as having to rewrite material to suit your vision or interests. I always end up rewriting things because it doesn't match up to what I want--like half the reason my Curse of Strahd game is taking so long is I've had to rewrite half the material to (a) make it match up with my preferred vision of Ravenloft and (b) to make it actually creepy instead of just kinda there.

Sure, the DM should be doing the work to make sure the game fits the needs of the players, especially if any of the players have any issues that need to be avoided in-game. But this, as I said, is not the same thing as the company not including objectionable or inappropriate elements in the first place.

To go back to what I was talking about, the writers decided that certain races were there to be killed for XP (or so they could be looted so that the gold would give XP) without guilt or possible alignment change. Because of this, over the editions, other writers kept expanding on just how awful these races were--yes, mostly orcs and drow, but others as well. And some writers relied on stereotypes when dealing with fantasy races, because it's easy to write, or because it makes it easier for players to grok it. And as a result, we have always evil races that were/are baked in stereotypes. And now, it's up to WotC to correct that, because it's their property.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

. You can't write enough rules to make those games fun.

No but you can hold the writers to a basic standard that the don’t write racist, misogynistic, bigoted, hurtful things and then wash their hands of it and place all the responsibility on the consumer to sort through it.

Community standards exist for a reason. We don’t allow child pornography for a very good reason. Which means that it is justified to hold publishers to some standard. The issue is basically where to draw the line. Not that the line exists at all.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Because it is up to the company to not produce objectionable or inappropriate elements. Or to expect me to not purchase their material, if it is objectionable or inappropriate.

And you don't think I said that? Is that not a corporate avenue to address the problem?

I'm sorry, I guess I made too broad or abstruse statement. Forgive me for not agreeing strongly enough for you.

 

[Bohandas]

If the thing that is being represented isn't meant to be understood broadly as human, then you're welcome to do whatever since we have no truly other real world race to compare them to and thus judge the verisimilitude of their representation.

So the orcs, elves, drow, etc are fine then

 

[Bohandas]

Yes, it reminds me of the 19th century European categorization of Africa as "The Dark Continent." The idea that Africa, particularly the congo, was "undiscovered" and "unexplored" (by Europeans). That it was mysterious, alluring and yet dangerous, and yes "savage" and "primitive" and in need of (European) civilization.



View attachment 150901

Early pulp literature took up and ran with these ideas, creating a fantastical version of Africa for rapt European readers. For example, in the novels of the extremely popular author, H Rider Haggard, whose stories told of lost worlds deep in the "heart" of Africa, underground and ruled over by tyrants and witches, but holding great and ancient treasure. Sound familiar?

View attachment 150902

Of course, as you probably know, this was accompanied by the real and quite horrific conquest of African territory by European powers, with Belgium and France taking the congo. Immortalized by Joseph Conrad's rapacious general Kurtz, who, in order to bring said "civilization" to the congo, thinks he must "exterminate the brutes!"

But surely these are old and old-fashioned ideas, right? Surely no 21st century person would still hold that African countries are "primitive" in the sense of not being contemporary and modern, or that African people are somehow immune to progress? Well, except here is French prime minister Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007:


So, to bring this back around to Tomb of Annihilation and fantasy Africa in rpgs: it means that the use of terms like "primitive" and "savage" are not innocent, that the full meanings and connotations of those words point to a fairly recent and very disturbing history, one that continues to affect the fortunes of people around the world. It does not mean that fantasy Africa cannot be done correctly, or even that ToA or the pathfinder products are bad in this regard, but that exercising editorial discretion, which they should have done from the beginning with ToA, is prudent and helpful for anyone seeking to make an inclusive product.

"Primitive" and "savage" are also the words I would use to describe 19th century Europe.

I don't think most of my countrymen are having their opinions seriously shaped by a bunch of barbarians pooping in buckets 200 years ago and halfway across the world.

EDIT:
I'm referring to the colonial powers, if that wasn't clear.

 

[gamerprinter]

Granted I developed the races for my Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror (PFRPG) from 2010 to 2017, over multiple supplements, so not as recent as when these controversies have come about. And mentioned on the is OA racist thread, due to my Japanese heritage, trips to Japan, regular contact with my Japanese relatives, and as many gamers I read extensively history and folklore. So while I enjoyed OA to some degree, I knew it contained a lot of mistakes and concepts taken out of context - it never seriously bothered me, I just always knew I would fix it myself someday in the future, which I eventually did). So while I had to find means to adapt the folklore to playable mechanics for Pathfinder, I avoided all stereotypes and only looked at the original source material for kappa, henge, tengu, kitsune, koropokuru (Ainu folklore) and same-bito (shark shapechanger). I avoided anything sourced that was created in the 20th century, only looking at 19th century or earilier material. I was shooting for authenticity, or at least as close as I could get.

None of the critical thinking involved from the original post in this thread even crossed my mind as I was creating all this. (Nor does it for anything I create now - I never have the issues being complained about, I don't go there).