D&D General DnD Stereotypes In The Home Game

[doctorbadwolf]

They come up in threads all the time, but I have a wonder.

That is, how often do the various stereotypes of DnD actually play out in your home games?

Now, that’s a very broad question, so I’ll throw out some examples of what I mean.

1) Dwarves and Elves are racist toward each other

2) Half-orcs whose parents love each other are a rare exception, or even just nonexistent.

3) Halflings are just hobbits.

4) Villagers will literally attack “ugly” races on sight, even if they aren’t doing anything threatening and are well groomed and dressed. Ugly here means “monstrous” or otherwise very very not human (anything from Gnolls to Dragonborn)

Likewise, how have you rejected or subverted the stereotypes in your games?

 

[Shiroiken]

Halflings are hobbits, except they don't live in hobbit holes (they living in buildings like humans, albeit smaller). Otherwise, this is a pretty accurate list for my Gygaxian Greyhawk campaign. Of course, the race relations are far more nuanced, based not just on race, but also sub-race and culture (except half-orcs, everyone hates them).

Edit: current Ghosts of Saltmarsh campaign has only 2 normal characters (human and elf, both fairly local). There's an Aasimar, but they're hard to detect as different than humans. The Githyanki is given a wide birth, due to height and skin color, but most assume he's Baklunish (human ethnicity to the northwest). The Triton has caused quite a stir, with most people referring to him as the fish-man or mistaking him for a sea elf. The Firbolg caused a lot of problems, but the party vouched for him (he joined the campaign late and they met him on an adventure). They're an odd group, but since they've managed to keep from being seen as threats, they've gained at least a level of acceptance... for the moment.

 

[Unwise]

Most settings have some animosity between elves and dwarves, but it is cultural, not racial. You will find those that dwell in mostly human lands seldom have such prejudices. Its easy to be racist in a remote settlement, much harder in a cosmopolitan city.

Halflings come in distinct varieties. The river folk, gypsies and hobbits pretty much. Once again, their predilections are cultural, not racial.

Half-orcs are almost always a distinct racial group, they generally hate being called "half-orc". They have their own cultures, generally based around Kord worship. I play some as closer in culture to Warcraft Orcs.

Villagers are generally xenophobic, regardless of what exactly you look like. If they have not seen somebody like you before, they don't want you there. Whether that is because you are a cleric of a god they don't know, a 'feral' druid, an obvious magician, non-human looking or some sort of fey, come to swap their babies out for changelings.
By making the default village xenophobic, PCs tend to care about the ones that are nice to them e.g. places I want them to save from baddies. It also offers more realism and makes being a drow a meaningful and character defining choice.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t agree at all that making the default villager xenophobic adds realism, but I love seeing folks worlds and preferences!

I’ll add my own tomorrow or the next day.

 

[Thakazum]

Humans are xenophobic towards other humans in the real world. Why would they treat monstrous races better?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Humans are xenophobic towards other humans in the real world. Why would they treat monstrous races better?

Not interested. Feel free to start a thread on the topic.

 

[Charlaquin]

1) Dwarves and Elves are racist toward each other

In my setting, there’s no particular animosity between dwarves and non-drow elves. Individual elves and dwarves may have their own opinions about the other race of course, but there’s no bad blood between their cultures. Dwarves and drow do frequently clash though.

2) Half-orcs whose parents love each other are a rare exception, or even just nonexistent.

Half orcs aren’t a thing in my setting. The half-orc racial traits are used for orc PCs, and the orcish Aggressive trait is an Orc racial feat.

3) Halflings are just hobbits.

This is an in-universe stereotype in my games. I’ll admit I got the idea from Scarred Lands, but I loved it so much I took it pretty much wholesale for my own setting, though I did elaborate on it a bit. In short, there has been a long history of halfling enslavement, and the idea of halflings as jolly, slightly dim, provincial folk who love nothing more than the simple, rural life on the farm was largely invented to soften the image of the halfling slave. The barefoot thing is a particularly egregious example, where slave-owners excused not providing their halfling slaves with proper footwear by making up nonsense about naturally leathery soles. Although slavery is less prevalent now than it was before the fall of Bael Turath, these misconceptions about halflings are still widespread, and most people don’t realize their oppressive origins.

4) Villagers will literally attack “ugly” races on sight, even if they aren’t doing anything threatening and are well groomed and dressed. Ugly here means “monstrous” or otherwise very very not human (anything from Gnolls to Dragonborn)

Definitely not the case in my games. Orcs are actually pretty well-integrated into “civilized” society, and while they have a reputation for being dumb and brutish, there would be no reason to attack them unless you knew they were part of a hostile tribe. They occupy basically the same conceptual space as half-orcs do in standard D&D. Dragonborn are a rare sight, and certainly intimidating, but they have a reputation for being a noble, if proud, race, and are generally viewed with awe rather than hatred. Tieflings are an embarrassing reminder of humanity’s dark and more-recent-than-we-like-to-admit past, and their diabolic traits carry connotations of inbred Turathi nobility. But while they’re not exactly popular, many Tiefling families still hold a fair bit of wealth and power, and there are still a lot of Turathi sympathizers. At any rate, they are far from kill-on-sight. Gnolls are probably the closest to kill-on-sight you’d be likely to find in my setting. They are broadly seen as bloodthirsty savages by most of “civilized” society, but there are gnoll tribes with non-hostile relations with other peoples. Seeing a gnoll in one’s town would certainly put most people on edge, but if they’re not there with a raiding party, you can safely assume they aren’t there to cause trouble.

Likewise, how have you rejected or subverted the stereotypes in your games?

A lot of the common tropes about the standard fantasy races are stereotypes in my setting, although not all are nearly as harmful as halfling stereotypes. For instance, any given dwarf is no more likely to be a miner or a blacksmith than any given member of any other race, and they don’t particularly favor ale over other drinks. But the largest Dwarven settlements are in mountainous regions, which make precious metals an abundant resource for export and grain a highly demanded import; they also don’t mint coins, trading instead with raw materials by weight. So, the typical commoner from a human settlement could be forgiven for thinking of dwarves as a race of miners and craftsmen with an unhealthy obsession with ale when the only time he’s ever seen a dwarf was that time a group of them came by and traded a bunch of silver bric-a-brac for a few wagonloads of hops.

 

[Bawylie]

In my games, the NPCs are typical representatives of their faction, nation, religion, organization, or species.

Essentially, I use one NPC as a stand-in for the rest so that the players get a sense of what they’re all like. Because the NPC is a symbol for the larger group to whom they belong.

Now, when I have two or more NPCs from the same group (currently I’ve got about a half dozen NPC tagalong cohorts from the adventurer’s guild in one game, and the thieves’ guild in another game), then I differentiate them or silo them into expertises. One does the sneak attacking, one does the artillery, one does the melee, one is a smith, one is a healer, etc.

I do rely on stereotypes in the home game, but in fairness, I think of it more like archetypes.

 

[Imaculata]

In my current campaign, dwarves don't mine for gems, but they are experts at exploring the deep sea. They build steampowered submarines and use naval mines in combat. They also don't like being called 'dwarves'. They are after all a race of people (humans like the rest of us).

 

[aco175]

A lot of my home campaign plays to the typical. The PCs can play against it. It makes a baseline for each race and the individuals in each race can play against it. The players are surprised and suspicious when the orc wants to trade and talk over attack, or the halfling is not trying to pick their pocket. It also crosses etiquette in that if a noble was laying out a table for diner, then everyone knows to not sit the dwarf next to the elf, unless there was a plot thread for getting them into conflict.

 

[Mournblade94]

When I'm playing D&D I stick to the classic fantasy tropes. If I want to depart from that I'll play the Elder SCrolls Unofficial RPG. THe elderscrolls has a good way of breaking racial stereotypes. I like it for that world and that world alone. I generally don't see the point in changing the racial tropes.

 

[Jer]

1) Dwarves and Elves are racist toward each other

Pretty much never. Depending on the players at the table dwarves and elves may not understand each other or may be the best of friends.

2) Half-orcs whose parents love each other are a rare exception, or even just nonexistent.

Don't tend to have orcs in our games at all these days, though we do have hobgoblins and goblins. Players can be a hobgoblin if they want, and we use the half-orc rules for it when we do.

3) Halflings are just hobbits.

Nope. Not since the 90s. My tables have taken the 3e conception of the halfling and pretty much embraced it and never looked back.

4) Villagers will literally attack “ugly” races on sight, even if they aren’t doing anything threatening and are well groomed and dressed. Ugly here means “monstrous” or otherwise very very not human (anything from Gnolls to Dragonborn)

I think literally the only time I've ever used this trope - which I don't even identify as a D&D trope - was in a Ravenloft game that I ran in the 90s. To me this is a Universal Monster Movie trope.

I tend to run games that have lots of nonhuman character types available, and worlds where those types of folks are the norm and not the exception. Rakasta, Lupin, Kobolds and Lizard-men were part of my BECMI D&D games even before "official" rules came out for them, for example, and so were an accepted part of the world.

Likewise, how have you rejected or subverted the stereotypes in your games?

We've gotten rid of the idea that some groups are born evil. The only creatures that are defined as evil by something other than their own actions are the ones that are supernaturally evil - demons and devils for the most part, and some of the undead - though even there the devils are what they are because of their own choices and sometimes the undead are as well.

We've also mostly gotten rid of the ideas of "racial pantheons" and nations built along racial lines - where you're born is more important for determining which gods you're going to worship or which king you're going to owe your allegiance to. Our local "elf queen of the deep forest", for example, has subjects who are human, who are goblin, who are halfling, and even dwarves because, well, that's where they live. They live within her sphere of influence, so she's their queen.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DWChancellor]

I generally DM with a smidge of the "stereotypes" because it is a common language and expectation that players have across a broad range of ages. Lots of basis for drama. Subverting tropes also works better if you generally use them. More stories that way.

Personally I love playing haughty high elves because they're so ridiculous. I just imagine +1s at Davos.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My PC, Flaming Helen, who tries to solve any problem by "burning it with fire", was intended as a pastiche of the fireball-happy wizard.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my setting, there’s no particular animosity between dwarves and non-drow elves. Individual elves and dwarves may have their own opinions about the other race of course, but there’s no bad blood between their cultures. Dwarves and drow do frequently clash though.


Half orcs aren’t a thing in my setting. The half-orc racial traits are used for orc PCs, and the orcish Aggressive trait is an Orc racial feat.


This is an in-universe stereotype in my games. I’ll admit I got the idea from Scarred Lands, but I loved it so much I took it pretty much wholesale for my own setting, though I did elaborate on it a bit. In short, there has been a long history of halfling enslavement, and the idea of halflings as jolly, slightly dim, provincial folk who love nothing more than the simple, rural life on the farm was largely invented to soften the image of the halfling slave. The barefoot thing is a particularly egregious example, where slave-owners excused not providing their halfling slaves with proper footwear by making up nonsense about naturally leathery soles. Although slavery is less prevalent now than it was before the fall of Bael Turath, these misconceptions about halflings are still widespread, and most people don’t realize their oppressive origins.


Definitely not the case in my games. Orcs are actually pretty well-integrated into “civilized” society, and while they have a reputation for being dumb and brutish, there would be no reason to attack them unless you knew they were part of a hostile tribe. They occupy basically the same conceptual space as half-orcs do in standard D&D. Dragonborn are a rare sight, and certainly intimidating, but they have a reputation for being a noble, if proud, race, and are generally viewed with awe rather than hatred. Tieflings are an embarrassing reminder of humanity’s dark and more-recent-than-we-like-to-admit past, and their diabolic traits carry connotations of inbred Turathi nobility. But while they’re not exactly popular, many Tiefling families still hold a fair bit of wealth and power, and there are still a lot of Turathi sympathizers. At any rate, they are far from kill-on-sight. Gnolls are probably the closest to kill-on-sight you’d be likely to find in my setting. They are broadly seen as bloodthirsty savages by most of “civilized” society, but there are gnoll tribes with non-hostile relations with other peoples. Seeing a gnoll in one’s town would certainly put most people on edge, but if they’re not there with a raiding party, you can safely assume they aren’t there to cause trouble.


A lot of the common tropes about the standard fantasy races are stereotypes in my setting, although not all are nearly as harmful as halfling stereotypes. For instance, any given dwarf is no more likely to be a miner or a blacksmith than any given member of any other race, and they don’t particularly favor ale over other drinks. But the largest Dwarven settlements are in mountainous regions, which make precious metals an abundant resource for export and grain a highly demanded import; they also don’t mint coins, trading instead with raw materials by weight. So, the typical commoner from a human settlement could be forgiven for thinking of dwarves as a race of miners and craftsmen with an unhealthy obsession with ale when the only time he’s ever seen a dwarf was that time a group of them came by and traded a bunch of silver bric-a-brac for a few wagonloads of hops.

That sounds pretty fun!

I think literally the only time I've ever used this trope - which I don't even identify as a D&D trope - was in a Ravenloft game that I ran in the 90s. To me this is a Universal Monster Movie trope.

I tend to run games that have lots of nonhuman character types available, and worlds where those types of folks are the norm and not the exception. Rakasta, Lupin, Kobolds and Lizard-men were part of my BECMI D&D games even before "official" rules came out for them, for example, and so were an accepted part of the world.



We've gotten rid of the idea that some groups are born evil. The only creatures that are defined as evil by something other than their own actions are the ones that are supernaturally evil - demons and devils for the most part, and some of the undead - though even there the devils are what they are because of their own choices and sometimes the undead are as well.

We've also mostly gotten rid of the ideas of "racial pantheons" and nations built along racial lines - where you're born is more important for determining which gods you're going to worship or which king you're going to owe your allegiance to. Our local "elf queen of the deep forest", for example, has subjects who are human, who are goblin, who are halfling, and even dwarves because, well, that's where they live. They live within her sphere of influence, so she's their queen.

That all sounds a lot like my home game! My halflings are a bit more 4e with hints of kender, because I like gnomes more than halflings and I want them to be more different from each other, but otherwise, yeah.

Especially the nation/religions thing. There are elements of a given race having originated a faith, philosophy, or founded a nation, but ethnostates are extremely rare in my games.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, I don't know if "racist" (with the connotations that we have in our society) exactly captures the correct archetypes from standard D&D.

If you look back at ye olde racial preferences table, you'll see that the classic Gygaxian Elf modeled the idea of the haughty, proud, withdrawn elf (ahem .... Tolkien! Muahahahahahaha) that barely tolerates any race. Half elves .. fine. Everyone else, not so much.

From there, I think you get a better understanding of the antipathy between dwarves and elves in a TSR/D&D setting (classic archetype). It's clearly not racism, nor outright combat; after all, you often have elves and dwarves in the same party.

In RL terms, it's more like ... eh, fans of rival football teams in a place where it means a lot. Say, Auburn and Alabama.

Both races, being long-lived, and (again, in a classic setting) arguably past their prime and no longer dominant compared to the younger, faster-breeding and more risk-taking races, hold on to some commonalities (we are better than others) and some ideas about their differences that we can often see reflected in classic stories (city mouse, country mouse).

In short, it's not "racism," more as it is competition and ingrained performative dislike. Which varies from individual to individual.




So .... I have to admit, unless a player stresses their parentage as part of their backstory (ex. - scion of nobility looking to restore the family name, yada yada yada), it rarely comes up in campaigns.

But players are responsible for crafting their own backstories.



In my hobbit hole do I wanna stay
Dragon's hoard is real makes me wanna steal
In a hill is my house guess I'm living like a mouse
All's I gots is time Gollum's riddles tend to rhyme

Take time with Sauron's ring cause I like to steal
Take time with Sauron's ring 'cause it will conceal
Take time with Sauron's ring cause I like to steal

I like to steal
I'm half the man I used to be (a hobbit is a halfling)
Well, I'm half the man I used to be (a hobbit is a halfling)
Well, I'm half the man I used to be ((a hobbit is a halfling)
Well, I'm half the man I used to be
Half the man I used to be



So, this isn't how most people would describe this archetype. "Villagers" don't attack things that are "ugly."

People that live in areas that are under regular attack, for example, will be suspicious (or hostile) toward things that are either unfamiliar to them, or familiar as being hostile to them. But this is always context-dependent.

The easiest way to understand this archetype is to flip it; if you enter a "traditional" gnoll encampment with a primarily human party, what is the reaction likely to be?

Okay, let's take this another step. Same traditional gnoll encampment, but you have a mixed party, that includes "monstrous races" but also includes a traditional elf (not a drow). How will the gnolls react to the elf?

In other words, campaigns can (and do!) have all sorts of non-traditional, non-archetypal racial relations. But to the extent that you have some friction between various races, there will be that type of friction reflected in the party as well, and players should understand that when choosing their races- a race isn't just a grab bag of abilities, but has meaning in the world.

Of course, most settings have frontier areas and/or large cosmopolitan cities where this is less of a problem, and individuals can always gain the trust of communities.



It's not my job to reject or subvert stereotypes. I always welcome players who do that!

You seem to be operating under the belief that I need these tropes explained to me. I hope I’ve misunderstood your intent, because I very much do not.

In general, I’m not going to engage with responses to me that are thick with nitpicking my wording (“ugly” was explained in the OP to refer to the less human-looking races), but there is a point in there that can be addressed while ignoring the nitpick.

Rather a lot of internet commenters day that in their worlds, a gnoll or goblinoid or orc will likely be attacked/driven out of town, even if they seem to be there to rent a room at the inn for a night or do some trading or whatever.
That is what I described.

In my campaign, a mixed party or a party of humans walking into a Gnoll camp is going to be stopped by sentries and asked what their business is. They’ll be reminded that this isn’t a town, it is a camp where families are gathered to rest and do the work that needs doing before moving on, and walking in unannounced is rather like barging into someone’s home.

If the party announces themselves within earshot of the camp, and requests entry, and state a legitimate purpose like trade, a need for shelter and a willingness to provide work or goods in return, or that they’re looking for Fhen Gurha the Elder, to take her council, they’ll be admitted with maybe a warning/reminder of the rules of hospitality.

Pretty much the same as many of the nomadic humans of the setting. Likewise, a Gnoll walking into a human town is just...a person walking into a town. Whether I’m running homebrew or FR, or Eberron, or Dragonlance.

A group of 20 Gnolls carrying nothing but weapons? That’s a worry. But...the same would be true of humans, right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This cannot be emphasized enough.

The reason tropes (referred to as stereotypes in the OP) work so well is because they resonate deeply. In fact, the power of subverting a trope only works to the extent that a trope is well-established; think back on something as simple as Pulp Fiction; the way that the movie succeeded was both in how it played into genre ("pulp") tropes, and in how it subverted them.

There is power in both myth, and in the subversion of expectations. That doesn't mean that you have to play either to, or against, type, but to be dismissive of that entirely is to lose sight of why these tropes (and subversion of same) have power.

Not all tropes are good or useful.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*