Does DnD encourage racist thinking?

[NoOneofConsequence]

OK, that's a provocative topic but this is not an excuse for meaningless debate or flaming.

What I'm hoping to discuss is the way in which races are used to categorise enemies and monsters, as well as characters.

IRL we know it's racist to attribute characteristics to a person just because of their skin clour or other gross biological features.

But in gaming, we happily make dwarves good at mining; elves flighty and frivolous; orcs and mind flayers are evil; green dragons are evil - blue dragons are good.

So, is this racist thinking? Could it be changed? How? Is it even a problem? Am I just asking a really dumb question?

Also - I absolutely do not want any RW racist propoganda or unnecessary annecdotes of abusiveness. I've offended Morrus' grandma once already in the last twenty four hours and I don't want to be responsible for another locked thread.

 

[Crothian]

I don't think it does. It's one think to say dwarves are good miners, but when their stats in the PHB actually support this it makes it fact. Also, evil and good are absolutes and many times determined by the gods. It might at times become cliched, but not racist.

 

[Ravellion]

I think that depends more on the game the DM is running than the core rulebooks.

I've noticed that games which have many grey areas between good and evil often also have races be different things thatn their streotypes.

In games that are basically "whack the Orc", all Orcs seem to be evil, and all elves seem to be opposed by them,

Rav

 

[SableWyvern]

So, is this racist thinking?

Technically, yes. From the negative, commonly used sense not really, because the thinking is correct.

Could it be changed? How?

Ummm...remove racial stereotypes.

Is it even a problem? Am I just asking a really dumb question?

IMHO, No and Yes respectively.



As to the questions of in game racism relating to real-world racism, I don't think I can comment on this particular board without at least stretching the rules...so I won't.

 

[Lizard]

OK, that's a provocative topic but this is not an excuse for meaningless debate or flaming.

What I'm hoping to discuss is the way in which races are used to categorise enemies and monsters, as well as characters.

IRL we know it's racist to attribute characteristics to a person just because of their skin clour or other gross biological features.

But in gaming, we happily make dwarves good at mining; elves flighty and frivolous; orcs and mind flayers are evil; green dragons are evil - blue dragons are good.
.

Racism is the assignation of FALSE traits. It is not racist to note that people of sub-saharan African descent are prone to anemia or that European Jews are prone to tay-sachs, for example.

Also, elves and dwarves aren't merely different races, they are different *species*.

Is Dwarven mining skill cultural, or is it somehow genetic? Did the gods who made the dwarves 'build in' knowledge of how to mine, so a dwarf raised by humans on a prairie with no visible mountains would still know how to swing a pick and shore up a tunnel, if he found himself having to do so? If so, then, it is hardly 'racist' to note this fact. Likewise, if 99.9999% of the dwarves in the world are raised underground and are taught to mine from their earliest years, it would not be an act of ignorance to suspect that a random dwarf you meet was a skilled miner.

Lastly, realize the the role of 'aliens' in fiction is to usually amplify or highlight a single trait. Fully-rounded aliens are very rare in fiction; most of them can be defined in a sentence. (And, of course, humans are likewise singly defined:"Adaptable", "Curious", "Unspecialized", or the like)

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Re: Re: Does DnD encourage racist thinking?

Racism is the assignation of FALSE traits. It is not racist to note that people of sub-saharan African descent are prone to anemia or that European Jews are prone to tay-sachs, for example.

Also, elves and dwarves aren't merely different races, they are different *species*.

Is Dwarven mining skill cultural, or is it somehow genetic? Did the gods who made the dwarves 'build in' knowledge of how to mine, so a dwarf raised by humans on a prairie with no visible mountains would still know how to swing a pick and shore up a tunnel, if he found himself having to do so? If so, then, it is hardly 'racist' to note this fact. Likewise, if 99.9999% of the dwarves in the world are raised underground and are taught to mine from their earliest years, it would not be an act of ignorance to suspect that a random dwarf you meet was a skilled miner.

Lastly, realize the the role of 'aliens' in fiction is to usually amplify or highlight a single trait. Fully-rounded aliens are very rare in fiction; most of them can be defined in a sentence. (And, of course, humans are likewise singly defined:"Adaptable", "Curious", "Unspecialized", or the like)

Thanks for this - I guess this question has been worrying at me a bit and I just needed to see if there were other perspectives. This especially helps.

 

[Desdichado]

To me, assigning false stereotypes to a race is a symptom of racism, not the definition of it. The definition of racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another.

In that sense, yes, D&D can often be racist. Orcs and goblins are inherently inferior to, say, elves or dwarves. However, I don't much see how it matters as there's no such thing as orcs and goblins to be offended at the racism of so many players.

But this also goes back to our "inherent morality of D&D" thread of a few weeks or so ago. If you want to use D&D to symbolize real-world situations, then that's fine, but I don't think a game of "hack the orc" really does that in any way.

That said, I like to break racial stereotypes as much as possible. I rarely make orcs evil, just barbaric. But I often do it with the "noble savage" archetype that was so popular in the Victorian era when applied to the Germanic peoples who brought down the civilized but decadent Rome, or when describing the prevailing opinion of the native inhabitants of North America. Other times, my orcs aren't even savage at all.

 

[WayneLigon]

Preface with: every campaign is going to vary. But this is how, IMO, most games and the rule book deal with it.

In my campaign, many of the humanoid races are more neutralish, since one of the specific things I wanted was a lot of humanoids mingling with humans in the large cities. A lot of them don't like humans at all and most orcs will kill a human on sight. That's because the last human empire used orcs as slaves, and most orcs are descended from those slaves. They turned to evil gods to free them, and still carry on that worship today.

Now, as far as how it usually works....

No, I don't think it is racist. Most races in D&D, unlike in our real world, are usually hand-made by their patron deities - often for a specific purpose. Just off hand, I can't think of a race that does not have a patron diety.

Dwarves are good at mining, instead of just being trained for it. Take a dwarf at birth, stick him on a sailing ship his entire life, never even let him see the land until he's 70 or so. Put him ashore and take him into a cave, and he still has the Stonecutting ability.

Orcs are similar, but not exact. They are 'Usually chaotic evil', meaning that once in a great while you're going to get an orc that just isn't into the whole cruelty/torture/eat people thing. A Sahuagin on the other hand, is always Lawful Evil. Born that way, die that way. Why? Because their gods wish it that way; the thing that breathed life into them wanted an evil creature to carry out it's work and desires on the material plane, and that's what it got.

See, the thing is that technically it's NOT racist at all to do this. Because dwarves, orcs, all the rest, are not human. They are another entire species, something we in RL have no experience at dealing with. Who knows what aliens will be like?

Humans are all one species, despite a few minor biological traits brought about by genetic drift and relative isolation over millions of years (blacks more susceptible to sickle cell anemia, asians more prone to be lactose intolerant, etc). Though, actually, the PH does give humans some racial traits. We're more likely to try new things than dwarves, elves, etc. We get more skills, and more feats, than any other race. We are also capable of interbreeding with orcs and elves.

 

[Desdichado]

See, the thing is that technically it's NOT racist at all to do this. Because dwarves, orcs, all the rest, are not human. They are another entire species, something we in RL have no experience at dealing with. Who knows what aliens will be like? ... We are also capable of interbreeding with orcs and elves.

You do realize, don't you, that those two statements are incompatible? If humans can interbreed with elves and orcs, then they -- by definition -- can be sub-species of the same species at the most, if even that. Unless, of course, in your campaign half-orcs and half-elves are sterile mules. But even then, that would probably make them members of the same genus, so it'd be hard to call them totally alien.

 

[ajanders]

Species definitions

"You do realize, don't you, that those two statements are incompatible? If humans can interbreed with elves and orcs, then they -- by definition -- can be sub-species of the same species at the most, if even that."

Well, yes, but elves and orcs can't interbreed with each other...at least not in the core rulebooks, so clearly they're not in the same species at all.
With the right feats, of course, you could create an elf-blooded half-orc, but I think that would probably be pretty silly and not the same mechanical implementation of the situation at all.