Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 9140588" data-attributes="member: 7023887">Do I think it's hyperbolic to say that "D&D having official lore be that the most prominent dark skinned race in the game has black skin because they were cursed by a good god for being evil is racist"? No, absolutely not. I think it's hyperbolic to read my post and come to the conclusion that I think any kind of skin-color changing curse is racist. If a pixie got offended by a party member and temporarily turned their skin purple, that would not be racist. Scanlan turning Vex'ahlia's skin green while she rode the Broom of Flying in Critical Role wasn't racist, it was an obvious reference to the Wizard of Oz. But having a good god curse a group of people with dark skin because they're evil, that obviously is eerily similar to real world justifications for the enslavement and discrimination of African Americans. The "drow have black skin because they're cursed for being evil" is basically just the Curse of Ham. This group of people has black skin because they're evil. That is an indefensible part of D&D lore that came from the fact that D&D has misused subspecies in its past. The point of my post is that you have to be careful when writing about stuff like this. Not that it's racist to make a reference to the Wicked Witch of the West. It's utterly ridiculous that that is somehow the point you got from my post.</blockquote>