D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Aldarc]

I mean, would the original Star Wars trilogy be better with more racism in it? It doesn't have any that I can think of, no one treats chewie as less than a person because he is a wookie.

Imperial Officer: "Where are you going with that... thing?"

Princess Leia: "Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way?"

Pretty sure my favourite franchise (Bionicle) growing up didn't have any racism, but it did end up pretty dark sometimes and had plenty of villains.

Some of the Toa and Matoran refer to Matoran and Toa of other "clans" with slurs or some deragatory talk: e.g., "fire-spitter." I recall Onewa in the Metru Nui movie saying some racist things about other Matoran based on stereotypes and prejudices.

 

[Maxperson]

To be clear there have been posters asking for slavery to not even be in the game. If you are saying there is simply too much, fair enough. That is a whole other discussion. But the Dark Sun thread was predicated on the idea that elements like slavery were simply not tenable in a current day D&D setting

Right. I mean, if WotC wants to cut down slavery in the game at large and move it to Dark Sun, that seems like win-win! It would make it easier to avoid by those that want to avoid slavery, and give Dark Sun fans the Dark Sun that they want.

 

[Faolyn]

Missed this point but feel it is important. Perhaps game stores are not as important as they once were. So that specific part of the post could be a bad example, but I mentioned it mainly to say there are places with a lot of economic and racial diversity where gaming culture doesn't have a strong presence. While WOTC and other companies don't open game stores, and game stores are probably on their way out, they do still decide where and how to interact with the public. There are a lot of cool public events in the city I was in (we lived there for years until last week). I think hosting more game events in those kind of public places would be a great way to draw a wider audience with more diverse experiences.

A very good way to bring in a more diverse group of gamers is to show that the developers are also diverse. That the gaming materials are being created by people like them. There's definitely going to be people more interested in buying a book written or illustrated by a Black person than by a white person.

You know, exactly what you said was a "bad idea."

Sure those are all environmental harshness, but I think the reaction slavery gets in these threads demonstrates it is the ultimate in terms of what humans can inflict on one another. So I would still say it adds a tremendously important aspect to the setting

From what I recall of that thread, most of the people who were upset about the loss of slavery did so for reasons of "but who are we going to kill now!?" Not even because it was "realistic" (as if we know what's realistic in a post-apocalypse, mostly non-agrarian society) but because slavers make such good bad guys everyone can agree deserve to be killed (for XP and loot--and how many adventures suggest that the PCs give the loot to the slaves, as recompense for their forced labor?)

(I also find it interesting that most people who talked about the slavery talked about the labor/gladiator-type and they almost inevitably glossed over the fact that Dark Sun also had sex slavery and forced breeding; even when some of us brought that up in-thread, it was mostly ignored--and strangely, the creation of muls is probably the only type of slavery that was actually unique to Dark Sun.)

Here's the thing: there were people in that thread who were saying slavery was the most important part of the setting. More important than the defiling magic and the psionics, more important than the post-apocalypse/planetary romance feel, more important than the cannibal halflings and desert-running elves and thri-kreen, more important than any of the other things that set Dark Sun apart from every other D&D setting (even though every other D&D setting has had slavery at one point or another).

If the most important part of the setting is the slavery... then I don't think it says anything good or interesting about that setting. Nor does it say much about the people who wanted to DM in that setting, that they didn't want to bother coming up with other ideas for villains.

It is about relevance to the quality of the material I think. I don't think mentioning a person's expertise or relevant experience is bad for the marketing at all in a case like that (though it can be done in better and worse ways). I do have some discomfort with a tendency that has arisen to equate a persons skin tone with the culture in question or familiarity with it (not everyone who looks like people from a given place has experience with that place). But I think if someone grew up in a culture (or if their parents did and raised them in it), that could be relevant to a topic. I do worry about it becoming a requirement that people only write about the culture they can be said to represent (that is I think the dark turn this could take if people aren't careful).

And here we have more assumptions. Sure, just because someone is from a culture doesn't mean they're qualified to write about it. I wouldn't be qualified to write about American culture or even the culture of my home state, even though I've lived in the U.S. all my life and in my current state for over 35 years.

But, you're assuming that the people who were being hired to write a thing were only hired because of their skin tone and aren't necessarily qualified of writing about that culture. Do you actually know that a particular writer isn't actually qualified to write about a particular topic, or are you assuming it? Or are you assuming that gaming companies are saying "OK, new hire, you're brown, so you get to work on the new <insert non-European culture> line of books."

If it's the latter, then that gaming company is being bigoted and maybe you shouldn't buy from them.

Again, this isn't what I said. I never said they shouldn't mention it, and I specifically stated the designers shouldn't have to hide. If you want to keep talking about this point, keep going, but I have already explained to you that you are not accurately characterizing what I am saying in that post or what I believe.

You've said that it shouldn't be used in marketing.

So tell me, how do you market a gaming book without hiding the designers but at the same time not "showing off" the fact that they're not cishet white men, and also work to increase diversity among gamers, which you say is important? Because you say they should be creators, but at the same time, you say the fact that they're not cishet white men shouldn't be used in marketing because "some people" might get the wrong ideas (although you haven't said why we should care what "some people" think about this).

You keep saying that I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, or are having uncharitable interpretations. But you are asking for several contradictory things. Be more diverse, but don't advertise that you're diverse. Be more diverse, but don't assume that non-white creators are actually qualified for their jobs. Be more diverse, but do so by assuming that non-white gamers live in poor areas, so get people who don't have degrees to write for them. Be more diverse, but do it in a way that doesn't alienate "some people." Be more diverse, but don't get rid of or tone down on things that are harmful to the people whom you want to buy the books.

So no, I don't think I'm misunderstanding you or being uncharitable. I think I'm actually reading what you're writing. Maybe the problem is, when you break what I write down into a half-dozen individual posts, you forget that what you say in one of your replies doesn't mesh with what you're saying in another reply.

 

[Minigiant]

Again i think the whole issue is due to lack of creativity of the D&D 5e designers and running away from the good ideas of 4e.

For example, 5e took away the traditionalist history of half orcs being born of sexual assault of human by the always evil orcs. In it's place it offers little story. Half Orcs are the result of human and orc tribes or gangs cementing alliances via marriage. A half orc makes abetter chief than an orc due to their high intelligence.

Well isn't the intelligent orc, the orog?
And we aren't doing ability penalties. So what's the difference between orc and half orc now?

WOTC: IDK. Just pretend your orc had a human dad.

4e did half orc better offering new ways half-orcs could be seen.

1. Half Orc are transformed humans doused by Gruumsh's blood when Corellon gouged out his eye.
2. The hobgoblin empire had orc troops and magically created half orcs to lead them.
3. Kord created half orcs own his own, copying the best elements of orcs and humans.

Beyond that Half Orcs were more agile whereas Orcs were tougher. Eveen through barbarians where in the same book Half Orcs appeared, they weren't linked to them. The suggested classes were fighter ranger, and rogue. The sample half orcs were rogue, warden, and ranger. Half Orcs were short tempered but they could read the situation and remain calm whereas an orc would fly off the handle.

5e just made Half Orc the Orc stand in and a +2 STR race.

With Orcs in the 2024 PHB and Racial ASI out, WotC just dropped half orcs rather than create or reuse lore and mechanics for them.

 

[Bagpuss]

There's definitely going to be people more interested in buying a book written or illustrated by a Black person than by a white person.

Sounds a tad, racist.

 

[Guest 85555]

A very good way to bring in a more diverse group of gamers is to show that the developers are also diverse. That the gaming materials are being created by people like them. There's definitely going to be people more interested in buying a book written or illustrated by a Black person than by a white person.

You know, exactly what you said was a "bad idea."


From what I recall of that thread, most of the people who were upset about the loss of slavery did so for reasons of "but who are we going to kill now!?" Not even because it was "realistic" (as if we know what's realistic in a post-apocalypse, mostly non-agrarian society) but because slavers make such good bad guys everyone can agree deserve to be killed (for XP and loot--and how many adventures suggest that the PCs give the loot to the slaves, as recompense for their forced labor?)

(I also find it interesting that most people who talked about the slavery talked about the labor/gladiator-type and they almost inevitably glossed over the fact that Dark Sun also had sex slavery and forced breeding; even when some of us brought that up in-thread, it was mostly ignored--and strangely, the creation of muls is probably the only type of slavery that was actually unique to Dark Sun.)

Here's the thing: there were people in that thread who were saying slavery was the most important part of the setting. More important than the defiling magic and the psionics, more important than the post-apocalypse/planetary romance feel, more important than the cannibal halflings and desert-running elves and thri-kreen, more important than any of the other things that set Dark Sun apart from every other D&D setting (even though every other D&D setting has had slavery at one point or another).

If the most important part of the setting is the slavery... then I don't think it says anything good or interesting about that setting. Nor does it say much about the people who wanted to DM in that setting, that they didn't want to bother coming up with other ideas for villains.


And here we have more assumptions. Sure, just because someone is from a culture doesn't mean they're qualified to write about it. I wouldn't be qualified to write about American culture or even the culture of my home state, even though I've lived in the U.S. all my life and in my current state for over 35 years.

But, you're assuming that the people who were being hired to write a thing were only hired because of their skin tone and aren't necessarily qualified of writing about that culture. Do you actually know that a particular writer isn't actually qualified to write about a particular topic, or are you assuming it? Or are you assuming that gaming companies are saying "OK, new hire, you're brown, so you get to work on the new <insert non-European culture> line of books."

If it's the latter, then that gaming company is being bigoted and maybe you shouldn't buy from them.


You've said that it shouldn't be used in marketing.

So tell me, how do you market a gaming book without hiding the designers but at the same time not "showing off" the fact that they're not cishet white men, and also work to increase diversity among gamers, which you say is important? Because you say they should be creators, but at the same time, you say the fact that they're not cishet white men shouldn't be used in marketing because "some people" might get the wrong ideas (although you haven't said why we should care what "some people" think about this).

You keep saying that I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, or are having uncharitable interpretations. But you are asking for several contradictory things. Be more diverse, but don't advertise that you're diverse. Be more diverse, but don't assume that non-white creators are actually qualified for their jobs. Be more diverse, but do so by assuming that non-white gamers live in poor areas, so get people who don't have degrees to write for them. Be more diverse, but do it in a way that doesn't alienate "some people." Be more diverse, but don't get rid of or tone down on things that are harmful to the people whom you want to buy the books.

So no, I don't think I'm misunderstanding you or being uncharitable. I think I'm actually reading what you're writing. Maybe the problem is, when you break what I write down into a half-dozen individual posts, you forget that what you say in one of your replies doesn't mesh with what you're saying in another reply.

I am happy to have a conversation with you. But I can’t keep responding if you are just going to alter the meaning of my posts. It makes it impossible because I would then be responding to posts that are response to a distortion of what I said

 

[Chaosmancer]

People control art all the time. And protest is one of the more frequent methods to control art. I think people have a right to protest because that too is free expression, but if you are calling for art to be changed, stopped, censored, not published because you find it terrible, I think you are part of a process that can stop art or make it less accessible to people.

Some time ago, I was reading a story on a forum, and the co-author was writing a side fiction. In this side fiction an old british soldier/spy showed up, styled all over the former slave/repressed minority who was running a new government division, and then started solving the problems of the foreign nation he was in. A fellow reader pointed out that that was... kind of messed up? Like, having a British person showing up minorities by ignoring the laws of the foreign land and solving their problems for them REALLY reminded this reader of all the imperialism britain did, especially since this old man was old enough to have been alive at the time of that imperialism.

The co-author broke down, said that their work was worthless, that they didn't know why they thought they could write anything, and then flipped on a dime and called the reader who pointed out the negative trope in their story a vicious troll who was just trying to tear them down.

My response? As a fellow writer?

If a single person's criticism of a legitimate problematic trope is enough to get you to stop making art, then you need to stop, because you don't have the will to keep making art. Because, guess what? There was a Trans activist recently who made content with Budweiser, and was the response from their critics a pointed comment? No, actually one of their critics pulled out a semi-automatic rifle and emptied a magazine into the product. Black Jazz artists recieved death threats, and were MURDERED for their art.... and Jazz still exists.

Yes, if I see something in a product that I don't like and see as a legitimate thing to protest, I'll protest it. And I'm not going to care one iota if it might maybe make some artist question themselves, because if they don't question themselves there was no point in the telling them what I saw as a problem. And since the other side is more than willing to threaten death and violence to shut up artists they don't like? I think the artists whom I'm saying "hey, you should do better" can suck it up.

No music is going to be stopped by a mild criticism like it is derivative and uninspired. But if a musician earnestly tries to write a song about a racial topic, and lets say they are coming at it from a good angle, but it gets misperceived and people protest saying its racist...if that gains traction it could ruin the persons career, it could get it taken off the radio. I still remember the protests of the piss christ. I am religious. But I understood he had a right to express himself that way, and that he was making a point all the critics didn't seem to understand. The photograph I believe is still on display so it wasn't stopped by the protests but the artist received death threats, lost grant money, etc.

Exactly, in the face of death threats the art wasn't stopped. So mild criticism and pointing out problems should not irreparably damage art for all time and space. And if an artist really is coming at it from a good angle, then people are going to notice and hear that message. But they might also have thought it was a good angle... and been wrong. And what do you propose we do about that? Just let them go forward in ignorance that they got it wrong?

The most useless criticism you can ever receive is "this is fine". Because that means you cannot change to make it good, because you don't know what the problem is. And an artist who can't take earnest criticism, isn't worth my time to care about. Not when there are artists who face literal secret police from their home countries trying to murder them, and those people keep doing art. A mild comment about how an artist should try and improve their message is nothing compared to that.

Again, a lot of these tropes, not everyone agrees they are problematic or tired. Many people find them useful, resonant, and misunderstood. I don't think a half elf is the problem people are making it out to be. I suspect lots of people agree with me on that. Same with slavery in dark sun, or killing monsters and taking their stuff, and evil orcs.

And you are free to disagree. But slavery has been done to death, especially in DnD. The mixed race person being outcast from society has been done to death. Seriously, it is rare for me to see a piece of media that presents someone as mixed race but accepted by both communities. Doesn't that story exist and deserve to be explored? Why can't that be the default, it is what we would prefer the world to be, right? So why is presenting THAT story a problem? Why can THAT art not be shown?

The core of D&D is going into dungeons and into wilderness, facing monsters, often killing them, and taking their treasure. There are all other kinds of campaign structures, but that is the drum, bass and guitar of D&D. The game is less effective when you take that away and I think the lens through which you have to read D&D in order to see that as somehow promoting colonialism is extremely byzantine and academic. Something can be connected to the literature that comes from a historical period, but have lost any of its relevance to that. No one is playing D&D and thinking it made Colonialism okay, or that it would be a good idea to colonize or to ignore the history of colonialism.

The game is not less effective when you take that away. I should know, because I have never made a single DnD campaign that focused on going into the wilderness and killing the native population solely to steal their treasure. Game works just fine.

Because, you know, it is a very different thing to go into the wilderness and find a city of monsters, with stone walls, metal tools and thriving communities. Suddenly, players don't want to just kill them and steal from them, because they recognize that would be wrong. But if you have them encounter a tribe of 30 people, in leather tents, with stone tools, suddenly it seems okay to murder them and take anything that isn't nailed down.

But, here are just a few campaigns I've been in, that didn't follow these tropes.

• Players are hired by a kingdom to go out into the no-man's land between two warring kingdoms and discover the cause of a curse of undeath plaguing the area.
• Players travel to a rediscovered border city, deep in the wilderness, where they are attacked by Fey forces. It turns out that the Fey had a deal with the owners of the city hundreds of years before, and are trying to turn the deal to their favor by driving people away before the solstice.
• A hundred years ago the Evil Overlord won and took over the world. He now fights the Gods to make himself the true ruler of all existence. You live in his empire. Good luck.
• The modern world shifted, you are the post-apocalyptic survivors in a magical wasteland that used to be New York
• You are adventurers, seeking gold and glory, so far our biggest combat have been against undead in a shrine to a battle. We also did odd jobs around town to kill beasts.
• You have left your home to find your fortune and build a community. Traveling through the wilderness in a growing caravan of merchants, traders, and followers who are seeking an unclaimed land. Have yet to fight anyone for the purpose of stealing their stuff.
• You travel down into a deep dungeon, attempting to unlock the mysteries of it, especially as it contains multiple cities within its depths (never fought and killed anyone to take their stuff)
• You are freedom fighters opposing the psychic tyranny of the Chosen of Sarlona.

All of these games were great. Not a single one involved killing native people and taking their stuff. Just, didn't happen. So, once more, your claim is false. The game is not less effective when this trope is not explored. In fact, a game that was solely treasure seeking is often the most boring game I can find, because I don't value money enough to kill people solely to get rich. Most PCs START fabulously wealthy, so the idea that I have some massive need to go out and make money by murdering people and taking their valuables is nonsense to me.

To be clear there have been posters asking for slavery to not even be in the game. If you are saying there is simply too much, fair enough. That is a whole other discussion. But the Dark Sun thread was predicated on the idea that elements like slavery were simply not tenable in a current day D&D setting

Okay. So some people want it removed entirely. I am fine with a little, because it makes sense for Mindflayers, due to their nature. Are people not allowed to express different opinions? Do you think that because some people want it removed entirely that somehow all art will be destroyed for all time because some people want slavery out of the game?

Again, I am not saying these waves of restrictions couldn't be (I specifically mentioned how Bride of Frankenstein, a gay themed film, was impacted by the Hays code). My point was that the restrictive efforts can be about all kinds of things considered a moral good at the time.

Right, but you keep painting with the a massively broad brush. You might as well say that the people protesting to allow women to vote are morally the same and identical to people protesting to prevent african americans from voting. Sure, both were protesting about voting rights, and both were doing what they thought were right, but one side we still agree with and the other we don't.

Not all restrictions are made equally. Yet you want us to not differentiate between them in your posts.

There isn't one. I think Tarantino was right when he said we are living through the 80s part II (where he basically meant political correctness and things like PMRC),except we are doing it to ourselves. But wherever this power resides, it is resulting in WOTC saying they can't do Dark Sun, that it just wouldn't be possible because the content is too stepped in 'bad tropes'.

So artists and companies aren't allowed to make their own decisions, based on their own morals? WoTC deciding that they see too many bad tropes in the setting isn't allowed and we should FORCE them to make it? Despite them not wanting to?

And trust me, since I've seen literal neo-nazis screaming expletives and chanting death threats to children within the past year, I don't think we are in a time of "political correctness run amok".

Okay but people want Dark Sun, not dark sun like. I am sure plenty of these games are great. But Dark Sun is a beloved D&D setting and I think it is ashame they won't even consider doing it, and if they do, it is going to have to have all of these elements stripped out.

Sorry about your luck. We can't force them to make a product they don't want to make. Feel free to keep adovcating for it, but it might have gone the way of Mystare, Birthright, Kar-Tur and dozens of other settings that are no longer being supported. And if you will accept no substitutes, then just use your books and make your own. Or wait til someone else makes a version of it you can buy as a 3pp supplement. But just like I never got more Legend of the Dragoon, or any of a hundred other properties I wish people would make more of, sometimes you are just not going to get what you want.

I would say they are very similar. Like I said they aren't identical. But you don't see the similarity because you are examining things soley through this lens of equity and bad tropes. Fundamentally it is about taking something subjective like art, and trying to apply a very rigid and objective moral standard to it. Again, look at all the tropes people are saying we really shouldn't be doing any more. These aren't isnignificant and there is a lot of dispute over what they mean and if they are bad. I think it is really hard to deny with a serious face that creatives in the industry aren't being constrained by all this. And granted it isn't coming from a committee, but efforts to stop and change art can come from protests too. Which I think is what we have in the present moment. That is why I frequently mention the piss christ as an example

Yes, I can seriously argue this. Because the people are complaining are complaining that people say their work isn't good. Meanwhile, we have creatives whose very existence is a crime in their home country, and yet those people seem to be able to keep making art.

Remember the band Pussy Riot? They were stopped by the Russian government and thrown in jail, because they were seen as enemies of the state. How does that compare with a multi-billion dollar company being told "hey, can you stop using this racist language to describe this group of people?" How many musicians were attacked and beaten by police back during the 60's through the 80's? Has anyone stormed the offices of Hasbro to beat them with clubs for breaking moral standards?

And the stance isn't rigid. Because we aren't talking about all media, or all instances of the media. We are talking about this one thing, in this one way, and how we would prefer it to be. You keep trying to make it out like these are the same thing, and they aren't.

 

[Faolyn]

I am happy to have a conversation with you. But I can’t keep responding if you are just going to alter the meaning of my posts. It makes it impossible because I would then be responding to posts that are response to a distortion of what I said

I haven't altered the meaning of your posts. I've even quoted you directly at times.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It doesn't matter we are already seeing people not willing to publish stuff because of the restrictions of inclusion, and small publishers worried because they can't afford to run things by a sensitivity reader. Publishers editing authors words of their own experience or racism because the words used are offensive, all in the name of "inclusion".

Okay, and? Am I supposed to feel bad about people who don't believe strongly enough in their work that they are willing to put it out there? I know every time I've seen people complain about it costing too much, people point out that you can often run things by free resources, or find volunteers.

The publisher thing is egregious, but that's a problem of a single publisher, you can't argue that we should just not protest foul and hateful speech because one guy might take it too far and censor an author talking about their own experience. Because you know what happens when we start saying that foul and hateful speech is okay? We start opening the flood gates. See Twitter for a good example of this. They cut back moderation of hate speech, and you didn't get a flood of people talking about their lived experiences, you got a flood of people spewing hate speech.

It was the uniforms that were a clear parallel to the WWII uniforms worn by Germans and the SS, I was talking about did you miss that bit?

Considering I saw Star Wars before I knew that WWII was a thing that had happened, yes, I did miss that. Is that a problem for you that I was introduced to Star Wars before I even knew Nazi Germany was a thing?

Also, again, since you snipped this bit. What race is a Nazi again? Are you trying to claim that all Germans were Nazi's and therefore the Star Wars depiction of the Storm Troopers was racist? Because I made a claim about racism, and you keep trying to make this point that has nothing to do with race.

Yes you can make them just human race supremacists, but is it really a great look to go casting a traditionally oppressed minority on the same side as their former oppressors? (I know in the Star Wars universe that wasn't the case, but they are still real world actors).

Why wouldn't it be okay to have a black actor play the part of a soldier of a Facist Regime? You know facists exist in Africa too right?

Also, can you tell me which movie of the original trilogy (the one I was talking about initially) Fynn showed up in? Because to my knowled he was introduced in the 7th film, not the first three.

It was in parallel stuff in the books, backstory and wider lore that came out around the time. Not just later stuff. Also why was the Wookie put in cuffs, because the humans wouldn't be believable prisoners, compared to the alien. The alien wouldn't be believable on the side of the Empire, clearly race based because he is a Wookie.

1) Books and wider lore =/= the original trilogy. Stop trying to expand the scope of my example.

2) Um... okay, maybe it was because of racism that the 7 and half foot alien was the one in cuffs... Or it could have been that they didn't have 7 and half foot tall storm trooper armor? After all, the plan wasn't just to have a wookie in cuffs, but to have a wookie in cuffs escorted by two storm troopers. But hey, let's say that was a racism. That is a single part of a single scene in a single movie out of three movies? So, do you think if they had beat Chewbacca for being a wookie during that scene it would have been a better movie? You know, really drive home that racism. Or do you think that the movie worked without adding more racism to it?

Because again, my original point was that in the original trilogy, there isn't exactly any racism, but the movies are still considered really good. So maybe Racism isn't the secret ingredient to a good story.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Pretty sure my favourite franchise (Bionicle) growing up didn't have any racism, but it did end up pretty dark sometimes and had plenty of villains.

Also I'm fully aware that you don't need racism to make a setting. My homebrew setting doesn't utilise it either.

I'm just pointing out it's one possible tool or many a DM can use to make a 'bad guy'. One bad guy might be a murderer, one might be a slaver, one might be attacking other races, one might want to explode the world, one might want to get immortality via becoming a liche. It's all justification to point your players at a bad guy to either go and bring them in, or stab them 37 times in the chest.

And DnD as a game is 'dark' by its very definition. It's literally a game where the players walk around stabbing/shooting/burning people. Unless you play without combat, or rework combat to only knock people and not actually hurt them that is.

I've not used racism as the tool to make the bad guys 'bad' in my setting, as in that world it doesn't exist in any notable form. I just don't believe that having racism exist in the setting automatically makes you a racist.

And no one is saying that having racism in your setting makes you a racist. We are saying that you don't need to bake racism into your setting to make it "interesting". Because frankly, racism isn't interesting. Elves being racist to Dwarves has never been interesting in any media property I've ever seen, and it originates from Tolkien, who by the way, makes it pretty clear that the dwarves were mostly upset over the elves refusing to aid them in fighting for their homes, and it wasn't that the elves refused to help them because they hated dwarves, it was because the Elf King was too scared of dragons to fight Smaug and thought the dwarves had brought it upon themselves. It isn't even really racism.

And, again, there are tools we choose not to use all the time. I don't tend to make rapists in my DnD games. Villains are bad guys, they could be rapists, but that isn't something I tend to pull on, because it isn't neccessary and there isn't a good reason to do it. So why is putting away the racism tool a bad thing? We've used it, a lot, we've baked it into the settings for a long, long time. Let's set it aside and try something else. It isn't a big deal to not have racism in every single product.