D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[BookTenTiger]

Then how do they self-sustain? Consuming the brains of other intelligent creatures - which has been part of their lore since forever - sure sounds like eating to me.

How do they communicate? (and before you answer "psionically", mind-to-mind communication is just the same as talking only without the sound parts and much faster/more efficient).

How do they reproduce? They have to reproduce somehow if only to sustain their species.

On reproduction do they germinate/appear as fully mature mindflayers with all their abilities? And if yes, after that do they age; and do/can they eventually potentially die of old age? A no to the first question and-or a yes to the second immediately confirms a biological maturation process.

That's because I didn't.

Yes they're alien, even to the fantasy settings. That doesn't mean they're necessarily all that different in how they function biologically; unlike, say, demons whose "life" cycle is vastly different from anything mortal.



side note: I know it's turned into a strange discussion when I find myself defending mindflayers...

I think Mind flayer vs Drow is a really interesting way to examine this issue.

At what point is a humanoidish monster so alien that it feels okay to label it as evil?

My gut tells me Mind flayer is over the line into the "okay to label as evil" zone. You are right that it eats and speaks and reproduces. If this were Star Trek there would be really fascinating episodes about the rights of Mind Flayers to use other people as hosts for their young.

In the genre of D&D though, I feel like they are alien enough to be separate from other humanoids like Drow and Orcs. But again, that's gut level.

I do think it would be a lot more interesting if instead of Alignment they had Motivations: hunger, domination, power describes a Mind Flayer to me a lot better than "evil."

 

[HJFudge]

This to me is the big difference between racism and systemic racism. We can each individually make the choice to be inclusive. But those who create the system have a lot more power, because when people don't think about it and follow discriminatory rules, they are being discriminatory without intention.

I'm not saying that WotC has all the power of, say, the US Prison System, but it the company is literally in control of the system we use to play D&D. And if they can make changes and adjustments to make the system more inclusive, well I think they should. Because it's a kind thing to do. And because those who don't want to think about it, or who don't make the effort at their own table, enjoy the benefit as well.

And before anyone says "where's the line?", well, there is no clear line! It's a conversation, not a line. There is no clear demarcation of "inclusive enough" or "too inclusive." It's something that's figured out through difficult conversations and talks with cultural representatives and trial and error.

I honestly feel like this is a path D&D has been on for a long time, and it's a good one.

I guess I just fundamentally disagree that the stats, alignment, or anything of such in D&D the last...decade? Two? are in any way discriminatory.

Does the stats of an orc or elf become discriminatory?

There has to be a better word. No one is discriminated against because of an elf having less strength than an orc.

Trying to stop or effect in ANY WAY systemic racism by making orcs have the same stats as humans or elves kinda...misses the point? I guess? I can just imagine how a minority might feel when told that WOTC has made a change to better there lives:

"Oh wow, did they help donate to fight racial injustice in the prison system?"
"Well...no..."
"Hmmm did they commit to hiring a more diverse workforce and placing minorities in decision making positions over content?"
"Er, not exactly?"
"Well what did they do then?"
"They made it so orcs have the same stats as every other race!"

Blinkety blink blink. Whaaaat?

 

[Charlaquin]

It is a good post. I am of mixed minds on whether art in a D&D book will make ANYONE feel more or less included but I will admit that perhaps it might. The discussion though is alignment? The post you quoted specifically calls out that alignment or a deep dive into lore won't have any effect, or none worth mentioning.

I think you may have misunderstood the post. The deep lore doesn’t matter if people are put off by the art. But if the art isn’t tuning people away, the next step up the ladder might. Alignment is getting to be a sticking point for a lot of players.

Change the art? Okay cool! I am convinced! Has...not that already happened? I confess it's been awhile since I cracked open a 5E book to look at the pictures. Is there still pictures making people uncomfortable in it?

The art has made lots of improvement. It’s largely pretty good, though there is always room for improvement.

This is a personal thing, maybe, so take THAT for what it is worth, but what has made me feel included or excluded from a group isn't art, nor alignments, nor the representation of my characters class or race or wealth or anything: It is how I have been treated by the other players at the table. There has been tables I have felt welcomed at. There have been tables where I have not felt welcome.

Right, but consider from the perspective of a marginalized person. Someone used to living in a society where people often treat them badly because of their race, or their gender, or something similar. Not everyone does of course, but the people who do get away with it more often than not. And you generally can’t tell at a glance if someone is going to be ok with them or not. They pick up a book for a hobby they are interested in trying, and they flip through it. Maybe the art doesn’t have many people who look like them. Or maybe it does, but they all look like villains. What might that lead them to think about how the people who like this game are likely to treat them? Do you think they’re likely to take the risk of joining a group to find out? Or are they more likely to give this game a pass?

So again, why does changing the alignment for orcs or drow...matter? People will buy the books or they will not.

But there are lots of people who have expressed that they are not comfortable with orcs and drow being depicted as inherently evil by default. They would enjoy the game more if the default depiction was different. You can still keep playing the game the way you have been, but making the default a bit more inclusive will have a big impact on their enjoyment, and might make the game more accessible to more people. That seems like a change that is obviously worth making to me.

There comes a point where one must say: Why? If no one is being harmed...why change it? Why push for it? The only thing you OR I can do is to make those at our table feel welcome. To do that, I have to ask those people. No sociologist or SME or anyone will be able to tell me. This all really just feels like...posturing?

I think the assertion that no one is being harmed is rather dubious.

I guess I am saying: Stop looking to an authority to set the tone. You are the only one that can do that. It really is YOUR game. Run it as you wish.

What WOTC does or does not do...does not matter!

Except what WotC does, does matter, because it sets the tone for how most people will experience the game first, and the tone thru will associate the game with. It behooves the community to insure that default tone is as inclusive and welcoming as possible. Then, individual groups can tailor the game more to their particular liking, if they want inherently evil races in their world or whatever.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Only in the sense that it sets up a bit of a false narrative, and even then...it really doesn't. But then, if it does not matter why are there so many pushing for it? It has to matter, to someone, on at least some level. To me? Nah. As you said in the next points...

Full stop here. You say here and later on that this "sets up/creates a false narrative", but don't say what you mean by this. I'm not going to respond until you say what this so called "false narrative" is, as I don't feel comfortable responding to something I don't feel has been properly communicated.

Again, doesn't matter at all except for in the case that it sets up...again...a false narrative. Which, again, in this thin slice of culture we have here really doesn't make a whiff of difference. No one is going to be treated better or worse in the real world because of what WOTC puts in their monster manual.

Really its just the same reason they took out demons and devils references in 2E D&D.

Exact same effect for the exact same reason, its a cultural issue being reflected in the games presentation. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Vistani perpetuate harmful stereotypes about the Romani people. Removing those could/would cause better treatment/understanding of the Romani people. I could list other examples, but they have been listed elsewhere multiple times.

No, it's not. Demons and devils in D&D were causing no harm, it was a red herring presented by people that wanted to destroy the game. People inside of the hobby have come forward and said that certain parts of how D&D treats races/cultures are/have been harmful to them, to there is a real basis for this change, while there wasn't one for the Satanic Panic.

Different effect for a different reason.

Mmmmm I dunno. This seems to be a common theme:

The implication, of course, being that while WE may not be racists/bigots our IDEAS certainly are helping the racists/bigots win.

Though, when it comes down to it...does it matter what others think of my opinion? Only because its the internet and sometimes I feel a bit more surly than perhaps I should But this is an issue. You don't want to be painted as crazed or deranged? No one wants to be painted in a bad light.

Do I feel harassed? No. But I DO feel that there is a definite subtext. Intentional or not.

I am, maybe despite appearances, enjoying the exchange of ideas. It is an interesting topic.

And does that implication matter? Does it matter whether or not I agree with it? The cause of the change isn't the subject matter, the change and the amount of the people that are pushing for it are. If the "hypothesis/theory" that it could encourage/empower racists is incorrect, how would it hurt the hobby if the aspects of the game that were causing this view were removed? IMO, even if it doesn't encourage/empower racists, it is worth getting rid of for PR purposes. Perception is a large part of inclusion. If a game/aspect of a game is perceived as racist/bigoted, that should be changed, even if it is only for a change in appearance and not actual social change.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I guess I just fundamentally disagree that the stats, alignment, or anything of such in D&D the last...decade? Two? are in any way discriminatory.

Does the stats of an orc or elf become discriminatory?

There has to be a better word. No one is discriminated against because of an elf having less strength than an orc.

Trying to stop or effect in ANY WAY systemic racism by making orcs have the same stats as humans or elves kinda...misses the point? I guess? I can just imagine how a minority might feel when told that WOTC has made a change to better there lives:

"Oh wow, did they help donate to fight racial injustice in the prison system?"
"Well...no..."
"Hmmm did they commit to hiring a more diverse workforce and placing minorities in decision making positions over content?"
"Er, not exactly?"
"Well what did they do then?"
"They made it so orcs have the same stats as every other race!"

Blinkety blink blink. Whaaaat?

If I see a lot of litter on the street, I can:

A) pick it up.

B) call city services about installing more public trash cans.

I choose to do both! I think anywhere we can help make our communities better, we should.

Am I going to stop the pollution of the oceans by picking up litter? No. Will those extra trash cans have much of an impact on global pollution? No. But small impacts are still worth it, in my view.

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly this kind of naughty word is getting so off the rails that even liberals are sick of it. We need a paradigm shift.

Welcome to the fold, comrade.

 

[HJFudge]

If I see a lot of litter on the street, I can:

A) pick it up.

B) call city services about installing more public trash cans.

I choose to do both! I think anywhere we can help make our communities better, we should.

Am I going to stop the pollution of the oceans by picking up litter? No. Will those extra trash cans have much of an impact on global pollution? No. But small impacts are still worth it, in my view.

But again, picking up the litter actually has an impact on the problem.

Whereas changing the alignment of a non-existent fantasy race in a fake fantasy game...well, it does not. It is not just that there is 'small' impact. It is that there is NO impact. No one's mind is changed about race, either way, by D&D. Nor is anyone being treated better or worse in real life because of the way D&D lore treats its fantasy, non-existent races.

Does it hurt? Nah.

But it does come off as a bit...well, I'd not dare say it to someone who is suffering real life issues. I would consider it to be offensive. I would be doing the person I was making this claim to actual harm.

That is of couse ONLY my opinion. You have another one. That's okay too

 

[Lanefan]

I think Mind flayer vs Drow is a really interesting way to examine this issue.

At what point is a humanoidish monster so alien that it feels okay to label it as evil?

My gut tells me Mind flayer is over the line into the "okay to label as evil" zone. You are right that it eats and speaks and reproduces. If this were Star Trek there would be really fascinating episodes about the rights of Mind Flayers to use other people as hosts for their young.

In the genre of D&D though, I feel like they are alien enough to be separate from other humanoids like Drow and Orcs. But again, that's gut level.

Cool.

I kinda go the other way: pretty much anything outside the core five (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Hobbit - the "kindred races") and the Human-Elf and Human-Orc mixes are fair game to label and-or pigeonhole as anything you or I or the designers like, and to any degree of restriction up to and including absolutes. Then if people still insist on playing creatures from outside the core five (why?) then those labels should have to be taken into account when playing such.

I've not noticed anyone objecting to Hobgoblins being described as societally lawful, or to Leprechauns being described as societally chaotic*; yet both of those are just as much a part of their lore and stat-blocks as are Orcs being described as societally evil.

* - there's objections to Kender being described as societally chaotic but those objections almost universally stem from their being presented as PC-playable rather than anything about the creature itself.

I do think it would be a lot more interesting if instead of Alignment they had Motivations: hunger, domination, power describes a Mind Flayer to me a lot better than "evil."

Interesting idea.

One thing I'd add might be some sort of descriptor of general means of pursuing said motivations; so this one might read "Motivations: hunger, domination, power. Means: ruthless." Contrast this with a hypothetical creature listing the same motivations but with "Means: peaceful" tacked on.

 

[HJFudge]

The Vistani perpetuate harmful stereotypes about the Romani people. Removing those could/would cause better treatment/understanding of the Romani people. I could list other examples, but they have been listed elsewhere multiple times.

I have more to say to your post, but this right here:

So you are claiming that because Vistani (a fake culture in a fake game) are portrayed as a certain way in D&D that real life people, specifically those of Romani descent, are suffering real life harm?

Im gonna have to ask you to back that up. This strains credulity.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Interesting idea.

One thing I'd add might be some sort of descriptor of general means of pursuing said motivations; so this one might read "Motivations: hunger, domination, power. Means: ruthless." Contrast this with a hypothetical creature listing the same motivations but with "Means: peaceful" tacked on.

This is the kind of stuff I like to see come out of these conversations.