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

[ccs]

1e was also the edition with gender-based strength limits, race-class restrictions, ability score prerequisites, race-class level limits, and so on. And Basic had most of that and race-as-class. And 1e says that stuff is for balance, IIRC, so you're told not to change those things in particular.

No, you're cautioned that if you do change them that you do so with some consideration.

 

[Scribe]

And I very much hope it does.

To what end? 5e is just that unacceptable to you?

 

[ccs]

I mean, I'M not saying that should be the end goal, but it sure as hell seems there is an audience for it. But how much farther is there to go?

They have put any and all sorts of "DMs can change alignments of monsters, these are guidelines" notices in the books. They have allowed PC orcs to be of any alignment for decades. You can create alternative takes on orcs like Wildemont or Eberron does. This hasn't been "good enough". The next logical step is to stop using them in primarily antagonistic roles and treat them no different than elves or dwarves. And then do the same for goblins, gnolls, kobolds, etc.

What the hell am I supposed to use as the generic evil non-human humanoid antagonists then?

 

[Charlaquin]

This is one of those be careful what you wish for situations. Progress is good, but change based on response to the loudest critics may not be.

That was the point of the 4e comparison. Loud critics were clamoring for change of many 3e sacred cows and WoTC went all in with 4e. Slaughtering more sacred cows than it had with any prior edition - it did not go over well! Now that's a bit of an oversimplification, 4e had many issues but It's not exaggerating to say that too many changes at once really did not help the edition.

I suspect WoTC will be much more gradual to introduce changes this time around.

I loved 4e, so comparisons to 4e are generally not a great way to persuade me something is undesirable.

 

[Charlaquin]

To what end? 5e is just that unacceptable to you?

I like 5e a lot, but it has lots of room for improvement, which I hope WotC fully utilizes.

 

[HJFudge]

Lot's of ideas expressed here. Interesting thread. Rant incoming (sorry):

Different people will be comfortable with taking on different levels of topics at their table. Some people don't want to get into any kinda 'grey areas' and just wanna kick down doors and get phat lewtz. Some want to have a lot of moral quandries...the drow army invaded but it is because there land underground was dying and could no longer support life (or whatever). Tastes on all this will vary.

It becomes an issue when one group who enjoys playing one way points to another group who enjoys playing the other way and saying 'I find what you are doing and the way you are playing morally abhorrent.' This is always always always going to start a fight. And no, no, maybe that is not what you are intending to say at all.

But that is what you are saying. Intent, when it comes down to it, really does not matter.

Is portraying a non-human race that does not exist going to cause harm to real people?

It can, but that isn't the default. If someone at your table is uncomfortable with portraying orcs as Always Bad, then as a previous poster said: Be kind. The table might not be right for that player. They shouldn't be made to feel bad because it isn't. I dislike super heavy political campaigns. If I join a table and that is what they are playing, I am not 'dumb' for not liking that group and wanting something different. Nor should I be made to feel so. The people who enjoy playing 'orcs bad' should not be made to feel that what they are doing is some terrible sin.

That said, there is some nuance here. It CAN be done in pretty terrible ways. But 'a bunch of non-humans having a default culture that is evil' is not perpetuating racism in life. It just isn't, much like kids don't go shoot up their school because they played too much call of duty.

It does always amuse me though when people get up in arms about 'orcs bad' but then at the table they spend the whole session killing a bunch of bandits in horrific and painful ways because 'oh they did bad things so of course they deserve to be punished, its okay.'

There was a thread on another forum about how terrible and unjust the wall of faithless was. How it undermined all the good guy gods, etc. These same folks however felt it was perfectly reasonable and just to have Hell or the Abyss torture/eat souls for eternity or whatever though, cause 'those guys DESERVED it.'

Another poster made a very important point and I think it was largely missed: A lot of racist/fascist groups recruit and radicalize people who have been outcast because of not having views that are in the mainstream. So when we refuse to have all dealings with someone who may have an eye rolling view on politics or race, we are not 'being kind'. No, you do not have to play with them. But maybe tell them why, rather than just goodbye, no? Let us all Be Kind. If you are only kind to those you think deserve it, you are not kind. You are just normal. Be kind even to the jerky jerks. World'll be a better place.

 

[Mort]

I loved 4e, so comparisons to 4e are generally not a great way to persuade me something is undesirable.

I liked many elements of 4e, doesn't change the fact that the edition significantly underperformed from a commercial perspective.

 

[Charlaquin]

What the hell am I supposed to use as the generic evil non-human humanoid antagonists then?

Whatever you want. There just shouldn’t be any humanoids that are presented as always-evil by default.

 

[Charlaquin]

I liked many elements of 4e, doesn't change the fact that the edition significantly underperformed from a commercial perspective.

Sure, and I hope that doesn’t happen again. But I don’t assume that is an inevitable outcome of significant change.

 

[Campbell]

Games are culture. Culture affects the way we see the world. I do think D&D could do a better job of addressing the casual violence towards the "uncivilized". I worry though that rather than address it and provoke understanding we are more likely to see Disney style sanitization that avoids the issue entirely.