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

[Charlaquin]

Wouldn't that argue for leaving fictionally marginalized in-groups in the game, as allowing marginalized people that outlet of playing an identifiable character would seem to be a positive thing?

Although I guess it argues more for Warcraft-style orcs than Gruumsh-following orcs.

I mean, the better thing would be to improve representation generally, so that marginalized people have characters they can identify with that aren’t monsters.

 

[Charlaquin]

Like, is the 'character' of the Tiefling defined by the cringe worthy PHB? Is that it?

Can someone explain to me what’s cringeworthy about Tieflings? I mean, it’s been a while since I’ve read their entry in the PHB, but if you want to talk about monstrous characters that marginalized peoples identify with, this is one trans NB who loves her some Tieflings.

 

[TwoSix]

I mean, the better thing would be to improve representation generally, so that marginalized people have characters they can identify with that aren’t monsters.

I'm just wondering if the "being rejected by society because of my birth circumstance" is a necessary factor in allowing the identification. Would players have more identification with those races if you did a full "Blue Rose" of the setting?

 

[MGibster]

I mean, the better thing would be to improve representation generally, so that marginalized people have characters they can identify with that aren’t monsters.

::Quickly and quietly wraps his arms around his copy of Vampire 5th edition to keep it hidden and backs out of the room slowly::

 

[Justice and Rule]

Absolutely, again I've said like 4 times today, remove the bad stuff from Volo's.

The question, is just a question. If people identify with these lineages is the removal of that the basis for their identification with the lineage removing what they identify with?

Like, is the 'character' of the Tiefling defined by the cringe worthy PHB? Is that it?

Sorry, wasn't trying to rip you, just trying to lighten the mood.

And I think you can keep the complexities of race and race relations in a game. Like, can you have people distrust Orcs? Sure. We just have to think up more interesting justifications than the classic "Normally Orcs are just evil" sort of stuff. Society is complex, distrust is easy.

Of course, the simpler solution would be @Charlaquin 's:

I mean, the better thing would be to improve representation generally, so that marginalized people have characters they can identify with that aren’t monsters.

 

[Scribe]

Can someone explain to me what’s cringeworthy about Tieflings? I mean, it’s been a while since I’ve read their entry in the PHB, but if you want to talk about monstrous characters that marginalized peoples identify with, this is one trans NB who loves her some Tieflings.

"To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye...."

"....Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children's children will always be held accountable."

"Tieflings subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords"

And in combination with that, the extremely over the top physical change from 2e/3e to 4e, results in a lineage that is seemingly always to be judged as other, and pushed to the fringes of any human society they are allowed to settle in.

Its a bad look, imo.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm just wondering if the "being rejected by society because of my birth circumstance" is a necessary factor in allowing the identification.

Maybe? I mean, it’s certainly something that draws me to such characters. As I said in the other post, I love Tieflings, and that’s absolutely an element of them that appeals to me. Heck, I’d even say Tieflings would lose something if that element was removed. The thing is, I don’t think the goal should be to excise all prejudice from the setting. It should be to insure that the in-fiction prejudices aren’t objectively correct within the setting. It’s fine with me if there is a cultural bias against Tieflings, or Orcs, or whatever, as long as the fiction demonstrates those biases to be misplaced.

Would players have more identification with those races if you did a full "Blue Rose" of the setting?

I’m not sure what “doing a full Blue Rose” means.

 

[Umbran]

No, you're mistaking what I'm saying. When I say "Justify it yourself, not by the fiction", I'm talking about not letting the fiction be a justification unto itself. I pointed to the Thermian Argument as an example of this. Does that make more sense?

Thank you. I had forgotten the name of that argument.

Defenses of "that's how it is in the fictional world!" beg the question of WHY it is that way in the fictional world.

To see why this, and other appeals to, "it is a fiction" don't fly as a broad justification, consider the following:

A person comes into their job one day, and hangs a picture of their boss in the shared kitchen area, and plays darts with the boss as the target. When the boss asks, the explanation, "Well, you shouldn't be offended, because while that looks like throwing darts at you, it is really just a fictional thing that looks like you. We can do anything to a fiction, and not have it mean anything in the real world," is still going to end up with you looking for a new job the next day. And rightfully so.

Your internal excuse for a fictional thing is not relevant to real people outside the fiction. Your choice to make a fiction that looks just like abuse is what's relevant, as is how you defend that choice.

 

[Charlaquin]

::Quickly and quietly wraps his arms around his copy of Vampire 5th edition to keep it hidden and backs out of the room slowly::

You’re good, friend. I adore Vampire (though I am more of a Requiem gal than a Masquerade gal).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You don't know that everyone in a certain religion is trying to murder you all.

And if you can know such a thing - and that thing is true - then you can also know that all Gnolls/Orcs/DeathBots want to murder us all.

Anti-race and anti-religion are both bigotry. If you accept one and not the other it isn't enlightenment - it's hypopcracy.

This is nonsense. the cult in that adventure is a single organization. It is most comparable to ISIS, not to an entire religion.

It’s no different from fighting off the invasion of a country, a secular terrorist group, or a criminal organization. It’s an organization.

If a cult or mafia or nation of gnomes invades a country, them all being gnomes doesn’t make the defenders’ efforts a war on gnomes.


You cannot possibly fail to grasp the difference between a distinct organization that is actively pursuing an agenda of mass murder and a race or religion.