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

[Justice and Rule]

So it's racist if ogres are brutal? And medusa are cruel? And dragons are greedy?

Basically, monsters cannot be monstrous by default?

I mean, they can be all that without it being intrinsic to their race?

You're demanding that we fundamentally dismantle how drama works. Not just in D&D, or in Western culture, but in all storytelling in every culture. Drama works by contrasting traits. It's done at the individual level, and at the group level. If a group is going to have a dramatic function, it must have traits that are contrasted with the traits of other groups.

This is not what this is. The idea that these attributes must be intrinsic to a monster's being is totally not what "drama" is.

If elves and dwarves are the same except in appearance, there is no longer any dramatic tension or contrast between elves and dwarves.

Why do elves have to be completely the same if they don't have these intrinsic racial traits? Like, does their entire conflict come from their race, or does it come from an actual event, actual disagreements, actual conflict?

If ogres can have any qualities, then they've become generic vessels instead of monsters.*

Ogres will still physically be ogres, and can still be shaped by the events around them.

A D&D that met the moral ideals many here are calling for would be unrecognizable. It would be like turning every Hollywood movie into a Paul Thomas Anderson film.

It would literally not be. For naughty word's sake, I know I don't run naughty word like it is portrayed in the Monster Manual. This is amazingly hyperbolic for no real reason.

And the elephant in the room here is that we've apparently evolved past treating ogres as monsters and into an enlightened era where they have rich and nuanced possibilities of values and behaviour. But the default solution to every problem is still to hack it apart with swords or incinerate it with fireballs.

I mean, why is that the default solution to every problem? For naughty word's sake, do you not try to parlay, interrogate, negotiate, investigate?

If we're interrogating the hobby to remove behaviours we find problematic in the real world, why ignore the brutal and unrelenting violence, much of it against intelligent and sentient beings? Or is that more of a 2025 thing?

I dunno, maybe because we can justify brutal violence due to the circumstances in which it occurred, rather than just defaulting to it? I mean, is this some sort of big shakeup now? Am I missing something?

 

[Charlaquin]

So not rhetorical...would drizzt have made the splash he did if he was just another good drow? One of many?

I don’t think so personally. It was exciting that he was not the norm. It was exciting because there was a norm

Frankly, I don’t really care. Drizzt is a boring character anyway. Maybe if he hadn’t been able to use the novelty of being a good drow as a crutch, he would have needed to be an actually interesting character in his own right. Would that have been such a terrible thing?

I honestly wonder if making the the monsters playable will be worth it in the end after we anthropomorphize them all. I mean it seemed cool at first (again since it was not the norm) but now seems like it will lead nowhere easy for a once leisurely past time

Look, if you want simple, uncomplicated good vs evil games, no one is stopping you. Do whatever you want in your own game. But it’s much easier to remove nuance if you don’t want it than to add it where it doesn’t exist, and having a default where there aren’t entire races of inherently evil people makes the game more inclusive.

 

[Remathilis]

No, because their existence is antithetical to the life and bodily autonomy of other sapient beings. This is like the fifth time I’ve had to explain something I would have thought was plainly clear.

Is a lion antithetical to the life and bodily autonomy of a gazelle? Is the tarantula wasp antithetical to that of the tarantula? (Seriously, look those up, first time I sympathize with a spider)?

At what point does dietary obligation or breeding ritual become malevolence?

 

[Bagpuss]

No, because their existence is antithetical to the life and bodily autonomy of other sapient beings. This is like the fifth time I’ve had to explain something I would have thought was plainly clear.

Hostility against those orcs? Justified. Prejudice against all orcs? Not justified.

Okay but the only orcs you've ever met are those marauding orcs is it still not justified?

Isn't their marauding existence antithetical to the life of other sapient beings?

In fact what if the lore of the game world is that only marauding orcs exist (as was true of D&D) in the game world is it still not justified?

And if "always marauding" orcs is problematic to exist in a game world why are Mind Flayers fine to exist?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Is a lion antithetical to the life and bodily autonomy of a gazelle? Is the tarantula wasp antithetical to that of the tarantula? (Seriously, look those up, first time I sympathize with a spider)?

At what point does dietary obligation or breeding ritual become malevolence?

it would not be a conflict of good vs evil but are conflict of survival as most people do not want to be eaten and we tend to kill the things which eat us.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

At what point does dietary obligation or breeding ritual become malevolence?

I'm pretty sure it's when sapient things decide to kill other sapient things.

That what you're saying here is basically near-quoting various diabolical villains from fantasy and SF is probably not doing you any favours.

"What is a man but a miserable pile of secrets?"

 

[TwoSix]

Look, if you want simple, uncomplicated good vs evil games, no one is stopping you. Do whatever you want in your own game. But it’s much easier to remove nuance if you don’t want it than to add it where it doesn’t exist, and having a default where there aren’t entire races of inherently evil people makes the game more inclusive.

I still think there's a middle ground between "everyone in this race is evil, no exceptions" and "everyone is an individual, and they are totally shaped by their own choices". And I think that's recognizing that traits can be more or less common within an aggregate population while individuals are exactly that, individual.

"Most ogres are bloodthirsty and look upon smaller races as sources of food" and "Gorchack, the ogre, became a paladin of Ilmater and dedicated his life to protecting orphans" can be simultaneously true within a setting. Maybe your party kills ogres because they've seen raiding parties of ogres eat babies. Or maybe they parley first because they've met Gorchack and know not all ogres are bad. That seems like the most balanced version of D&D to me.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I ask (almost as a tangent): does this apply to sci-fi too? Are wookiees, klingons, vulcans, daleks, kree, predators or similar which are not only mono-culture but often come from a single biome planet also bad and should be redone?

Single biome planets are usually bad, but for different reasons than the discussion being had here (mostly I find the idea silly and implausible from a ecological and meteorological standpoint, at least account for the overall climate being more chilly towards the poles).

Klingons, Vulcans, and Kree could use some work, yes. But at least they're treated with respect for the most part AFAIK?

Daleks I'm fine with. Somebody who know more about Dr. Who might have an opinion to the contrary, but as far as I'm concerned they're genocidal imperialists, so they have it coming.

Don't know enough about Yautja/Predators to comment on the species and culture as a whole, but the dynamics of "alien hunter hunting down humanity's best warriors as a challenge" are pretty different from the racially coded language used to describe orcs and goblins.

 

[TwoSix]

Okay but the only orcs you've ever met are those marauding orcs is it still not justified?

Isn't their marauding existence antithetical to the life of other sapient beings?

In fact what if the lore of the game world is that only marauding orcs exist (as was true of D&D) in the game world is it still not justified?

And if "always marauding" orcs is problematic to exist in a game world why are Mind Flayers fine to exist?

I think orcs are specifically problematic because of half-orcs. The fact that they can interbreed with humans moves them from monstrous into a more liminal space where they're considered as much people as monsters.

No one generally raises the issue of monoculture with hobgoblins or bugbears because they're rarely PCs and don't interbreed with humans.

 

[TwoSix]

"What is a man but a miserable pile of secrets?"

I think that's enough talk. Have at you!