Racial variety

[Desdichado]

Half Native American (from three nations and two seperate continents - Crow, Cherokee, and Inca). Watch any western made before the 70s and the similarities to Orcs are all over the screen.

Interesting, since orcs, if they were "based" on any real-life group, were based on the descriptions Romans and Germanic peoples left of the Huns. They had nothing whatsoever to do with Native Americans.

That persception of natives was common parlance in the USA until the 70s, when it started to switch to the 'Noble Savage' which is in it's own right equally annoying, albeit not as physically dangerous a label. At least they're not sterilizing our women and taking away the children anymore - something that also ended in the 70s. Now they just act like we have cosmic wisdom and live to hug trees, furry animals, or run casinos.

Well, keep in mind that the original "noble savage" archetype was the Germanic tribes that brought down the Roman Empire, according to the classic work The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire which was the definitive history for decades.

 

[Desdichado]

P.S. Oh, and about that orc thing. I believe that the DnD concept of orcs is mainly derived from all our ancestors - meaning the Neanderthals. The little details about their way of life and their traditions might sound familiar to you - but bear in mind that the designers had to get their inspiration from somewhere. *shrugs*

See, I think the Druedain -- Ghan-buri-ghan et al. were the Neanderthals of Tolkien's world. The orcs have very little in common with them. Also, it's unlikely that Neanderthals were ancestors of modern humans anyway -- the Neanderthals were a more specialized offshoot for a specific set of environmental conditions, and modern humans originated in a region that has no Neanderthal fossils.

 

[Wombat]

In my first D&D game back in '76 a buddy of mine, who is Jewish, determined that, for game purposes, Elves were The People -- so they all wore skullcaps and ate kosher. They also had acne and braces, but that is another story...

Then I had a number of Samoans and Hawai'ians in my RuneQuest game -- suddenly islands were added all over the place and Surfing became a skill.

Then I had a couple lesbians join my game -- gender differentiation became important and complex.

Now I have a black guy in my game. First time he came in he sorta shuffled his feet and looked at me with puppydog eyes and asked, "Wombat, is it okay if I play a brother?"

I had to laugh. At this point, I told him, I am open to anything, and adding blacks and asians to my game are easier than anything else I had done in the past -- indeed, I had planned for it already. And what is true for humans is also true for non-humans.

Ask my about my range of Litorians!

 

[gin]

Let me clarify what it is I meant in my first post. I am not asking that Dungeons and Dragons be made more culturally diverse, I have no problem with the culture portrayed (It is a western medieval fantasy game). What I believe is that the core books are about options and introducing new players to the game. What is so wrong about changing, all elves being fair skinned with green eyes, to the skin tones and features all races display but making the race as a whole universally beautiful. Once again some may think this is trivial, but in introducing new players( mostly black) I have been asked why this isn't so. In fact it has even turned a few potential players away from Dungeons and Dragons though they were willing to play Exalted and Earthdawn. I know what some will say, as DM just make it so. The only problem I have is that when I am introducing a new player, I don't want to add to the already vast number of concepts he/she must digest in order to play. In other words I really try to stay away from modifications with newbies. I want them to read and be able to refrence the Players Handbook without extra notes on my modifications. I feel that this is 2004 and these small adjustments would make the game a little more appealing to people of color.
Elven culture is elven culture but why can't I play a handsome dark skinned elf with full lips and dreadlocks(a natural hairstyle). Or a dwarf with golden skin, straight black hair and dark eyes.

 

[Olorin]

Elven culture is elven culture but why can't I play a handsome dark skinned elf with full lips and dreadlocks(a natural hairstyle). Or a dwarf with golden skin, straight black hair and dark eyes.

Nothing's stopping you.

 

[gin]

Nothing's stopping you.

Youre right, because I am an experienced player and am comfortable changing the game to fit my needs. What about those newbies, who may even be children who arent as comfortable. When I first started playing Dungeons and Dragons, at age 9, I didn't understand the rules that well. But I knew what an elf looked like and it wasn't like me.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I think that a lot of valid points have been made for both sides of this argument, & IMHO, it seems to me that some core issues with the game are derived from subjective interpretation.

It's not limited to D&D & RPGs--this is all too common with literature. Heck, books get banned (or generate arguments about being banned) because of such things.

To a degree, I think that (at least in the case of literature) it's an issue of assigning modern values on an older work (written & created at a time when there were a different set of core values). The problem with trying to enforce "modern" viewpoints and evaluations on a literary work (or an object of art, for that matter) is that those values will change over time, and what is acceptable/unacceptable now may not remain true in the future. Our great-grandchildren may either see us as remarkably uptight or immorally hedonistic (in comparison to thmselves, based on the predominant values of their time).

In a weird way, I think that modern folk often think of themselves as being more enlightened/informed/noble (if you will) than previous generations. Because of that, there is a tendency to condemn things based on moral grounds (or at least, on the claim that we are more enlightened/open-minded than our ancestors). I'm sure that such a mindset existed with our parents about their parents & grandparents; I'm sure we have the same feelings (to a degree) about our parents & grandparents; & I'm very sure our children & their children will continue to do & feel the same.

I do wonder, in addition to the interpretations of race in D&D, how people with dwarfism view D&D's treatment (and fantasy RPGs treatment, overall) of people/races/species with comparable physical traits (i.e., does a person with dwarfism see gnomes, halflings, & dwarves as embodiments of stereotypes of people with dwarfism?). What about the reverse? Does a person with gigantism see ogres, giants, titans, & other races/species/people with comparable physical traits as embodiments of stereotypes of people with gigantism?

From what (limited) research I've done online, it seems that a very pervasive (and often used) stereotype in various forms of media (whether books, movies, games, etc.) has been with people with albinism. Elric seems to be a core embodiment about misinterpretations about people with albinism (pink eyes, frail or weak health, etc.). Would/does a person with albinism see stereotypes about people with albinism embodied in such D&D species as the Derro, or OD&D's Shadow Elves?

OTOH, what about D&D's (& possibly other RPGs) presentation of polytheism, interpretation of religious figures, & issues of spirituality? Does a Wiccan see the wizard/sorcerer/druid/shaman/adept classes embodying stereotypes about Wiccans? Does a person who practices Asatru (essentially modern-day followers of "Norse" deities/faiths) feel slighted when D&D or Palladium stats up the Norse gods? What about people who practice Hinduism or Shinto--did 1st & 2nd. ed. AD&D commit slights what it stated up deities/religious figures from those faiths?

I don't think that any of these issues about identity, and how identity is seen/interpreted (e.g., the "self" and the "other") will ever go away. I'm not saying that anyone's views are invalid (not at all); however, I do think that there are more issues than many of us frequently think about.

For the record, I'm person who just happens to be heterosexual, white, & male. However, I'm half-Irish (my paternal grandfather immigrated from Ireland, and both of my paternal grandmother's parents were Irish immigrants)--believe you me, the Irish have received their fair share of bias. Just because I'm Irish doesn't mean that I'm (1) Catholic, (2) drink large amounts of alcohol, (3) (often) wear green, (4) have red hair &/or green eyes, (5) have a bad temper, esp. after when said large amounts of alcohol have been imbibed, (6) have a large number of siblings, or even (7) originate from the Northeast U.S. (ala Boston). Just because I'm part Irish doesn't mean that I want to be frequently associated with shamrocks, St. Patrick's Day, leprechauns, green derby hats, Guinness, or even the IRA.

On top of that, I was born & raised in Texas (San Antonio area, to be exact). That doesn't mean that I (1) listen to country music, (2) ride a horse, (3) wear cowboy boots, Tony Lama's, &/or a cowboy hat, (4) drive a truck (esp. a truck w/ a Hemi), (5) have a uber-patriotic feeling for my home state as much (if not more than) as my country, (6) live in a desert or at least surrounded by cactus, (7) wear a fair amount clothes or own a fair amount possessions that incorporate the state's shape, lone star, &/or state flag in/on them, (8) regularly attend a rodeo, monster truck show, or wrestling event, (9) played/watch/or otherwise be obsessed with football, or even (10) own firearms (esp. some sort of shotgun, lever-action rifle, or revolver).

Heck, I won't even go on about all of the negative connotations/associations that have existed for people who're left-handed. (Much less the negative vocabulary that has derived in reference to left-handedness, such as gauche & sinister; or just how often any sort of villain/bad guy has been depicted as left-handed).

As for MHO on the issue at hand, I don't really see anything more than mere "mythic" associations when it comes to the drow (i.e., going along with the classic idea of light vs. darkness, & the typical color associations based on that). IMHO, the drow more or less reflect the general idea of the "svartalfr," (sp.) as compared to the "ljosalfr" (sp.) of the typical high elf. One thing that has (& still does) bother me about D&D is the use of stat-based "subraces" to detail different nonhuman cultures (while humans are generally lumped together into 1 stat set)--I'd prefer elves to be just elves, & not high elves, wood elves, drow elves, etc.--if anything, these cultural differences could easily be reflected by choices during character creation (picking certain physical traits, favoring certain stats to be higher, frequently selecting certain skills/feats/spells/gear, etc.). Heck, I'd prefer to see the non-human race stat sets be made a bit more "generic" so that some player choice can go into developing the character (like making the elven proficiency with bows & swords as a special bonus feat they can choose, or the dwarven bonus to attack orcs & goblinoids as special bonus feats available for selection, etc.).

Nevertheless, I think that the game is ultimately what the players & DM make of it, & it seems to be the perfect means to use/insert/apply their own personal views/interpretations into it. The game is what the players & DM make of it.

 

[tarchon]

Greyhawk had a major human race that was dark skinned, the Olman - and two of the others are semi dark.

While we're noting what fantasy races are evil, we should note that the Greyhawk Suel, the fairest palest whitest human race in the setting are also the evilest - basically they're Nazis. Greyhawk pretty consciously tried to set up a diversity of races among humans (Suel, Flan, Oerids, Bakluni,Olman) and demihumans alike (Grey Elves, High Elves, Wood Elves, Stouts, Hairfoots, Duergar etc.), but it also tried apparently to mix things up a bit so that none of its races strongly corresponded to a real "race," in the inane popular conception of the idea. In fact, most RPG settings have plenty of races, and the more supplements you buy, the more you get.
Of course in the US, when someone says "race," what they mean is skin color, so what we're really asking is "why don't more RPG races have dark skin?" I can think of three answers, the first obvious one being that most RPG authors are white, so they tend to think of white skin as being the "default" skin color, just like being bipeds, they think of 2 as the default number of legs, though as many people have pointed out, there are numerous exceptions to this. The second is that subterranean races, from simple analogy to real biology, would be expected to have light skin, although really you would expect them to be more generally pigmentless (what's up with drow, I couldn't say). The third is that RPG publishers have learned from many years of experience that the best selling RPGs are the ones in which the character types look a lot like the players, and the biggest RPG market is white people. There's really no reason why fantasy races shouldn't look like Star Trek aliens with crinkled noses, spots, green skin, tails, etc., and you do find games like that, but most of the big sellers are games where the player creature types bear uncanny resemblences to the players.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The reason why I think most of the pcitures in the core books are of white humans/elves/dwarves/etc is because the artists are white humans/elves/dwarves/etc.
.....
All I'm saying is that if the original designers of DnD had been black (or Hispanic, or Asian), instead of white, then DnD would black (or Hispanic or Asian), instead of white. You write and draw what is most familiar to you, and it comes subconsciously. It has nothing to do with racism, bigotry or prejudice. It's just the way the human psyche works.

TLDR: DnD was made by white people for white people. But it doesn't have to be this way cos you can simply imagine all the white people depicted in the books to be whatever color you want. DnD is, after all, about using your imagination.

unfortunately, the whole idea of drawing a fantasy world as you look does have something to do with racism, bigotry and prejudice. Its not as strong or sinister as those terms have come to be connotated, but it is from the same base impulses. "I am normal, I am the default, if I'm asked to draw a person without reference to race, I will universaly make them my own race, because thats what a 'person' looks like."

I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say that you are problably wrong in the second paragraph. If the main artists and editors of the D&D books had been black, or hispanic or asian, there would be many more examples of those races, but there would still be a healthy representation of caucasians. It is the self reference you mentioned joined with the constant reinforcement of the media which allows this sort of thoughtless whitewashing of the world. When you have a non-dominant personal expereince coupled with the input of the dominant media, you end up with a more mixed output.

The responses to this thread have been very enlightening to me, and I'd like to thank the orriginal poster for broaching the question, even if there's been a lot of dodging of it. My view is that if you want to represent a world, you have to make an effort to activly think outside of the tiny corner of your life, and racially diverse models for both humans and non humans would be a good idea. Its very easy to stick a emotionally charged dismissal lable like "politically correct" on these ideas, but its really no better than calling the original situation "racist" - because once you boil the 'evil' connotation of that word out, it actually describes perfectly the benign mindset you credit for the non diverse illustration style. The unthinking assumption that the entire universe looks like you unless there's a "good reason" for them not to is essentially a racist one, though a mostly benign form of racism.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Turjan]

What about those newbies, who may even be children who arent as comfortable. When I first started playing Dungeons and Dragons, at age 9, I didn't understand the rules that well. But I knew what an elf looked like and it wasn't like me.

As much as I see your problem from your personal point of view, I don't see an easy solution for this, and I don't think that this would be desirable, either. For an European like me, the American strife for PC'ness often borders on the edge of ridicule. Elves and orcs are taken from the heritage of European myth, somewhat converted by the pseudomyths from Tolkien. They are wondrous creatures, creatures of magic (at least elves ) and something special. Orcs (according to Tolkien some twisted elves, so no resemblance to human races here ) represent the element of dark, dark as in "beneath the earth, where the horrors dwell", whereas elves represent the element of light, mostly good, though fickle and not to be trusted. Therefore, these are icons of European (=white) fantasy, and there is not much that can be done about it. They are not derived from tales of the ancestors of African Americans, no matter how hard you try.

I think, the problems came in, when first Tolkien and then D&D made elves and orcs much more humanlike than they were before. This means, no wondrous creatures anymore, and this leads to questions like those posed by you. Giving in to your request and making all of the D&D races within themselves resembling a mirror of the current U.S.American society means to me that D&D loses lots of its fantasy appeal. This leaves us with elves as humans - be it African Americans, Caucasians or whatever - with pointy ears. How incredibly bland!

I only see two solutions to your problem:

1) Create your own setting. All D&D races can have whatever colour and cultural background you want. Changing the flavour of those races by adding other cultural traits can be a lot of fun.

2) Play a different game. Even other d20 games come into my mind, like Arcana Unearthed. Races like bipedal dogs and cats are the hallmark of PC'ness. Although my cat might think different about that .