D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[MG.0]

The thing is, by drawing inspiration from racist sources with outdated ideas, and presenting said sources as positive influences, it condones their beliefs.
For example, fantasy and geek culture really idolizes H.P. Lovecraft and presents him as a great and influential literary figure, but ignores the horrible racism in his works and beliefs. It makes it seem like it's okay. Forgivable.
Similarly, certain elements evoke racist imagery. Even if not being racist, it's using the language of racism. Cultural shorthand.

I completely disagree here. I know a number of Lovecraft fans and none of them would condone any sort of racism. All of them, without exception, are aware of Lovecraft's flaws and they can appreciate his work while acknowledging them. Thinking we have to purge work from the collective consciousness because it was written by flawed people or in a time or place with different morals is ridiculous and in my opinion dangerous.

If orcs are presented in a way that emulates stereotypes that used to be applied to real world ethnicity it is hugely problematic. As problematic as making elves analogous culturally with a real world nation. Care should be made to avoid both overt or accidental racism. Because a lot of people still deal with racism in their everyday lives, and really don't need an escapist game bringing them down. They don't need a reminder of the real world ruining their immersion.

To me, orcs are presented as nasty, evil, smelly, and violent. I would never associate that with any group of humans. Why would anyone else, and if they do how is that anyone's fault but theirs?

Do people associate elves with real world nations? That seems bizarre. What would be the point?

That said, I don't mind evil orcs. There's a purpose to that. Monstrous races serve a purpose and if they're just misunderstood or victims of ethnocentric biases it makes the adventurers - the player characters - into the real monsters. That kind of morally grey world where the actions of the players might not be justified shouldn't be the baseline. Orcs need to be mostly irredeemably evil so they can be killed with impunity.
But they also shouldn't be the only dark skinned folk in the world. The world shouldn't be divided into pale skinned good guys and dark villains (with the uber good elves being even paler). There needs to be representation on both sides. And orcs need to be clearly fantastic, and not just collections of old stereotypes, even if this is just accidental.

I always imagine goblins/orcs as grey-skinned, more pale than dark - probably from watching the Hobbit cartoon when I was young. I also wouldn't have a problem with dark-skinned elves. Drow are different; they have obsidian colored skin not because they are evil but because of their subterranean habitat.


Edit: As an extension to this, the light/dark thing is often used as a proxy in the battle between good and evil (think positive and negative energy planes). This is far more fundamental than any issue with skin color and derives from our collective fear of the dark among other things. I think pointing to this as an example of racism would be a mistake (I'm not saying anyone is. I'm just saying.)

 

[Aldarc]

BS. If anything, Avatar turns those stereotypes inside out. The "savages" were shown to be anything but. The real savages were shown to be the so called civilised people wrecking their world.

Far from it actually. The "noble savage" trope, which the film Avatar presents with the na'vi, is a well-known trope of racism, as it is a reductionistic romanticizing and exoticizing of perceived cultural primitivism of the "other," a strawman construction that primarily exists to critique one's own culture.

To me, orcs are presented as nasty, evil, smelly, and violent. I would never associate that with any group of humans. Why would anyone else, and if they do how is that anyone's fault but theirs?

Do people associate elves with real world nations? That seems bizarre. What would be the point?

Because the developers of roleplaying (and video) games often create their species/races with real world cultural influences that they draw upon, whether intentionally or not, some more thinly-veiled than others. It's like Mongolian/Hun-flavored centaurs, Celtic elves, or Scottish dwarves. These ethnically-charged cultures are a dime-a-dozen. Assuming you were a well-lived adult, you would have to be blind, culturally-ignorant, or negligent to either miss it or pretend it wasn't a thing. It's about like ignoring how Anglo-Saxon the Rohirrim are. Just extend that to other creatures and demi-humanoids in D&D, who are - more often than not - given a monolithic culture in comparison with humans, who are often afforded far more cultural variety.

Edit: As an extension to this, the light/dark thing is often used as a proxy in the battle between good and evil (think positive and negative energy planes). This is far more fundamental than any issue with skin color and derives from our collective fear of the dark among other things. I think pointing to this as an example of racism would be a mistake (I'm not saying anyone is. I'm just saying.)

And you don't see how this sort of Manichaean light/dark scheme has been tied to race in history?

 

[aramis erak]

I agree and I disagree.
Unfortunately biology falls apart a bit at this point in a multi-species setting where they are capable of interbreeding since one of the hallmarks of a species is considered their inability to reproduce and create fertile children.

Actually, that is NOT the dividing point, and a few species (Ursus arctus, Ursus maritimus; panthera leo & panthera tigris, amongst many others) are capable, but due to range differences, naturally do not breed across populations.

Oh, and Lynx rufus and felis familiaris can produce reproductively viable offspring... but the offspring are slightly malformed... by either parent species' standards... They tend, however, to be offspring of a female FF and a male LR, and have bob-tails, twisted ears, extreme size, and short lifespans (8 years as indoor pets is what I've heard from several friends with them). And they can be reproductively viable - the second gen are FF sized, not lynx sized, but still bob-tailed and tufted.

There's a lot of problem with modern taxonomy being inaccurate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And you don't see how this sort of Manichaean light/dark scheme has been tied to race in history?

We should probably protest cosmology, then, since it's a study of dark matter, called so because it doesn't interact with light. Obviously a modern incarnation of the European Manichaean light-good/dark-bad dichotomy perpetuating racist stereotypes.

Sarcasm aside, fears of the dark--that is, the absence of solar illuminance, "night"--almost surely predate classifications based on the melanin content of an individual's skin, since our reduced ability to see and resulting increased vulnerability has been here long before there were meaningful differences in melanin content of skin.

Yes. Some people have made claims about so-called "white" skin being holy, pure, light, and good, and "dark" skin as a bunch of negative things often opposed to them (and then further used that to justify atrocities). Does that mean we now cannot employ the presence and absence of photonic emission as symbolic of shared, and perhaps universal, human sentiment--be it the unknown, the unseen, the feared, or the mysterious?

 

[pemerton]

BS. If anything, Avatar turns those stereotypes inside out. The "savages" were shown to be anything but. The real savages were shown to be the so called civilised people wrecking their world.

Avatar doesn't turn stereotypes inside out anymore than The Phantom or Tarzan does.

How can a vague link to racism in a fantasy game world reinforce those beliefs in real people?

By reinforcing received associations that are found in a whole variety of similar cultural artefacts. [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION] elaborated on this in the post just above yours.

 

[nomotog]

Fantasy racial stereotypes are not the same as human racial stereotypes, because in this case there can be some facts behind it. Claiming dwarves are tough miners and elves are graceful woodsfolk is as valid as saying a greyhound is fast but lazy, great danes are strong but gentle, or border collies are intelligent. They're all very different breeds that are physically different.
That isn't to say you couldn't have a sickly dwarf any more than a slow greyhound or frail great dane, but the race is going to fall along certain averages, and a sickly dwarf will still be more hardy and less agile than a sickly and clumsy elf.

Plus, stereotypes in this situation are useful. In real life you can judge people as individuals. Because they are. In a fantasy game they're not: they're a creation of the DM and as real as she wants them to be. Stereotypes and assumptions are an easy cultural shorthand so we can all think of dwarves (and other fantasy races) the same, without having to describe them to people from scratch or make all of the imaginary mental constructs into unique snowflakes.
There's a reason the traditional races are classics, while new races tend to be more forgettable. And how even new races tend to have a cultural hook or stereotypes that make them easier to think about. (Dragonborn as honourable, tieflings as drawn to darkness, gnomes as curious, etc). It gives players and DMs a starting point, a baseline for their characters. It's easier to make the dwarf's dwarf - the dwarf that is the embodiment of dwarf culture and values - if you actually know what dwarf values are. Similarly, it's easier to make the outlier if you actually know what "normal" is. The honourless dwarf who drinks tea, uses arcane magic, and has a shaved face is more remarkable if you know that dwarves are typically lawful beer drinkers who eschew magic and are renowned for their beards. Likewise, having assumptions of culture allows the DM to defy expectations, something Dark Sun did very well. Not knowing what to expect from a give race was one of the strengths of that world.

That is one way to look at it. I never thought of dwarfs and elves as dogs breeds though. They tend to be presented more as ethic and national groups. (Some times they even get cultural traits in their stat block.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If orcs are presented in a way that emulates stereotypes that used to be applied to real world ethnicity it is hugely problematic. As problematic as making elves analogous culturally with a real world nation.

In Spelljammer, elves (specifically the IEN) are clearly analogous to Great Britain ca. 1880. I don't see how that correspondence causes a problem.

 

[nomotog]

Can you make a fiction people who are considered analogs to some real people? I don't know if that detail is the problem bit or if it's something that gets packaged with it.

 

[Hussar]

To me, orcs are presented as nasty, evil, smelly, and violent. I would never associate that with any group of humans. Why would anyone else, and if they do how is that anyone's fault but theirs?

Do people associate elves with real world nations? That seems bizarre. What would be the point?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467387-The-word-%91Race%92/page19#ixzz3kD5rFVjl

Hrm, you see absolutely no connections to racism in the idea that the only non-caucasoid race in the PHB is a group of murdering rapists and the race that is the "whitest" is depicted as good, enlightened, and virtually immortal?

Really? You honestly cannot see the issue here? If anyone draws any parallels here, it's entirely in their mind because you cannot conceive of the connection? Are you really so arrogant to think that such connections can only exist if you acknowledge them?

 

[Alzrius]

This kind of thing used to be said of other aspects of D&D...

What other aspects, specifically?

I get it, I do, but I see the other side, and I think failing to see that makes the problems worse, not better.

I don't agree that it's a question of "failing to see the other side." I think those of us who aren't sympathetic to the "D&D is racist" argument do, in fact, see the other side. We just don't find validity in it.