D&D 5E Thoughts on this article about Black Culture & the D&D team dropping the ball?

[Kobold Boots]

If you look at enough History then you can see that it is about everyones Culture getting smashed but the Europeans seem to get all the credit for some reason.

I chalk it up to the level of exploration and warfare done to accumulate wealth and survive a more variable climate. Horses, Gunpowder, Sea faring boats and religion all in one place at the right time had a really telling effect on everyone else they touched. The book Guns, Germs and Steel does an ok job of covering much of it if you have the persistence and time to read through it.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I wasn't wanting to pressure you to bow out.

I've seen threads like this before, and this is the first one where I feel I've really gone in hard. Some of that I think might be a response to non-ENworld, non-gaming related (but not necessarily off-topic stuff) that has put me in a slightly different frame from what I've been in before. And some of that was because I was reading posts saying "I wonder what a black ENworlder might say" on or about the same page as [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s posts, and wanted to say "Well, here's a black player posting, and a well-known ENworld regular, and you don't seem to be listening to him!"

So any way, the point of my post wasn't to attack yours - I've got absolutely no objection to doing better histories of Africa, or other non-European parts of the world. I was using your post as a springboard to a different point, that even someone ignorant of how Africa was before the late 19th century (or the late 15th century, or wherever you want to draw your line in time) might see that the framing they are using is one derived not from Africa itself, or from black culture (be that African or diaspora) but from a narrative created about Africa for some purpose, or in a context, completely divorced from actual truth-telling. You don't need to know what's true to recognise something as un-truth.

So anyway, that's a slightly word way of offering an apology if you felt my post was an attack - it wasn't intended as one and I'm sorry if I upset you - coupled with a non-apology for what I actually posted (which I hope doesn't compound any sense of attack - the wordiness is an attempt to achieve this perhaps oxymoronic posting goal).

No need to apologize at all. No harm done, but thank you.

I'm just being very careful because we're typing on forums and some topics are really dangerous when you're not sitting across the table to read the folks you're chatting with. I'd rather be the super-friendly guy that folks want to play games with, than run the risk of being seen as the super jerk guy in the politics or race thread.

 

[neobolts]

I'd rather be the super-friendly guy that folks want to play games with, than run the risk of being seen as the super jerk guy in the politics or race thread.

Don't worry, some other posters stepped up and took on the "jerk guy" role.

 

[Caliburn101]

Sure. Let's ask those Americans of Norwegian heritage who have faced discrimination due to being associated with raging Vikings. And discuss media's refusal to portray medieval Norwegians as anything more than backwards savages incapable of handling culture. And discuss how pre-Christian Norwegian religion is played up as scary, unholy, and the stuff of horror movies. And discuss how medieval Norway is associated with images of disease, primitive savages, and the like. And also discuss how these portrayals of Norwegians were used to enslave them for centuries and then discriminate against them for another century and how we're still dealing with those consequences and perception in all aspects of media today.

Although even if we were interested in the opinions of people of Norwegian heritage, there would be many here who would argue that we shouldn't ask them because who are they to tell us how they feel about that kind of stuff?



Except WotC can and has made sweeping changes where this stuff is concerned. Mezro of Chult and Lapaliiya were destroyed by WOTC in 4e along with a many other places. WotC also brought many of those other places back in 5e, but Mezro and Lapaliiya were not among them.



Neither does the article. It mentions they dropped the ball and made a particular black blogger feel unwelcome via some lazy design by not addressing past elements of fantasy- elements that are indeed rooted in racism and racially coded ideas. It didn't call the folks behind ToA racist.




Is it unfair to ask why it hasn't been the case in previous decades? I get the feeling that if this article had been written in 1987 or 1997 or 2007 instead of 2017, a lot of the arguments brought to defend it would be the same.

Although I'm not really holding my breath for a D&D style African Adventures expansion any time soon for various reasons.

If you expect to retain any credibility whatsoever, you cannot on the one hand say that the author was merely made "uncomfortable" about the adventure, and that this was not in fact an accusation of racism against WotC and conflate this with your response to the comment about Vikings and modern day Norwegians.

I was talking about historically referenced racial cliché - you are talking in some lurid detail about flat-out racism.

Either you think the author was complaining about racism or you don't - you cannot sit on both sides of the fence, and either way, your response is not in keeping with a consistent point of view with regards to what I stated.

It is the author who thinks that a defiant and successful race with a mercantile culture 'isn't good enough' and that the city in the adventure smacks of colonialism. What the city and situation does is reflect to a limited degree the colonial-era parallels Ed Greenwood put into his gameworld, but in no way are the Chultans described as second class citizens, servile, downtrodden, unequal or incapable as racists commonly claim in the real world about people of colour.

Ed's approach was somewhat unfortunate, to be sure - but don't think that the IP was secured without caveats on the degree to which they could change HIS creation - creative IPs are usually littered with that sort of stuff, and it would be truly unusual for WotC to have got their hands on FR with complete freedom to change it.

On your last point - do you really wish to say that having made 5th Edition racially and sexually inclusive, with the human race represented by a black woman in the PHB, that it isn't acceptable that this wasn't done sooner, in previous editions? Are you going to greet a progressive and inclusive design philosophy by criticising it's timing?

Should it have happened earlier? Sure. Should you retrospectively complain about it now it is here? No...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Caliburn101]

There's a lot I disagree with here, but I'm going to note this factual area. In 1986, Ed Greenwood gave full creative control of FR to TSR (later, of course, these rights went to WoTC). Why did TSR demand full creative control? Because of the whole Gygax/Greyhawk thing.

TSR/WoTC can change FR, sunder it, plague it, change the size of the world and what's in it, kill off people and add them ... all things they have done.

I acknowledge your point on the transfer of full creative control.

However, you have also said you disagree with "a lot" of what I said, but I only really said two things, and you dealt with the second separately from that comment.

So, if you do in fact think that the Chultans, as people of colour are referred to as "second class citizens, servile, downtrodden, unequal or incapable" in the adventure module, I will happily retract that observation if you can point out where it is that happened, as I quite honestly must have entirely missed it.

With the cultural focus of the west on anti-black racism, there is tendency to think of that as the predominant scope of what racism is. This is entirely wrong of course. There are many examples of racism of one race or culture against another (black, white, asian, oriental, arabic etc.), including subsets of each (such as white vs. white, or arab vs arab) in the real world. Should we go to the effort of looking at every potential racial cliché for signs of representational bias in their regard too, or shouldn't we?

Do those racial and cultural groups have to complain about the racial and cultural clichés in our games before we take note of them?

If we are to have a policy of actively and rigorously avoiding racial cliché because it has the potential to drift into racism (and let's not forget sexism as was in early editions), then we should acknowledge that this should be done across the board. No 'evil gypsies' like the Vistani, or no 'evil oriental wizards from the far east' acting like Fu Man Chu to take two examples. No chainmail bikinis for that matter!

Do you feel that we have all "dropped the ball" on these too?

 

[Satyrn]

...(when you’re in one).

I usually elide that, because I assume it’s known? But you know what happens when you assume ...

Someone else finds an opening for a joke?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Alexemplar]

If you expect to retain any credibility whatsoever, you cannot on the one hand say that the author was merely made "uncomfortable" about the adventure, and that this was not in fact an accusation of racism against WotC and conflate this with your response to the comment about Vikings and modern day Norwegians.

I was talking about historically referenced racial cliché - you are talking in some lurid detail about flat-out racism.

Either you think the author was complaining about racism or you don't - you cannot sit on both sides of the fence, and either way, your response is not in keeping with a consistent point of view with regards to what I stated.

It is the author who thinks that a defiant and successful race with a mercantile culture 'isn't good enough' and that the city in the adventure smacks of colonialism. What the city and situation does is reflect to a limited degree the colonial-era parallels Ed Greenwood put into his gameworld, but in no way are the Chultans described as second class citizens, servile, downtrodden, unequal or incapable as racists commonly claim in the real world about people of colour.

Ed's approach was somewhat unfortunate, to be sure - but don't think that the IP was secured without caveats on the degree to which they could change HIS creation - creative IPs are usually littered with that sort of stuff, and it would be truly unusual for WotC to have got their hands on FR with complete freedom to change it.

The imagery that originally inspired the racial cliches of Chult are originally the result flat out racism. That they continue is not racism, but just general ignorance/lazyniess in this regard. A lot of people legitimately don't realize the racist origins of the stuff or how it might influence them- even if they themselves aren't racist.

Yes, it's possible to point out that an idea, practice, tradition, or charicature is rooted in real world racism and has had negative repercussions and can be seen as offensive and that it can/should be changed without suggesting that everyone that has found some entertainment is themselves a racist. As you mentioned, they're thinking (and not thinking) of lots of other things, and racism likely never even entered their minds when they went about it. But it doesn't change the origins of the tropes and doesn't really do anything to address them.

And WotC makes changes to the realms with every edition. There used to be the city of Mezro and mention (but not much else) of Lapaliiya that could serve pretty much serve the same function as Chult's nalague colonial cities. Both were destroyed when 4e made sweeping changes that saw them both destroyed both remained destroyed when 5e made sweeping changes that brought most part of the realms back.

I don't think these choices were made because the staff at WotC are racist. Nobody is trying to call the people at WotC racists. It's recognized that they didn't invent Chult. They're being accused of dropping the ball, making a mistake, and /or being lazy when it came to their portrayal of black people in Chult by not updating it to be in line with D&D's now more nuanced and inclusive goals.

That's not riding the fence. I'm not trying to covertly call WotC or anyone who has no issues with Chult or can't see the issues people might have a racist just because they can't see the issue. There was a time back pre-2002 or so when I wouldn't have seen them.

And finally, tropes regarding Norsemen aren't tropes applied to white people as a whole- or even all of Europe. People recognize them as being distinct from tropes regarding Francs, Celts, Greeks etc and certainly not implicated in the state of white relations in the US. Tropes regarding Africans are very much be hard-pressed to tell which ones are based on Yoruba of west Africa, which ones are based on Zuluu of east Africa, or which ones are based on Khoisan of southern Africa and those stereotypes are often implicated in the state of black relations in the US. The two in this regard really are substantively different to the point where equivalency cannot be drawn in that regard.

On your last point - do you really wish to say that having made 5th Edition racially and sexually inclusive, with the human race represented by a black woman in the PHB, that it isn't acceptable that this wasn't done sooner, in previous editions? Are you going to greet a progressive and inclusive design philosophy by criticising it's timing?

Should it have happened earlier? Sure. Should you retrospectively complain about it now it is here? No...

The statement you're referring to is not an attack on D&D's attempts at being more inclusive. It's about how D&D has more or less ignored African as a source of culture, mythology, and game elements in a way it hasn't really done for the rest of the world and how that results in them continuously falling back on the same old tropes with problematic origins. I think I can and I should ask about what's going on and and criticize them for not really looking more into it.

Having more black people in the PHB is totally cool. Doesn't immunize them from criticism on any grounds.

And again, WotC is not accused of being racist. It's recognized that they didn't invent Chult. They're being accused of dropping the ball, making a mistake, and /or being lazy when it came to their portrayal of black people in Chult by not updating it to be in line with D&D's now more nuanced and inclusive goals.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Just a side thought from a writing perspective as we start going down the rabbit hole of racism and stereotypes.

Stereotypes exist because there are real behaviors and imagery that support them.
Whether or not a stereotype is racist has to do with whether or not it adversely affects someone's ability to be equal with someone else of another race or if it offends someone; usually due to some social stigma related to actual equality or actual subservience.

As a writer of fantasy craft, I use stereotypes all of the time to assist people with getting a vibe for where they are, and within the general space of fantasy literature there are a ton of stereotypes. Sometimes these can have some racial base as if you're doing Wuxia, then you've got asians in pajamas syndrome. There are a ton of others, and I'm intentionally avoiding African stereotypes in order to remove some fuel from the thread.

My point being: Just because a stereotype is used does not mean it's racist. There's always context. Additionally, sometimes when someone is offended that doesn't mean that what they're offended by is inherently racist. No one is actually prohibited from having a good life or getting a good job by the destruction and lack of return of the Chult. Additionally, the point of being more inclusive to cultures other than your own is not to remove all signs that could offend anyone in the world. It's simply to provide a more equal playing field to everyone.

End of the day, this thread is full of good discussion, but we're beyond the point where I think someone needs to say: "Hey, this is a game we're talking about here and there are just as many signs of improving harmony in D&D's presentation as there may be negative."

Figured I'd post this thought as I'm seeing some signs of silly and I don't think anyone has posted the "well there were tribesmen in Africa at one point." argument or "Well I could always just retcon Chult back into my campaign" argument.