D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The hypothetical unitaur race Oofta wrote up was meant to look like a dig at LGBTQ people. Not just because of using a unicorn.

 

[Umbran]

That is my point about what is offensive only applying to monsters that qualify as a "person".

Well, if you are in the camp that thinks that the body shape is particularly important in deciding what is a person.

Meanwhile, you have the flumph - totally not humanoid, but traditionally benificently-natured and highly intelligent. Probably a person, no matter the body frame.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It may contain offensive themes, but it doesn't really pertain to this discussion: As far as I'm aware the description is unlikely to be hurtful to a particular persecuted demographic. While the write-up is unpleasant, it doesn't seem to code for the way a particular group has been historically and still is referred to.

Here are some demographics that might be excluded from D&D due to its themes and its cost:
-LGBTQ
-Women
-underprivileged/Poor
-other Minorities

There are other issues when you include things like consent, violence and mental health.

 

[Valchrys]

Dude, why the obfuscation side dodges over and over and over?

You asked why Orc ’s are getting special attention. It was answered yet again. But here you are bringing up even more ludicrous examples that have nothing to do with the thread, heritage vs inclusivity in DnD or about the specific issues linked to the topic.

So I figure a few caps are warranted since you are obviously not listening.

TLDR: the problem of racism in D&D has different aspects which will probably require different solutions. None of the following is a judgment for any side, it's only an observation of the state of public discourse.

I think part of the problem is who are these solutions being addressed to? The player base in general? The portion of the player base involved in public debate? Or, media critics? A solution might be acceptable to players who are well versed in the mechanics and lore of the game but do nothing to address public criticism.

For example, we have this quote, “Racism isn’t just negative stereotypes; it is also an underlying belief that a particular group of people have something inherently in common with each other and also that they are also inherently different from other groups."

That's from Helen Young who is, for those that don't know, a professional medievalist who studies white supremacy in medieval literature. Why does she matter? Because the journalists who present the problem of racism in D&D to the public don't talk to players, they go to the loudest voices they can find, declare them experts and quote them. When it comes to WotC, it's going to be people like Dr Young who are going to be more influential on future design because she offers a clear solution and the designers have this stuff right in their face.

So, what's the problem with the Dr Young's quote? It works perfectly fine in the real world where race is a social construct. But, for a fantasy setting that postulates race is real and culture derives from it, the very question of what makes an orc an orc is racist. All that design scaffolding has to go in order to answer the media critics charge. Otherwise, no matter how palatable the changes to race are to the players, D&D will continue to accused of being racist at its core.

I'm sure many players will agree to get rid of the design and start over. To that, I would only say that I think a large reason for the success of D&D is that it easier to make it feel deeper than other RPG's that lacks the lore built into D&D. As to iterating to a solution, Dr Young's quote tells you what the solution is. I think you'll find you can stop iterating once the game satisfies her criticism and not before.

 

[Valchrys]

Again Eberron . . . the treatment of drow in Eberron is AMAZING. They are exotic, dark, maintain a classic feel, but are new, different, and not evil. Dark and often antagonistic, but not evil. We've got scorpion-god worshipping drow who practice scorpion-acid scarification tatoos, we've got fire-magic focused drow with bright red hair living in a volcano, and the Umbragen, an underdark (Khyber) dwelling culture of drow focused on shadow-magic . . . and it's implied there are more drow cultures waiting to be discovered . . . LOVE IT.

But what do you gain by making them drow? Couldn't you get the same effect by just making them human? They would even be easier to run as humans because you wouldn't have to look up different stat blocks.

 

[Umbran]

But what do you gain by making them drow? Couldn't you get the same effect by just making them human? They would even be easier to run as humans because you wouldn't have to look up different stat blocks.

That same question held at all times, before this discussion arose. Since the origins of drow, we could ask, "What did you gain by using drow instead of humans?" and the answer was substantively the same in 1980 as it is today.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That same question held at all times, before this discussion arose. Since the origins of drow, we could ask, "What did you gain by using drow instead of humans?" and the answer was substantively the same in 1980 as it is today.

Well, I don't agree with that for one major reason.

Science Fiction and Fantasy are genres that have define tropes. Within them is the concept of different tropes, notably, that there are other races/species/lifeforms/creatures that are defined both in terms of humanity, and also by exaggerated aspects of humanity.

This is easiest when you think of SciFi; canonically, you have the generic Star Trek Humanoid; an alien that looks remarkably similar to us (with maybe some more stuff on their forehead), living on a single planet that has a monolithic culture, and is defined by some traits that are an exaggeration of a human trait or two.

That's pretty much the same thing you have with all the base fantasy humanoids. They can be mostly of one alignment, with some exaggerated traits, and they help define us tell our stories of what it means to be human by being exaggerations or caricatures of certain aspects of humanity.

So what did Drow bring? An unknowable, evil, counterpart to the typical elves; an implacable, violent, enemy to shock and terrorize the PCs. A subversion of everything that most players were comfortable with (tra la la good elves in the forest).

Of course, when you think about this, or at least when I do, some of the issues with both Fantasy and even Sci Fi becomes apparent; one issue with racism is that it often employs stereotypes, exaggerations, and caricatures, and presents a diverse group as a monolithic whole (an "other.").

So it can become easy to see how the use of a SciFi/Fantasy trope might quickly delve into a raical/racist trope.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Honest question to those arguing against this change:

How does your point relate to the original post? Is Heritage or Inclusivity more important? Currently, it seems like you're arguing that heritage is more important.

 

[Dire Bare]

But what do you gain by making them drow? Couldn't you get the same effect by just making them human? They would even be easier to run as humans because you wouldn't have to look up different stat blocks.

That same question held at all times, before this discussion arose. Since the origins of drow, we could ask, "What did you gain by using drow instead of humans?" and the answer was substantively the same in 1980 as it is today.

Umbran's got it. Why are the classic drow an elven race and not a human race? Get rid of the pointy ears, slender frames, and longevity . . . . how are the drow substantially different than a dark-skinned race of evil humans?

One solution to the drow problem is to get rid of the drow and other problematic races, which to a degree, is all of them. But one of the joys of fantasy literature and gaming is exploring the archetypes of humanity through the lens of myth and story, the genre would be lessened without fantasy creatures and races. So the trick is to try to maintain this mythic quality and remove (as much as possible) the embedded racist tropes.

The point of the Umbragen, Sulatar, and Vulkoor drow cultures is, in part, the same point as the classic Lolth culture . . . to provide an exotic mirror to humanity. In addition, they provide variety and choice to DM's and players and help us move away from dark-skin as evil (although as noted, not entirely). Are adding these cultures to your game the perfect solution to the racist tropes of the drow race? No, but progress doesn't have to be complete and total all at once. Do adding these cultures balance out the Lolth "dark-skin is evil" drow culture? Nope, it remains problematic, which is why I would also advocate for a reimagining of drow Lolth culture to something more like the Eberron cultures, not really all that evil.

 

[Valchrys]

That same question held at all times, before this discussion arose. Since the origins of drow, we could ask, "What did you gain by using drow instead of humans?" and the answer was substantively the same in 1980 as it is today.

With things as they are now, you gain a common language. If I describe a drow to my players, they know something about that being that relates to the mythology of the world. They may not know what an individual drow might do or think but they do know that there's a goddess that teaches that the world belongs to the elves and everything else is subordinate. They know that drow society is matriarchal, they use slaves, have a strict sense of social station and the upper classes tend to be decadent. And that doesn't include all the common experience players have had with drow across many different games. There's a lot of information in being a drow that doesn't have to be communicated and helps make the world feel more realized.

If I homebrew something similar, all that information has to be packed up and delivered over time. I think that's why every other RPG I play, or even d&d homebrew campaign settings, feel so hopelessly shallow. But I admit that it's possible that using these stereotypes in this situation is wrong and it might be better to just run humans. I can't get away with that in public games though.