When Fantasy Racism gets stupid

[Doug McCrae]

I sometimes end up wandering down dark lines of thought with this though - wondering what motivated the writers of early D&D to tread this path. They were writing in the early 1970s, at a time when the USA was just coming out of very harsh parts of the Civil Rights movement - less than a decade away from the end of segregation, and at a time when some of my kin were in 'resistance' (Wounded Knee II, and Alcatraz). And it almost feels like they wanted to 'keep the conflict going'.

Imho, the early authors of D&D weren't very conscious of the civil rights movement. A much stronger influence, I think, were concepts from the Old West - the Frontier, 'Injun Territory' - received partly by way of early 20th century fantasy fiction such as Conan, and partly from Wild West fiction such as cowboy movies.

 

[Dire Bare]

Sadly as you can see here and in similar threads, many people are violently opposed to giving monsters more personality because that prevents them from killing them on sight without any moral problems.

Imo this is the biggest problem D&D has. That it is in the end "just" a dungeon crawler and it is not really possible to make it "more" because neither the designers nor many players want a deviation from the simple "adventurers kill monsters for loot" core of D&D.
And even giving people the options (without needing to houserule everything) to do more in the game seems to be a big No for some players as that might take up space which could be used by more murder weapons or HP bags to kill.

I don't entirely agree with you. Giving monsters more personality, making them more well-rounded characters, isn't necessarily taking elements of the game from racist to non-racist. There is overlap, but it isn't the same thing.

Having creatures of supernatural evil, such as demons, devils . . . even orcs if they are "fluffed" right . . . isn't the same thing as embedded racism as in the origin story of the drow. The drow being black-skinned because they are evil, or being evil because they are black-skinned, is embedded racism in the game. An orc that is evil because it is not a natural creature, but rather a corruption of a natural creature created by a wizard or other evil supernatural force, as orcs are depicted in the Lord of the Rings films, isn't necessarily. Now, if orcs are natural creatures and are just as inherently evil as the black-skinned drow, simply because they are savage orcs, that too can be seen as embedded racism. Part of the problem is that D&D, and the surrounding fantasy literature, isn't consistent in how some fantasy creatures such as orcs are portrayed. Heck, even truly supernaturally evil creatures aren't consistently portrayed. I just read a Realms novel (Brimstone Angels) where one of the protagonists is a cambion who, while evil, is a very human evil.

Also, even supernatural evils can be tainted with racism if you dig deep enough . . . many of the devils and demons of D&D lore are borrowed direct from real world mythology, and were often somebody's GOD before the Christian church made them into devils (not knocking Christians, it's just historical fact is all). Granted, this happened so long ago there aren't many around to get all offended by that, but myth is rife with racism, as can be literature, and D&D pulls from that, of course.

The best we can do, as fans, and also the game designers, is to be aware and to make changes when racist undertones to the game are uncovered, while trying to respect the game's lore itself. Not an easy task, and I won't be criticizing WotC if they don't fix everything in the game I find racist (although, of course, they should! ). The cool thing about D&D, is that I can do that in my home games if it isn't taken care of for me.

PS - Also, while certainly some D&D fans are all about more "murder weapons" to kill "HP bags", not all D&D fans are like that. And I don't really have a problem with the "video game" (or "arcade game") approach, and I can't agree with your negative view and charged words. It's pretty much saying those who disagree play badwrongfun D&D.

 

[Leatherhead]

Sadly as you can see here and in similar threads, many people are violently opposed to giving monsters more personality because that prevents them from killing them on sight without any moral problems.

People love having lore about monsters. What they hate is turning monsters into humans with funny suits, that's boring and uninspired creature characterization.

And I can assure you, people have no problem with killing imaginary things, even if they are considered "good." Not only will some people play flat out "evil" characters, I have never had a problem with being sufficiently detached from the characters I play. I consider it a necessity for proper DMing. How do you expect to kill a player character, or create an encounter where NPCs are in peril, if you can't kill anything without a moral dilemma?

The only moral problems in D&D are people trying to inject their personal morals into it.

 

[Derren]

What they hate is turning monsters into humans with funny suits, that's boring and uninspired creature characterization.

And yet many people are opposed to have any PC race which is not a human in suit (see the various "Dragonborn should not be in the PHB because..." threads.
Also, why do you automatically assume that a monster suddenly becomes human when it is given a motivation other than "do random evil things so that PCs can kill you on sight"?

From reading all those threads I got the impression that many players want the following logic:
"If it looks human, its neutral till proven otherwise. If it looks not like a human kill it on sight". Everything which goes beyond that, like giving monsters a motivation other than "be evil", is seen as waste of space or unnecessary complexity by those people.

If someone wants to play such simple games, fine. But that should not be the default style of D&D. If it is, then you can throw out the RPG part altogether and finally make D&D completely into a dungeon board game.

 

[Dellamon]

I logged in to check some of the info on the D&DNext playtest and this topic caught my eye. All I can say is wow. Complaining about make-believe racism towards evil / warlike races in a heroic fantasy game where you are supposed slaying evil (or good, I guess, if you are running a evil game) ... Wow. I can now fully appreciate the impossible task that WOTC has in trying to appeal to some gamers. I can understand adding depth to your game, but it should not be part of core rules or lore. I have a strong suspicion that the majority of gamers do not want to play a twilight-like game of oppressed, misunderstood characters who just want to be loved. I know some gamers who always try to force that element into a game - at first it is kind of neat, but it gets really old, really fast. My group is playing for enjoyment and escapism, not trying to emulate and address real-world sociological issues. Drizzt lost his appeal a long, long time ago for us.

 

[Derren]

but it should not be part of core rules or lore.

Why? Why should the core of D&D be simple minded hack & slash "There orc. Kill orc cus orc is evil"? Why should people who want their PnP RPG to be more than a dungeon crawler need to spend even more effort than what a complex game would already take?

Instead they will look for a different system which supports more game styles out of the box.

A monster with motivations does not automatically mean misunderstood. The motivation can still mean that, most of the time, it will come into conflict with the PCs. But monsters having a motivation besides "be evil so PCs can kill you for XP and treasure" can lead to more interesting encounters and RP scenes (I would even go so far to say that they are a requirement).

 

[Dellamon]

Why? Because that should be a individual game decision. It should not be part of core, plain and simple. If WOTC wants to release twilight-themed supplement books, more power to them. If you want to integrate those elements into your game, you can do so easily. Just because the core rules do not say that the orcs really just want to farm peacefully after they have massacred the villages, does not mean that you cannot do it for your game. That is up to the DM, not WOTC.

 

[Derren]

Why? Because that should be a individual game decision. It should not be part of core, plain and simple. If WOTC wants to release twilight-themed supplement books, more power to them. If you want to integrate those elements into your game, you can do so easily. Just because the core rules do not say that the orcs really just want to farm peacefully after they have massacred the villages, does not mean that you cannot do it for your game. That is up to the DM, not WOTC.

Again, why should the core of D&D be hack&slash with monsters just existing for XP, requiring everyone who want more in their games to spend extra effort and/or cash, instead of the core being complex monsters which DMs who just want a simple game can simply put into the game and ignore what they do not like/need?

On a general issue: I can't prove it, but I don't think that D&D can survive very well when it tries to simplify itself down to dungeon crawling. Video games can do dungeon crawling just fine with getting better and better on the social component, too.
If a PnP RPG wants to do well it has to offer more than what Diablo 3 already has. And that are complex interactions which change on the player input, or in short. Whatever happens outside of the dungeon.

 

[Dellamon]

I could pose the same question back to you - why should the core of D&D be pushed into a certain framework which could isolate a large group of gamers? If you leave core open with a general framework, it allows for more DMs to make the game their own. Why not provide a generally accepted framework (orcs, drow, and ogres are bad, evil creatures) that the majority of DMs and players are more comfortable with as the base? If you want to tailor your campaign so that all ogres are really just big, lovable creatures with anger management issues (aka, Shrek), you can do that. Why does that take away from the game if it is not core? It speaks to a lack of imagination if you need core to provide your monster / race motivations.

And here is another question for you - what is a more dangerous path for WOTC to traverse: using generally accepted fantasy ideals and frameworks or going out on a limb and pursuing a specific agenda for a core race / monster that may or may not sit well with the majority of gamers?

 

[RigaMortus2]

I like to use "good" orcs and "bad" orcs... I also like to use "good" demons as well as the traditional "always evil" demons.

Most players/DMs see devils and demons as unredeemable evil, and there are no drawbacks to killing one. For example, most players/DMs allow Paladin's to kill a demon simply because they are inherrently evil. Whereas the same player/DM is a little more cautious when that Paladin slaughters an Orc. The Paladin may get less flack from their deity for killing a demon who is standing around minding his own business that a demon doing the same.

But I like the "wants to be good, tries to be good" demon. Or just look at Drizzt as another example. If all Drow are evil, then R.A. Sal. "broke" the game creating Drizzt.

My point is, any creature or fantasy race can be any alignment, either wholely or individually. Thats what makes RPGs and imagination great.