D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[Faolyn]

I've seen that too, although I don't assume they are racists, sexists, or misogynists. I mean, I know a DM that has devoted their entire life to helping those less fortunate, yet in their campaign there is slavery and an entire continent that is racist (except for the rebels in the continent). I know them. They are not racist.
But it's all anecdotal I guess. You see your world through your half-empty glass, I will continue to see it as almost full.

Is the slavery/racism of a fantasy race, like halflings or goblins, or of humans in general? Or are they picking a particular real-world group to be bigoted towards?

See, the thing that in a fantasy world, you can have giants enslaving dwarfs or elves enslaving halflings or whatever and that's one fantasy race harming another. Even if you have goblins enslaving humans or humans enslaving goblins, that's still a fantasy race (goblin) and a fantasy interpretation of a race (humans). It's not necessarily OK, depending on the way the DM handles it, but it's also not necessarily bad, either--again, depending on the way the DM handles it.

But if the DM is choosing to have people who are victims of bigotry all be women, people of color, gays, or something similar--especially in a fantasy world when such bigotry doesn't have to exist--then it doesn't suggest that the DM has "realism" in mind.

 

[prabe]

Is the slavery/racism of a fantasy race, like halflings or goblins, or of humans in general? Or are they picking a particular real-world group to be bigoted towards?

See, the thing that in a fantasy world, you can have giants enslaving dwarfs or elves enslaving halflings or whatever and that's one fantasy race harming another. Even if you have goblins enslaving humans or humans enslaving goblins, that's still a fantasy race (goblin) and a fantasy interpretation of a race (humans). It's not necessarily OK, depending on the way the DM handles it, but it's also not necessarily bad, either--again, depending on the way the DM handles it.

But if the DM is choosing to have people who are victims of bigotry all be women, people of color, gays, or something similar--especially in a fantasy world when such bigotry doesn't have to exist--then it doesn't suggest that the DM has "realism" in mind.

You can also have slavery be an evil, explicitly to be disliked (if not ended).

 

[Scott Christian]

Is the slavery/racism of a fantasy race, like halflings or goblins, or of humans in general? Or are they picking a particular real-world group to be bigoted towards?

See, the thing that in a fantasy world, you can have giants enslaving dwarfs or elves enslaving halflings or whatever and that's one fantasy race harming another. Even if you have goblins enslaving humans or humans enslaving goblins, that's still a fantasy race (goblin) and a fantasy interpretation of a race (humans). It's not necessarily OK, depending on the way the DM handles it, but it's also not necessarily bad, either--again, depending on the way the DM handles it.

But if the DM is choosing to have people who are victims of bigotry all be women, people of color, gays, or something similar--especially in a fantasy world when such bigotry doesn't have to exist--then it doesn't suggest that the DM has "realism" in mind.

I guess they are wrong then. Their NPC backstories should be approved before being creating. For example, they had a male/male couple who were transplants, having to leave the village they lived in that didn't accept them. (They owned a shop in the city we were in.) They had a female that was domestically abused (to promote the PC's hatred of the perpetrator). And their wood elves were enslaved by the high elves, from indentured servitude to straight up slavery.

My question is - who decides if it is okay? You? Me? This forum's community? I have seen, and been involved in, many discussions about fantasy races with you. You have a very strong and inflexible viewpoint. And the fact that it may be "OK" or may be "bad" is completely arbitrary, depending on who the judge is, then it's exactly how I said it is: Some will see them as racists or bigots (glass half empty - and maybe correct) versus choosing to believe a person's soul isn't measured through a hobby that has fantasy settings (glass is full).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've seen that too, although I don't assume they are racists, sexists, or misogynists. I mean, I know a DM that has devoted their entire life to helping those less fortunate, yet in their campaign there is slavery and an entire continent that is racist (except for the rebels in the continent). I know them. They are not racist.
But it's all anecdotal I guess. You see your world through your half-empty glass, I will continue to see it as almost full.

Its not a question of whether they are racist or sexist per se, but whether they can comfortably deal with the situation in the campaign because it doesn't have a personal impact, so they can shrug off people for whom it does.

 

[Faolyn]

I guess they are wrong then. Their NPC backstories should be approved before being creating. For example, they had a male/male couple who were transplants, having to leave the village they lived in that didn't accept them. (They owned a shop in the city we were in.)

Not endemic bigotry, which is what I had been talking about.

Unless the bulk of the world is homophobic because of "realism," even though it's a fantasy world. In which case, that is what I was talking about.

They had a female that was domestically abused (to promote the PC's hatred of the perpetrator).

Not endemic bigotry, which is what I had been talking about.

And their wood elves were enslaved by the high elves, from indentured servitude to straight up slavery.

A fantasy race enslaving another fantasy race. Which is not what I had been talking about.

My question is - who decides if it is okay? You? Me? This forum's community? I have seen, and been involved in, many discussions about fantasy races with you. You have a very strong and inflexible viewpoint.

So, mentioning that some people insist that worlds have to have bigotry of one sort or another in order to be realistic = me being inflexible?

But you saying that you know a guy who isn't racist who had in-game slavery (or people who likely weren't representing a real-world group!), therefore I am wrong? Isn't that inflexible? I know a guy who very recently had to kick someone from his other group because that person tried to use real-world racism (e.g, treating racist beliefs as facts) to justify orcs being always evil. So... BATTLE OF THE ANECDOTES!

 

[Scott Christian]

Not endemic bigotry, which is what I had been talking about.

Unless the bulk of the world is homophobic because of "realism," even though it's a fantasy world. In which case, that is what I was talking about.


Not endemic bigotry, which is what I had been talking about.


A fantasy race enslaving another fantasy race. Which is not what I had been talking about.


So, mentioning that some people insist that worlds have to have bigotry of one sort or another in order to be realistic = me being inflexible?

But you saying that you know a guy who isn't racist who had in-game slavery (or people who likely weren't representing a real-world group!), therefore I am wrong? Isn't that inflexible? I know a guy who very recently had to kick someone from his other group because that person tried to use real-world racism (e.g, treating racist beliefs as facts) to justify orcs being always evil. So... BATTLE OF THE ANECDOTES!

How does one even treat racist beliefs as facts to justify orcs being evil? That seems impossible. How would that even come up at a table? And how does the DM not do a better job vetting. In my opinion, he must be an awful DM to not have seen or known that prior to starting. And if it was a one shot, then also shame on him for even letting something like that be a topic of conversation. Terrible terrible DMing.

(See how I drew that conclusion? See how inflexible it is?)

And I am not using my anecdote to prove me correct. I am using your past ten thousand posts about the subject to say I understand your point of view (on this one subject) and that I know it is inflexible. Which, I am okay with. But again, when you leave it open, like this here:

Even if you have goblins enslaving humans or humans enslaving goblins, that's still a fantasy race (goblin) and a fantasy interpretation of a race (humans). It's not necessarily OK, depending on the way the DM handles it, but it's also not necessarily bad, either--again, depending on the way the DM handles it.

This means you are the judge. Which again, I am okay with. But it also implies you make the rules, hence, inflexible. (Again, which I am okay with. Most of the times I see it as coming from a very good and heartfelt place.)

 

[Faolyn]

How does one even treat racist beliefs as facts to justify orcs being evil? That seems impossible. How would that even come up at a table? And how does the DM not do a better job vetting. In my opinion, he must be an awful DM to not have seen or known that prior to starting. And if it was a one shot, then also shame on him for even letting something like that be a topic of conversation. Terrible terrible DMing.

It's easy to treat racist beliefs as facts if you believe that society is the same as innate biology. As an example--and I apologize to the mods if this is getting into real-world politics too much; let me know and I'll delete this--in the real world, some racist people think that the reason Black people are inherently criminal in nature, which is why there are so many of them in prison. These people are either unaware or choose to ignore how many real-world legal systems treat Black people really, really badly and much more harshly than they treat white people, which is the actual reason for the numbers disparity. If you believe that Black people are inherently criminal, then you can also say that orcs are inherently criminal (murderous bandits, in D&D terms) as well, by using that as "real world biology" to back it up. Because gamers, in general, like having real-world precedents because of verisimilitude.

(See how I drew that conclusion? See how inflexible it is?)

No, it's just dumb because you are leaping to conclusions about a specific individual, which I wasn't doing. I didn't single out your friend as being "an awful DM" like you did mine because he used bigotry. In fact, I didn't bring up your friend at all--you did, in response to my post. Which is odd; if your friend isn't using real-world bigotry endemically in-game, why would it upset you that I said some DMs do?

Here, I'll give you another example. Imagine a DM who decides that, in his world, women are treated as second-class citizens and any female PCs are going to be harassed frequently by NPCs because they're female, because it's "realistic" for a Medieval game (and this DM would probably look the other way if a male PC harassed a female PC for the same reason). But at the same time, the DM doesn't include, or tones down, "realistic" things that would affect male PCs. This is an example of the type of bigotry I was talking about.

Or this one, from a recent post on r/rpghorrorstories. To save you a click-through, a person left a game after being told he couldn't play a dark-skinned character because "there are no black people on the Sword Coast."

And I am not using my anecdote to prove me correct. I am using your past ten thousand posts about the subject to say I understand your point of view (on this one subject) and that I know it is inflexible. Which, I am okay with. But again, when you leave it open, like this here:

Would you like to support this claim that I've made "ten thousand" (which I know you mean as a generically large number) posts on the subject of bigoted DMs using "realism" as an excuse for bigotry?

Would you also care to explain why you think it's "inflexible" to be against using real-world bigotry in-game, or as an excuse for in-game bigotry?

This means you are the judge. Which again, I am okay with. But it also implies you make the rules, hence, inflexible. (Again, which I am okay with. Most of the times I see it as coming from a very good and heartfelt place.)

Are you saying that every DMs would treat slavery appropriate in game, because their heart is in the right place?

 

[Thunderfoot]

@Faolyn and @Scott Christian . Both of you take a moment and re-read your posts objectively. You're on the same side, but you're both 'backing into the same parking spot from opposite sides'. Apply the brakes before the crash. Thanks.- Those of us that on the outside looking in.

 

[Scott Christian]

@Faolyn and @Scott Christian . Both of you take a moment and re-read your posts objectively. You're on the same side, but you're both 'backing into the same parking spot from opposite sides'. Apply the brakes before the crash. Thanks.- Those of us that on the outside looking in.

Will do.