Hint: "alignment" has never been part of the core game engine, even in editions where it super mattered.
Not entirely sure what you mean by "core game engine" here, Yurei: we've had alignment restrictions on classes and we've had spells and mechanics that targeted and/or were triggered by alignment, all in the core books, in past editions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Anything that has an Int above animal level has, and always will have, an Alignment. Some are evil by culture, or circumstances as how their god made them, and there is no deviation.
There is no such thing as a "good" demon, as they would be slaughtered by their kin and associates long before they encountered players. Same for Drow, Gnolls, etc. There are some, a very loud minority, that are agitating to change this, Some even work at Hasbro. It does not change the facts of 50 years of history in D&D.
Oh, and Drow should be Albino, with no pigmentation at all, as all truly subterranean creatures are. And by the same token, desert creatures that are exposed to a lot of sunlight, should be dark-skinned, as that pigmentation is a evolutionary protection against skin cancer.
Drow have dark skin color because they were cursed by Corellon Larethian.
Which, you know, makes them even more problematic. ('Cuz "Dark Skin is a curse from God" is an actual excuse from real world religions to discriminate against real dark-skinned people that has been used in the past. See; Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham.)
Just gonna say right now, that was a tiny minority of people. Not saying it didn't exist, but those sorts of arguments were only pushed by religious extremists in America.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Drow have dark skin because Gygax said so, and Gygax said so because he took inspiration from the Svartálfar (literally "black elves") from Norse mythology. The in-setting reason for this doesn't change that and is not connected to any real life religious nutjobbery.
Not connected to it, but unintentionally achieves the same effect. The unintentional nature of it does not excuse or mitigate the deleterious effect. Intentions are not magic.
Edit: Also wait .. it draws an exact parallel. Even if Gygax didn't come up with the whole "dark skin is a curse from a god" thing, it was officially added in, so like ... there's definitely a pretty clear line drawn between them.
Is this something that nonetheless could/should/would be a matter of concern for WotC? Apparently yes, because image is something that needs to be maintained. Is it something to get up in arms over? Not really. If it's an issue at your table, deal with it - just like any other issue that might come up.
If it's a problem for basically an entire demographic of people it becomes something worth addressing from the creator's side. I mean, it's great if it doesn't impact your table. That's a nice privilege to have. But have some compassion to those for whom it is a real problem.
Anything that has an Int above animal level has, and always will have, an Alignment. Some are evil by culture, or circumstances as how their god made them, and there is no deviation.
There is no such thing as a "good" demon, as they would be slaughtered by their kin and associates long before they encountered players. Same for Drow, Gnolls, etc. There are some, a very loud minority, that are agitating to change this, Some even work at Hasbro. It does not change the facts of 50 years of history in D&D.
Oh, and Drow should be Albino, with no pigmentation at all, as all truly subterranean creatures are. And by the same token, desert creatures that are exposed to a lot of sunlight, should be dark-skinned, as that pigmentation is a evolutionary protection against skin cancer.
Drow have dark skin color because they were cursed by Corellon Larethian.
Which, you know, makes them even more problematic. ('Cuz "Dark Skin is a curse from God" is an actual excuse from real world religions to discriminate against real dark-skinned people that has been used in the past. See; Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham.)
Drow have dark skin because Gygax said so, and Gygax said so because he took inspiration from the Svartálfar (literally "black elves") from Norse mythology. The in-setting reason for this doesn't change that and is not connected to any real life religious nutjobbery.
Is this something that nonetheless could/should/would be a matter of concern for WotC? Apparently yes, because image is something that needs to be maintained. Is it something to get up in arms over? Not really. If it's an issue at your table, deal with it - just like any other issue that might come up.
This, however it is possible that it could be misconstrued as something else.
Back when Svartálfar were concieved, no norseman would have ever seen a black person, so racism probably played no part in it. Plus Svartálfar are not necessarily bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The 'core game engine' are the rules without which you cannot readily play the game. In 5e that would be the d20 action resolution system and the six ability scores that fuel it, as well as the base spellcasting rules by some definitions. An RPG's core engine can be summed up as "how do you decide what happens?" and "how do you create a character compatible with the thing you do to decide what happens?"
Alignment has only ever been ancillary to the core game engine of D&D. There were restrictions, yes. Those restrictions were about as heavy as the old "Elves/Dwarves Only" restrictions on Bladesingers and Battleragers. Sure, the game assumed you complied with them, but if a DM said "sod it, you can totally be a CG paladin", it didn't break the core resolution mechanic to do so. The game still worked, the DM just had to do some extra fudging here and there.
Drow have dark skin because Gygax said so, and Gygax said so because he took inspiration from the Svartálfar (literally "black elves") from Norse mythology. The in-setting reason for this doesn't change that and is not connected to any real life religious nutjobbery.
Not connected to it, but unintentionally achieves the same effect. The unintentional nature of it does not excuse or mitigate the deleterious effect. Intentions are not magic.
Is this something that nonetheless could/should/would be a matter of concern for WotC? Apparently yes, because image is something that needs to be maintained. Is it something to get up in arms over? Not really. If it's an issue at your table, deal with it - just like any other issue that might come up.
If it's a problem for basically an entire demographic of people it becomes something worth addressing from the creator's side. I mean, it's great if it doesn't impact your table. That's a nice privilege to have. But have some compassion to those for whom it is a real problem.
I disagree, I think the intention is everything and if it wasn't intentional (And everyone knows that) then it is not an issue. However, it is REALLY easy to misconstrue, which is why the DnD devs are starting to say that Drow can be more diverse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I disagree, I think the intention is everything and if it wasn't intentional (And everyone knows that) then it is not an issue.
Have you ever been on the receiving end of unintended bigotry? Because I have. It doesn't feel good, even when I knew it was unintentional, and you really don't have the right to tell me that I shouldn't feel harmed by that. Sometimes it can be worse than intentional bigotry, actually. Because intentional bigotry you can usually see coming. It's loud and it's nasty and you can steel yourself for it. Those unintended jabs, though, can bite deep because they're usually coming from someone you know and like. When you all of the sudden find out that they think a certain way about you, even if it was meant well, it can make you feel isolated, small, and resentful that you don't feel like you can speak up about it because "oh it's not a big deal" or "they don't mean an harm by it."
Anything that has an Int above animal level has, and always will have, an Alignment. Some are evil by culture, or circumstances as how their god made them, and there is no deviation.
There is no such thing as a "good" demon, as they would be slaughtered by their kin and associates long before they encountered players. Same for Drow, Gnolls, etc. There are some, a very loud minority, that are agitating to change this, Some even work at Hasbro. It does not change the facts of 50 years of history in D&D.
Oh, and Drow should be Albino, with no pigmentation at all, as all truly subterranean creatures are. And by the same token, desert creatures that are exposed to a lot of sunlight, should be dark-skinned, as that pigmentation is a evolutionary protection against skin cancer.
Drow have dark skin color because they were cursed by Corellon Larethian.
Which, you know, makes them even more problematic. ('Cuz "Dark Skin is a curse from God" is an actual excuse from real world religions to discriminate against real dark-skinned people that has been used in the past. See; Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham.)
Just gonna say right now, that was a tiny minority of people. Not saying it didn't exist, but those sorts of arguments were only pushed by religious extremists in America.
Sure, but I know that it was (and rarely still is) pushed by the church and members of it that I was raised in (which I have since left). Sure, it's a rare occurrence, but it still happened, and it's still relevant today. I wouldn't have brought it up if I had not seen that excuse used in my (relatively short) lifetime, and didn't know of other people who have heard/experienced that excuse. The issue is that racism still exists, and even if that excuse for Drow having Dark Skin and being evil wasn't derived from this real life example, it echoes it eerily close that it can and does make people feel uncomfortable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Drow have dark skin because Gygax said so, and Gygax said so because he took inspiration from the Svartálfar (literally "black elves") from Norse mythology. The in-setting reason for this doesn't change that and is not connected to any real life religious nutjobbery.
Not connected to it, but unintentionally achieves the same effect. The unintentional nature of it does not excuse or mitigate the deleterious effect. Intentions are not magic.
Is this something that nonetheless could/should/would be a matter of concern for WotC? Apparently yes, because image is something that needs to be maintained. Is it something to get up in arms over? Not really. If it's an issue at your table, deal with it - just like any other issue that might come up.
If it's a problem for basically an entire demographic of people it becomes something worth addressing from the creator's side. I mean, it's great if it doesn't impact your table. That's a nice privilege to have. But have some compassion to those for whom it is a real problem.
I disagree, I think the intention is everything and if it wasn't intentional (And everyone knows that) then it is not an issue. However, it is REALLY easy to misconstrue, which is why the DnD devs are starting to say that Drow can be more diverse.
I'm not a person of color, but I know people who have faced bigotry based on race, and I personally have faced bigotry due to me being on the Autism Spectrum. My experience is in the spoiler below (trigger warning for the explanation of how the derogatory use of the r-word hurts me):
I know what it's like to feel targeted based on who you are, even if the people targeting you with their language didn't intend to harm/offend you. I cringe anytime I hear anyone say the word "******" or even "Autistic", because the only time I've heard those words being used, it was in the context of "That's ********/Autistic!" as another way of saying "That's stupid". I hate that those words make me feel that way, I hate it that people can use the actually accurate term for my mental divergence (Autistic) as a derogatory term, and I hate it that the people who use those words that way are too ignorant to know the pain that it causes me.
Their intent doesn't matter. I feel pain whenever I hear either terms being used now, regardless of the context, and it makes me want to hide in a corner curled up in a fetal position, whimpering "please stop hurting me". The intent doesn't matter, because even if they think it's a harmless way of saying "That's idiotic!!!", it's not harmless to me and others marginalized in similar ways to me, and just speaking about it pushes me to the brink of a teary meltdown.
Got it? I don't mean to shame or attack you, I just want to correct your incorrect and possibly harmful viewpoint. Intent doesn't matter when it hurts people, and it is actively harmful to say "We shouldn't change this harmful thing because it wasn't intended to do harm!". Alfred Nobel didn't intend to do harm when he invented dynamite, but that didn't stop or negate the harm that his invention caused.
I disagree, I think the intention is everything and if it wasn't intentional (And everyone knows that) then it is not an issue.
Have you ever been on the receiving end of unintended bigotry? Because I have. It doesn't feel good, even when I knew it was unintentional, and you really don't have the right to tell me that I shouldn't feel harmed by that. Sometimes it can be worse than intentional bigotry, actually. Because intentional bigotry you can usually see coming. It's loud and it's nasty and you can steel yourself for it. Those unintended jabs, though, can bite deep because they're usually coming from someone you know and like. When you all of the sudden find out that they think a certain way about you, even if it was meant well, it can make you feel isolated, small, and resentful that you don't feel like you can speak up about it because "oh it's not a big deal" or "they don't mean an harm by it."
It really sucks.
I don't think anyone's telling you you shouldn't feel harmed. Speaking just for myself, I'm saying if something is problematic for you, you should absolutely deal with it - your experience matters, and you really don't have to suck it up. WotC is effectively addressing this. Maybe not soon enough, fast enough or rigourously enough, but they are.
Looking at some personal experiences, I remember running a homebrew campaign in which migration was a pretty big theme (it's a pretty big theme in world history, which makes it a good theme for a campaign background). We had a player join us who came from an immigration background (he is 2nd generation, so 1st generation born here) and told me he didn't really enjoy that, since it's something he dealt with on a daily basis in real life already. Consequently, I toned it down (a lot), tossed most explicit references to migration out and wrapped up the campaign asap. Was that the right call? Absolutely. Does it make my using that theme in the first place a bad idea? I don't think so. Be mindful of what is offensive, not of what might be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Drow have dark skin because Gygax said so, and Gygax said so because he took inspiration from the Svartálfar (literally "black elves") from Norse mythology. The in-setting reason for this doesn't change that and is not connected to any real life religious nutjobbery.
Not connected to it, but unintentionally achieves the same effect. The unintentional nature of it does not excuse or mitigate the deleterious effect. Intentions are not magic.
Is this something that nonetheless could/should/would be a matter of concern for WotC? Apparently yes, because image is something that needs to be maintained. Is it something to get up in arms over? Not really. If it's an issue at your table, deal with it - just like any other issue that might come up.
If it's a problem for basically an entire demographic of people it becomes something worth addressing from the creator's side. I mean, it's great if it doesn't impact your table. That's a nice privilege to have. But have some compassion to those for whom it is a real problem.
I disagree, I think the intention is everything and if it wasn't intentional (And everyone knows that) then it is not an issue. However, it is REALLY easy to misconstrue, which is why the DnD devs are starting to say that Drow can be more diverse.
Yeah, most of society as a whole has realized that your point of view isn't a very constructive one. Which is why we hold people responsibly for such things as negligence and (at times) even accidents. Intent is a part of it but it's just that, a part of a bigger whole. It's not really something you can disagree with, it's facts.
I don't think anyone's telling you you shouldn't feel harmed. Speaking just for myself, I'm saying if something is problematic for you, you should absolutely deal with it - your experience matters, and you really don't have to suck it up. WotC is effectively addressing this. Maybe not soon enough, fast enough or rigourously enough, but they are.
Looking at some personal experiences, I remember running a homebrew campaign in which migration was a pretty big theme (it's a pretty big theme in world history, which makes it a good theme for a campaign background). We had a player join us who came from an immigration background (he is 2nd generation, so 1st generation born here) and told me he didn't really enjoy that, since it's something he dealt with on a daily basis in real life already. Consequently, I toned it down (a lot), tossed most explicit references to migration out and wrapped up the campaign asap. Was that the right call? Absolutely. Does it make my using that theme in the first place a bad idea? I don't think so. Be mindful of what is offensive, not of what might be.
Yes, they are addressing it, which is a good thing.
Back on a point that wasn't addressed though, there is very clearly a straight line that you can draw between "dark skin = curse from god" and ... well actually it's just a dot, no line necessary. This was the very same religious reasoning used to support the enslavement of black people kidnapped from their home country. That legacy is evil enough to warrant distancing from that kind of lore, no matter how canon it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I disagree, I think the intention is everything and if it wasn't intentional (And everyone knows that) then it is not an issue.
Have you ever been on the receiving end of unintended bigotry? Because I have. It doesn't feel good, even when I knew it was unintentional, and you really don't have the right to tell me that I shouldn't feel harmed by that. Sometimes it can be worse than intentional bigotry, actually. Because intentional bigotry you can usually see coming. It's loud and it's nasty and you can steel yourself for it. Those unintended jabs, though, can bite deep because they're usually coming from someone you know and like. When you all of the sudden find out that they think a certain way about you, even if it was meant well, it can make you feel isolated, small, and resentful that you don't feel like you can speak up about it because "oh it's not a big deal" or "they don't mean an harm by it."
It really sucks.
Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
What you just described is unintentionally racist themes. Yes, they didn't mean it that way. Yes, it still comes off that way. You might be able to shrug it off and not be hurt by that, but that is a very nice privilege to have. Not everyone has that privilege. One is still responsible to deal with the fallout of one's actions even if they were unintentional. If you accidentally stepped on someone's foot, it still hurts even if it wasn't a deliberate attack. And you're still responsible for at least saying sorry, and then taking care not to do it again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
What you just described is unintentionally racist themes. Yes, they didn't mean it that way. Yes, it still comes off that way. You might be able to shrug it off and not be hurt by that, but that is a very nice privilege to have. Not everyone has that privilege. One is still responsible to deal with the fallout of one's actions even if they were unintentional. If you accidentally stepped on someone's foot, it still hurts even if it wasn't a deliberate attack. And you're still responsible for at least saying sorry, and then taking care not to do it again.
I never said that people weren't or shouldn't be hurt. All I am saying is that the act itself was not racist - it was an act with no connection to race in the slightest. Because of the unfortunate nature of the act, it has been MISCONSTRUED as racism, and because of that misunderstanding the devs have tried to change things to make sure that that misconception goes away. The devs didn't accidentally step on someone's foot, they were talking about something completely separate and people watching it THOUGHT that the devs stepped on someones foot. The devs then said to the people watching 'no, I really did not step on his foot, we were talking about how much our significant others stub their toes however to people watching it looked like I stepped on his foot. To remove any future confusion, I have decided to stop talking about feet in general'.
Can you see the difference there, or am I not explaining it well?
Either way, I think we should get back on topic. I am happy to continue to discuss this in one of the many threads dedicated to drow :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
What you just described is unintentionally racist themes. Yes, they didn't mean it that way. Yes, it still comes off that way. You might be able to shrug it off and not be hurt by that, but that is a very nice privilege to have. Not everyone has that privilege. One is still responsible to deal with the fallout of one's actions even if they were unintentional. If you accidentally stepped on someone's foot, it still hurts even if it wasn't a deliberate attack. And you're still responsible for at least saying sorry, and then taking care not to do it again.
I never said that people weren't or shouldn't be hurt. All I am saying is that the act itself was not racist - it was an act with no connection to race in the slightest. Because of the unfortunate nature of the act, it has been MISCONSTRUED as racism, and because of that misunderstanding the devs have tried to change things to make sure that that misconception goes away.
Except that, and this has already been pointed out numerous times, something can be racist even without the intent of racism.
The devs didn't accidentally step on someone's foot, they were talking about something completely separate and people watching it THOUGHT that the devs stepped on someones foot. The devs then said to the people watching 'no, I really did not step on his foot, we were talking about how much our significant others stub their toes however to people watching it looked like I stepped on his foot. To remove any future confusion, I have decided to stop talking about feet in general'.
Can you see the difference there, or am I not explaining it well?
The difference is irrelevant and the comparison is a false equivalent.
Either way, I think we should get back on topic. I am happy to continue to discuss this in one of the many threads dedicated to drow :)
There's isn't much to discuss, really. You're arguing your opinions against facts.
Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
The Norse dökkálfar are mentioned in one sentence of the Prose Edda (the Dark-Elves dwell down in the earth, and they are unlike in appearance, but by far more unlike in nature. The Light-Elves are fairer to look upon than the sun, but the Dark-Elves are blacker than pitch), and also in an obscure poem with no description at all. They may have been the same thing as svartálfar, which in turn may have been the same thing as dwarves. As such, the Drow in D&D were pretty much made up by EGG.
Except that, and this has already been pointed out numerous times, something can be racist even without the intent of racism.
From the Oxford dictionary:
racist
/ˈreɪsɪst/
adjective
prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"
noun
a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"he has been targeted by vicious racists online"
Yes, something can be unintentionally racist. No, I don't think "let's model these evil elves from D&D after evil elves from Norse mythology" is covered even by that wider umbrella. There'd have to be some kind of reference, intentional or otherwise, to real life people of colour for that to be true. To be clear, that doesn't make it ok that drow and PoC can be interpreted as linked through skin colour. It doesn't, and should be (and is being) addressed by WotC. But that doesn't make the choice to model drow after svartálfar a racist choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
What you just described is unintentionally racist themes. Yes, they didn't mean it that way. Yes, it still comes off that way. You might be able to shrug it off and not be hurt by that, but that is a very nice privilege to have. Not everyone has that privilege. One is still responsible to deal with the fallout of one's actions even if they were unintentional. If you accidentally stepped on someone's foot, it still hurts even if it wasn't a deliberate attack. And you're still responsible for at least saying sorry, and then taking care not to do it again.
I never said that people weren't or shouldn't be hurt. All I am saying is that the act itself was not racist - it was an act with no connection to race in the slightest. Because of the unfortunate nature of the act, it has been MISCONSTRUED as racism, and because of that misunderstanding the devs have tried to change things to make sure that that misconception goes away.
Except that, and this has already been pointed out numerous times, something can be racist even without the intent of racism.
The devs didn't accidentally step on someone's foot, they were talking about something completely separate and people watching it THOUGHT that the devs stepped on someones foot. The devs then said to the people watching 'no, I really did not step on his foot, we were talking about how much our significant others stub their toes however to people watching it looked like I stepped on his foot. To remove any future confusion, I have decided to stop talking about feet in general'.
Can you see the difference there, or am I not explaining it well?
The difference is irrelevant and the comparison is a false equivalent.
Either way, I think we should get back on topic. I am happy to continue to discuss this in one of the many threads dedicated to drow :)
There's isn't much to discuss, really. You're arguing your opinions against facts.
I love how you rebutted my arguments without offering a single piece of rebuttal.
HOW is the difference irrelevant, HOW is the comparison a false equivalent....you get the gist. This post was very lazy.
And no, something cannot be anything other than what it was intended to be, it can only be viewed as something else.
The devs made a dark elf based on norse mythology. They were evil. People thought that they were making a correlation to IRL issues. The devs said they were not and went out of their way to make sure everyone else KNEW that there was no correlation by CHANGING their original correlation. If the original similarities were hurtful, that is completely understandable, and the devs tried to 'say sorry' by changing their stance. Now that you KNOW that their original stance is not anything to do with racism, if you are still hurt it is probably because of the IRL issue and not the game, no?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not entirely sure what you mean by "core game engine" here, Yurei: we've had alignment restrictions on classes and we've had spells and mechanics that targeted and/or were triggered by alignment, all in the core books, in past editions.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Just gonna say right now, that was a tiny minority of people. Not saying it didn't exist, but those sorts of arguments were only pushed by religious extremists in America.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Not connected to it, but unintentionally achieves the same effect. The unintentional nature of it does not excuse or mitigate the deleterious effect. Intentions are not magic.
Edit: Also wait .. it draws an exact parallel. Even if Gygax didn't come up with the whole "dark skin is a curse from a god" thing, it was officially added in, so like ... there's definitely a pretty clear line drawn between them.
If it's a problem for basically an entire demographic of people it becomes something worth addressing from the creator's side. I mean, it's great if it doesn't impact your table. That's a nice privilege to have. But have some compassion to those for whom it is a real problem.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This, however it is possible that it could be misconstrued as something else.
Back when Svartálfar were concieved, no norseman would have ever seen a black person, so racism probably played no part in it. Plus Svartálfar are not necessarily bad.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The 'core game engine' are the rules without which you cannot readily play the game. In 5e that would be the d20 action resolution system and the six ability scores that fuel it, as well as the base spellcasting rules by some definitions. An RPG's core engine can be summed up as "how do you decide what happens?" and "how do you create a character compatible with the thing you do to decide what happens?"
Alignment has only ever been ancillary to the core game engine of D&D. There were restrictions, yes. Those restrictions were about as heavy as the old "Elves/Dwarves Only" restrictions on Bladesingers and Battleragers. Sure, the game assumed you complied with them, but if a DM said "sod it, you can totally be a CG paladin", it didn't break the core resolution mechanic to do so. The game still worked, the DM just had to do some extra fudging here and there.
Please do not contact or message me.
I disagree, I think the intention is everything and if it wasn't intentional (And everyone knows that) then it is not an issue. However, it is REALLY easy to misconstrue, which is why the DnD devs are starting to say that Drow can be more diverse.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Because alignments are pretty much worthless anyways.
Have you ever been on the receiving end of unintended bigotry? Because I have. It doesn't feel good, even when I knew it was unintentional, and you really don't have the right to tell me that I shouldn't feel harmed by that. Sometimes it can be worse than intentional bigotry, actually. Because intentional bigotry you can usually see coming. It's loud and it's nasty and you can steel yourself for it. Those unintended jabs, though, can bite deep because they're usually coming from someone you know and like. When you all of the sudden find out that they think a certain way about you, even if it was meant well, it can make you feel isolated, small, and resentful that you don't feel like you can speak up about it because "oh it's not a big deal" or "they don't mean an harm by it."
It really sucks.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Sure, but I know that it was (and rarely still is) pushed by the church and members of it that I was raised in (which I have since left). Sure, it's a rare occurrence, but it still happened, and it's still relevant today. I wouldn't have brought it up if I had not seen that excuse used in my (relatively short) lifetime, and didn't know of other people who have heard/experienced that excuse. The issue is that racism still exists, and even if that excuse for Drow having Dark Skin and being evil wasn't derived from this real life example, it echoes it eerily close that it can and does make people feel uncomfortable.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm not a person of color, but I know people who have faced bigotry based on race, and I personally have faced bigotry due to me being on the Autism Spectrum. My experience is in the spoiler below (trigger warning for the explanation of how the derogatory use of the r-word hurts me):
I know what it's like to feel targeted based on who you are, even if the people targeting you with their language didn't intend to harm/offend you. I cringe anytime I hear anyone say the word "******" or even "Autistic", because the only time I've heard those words being used, it was in the context of "That's ********/Autistic!" as another way of saying "That's stupid". I hate that those words make me feel that way, I hate it that people can use the actually accurate term for my mental divergence (Autistic) as a derogatory term, and I hate it that the people who use those words that way are too ignorant to know the pain that it causes me.
Their intent doesn't matter. I feel pain whenever I hear either terms being used now, regardless of the context, and it makes me want to hide in a corner curled up in a fetal position, whimpering "please stop hurting me". The intent doesn't matter, because even if they think it's a harmless way of saying "That's idiotic!!!", it's not harmless to me and others marginalized in similar ways to me, and just speaking about it pushes me to the brink of a teary meltdown.
Got it? I don't mean to shame or attack you, I just want to correct your incorrect and possibly harmful viewpoint. Intent doesn't matter when it hurts people, and it is actively harmful to say "We shouldn't change this harmful thing because it wasn't intended to do harm!". Alfred Nobel didn't intend to do harm when he invented dynamite, but that didn't stop or negate the harm that his invention caused.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't think anyone's telling you you shouldn't feel harmed. Speaking just for myself, I'm saying if something is problematic for you, you should absolutely deal with it - your experience matters, and you really don't have to suck it up. WotC is effectively addressing this. Maybe not soon enough, fast enough or rigourously enough, but they are.
Looking at some personal experiences, I remember running a homebrew campaign in which migration was a pretty big theme (it's a pretty big theme in world history, which makes it a good theme for a campaign background). We had a player join us who came from an immigration background (he is 2nd generation, so 1st generation born here) and told me he didn't really enjoy that, since it's something he dealt with on a daily basis in real life already. Consequently, I toned it down (a lot), tossed most explicit references to migration out and wrapped up the campaign asap. Was that the right call? Absolutely. Does it make my using that theme in the first place a bad idea? I don't think so. Be mindful of what is offensive, not of what might be.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah, most of society as a whole has realized that your point of view isn't a very constructive one. Which is why we hold people responsibly for such things as negligence and (at times) even accidents. Intent is a part of it but it's just that, a part of a bigger whole. It's not really something you can disagree with, it's facts.
Yes, they are addressing it, which is a good thing.
Back on a point that wasn't addressed though, there is very clearly a straight line that you can draw between "dark skin = curse from god" and ... well actually it's just a dot, no line necessary. This was the very same religious reasoning used to support the enslavement of black people kidnapped from their home country. That legacy is evil enough to warrant distancing from that kind of lore, no matter how canon it is.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Really sorry that happened, that really sucks. I really feel for you. Those sorts of jabs can really hurt. But I think that the situation is a little different than what you described. It isn't that the creators of DnD made a jab at black people unintentionally and are now trying to fix that. It is that the creators made a reference to something that had nothing to do with race and everything to do with mythology (Which can easily backed up as pretty much everything in DnD comes from mythology) which then got SEEN as something to do with race. THEN after the Devs saw what people saw the reference as, they tried to say 'no, that really isn't what it is' by changing the colour of their skin. The creators of DnD were no more racist than the ancient Norse were when they thought up a race of dark skinned elves (Tbh they may have been pretty racist, but we have nothing to back that on).
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
What you just described is unintentionally racist themes. Yes, they didn't mean it that way. Yes, it still comes off that way. You might be able to shrug it off and not be hurt by that, but that is a very nice privilege to have. Not everyone has that privilege. One is still responsible to deal with the fallout of one's actions even if they were unintentional. If you accidentally stepped on someone's foot, it still hurts even if it wasn't a deliberate attack. And you're still responsible for at least saying sorry, and then taking care not to do it again.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I never said that people weren't or shouldn't be hurt. All I am saying is that the act itself was not racist - it was an act with no connection to race in the slightest. Because of the unfortunate nature of the act, it has been MISCONSTRUED as racism, and because of that misunderstanding the devs have tried to change things to make sure that that misconception goes away.
The devs didn't accidentally step on someone's foot, they were talking about something completely separate and people watching it THOUGHT that the devs stepped on someones foot. The devs then said to the people watching 'no, I really did not step on his foot, we were talking about how much our significant others stub their toes however to people watching it looked like I stepped on his foot. To remove any future confusion, I have decided to stop talking about feet in general'.
Can you see the difference there, or am I not explaining it well?
Either way, I think we should get back on topic. I am happy to continue to discuss this in one of the many threads dedicated to drow :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Except that, and this has already been pointed out numerous times, something can be racist even without the intent of racism.
The difference is irrelevant and the comparison is a false equivalent.
There's isn't much to discuss, really. You're arguing your opinions against facts.
The Norse dökkálfar are mentioned in one sentence of the Prose Edda (the Dark-Elves dwell down in the earth, and they are unlike in appearance, but by far more unlike in nature. The Light-Elves are fairer to look upon than the sun, but the Dark-Elves are blacker than pitch), and also in an obscure poem with no description at all. They may have been the same thing as svartálfar, which in turn may have been the same thing as dwarves. As such, the Drow in D&D were pretty much made up by EGG.
From the Oxford dictionary:
Yes, something can be unintentionally racist. No, I don't think "let's model these evil elves from D&D after evil elves from Norse mythology" is covered even by that wider umbrella. There'd have to be some kind of reference, intentional or otherwise, to real life people of colour for that to be true. To be clear, that doesn't make it ok that drow and PoC can be interpreted as linked through skin colour. It doesn't, and should be (and is being) addressed by WotC. But that doesn't make the choice to model drow after svartálfar a racist choice.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I love how you rebutted my arguments without offering a single piece of rebuttal.
HOW is the difference irrelevant, HOW is the comparison a false equivalent....you get the gist. This post was very lazy.
And no, something cannot be anything other than what it was intended to be, it can only be viewed as something else.
The devs made a dark elf based on norse mythology. They were evil. People thought that they were making a correlation to IRL issues. The devs said they were not and went out of their way to make sure everyone else KNEW that there was no correlation by CHANGING their original correlation. If the original similarities were hurtful, that is completely understandable, and the devs tried to 'say sorry' by changing their stance. Now that you KNOW that their original stance is not anything to do with racism, if you are still hurt it is probably because of the IRL issue and not the game, no?
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.