there are two sides to this objective and subjective morality.
1.) objectively the question is whether it's OK for anyone to play a character that is different from themself. There's absolutely no reason to restrict this question to race, sex, or sexual orientation. We could just as well discuss whether the character's in a wheelchair or blind or has ADHD or schizophrenia or depression or suffers from chronic pain. We could discuss whether the character grew up homeless or is morbidly obese.
The point is, restricting the discussion to race, sex, and sexual orientation is entirely arbitrary. Ultimately, what we're asking is whether it is okay for someone to roleplay a character who is marginalized in our daily world.
Answer: Yes, roleplaying them might be a helpful way to work on no longer othering them.
2.) subjectively the question is whether we should play a character that we don't feel comfortable with
I don't think portraying someone as African-American in a setting that doesn't have African-Americans is really pertinent. You can still include identifiers that might be recognizeable as stereotypically African-American. There are for instance, whether justified or not, people who associate the characterization of (half-)orcs with people of colour after all. And, whether that association is justified or not, those people can rightly feel offended by this. Offense doesn't have to be deliberate to be offense.
Considering OP's query in the first place, I don't expect morality to be an issue here. I do think giving offense is a possibility, but that's hard to judge from afar. If I as a white DM pattern the speech of an NPC after Forest Whitaker, an African-American, I doubt anyone will take offense (and unless I tell people that's what I'm doing, they might not even be able to figure it out anyway). If I pattern the speech of an NPC after Forest Whitaker's character in Black Panther on the other hand, I certainly risk giving offense at least. Now my games aren't public and everyone at the table is a friend, so I can probably judge fairly accurately whether any of them would take offense at this and I'm pretty sure none of them would since they know me as well; regardless - and this is where morality does come into play - I choose not to do this because it could give offense to others. Doesn't matter that those others won't see/hear me doing this, it's the principle. Actions can be morally on the up and up, while still potentially giving offense and thus being ethically questionable.
All of which just means OP's in a grey area. It's not absolutely questionable to roleplay a character as African-American, but depending on the actual portrayal it might be. Not the most helpful answer for sure, but that's what I got. If there is genuine concern, that's a good step towards not crossing the line - that's one positive to take away from the conversation at least. From there, just tread lightly and follow your conscience.
If no one objects (as with anything, really), do whatever the **** you want.
And fyi, as a DM and being white, cis, male, I already played black mtf trans people etc. The great thing about DnD is that we have so many races that are actual different races, not just a different amount of pigmentation hormones, and we still get along very well.
If I may point out, not all African Americans see their situation the same way. As I understand it you can play it one of a few ways: some don't really care not being really outcast, while others define their entire lives either because of or in spite of racism and/or you could play it like my one of my ancestors who was a slave.
In the old confederate states, was a young maid. Her master was an influential confederate palitician. She was a concubine. She became pregnant she gave birth to a son. The civil war was fought and lost for the south. Call it kindness or cruelity the father gave his son his surname "Davis". Rejected from her family because of her son and Jeff imprisoned, she went west. Joining the Sioux tribe in Nebraska. There the maid became a medicine women and son became a warrior. A generation later the tribe was broken and the grand children of the maid took her lessons of medicine and sold whollistic medicines. Now to this we have a tradition of the studying of war, medicine and community service. And none of this would have happen unless we sacrificed our pride and anger.
If I may point out, not all African Americans see their situation the same way. As I understand it you can play it one of a few ways: some don't really care not being really outcast, while others define their entire lives either because of or in spite of racism and/or you could play it like my one of my ancestors who was a slave.
In the old confederate states, was a young maid. Her master was an influential confederate palitician. She was a concubine. She became pregnant she gave birth to a son. The civil war was fought and lost for the south. Call it kindness or cruelity the father gave his son his surname "Davis". Rejected from her family because of her son and Jeff imprisoned, she went west. Joining the Sioux tribe in Nebraska. There the maid became a medicine women and son became a warrior. A generation later the tribe was broken and the grand children of the maid took her lessons of medicine and sold whollistic medicines. Now to this we have a tradition of the studying of war, medicine and community service. And none of this would have happen unless we sacrificed our pride and anger.
I feel like it is not with us you should speak of that. it should definitely be a discution with your DM and playgroup.
depending on the people you are playing with, they may have a problem with it. if that is the case knowing about it stops you from making the mistake. that said, it should never be a problem at a table to play anything. its all pretend.
but again, the advice is to talk about it to your DM and your play group, see if "THEY" have a problem wit it ! if they do they will tell you and you can then change whats the problem.
discussion with other players and DM is always the first thing you should do. also, last advice... if you have a problem with it, aka it gives you moral dilema, then i reckon it wasn't that great of an idea to begin with. you should play a charcater you feel is right for you, not a character that is right for others. if the character you play is already a problem in your mind, then something isn't working and i suggest you change it already. characters you play should always be ok with you reguardless of what is hapenning. so if you feel like it would be too much, then chances are, it will be too much. just change it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Given that this thread is 4 days old and the OP has not made so much as a single response, I doubt it was posted as a serious question.
Possibly, but it's still a fair subject that can warrant serious discussion. I've had a few players who created characters that inadvertently reminded others of their minority status too, it doesn't have to be deliberate. Characters that are displaced immigrants in the region they live in, characters with a background of systemic oppression, characters of mixed heritage who feel like they don't belong - those aren't exactly uncommon. Jingoism is hardly unknown in D&D either, and dealing with subjects like gender politics or sexual orientation tends to be hit and miss still even if we've come a long way. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to roleplay someone other than yourself (I'd argue that's what most of us do most of the time), but the aspect that makes the character "other" can be sensitive regardless of your intentions. Even if the OP isn't getting anything from the conversation, someone else might.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is certainly a productive discussion to be had, however it is a bit difficult to discuss real world race relations without getting into real world history, real world racial (and gender) issues, real world racial (and gender) politics.
To clarify: I'm not suggesting we discuss real world anything, but rather how real world issues can be handled in a sensitive and respectful manner in a TTRPG. Because it's all but certain they will appear in some form or other at some point, if the campaigns you play in go beyond simple beer & pretzels hack & slash fun (which I have nothing against, but it's not really the style of the time anymore). Most settings with a bit of depth will have a source of conflict, and conflict tends to make it possible to see deliberate or accidental references to real world issues. Nothing wrong with that per se, but what might make such references disrespectful or offensive and how to avoid that is a good topic to hash out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is certainly a productive discussion to be had, however it is a bit difficult to discuss real world race relations without getting into real world history, real world racial (and gender) issues, real world racial (and gender) politics.
To clarify: I'm not suggesting we discuss real world anything, but rather how real world issues can be handled in a sensitive and respectful manner in a TTRPG. Because it's all but certain they will appear in some form or other at some point, if the campaigns you play in go beyond simple beer & pretzels hack & slash fun (which I have nothing against, but it's not really the style of the time anymore). Most settings with a bit of depth will have a source of conflict, and conflict tends to make it possible to see deliberate or accidental references to real world issues. Nothing wrong with that per se, but what might make such references disrespectful or offensive and how to avoid that is a good topic to hash out.
But it is hard to discuss the wisdom of playing an African American without discussing real world issues. We can talk generally around the OP's question but cannot really address it directly, particularly without their input on exactly what they mean.
It doesn't have to be about the OP's case specifically, and the reason we're discussing it is that we acknowledge it may not be wise. Now, if we could help out the OP specifically, that'd be great - no argument there. I think there can be value in discussing this in more general terms as well though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Is every member of your group ok with it? Are you ok with it? If they answers are yes, then have fun. If anyone answers no, then probably not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Would it be a problem if a black person role played as a white person?
It's not really an equivalent scenario. We don't exist in some sort of vacuum where history (including present day) is different than what it was. There are considerations that apply to the scenario in the OP that don't apply to this one. I'm not someone in a position to assuage or condemn the OP. I don't know whom they'd be called out by. I just do get why the OP might be seeking some perspective here.
[REDACTED]
That said, I would as OP why he wants to portray a black person to begin with. I don't think OP needs to justify his position, but he should examine why it is important that the character is black. It's okay for superficial reasons or that you feel it's cool that she is black and it's okay if this characteristic doesn't even come into gameplay. I think it would be very wrong indeed to tell you that you have to play a character of a certain skill colour because your own skin has a certain colour. D&D should be a space that you can explore things like this without worrying that you will be judged. But really sit and think why its important to you to do this.
The point is, restricting the discussion to race, sex, and sexual orientation is entirely arbitrary. Ultimately, what we're asking is whether it is okay for someone to roleplay a character who is marginalized in our daily world.
Answer: Yes, roleplaying them might be a helpful way to work on no longer othering them.
I'm trying to follow this thread but am confused by one of your statements - who are you implying is "marginalized in our daily world"? Are you making some sort of political statement here?
And what did the OP say that made you think he was "othering" "them" (presumably you mean black people?)?
Okay, I think it's safe to say, having read the material, that yes, black people are marginalised to some extent and yes, the OP (as many people do) was othering them to use Edward Said's terminology. If OP felt they were part of their social grouping, then they wouldn't be looking for legitimisation of their character.
Is every member of your group ok with it? Are you ok with it? If they answers are yes, then have fun. If anyone answers no, then probably not.
I strongly disagree. People shouldn't get to veto the colour of your character's skin. It would be different if the plan was to play the character (intentionally) as a racist stereotype, but if people think they can tell you what character you can play, that's a sign to get better friends.
I strongly disagree. People shouldn't get to veto the colour of your character's skin. It would be different if the plan was to play the character (intentionally) as a racist stereotype, but if people think they can tell you what character you can play, that's a sign to get better friends.
It's possible, not absolutely sure, but possible, that the OP's group or audience (this is apparently for a forum game, at least that's my read from reading the thread) are best in the position to assess the players _capacity_ to perform/play this role. Social contract common to much of the game culture these days presume (along with consent) consensus. So what you're objecting to seems to fall into the usual table deliberation over party make up. I know some still games are still played with parties assembled without any session 0 discussion or examination, but I think advising the OP to talk it over with the group, presuming it's a group that have played together is probably the best way to gauge whether a character choice "crosses a line."
I do agree that before doing so, the OP is probably better off trying to articulate a "why" behind their role choice, in their OP there was really no rationale, just apprehension.
Would it be a problem if a black person role played as a white person?
It's not really an equivalent scenario. We don't exist in some sort of vacuum where history (including present day) is different than what it was. There are considerations that apply to the scenario in the OP that don't apply to this one. I'm not someone in a position to assuage or condemn the OP. I don't know whom they'd be called out by. I just do get why the OP might be seeking some perspective here.
On the other hand, people do not exist within groups. People exist only as individuals and to view the duties and responsibilities of individuals is to corrupt reality. Should we hold the Jews accountable for killing Jesus? Would it be appropriate for a Jew to portray a Christian, given that history? This urge to cordon off parts of human experience to belonging to a certain ethnicity is certainly racist itself and, in my opinion, absolutely an evil. A person cannot be responsible for actions they had no influence upon and certainly not for those that happened before their birth. To suggest a person cannot portray someone because they don't have the racial credentials to do so, history or no, is indisputably wrong.
This doesn't address what I actually wrote. I kept it simple for the purpose of addressing a simple concept: the comparison was faulty. If you would like to address things tangentially related to my statements, by all means. Just don't attribute positions to me I haven't actually expressed. If you feel something is unclear or missing in my post, by all means ask. Just don't fill in the blanks yourself on my behalf.
Would it be a problem if a black person role played as a white person?
It's not really an equivalent scenario. We don't exist in some sort of vacuum where history (including present day) is different than what it was. There are considerations that apply to the scenario in the OP that don't apply to this one. I'm not someone in a position to assuage or condemn the OP. I don't know whom they'd be called out by. I just do get why the OP might be seeking some perspective here.
On the other hand, people do not exist within groups. People exist only as individuals and to view the duties and responsibilities of individuals is to corrupt reality. Should we hold the Jews accountable for killing Jesus? Would it be appropriate for a Jew to portray a Christian, given that history? This urge to cordon off parts of human experience to belonging to a certain ethnicity is certainly racist itself and, in my opinion, absolutely an evil. A person cannot be responsible for actions they had no influence upon and certainly not for those that happened before their birth. To suggest a person cannot portray someone because they don't have the racial credentials to do so, history or no, is indisputably wrong.
This doesn't address what I actually wrote. I kept it simple for the purpose of addressing a simple concept: the comparison was faulty. If you would like to address things tangentially related to my statements, by all means. Just don't attribute positions to me I haven't actually expressed. If you feel something is unclear or missing in my post, by all means ask. Just don't fill in the blanks yourself on my behalf.
It does. It's a direct refutation of your point that history makes one consideration of a race portraying another race substantially difference than the reverse scenario by pointing out that using that thinking (history altering what is and isn't acceptable) would be a bit monsterous if applied universally. By creating a scenario that can only apply selectively, which could be considered your call for considerations, we propogate an immorality and to use that to control people is, in my words, evil.
I didn't address the part where you said that you wouldn't know who would call him out, but other than that, I directly commented on the entirety of your message.
Would it be a problem if a black person role played as a white person?
It's not really an equivalent scenario. We don't exist in some sort of vacuum where history (including present day) is different than what it was. There are considerations that apply to the scenario in the OP that don't apply to this one. I'm not someone in a position to assuage or condemn the OP. I don't know whom they'd be called out by. I just do get why the OP might be seeking some perspective here.
On the other hand, people do not exist within groups. People exist only as individuals and to view the duties and responsibilities of individuals is to corrupt reality. Should we hold the Jews accountable for killing Jesus? Would it be appropriate for a Jew to portray a Christian, given that history? This urge to cordon off parts of human experience to belonging to a certain ethnicity is certainly racist itself and, in my opinion, absolutely an evil. A person cannot be responsible for actions they had no influence upon and certainly not for those that happened before their birth. To suggest a person cannot portray someone because they don't have the racial credentials to do so, history or no, is indisputably wrong.
This doesn't address what I actually wrote. I kept it simple for the purpose of addressing a simple concept: the comparison was faulty. If you would like to address things tangentially related to my statements, by all means. Just don't attribute positions to me I haven't actually expressed. If you feel something is unclear or missing in my post, by all means ask. Just don't fill in the blanks yourself on my behalf.
It does. It's a direct refutation of your point that history makes one consideration of a race portraying another race substantially difference than the reverse scenario by pointing out that using that thinking (history altering what is and isn't acceptable) would be a bit monsterous if applied universally. By creating a scenario that can only apply selectively, which could be considered your call for considerations, we propogate an immorality and to use that to control people is, in my words, evil.
I didn't address the part where you said that you wouldn't know who would call him out, but other than that, I directly commented on the entirety of your message.
This is equivocal. I'm talking about a very specific things like blackface and minstrelsy, erasure, whitewashing, and others which have been harmful historically and presently. There is no universal consideration to apply when these harms were not and are not experienced universally or equally. Thus this specific comparison is faulty.
In the context of DnD, when we are at a table with others, then we are accountable to more than our own sense of entitlement. We are also accountable to others at the table. If the OP wants to play a character who is black, no one is stopping them. And honestly, there is currently little reason to assume they should be dissuaded anyway. If they're concerned about potential offence or harm to Black people, Black people aren't a monolith and it's probably better to discuss with people at their table. If their concern is broader issues pertaining to racism, there have to be better resources out there than this forum.
But when we look at potential for harm, not all things are going to be equal. That's a simple fact.
edit: while it's a bit late, the word 'nonsense' is inflammatory, so I've removed it.
Obviously those articles aren't comprehensive or gospel, but there are resources on this subject matter out there in the aether that might prove useful.
Since it's that time of year again, the issue of blackface and the protrayal of Black Pete as Saint-Nicolas' helper is getting its yearly few weeks of attention. On the one hand there are those, mostly people of colour, who feel blackface is disrespectful and thus it is offensive to them. On the other there are those who feel the Saint-Nicolas tradition is centuries old folklore that is harmless and culturally significant. I don't intend to hash this issue out here, this is not the place, but purely objectively both sides have a point. That's the situation, and that is the point. It's not - if you'll forgive the pun - black and white. Is it really pertinent to be asking who is being marginalized and by whom? Or to point out that there is no universal black experience? Can't we acknowledge that systemic racism exists and that there are people suffering because of it, even if that's not the whole or sole characterization of being coloured?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But when we look at potential for harm, not all things are going to be equal. That's a simple fact.
No, it is not a "simple fact." It is your political opinion, turbo-charged by a weaponized rhetoric ("these harms" and "simple fact") and nomenclature ("erasure"), that serves to silence any and all debate by demonizing those who oppose that view.
All things not having equal potential for harm is not simple fact? What? Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
there are two sides to this objective and subjective morality.
1.) objectively the question is whether it's OK for anyone to play a character that is different from themself. There's absolutely no reason to restrict this question to race, sex, or sexual orientation. We could just as well discuss whether the character's in a wheelchair or blind or has ADHD or schizophrenia or depression or suffers from chronic pain. We could discuss whether the character grew up homeless or is morbidly obese.
The point is, restricting the discussion to race, sex, and sexual orientation is entirely arbitrary. Ultimately, what we're asking is whether it is okay for someone to roleplay a character who is marginalized in our daily world.
Answer: Yes, roleplaying them might be a helpful way to work on no longer othering them.
2.) subjectively the question is whether we should play a character that we don't feel comfortable with
Answer: the point of the game is to have fun
I don't think portraying someone as African-American in a setting that doesn't have African-Americans is really pertinent. You can still include identifiers that might be recognizeable as stereotypically African-American. There are for instance, whether justified or not, people who associate the characterization of (half-)orcs with people of colour after all. And, whether that association is justified or not, those people can rightly feel offended by this. Offense doesn't have to be deliberate to be offense.
Considering OP's query in the first place, I don't expect morality to be an issue here. I do think giving offense is a possibility, but that's hard to judge from afar. If I as a white DM pattern the speech of an NPC after Forest Whitaker, an African-American, I doubt anyone will take offense (and unless I tell people that's what I'm doing, they might not even be able to figure it out anyway). If I pattern the speech of an NPC after Forest Whitaker's character in Black Panther on the other hand, I certainly risk giving offense at least. Now my games aren't public and everyone at the table is a friend, so I can probably judge fairly accurately whether any of them would take offense at this and I'm pretty sure none of them would since they know me as well; regardless - and this is where morality does come into play - I choose not to do this because it could give offense to others. Doesn't matter that those others won't see/hear me doing this, it's the principle. Actions can be morally on the up and up, while still potentially giving offense and thus being ethically questionable.
All of which just means OP's in a grey area. It's not absolutely questionable to roleplay a character as African-American, but depending on the actual portrayal it might be. Not the most helpful answer for sure, but that's what I got. If there is genuine concern, that's a good step towards not crossing the line - that's one positive to take away from the conversation at least. From there, just tread lightly and follow your conscience.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Do you play in a public or private group?
If the latter, consider asking the other players.
If no one objects (as with anything, really), do whatever the **** you want.
And fyi, as a DM and being white, cis, male, I already played black mtf trans people etc. The great thing about DnD is that we have so many races that are actual different races, not just a different amount of pigmentation hormones, and we still get along very well.
Nugz - Kobold Level 4 Bloodhunter/Order of the Mutant - Out there looking for snacks and evil monsters.
Ultrix Schwarzdorn - Human Level 6 Artificer/Armorer - Retired and works in his new shop.
Quercus Espenkiel - Gnome Level 9 Wizard/Order of Scribes - Turned into a book and sits on a shelf.
Artin - Fairy Level 4 Sorcerer/Wild Magic - Busy with annoying the townsfolk. Again.
Jabor - Fire Genasi - Level 4 Wizard/School of Evocation - The First Flame, The Last Chaos. Probably in jail, again.
If I may point out, not all African Americans see their situation the same way. As I understand it you can play it one of a few ways: some don't really care not being really outcast, while others define their entire lives either because of or in spite of racism and/or you could play it like my one of my ancestors who was a slave.
In the old confederate states, was a young maid. Her master was an influential confederate palitician. She was a concubine. She became pregnant she gave birth to a son. The civil war was fought and lost for the south. Call it kindness or cruelity the father gave his son his surname "Davis". Rejected from her family because of her son and Jeff imprisoned, she went west. Joining the Sioux tribe in Nebraska. There the maid became a medicine women and son became a warrior. A generation later the tribe was broken and the grand children of the maid took her lessons of medicine and sold whollistic medicines. Now to this we have a tradition of the studying of war, medicine and community service. And none of this would have happen unless we sacrificed our pride and anger.
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing this.
I feel like it is not with us you should speak of that.
it should definitely be a discution with your DM and playgroup.
depending on the people you are playing with, they may have a problem with it.
if that is the case knowing about it stops you from making the mistake.
that said, it should never be a problem at a table to play anything. its all pretend.
but again, the advice is to talk about it to your DM and your play group, see if "THEY" have a problem wit it !
if they do they will tell you and you can then change whats the problem.
discussion with other players and DM is always the first thing you should do.
also, last advice... if you have a problem with it, aka it gives you moral dilema, then i reckon it wasn't that great of an idea to begin with.
you should play a charcater you feel is right for you, not a character that is right for others. if the character you play is already a problem in your mind, then something isn't working and i suggest you change it already. characters you play should always be ok with you reguardless of what is hapenning. so if you feel like it would be too much, then chances are, it will be too much. just change it.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Possibly, but it's still a fair subject that can warrant serious discussion. I've had a few players who created characters that inadvertently reminded others of their minority status too, it doesn't have to be deliberate. Characters that are displaced immigrants in the region they live in, characters with a background of systemic oppression, characters of mixed heritage who feel like they don't belong - those aren't exactly uncommon. Jingoism is hardly unknown in D&D either, and dealing with subjects like gender politics or sexual orientation tends to be hit and miss still even if we've come a long way. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to roleplay someone other than yourself (I'd argue that's what most of us do most of the time), but the aspect that makes the character "other" can be sensitive regardless of your intentions. Even if the OP isn't getting anything from the conversation, someone else might.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think the OP’s getting something out of this. They’ve probably just chosen not to say anything.
To clarify: I'm not suggesting we discuss real world anything, but rather how real world issues can be handled in a sensitive and respectful manner in a TTRPG. Because it's all but certain they will appear in some form or other at some point, if the campaigns you play in go beyond simple beer & pretzels hack & slash fun (which I have nothing against, but it's not really the style of the time anymore). Most settings with a bit of depth will have a source of conflict, and conflict tends to make it possible to see deliberate or accidental references to real world issues. Nothing wrong with that per se, but what might make such references disrespectful or offensive and how to avoid that is a good topic to hash out.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It doesn't have to be about the OP's case specifically, and the reason we're discussing it is that we acknowledge it may not be wise. Now, if we could help out the OP specifically, that'd be great - no argument there. I think there can be value in discussing this in more general terms as well though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Is every member of your group ok with it? Are you ok with it? If they answers are yes, then have fun. If anyone answers no, then probably not.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
[REDACTED]
That said, I would as OP why he wants to portray a black person to begin with. I don't think OP needs to justify his position, but he should examine why it is important that the character is black. It's okay for superficial reasons or that you feel it's cool that she is black and it's okay if this characteristic doesn't even come into gameplay. I think it would be very wrong indeed to tell you that you have to play a character of a certain skill colour because your own skin has a certain colour. D&D should be a space that you can explore things like this without worrying that you will be judged. But really sit and think why its important to you to do this.
Okay, I think it's safe to say, having read the material, that yes, black people are marginalised to some extent and yes, the OP (as many people do) was othering them to use Edward Said's terminology. If OP felt they were part of their social grouping, then they wouldn't be looking for legitimisation of their character.
I strongly disagree. People shouldn't get to veto the colour of your character's skin. It would be different if the plan was to play the character (intentionally) as a racist stereotype, but if people think they can tell you what character you can play, that's a sign to get better friends.
It's possible, not absolutely sure, but possible, that the OP's group or audience (this is apparently for a forum game, at least that's my read from reading the thread) are best in the position to assess the players _capacity_ to perform/play this role. Social contract common to much of the game culture these days presume (along with consent) consensus. So what you're objecting to seems to fall into the usual table deliberation over party make up. I know some still games are still played with parties assembled without any session 0 discussion or examination, but I think advising the OP to talk it over with the group, presuming it's a group that have played together is probably the best way to gauge whether a character choice "crosses a line."
I do agree that before doing so, the OP is probably better off trying to articulate a "why" behind their role choice, in their OP there was really no rationale, just apprehension.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This doesn't address what I actually wrote. I kept it simple for the purpose of addressing a simple concept: the comparison was faulty. If you would like to address things tangentially related to my statements, by all means. Just don't attribute positions to me I haven't actually expressed. If you feel something is unclear or missing in my post, by all means ask. Just don't fill in the blanks yourself on my behalf.
It does. It's a direct refutation of your point that history makes one consideration of a race portraying another race substantially difference than the reverse scenario by pointing out that using that thinking (history altering what is and isn't acceptable) would be a bit monsterous if applied universally. By creating a scenario that can only apply selectively, which could be considered your call for considerations, we propogate an immorality and to use that to control people is, in my words, evil.
I didn't address the part where you said that you wouldn't know who would call him out, but other than that, I directly commented on the entirety of your message.
This is equivocal. I'm talking about a very specific things like blackface and minstrelsy, erasure, whitewashing, and others which have been harmful historically and presently. There is no universal consideration to apply when these harms were not and are not experienced universally or equally. Thus this specific comparison is faulty.
In the context of DnD, when we are at a table with others, then we are accountable to more than our own sense of entitlement. We are also accountable to others at the table. If the OP wants to play a character who is black, no one is stopping them. And honestly, there is currently little reason to assume they should be dissuaded anyway. If they're concerned about potential offence or harm to Black people, Black people aren't a monolith and it's probably better to discuss with people at their table. If their concern is broader issues pertaining to racism, there have to be better resources out there than this forum.
But when we look at potential for harm, not all things are going to be equal. That's a simple fact.
edit: while it's a bit late, the word 'nonsense' is inflammatory, so I've removed it.
Anyway, to bring this back around to DnD, I've been looking at articles elsewhere.
This one is more specific to TTRPGs: https://cypheroftyr.com/2017/11/12/on-roleplaying-the-other/
This one is about video games, but it's in a similar vein to the OP's concern: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/08/31/430057317/should-your-avatars-skin-match-yours
Obviously those articles aren't comprehensive or gospel, but there are resources on this subject matter out there in the aether that might prove useful.
Since it's that time of year again, the issue of blackface and the protrayal of Black Pete as Saint-Nicolas' helper is getting its yearly few weeks of attention. On the one hand there are those, mostly people of colour, who feel blackface is disrespectful and thus it is offensive to them. On the other there are those who feel the Saint-Nicolas tradition is centuries old folklore that is harmless and culturally significant. I don't intend to hash this issue out here, this is not the place, but purely objectively both sides have a point. That's the situation, and that is the point. It's not - if you'll forgive the pun - black and white. Is it really pertinent to be asking who is being marginalized and by whom? Or to point out that there is no universal black experience? Can't we acknowledge that systemic racism exists and that there are people suffering because of it, even if that's not the whole or sole characterization of being coloured?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
All things not having equal potential for harm is not simple fact? What? Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].