Keep the realworld out of my fantasy. It's called fantasy for a reason. I don't want to lecture someone (as DM) or get lectured (as Player) about how realworld topics should be handled by having them thinly cloaked in my GAME.
Except that the problem is the real-world analogies being used in the game. The real world is already in there.
No matter what anyone (writers, designers, books, people, media, etc.) says, it's up to each of us to discern whether there is even a shred of truth behind the words. I, and the players at my table (today and all the days since 35yrs ago) refuse to attach any truth to what's being said in my fantasy game to something in the real world - hence the reason why it's a fantasy GAME. I can't just love the best parts of the game that are all about fantasy, make believe, awe, wonder, and possibility, yet claim "it's REAL" when I'm looking to attach it to some real world problem.
It's all-in for me and my table. It's all make believe and the writers aren't speaking to me directly. It's not grossly offensive and my morals and values aren't being personally attacked. Be real here. D&D is not that game.
If you search for a problem in anything, you'll find it. Does it mean that by not searching, it doesn't exist? Of course not, but, I'll never play my games (nor live) with the attitude that there must be something wrong, therefore, I must not only find it, but also choose to be offended by it.
That's not to say that there isn't a shred of offensive stuff in every tabletop roleplaying game, let alone, all media. The point is, we (and I assume Sturn is on the same page with me) choose to see the fantasy elements that aren't offensive, inappropriate, or whatever negative stuff is associated with it. I see D&D for the amazing times and amazing parts that have carried me and my tables through some of life's best gaming memories. With that as our focus and compass, perhaps we just don't even notice the "problems". Good enough for us.
I dont really know, I will include it in my stories, but not to raise awareness, is it a problem IRL, absolutely, is it getting better, I also think so, I just think it makes the stories more compelling and mean more to the players having to get around different problems because of the choices they make, both in character build and in game, but the point of fantasy is to be different than real world, do people hate orcs, yes, do they have good reason to, usually also yes, i don't really consider it a problem i have to address in game though, nobody likes a preachy DM and it really can take away from the fun and story. Also, frankly I'm just happy SPaG isn't here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
Keep the realworld out of my fantasy. It's called fantasy for a reason. I don't want to lecture someone (as DM) or get lectured (as Player) about how realworld topics should be handled by having them thinly cloaked in my GAME.
Goblins in the default fantasy setting are neutral EVIL. So, when you meet the default goblin, they should be RP'd as neutral EVIL. Can I throw in a non-default goblin who has a different alignment as a DM? Of course! That's fun. Just like I can have them encounter a Lawful Evil Mountain Dwarf bandit lord even though the default for dwarves has been Lawful Good. You can do all of that without lecturing or being forced to compare fantasy race X to realworld race Y since it's a FANTASY and a GAME.
Besides the fact that this thread was not intended to debate this, I have to agree with Lostwhilefishing. The real world has inspired fantasy worlds since D&D was started. If you want to debate this further, go to this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm confused. One can play a human, a human of any gender/color/size/shape with endless amounts of attributes and join a party of other wildly varied characters, elves, dwarves, lizard folk, gnomes, again of all different kinds of variations and work together to save the kingdom/world/town/forest...etc. Or you can play any of those varistions and team up with Humans. If there is anything the opposite of racism, Ive not heard of a better example.
Just because your party may be not-racist enough to allow you to join their party doesn't mean that the rest of the world will be so accepting of your character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In DnD, there are actual REASONS to be more scared of Yuan-ti and half orcs. Say humans and orcs have been mortal enemies for years, then there is a reason they will be a little scared of a half-orc, and it goes the other way as well. A human would likely not be welcomed in an orc society either.
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.
In DnD, there are actual REASONS to be more scared of Yuan-ti and half orcs. Say humans and orcs have been mortal enemies for years, then there is a reason they will be a little scared of a half-orc, and it goes the other way as well. A human would likely not be welcomed in an orc society either.
Which is something people have said to justify real racism as well, and the fact that so many fantasy settings legitimize these ideas at a biological or otherwise-innate level is obviously a problem.
Exactly, and that is dependent completely on the world. In Eberron, no one is more scared of Orcs or Goblinoids than they are of Humans or Elves. In fact, elves are probably the more dangerous/scary of those listed races. In the Forgotten Realms, humans are generally more scared of Orcs than Elves, but there are exceptions (drow and theskan orcs).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In DnD, there are actual REASONS to be more scared of Yuan-ti and half orcs. Say humans and orcs have been mortal enemies for years, then there is a reason they will be a little scared of a half-orc, and it goes the other way as well. A human would likely not be welcomed in an orc society either.
Which is something people have said to justify real racism as well, and the fact that so many fantasy settings legitimize these ideas at a biological or otherwise-innate level is obviously a problem.
I agree, it is inexcusable for the NPCs to be racist, even if there is a "reason" for it. That's why I prefer Exandria and Eberron to the FR or Greyhawk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In DnD, there are actual REASONS to be more scared of Yuan-ti and half orcs. Say humans and orcs have been mortal enemies for years, then there is a reason they will be a little scared of a half-orc, and it goes the other way as well. A human would likely not be welcomed in an orc society either.
Which is something people have said to justify real racism as well, and the fact that so many fantasy settings legitimize these ideas at a biological or otherwise-innate level is obviously a problem.
I agree, it is inexcusable for the NPCs to be racist, even if there is a "reason" for it. That's why I prefer Exandria and Eberron to the FR or Greyhawk.
But it isn't 'Racist'. We haven't been actively at war with black people, to the best of my knowledge. I also prefer Exandria and Wildemount, but if there is a legitimate story reason, I get being cautious, or even hostile. Racism is discrimination against minorities for no reason other than their race. By that very definition, if there is a different (legitimate) reason, then it isn't Racism.
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.
It is racist to discriminate against all people of one race due to them being a member of that race, even if you're at war with some of them. That would be like us banning all Christians from America because the *** has killed thousands of Americans. Being cautious for your own protection is fine, but being hostile is not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In DnD, there are actual REASONS to be more scared of Yuan-ti and half orcs. Say humans and orcs have been mortal enemies for years, then there is a reason they will be a little scared of a half-orc, and it goes the other way as well. A human would likely not be welcomed in an orc society either.
Which is something people have said to justify real racism as well, and the fact that so many fantasy settings legitimize these ideas at a biological or otherwise-innate level is obviously a problem.
I agree, it is inexcusable for the NPCs to be racist, even if there is a "reason" for it. That's why I prefer Exandria and Eberron to the FR or Greyhawk.
But it isn't 'Racist'. We haven't been actively at war with black people, to the best of my knowledge. I also prefer Exandria and Wildemount, but if there is a legitimate story reason, I get being cautious, or even hostile. Racism is discrimination against minorities for no reason other than their race. By that very definition, if there is a different (legitimate) reason, then it isn't Racism.
That's not what racism is, no; and yes, it is racist. It's completely understandable to be wary of members of a particular society that has waged war on your own. The problem with Forgotten Realms (and most fantasy settings) is that it's not about "society." It's about "race." The war is not between Stormwind and Orgrimmar. It's between orcs and humans. And most fantasy makes this biological: orcs are just naturally predisposed to go around ****** and pillaging poor, innocent human villages, which, again, is a line of thinking that has literally been used to justify the American slave state and subsequent injustice.
I'm fine with a setting in which that is a common perception, because people are shitty and it's okay to tell stories about shitty societal phenomena. The problem, which should be obvious to anyone with a functional sense of empathy, is that these settings say "but also actually it's literally true."
And, like, I get it if these just aren't things you think about. The fact that you contrast "we" with "black people" suggests a certain experience in which none of this affects you either way. That's great for you, but just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean the effect it has on people without your particular experience isn't real.
I think there is a mingling of terms here, and forgive me for I am going to use an extreme example and I mean no offence by it.
Races in real life are not parallel to races in DND. Races in DND are more like biological Genus rather than races. If anything, sub races are more like IRL races, but even then those are more like species. Sure they may be humanoid, but that is convergent evolution. To the best of my knowledge, there is no common ancestor in most canons that put Avian Aaracocra and Reptilian Lizardfolk under the same "race". With this sort of thinking, comparing Orcs and Elves would be like comparing a salamander to a pidgin and saying 'Yeah, those are the same." or saying that a fox eating a rabbit is cannibalism because they fit into a loose categorization of mammal.
It if for this reason that I support the inclusion of 'racism' in Dnd lore both canon and homebrew. I think of it as animals competing for recourses in a recourse limited world. To me, it doesn't matter if it is foxes hunting rabbits, or Lizardfolk hunting humans. Creatures do what they need to do to survive, and if that instils some sort of resentment and fear in creatures with higher cognition, that seems natural to me. After all, if a Mindflayer was a playable race, should humans not be afraid of them because they literally treat other Dnd races as cattle?
All that said, I do NOT support IRL racism nor do I condone the use of science to attempt to justify any sort of discrimination. I merely wanted to draw attention to what I consider to be a misinterpretation of terms that were used for simplicity and/or legacy.
TLDR: Races in DND are not Parallel to Races IRL, therefor traditional Dnd racism is not parallel to IRL racism.
It is racist to discriminate against all people of one race due to them being a member of that race, even if you're at war with some of them. That would be like us banning all Christians from America because the *** has killed thousands of Americans. Being cautious for your own protection is fine, but being hostile is not.
I think we just disagree on the definition of racism
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.
In DnD, there are actual REASONS to be more scared of Yuan-ti and half orcs. Say humans and orcs have been mortal enemies for years, then there is a reason they will be a little scared of a half-orc, and it goes the other way as well. A human would likely not be welcomed in an orc society either.
Which is something people have said to justify real racism as well, and the fact that so many fantasy settings legitimize these ideas at a biological or otherwise-innate level is obviously a problem.
I agree, it is inexcusable for the NPCs to be racist, even if there is a "reason" for it. That's why I prefer Exandria and Eberron to the FR or Greyhawk.
But it isn't 'Racist'. We haven't been actively at war with black people, to the best of my knowledge. I also prefer Exandria and Wildemount, but if there is a legitimate story reason, I get being cautious, or even hostile. Racism is discrimination against minorities for no reason other than their race. By that very definition, if there is a different (legitimate) reason, then it isn't Racism.
That's not what racism is, no; and yes, it is racist. It's completely understandable to be wary of members of a particular society that has waged war on your own. The problem with Forgotten Realms (and most fantasy settings) is that it's not about "society." It's about "race." The war is not between Stormwind and Orgrimmar. It's between orcs and humans. And most fantasy makes this biological: orcs are just naturally predisposed to go around ****** and pillaging poor, innocent human villages, which, again, is a line of thinking that has literally been used to justify the American slave state and subsequent injustice.
I'm fine with a setting in which that is a common perception, because people are shitty and it's okay to tell stories about shitty societal phenomena. The problem, which should be obvious to anyone with a functional sense of empathy, is that these settings say "but also actually it's literally true."
And, like, I get it if these just aren't things you think about. The fact that you contrast "we" with "black people" suggests a certain experience in which none of this affects you either way. That's great for you, but just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean the effect it has on people without your particular experience isn't real.
I totally agree with you. In the forgotten realms there 100% should be specific orc countries/peoples that are evil (or just oppose humans) and some that aren't, but I don't think WotC was trying to be racist when designing the lore, just a little clueless lol.
In DnD, there are actual REASONS to be more scared of Yuan-ti and half orcs. Say humans and orcs have been mortal enemies for years, then there is a reason they will be a little scared of a half-orc, and it goes the other way as well. A human would likely not be welcomed in an orc society either.
Which is something people have said to justify real racism as well, and the fact that so many fantasy settings legitimize these ideas at a biological or otherwise-innate level is obviously a problem.
I agree, it is inexcusable for the NPCs to be racist, even if there is a "reason" for it. That's why I prefer Exandria and Eberron to the FR or Greyhawk.
But it isn't 'Racist'. We haven't been actively at war with black people, to the best of my knowledge. I also prefer Exandria and Wildemount, but if there is a legitimate story reason, I get being cautious, or even hostile. Racism is discrimination against minorities for no reason other than their race. By that very definition, if there is a different (legitimate) reason, then it isn't Racism.
That's not what racism is, no; and yes, it is racist. It's completely understandable to be wary of members of a particular society that has waged war on your own. The problem with Forgotten Realms (and most fantasy settings) is that it's not about "society." It's about "race." The war is not between Stormwind and Orgrimmar. It's between orcs and humans. And most fantasy makes this biological: orcs are just naturally predisposed to go around ****** and pillaging poor, innocent human villages, which, again, is a line of thinking that has literally been used to justify the American slave state and subsequent injustice.
I'm fine with a setting in which that is a common perception, because people are shitty and it's okay to tell stories about shitty societal phenomena. The problem, which should be obvious to anyone with a functional sense of empathy, is that these settings say "but also actually it's literally true."
And, like, I get it if these just aren't things you think about. The fact that you contrast "we" with "black people" suggests a certain experience in which none of this affects you either way. That's great for you, but just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean the effect it has on people without your particular experience isn't real.
I see it as the common perception thing going on. Humans perceive that Orcs are evil because they raid human villages. What about the Orc perspective? Human settled on lands the Orcs considered their own and claimed all the resources. Orcs have to raid to survive. To the Orcs, the humans are the evil ones that are threatening their way of life.
The problem is, for most people, their personal perception of reality is reality.
It is racist to discriminate against all people of one race due to them being a member of that race, even if you're at war with some of them. That would be like us banning all Christians from America because the *** has killed thousands of Americans. Being cautious for your own protection is fine, but being hostile is not.
I think we just disagree on the definition of racism
What's your definition, then? Mine is this:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
It is racist to discriminate against all people of one race due to them being a member of that race, even if you're at war with some of them. That would be like us banning all Christians from America because the *** has killed thousands of Americans. Being cautious for your own protection is fine, but being hostile is not.
I think we just disagree on the definition of racism
What's your definition, then? Mine is this:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
This is mine as well. But say you are at war with another race, you have a different reason to be antagonistic of them, meaning it could not be racism
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.
But "being at war with another race" is not normally something that happens. People go to war with different nations and religions, but not whole races. The closest thing to this in the history of earth was the colonizing of the Americas, wiping out most of the natives, but based on your reasoning, that wasn't "racism," it was just a war.
But "being at war with another race" is not normally something that happens. People go to war with different nations and religions, but not whole races. The closest thing to this in the history of earth was the colonizing of the Americas, wiping out most of the natives, but based on your reasoning, that wasn't "racism," it was just a war.
I think we are talking about DnD, but I could be wrong. I think I am just explaining badly, but my basic reasoning is that WotC is not trying to be racist.
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.
No matter what anyone (writers, designers, books, people, media, etc.) says, it's up to each of us to discern whether there is even a shred of truth behind the words. I, and the players at my table (today and all the days since 35yrs ago) refuse to attach any truth to what's being said in my fantasy game to something in the real world - hence the reason why it's a fantasy GAME. I can't just love the best parts of the game that are all about fantasy, make believe, awe, wonder, and possibility, yet claim "it's REAL" when I'm looking to attach it to some real world problem.
It's all-in for me and my table. It's all make believe and the writers aren't speaking to me directly. It's not grossly offensive and my morals and values aren't being personally attacked. Be real here. D&D is not that game.
If you search for a problem in anything, you'll find it. Does it mean that by not searching, it doesn't exist? Of course not, but, I'll never play my games (nor live) with the attitude that there must be something wrong, therefore, I must not only find it, but also choose to be offended by it.
That's not to say that there isn't a shred of offensive stuff in every tabletop roleplaying game, let alone, all media. The point is, we (and I assume Sturn is on the same page with me) choose to see the fantasy elements that aren't offensive, inappropriate, or whatever negative stuff is associated with it. I see D&D for the amazing times and amazing parts that have carried me and my tables through some of life's best gaming memories. With that as our focus and compass, perhaps we just don't even notice the "problems". Good enough for us.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I dont really know, I will include it in my stories, but not to raise awareness, is it a problem IRL, absolutely, is it getting better, I also think so, I just think it makes the stories more compelling and mean more to the players having to get around different problems because of the choices they make, both in character build and in game, but the point of fantasy is to be different than real world, do people hate orcs, yes, do they have good reason to, usually also yes, i don't really consider it a problem i have to address in game though, nobody likes a preachy DM and it really can take away from the fun and story. Also, frankly I'm just happy SPaG isn't here.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Besides the fact that this thread was not intended to debate this, I have to agree with Lostwhilefishing. The real world has inspired fantasy worlds since D&D was started. If you want to debate this further, go to this thread.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm confused. One can play a human, a human of any gender/color/size/shape with endless amounts of attributes and join a party of other wildly varied characters, elves, dwarves, lizard folk, gnomes, again of all different kinds of variations and work together to save the kingdom/world/town/forest...etc. Or you can play any of those varistions and team up with Humans. If there is anything the opposite of racism, Ive not heard of a better example.
Just because your party may be not-racist enough to allow you to join their party doesn't mean that the rest of the world will be so accepting of your character.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In DnD, there are actual REASONS to be more scared of Yuan-ti and half orcs. Say humans and orcs have been mortal enemies for years, then there is a reason they will be a little scared of a half-orc, and it goes the other way as well. A human would likely not be welcomed in an orc society either.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Which is something people have said to justify real racism as well, and the fact that so many fantasy settings legitimize these ideas at a biological or otherwise-innate level is obviously a problem.
Exactly, and that is dependent completely on the world. In Eberron, no one is more scared of Orcs or Goblinoids than they are of Humans or Elves. In fact, elves are probably the more dangerous/scary of those listed races. In the Forgotten Realms, humans are generally more scared of Orcs than Elves, but there are exceptions (drow and theskan orcs).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree, it is inexcusable for the NPCs to be racist, even if there is a "reason" for it. That's why I prefer Exandria and Eberron to the FR or Greyhawk.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
But it isn't 'Racist'. We haven't been actively at war with black people, to the best of my knowledge. I also prefer Exandria and Wildemount, but if there is a legitimate story reason, I get being cautious, or even hostile. Racism is discrimination against minorities for no reason other than their race. By that very definition, if there is a different (legitimate) reason, then it isn't Racism.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
It is racist to discriminate against all people of one race due to them being a member of that race, even if you're at war with some of them. That would be like us banning all Christians from America because the *** has killed thousands of Americans. Being cautious for your own protection is fine, but being hostile is not.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's not what racism is, no; and yes, it is racist. It's completely understandable to be wary of members of a particular society that has waged war on your own. The problem with Forgotten Realms (and most fantasy settings) is that it's not about "society." It's about "race." The war is not between Stormwind and Orgrimmar. It's between orcs and humans. And most fantasy makes this biological: orcs are just naturally predisposed to go around ****** and pillaging poor, innocent human villages, which, again, is a line of thinking that has literally been used to justify the American slave state and subsequent injustice.
I'm fine with a setting in which that is a common perception, because people are shitty and it's okay to tell stories about shitty societal phenomena. The problem, which should be obvious to anyone with a functional sense of empathy, is that these settings say "but also actually it's literally true."
And, like, I get it if these just aren't things you think about. The fact that you contrast "we" with "black people" suggests a certain experience in which none of this affects you either way. That's great for you, but just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean the effect it has on people without your particular experience isn't real.
I think there is a mingling of terms here, and forgive me for I am going to use an extreme example and I mean no offence by it.
Races in real life are not parallel to races in DND. Races in DND are more like biological Genus rather than races. If anything, sub races are more like IRL races, but even then those are more like species. Sure they may be humanoid, but that is convergent evolution. To the best of my knowledge, there is no common ancestor in most canons that put Avian Aaracocra and Reptilian Lizardfolk under the same "race". With this sort of thinking, comparing Orcs and Elves would be like comparing a salamander to a pidgin and saying 'Yeah, those are the same." or saying that a fox eating a rabbit is cannibalism because they fit into a loose categorization of mammal.
It if for this reason that I support the inclusion of 'racism' in Dnd lore both canon and homebrew. I think of it as animals competing for recourses in a recourse limited world. To me, it doesn't matter if it is foxes hunting rabbits, or Lizardfolk hunting humans. Creatures do what they need to do to survive, and if that instils some sort of resentment and fear in creatures with higher cognition, that seems natural to me. After all, if a Mindflayer was a playable race, should humans not be afraid of them because they literally treat other Dnd races as cattle?
All that said, I do NOT support IRL racism nor do I condone the use of science to attempt to justify any sort of discrimination. I merely wanted to draw attention to what I consider to be a misinterpretation of terms that were used for simplicity and/or legacy.
TLDR: Races in DND are not Parallel to Races IRL, therefor traditional Dnd racism is not parallel to IRL racism.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I think we just disagree on the definition of racism
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I totally agree with you. In the forgotten realms there 100% should be specific orc countries/peoples that are evil (or just oppose humans) and some that aren't, but I don't think WotC was trying to be racist when designing the lore, just a little clueless lol.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I see it as the common perception thing going on. Humans perceive that Orcs are evil because they raid human villages. What about the Orc perspective? Human settled on lands the Orcs considered their own and claimed all the resources. Orcs have to raid to survive. To the Orcs, the humans are the evil ones that are threatening their way of life.
The problem is, for most people, their personal perception of reality is reality.
What's your definition, then? Mine is this:
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This is mine as well. But say you are at war with another race, you have a different reason to be antagonistic of them, meaning it could not be racism
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
But "being at war with another race" is not normally something that happens. People go to war with different nations and religions, but not whole races. The closest thing to this in the history of earth was the colonizing of the Americas, wiping out most of the natives, but based on your reasoning, that wasn't "racism," it was just a war.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think we are talking about DnD, but I could be wrong. I think I am just explaining badly, but my basic reasoning is that WotC is not trying to be racist.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.