Is it a "totally wild connection" to compare the war against orcs and humans to the war against European colonizers and Native Americans?
Especially when there are parallels between what gets written about orcs in the Forgotten Realms and what was written about Native Americans in the 19th Century.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Is it a "totally wild connection" to compare the war against orcs and humans to the war against European colonizers and Native Americans?
Never said that. I think it is, yes, but I did NOT say that :)
Sorry, I don't mean to misrepresent you, and mean absolutely no offense to you. However, your response to my post saying that the war against Native Americans and European colonizers was a racist war was that "we can't make totally wild connections." I interpreted that as you stating that it was a totally wild connection, and it really is not, IMO, in 6thLyranGuard's opinion, and I'm assuming that SagaTympana agrees with us as well, based on them upvoting 6thLyranGuard's most recent post.
Maybe we're misunderstanding you. Care to clarify?
Is it a "totally wild connection" to compare the war against orcs and humans to the war against European colonizers and Native Americans?
Never said that. I think it is, yes, but I did NOT say that :)
I do not know of any official game setting where orcs were forced onto reservations against there will which is totally wrong to do. Orcs and other races fought but I do not think it has a history like our real world history. I myself strive to keep racism out of the game wherever I can. In the OP is mentioned the Yuan-ti they may see racism if they are in a community that has suffered at the hands of Yuan-ti but only if they are discovered as Yuan-ti as they can hide their appearance fairly well.
Uh, forcing Native Americans onto reservations is not the worst thing Americans/colonizers did to the natives. Also, have you never heard of Maztica (not with orcs, but still) or Eberron (with both orcs and goblinoids)? If you want to keep racial tension out of your games, that's fine. I'm not to tell you how to run your games. However, there are obvious parallels in D&D lore between real life people and races and D&D species, people, and races.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Is it a "totally wild connection" to compare the war against orcs and humans to the war against European colonizers and Native Americans?
Never said that. I think it is, yes, but I did NOT say that :)
Sorry, I don't mean to misrepresent you, and mean absolutely no offense to you. However, your response to my post saying that the war against Native Americans and European colonizers was a racist war was that "we can't make totally wild connections." I interpreted that as you stating that it was a totally wild connection, and it really is not, IMO, in 6thLyranGuard's opinion, and I'm assuming that SagaTympana agrees with us as well, based on them upvoting 6thLyranGuard's most recent post.
Maybe we're misunderstanding you. Care to clarify?
I feel like I am digging myself into a hole, completely by accident lol.
I think that any relation between IRL events and DnD is unintentional. What about war's between the English and the French? Why aren't they racist? I think the war between Native Americans and European colonizers was certainly one sided, but it was also completely normal for any country to invade any other at that time in history (Just saying, I am not condoning it, obviously). I think it is exactly the same in some DnD lore: The Orcs have just been at war with Humans for a while, so both sides are at blame. It would be the same if elves and dwarves were attacking each other, and dwarves and humans.
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 can prove that IRL events/stories and D&D have some purposefully overlapping lore/elements. Mielikki is a deity from the real world and Forgotten Realms. The Disks of Mishikal from Dragonlance are based off of an aspect from the Mormon church (the Golden Plates), as Tracy Hickman is a member of the Mormon church. The Dhaakani Empire of Eberron and Orcs are fairly obviously based off of Native Americans, as they had their own nations and culture, and then the people from a continent to the east came and conquered them all and stole their land. Tiamat and Bahamut are both Middle-Eastern deities. There are a lot of other aspects of lore from different D&D worlds based off of real world events/peoples/mythologies. Also, even unintentionally basing an aspect of a setting you are making/developing is bound to happen, as the only settings you have to base your setting off of is the real world (or another setting, which also will have aspects unintentionally based off of the real world). Even if there was a part of a D&D setting was unintentionally racist, that's still racist.
And, about the war between Europeans and Native Americans, the reason that was racist and not the ones between the English and the French, is because they're the same race, but from different countries. That's what I said in this post, the colonizers and conquistadors were trying to exterminate a race, while the English and French were just trying to beat each other in war in order to conquer the others, not wipe them off of the planet.
It's fine for a nation of humans and a nation of orcs to be at war, or a nation of elves and goblins being at war with each other. But, if its the whole races being at war with each other, that is fine in rare occasions, but if it is every race being a caricature that is at war with other full races, that is not realistic.
(Just trying to explain my viewpoint. Again, I mean no offense.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Others started arguing that DMs shouldn't even have any themes of racial tension or discrimination in D&D, and compared those that have those themes to real world racists, and were implying that if you have those problems in your D&D games, you are racist.
If people can't handle racial tensions in other people's D&D campaigns, then they need to check themselves tbh. I agree with you completely that racial tensions can be quite normal in D&D depending on which world the DM wishes to portray. I also agree that it's probably most often advantagous being a human compared to the more exotic races.
If there are people that actually think people can be compared to real world racists if there's discrimination in their D&D campaign, then these people need to educate themselves. I don't like to use this term, but it smells like ignorant wokeism, that's intolerant to anything/anyone not sharing its beliefs.
The fact is, racism is a thing that exists, throughout all the world, doesn't make it ok, but it makes it a valid element in our D&D campaigns, because it's a portrayal of a very natural human behavior. And to add to that, even if it wasn't a natural human behavior, it would still be ok to have in a D&D campaign, because everything is ok and allowed in a campaign as long as all the players agree on what's in the campaign and the theme of it.
Sigh...what a silly thread. Just let it die. Of course there is inter-species tension in the game. The game was designed that way. And it is perfectly valid to have in a game.
As a DM, it is integral to my overall plotline I have my chars set on. And as a player, no matter what species I play, I always play that char as knowing his species is superior to the others, because I like to do that, and it works within the D&D setting. Sometimes that char is overt in his beliefs, sometimes subtle.
Others started arguing that DMs shouldn't even have any themes of racial tension or discrimination in D&D, and compared those that have those themes to real world racists, and were implying that if you have those problems in your D&D games, you are racist.
If people can't handle racial tensions in other people's D&D campaigns, then they need to check themselves tbh. I agree with you completely that racial tensions can be quite normal in D&D depending on which world the DM wishes to portray. I also agree that it's probably most often advantagous being a human compared to the more exotic races.
If there are people that actually think people can be compared to real world racists if there's discrimination in their D&D campaign, then these people need to educate themselves. I don't like to use this term, but it smells like ignorant wokeism, that's intolerant to anything/anyone not sharing its beliefs.
The fact is, racism is a thing that exists, throughout all the world, doesn't make it ok, but it makes it a valid element in our D&D campaigns, because it's a portrayal of a very natural human behavior. And to add to that, even if it wasn't a natural human behavior, it would still be ok to have in a D&D campaign, because everything is ok and allowed in a campaign as long as all the players agree on what's in the campaign and the theme of it.
You sir/mam have put a stamp on and written one of the best responses I've read - and one that applies to about 30% of the threads in this forum. Very, very well said.
And, about the war between Europeans and Native Americans, the reason that was racist and not the ones between the English and the French, is because they're the same race, but from different countries. That's what I said in this post, the colonizers and conquistadors were trying to exterminate a race, while the English and French were just trying to beat each other in war in order to conquer the others, not wipe them off of the planet.
It's fine for a nation of humans and a nation of orcs to be at war, or a nation of elves and goblins being at war with each other. But, if its the whole races being at war with each other, that is fine in rare occasions, but if it is every race being a caricature that is at war with other full races, that is not realistic.
(Just trying to explain my viewpoint. Again, I mean no offense.)
This is the kind of thinking that's reduced "racist" from what used to be a very serious charge against someone's character to an almost meaningless buzzword.
You state that if England and France are at war over land, it's not racist, but if "Europeans and Native Americans" are at war over land, it is racist. The only thing I can draw from this is that you're considering racist anything that happens as a result of a conflict between people of a different race, instead of the intention of the people involved. If a white person murdered a white person, it's a murder. If a white person murdered a black person, it's a murder. If they murdered them strictly because of their race, it's racist in either scenario. If they murdered them to take their wallet, it's not.
As for the last part, let's not get too hung up on the "realism" of a fantasy game where nations of elves and goblins are at war. Settings (and consequently all of the nations and races contained within) are at the discretion of the DMs that run them. If a DM wants to have a world where every single race is at war with "the other" then so be it. If there were other humanoid races on real Earth, you can't just say "There's no way humans would try to exterminate them, that's not realistic" because history doesn't necessarily agree with that hypothesis.
I have literally no idea what you're attacking me about, and you don't seem to get my argument.
The English and French were fighting over control of each other, not the extermination people and colonization of their land. Are you seriously suggesting that the mass killing of hundreds of millions of Native Americans was not racist? It is very clear that it is not racist to go to war with any other country, but if a nation does a war against another country because of their race (like the European Colonizers against the American Natives), that is definitely racist. I know what racism is, I don't need you to mansplain that to me.
Also, I understand that realism only goes to a certain extent in a fantasy game, but IMO and IME, this is one of the aspects of the games that benefits from realism. And, of course humans would try to eliminate other humanoid species, as we probably helped do with Neanderthals and other hominids, but it is ridiculous to suggest that every single country and people would reject and go to war with every single other humanoid species. History agrees with this, as between 2-5% of your DNA comes from your Neanderthal ancestors, which proves that not every person or nation would go on "Instakill mode" when meeting another species.
I have literally no idea what you're attacking me about, and you don't seem to get my argument.
The English and French were fighting over control of each other, not the extermination people and colonization of their land. Are you seriously suggesting that the mass killing of hundreds of millions of Native Americans was not racist? It is very clear that it is not racist to go to war with any other country, but if a nation does a war against another country because of their race (like the European Colonizers against the American Natives), that is definitely racist. I know what racism is, I don't need you to mansplain that to me.
Also, I understand that realism only goes to a certain extent in a fantasy game, but IMO and IME, this is one of the aspects of the games that benefits from realism. And, of course humans would try to eliminate other humanoid species, as we probably helped do with Neanderthals and other hominids, but it is ridiculous to suggest that every single country and people would reject and go to war with every single other humanoid species. History agrees with this, as between 2-5% of your DNA comes from your Neanderthal ancestors, which proves that not every person or nation would go on "Instakill mode" when meeting another species.
"Europe" is not a nation. "Native American" is not a nation. Neither are they races. "Native American" encompasses all of the varieties of people from the farthest north to the tip of South America that were considered indigenous before Europeans arrived. "European" includes all of the varieties of people on the entire European continent. Both groups have lineage that can be traced all over the world. You're broadstroking the term "race" to mean something it doesn't.
Were there racists and racist sentiments involved in the conflicts between European settlers and Native American tribes? Without question. Was racism the primary motivator for those conflicts? Almost assuredly not. The Americas were resource-rich and that's the main reason Europe started colonizing it in the first place. "These people are just savages" is a rationalization for taking their resources by force, and I guarantee similar sentiments were passed between the English and the French during their wars. The purpose of a war and its justifications are not the same thing.
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 certain that none of the Southern slave plantation owners read Tolkien
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The whole thing to me regarding Racism and D&D boils down too this. D&D is a fictional world, set in a fictional setting, kind of alternate history to that of our own. In the times of these games we can assume to the culture was not "woke". Certainly Racism would exist, likely ignorantly so. They did not have the internet. Most common folk of D&D time cannot even read, so they couldnt even have access to books, history, or even normal news. Any opinion on another species would clearly be based upon lore, and storytelling. These are often fictionalized and fettered with dramatic additions in the effort to make a story more flashy and memorable. Many cultures would have strange odd superstitious beliefs about many things, creatures they think odd looking, humanoid or not among them. This does not directly reflect the company who creates it, no more than saying George Martin condones child ****. I'm sure he doesnt but in his fictional world in certain cultures a young teen is considered an adult and able to become the property of another to do with as they please. Should Martin have to apologize for writing stories that reflect this? Absolutely not. Its world building, story building to show a brutality of the world in which these characters live. These folks in many of these D&D settings have experienced very little outside of their village/city borders, and therefore would be very "unwoke".
As for races themselves being predestined to be evil. Again this is a fantasy trope, that is there for storytelling effect. This is not racism. Drow is a popular example. First off, Dark Elves are not black. They are a ashen..far more grey then black. Their evil ways stem more from their Dieties than any heredity. They consider themselves an elite race, and are themselves far more racist then other races are towards them. But that said, even among the Drow, there are those who dont believe this. Elistraee the sister of the Spider Queen. Is not Evil, shes not even neutral, shes Good, as are her followers. They strive to reunite the Drow with the surface and to have them all live in peace. The variety of choice is already there. You can already play a Drow, and play them as Lawful Good if you want, the backstory already exists to explain it. The main issue with Elistraee is that her existence is very hard to find in 5e. Likely more to do with her followers love of dancing naked under the moon than her lawful good nature. Indeed the "woke" folk would probably take issue with her love of beauty and embracing it in a fully natural style.
Again this is a fantasy world, its ok to have humanoids who are more beast then not. Driven by hunger, greed, territory, anger, or whatever made them that way. Some races even came about because they are cursed. Would they have a chip on their shoulder...you bet. Thats why they are portrayed as evil...because its wrong. Be they a pale vampire, or a pig faced orc. Its not their color that makes them evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think WotC is being racist, either. But, in order to talk about racism in D&D, we have to talk about comparisons in the real world.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
But to be fair, we can't make totally wild connections. There are always two sides...
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Is it a "totally wild connection" to compare the war against orcs and humans to the war against European colonizers and Native Americans?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Especially when there are parallels between what gets written about orcs in the Forgotten Realms and what was written about Native Americans in the 19th Century.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Never said that. I think it is, yes, but I did NOT say that :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Sorry, I don't mean to misrepresent you, and mean absolutely no offense to you. However, your response to my post saying that the war against Native Americans and European colonizers was a racist war was that "we can't make totally wild connections." I interpreted that as you stating that it was a totally wild connection, and it really is not, IMO, in 6thLyranGuard's opinion, and I'm assuming that SagaTympana agrees with us as well, based on them upvoting 6thLyranGuard's most recent post.
Maybe we're misunderstanding you. Care to clarify?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I do not know of any official game setting where orcs were forced onto reservations against there will which is totally wrong to do. Orcs and other races fought but I do not think it has a history like our real world history. I myself strive to keep racism out of the game wherever I can. In the OP is mentioned the Yuan-ti they may see racism if they are in a community that has suffered at the hands of Yuan-ti but only if they are discovered as Yuan-ti as they can hide their appearance fairly well.
Uh, forcing Native Americans onto reservations is not the worst thing Americans/colonizers did to the natives. Also, have you never heard of Maztica (not with orcs, but still) or Eberron (with both orcs and goblinoids)? If you want to keep racial tension out of your games, that's fine. I'm not to tell you how to run your games. However, there are obvious parallels in D&D lore between real life people and races and D&D species, people, and races.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I feel like I am digging myself into a hole, completely by accident lol.
I think that any relation between IRL events and DnD is unintentional. What about war's between the English and the French? Why aren't they racist? I think the war between Native Americans and European colonizers was certainly one sided, but it was also completely normal for any country to invade any other at that time in history (Just saying, I am not condoning it, obviously). I think it is exactly the same in some DnD lore: The Orcs have just been at war with Humans for a while, so both sides are at blame. It would be the same if elves and dwarves were attacking each other, and dwarves and humans.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I can prove that IRL events/stories and D&D have some purposefully overlapping lore/elements. Mielikki is a deity from the real world and Forgotten Realms. The Disks of Mishikal from Dragonlance are based off of an aspect from the Mormon church (the Golden Plates), as Tracy Hickman is a member of the Mormon church. The Dhaakani Empire of Eberron and Orcs are fairly obviously based off of Native Americans, as they had their own nations and culture, and then the people from a continent to the east came and conquered them all and stole their land. Tiamat and Bahamut are both Middle-Eastern deities. There are a lot of other aspects of lore from different D&D worlds based off of real world events/peoples/mythologies. Also, even unintentionally basing an aspect of a setting you are making/developing is bound to happen, as the only settings you have to base your setting off of is the real world (or another setting, which also will have aspects unintentionally based off of the real world). Even if there was a part of a D&D setting was unintentionally racist, that's still racist.
And, about the war between Europeans and Native Americans, the reason that was racist and not the ones between the English and the French, is because they're the same race, but from different countries. That's what I said in this post, the colonizers and conquistadors were trying to exterminate a race, while the English and French were just trying to beat each other in war in order to conquer the others, not wipe them off of the planet.
It's fine for a nation of humans and a nation of orcs to be at war, or a nation of elves and goblins being at war with each other. But, if its the whole races being at war with each other, that is fine in rare occasions, but if it is every race being a caricature that is at war with other full races, that is not realistic.
(Just trying to explain my viewpoint. Again, I mean no offense.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If people can't handle racial tensions in other people's D&D campaigns, then they need to check themselves tbh. I agree with you completely that racial tensions can be quite normal in D&D depending on which world the DM wishes to portray. I also agree that it's probably most often advantagous being a human compared to the more exotic races.
If there are people that actually think people can be compared to real world racists if there's discrimination in their D&D campaign, then these people need to educate themselves. I don't like to use this term, but it smells like ignorant wokeism, that's intolerant to anything/anyone not sharing its beliefs.
The fact is, racism is a thing that exists, throughout all the world, doesn't make it ok, but it makes it a valid element in our D&D campaigns, because it's a portrayal of a very natural human behavior. And to add to that, even if it wasn't a natural human behavior, it would still be ok to have in a D&D campaign, because everything is ok and allowed in a campaign as long as all the players agree on what's in the campaign and the theme of it.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I think it's silly to be opposed to how other people agree to play their campaigns tbh.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Sigh...what a silly thread. Just let it die. Of course there is inter-species tension in the game. The game was designed that way. And it is perfectly valid to have in a game.
As a DM, it is integral to my overall plotline I have my chars set on. And as a player, no matter what species I play, I always play that char as knowing his species is superior to the others, because I like to do that, and it works within the D&D setting. Sometimes that char is overt in his beliefs, sometimes subtle.
You sir/mam have put a stamp on and written one of the best responses I've read - and one that applies to about 30% of the threads in this forum. Very, very well said.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
This is the kind of thinking that's reduced "racist" from what used to be a very serious charge against someone's character to an almost meaningless buzzword.
You state that if England and France are at war over land, it's not racist, but if "Europeans and Native Americans" are at war over land, it is racist. The only thing I can draw from this is that you're considering racist anything that happens as a result of a conflict between people of a different race, instead of the intention of the people involved. If a white person murdered a white person, it's a murder. If a white person murdered a black person, it's a murder. If they murdered them strictly because of their race, it's racist in either scenario. If they murdered them to take their wallet, it's not.
As for the last part, let's not get too hung up on the "realism" of a fantasy game where nations of elves and goblins are at war. Settings (and consequently all of the nations and races contained within) are at the discretion of the DMs that run them. If a DM wants to have a world where every single race is at war with "the other" then so be it. If there were other humanoid races on real Earth, you can't just say "There's no way humans would try to exterminate them, that's not realistic" because history doesn't necessarily agree with that hypothesis.
I have literally no idea what you're attacking me about, and you don't seem to get my argument.
The English and French were fighting over control of each other, not the extermination people and colonization of their land. Are you seriously suggesting that the mass killing of hundreds of millions of Native Americans was not racist? It is very clear that it is not racist to go to war with any other country, but if a nation does a war against another country because of their race (like the European Colonizers against the American Natives), that is definitely racist. I know what racism is, I don't need you to mansplain that to me.
Also, I understand that realism only goes to a certain extent in a fantasy game, but IMO and IME, this is one of the aspects of the games that benefits from realism. And, of course humans would try to eliminate other humanoid species, as we probably helped do with Neanderthals and other hominids, but it is ridiculous to suggest that every single country and people would reject and go to war with every single other humanoid species. History agrees with this, as between 2-5% of your DNA comes from your Neanderthal ancestors, which proves that not every person or nation would go on "Instakill mode" when meeting another species.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
THIS right here is why many of these threads devolve. Stop doing that.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
"Europe" is not a nation. "Native American" is not a nation. Neither are they races. "Native American" encompasses all of the varieties of people from the farthest north to the tip of South America that were considered indigenous before Europeans arrived. "European" includes all of the varieties of people on the entire European continent. Both groups have lineage that can be traced all over the world. You're broadstroking the term "race" to mean something it doesn't.
Were there racists and racist sentiments involved in the conflicts between European settlers and Native American tribes? Without question. Was racism the primary motivator for those conflicts? Almost assuredly not. The Americas were resource-rich and that's the main reason Europe started colonizing it in the first place. "These people are just savages" is a rationalization for taking their resources by force, and I guarantee similar sentiments were passed between the English and the French during their wars. The purpose of a war and its justifications are not the same thing.
I'm certain that none of the Southern slave plantation owners read Tolkien
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Its a complicated topic.
The whole thing to me regarding Racism and D&D boils down too this. D&D is a fictional world, set in a fictional setting, kind of alternate history to that of our own. In the times of these games we can assume to the culture was not "woke". Certainly Racism would exist, likely ignorantly so. They did not have the internet. Most common folk of D&D time cannot even read, so they couldnt even have access to books, history, or even normal news. Any opinion on another species would clearly be based upon lore, and storytelling. These are often fictionalized and fettered with dramatic additions in the effort to make a story more flashy and memorable. Many cultures would have strange odd superstitious beliefs about many things, creatures they think odd looking, humanoid or not among them. This does not directly reflect the company who creates it, no more than saying George Martin condones child ****. I'm sure he doesnt but in his fictional world in certain cultures a young teen is considered an adult and able to become the property of another to do with as they please. Should Martin have to apologize for writing stories that reflect this? Absolutely not. Its world building, story building to show a brutality of the world in which these characters live. These folks in many of these D&D settings have experienced very little outside of their village/city borders, and therefore would be very "unwoke".
As for races themselves being predestined to be evil. Again this is a fantasy trope, that is there for storytelling effect. This is not racism. Drow is a popular example. First off, Dark Elves are not black. They are a ashen..far more grey then black. Their evil ways stem more from their Dieties than any heredity. They consider themselves an elite race, and are themselves far more racist then other races are towards them. But that said, even among the Drow, there are those who dont believe this. Elistraee the sister of the Spider Queen. Is not Evil, shes not even neutral, shes Good, as are her followers. They strive to reunite the Drow with the surface and to have them all live in peace. The variety of choice is already there. You can already play a Drow, and play them as Lawful Good if you want, the backstory already exists to explain it. The main issue with Elistraee is that her existence is very hard to find in 5e. Likely more to do with her followers love of dancing naked under the moon than her lawful good nature. Indeed the "woke" folk would probably take issue with her love of beauty and embracing it in a fully natural style.
Again this is a fantasy world, its ok to have humanoids who are more beast then not. Driven by hunger, greed, territory, anger, or whatever made them that way. Some races even came about because they are cursed. Would they have a chip on their shoulder...you bet. Thats why they are portrayed as evil...because its wrong. Be they a pale vampire, or a pig faced orc. Its not their color that makes them evil.