I don't get the outrage of D&D deciding to alter a social oriented game that's played for fun to be better for all participants.
Somebody posted some article about how rolelaying gamers do better socially, but that has no real relation to any biases D&D may be imprinting or negative stereotypes it perpetuates if the study didn't account for that specific variable. I mean there's certainly no shortage of racist or sexist roleplayers, something that should be obvious to anyone who's played games at conventions or random groups they've met. Just look up any number of threads of "bad experiences at tables" and you'll find plenty of women complaining about sexism they encounter.
There's some incredibly dark and problematic lore buried in D&D's history. I mean the Moon Elves of Mystera literally have their own version of infamous Fourteen Words.
Wizards deciding to make better depictions of cultures I just can't fathom seeing as a bad thing.
And it's not fair to say "outsiders" can't be critical of D&D. Everything IN society influences other aspects of society, so it's culpable to the "court of public opinion". And like, I may not be a member of a racist organization and what they do, but I can certainly be critical of the *** and what they do, because again, all things IN culture influences other culture.
It's like the saying goes "it's not enough to be not racist, people must be anti-racist". Also look into the "Paradox of Tolerance" for reading about this kind of topic.
I posted the article did you read it? Your post above indicates you only subscribe to cultivation theory which is flawed since it does not account for any societal variables. Watching violent movies, playing "racist" games, etc has not been found to cause these types of negative behaviors. In an earlier post I challenged all in the thread to produce evidence that it does but no one has been able to. All of these "calls to action" are focused only on one theory that no one has ever been able to prove so personally its just hard for me to get behind them. Changes should be based on actual data not just random people on the internet's feelings who may have never even played a single session of DND. I do realize that many of those in this thread may not even realize they are espousing cultivation theory but your expressed views = cultivation theory. I will repeat a previous point that if you see something as racist it may be that its not racist but you are projecting your own racism/bias onto the subject. It comes down to each person's responsibility to own and be aware of your own bias/racist thoughts. If you read a description of a monster then think of a certain ethnicity then it may not be the book thats racist it could be you. Also everyone needs to realize that we are all racist to varying degrees since we are all shaped based on our past experiences.
I'm not presuming to speak for anyone other than myself, but I'm not basing my stance on some theory (which to be frank, I'm not sure I've heard of it before) or from posts by some rando's on reddit or tumblr. I'm basing it on people who have said, "this is a problem, and it affects me."
There's a very good video that was put out on DDB's youtube channel a little while back. It's not necessarily about this exact issue, but it does bring it up and it does fit in the wider context of what their conversation is about. If anyone hasn't seen it, it's a good watch.
If a sentient race is portrayed as universally 'X', that is racism. It does not matter if 'X' is good or bad or somewhere in between.
It's not that simple. Racism is when you say "people of race X are genetically predisposed to trait Y", when that statement is untrue (or possibly true but irrelevant). In the case of real-world races, the number of traits that have a demonstrable genetic correlation with 'race' is pretty small, so most statements of that type are in fact racism.
A complication for RPGs is that nonhuman species (calling them 'races' is a misnomer) can have differences that are far more dramatic than the difference between human races. Claiming that people with a particular skin color are predisposed to be stupid is racism because we have no credible evidence for it being true. Claiming that cows are less intelligent than humans is noncontroversial. The tricky situation for RPGs is that it's frequently possible to read fantasy species as analogs for real-world races, which gives you proxy racism: things that are objectively true about the fantasy species (and thus not racism as applied to that species) are not true for the real-world races they're an analog of.
In the case of fantasy species (calling them races is a misnomer), it's entirely possible that there are are substantial lists of traits that are genetically tied to that species. For example, saying that the average dwarf is short and solidly built is probably not racism (but saying they're overly fond of alcohol probably is).
All I can say is everyone here is welcome at my game table anytime unless your a racist pig, but I'm not running a game online as that is really not my bag.
You know, that dehumanising someone because of their ideology is only slightly less awful than dehumanising them because of their race. Like yeah, you can choose an ideology so that's a factor someone has more agency over, but really the awful thing is the dehumanisation. The removing of a person's personhood. That they chose their ideology is the icing on the awful cake. The dehumanisation is the awful cake.
Yes, calling a person a pig is dehumanisation. Just like in the Rwandan genocide, calling people people cockroaches was dehumanisation. Or, in Nazi Germany, calling the Jews pigs was dehumanisation. It's a way to legitimise doing horrible things to another human being.
I think this is getting a bit too weird. It's a game. Until an actual Orc or Drow shows up at my house and says they are offended about their inaccurate portrayal, then I'm pretty sure it's not racism or offensive. Orcs and Drow have always been predominantly evil, but you can have outliers that are good. You can still play a Drow or an Orc and be lawful good if you want, so where is the issue? Is Llolth now a good deity? Are we changing the complete history of these races now? Just seems to be a lot of effort to fix a problem that isn't actually there.
All I can say is everyone here is welcome at my game table anytime unless your a racist pig, but I'm not running a game online as that is really not my bag.
You know, that dehumanising someone because of their ideology is only slightly less awful than dehumanising them because of their race. Like yeah, you can choose an ideology so that's a factor someone has more agency over, but really the awful thing is the dehumanisation. The removing of a person's personhood. That they chose their ideology is the icing on the awful cake. The dehumanisation is the awful cake.
Yes, calling a person a pig is dehumanisation. Just like in the Rwandan genocide, calling people people cockroaches was dehumanisation. Or, in Nazi Germany, calling the Jews pigs was dehumanisation. It's a way to legitimise doing horrible things to another human being.
Also shaming/lashing out at racists promotes racism. By making them feel marginalized you validate their feelings and only serves to escalate their bad behavior. People's personalities are formed from their past experiences so if you reinforce those experiences it only extenuates those feelings. The way to fight racism is to provide positive experiences with the subject of their racism. Unfortunately this is difficult to do and very few people have the courage to do it.
I don't get the outrage of D&D deciding to alter a social oriented game that's played for fun to be better for all participants.
Somebody posted some article about how rolelaying gamers do better socially, but that has no real relation to any biases D&D may be imprinting or negative stereotypes it perpetuates if the study didn't account for that specific variable. I mean there's certainly no shortage of racist or sexist roleplayers, something that should be obvious to anyone who's played games at conventions or random groups they've met. Just look up any number of threads of "bad experiences at tables" and you'll find plenty of women complaining about sexism they encounter.
There's some incredibly dark and problematic lore buried in D&D's history. I mean the Moon Elves of Mystera literally have their own version of infamous Fourteen Words.
Wizards deciding to make better depictions of cultures I just can't fathom seeing as a bad thing.
And it's not fair to say "outsiders" can't be critical of D&D. Everything IN society influences other aspects of society, so it's culpable to the "court of public opinion". And like, I may not be a member of a racist organization and what they do, but I can certainly be critical of the *** and what they do, because again, all things IN culture influences other culture.
It's like the saying goes "it's not enough to be not racist, people must be anti-racist". Also look into the "Paradox of Tolerance" for reading about this kind of topic.
I posted the article did you read it?
I did. The article you posted is just that. An article. It's an opinion piece from a person with very strange opinions that many (myself included) vehemently disagree with. It's not research, and it's not peer reviewed. So it's evidence of what one person thinks and absolutely nothing else.
I've also read the research paper he cites as supporting his conclusion. (Imaginative Role-Playing as a Medium for Moral Development: Dungeons & Dragons Provides Moral Training, from the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, by Jennifer Cole Wright, Daniel E. Weissglass, and Vanessa Casey.) It absolutely does not.
But mostly he cites his own other un-peer-reviewed non-evidence-backed opinion articles.
All I can say is everyone here is welcome at my game table anytime unless your a racist pig, but I'm not running a game online as that is really not my bag.
You know, that dehumanising someone because of their ideology is only slightly less awful than dehumanising them because of their race. Like yeah, you can choose an ideology so that's a factor someone has more agency over, but really the awful thing is the dehumanisation. The removing of a person's personhood. That they chose their ideology is the icing on the awful cake. The dehumanisation is the awful cake.
Yes, calling a person a pig is dehumanisation. Just like in the Rwandan genocide, calling people people cockroaches was dehumanisation. Or, in Nazi Germany, calling the Jews pigs was dehumanisation. It's a way to legitimise doing horrible things to another human being.
Also shaming/lashing out at racists promotes racism. By making them feel marginalized you validate their feelings and only serves to escalate their bad behavior. People's personalities are formed from their past experiences so if you reinforce those experiences it only extenuates those feelings.
This is false. Letting a racist spout their views unchallenged is what promotes racism. Racist groups tend to have enough of a persecution complex that it's irrelevant to how their actually treated, but failing to prevent them from spouting their ideologies in the public sphere normalizes it and leaves people more prone to thinking that they might have a point. It also emboldens them to do more than just talk- any time racist speech becomes more prominent, so do hate crimes against the minorities they're targeting.
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.
All I can say is everyone here is welcome at my game table anytime unless your a racist pig, but I'm not running a game online as that is really not my bag.
You know, that dehumanising someone because of their ideology is only slightly less awful than dehumanising them because of their race. Like yeah, you can choose an ideology so that's a factor someone has more agency over, but really the awful thing is the dehumanisation. The removing of a person's personhood. That they chose their ideology is the icing on the awful cake. The dehumanisation is the awful cake.
Yes, calling a person a pig is dehumanisation. Just like in the Rwandan genocide, calling people people cockroaches was dehumanisation. Or, in Nazi Germany, calling the Jews pigs was dehumanisation. It's a way to legitimise doing horrible things to another human being.
Also shaming/lashing out at racists promotes racism. By making them feel marginalized you validate their feelings and only serves to escalate their bad behavior. People's personalities are formed from their past experiences so if you reinforce those experiences it only extenuates those feelings. The way to fight racism is to provide positive experiences with the subject of their racism. Unfortunately this is difficult to do and very few people have the courage to do it.
First of all, racism at its very definition is dehumanizing so dont dare pull that "treat others the way you want to be treated" bull. Second of all, racism is not an ideology its a form of oppression just like genocide so i really dont appreciate you trying to equate bulling racists to being a Nazi.
Lastly, i have only ever seen someone lash out or shame another person for discriminating against them, when they had been treated like crap their whole life. Im not saying aggression should be your first resort, but when you are treated as a second class citizen simply because of things you cannot choose you can bet your bottom dollar that after a certain point we are no longer pulling any punches. But i guess i cant expect you to understand that now can I
I think this is getting a bit too weird. It's a game. Until an actual Orc or Drow shows up at my house and says they are offended about their inaccurate portrayal, then I'm pretty sure it's not racism or offensive. Orcs and Drow have always been predominantly evil, but you can have outliers that are good. You can still play a Drow or an Orc and be lawful good if you want, so where is the issue? Is Llolth now a good deity? Are we changing the complete history of these races now? Just seems to be a lot of effort to fix a problem that isn't actually there.
I actually already said something about exactly this. First of all its not the fact that "drow or orcs look like black people and thats racist" its the fact that all of the things that are written in the lore about how terrible they are, are written the exact same way that racist propaganda about minority races in America (specifically Black and Indigenous people) and its forced into the pre-generated worlds in most dnd settings. And saying that you can still play "good" drow and orcs is actually contributing more to the problem. To say when a member of one of those races defects from the "traditional way they are depicted" they are automatically superior to every other member of their races directly contributes the the problem.
It shouldnt be up to me and only me to make my DnD world not racist. It should come racism free and i should be allowed to add however much i want, if any at all.
I still say that if they are going to make Orcs and Drow not automatically evil then they also have to include at the very least Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Half-Ogres, and Duergar. And then all of the other PC races need to be made not automatically good either.
I still say that if they are going to make Orcs and Drow not automatically evil then they also have to include at the very least Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Half-Ogres, and Duergar. And then all of the other PC races need to be made not automatically good either.
Agreed. Honestly adding the 'alignment' category under races was a pretty dumb thing to do. Mostly cause i cant even tell you the last time i actually used alignment when playing DnD
I still say that if they are going to make Orcs and Drow not automatically evil then they also have to include at the very least Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Half-Ogres, and Duergar. And then all of the other PC races need to be made not automatically good either.
Are there actually any “must be good” humanoid races?
I fully support the idea that all humanoid races have enough free will and intelligence that they vary in opinion and “goodness”. That’s when the potential for really good story telling opens up!
It doesn’t mean the end of good v evil, there will still be evildoers in D&D it’s just their race isn’t deciding if they’re inherently evil or not.
Great news I reckon! The changes to the Vistani and Chultans were good tweaks to establish them as equals rather than savages, drunks, etc. Keep it up WotC!
I still say that if they are going to make Orcs and Drow not automatically evil then they also have to include at the very least Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Half-Ogres, and Duergar. And then all of the other PC races need to be made not automatically good either.
Agreed. Honestly adding the 'alignment' cotegory under races was a pretty dumb thing to do. Mostly cause i cant even tell you the last time i actually used alignment when playing DnD
I still say that if they are going to make Orcs and Drow not automatically evil then they also have to include at the very least Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Half-Ogres, and Duergar. And then all of the other PC races need to be made not automatically good either.
Are there actually any “must be good” humanoid races?
I fully support the idea that all humanoid races have enough free will and intelligence that they vary in opinion and “goodness”. That’s when the potential for really good story telling opens up!
It doesn’t mean the end of good v evil, there will still be evildoers in D&D it’s just their race isn’t deciding if they’re inherently evil or not.
Great news I reckon! The changes to the Vistani and Chultans were good tweaks to establish them as equals rather than savages, drunks, etc. Keep it up WotC!
Good and Evil can still exist and be discussed without specifically listing them under “alignment.”
I still say that if they are going to make Orcs and Drow not automatically evil then they also have to include at the very least Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Half-Ogres, and Duergar. And then all of the other PC races need to be made not automatically good either.
Are there actually any “must be good” humanoid races?
I fully support the idea that all humanoid races have enough free will and intelligence that they vary in opinion and “goodness”. That’s when the potential for really good story telling opens up!
It doesn’t mean the end of good v evil, there will still be evildoers in D&D it’s just their race isn’t deciding if they’re inherently evil or not.
Great news I reckon! The changes to the Vistani and Chultans were good tweaks to establish them as equals rather than savages, drunks, etc. Keep it up WotC!
Good and Evil can still exist and be discussed without specifically listing them under “alignment.”
Exactly what I’m saying! Take it off all the humanoids, he’ll I’d be happy binning alignment all together :).
Agreed. Only changing Orcs and Drow* that’s still just a form of selective racism. The only true equality is to make all Humanoids and a select few other Creatures that should^ be humanoids no longer have any G/E axis on their alignment at all. L/C still needs to be there though IMHO, at least as a guideline for interactions.
*Vistani is a culture (not a “race”) specifically and obviously based on an IRL culture, so I leave it out of the discussion. ^Lookin’ at you Ogrillon. You... you....
This is false. Letting a racist spout their views unchallenged is what promotes racism. Racist groups tend to have enough of a persecution complex that it's irrelevant to how their actually treated, but failing to prevent them from spouting their ideologies in the public sphere normalizes it and leaves people more prone to thinking that they might have a point. It also emboldens them to do more than just talk- any time racist speech becomes more prominent, so do hate crimes against the minorities they're targeting.
Fully agree. No one here is under any obligation to create a safe space for racists. I have lost track of the number of times racists assumed I was on their side because I stayed silent. Those days are over.
That said, someone who has racist views can still play at my table, for exactly as long as those views never manifest.
That goes back to an old discussion about online forums. If you ban someone from a forum for their behavior, they'll just rejoin under a different name. Then their behavior will get them banned again. And they'll join again. But sooner or later, if they really want to be part of the forum enough to keep doing that, their behavior will change and they won't get kicked off. And some view that as "oh, they tricked you into letting them back on!" But, no, we tricked them into at least acting like a better person for awhile. And over time, acting that way can change the underlying views. (Does not apply to trolls, of course, and there definitely are racist trolls. They require a different strategy.)
D&D is our forum, and it's a pretty desirable one. We can absolutely use it as a carrot and set a "you need to act at least this well to ride this ride" standard for our tables.
So that's actually how to create positive engagement with people who have harmful views to work on changing them, not by coddling, normalizing, or apologist attitudes toward those views.
I still say that if they are going to make Orcs and Drow not automatically evil then they also have to include at the very least Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Half-Ogres, and Duergar. And then all of the other PC races need to be made not automatically good either.
Agreed. Honestly adding the 'alignment' cotegory under races was a pretty dumb thing to do. Mostly cause i cant even tell you the last time i actually used alignment when playing DnD
Very good point. While we're at, let's fix the names of those spells, because they make absolutely no sense given their current descriptions. It'll detect/protect against a CR 1 imp, but not a level 20 evil human oathbreaker paladin. Evil and good? Nonsense.
Admittedly the new name is a bit hard to choose. "Extraplanar Entities" is tempting, except for undead. Not sure I know the answer to that one.
(And as I mentioned early on, I'm in favor of completely abolishing alignment as a trait. I almost wonder if the reason they haven't is because it's so closely tied to the multiverse cosmology at this point, it's hard to extract.)
I'm not in favor of keeping lawful & chaotic, because if PCs can be either, why can't NPCs? Since Paladins moved to non-alignment-based oaths in 5e, effectively all of the penalties for changing alignments have been removed. (The penalties come from breaking the oath or for clerics, defying your deity's rules instead.). So it's kinda toothless anyway.
I think this is getting a bit too weird. It's a game. Until an actual Orc or Drow shows up at my house and says they are offended about their inaccurate portrayal, then I'm pretty sure it's not racism or offensive. Orcs and Drow have always been predominantly evil, but you can have outliers that are good. You can still play a Drow or an Orc and be lawful good if you want, so where is the issue? Is Llolth now a good deity? Are we changing the complete history of these races now? Just seems to be a lot of effort to fix a problem that isn't actually there.
I actually already said something about exactly this. First of all its not the fact that "drow or orcs look like black people and thats racist" its the fact that all of the things that are written in the lore about how terrible they are, are written the exact same way that racist propaganda about minority races in America (specifically Black and Indigenous people) and its forced into the pre-generated worlds in most dnd settings. And saying that you can still play "good" drow and orcs is actually contributing more to the problem. To say when a member of one of those races defects from the "traditional way they are depicted" they are automatically superior to every other member of their races directly contributes the the problem.
It shouldnt be up to me and only me to make my DnD world not racist. It should come racism free and i should be allowed to add however much i want, if any at all.
I don't recall ever seeing any propaganda about any real life race worshiping an evil spider god and living underground enslaving other races to do their work. Musta missed that day in social studies. And being evil or good doesn't make one superior to another. There are good gods (Bahamut) as well as evil ones (Tiamat) that are of equal power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I posted the article did you read it? Your post above indicates you only subscribe to cultivation theory which is flawed since it does not account for any societal variables. Watching violent movies, playing "racist" games, etc has not been found to cause these types of negative behaviors. In an earlier post I challenged all in the thread to produce evidence that it does but no one has been able to. All of these "calls to action" are focused only on one theory that no one has ever been able to prove so personally its just hard for me to get behind them. Changes should be based on actual data not just random people on the internet's feelings who may have never even played a single session of DND. I do realize that many of those in this thread may not even realize they are espousing cultivation theory but your expressed views = cultivation theory. I will repeat a previous point that if you see something as racist it may be that its not racist but you are projecting your own racism/bias onto the subject. It comes down to each person's responsibility to own and be aware of your own bias/racist thoughts. If you read a description of a monster then think of a certain ethnicity then it may not be the book thats racist it could be you. Also everyone needs to realize that we are all racist to varying degrees since we are all shaped based on our past experiences.
I'm not presuming to speak for anyone other than myself, but I'm not basing my stance on some theory (which to be frank, I'm not sure I've heard of it before) or from posts by some rando's on reddit or tumblr. I'm basing it on people who have said, "this is a problem, and it affects me."
There's a very good video that was put out on DDB's youtube channel a little while back. It's not necessarily about this exact issue, but it does bring it up and it does fit in the wider context of what their conversation is about. If anyone hasn't seen it, it's a good watch.
It's not that simple. Racism is when you say "people of race X are genetically predisposed to trait Y", when that statement is untrue (or possibly true but irrelevant). In the case of real-world races, the number of traits that have a demonstrable genetic correlation with 'race' is pretty small, so most statements of that type are in fact racism.
A complication for RPGs is that nonhuman species (calling them 'races' is a misnomer) can have differences that are far more dramatic than the difference between human races. Claiming that people with a particular skin color are predisposed to be stupid is racism because we have no credible evidence for it being true. Claiming that cows are less intelligent than humans is noncontroversial. The tricky situation for RPGs is that it's frequently possible to read fantasy species as analogs for real-world races, which gives you proxy racism: things that are objectively true about the fantasy species (and thus not racism as applied to that species) are not true for the real-world races they're an analog of.
In the case of fantasy species (calling them races is a misnomer), it's entirely possible that there are are substantial lists of traits that are genetically tied to that species. For example, saying that the average dwarf is short and solidly built is probably not racism (but saying they're overly fond of alcohol probably is).
You know, that dehumanising someone because of their ideology is only slightly less awful than dehumanising them because of their race. Like yeah, you can choose an ideology so that's a factor someone has more agency over, but really the awful thing is the dehumanisation. The removing of a person's personhood. That they chose their ideology is the icing on the awful cake. The dehumanisation is the awful cake.
Yes, calling a person a pig is dehumanisation. Just like in the Rwandan genocide, calling people people cockroaches was dehumanisation. Or, in Nazi Germany, calling the Jews pigs was dehumanisation. It's a way to legitimise doing horrible things to another human being.
I think this is getting a bit too weird. It's a game. Until an actual Orc or Drow shows up at my house and says they are offended about their inaccurate portrayal, then I'm pretty sure it's not racism or offensive. Orcs and Drow have always been predominantly evil, but you can have outliers that are good. You can still play a Drow or an Orc and be lawful good if you want, so where is the issue? Is Llolth now a good deity? Are we changing the complete history of these races now? Just seems to be a lot of effort to fix a problem that isn't actually there.
Also shaming/lashing out at racists promotes racism. By making them feel marginalized you validate their feelings and only serves to escalate their bad behavior. People's personalities are formed from their past experiences so if you reinforce those experiences it only extenuates those feelings. The way to fight racism is to provide positive experiences with the subject of their racism. Unfortunately this is difficult to do and very few people have the courage to do it.
I did. The article you posted is just that. An article. It's an opinion piece from a person with very strange opinions that many (myself included) vehemently disagree with. It's not research, and it's not peer reviewed. So it's evidence of what one person thinks and absolutely nothing else.
I've also read the research paper he cites as supporting his conclusion. (Imaginative Role-Playing as a Medium for Moral Development: Dungeons & Dragons Provides Moral Training, from the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, by Jennifer Cole Wright, Daniel E. Weissglass, and Vanessa Casey.) It absolutely does not.
But mostly he cites his own other un-peer-reviewed non-evidence-backed opinion articles.
This is false. Letting a racist spout their views unchallenged is what promotes racism. Racist groups tend to have enough of a persecution complex that it's irrelevant to how their actually treated, but failing to prevent them from spouting their ideologies in the public sphere normalizes it and leaves people more prone to thinking that they might have a point. It also emboldens them to do more than just talk- any time racist speech becomes more prominent, so do hate crimes against the minorities they're targeting.
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.
First of all, racism at its very definition is dehumanizing so dont dare pull that "treat others the way you want to be treated" bull. Second of all, racism is not an ideology its a form of oppression just like genocide so i really dont appreciate you trying to equate bulling racists to being a Nazi.
Lastly, i have only ever seen someone lash out or shame another person for discriminating against them, when they had been treated like crap their whole life. Im not saying aggression should be your first resort, but when you are treated as a second class citizen simply because of things you cannot choose you can bet your bottom dollar that after a certain point we are no longer pulling any punches. But i guess i cant expect you to understand that now can I
I actually already said something about exactly this. First of all its not the fact that "drow or orcs look like black people and thats racist" its the fact that all of the things that are written in the lore about how terrible they are, are written the exact same way that racist propaganda about minority races in America (specifically Black and Indigenous people) and its forced into the pre-generated worlds in most dnd settings. And saying that you can still play "good" drow and orcs is actually contributing more to the problem. To say when a member of one of those races defects from the "traditional way they are depicted" they are automatically superior to every other member of their races directly contributes the the problem.
It shouldnt be up to me and only me to make my DnD world not racist. It should come racism free and i should be allowed to add however much i want, if any at all.
I still say that if they are going to make Orcs and Drow not automatically evil then they also have to include at the very least Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Half-Ogres, and Duergar. And then all of the other PC races need to be made not automatically good either.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Agreed. Honestly adding the 'alignment' category under races was a pretty dumb thing to do. Mostly cause i cant even tell you the last time i actually used alignment when playing DnD
Are there actually any “must be good” humanoid races?
I fully support the idea that all humanoid races have enough free will and intelligence that they vary in opinion and “goodness”. That’s when the potential for really good story telling opens up!
It doesn’t mean the end of good v evil, there will still be evildoers in D&D it’s just their race isn’t deciding if they’re inherently evil or not.
Great news I reckon! The changes to the Vistani and Chultans were good tweaks to establish them as equals rather than savages, drunks, etc. Keep it up WotC!
Right. Even Protection from Evil and Good and Detect Evil and Good specify things by certain creature type.
All that’s really needed is L/C just like OD&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Good and Evil can still exist and be discussed without specifically listing them under “alignment.”
Edit: N/A
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Exactly what I’m saying! Take it off all the humanoids, he’ll I’d be happy binning alignment all together :).
Agreed. Only changing Orcs and Drow* that’s still just a form of selective racism. The only true equality is to make all Humanoids and a select few other Creatures that should^ be humanoids no longer have any G/E axis on their alignment at all. L/C still needs to be there though IMHO, at least as a guideline for interactions.
*Vistani is a culture (not a “race”) specifically and obviously based on an IRL culture, so I leave it out of the discussion.
^Lookin’ at you Ogrillon. You... you....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Fully agree. No one here is under any obligation to create a safe space for racists. I have lost track of the number of times racists assumed I was on their side because I stayed silent. Those days are over.
That said, someone who has racist views can still play at my table, for exactly as long as those views never manifest.
That goes back to an old discussion about online forums. If you ban someone from a forum for their behavior, they'll just rejoin under a different name. Then their behavior will get them banned again. And they'll join again. But sooner or later, if they really want to be part of the forum enough to keep doing that, their behavior will change and they won't get kicked off. And some view that as "oh, they tricked you into letting them back on!" But, no, we tricked them into at least acting like a better person for awhile. And over time, acting that way can change the underlying views. (Does not apply to trolls, of course, and there definitely are racist trolls. They require a different strategy.)
D&D is our forum, and it's a pretty desirable one. We can absolutely use it as a carrot and set a "you need to act at least this well to ride this ride" standard for our tables.
So that's actually how to create positive engagement with people who have harmful views to work on changing them, not by coddling, normalizing, or apologist attitudes toward those views.
Very good point. While we're at, let's fix the names of those spells, because they make absolutely no sense given their current descriptions. It'll detect/protect against a CR 1 imp, but not a level 20 evil human oathbreaker paladin. Evil and good? Nonsense.
Admittedly the new name is a bit hard to choose. "Extraplanar Entities" is tempting, except for undead. Not sure I know the answer to that one.
(And as I mentioned early on, I'm in favor of completely abolishing alignment as a trait. I almost wonder if the reason they haven't is because it's so closely tied to the multiverse cosmology at this point, it's hard to extract.)
I'm not in favor of keeping lawful & chaotic, because if PCs can be either, why can't NPCs? Since Paladins moved to non-alignment-based oaths in 5e, effectively all of the penalties for changing alignments have been removed. (The penalties come from breaking the oath or for clerics, defying your deity's rules instead.). So it's kinda toothless anyway.
I don't recall ever seeing any propaganda about any real life race worshiping an evil spider god and living underground enslaving other races to do their work. Musta missed that day in social studies. And being evil or good doesn't make one superior to another. There are good gods (Bahamut) as well as evil ones (Tiamat) that are of equal power.