I have always liked to play the "evil races" as more flexible. Goblins come from a vicious culture on the fringe but individual goblins choose to be otherwise. A hobgoblin rejects her culture to be a gentle healer, a halfling is a vicious sadist and so on. A drow, who is raised in a culture as toxic as Nazi Germany flees and decides to take care of orphans, just as individual Germans did the right thing. I personally think it makes it more interesting. I like to make it clear that evil as a humanoid is always a choice, although the culture might make it harder. The only automatically evil things are devils and demons. Or demon creations like Gnolls. A friendly orc blacksmith can be a nice change of pace, from all of them being brutes.
Dragons are actually out to kill giants as well as the opposite, that's not racist as they are completely different types of beings. If a bear attacks and eats a fish, is it because the bear is racist against salmon? It's survival of the fittest and in D&D there are beings that want to destroy other beings, that's just the way it is. The game would be really damn boring if everyone got along and hugged each other all day long and talked out their differences. Thankfully that is not the case and thankfully D&D is not racist. If you are a cleric and your deity has charged you with ridding the world of the undead (as your most basic cleric class features are geared toward that) it's not racist to kill a zombie or a lich. That's just insane.
Well, a lot of the lore, especially the older bits, are built on racist stereotypes but that's a dead horse that has been resurrected more times than the Winchesters so we needn't go there. Luckily it's an issue that has been recognized and adressed and the game and the gaming community is moving forwards.
Just remember people, that in a game world with more or less immortal elves, wizards hurling fireballs and flying dragons there is, quite literally, no reason why you would *have to* include racism.
While this is totally true and there's nothing wrong with a story about adventuring for adventuring's sake, as a GM who wants to write content with more depth than a mindless dungeon-crawl is eventually going to start weaving in real-world issues into the story.
I mean that's why fantasy exists as a genre. And science fiction for that matter. They are imagined, fantastic scenarios used to explore fundamental aspects of humanity or society. The lines of LOTR that hit hardest do so because the words and concepts apply to us, not just hobbits and elves.
Just as OP did in their example, D&D can be used to explore real world concepts or issues and gain some perspective that actually applies to real life. This turns D&D from just a fun way to pass the time into an opportunity to expand your horizons and perhaps grow a bit as a person. Not only do I think that's okay, I would encourage it in groups that were receptive to the idea.
But it's also okay to not want to deal with that in a game. If the current state of the world is more than enough for you to handle right now and you just want to go somewhere else for a few hours a week, D&D can also be a great escape. Both approaches to the game are valid, you just need to understand which one your table prefers.
Dragons are actually out to kill giants as well as the opposite, that's not racist as they are completely different types of beings. If a bear attacks and eats a fish, is it because the bear is racist against salmon? It's survival of the fittest and in D&D there are beings that want to destroy other beings, that's just the way it is. The game would be really damn boring if everyone got along and hugged each other all day long and talked out their differences. Thankfully that is not the case and thankfully D&D is not racist. If you are a cleric and your deity has charged you with ridding the world of the undead (as your most basic cleric class features are geared toward that) it's not racist to kill a zombie or a lich. That's just insane.
Dragons and giants are far more intelligent than bears and thus able to understand concepts like morality and ethics. Dragons also don't need to eat giants (or any other sentient beings) in order to survive. Those are huge distinctions from bears.
"Survival of the fittest" is a badly over-used phrase that's pretty much never used in the correct context. Hint: the correct context is when talking about the zebra that can outrun a lion vs the zebra that can't.
And destroying undead is okay because your deity told you to? Are you familiar with the phrase "just following orders" or why it's got such an infamous reputation?
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.
And destroying undead is okay because your deity told you to? Are you familiar with the phrase "just following orders" or why it's got such an infamous reputation?
I think falls a bit outside the bounds of racism. Undead that present a threat to the local community should be put down or deflected. Although, if they are deflected, they will just be a potential threat to somebody else. Following orders to get rid of them isn't a bad thing.
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 point is that there needs to be a better reason than "following orders." Just because something's evil doesn't make it a threat- it might be something that's too disinterested in the world to bother with attacking anything. And, as has been pointed out, non-evil undead do exist in the canon.
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.
I don't understand the topic of racism as a problem in role-playing.
You create the world and are the one who portraits their behavior. If in your world and on your table there is some racism in-game going in because of things within the game world and it enhances the experience of everyone. Go for it.
If someone has a problem, just change it or throw it out
DnD is a game where you create the world as a coop experience with your players. There are no rules that requires you to follow the setting. If there are aspects you are not comfortable with, just change it.
If some Autors depict certain groups with rassistic tendencies, they probably follow an lore event. By no means this would mean that the author is a racist or you have to be one to play it.
Just have fun and play your game how your table enjoys it the most!
Dragons are actually out to kill giants as well as the opposite, that's not racist as they are completely different types of beings. If a bear attacks and eats a fish, is it because the bear is racist against salmon? It's survival of the fittest and in D&D there are beings that want to destroy other beings, that's just the way it is. The game would be really damn boring if everyone got along and hugged each other all day long and talked out their differences. Thankfully that is not the case and thankfully D&D is not racist. If you are a cleric and your deity has charged you with ridding the world of the undead (as your most basic cleric class features are geared toward that) it's not racist to kill a zombie or a lich. That's just insane.
Dragons and giants are far more intelligent than bears and thus able to understand concepts like morality and ethics. Dragons also don't need to eat giants (or any other sentient beings) in order to survive. Those are huge distinctions from bears.
"Survival of the fittest" is a badly over-used phrase that's pretty much never used in the correct context. Hint: the correct context is when talking about the zebra that can outrun a lion vs the zebra that can't.
And destroying undead is okay because your deity told you to? Are you familiar with the phrase "just following orders" or why it's got such an infamous reputation?
Absolutely, makes complete sense..... or no sense whatsoever. Make a cleric that battles undead AS A CLASS FEATURE then turn your back on your deity and lose your powers. Be a farmer then and don’t attack anything in game. If you do attack anything intelligent then you are racist. That seems to be the consensus with those who say the game is racist. Now the DM also can’t make a group of intelligent whatever isn’t your race attack you either as that is racist as well. Sounds like the most boring game ever. Just because there is racial conflict in game and conflict between different species for whatever reason doesn’t make the game racist in real life. If you can’t make that distinction then I don’t know what to tell ya. Make a homebrew world where you can’t attack anything intelligent, sit around a drum circle and hug.
Dragons are actually out to kill giants as well as the opposite, that's not racist as they are completely different types of beings. If a bear attacks and eats a fish, is it because the bear is racist against salmon? It's survival of the fittest and in D&D there are beings that want to destroy other beings, that's just the way it is. The game would be really damn boring if everyone got along and hugged each other all day long and talked out their differences. Thankfully that is not the case and thankfully D&D is not racist. If you are a cleric and your deity has charged you with ridding the world of the undead (as your most basic cleric class features are geared toward that) it's not racist to kill a zombie or a lich. That's just insane.
Dragons and giants are far more intelligent than bears and thus able to understand concepts like morality and ethics. Dragons also don't need to eat giants (or any other sentient beings) in order to survive. Those are huge distinctions from bears.
"Survival of the fittest" is a badly over-used phrase that's pretty much never used in the correct context. Hint: the correct context is when talking about the zebra that can outrun a lion vs the zebra that can't.
And destroying undead is okay because your deity told you to? Are you familiar with the phrase "just following orders" or why it's got such an infamous reputation?
Absolutely, makes complete sense..... or no sense whatsoever. Make a cleric that battles undead AS A CLASS FEATURE then turn your back on your deity and lose your powers. Be a farmer then and don’t attack anything in game. If you do attack anything intelligent then you are racist. That seems to be the consensus with those who say the game is racist. Now the DM also can’t make a group of intelligent whatever isn’t your race attack you either as that is racist as well. Sounds like the most boring game ever. Just because there is racial conflict in game and conflict between different species for whatever reason doesn’t make the game racist in real life. If you can’t make that distinction then I don’t know what to tell ya. Make a homebrew world where you can’t attack anything intelligent, sit around a drum circle and hug.
If you are attacking someone or something because of its race, that is racist. If you are attacking it because of some other reason, that is not racist. However in the latter case, the reason could still be bad in other ways.
And even if you are attacking someone or something for other reasons, if you are projecting those other reasons on an entire race, guilty or innocent, that is still racism.
So if you have a cleric that hunts undead he is racist? That’s just dumb.
When one cannot differentiate between individuals and condemns purely on race, culture or ethnicity, it is racism.
In the real world, you are correct. In a fantasy world with demons (bad), undead (also bad), chromatic dragons (bad again), and devils (you guessed it, bad) it doesn't make sense. You aren't born with an alignment as a race or creature in the real world, in D&D most creatures you are fighting do have a specific alignment. Keep racism in the real world and don't project it into the game. Good things kill evil things and evil things kill good things. It's not about race even though some races are evil and some are good, its about good vs evil.
When one cannot differentiate between individuals and condemns purely on race, culture or ethnicity, it is racism.
In the real world, you are correct. In a fantasy world with demons (bad), undead (also bad), chromatic dragons (bad again), and devils (you guessed it, bad) it doesn't make sense. You aren't born with an alignment as a race or creature in the real world, in D&D most creatures you are fighting do have a specific alignment. Keep racism in the real world and don't project it into the game. Good things kill evil things and evil things kill good things. It's not about race even though some races are evil and some are good, its about good vs evil.
But you are making my point. You completely ignored the example of a benevolent guardian spirit or ghost protecting a shrine from actual evil. It is undead. It is the ghost of a former hero. However it is not 'also bad.'
Either creatures are sentient with free will (in which case their alignments vary) or they have no actual free will (most, but not all undead, many but not all lycanthropes... in both those cases due to curses... most outer planar beings (who are more manifestations of their planes than actual sentient beings). Even in the case of angels, demons and other celestial beings, there is no shortage of stories of angels falling and even a few of demons redeeming. There are also stories of metallic dragons (or equivalent) falling.
Good and Evil being treated as absolutes is a problematic philosophy that is the root of a great many real world problems, including a great deal of real world racism.
Still no. Completely and utterly incorrect with no basis on the rules or any literature on D&D. Did you even read the monster manual? Take dragons for example, highly intelligent (in some cases) but their color or metal denotes their stats and alignment. The game is called Dungeons and Dragons so dragons are like a big thing and they are specifically designed that way, as are a vast majority of the creatures, intelligent or otherwise, in the game. Saying you are a brave warrior that wants to rid the world of evil dragons does not make you racist.
When one cannot differentiate between individuals and condemns purely on race, culture or ethnicity, it is racism.
In the real world, you are correct. In a fantasy world with demons (bad), undead (also bad), chromatic dragons (bad again), and devils (you guessed it, bad) it doesn't make sense. You aren't born with an alignment as a race or creature in the real world, in D&D most creatures you are fighting do have a specific alignment. Keep racism in the real world and don't project it into the game. Good things kill evil things and evil things kill good things. It's not about race even though some races are evil and some are good, its about good vs evil.
But you are making my point. You completely ignored the example of a benevolent guardian spirit or ghost protecting a shrine from actual evil. It is undead. It is the ghost of a former hero. However it is not 'also bad.'
Either creatures are sentient with free will (in which case their alignments vary) or they have no actual free will (most, but not all undead, many but not all lycanthropes... in both those cases due to curses... most outer planar beings (who are more manifestations of their planes than actual sentient beings). Even in the case of angels, demons and other celestial beings, there is no shortage of stories of angels falling and even a few of demons redeeming. There are also stories of metallic dragons (or equivalent) falling.
Good and Evil being treated as absolutes is a problematic philosophy that is the root of a great many real world problems, including a great deal of real world racism.
Still no. Completely and utterly incorrect with no basis on the rules or any literature on D&D. Did you even read the monster manual? Take dragons for example, highly intelligent (in some cases) but their color or metal denotes their stats and alignment. The game is called Dungeons and Dragons so dragons are like a big thing and they are specifically designed that way, as are a vast majority of the creatures, intelligent or otherwise, in the game. Saying you are a brave warrior that wants to rid the world of evil dragons does not make you racist.
But how does the character know that (chromatic) dragons are evil? They haven't read the monster manual, and thus do not have the absolute morality it provides.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
But how does the character know that (chromatic) dragons are evil? They haven't read the monster manual, and thus do not have the absolute morality it provides.
Hold up. I think many of us are trying to be politically correct and carrying that into the game.
I am fully cognizant of current, real world events and the ramifications of racism in our world. It is a real thing. It is totally OK to leave those bitter elements out of your game because of it. However, you should not bash somebody if they put those things in their game. With the presumption that the players understand what is going on, adding certain racist points make the world feel more real. It would have been ridiculous for Aragorn the face off against the orc army and put down his sword going "Wait a minute guys, I can't kill you because that would be racist."
PCs attack and kill things all the time. That's part of the game. It doesn't have to be part of your game, but it is in the majority.
I understand where you are coming from, run your game how you want.
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?"
But how does the character know that (chromatic) dragons are evil? They haven't read the monster manual, and thus do not have the absolute morality it provides.
Hold up. I think many of us are trying to be politically correct and carrying that into the game.
I am fully cognizant of current, real world events and the ramifications of racism in our world. It is a real thing. It is totally OK to leave those bitter elements out of your game because of it. However, you should not bash somebody if they put those things in their game. With the presumption that the players understand what is going on, adding certain racist points make the world feel more real. It would have been ridiculous for Aragorn the face off against the orc army and put down his sword going "Wait a minute guys, I can't kill you because that would be racist."
PCs attack and kill things all the time. That's part of the game. It doesn't have to be part of your game, but it is in the majority.
I understand where you are coming from, run your game how you want.
That is not exactly what I am saying. What I am trying to say is that the characters should have a reason to kill something. If the orc army was attacking Aragorn's home, than of course he should fight them. But if Aragorn say a peaceful orc settlement, where they were not attacking anyone, would he have justification to kill them? Another example: A green dragon lives in the middle of a deep forest. If adventurers try to attack it, it kills them, but other than that it minds it's own business. Do adventurers have a reason to kill the dragon, even if it's alignment is evil?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
But how does the character know that (chromatic) dragons are evil? They haven't read the monster manual, and thus do not have the absolute morality it provides.
Hold up. I think many of us are trying to be politically correct and carrying that into the game.
I am fully cognizant of current, real world events and the ramifications of racism in our world. It is a real thing. It is totally OK to leave those bitter elements out of your game because of it. However, you should not bash somebody if they put those things in their game. With the presumption that the players understand what is going on, adding certain racist points make the world feel more real. It would have been ridiculous for Aragorn the face off against the orc army and put down his sword going "Wait a minute guys, I can't kill you because that would be racist."
PCs attack and kill things all the time. That's part of the game. It doesn't have to be part of your game, but it is in the majority.
I understand where you are coming from, run your game how you want.
That is not exactly what I am saying. What I am trying to say is that the characters should have a reason to kill something. If the orc army was attacking Aragorn's home, than of course he should fight them. But if Aragorn say a peaceful orc settlement, where they were not attacking anyone, would he have justification to kill them? Another example: A green dragon lives in the middle of a deep forest. If adventurers try to attack it, it kills them, but other than that it minds it's own business. Do adventurers have a reason to kill the dragon, even if it's alignment is evil?
I don't care what you do in your game and you shouldn't care what I do in my game. Nobody should be caring what anybody does in anyones elses games unless they are playing in it or it is a public game. As a DM its up to my players and what they perceive their characters, flaws and all, would do in the imaginary world but my games are not designed to teach people morals or instill a code of ethics. If I were to write a module and sell it publicly then I would be more sensitive around content and characters.
But how does the character know that (chromatic) dragons are evil? They haven't read the monster manual, and thus do not have the absolute morality it provides.
Hold up. I think many of us are trying to be politically correct and carrying that into the game.
I am fully cognizant of current, real world events and the ramifications of racism in our world. It is a real thing. It is totally OK to leave those bitter elements out of your game because of it. However, you should not bash somebody if they put those things in their game. With the presumption that the players understand what is going on, adding certain racist points make the world feel more real. It would have been ridiculous for Aragorn the face off against the orc army and put down his sword going "Wait a minute guys, I can't kill you because that would be racist."
PCs attack and kill things all the time. That's part of the game. It doesn't have to be part of your game, but it is in the majority.
I understand where you are coming from, run your game how you want.
That is not exactly what I am saying. What I am trying to say is that the characters should have a reason to kill something. If the orc army was attacking Aragorn's home, than of course he should fight them. But if Aragorn say a peaceful orc settlement, where they were not attacking anyone, would he have justification to kill them? Another example: A green dragon lives in the middle of a deep forest. If adventurers try to attack it, it kills them, but other than that it minds it's own business. Do adventurers have a reason to kill the dragon, even if it's alignment is evil?
I don't care what you do in your game and you shouldn't care what I do in my game. Nobody should be caring what anybody does in anyones elses games unless they are playing in it or it is a public game. As a DM its up to my players and what they perceive their characters, flaws and all, would do in the imaginary world but my games are not designed to teach people morals or instill a code of ethics. If I were to write a module and sell it publicly then I would be more sensitive around content and characters.
There are no 'campaign police' going to show up at your door and order you to run your campaign any given way. If this topic does not matter to you, why are you posting at all? You are quite correct, though... you have no responsibility to run a campaign that encourages moral behaviour or positive ethics. You are free to run your campaign as irresponsibly as you wish :)
I play with people who already have ethics and morals. If you feel you have to teach your friends how to behave properly then sure go ahead and run your campaign that way.
But how does the character know that (chromatic) dragons are evil? They haven't read the monster manual, and thus do not have the absolute morality it provides.
Hold up. I think many of us are trying to be politically correct and carrying that into the game.
I am fully cognizant of current, real world events and the ramifications of racism in our world. It is a real thing. It is totally OK to leave those bitter elements out of your game because of it. However, you should not bash somebody if they put those things in their game. With the presumption that the players understand what is going on, adding certain racist points make the world feel more real. It would have been ridiculous for Aragorn the face off against the orc army and put down his sword going "Wait a minute guys, I can't kill you because that would be racist."
PCs attack and kill things all the time. That's part of the game. It doesn't have to be part of your game, but it is in the majority.
I understand where you are coming from, run your game how you want.
That is not exactly what I am saying. What I am trying to say is that the characters should have a reason to kill something. If the orc army was attacking Aragorn's home, than of course he should fight them. But if Aragorn say a peaceful orc settlement, where they were not attacking anyone, would he have justification to kill them? Another example: A green dragon lives in the middle of a deep forest. If adventurers try to attack it, it kills them, but other than that it minds it's own business. Do adventurers have a reason to kill the dragon, even if it's alignment is evil?
I don't care what you do in your game and you shouldn't care what I do in my game. Nobody should be caring what anybody does in anyones elses games unless they are playing in it or it is a public game. As a DM its up to my players and what they perceive their characters, flaws and all, would do in the imaginary world but my games are not designed to teach people morals or instill a code of ethics. If I were to write a module and sell it publicly then I would be more sensitive around content and characters.
There are no 'campaign police' going to show up at your door and order you to run your campaign any given way. If this topic does not matter to you, why are you posting at all? You are quite correct, though... you have no responsibility to run a campaign that encourages moral behaviour or positive ethics. You are free to run your campaign as irresponsibly as you wish :)
I play with people who already have ethics and morals. If you feel you have to teach your friends how to behave properly then sure go ahead and run your campaign that way.
I think you're sidestepping the real question. You proclaimed "I don't care", which begs the question why bother posting in this thread? Or if you don't really care how people play their games, and believe other people should care how you play your games, why post in this forum at all?
This thread was specifically started by someone who found a moment in his game that he felt in game world racial prejudices (a few examples, but apparently an altercation that led to violence upon a Tiefling party member) in his game surprisingly to all at his table seemed to speak to the current ongoing debates and publicized incidents of racial violence in America. It was new ground for his group, and he was reaching out to the community here to see 1.) whether that connection was "appropriate" and 2.) whether it's appropriate or tasteful to explore the theme of racism in game, and seeing if there was any guidance from others more versed in the intersection of anti-racist thought and gaming. Nowhere I see is anyone saying "And another thing, GregCa needs to change the way he or she plays the game to comport with the considerations we're making in this thread." So given all that, what are you speaking up for in your proclaimed uncaring position? How does anything written here affect your play?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I responded to the original question. It wasn't the OP who was preaching about how you need to run your games like they do otherwise you are irresponsible. End of story. Bye.
I would advice players as they are creating their characters that there is a possibility that people will treat their characters differently because of their race and their race's reputation based on where they are. Tieflings, in lore, are discriminated against because they are descendants of devils and basically no one has any good experience with devils and the hells. So if one of my players choose to create a tiefling I will tell them that there will be NPC's that will use that against them. If they decide to go with it I'll talk with them about how much they are willing to take in roleplay to keep the game fun for everyone.
It may simply be a snide comment or a merchant jacking the prices up for them but not telling them and the players not finding out about it unless another party member shops there as well. Or it may be more overt.
Sometimes, if we are talking about a kobold, goblin or half-orc character, the player may find NPC's who dislike them because they had bad experiences with goblins, orcs or kobolds.
Feel free to open any can of worms just talk it over with your players to see if they can take it or are okay with it. The most important thing is that everyone at the table is having fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have always liked to play the "evil races" as more flexible. Goblins come from a vicious culture on the fringe but individual goblins choose to be otherwise. A hobgoblin rejects her culture to be a gentle healer, a halfling is a vicious sadist and so on. A drow, who is raised in a culture as toxic as Nazi Germany flees and decides to take care of orphans, just as individual Germans did the right thing. I personally think it makes it more interesting. I like to make it clear that evil as a humanoid is always a choice, although the culture might make it harder. The only automatically evil things are devils and demons. Or demon creations like Gnolls. A friendly orc blacksmith can be a nice change of pace, from all of them being brutes.
Well, a lot of the lore, especially the older bits, are built on racist stereotypes but that's a dead horse that has been resurrected more times than the Winchesters so we needn't go there. Luckily it's an issue that has been recognized and adressed and the game and the gaming community is moving forwards.
While this is totally true and there's nothing wrong with a story about adventuring for adventuring's sake, as a GM who wants to write content with more depth than a mindless dungeon-crawl is eventually going to start weaving in real-world issues into the story.
I mean that's why fantasy exists as a genre. And science fiction for that matter. They are imagined, fantastic scenarios used to explore fundamental aspects of humanity or society. The lines of LOTR that hit hardest do so because the words and concepts apply to us, not just hobbits and elves.
Just as OP did in their example, D&D can be used to explore real world concepts or issues and gain some perspective that actually applies to real life. This turns D&D from just a fun way to pass the time into an opportunity to expand your horizons and perhaps grow a bit as a person. Not only do I think that's okay, I would encourage it in groups that were receptive to the idea.
But it's also okay to not want to deal with that in a game. If the current state of the world is more than enough for you to handle right now and you just want to go somewhere else for a few hours a week, D&D can also be a great escape. Both approaches to the game are valid, you just need to understand which one your table prefers.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Dragons and giants are far more intelligent than bears and thus able to understand concepts like morality and ethics. Dragons also don't need to eat giants (or any other sentient beings) in order to survive. Those are huge distinctions from bears.
"Survival of the fittest" is a badly over-used phrase that's pretty much never used in the correct context. Hint: the correct context is when talking about the zebra that can outrun a lion vs the zebra that can't.
And destroying undead is okay because your deity told you to? Are you familiar with the phrase "just following orders" or why it's got such an infamous reputation?
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.
I think falls a bit outside the bounds of racism. Undead that present a threat to the local community should be put down or deflected. Although, if they are deflected, they will just be a potential threat to somebody else. Following orders to get rid of them isn't a bad thing.
"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
The point is that there needs to be a better reason than "following orders." Just because something's evil doesn't make it a threat- it might be something that's too disinterested in the world to bother with attacking anything. And, as has been pointed out, non-evil undead do exist in the canon.
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.
I don't understand the topic of racism as a problem in role-playing.
You create the world and are the one who portraits their behavior. If in your world and on your table there is some racism in-game going in because of things within the game world and it enhances the experience of everyone. Go for it.
If someone has a problem, just change it or throw it out
DnD is a game where you create the world as a coop experience with your players. There are no rules that requires you to follow the setting. If there are aspects you are not comfortable with, just change it.
If some Autors depict certain groups with rassistic tendencies, they probably follow an lore event. By no means this would mean that the author is a racist or you have to be one to play it.
Just have fun and play your game how your table enjoys it the most!
Absolutely, makes complete sense..... or no sense whatsoever. Make a cleric that battles undead AS A CLASS FEATURE then turn your back on your deity and lose your powers. Be a farmer then and don’t attack anything in game. If you do attack anything intelligent then you are racist. That seems to be the consensus with those who say the game is racist. Now the DM also can’t make a group of intelligent whatever isn’t your race attack you either as that is racist as well. Sounds like the most boring game ever. Just because there is racial conflict in game and conflict between different species for whatever reason doesn’t make the game racist in real life. If you can’t make that distinction then I don’t know what to tell ya. Make a homebrew world where you can’t attack anything intelligent, sit around a drum circle and hug.
So if you have a cleric that hunts undead he is racist? That’s just dumb.
In the real world, you are correct. In a fantasy world with demons (bad), undead (also bad), chromatic dragons (bad again), and devils (you guessed it, bad) it doesn't make sense. You aren't born with an alignment as a race or creature in the real world, in D&D most creatures you are fighting do have a specific alignment. Keep racism in the real world and don't project it into the game. Good things kill evil things and evil things kill good things. It's not about race even though some races are evil and some are good, its about good vs evil.
Still no. Completely and utterly incorrect with no basis on the rules or any literature on D&D. Did you even read the monster manual? Take dragons for example, highly intelligent (in some cases) but their color or metal denotes their stats and alignment. The game is called Dungeons and Dragons so dragons are like a big thing and they are specifically designed that way, as are a vast majority of the creatures, intelligent or otherwise, in the game. Saying you are a brave warrior that wants to rid the world of evil dragons does not make you racist.
But how does the character know that (chromatic) dragons are evil? They haven't read the monster manual, and thus do not have the absolute morality it provides.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Hold up. I think many of us are trying to be politically correct and carrying that into the game.
I am fully cognizant of current, real world events and the ramifications of racism in our world. It is a real thing. It is totally OK to leave those bitter elements out of your game because of it. However, you should not bash somebody if they put those things in their game. With the presumption that the players understand what is going on, adding certain racist points make the world feel more real. It would have been ridiculous for Aragorn the face off against the orc army and put down his sword going "Wait a minute guys, I can't kill you because that would be racist."
PCs attack and kill things all the time. That's part of the game. It doesn't have to be part of your game, but it is in the majority.
I understand where you are coming from, run your game how you want.
"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
That is not exactly what I am saying. What I am trying to say is that the characters should have a reason to kill something. If the orc army was attacking Aragorn's home, than of course he should fight them. But if Aragorn say a peaceful orc settlement, where they were not attacking anyone, would he have justification to kill them? Another example: A green dragon lives in the middle of a deep forest. If adventurers try to attack it, it kills them, but other than that it minds it's own business. Do adventurers have a reason to kill the dragon, even if it's alignment is evil?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I don't care what you do in your game and you shouldn't care what I do in my game. Nobody should be caring what anybody does in anyones elses games unless they are playing in it or it is a public game. As a DM its up to my players and what they perceive their characters, flaws and all, would do in the imaginary world but my games are not designed to teach people morals or instill a code of ethics. If I were to write a module and sell it publicly then I would be more sensitive around content and characters.
I play with people who already have ethics and morals. If you feel you have to teach your friends how to behave properly then sure go ahead and run your campaign that way.
I think you're sidestepping the real question. You proclaimed "I don't care", which begs the question why bother posting in this thread? Or if you don't really care how people play their games, and believe other people should care how you play your games, why post in this forum at all?
This thread was specifically started by someone who found a moment in his game that he felt in game world racial prejudices (a few examples, but apparently an altercation that led to violence upon a Tiefling party member) in his game surprisingly to all at his table seemed to speak to the current ongoing debates and publicized incidents of racial violence in America. It was new ground for his group, and he was reaching out to the community here to see 1.) whether that connection was "appropriate" and 2.) whether it's appropriate or tasteful to explore the theme of racism in game, and seeing if there was any guidance from others more versed in the intersection of anti-racist thought and gaming. Nowhere I see is anyone saying "And another thing, GregCa needs to change the way he or she plays the game to comport with the considerations we're making in this thread." So given all that, what are you speaking up for in your proclaimed uncaring position? How does anything written here affect your play?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I responded to the original question. It wasn't the OP who was preaching about how you need to run your games like they do otherwise you are irresponsible. End of story. Bye.
You answered your own question before you even asked it....
I would advice players as they are creating their characters that there is a possibility that people will treat their characters differently because of their race and their race's reputation based on where they are. Tieflings, in lore, are discriminated against because they are descendants of devils and basically no one has any good experience with devils and the hells. So if one of my players choose to create a tiefling I will tell them that there will be NPC's that will use that against them. If they decide to go with it I'll talk with them about how much they are willing to take in roleplay to keep the game fun for everyone.
It may simply be a snide comment or a merchant jacking the prices up for them but not telling them and the players not finding out about it unless another party member shops there as well. Or it may be more overt.
Sometimes, if we are talking about a kobold, goblin or half-orc character, the player may find NPC's who dislike them because they had bad experiences with goblins, orcs or kobolds.
Feel free to open any can of worms just talk it over with your players to see if they can take it or are okay with it. The most important thing is that everyone at the table is having fun.