Racism in D&D

There is nothing wrong with exploring the subject matter of racism in a roleplaying game. For example, in Pathfinder there is a human ethnicity referred to as Sargovan. They were colonialists who regularly engaged in a slave trade within the Africa inspired region called the Mwangi Expanse. A slave revolt occurred, destroying their empire. In the aftermath, even Sargovans that helped the slaves have difficulty advancing in the new nation they fought to bring about. The native Bekyar population (slavers native to Mwangi) likewise shun them now as having outlived their usefulness. It's a very tribal setting and goes into great lengths at what the general notions of each population are towards one another (whether those notions are true or not). 

A good NPC might show a moment of hesitation before offering aid to an individual because of these preconceptions, or show unwarranted favoritism that he regrets down the line. It all comes down to how relevant it is to the adventure. If the adventure isn't about overcoming some difficulty tied to it, then I wouldn't emphasize it. Most importantly, make sure everyone is having fun.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

The distinction is that natural disasters or non-fantastic plagues are something that just happen- or at least can just happen, depending on how involved the pantheons are. They occur simply as a byproduct of nature ticking along without any fantastic elements involved, and cause casualties as an incidental byproduct. Beings like gnolls, zombies, etc always involve some fantastic inciting force, and specifically desire to kill and destroy as a part of that force. Going by the 5e MM iteration, saying gnolls are evil is factually correct; they are objectively an unnatural force that exists solely to perpetrate evil deeds.

If gnolls lack free will/moral agency and are tools of an evil power, that power is evil, but the gnolls themselves are tools, not evil as such. The same goes for zombies.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

The distinction is that natural disasters or non-fantastic plagues are something that just happen- or at least can just happen, depending on how involved the pantheons are. They occur simply as a byproduct of nature ticking along without any fantastic elements involved, and cause casualties as an incidental byproduct. Beings like gnolls, zombies, etc always involve some fantastic inciting force, and specifically desire to kill and destroy as a part of that force. Going by the 5e MM iteration, saying gnolls are evil is factually correct; they are objectively an unnatural force that exists solely to perpetrate evil deeds.

If gnolls lack free will/moral agency and are tools of an evil power, that power is evil, but the gnolls themselves are tools, not evil as such. The same goes for zombies.

 
Semantics. Saying gnolls/zombies/etc are evil is a factually correct statement in any circumstance other than a philosophical debate in that context.

If you want to explore the topic of racism in a D&D setting, you're starting a philosophical debate.

I just want to add that if you live in Zenthil Keep, it's not like the Zentharim is the only show in town - but ... well, it's not off by a lot. And being evil certainly helps if you're working for the Zenths, but I'm not really sure it's a specific requirement. 

Imagine the job interview:

Ok, here's an alignment wheel. Please circle the alignments you feel represent you, and that you'll enjoy working with.

Now, on this scale from almost-not-evil to comic-book-villain-evil, please mark how evil you feel yourself to be.

I think even the Zentharim have some good apples floating around, hoping no one will notice they're not really into it.

Quote from Acromos >>

I think even the Zentharim have some good apples floating around, hoping no one will notice they're not really into it.

 Pretty sure 'be evil' isn't an actual goal of the Zhentarim, just acceptable methodology. The current version of them is more or less an organized crime syndicate.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 Pretty sure 'be evil' isn't an actual goal of the Zhentarim, just acceptable methodology. The current version of them is more or less an organized crime syndicate.

 I prefer to look at them as a corporation style entity. We do business, but we do it with utter disregard for everyone and everything. 

Anyways, I haven't so much as looked at FR since the late 90's. I could be super wrong - but then, I really like the idea of the Zenths having something like a CEO. There's Manshoon - or 'the Manshoons' - of course, but ... well, that story is getting old, isn't it? 

No, here's my take on it (which I made up, just now): A board of directors finally had enough of Manshoons antics, and removed him. He may be powerful, but he has his hands full fighting his own clones, and anyways his stock has been bought out, and it's officially not his company anymore. Instead, some malign bureaucrat has been named Director, and is shaping the whole concern up with standard operating procedures, profit optimization, market manipulation, shadow subsidiaries, and so on. Setting up 'independent trade councils' in competing cities. Buying up port operations, and roadside taverns along major trade routes.

Maybe a gnome? What's Robert Parr's boss called in The Incredibles? Someone like that. 

Somewhat off the topic of racism. Still, my point is that good people (like Parr, why not) could work for them. Keeping their heads down.

I think in this case people confuse "wokeness" with business sense. 5e and whatever 2024 is have always been designed to be accessible to as many people as possible. To this end, they have done away with a lot of "you must run X this way in your game."

They're not saying you can't have racism in your game. They're saying you're not required to have racism in your game. Ideally this should result in a game that can work for folks who want to explore it and folks that don't.

I don't think Hasbro is trying to stop anyone from playing a certain way - including the people that want Tiefling PCs run out of every village they try to visit. They are just replacing requirements with options to appeal to the broadest market possible.

Since realizing this, it's hard to hear these kind of arguments as anything else besides "D&D used to be this way and I play this way and I think everyone else should play this way too!" No one is stopping you from playing the way you want to play. They are just allowing other people who are different than you to play the way they want to play.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

I think in this case people confuse "wokeness" with business sense.

That's because "wokeness" hasn't got much of a definition beyond "I'm mad about this thing that's not being catered directly to my tastes alone."

Quote from [Redacted]

[Redacted quote encouraging 'fantasy racism' based on harmful framing and generalizations]

This post seems worryingly close to asserting that racism can be justified, which is simply untrue. Also the notion that anyone "should" include it as some kind of imperative is just blatant nonsense. The notion that not including racism is "pretending that everyone is the same all the time" also has some real bad vibes as an assertion.

Everything about this comment is sending up red flags to me.

Quote from [Redacted]

[Redacted quote encouraging 'fantasy racism' based on harmful framing and generalizations]

Bear in mind that these are fictional settings, and thus to the degree their historical behavior is consistent, it's because prior authors wrote them that way... but when you have a fictional setting that you're refreshing for a new generation of players, because it's fiction, you can just change the history to add things like nuance. Also, it's not even true even in the fiction -- for example, if we look at orcs, most of the sword coast (with the exception of some intermittent issues up in the North) has no remotely recent history of conflict.

By [Redacted]'s comment, we should kill every single Human woman and children. Since humans are always shown fighting and raiding one another, it’s clearly for the best that we cave their faces in with a war hammer as Grumsh intended.

As you can see, this comment is pretty bloody insane, but is no more nonsensical as saying “racism should be encouraged”.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

I think in this case people confuse "wokeness" with business sense. 5e and whatever 2024 is have always been designed to be accessible to as many people as possible. To this end, they have done away with a lot of "you must run X this way in your game."

They're not saying you can't have racism in your game. They're saying you're not required to have racism in your game. Ideally this should result in a game that can work for folks who want to explore it and folks that don't.

I don't think Hasbro is trying to stop anyone from playing a certain way - including the people that want Tiefling PCs run out of every village they try to visit. They are just replacing requirements with options to appeal to the broadest market possible.

Since realizing this, it's hard to hear these kind of arguments as anything else besides "D&D used to be this way and I play this way and I think everyone else should play this way too!" No one is stopping you from playing the way you want to play. They are just allowing other people who are different than you to play the way they want to play.

 
This.

D&D is a product, mainly targeting kids.  While educating kids about history, culture, and society is important,  they should be reading about racism, colonialism, and all the stuff humanity has done to the world, it's not really their (hasbro/wizards) job to be the provider of that education.  This debate is not unlike the satanic panic.  TSR recognized that it didn't make business sense to have stuff in their books that offended a large part of their audience and caused controversy.  Especially bad was offending the parents of the kids who buy the books for them so they removed the demonic stuff from 2nd edition.  People still look back on this as some sort of mistake, but it wasn't, and neither is what Hasbro/Wizards is doing away with racist/sexist material.  There are people accountable for creating a place for education, contraversy and debate, and that place is not in a game for kids where they pretend to be warriors and wizards in a fantasy world, and Hasbro/Wizards is not the right people to hold responsible/accountable for that education and exploration.

People (like me), aka the parents... we can handle it, I don't need a corporation's assistance in educating my kids.  So yeah... if I want to add racism/sexism or whatever into my game for whatever reason, education or otherwise, that's what I will do, but I don't need these companies to do it for me.  

I think Wizards of the Coast has a nice, mostly family/kid-friendly game, which is exactly what D&D should be.

I do it Skyrim style. Like less "exterminate all X" and more like "Why does X get a city and we get the warrens?" style, more inequality than a recreation of a Elven Jim Crow Era.