Okay, this topic came up in a thread of mine a few days ago, and completely derailed it as I had very different opinions than the other participants, and I didn't get to express my point before we had to end the "debate" there.
So, basically, I said that it was beneficial to be a Human in most campaigns, as humans are the most common race in most settings, and you will likely have less racial discrimination as a human than a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Half-Orc, or other more monstrous race (Hobgoblin, Orc, Githyanki).
Others started arguing that DMs shouldn't even have any themes of racial tension or discrimination in D&D, and compared those that have those themes to real world racists, and were implying that if you have those problems in your D&D games, you are racist.
I was arguing that the purpose of having races in D&D and racial tensions is to raise awareness for the real world problem. You can't solve a problem by ignoring it. By exposing more players to racial discrimination in a fantasy game, where the player isn't being oppressed or offended, the character is, this shows the player how racial discrimination is prevalent in the real world, and can help with the problem more.
What do you think? Should DMs have racial tension in their games? I'd love to hear your thoughts, and have this thread to direct these discussions towards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If the setting and story has a reason for racial tension, then a DM should include it in their game. Not every world will be rainbows and butterflies. The term "racist" is being overused and applied with a broad brush these days.
Star Trek episodes didn't always play it safe, they adapted real-world problems to their stories so that the average viewer could relate to what was happening.
Different players are comfortable with different things. What I think is universally true is that if most of your players are telling you they're not comfortable with certain themes being present in the game, you shouldn't include them.
Most things can be played out in-game in a way that works and is sensitive and respectful toward people who may have similar real-world experiences. It's not true that having racism in your game inherently makes you a racist. There are valuable stories to be told there. But D&D is a collaborative game, and the story doesn't belong solely to the DM. Your players aren't your audience, they're your colleagues. They're not just observing, they're participating. Never subject them to anything they're not comfortable with.
Different players are comfortable with different things. What I think is universally true is that if most of your players are telling you they're not comfortable with certain themes being present in the game, you shouldn't include them.
Most things can be played out in-game in a way that works and is sensitive and respectful toward people who may have similar real-world experiences. It's not true that having racism in your game inherently makes you a racist. There are valuable stories to be told there. But D&D is a collaborative game, and the story doesn't belong solely to the DM. Your players aren't your audience, they're your colleagues. They're not just observing, they're participating. Never subject them to anything they're not comfortable with.
I agree absolutely. As long as your DM isn't saying, "Orcs are whatever real-life race, and Goblins another" and directly being racist, and your players are okay with the theme of the encounter or campaign, there is nothing wrong with it.
Warforged are discriminated against in Eberron because they remind people of the war, and they were created as war machines, and set free to live among the common folk. This causes issues in the game, and I think it is lazy to not include these, and just say, "No, everyone is completely fine with these war robots being free and wandering around Sharn, and everyone is happy and the world is fun!"
It is lazy and bad storytelling to ignore tension such as this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
So, basically, I said that it was beneficial to be a Human in most campaigns, as humans are the most common race in most settings, and you will likely have less racial discrimination as a human than a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Half-Orc, or other more monstrous race (Hobgoblin, Orc, Githyanki).
This is an entirely valid way to set up a campaign world, and is up to the DM and the rest of the table. I do not know if it counts as "most" campaigns... I'm not sure how you'd figure that out. It certainly is reasonable to assume that, if the rest of the race acts in your world as the Monster Manual and associated documentation states that they do, a lot of the more "typical" races like Dwarves and Elves would have some innate distrust/dislike of members of these races. There is nothing wrong with setting up a world like this.
However, in today's social environment, at least in the West, it is probably advisable to discuss this in Session 0 at the table and make sure that everyone is OK with it -- that is, that the person playing the Orc is not going to get upset at being "discriminated" against or take it as some kind of real-world analog. It is not a real-world analog (or should not be viewed as such) -- in the real world discrimination is among humans (within one species) and not across species (because there ARE no other sentient species in the real world). Game groups I have played have always been able to separate these, and people did not take discrimination against a hobgoblin to be "code" for discrimination against some kind of real world human -- but people in other game groups might, and you're best off discussing it at the table and avoiding the entire topic if people are going to get upset. My personal response would be, "If you can't deal with it, then I will simply disallow these optional races as player races -- play a human, elf, dwarf, or halfing." But that's just me.
Others started arguing that DMs shouldn't even have any themes of racial tension or discrimination in D&D, and compared those that have those themes to real world racists, and were implying that if you have those problems in your D&D games, you are racist.
It is ridiculous to assert that having anti-orc or anti-Gith tendencies in a roleplaying game means the person who came up with the campaign universe is a racist in the real world. However, again, we must be polite to the people at our table. We should discuss it at the table, and if this kind of thematic material is going to upset people at the table, then common courtesy demands that we avoid such things during the session. There are tons of ways to run a campaign without having humanoid races be the enemies... PCs can fight undead, demons, devils, etc.
I was arguing that the purpose of having races in D&D and racial tensions is to raise awareness for the real world problem.
No. No. A thousand times no.
We have races and racial tensions in D&D because our experience with different kinds of just humans in the real world tells us that such tensions would almost certainly exist in a fantasy world when the groups are even more different. Presenting these tensions as existing in the world adds to the verisimilitude. It makes the world seem more realistic and believable. So the purpose is to make the world seem more believable. Secondarily, the purpose is to provide interesting story elements. For example, if we imagine a world in which the humans slaughtered the elves and the last remaining Elves hid underground, evolving into the Drow as the only elves on this world, we can expect intense racial hatred between them and humans. With this, we have the potential for a very interesting plot-line. These should be the only purposes for something like racial tensions to exist in a game world - verisimilitude and story-line options. But although this plot might be inspired by the real world, It is generally not a good idea to try to draw a literal parallel between something happening in a role-playing game, and the real world. The purpose of a role-playing game is to make up cooperative stories and have a blast doing it -- not to "raise awareness."
You can't solve a problem by ignoring it.
And you shouldn't be trying to solve real world problems in a role-playing game. The game is ill equipped for it and you are going to almost certainly run into trouble with people being unable to separate in character vs out of character situations. The purpose of playing a game is to have fun, not to solve real-world problems.
By exposing more players to racial discrimination in a fantasy game, where the player isn't being oppressed or offended, the character is, this shows the player how racial discrimination is prevalent in the real world, and can help with the problem more.
You have completely lost me here. How does the existence of made-up discrimination in a made-up world among made-up races show anything about the real world?
Your claim, which appears to be that by experiencing in-character discrimination, the players may gain some empathy for real-world discrimination, is not likely to ever come true. In my nearly 40 years of experience in RPGs of all sorts, from D&D to Champions to MMORPGs to you name it, the vast majority of players already have too much trouble separating IC from OOC events. They already take it too personally when silly things happen like the character's NPC love breaking up with them, let alone something more upsetting like species discrimination. Most players will not be able to separate the IC and OOC here, and will think you, the DM, are discriminating against them, the player.
What do you think? Should DMs have racial tension in their games?
Absolutely, yes, 100% they should, provided everyone at the table is able to deal with it. But we should not be trying to extrapolate from the game to the real world, nor to solve real world problems via the game. If they exist in a game world, racial tensions should be there for story reasons -- to raise narrative stakes, not awareness. To bring verisimilitude to the fantasy world, not to try and represent the real world in-game.
And again, always, make sure that everyone at the table can handle it... just like you need to make sure everyone at the table can handle character death before you start offing PCs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
As a DM, I absolutely would introduce racist themes if I felt it would carry the story forward (in reality I tend to not think about it). Heck, if there's no racism against your yuan-ti pureblood, what's the point of even playing it? You're ignoring every ounce of lore and using it as a stat-block. These races are not real-world simulacrums. They have histories and gods and magic and culture that bind them to their alignments and motives.
I'll wager these people's player characters are inherently racist - see a goblin, assume it's evil. One could also argue that racism isn't as bad as killing - I'll also bet they don't go around pulling their attacks so they can knock out a foe rather than killing it.
All that said, if the players are uncomfortable with a theme, I wouldn't include it. I may also stop playing with them if our values don't align, but I wouldn't force it on them.
As a DM, I absolutely would introduce racist themes if I felt it would carry the story forward (in reality I tend to not think about it). Heck, if there's no racism against your yuan-ti pureblood, what's the point of even playing it? You're ignoring every ounce of lore and using it as a stat-block. These races are not real-world simulacrums. They have histories and gods and magic and culture that bind them to their alignments and motives.
I'll wager these people's player characters are inherently racist - see a goblin, assume it's evil. One could also argue that racism isn't as bad as killing - I'll also bet they don't go around pulling their attacks so they can knock out a foe rather than killing it.
All that said, if the players are uncomfortable with a theme, I wouldn't include it. I may also stop playing with them if our values don't align, but I wouldn't force it on them.
I agree, if they can't handle fantasy discrimination when they're playing as a race that is known for killing and eating humans, you probably shouldn't be playing with them, and they definitely shouldn't be playing as these races.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
So, basically, I said that it was beneficial to be a Human in most campaigns, as humans are the most common race in most settings, and you will likely have less racial discrimination as a human than a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Half-Orc, or other more monstrous race (Hobgoblin, Orc, Githyanki).
This is an entirely valid way to set up a campaign world, and is up to the DM and the rest of the table. I do not know if it counts as "most" campaigns... I'm not sure how you'd figure that out. It certainly is reasonable to assume that, if the rest of the race acts in your world as the Monster Manual and associated documentation states that they do, a lot of the more "typical" races like Dwarves and Elves would have some innate distrust/dislike of members of these races. There is nothing wrong with setting up a world like this.
However, in today's social environment, at least in the West, it is probably advisable to discuss this in Session 0 at the table and make sure that everyone is OK with it -- that is, that the person playing the Orc is not going to get upset at being "discriminated" against or take it as some kind of real-world analog. It is not a real-world analog (or should not be viewed as such) -- in the real world discrimination is among humans (within one species) and not across species (because there ARE no other sentient species in the real world). Game groups I have played have always been able to separate these, and people did not take discrimination against a hobgoblin to be "code" for discrimination against some kind of real world human -- but people in other game groups might, and you're best off discussing it at the table and avoiding the entire topic if people are going to get upset. My personal response would be, "If you can't deal with it, then I will simply disallow these optional races as player races -- play a human, elf, dwarf, or halfing." But that's just me.
Others started arguing that DMs shouldn't even have any themes of racial tension or discrimination in D&D, and compared those that have those themes to real world racists, and were implying that if you have those problems in your D&D games, you are racist.
It is ridiculous to assert that having anti-orc or anti-Gith tendencies in a roleplaying game means the person who came up with the campaign universe is a racist in the real world. However, again, we must be polite to the people at our table. We should discuss it at the table, and if this kind of thematic material is going to upset people at the table, then common courtesy demands that we avoid such things during the session. There are tons of ways to run a campaign without having humanoid races be the enemies... PCs can fight undead, demons, devils, etc.
I was arguing that the purpose of having races in D&D and racial tensions is to raise awareness for the real world problem.
No. No. A thousand times no.
We have races and racial tensions in D&D because our experience with different kinds of just humans in the real world tells us that such tensions would almost certainly exist in a fantasy world when the groups are even more different. Presenting these tensions as existing in the world adds to the verisimilitude. It makes the world seem more realistic and believable. So the purpose is to make the world seem more believable. Secondarily, the purpose is to provide interesting story elements. For example, if we imagine a world in which the humans slaughtered the elves and the last remaining Elves hid underground, evolving into the Drow as the only elves on this world, we can expect intense racial hatred between them and humans. With this, we have the potential for a very interesting plot-line. These should be the only purposes for something like racial tensions to exist in a game world - verisimilitude and story-line options. But although this plot might be inspired by the real world, It is generally not a good idea to try to draw a literal parallel between something happening in a role-playing game, and the real world. The purpose of a role-playing game is to make up cooperative stories and have a blast doing it -- not to "raise awareness."
You can't solve a problem by ignoring it.
And you shouldn't be trying to solve real world problems in a role-playing game. The game is ill equipped for it and you are going to almost certainly run into trouble with people being unable to separate in character vs out of character situations. The purpose of playing a game is to have fun, not to solve real-world problems.
By exposing more players to racial discrimination in a fantasy game, where the player isn't being oppressed or offended, the character is, this shows the player how racial discrimination is prevalent in the real world, and can help with the problem more.
You have completely lost me here. How does the existence of made-up discrimination in a made-up world among made-up races show anything about the real world?
Your claim, which appears to be that by experiencing in-character discrimination, the players may gain some empathy for real-world discrimination, is not likely to ever come true. In my nearly 40 years of experience in RPGs of all sorts, from D&D to Champions to MMORPGs to you name it, the vast majority of players already have too much trouble separating IC from OOC events. They already take it too personally when silly things happen like the character's NPC love breaking up with them, let alone something more upsetting like species discrimination. Most players will not be able to separate the IC and OOC here, and will think you, the DM, are discriminating against them, the player.
What do you think? Should DMs have racial tension in their games?
Absolutely, yes, 100% they should, provided everyone at the table is able to deal with it. But we should not be trying to extrapolate from the game to the real world, nor to solve real world problems via the game. If they exist in a game world, racial tensions should be there for story reasons -- to raise narrative stakes, not awareness. To bring verisimilitude to the fantasy world, not to try and represent the real world in-game.
And again, always, make sure that everyone at the table can handle it... just like you need to make sure everyone at the table can handle character death before you start offing PCs.
By "most campaigns", I meant most settings. In Forgotten Realms, drow, duergar, githyanki and orcs are evil, and kill humans. In Eberron, Warforged are discriminated against because they were made to serve in a war, and then set free, so people don't like the memories they bring back.
If a player wants to be a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Hobgoblin, yes tell them that they will not be liked, because their race normally kills humans, or enslaves them. They should already know this, but it doesn't hurt to double check. I understand if it is a homebrew world they might not know this, it is always good to let them know, so they have the opportunity to change their mind.
The reason I created this thread was to not distract from the other one, and because they were saying it is both racist and lazy to include racial discrimination in D&D campaigns. I agree 100% that it is ridiculous to make this comparison.
In the discussion with the people who were saying it is lazy to have Orcs or Yuan-ti discriminated against, I tried to argue it was good storytelling and makes sense. They wouldn't listen to this, and started saying it was racist to include these, and harmful to the D&D community. So my counter to this was that it is more harmful to remove these themes in D&D games than to keep them. This is what I was referring to, and what you disagree with me saying.
I wasn't trying to solve real world problems, just trying to convince them that it doesn't encourage real world racist behavior by having in game racist themes. Not trying to solve anything about society, just trying to argue against the claim.
I do think that it is more beneficial to have racial tension in D&D games, because it exposes people to racial tension that normally won't be. I understand most player's will take it personally, but I normally play with my cousins and close friends that understand that my games include moral lessons. I'm white, my cousins are white, most of the people in my town are white, and I think it can be beneficial to white people to see what racial discrimination is like without personally experiencing it. (I know people will disagree with this, and it probably won't apply to most games, but my games are filled with reasonable people that understand that my games are more than just games. If you want to come at me for trying to turn D&D into something you don't think it should be, PM me, don't put it here.)
Definitely depends on the setting and how the DM ultimately wants to run the game. I've personally taken efforts to label various towns as more or less inclusive of other races. Examples here are that major port cities, I've concluded, should be more welcoming to strange races, particularly ones with a major investment in trade with other races. That doesn't mean all the inhabitants are totally accepting, but the town should give off a more welcoming feel to players. Other towns that don't revolve around trade, commerce and are to themselves are typically unwelcoming of newcomers regardless of race. However, these are the people that will outright fear a tiefling and forced interaction could take a number chance encounters.
And, I have to agree. Nobody picks a Dragonborn, Tiefling or Yuan-ti and expects nothing but bliss and acceptance. Part of the lure of taking these races is the RP opportunity to overcome stigmatism and overcome stereotypes for a lot of players.
As a DM, I absolutely would introduce racist themes if I felt it would carry the story forward (in reality I tend to not think about it). Heck, if there's no racism against your yuan-ti pureblood, what's the point of even playing it? You're ignoring every ounce of lore and using it as a stat-block.
I think this is the great unspoken truth of the entire issue. There are people who just want the statblock bonuses but don't want any of the lore or the negatives that come with the racial option they have chosen. They want the +2 cha, +1 int, darkvision, innate spellcasting, poison immunity, etc... all those extra bonuses. But don't give them any negatives to balance them out. In a way, it's just another method of powergaming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
As a DM, I absolutely would introduce racist themes if I felt it would carry the story forward (in reality I tend to not think about it). Heck, if there's no racism against your yuan-ti pureblood, what's the point of even playing it? You're ignoring every ounce of lore and using it as a stat-block.
I think this is the great unspoken truth of the entire issue. There are people who just want the statblock bonuses but don't want any of the lore or the negatives that come with the racial option they have chosen. They want the +2 cha, +1 int, darkvision, innate spellcasting, poison immunity, etc... all those extra bonuses. But don't give them any negatives to balance them out. In a way, it's just another method of powergaming.
Exactly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
When a writer creates a story, nobody gets to tell the writer what to write.
In cooperative storytelling, no group gets to say how another group chooses to tell their story. People will hold their opinions and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If you feel you are doing what's right with your group, people can say what they want. ...but is it really going to stop you?
As one who faced bigotry from four directions over my lifetime so far, I find some solace in stories where bigotry loses to heroism. (Blazing Saddles, anyone?) Do I have a limit on what I will accept in storytelling? Yes. I have a personal limit. It might be more lax or more strict than others, but it's my limit alone, and it only becomes important when I'm writing a story or when working with people to write a story. It's not my limit to push upon people writing their own stories.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I myself don't have any issues with a player character of a typically known evil race such as drow, orcs and such facing discrimination. Now if a player character is say a Yuan-ti pure blood I can see discrimination if the secret is found out and that race is known in the area. Such as a Yuan-ti in like Chult where the race can be known to the populace, In the North I wouldn't expect it as the race is basically unknown.
I generally agree with what Bio Wizard has expressed.
The racism in my campaign environments is meant to be a challenge to be overcome, not some hidden message about how I feel personally about racism. Look at how Gimli and Legolas became devoted friends over the course of LOTR.
Second, I also agree that many folks that cry about racism are wishing to have a stat block and no problems. I wonder if these folks also fail to indicate any flaws or weaknesses in their character backstories?
Third, I am puzzled by the OPs defense of racism in-game. I don't think there is any reason to include racism in a RP game to help teach folks ways to handle racism IRL. If you're trying to do it that way, maybe you shouldn't have racism in your campaigns at all. Lecturing the players on how racist folks should be managed IRL, by constructing in-game situations doesn't sound like fun to me.
I believe if players lectured me about the extent racism exists in my campaigns, I wouldn't be a DM any longer. My response would be to make everyone, player and NPC alike, a human. Problem solved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Third, I am puzzled by the OPs defense of racism in-game. I don't think there is any reason to include racism in a RP game to help teach folks ways to handle racism IRL. If you're trying to do it that way, maybe you shouldn't have racism in your campaigns at all. Lecturing the players on how racist folks should be managed IRL, by constructing in-game situations doesn't sound like fun to me.
By "most campaigns", I meant most settings. In Forgotten Realms, drow, duergar, githyanki and orcs are evil, and kill humans. In Eberron, Warforged are discriminated against because they were made to serve in a war, and then set free, so people don't like the memories they bring back.
If a player wants to be a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Hobgoblin, yes tell them that they will not be liked, because their race normally kills humans, or enslaves them. They should already know this, but it doesn't hurt to double check. I understand if it is a homebrew world they might not know this, it is always good to let them know, so they have the opportunity to change their mind.
The reason I created this thread was to not distract from the other one, and because they were saying it is both racist and lazy to include racial discrimination in D&D campaigns. I agree 100% that it is ridiculous to make this comparison.
In the discussion with the people who were saying it is lazy to have Orcs or Yuan-ti discriminated against, I tried to argue it was good storytelling and makes sense. They wouldn't listen to this, and started saying it was racist to include these, and harmful to the D&D community. So my counter to this was that it is more harmful to remove these themes in D&D games than to keep them. This is what I was referring to, and what you disagree with me saying.
I wasn't trying to solve real world problems, just trying to convince them that it doesn't encourage real world racist behavior by having in game racist themes. Not trying to solve anything about society, just trying to argue against the claim.
I do think that it is more beneficial to have racial tension in D&D games, because it exposes people to racial tension that normally won't be. I understand most player's will take it personally, but I normally play with my cousins and close friends that understand that my games include moral lessons. I'm white, my cousins are white, most of the people in my town are white, and I think it can be beneficial to white people to see what racial discrimination is like without personally experiencing it. (I know people will disagree with this, and it probably won't apply to most games, but my games are filled with reasonable people that understand that my games are more than just games. If you want to come at me for trying to turn D&D into something you don't think it should be, PM me, don't put it here.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
These two bits gave me the impression you might be pushing racism in your campaigns in a direction that doesn't help folks enjoy playing.
From your OP ...
I was arguing that the purpose of having races in D&D and racial tensions is to raise awareness for the real world problem. You can't solve a problem by ignoring it. By exposing more players to racial discrimination in a fantasy game, where the player isn't being oppressed or offended, the character is, this shows the player how racial discrimination is prevalent in the real world, and can help with the problem more.
From a later contribution ...
I do think that it is more beneficial to have racial tension in D&D games, because it exposes people to racial tension that normally won't be. I understand most player's will take it personally, but I normally play with my cousins and close friends that understand that my games include moral lessons. I'm white, my cousins are white, most of the people in my town are white, and I think it can be beneficial to white people to see what racial discrimination is like without personally experiencing it.
I don't wish to indicate these are some sort of proof that you have a problem with racism, but that the manner in which you express it in-game may not be received well. On the other hand, it may be that the folks that are making these remarks in response to your posts are projecting problems they had when racism was part of a D&D game they played, and they don't wish to ever experience that sort of DM worldbuilding again. I'm just pointing out that you come across a little outside my boundaries for how this should work in a D&D campaign. Remember to keep it fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Players like playing cool unusual races. I wouldn't want to create punishments for that that lead to everyone playing a human or variant human for min-max reasons and then being disappointed about it.
There's enough racism in the real world. In my fantasy worlds I tend to prefer to DM-fiat it away so that it doesn't exist. (At least not in general - I can certainly make a specific town where the PCs aren't trusted, but I wouldn't make a campaign where as a general rule one of the PCs is in automatic conflict with the locals anywhere they go because of race.)
These two bits gave me the impression you might be pushing racism in your campaigns in a direction that doesn't help folks enjoy playing.
From your OP ...
I was arguing that the purpose of having races in D&D and racial tensions is to raise awareness for the real world problem. You can't solve a problem by ignoring it. By exposing more players to racial discrimination in a fantasy game, where the player isn't being oppressed or offended, the character is, this shows the player how racial discrimination is prevalent in the real world, and can help with the problem more.
From a later contribution ...
I do think that it is more beneficial to have racial tension in D&D games, because it exposes people to racial tension that normally won't be. I understand most player's will take it personally, but I normally play with my cousins and close friends that understand that my games include moral lessons. I'm white, my cousins are white, most of the people in my town are white, and I think it can be beneficial to white people to see what racial discrimination is like without personally experiencing it.
I don't wish to indicate these are some sort of proof that you have a problem with racism, but that the manner in which you express it in-game may not be received well. On the other hand, it may be that the folks that are making these remarks in response to your posts are projecting problems they had when racism was part of a D&D game they played, and they don't wish to ever experience that sort of DM worldbuilding again. I'm just pointing out that you come across a little outside my boundaries for how this should work in a D&D campaign. Remember to keep it fun.
I know. I have never had a character in a campaign I was running that was truly discriminated against because of their race. I will enforce the idea that racism is present in my games if a player ever chooses to be a race like that just to show the story of the world. I do not have a problem with racism, and I know you aren't saying so, I just think it is more beneficial to have racism present in games than to ignore the fact that other races tend to be evil.
The main reason why I would include racism in my games is to show the story of the world. I never have done this, I only started DMing just over 2 years ago, but I do think that it is better to talk about racism in a calm neutral environment provided by D&D than online, or elsewhere. If a player ever expressed that they didn't like this, I would change it in a heartbeat, the players matter most, but I also tend to not just have D&D be a game, especially because my players are mainly my younger cousins that don't have a father to teach them these things. In D&D I can teach them these things and have them have fun at the same time. I understand racism is a sensitive topic, and I try my hardest to make the players have fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Players like playing cool unusual races. I wouldn't want to create punishments for that that lead to everyone playing a human or variant human for min-max reasons and then being disappointed about it.
There's enough racism in the real world. In my fantasy worlds I tend to prefer to DM-fiat it away so that it doesn't exist. (At least not in general - I can certainly make a specific town where the PCs aren't trusted, but I wouldn't make a campaign where as a general rule one of the PCs is in automatic conflict with the locals anywhere they go because of race.)
I'm just curious, not arguing right now. How do you deal with players who want to be from an evil society (hobgoblin, orc, yuan-ti, githyanki)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
My games usually stick to the old stereotypes of monster PC's, duergar, drow, etc are distrusted, if not despised, depending on where they go. Players are warned ahead of time. Elves and Dwarves are either friendly rivals or distrust each other. These are all VERY general...
The campaign I'm working on will be very different. The world is very old and dying. A warlock was successful and summoned his patron, an old one who has consumed half the world from the inside. All attempts to prevent it failed. They only managed to delay it. So the world is sealed. The town they start in had been frozen for centuries as a result of protective magic gone awry.
The distrust will come from the strange new races they encounter as they explore. On top of that, the populace throughout the world tend to despise warlocks and mistrust spellcasters in general. Clerics are exceptionally rare and are resented due to the feeling of the gods abandoning the populace.
I'll allow the PC's to be any race/class. They'll be accepted pretty readily in the starting area--mostly. The world is very practical and accepted necessary evils. It's outside the town where their choices really have impact. Internally, it just depends on their chosen background.
Okay, this topic came up in a thread of mine a few days ago, and completely derailed it as I had very different opinions than the other participants, and I didn't get to express my point before we had to end the "debate" there.
So, basically, I said that it was beneficial to be a Human in most campaigns, as humans are the most common race in most settings, and you will likely have less racial discrimination as a human than a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Half-Orc, or other more monstrous race (Hobgoblin, Orc, Githyanki).
Others started arguing that DMs shouldn't even have any themes of racial tension or discrimination in D&D, and compared those that have those themes to real world racists, and were implying that if you have those problems in your D&D games, you are racist.
I was arguing that the purpose of having races in D&D and racial tensions is to raise awareness for the real world problem. You can't solve a problem by ignoring it. By exposing more players to racial discrimination in a fantasy game, where the player isn't being oppressed or offended, the character is, this shows the player how racial discrimination is prevalent in the real world, and can help with the problem more.
What do you think? Should DMs have racial tension in their games? I'd love to hear your thoughts, and have this thread to direct these discussions towards.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If the setting and story has a reason for racial tension, then a DM should include it in their game. Not every world will be rainbows and butterflies. The term "racist" is being overused and applied with a broad brush these days.
Star Trek episodes didn't always play it safe, they adapted real-world problems to their stories so that the average viewer could relate to what was happening.
Different players are comfortable with different things. What I think is universally true is that if most of your players are telling you they're not comfortable with certain themes being present in the game, you shouldn't include them.
Most things can be played out in-game in a way that works and is sensitive and respectful toward people who may have similar real-world experiences. It's not true that having racism in your game inherently makes you a racist. There are valuable stories to be told there. But D&D is a collaborative game, and the story doesn't belong solely to the DM. Your players aren't your audience, they're your colleagues. They're not just observing, they're participating. Never subject them to anything they're not comfortable with.
I agree absolutely. As long as your DM isn't saying, "Orcs are whatever real-life race, and Goblins another" and directly being racist, and your players are okay with the theme of the encounter or campaign, there is nothing wrong with it.
Warforged are discriminated against in Eberron because they remind people of the war, and they were created as war machines, and set free to live among the common folk. This causes issues in the game, and I think it is lazy to not include these, and just say, "No, everyone is completely fine with these war robots being free and wandering around Sharn, and everyone is happy and the world is fun!"
It is lazy and bad storytelling to ignore tension such as this.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This is an entirely valid way to set up a campaign world, and is up to the DM and the rest of the table. I do not know if it counts as "most" campaigns... I'm not sure how you'd figure that out. It certainly is reasonable to assume that, if the rest of the race acts in your world as the Monster Manual and associated documentation states that they do, a lot of the more "typical" races like Dwarves and Elves would have some innate distrust/dislike of members of these races. There is nothing wrong with setting up a world like this.
However, in today's social environment, at least in the West, it is probably advisable to discuss this in Session 0 at the table and make sure that everyone is OK with it -- that is, that the person playing the Orc is not going to get upset at being "discriminated" against or take it as some kind of real-world analog. It is not a real-world analog (or should not be viewed as such) -- in the real world discrimination is among humans (within one species) and not across species (because there ARE no other sentient species in the real world). Game groups I have played have always been able to separate these, and people did not take discrimination against a hobgoblin to be "code" for discrimination against some kind of real world human -- but people in other game groups might, and you're best off discussing it at the table and avoiding the entire topic if people are going to get upset. My personal response would be, "If you can't deal with it, then I will simply disallow these optional races as player races -- play a human, elf, dwarf, or halfing." But that's just me.
It is ridiculous to assert that having anti-orc or anti-Gith tendencies in a roleplaying game means the person who came up with the campaign universe is a racist in the real world. However, again, we must be polite to the people at our table. We should discuss it at the table, and if this kind of thematic material is going to upset people at the table, then common courtesy demands that we avoid such things during the session. There are tons of ways to run a campaign without having humanoid races be the enemies... PCs can fight undead, demons, devils, etc.
No. No. A thousand times no.
We have races and racial tensions in D&D because our experience with different kinds of just humans in the real world tells us that such tensions would almost certainly exist in a fantasy world when the groups are even more different. Presenting these tensions as existing in the world adds to the verisimilitude. It makes the world seem more realistic and believable. So the purpose is to make the world seem more believable. Secondarily, the purpose is to provide interesting story elements. For example, if we imagine a world in which the humans slaughtered the elves and the last remaining Elves hid underground, evolving into the Drow as the only elves on this world, we can expect intense racial hatred between them and humans. With this, we have the potential for a very interesting plot-line. These should be the only purposes for something like racial tensions to exist in a game world - verisimilitude and story-line options. But although this plot might be inspired by the real world, It is generally not a good idea to try to draw a literal parallel between something happening in a role-playing game, and the real world. The purpose of a role-playing game is to make up cooperative stories and have a blast doing it -- not to "raise awareness."
And you shouldn't be trying to solve real world problems in a role-playing game. The game is ill equipped for it and you are going to almost certainly run into trouble with people being unable to separate in character vs out of character situations. The purpose of playing a game is to have fun, not to solve real-world problems.
You have completely lost me here. How does the existence of made-up discrimination in a made-up world among made-up races show anything about the real world?
Your claim, which appears to be that by experiencing in-character discrimination, the players may gain some empathy for real-world discrimination, is not likely to ever come true. In my nearly 40 years of experience in RPGs of all sorts, from D&D to Champions to MMORPGs to you name it, the vast majority of players already have too much trouble separating IC from OOC events. They already take it too personally when silly things happen like the character's NPC love breaking up with them, let alone something more upsetting like species discrimination. Most players will not be able to separate the IC and OOC here, and will think you, the DM, are discriminating against them, the player.
Absolutely, yes, 100% they should, provided everyone at the table is able to deal with it. But we should not be trying to extrapolate from the game to the real world, nor to solve real world problems via the game. If they exist in a game world, racial tensions should be there for story reasons -- to raise narrative stakes, not awareness. To bring verisimilitude to the fantasy world, not to try and represent the real world in-game.
And again, always, make sure that everyone at the table can handle it... just like you need to make sure everyone at the table can handle character death before you start offing PCs.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
As a DM, I absolutely would introduce racist themes if I felt it would carry the story forward (in reality I tend to not think about it). Heck, if there's no racism against your yuan-ti pureblood, what's the point of even playing it? You're ignoring every ounce of lore and using it as a stat-block. These races are not real-world simulacrums. They have histories and gods and magic and culture that bind them to their alignments and motives.
I'll wager these people's player characters are inherently racist - see a goblin, assume it's evil. One could also argue that racism isn't as bad as killing - I'll also bet they don't go around pulling their attacks so they can knock out a foe rather than killing it.
All that said, if the players are uncomfortable with a theme, I wouldn't include it. I may also stop playing with them if our values don't align, but I wouldn't force it on them.
I agree, if they can't handle fantasy discrimination when they're playing as a race that is known for killing and eating humans, you probably shouldn't be playing with them, and they definitely shouldn't be playing as these races.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
By "most campaigns", I meant most settings. In Forgotten Realms, drow, duergar, githyanki and orcs are evil, and kill humans. In Eberron, Warforged are discriminated against because they were made to serve in a war, and then set free, so people don't like the memories they bring back.
If a player wants to be a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Hobgoblin, yes tell them that they will not be liked, because their race normally kills humans, or enslaves them. They should already know this, but it doesn't hurt to double check. I understand if it is a homebrew world they might not know this, it is always good to let them know, so they have the opportunity to change their mind.
The reason I created this thread was to not distract from the other one, and because they were saying it is both racist and lazy to include racial discrimination in D&D campaigns. I agree 100% that it is ridiculous to make this comparison.
In the discussion with the people who were saying it is lazy to have Orcs or Yuan-ti discriminated against, I tried to argue it was good storytelling and makes sense. They wouldn't listen to this, and started saying it was racist to include these, and harmful to the D&D community. So my counter to this was that it is more harmful to remove these themes in D&D games than to keep them. This is what I was referring to, and what you disagree with me saying.
I wasn't trying to solve real world problems, just trying to convince them that it doesn't encourage real world racist behavior by having in game racist themes. Not trying to solve anything about society, just trying to argue against the claim.
I do think that it is more beneficial to have racial tension in D&D games, because it exposes people to racial tension that normally won't be. I understand most player's will take it personally, but I normally play with my cousins and close friends that understand that my games include moral lessons. I'm white, my cousins are white, most of the people in my town are white, and I think it can be beneficial to white people to see what racial discrimination is like without personally experiencing it. (I know people will disagree with this, and it probably won't apply to most games, but my games are filled with reasonable people that understand that my games are more than just games. If you want to come at me for trying to turn D&D into something you don't think it should be, PM me, don't put it here.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Definitely depends on the setting and how the DM ultimately wants to run the game. I've personally taken efforts to label various towns as more or less inclusive of other races. Examples here are that major port cities, I've concluded, should be more welcoming to strange races, particularly ones with a major investment in trade with other races. That doesn't mean all the inhabitants are totally accepting, but the town should give off a more welcoming feel to players. Other towns that don't revolve around trade, commerce and are to themselves are typically unwelcoming of newcomers regardless of race. However, these are the people that will outright fear a tiefling and forced interaction could take a number chance encounters.
And, I have to agree. Nobody picks a Dragonborn, Tiefling or Yuan-ti and expects nothing but bliss and acceptance. Part of the lure of taking these races is the RP opportunity to overcome stigmatism and overcome stereotypes for a lot of players.
I think this is the great unspoken truth of the entire issue. There are people who just want the statblock bonuses but don't want any of the lore or the negatives that come with the racial option they have chosen. They want the +2 cha, +1 int, darkvision, innate spellcasting, poison immunity, etc... all those extra bonuses. But don't give them any negatives to balance them out. In a way, it's just another method of powergaming.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Exactly.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Stories.
They can be fantasy. They can be hard truths.
They can be a mix of both, and they usually are.
When a writer creates a story, nobody gets to tell the writer what to write.
In cooperative storytelling, no group gets to say how another group chooses to tell their story. People will hold their opinions and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If you feel you are doing what's right with your group, people can say what they want. ...but is it really going to stop you?
As one who faced bigotry from four directions over my lifetime so far, I find some solace in stories where bigotry loses to heroism. (Blazing Saddles, anyone?) Do I have a limit on what I will accept in storytelling? Yes. I have a personal limit. It might be more lax or more strict than others, but it's my limit alone, and it only becomes important when I'm writing a story or when working with people to write a story. It's not my limit to push upon people writing their own stories.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I myself don't have any issues with a player character of a typically known evil race such as drow, orcs and such facing discrimination. Now if a player character is say a Yuan-ti pure blood I can see discrimination if the secret is found out and that race is known in the area. Such as a Yuan-ti in like Chult where the race can be known to the populace, In the North I wouldn't expect it as the race is basically unknown.
I generally agree with what Bio Wizard has expressed.
The racism in my campaign environments is meant to be a challenge to be overcome, not some hidden message about how I feel personally about racism. Look at how Gimli and Legolas became devoted friends over the course of LOTR.
Second, I also agree that many folks that cry about racism are wishing to have a stat block and no problems. I wonder if these folks also fail to indicate any flaws or weaknesses in their character backstories?
Third, I am puzzled by the OPs defense of racism in-game. I don't think there is any reason to include racism in a RP game to help teach folks ways to handle racism IRL. If you're trying to do it that way, maybe you shouldn't have racism in your campaigns at all. Lecturing the players on how racist folks should be managed IRL, by constructing in-game situations doesn't sound like fun to me.
I believe if players lectured me about the extent racism exists in my campaigns, I wouldn't be a DM any longer. My response would be to make everyone, player and NPC alike, a human. Problem solved.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I talked about that here.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
These two bits gave me the impression you might be pushing racism in your campaigns in a direction that doesn't help folks enjoy playing.
From your OP ...
I was arguing that the purpose of having races in D&D and racial tensions is to raise awareness for the real world problem. You can't solve a problem by ignoring it. By exposing more players to racial discrimination in a fantasy game, where the player isn't being oppressed or offended, the character is, this shows the player how racial discrimination is prevalent in the real world, and can help with the problem more.
From a later contribution ...
I do think that it is more beneficial to have racial tension in D&D games, because it exposes people to racial tension that normally won't be. I understand most player's will take it personally, but I normally play with my cousins and close friends that understand that my games include moral lessons. I'm white, my cousins are white, most of the people in my town are white, and I think it can be beneficial to white people to see what racial discrimination is like without personally experiencing it.
I don't wish to indicate these are some sort of proof that you have a problem with racism, but that the manner in which you express it in-game may not be received well. On the other hand, it may be that the folks that are making these remarks in response to your posts are projecting problems they had when racism was part of a D&D game they played, and they don't wish to ever experience that sort of DM worldbuilding again. I'm just pointing out that you come across a little outside my boundaries for how this should work in a D&D campaign. Remember to keep it fun.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I would tend to go with no.
Players like playing cool unusual races. I wouldn't want to create punishments for that that lead to everyone playing a human or variant human for min-max reasons and then being disappointed about it.
There's enough racism in the real world. In my fantasy worlds I tend to prefer to DM-fiat it away so that it doesn't exist. (At least not in general - I can certainly make a specific town where the PCs aren't trusted, but I wouldn't make a campaign where as a general rule one of the PCs is in automatic conflict with the locals anywhere they go because of race.)
I know. I have never had a character in a campaign I was running that was truly discriminated against because of their race. I will enforce the idea that racism is present in my games if a player ever chooses to be a race like that just to show the story of the world. I do not have a problem with racism, and I know you aren't saying so, I just think it is more beneficial to have racism present in games than to ignore the fact that other races tend to be evil.
The main reason why I would include racism in my games is to show the story of the world. I never have done this, I only started DMing just over 2 years ago, but I do think that it is better to talk about racism in a calm neutral environment provided by D&D than online, or elsewhere. If a player ever expressed that they didn't like this, I would change it in a heartbeat, the players matter most, but I also tend to not just have D&D be a game, especially because my players are mainly my younger cousins that don't have a father to teach them these things. In D&D I can teach them these things and have them have fun at the same time. I understand racism is a sensitive topic, and I try my hardest to make the players have fun.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm just curious, not arguing right now. How do you deal with players who want to be from an evil society (hobgoblin, orc, yuan-ti, githyanki)?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
My games usually stick to the old stereotypes of monster PC's, duergar, drow, etc are distrusted, if not despised, depending on where they go. Players are warned ahead of time. Elves and Dwarves are either friendly rivals or distrust each other. These are all VERY general...
The campaign I'm working on will be very different. The world is very old and dying. A warlock was successful and summoned his patron, an old one who has consumed half the world from the inside. All attempts to prevent it failed. They only managed to delay it. So the world is sealed. The town they start in had been frozen for centuries as a result of protective magic gone awry.
The distrust will come from the strange new races they encounter as they explore. On top of that, the populace throughout the world tend to despise warlocks and mistrust spellcasters in general. Clerics are exceptionally rare and are resented due to the feeling of the gods abandoning the populace.
I'll allow the PC's to be any race/class. They'll be accepted pretty readily in the starting area--mostly. The world is very practical and accepted necessary evils. It's outside the town where their choices really have impact. Internally, it just depends on their chosen background.