Fantasy Racism

[DRD1812]

The elf gets called "knife ears." The dwarf is "stunty." Maybe you've even got humans being referred to as "dire halflings." These epithets are crazy common at the gaming table.

I believe that fantasy racism can be a good thing. I've got a write-up on the topic below the comic over here (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/fantasy-racism), but the TLDR is this: In a game of D&D you're "allowed" to explore themes of race and prejudice without “real” cultural hangups getting in the way. You aren’t going to risk offending the ethnically orcish guy at the table after all. More to the point, when paired with D&D's underlying Fellowship of the Ring theme (a bunch of diverse heroes work together to fight evil) you wind up with a pro-social sort of message underlying your game. In other words, including racial elements in your game has the useful side effect of encouraging empathy. For my money, this seems like a healthy sort of activity.

Question: Do you like to include racial themes in your games? Why or why not?

[2D8HP]

LEAF MUNCHING, SQUIRREL KISSING, TWIG LIMBED FREAKS!
(for surface elves)

STICKY, SPIDER KISSING, 'SHROOM ADDLED, TWIG LIMBED FREAKS!
(for Drow)


Question: Do you like to include racial themes in your games?


No.


Why or why not?


It distracts from the looting and running away.

[ZorroGames]

The elf gets called "knife ears." The dwarf is "stunty." Maybe you've even got humans being referred to as "dire halflings." These epithets are crazy common at the gaming table.

I believe that fantasy racism can be a good thing. I've got a write-up on the topic below the comic over here (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/fantasy-racism), but the TLDR is this: In a game of D&D you're "allowed" to explore themes of race and prejudice without “real” cultural hangups getting in the way. You aren’t going to risk offending the ethnically orcish guy at the table after all. More to the point, when paired with D&D's underlying Fellowship of the Ring theme (a bunch of diverse heroes work together to fight evil) you wind up with a pro-social sort of message underlying your game. In other words, including racial elements in your game has the useful side effect of encouraging empathy. For my money, this seems like a healthy sort of activity.

Question: Do you like to include racial themes in your games? Why or why not?

As in Racism, per se’?

Not really.

Some established character relationships may have verbal sparring but you are supposed to be a team, even if ad hoc, on a mission.

[Daphne]

No. It distracts from the looting and running away.

I'm with 2D8HP, I play D&D to explore dungeons and kill dragons.

[Willie the Duck]

Question: Do you like to include racial themes in your games? Why or why not?

Gygax should have used 'creature type' rather than 'race' when the first books were written to avoid this issue. However, that ship has sailed.

No, we don't spend a lot of time grinding our wheels on ham-handed parallels to real-world issues. We have better things to do (kill stuff and take its gold) in the game, and if we ever felt the need to do an in depth analysis of real world racial issues, we have better venues for that.

[Honest Tiefling]

Yes. Bad things exist, and bad guys do bad things. In light toned games, that's the guy you punch and loot. In darker games, people are flawed creatures with good and bad aspects. Hatred isn't as easy to get rid of as you might think, and even bigots might be needed at times. People in desperate situations don't always do the best and will resort to the ugly side of humanity. Sometimes, a story explores the good and the bad of humans.

I don't try to model the racism off of real-world racism, however. Well, I do in the way that many racist lines of thinking are complete and utter idiocy that people really don't think too hard on. But I don't think it'll ever get far enough from the real world to make someone comfortable with it if they aren't comfortable with real world themes.

Would I plop it down in a racially diverse table without warning? Only if I felt like helping to create an ethnically diverse mob trying to punch me.

[ciarannihill]

If the any of the races in your world have negative opinions about any of the other races and your players encounter these you've introduced an element of race relations into your game.

It doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) the primary focus/theme/narrative device, but especially if you have a PC who ends up on the receiving end of that kind of prejudice it can be narratively compelling for them and the party -- it can be an interesting character arc to be the Half-Orc mistrusted by the townspeople, but in saving them from the Dragon on the mountain a few miles away they come to understand they misjudged you.

Having said that -- I don't think DnD is an appropriate venue for doing a narrative that has a central or common theme as race, because as a main thematic element you walk a very fine line and DnD is not the nuanced experience you would want to use for complex race relation exploration...



Just my 2 copper...

[RSP]

I guess it depends how much you want to role play. The races in D&D have stereotypes, and it only makes sense to incorporate them into your game if you want a “living world.”

If a Player chooses to play an Orc, that character should probably get a negative reaction from other races, particularly in small towns and homesteads that have been victims of Orc raids.

Likewise, if you care about such things in your game, you could have dwarves seen as tough and strong, High Elves as aloof and likely doing some sort of magic, and Halflings as Bullit fodder.

I think these ideas are kind of intrinsic to RPing a world like FR. Not to mention racism is kind of RAW, as stated in what dwarves think of Elves in the PHB: “It’s not wise to depend on the elves. No telling what an elf will do next; when the hammer meets the orc’s head, they’re as apt to start singing as to pull out a sword. They’re flighty and frivolous...”

Edit: just to add, I don’t think there’s any need for real life racism in D&D. But any type of racism comes from stereotypes, which is kind of intrinsic to D&D (why else would Half-Elves get +2 Cha if it wasn’t a stereotype that they’re charismatic, the same with the nimble elf, etc), even when it’s just “orcs are bad so we kill them...”

[diabloblanco18]

Yes, but I tend to avoid making it pervasive or particularly nasty. Instead, I pick a few NPCs that seem like they'd be that kind of jerk, and have them act accordingly to any oddball player characters.

For example, the last time I ran a game in Eberron, one of the players rolled up a warforged, who was incidentally the party face. Whenever they interacted with one particular NPC, I simply talked to one of the other players at the table, ignoring most of what the warforged player said. He was okay with this; otherwise I probably would have limited myself to snarky comments about letting the toaster do the talking for you.

[CantigThimble]

If you want to see fantasy racism done well, look at Shadowrun.

[GlenSmash!]

It's not a theme I like to explore in my games.

Sometimes I do have an anti-magic sentiment in small villages.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Imagine a giant explosion behind me as I dive in slow-motion towards the camera, yelling "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

So, no.

I am trying to come up with a way that something so serious that it impacts so many lives in untold ways could be handled in a game where I roll dice to see if I blast a dragon in the face with fire.

Uh, no. Also, no. Furthermore, no.

[Anonymouswizard]

If you want to see fantasy racism done well, look at Shadowrun.

One of the things I liked about Shadowrun 3e was how the races section of the corebook actually went into the racism a bit.

I think my favourite of the explanation as to why dwarfs are stereotyped as living underground (basement flats tend to be cheaper, and dwarfs don't mind them being smaller) and good with machines (people tend to give young dwarfs toolkits as presents), and how there was a note that comedians had started mocking trolls by showing the big guys delicately holding a China teacup and other 'refined' things.

I also remember looking at the description of orks and wondering if the shorter lifespan was meant to be a species thing or a 'the man doesn't give orks good healthcare'. I later did research and found out it was supposed to be the former, but good on the setting for getting me to think about it on 'hang on, could this be...' terms.

[igor140]

I think it depends on the situation and the cultural context. We've never had a PC who was overtly racist (though we do have a notably ignorant dwarf...), but given the right context, I think it's extremely appropriate to have an NPC who is. For example, we're running Dead in Thay right now, and I'm making most of the important figures prejudiced against the druid (because they are viewed as inferior casters) and the dwarf (because dwarves are typically slaves in Thay). Thay is known for its caste system, prejudice, and ethnocentrism... I think it's very appropriate to weave some racism into that.

All that said, I don't go out of my way to force the issue, I just recognize that both individual racism and cultural racism are things that exist due to humanity's broken concept of itself, and so it stands to reason it would show up occasionally in DnD as well.

[PeteNutButter]

I think even those that say they don’t have it, still do to some extent. If you have a monstrous PC or NPC, do they get wierd looks in town?

Now to what extent it’s explored in game greatly depends on the tone and focus of the table. Between players is probably nothing more than banter but it can be a recurring issue with one race being disliked in various civilized areas. Just because the party knows that their friend Mrug the Orc Barbarian is a goodish orc doesn’t mean everyone in town is ok with it. It’s so much of a trope that it’s basically a cookie cutter identity for every monstrous or dark elf/dwarf PC. “I have to prove I’m different.” OK Drizzt.

For as long as there are races with historical war and hatred towards each other, racism is going to be a thing in D&D. I’d go so far as saying racism in D&D can even be justified. In the real world peoples’ alignments aren’t determined by the color of their skin. But if every Orc is by their very nature evil... well then it’s reasonable to be suspicious.

Of course this depends, on how the DM handles the potential for creatures of evil alignment to actually be good. Good red dragon? What about devils? Can we have a good devil? If not can I be racist against them?

[JeffreyGator]

There are a couple ways that this shows up in my games:

Characters encountering social difficulty at times, monster characters, tieflings in general; any race in specific locales/circumstances.

The other place is with who gets killed and looted. Are monsters always evil? From birth?

This came up with traditional monsters like goblins and kobolds but also with lizardmen. Maybe we shouldn't kill them and take their stuff.

[PeteNutButter]

There are a couple ways that this shows up in my games:

Characters encountering social difficulty at times, monster characters, tieflings in general; any race in specific locales/circumstances.

The other place is with who gets killed and looted. Are monsters always evil? From birth?

This came up with traditional monsters like goblins and kobolds but also with lizardmen. Maybe we shouldn't kill them and take their stuff.

See that’s just it. If any party is happy to murder and loot a tribe of orcs they are inherently racist because they would presumably have some qualms with doing that to humans dwarves or elves [but not gnomes, because f*ck gnomes].

[Ganymede]

Social issues like racism can help in creating moral challenges in the game, much in the way there are combat challenges, puzzle challenges, social challenges, etc.

Something like that can take an ordinarily straightforward quest like "The king demands the marauding orcs be put down" and make it much more nuanced and complicated. What PCs do in those circumstances can help create memorable game moments that really flesh out character personalities.


Then again, other people prefer to murderhobo their way though a dungeon in order to kill the dragon at the end. This might not appeal to them.

[DMThac0]

I've got racism in my game, it's necessary to the plot device, it's a motivator for one of the antagonists. I've also got racism in my game to reflect one race rebelling against the incursion of a "weaker" race. Then, just to have fun, I put my players in a position where they were raised in a culturally diverse atmosphere. They enter the "real world" and start to get slurs and comments thrown at them because of what they are.

Is racism necessary, nope. Does racism add anything to the game, generally not. Can racism be used in a game, yup. Should you add it to your game, only if you have a purpose for it. Does calling your h-orc druid party member a "hair-lipped, tree hugging, half breed" mean anything...probably not.

[Ganryu]

Having done racism in the game before... its great! I had a paladin who was an absolute **** to elves. They were always the first suspects, and they blamed everything on them. At one part the entire party was made of elves except my character. Did the other players take offense? Nope, they rolled with it and I got just as much crap as I gave. It was a character point, and I didn't just have a murder hobo, I had a murder hobo who hated elves! Also, it made it so higher ups in my characers Paladin order never believed her because 'its just Saoirse hating elves again.' So when we had entire campaign against drow, my character was in deep crap because no one would believe her that drow were coming.

But seriously, I think it can add to a character due to being a flaw, and it can get them in serious trouble as well. I had a whole list of DnD racial slurs that were pretty entertaining that I used regularly.

[Sigreid]

I've only done racism as a PC, but I've done it big in several different games.


I had an elf paladin in Palladium that hated dwarves and had as a goal the establishment of a kingdom where they had the legal status of house pets.
I played a gnome that constantly harrassed dwarves about being too big and a waste of space.
I adapted polish jokes to target orcs and half orcs.
I had a qualinasti elf noble in a Dragon Lance campaign that hated nobles and believed elves were the root of all evil. He would murder you for calling him either.
Just to name a few.

[Pex]

The only difference between Drow and Elves is that the Drow admit they're racist snobs.

[JoeJ]

I make it clear before anybody creates their characters that half-orcs are widely viewed as unintelligent, violent, and dishonest. If you choose to play a half-orc you should expect to face significant discrimination. (Not surprisingly, this discrimination pushes many half-orcs into situations where crime is a more attractive option than it might otherwise be, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

[LaserFace]

I tend not to delve too deeply into social commentary for games. Sometimes I can bring up an analog to a real life phenomenon but it's in the service of having an interesting scenario for an adventure. Like maybe it would be fun to make the non-elf party go to Elf Kingdom, notorious for treating non-elves like garbage. But, that's not something I think is worth exploring regularly in D&D.

On a separate note, I've also heard D&D described as sort of like the Mos Eisley Cantina of RPGs regarding race; like mostly everyone is expected to be some weirdo, so something like racism should probably be incidental. Maybe that guy with the Butt-Mouth doesn't like you (and I don't like you either), but nobody else cares.

[willdaBEAST]

I find the sentiment, "no it gets in the way of fighting and looting" baffling. So do names, descriptions of locations, having a campaign plot, etc. None of the fighting means anything without context and things like bias, discrimination and oppression help to create a fantasy world that feels lived in.

Should fantasy racism be mandatory or a focal point? That's entirely up to how you want to run the game. It's the same with sexuality and romance. Some tables may want to explore those themes, others may not.

As others have pointed out, a lot of elements of fantasy racism are already integrated into the game (Dwarves hating Elves, having no issues slaying Orcs, the xenophobia of Beholder and Illithids, etc), so it's a truly bizarre argument to say that racism has no place in DnD.

I think it's also a bad sign that in a hobby like DnD, where the player base struggles to be inclusive (not only racially, but with gender and sexuality), there's resistance to addressing some of those issues when you're free of the constraints of real world politics.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think it's also a bad sign that in a hobby like DnD, where the player base struggles to be inclusive (not only racially, but with gender and sexuality), there's resistance to addressing some of those issues when you're free of the constraints of real world politics.

I personally don't see it as a bad sign. Just because we are getting better at having different races, genders, sexes and whatever sitting at the table, doesn't mean people really want to relive those experiences in their free time. Nor should every DM feel like they have to include it just because their group isn't all white cisgendered dudes, especially if they feel uncomfortable or unable to address the issue.

[CantigThimble]

There are lots of interesting and worthwhile stories that can be told that necessarily involve racism. But there are also plenty of interesting and worthwhile stories that don't involve racism. There's nothing wrong with doing the latter in D&D. Whether or not racism might exist in your world, it doesn't need to be a cornerstone of the stories you're telling.

In addition to that "People I want to play D&D with" and "People I want to discuss racism with" may overlap sometimes, but they don't overlap completely.

[Arcangel4774]

I think its a delicate line to walk. The more modern way to make racial statements is painstakingly overt. Frankly it almost always detracts, either from the statement itself or whatever story you use as the vehicle. Subtelty and tact make it possible to use fantasies as good allegory.

Xmen, for an example, is heavily based on the different practices between Malcolm x (Magneto)and MLK Jr.(Proffesor X). Its not too difficult to see, especially once pointed out, but it doesnt detract from the characters or story.

On the other hand you have movies like Star Wars: The Last Jedi, where the overt nature of the social statements, among many things, left many fans dissapointed. Characters like Rose and Holdo are widely considered to have detracted from the movie.

[willdaBEAST]

I personally don't see it as a bad sign. Just because we are getting better at having different races, genders, sexes and whatever sitting at the table, doesn't mean people really want to relive those experiences in their free time. Nor should every DM feel like they have to include it just because their group isn't all white cisgendered dudes, especially if they feel uncomfortable or unable to address the issue.
Again I'm not saying incorporating any of those issues into a campaign are mandatory, I'm pointing out that DnD has recognized it's issue with inclusivity and is trying to reach out to broader demographics. For part of the community to then say, "we don't want to discuss any of those issues, we're just playing a game", smacks of privilege (I'm not a fan of this word, I think it generates contention and isn't well understood but I couldn't think of a better term). White heterosexuals may not want to deal with heady social issues in their escapism, but they also don't have to deal with nearly as much racism, sexism or discrimination in their real lives. Doesn't that seem to be a double standard? "We recognize that our game isn't diverse, but don't bring any of your real life baggage (which I don't have to deal with as a heterosexual white man) into the game."

[GorogIrongut]

I'm personally not a fan of whitewashing history and the same goes for my alternative realities. Racism, bigotry and more has existed forever and will continue existing as long as we're human. For me, a story isn't worth telling/being a part of if it doesn't feel real. Removing the possibility of racism would ruin the experience for me... not that it has to play a pivotal role in the story, but it should definitely be part of the back ground music.

Npc's will have their own prejudices. Society the same. Characters are welcome to do whatever they want as long as there's no unanticipated player on player bigotry. If my players work it out beforehand, then I'm all for it.

[ZenBear]

I find race relations to be a nearly unavoidable facet of every D&D game because Rangers are such a popular class.

Favored Enemy. Racism is a class feature. 🤣

[Honest Tiefling]

Again I'm not saying incorporating any of those issues into a campaign are mandatory, I'm pointing out that DnD has recognized it's issue with inclusivity and is trying to reach out to broader demographics.

Shoving racism into the game from people with no inclination nor desire to broadcast a meaningful message is probably not the way to get other people into the game, either. Why WOULD racist themes even appeal to certain groups above others? Why would having racism be a better way to be inclusive rather than having actual diversity within the game?


For part of the community to then say, "we don't want to discuss any of those issues, we're just playing a game", smacks of privilege (I'm not a fan of this word, I think it generates contention and isn't well understood but I couldn't think of a better term).

While I do get your point of sweeping the issue under the rug, there is a time and a place for issues to be discussed. And sometimes, people don't want to discuss it and that should be respected. Ramming social awareness down people's throats isn't going to produce good results or make any positive changes.


White heterosexuals may not want to deal with heady social issues in their escapism, but they also don't have to deal with nearly as much racism, sexism or discrimination in their real lives.

Speaking as a non-heterosexual white non-male I don't really want to deal with these issues during my fun smacky-smacky loot time, either. Yeah, I'll run some stories with it as I have stated earlier, but I don't really need it in every single activity I enjoy. Why the hell would I blame a man for wanting the same thing?


Doesn't that seem to be a double standard?

Assuming that Group A automatically wants to discuss these issues while group B does not doesn't seem much better, really.


"We recognize that our game isn't diverse, but don't bring any of your real life baggage (which I don't have to deal with as a heterosexual white man) into the game."

That's conflating two issues, a lack of diversity and a lack of adversity brought on by that diversity. You can have one without the other, and I do like that 5e and even Paizo seems to have made a bigger push to have more varied characters. Doesn't mean I want those varied characters to face bigotry all of the time.

[GorogIrongut]

I find race relations to be a nearly unavoidable facet of every D&D game because Rangers are such a popular class.

Favored Enemy. Racism is a class feature. 🤣
Lol. Too true.

[NaughtyTiger]

I was playing a Mountain Dwarf with a grudge against a full Orc in the party (Volo's)

Volo's clarifies that Monstrous Races are viewed as such and should experience some hell. (Heck even half elves get crap for not being elf enough)

That said, when I said out loud, "We should kill all of your kind..." the table went silent and everyone got real uncomfortable with how it sounded...

[ad_hoc]

If the table is made up of a bunch of white people, then they probably don't know what racism looks like or how to incorporate it into the game.

[Laserlight]

If the table is made up of a bunch of white people, then they probably don't know what racism looks like or how to incorporate it into the game.

That's a pretty racist thing to say. :-)

Our campaigns have had racist characters (eg the elf who disliked humans as much as he did orcs, because they were both forest killers), but we have not had racism as one of the themes of a campaign.

We're here to smite evil (and, well, some neutrals, and occasionally good that doesn't cooperate fast enough) and take names...okay, mostly just to smite things, really.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If the table is made up of a bunch of white people, then they probably don't know what racism looks like or how to incorporate it into the game.

I need to take exception to this. I'm as white as they come (vampiric skin tones even) and I've experienced outright racism directed at me. For my place of origin, my language, and my accent. I've heard "why do you talk to those animals, they don't deserve anything good" (speaking about other people, from supposedly good members of society). Judging what someone's experienced by their race or gender is exactly the kind of thing we should avoid.

I have racist cultures in my setting. But it's because those are ignorant bigots, it's not hard coded into the setting. Not even for demons or devils. Or orcs or red dragons. And in some places, it's the goblins looking at the humans like they're rare and dangerous beasts.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's a background element in a lot of my campaigns. Sometimes it's the element. You can usually tell how dark I'm going by how prevalent racism is in the setting.

My current one has it bad, though mostly human cultures against other human cultures. The party has only started getting the hints that the elves and dwarves of the setting have supremacist views towards humans, and are starting to shuffle uncomfortably at the idea that the nations they've been fighting aren't really wrong, and have real grievances that their king won't acknowledge, exasperating everything.

My players like a meaty, philosophical story with morale complexity and shades of grey. I don't think most do. My approach is probably the wrong one for the average table.

[ad_hoc]

That's a pretty racist thing to say. :-)


I need to take exception to this. I'm as white as they come (vampiric skin tones even) and I've experienced outright racism directed at me.

And this is why.

White people don't experience racism. "Reverse Racism" is not a thing.

This is why it is a bad idea to try to have themes of racism in your games. Because you don't know what it is. All you're going to do is make a mockery of what racism really is.

If anything, let this be a plead to you to actually go educate yourself. That's all I'm going to say as there is nothing worse than a bunch of white people arguing about what racism is.

[willdaBEAST]

Shoving racism into the game from people with no inclination nor desire to broadcast a meaningful message is probably not the way to get other people into the game, either. Why WOULD racist themes even appeal to certain groups above others? Why would having racism be a better way to be inclusive rather than having actual diversity within the game?

Speaking as a non-heterosexual white non-male I don't really want to deal with these issues during my fun smacky-smacky loot time, either. Yeah, I'll run some stories with it as I have stated earlier, but I don't really need it in every single activity I enjoy. Why the hell would I blame a man for wanting the same thing?
I understand your points, but you're repeatedly straw-manning my posts.

At no point have I said racism needs to be dealt with in DnD. I'm responding to sentiments that it shouldn't be part of the game (when it already is).

Incorporating racism into a campaign doesn't mean you're "shoving it down people's throats". You can handle it subtly or make it the central focus. Stop trying to paint my position as extreme when it isn't. Why are you making assumption that the group is all against the idea of including themes of racism (that's what session 0 is for) and the DM is forcing it upon them?


Why would having racism be a better way to be inclusive rather than having actual diversity within the game? Again, you're changing the argument and trying to push me into a ridiculous position. Diversity in the game isn't exclusive to diversity among the players. What I'm saying is that the reluctance to address issues like racism might contribute to the lack of diversity within the player base in the same way having only hideous hags and heavily sexualized female characters is a turn off for many women.


While I do get your point of sweeping the issue under the rug, there is a time and a place for issues to be discussed. And sometimes, people don't want to discuss it and that should be respected. Ramming social awareness down people's throats isn't going to produce good results or make any positive changes. DnD is the perfect medium to explore different perspectives and themes. You can switch genders, play a character from a different culture, play as a fictional monstrous creature, etc. That can happen responsibly with respect and consideration, it can be awkward and offensive, or it can be somewhere in between. Again you're forcing my position to an extreme and arguing against that. Please address what I'm writing, not the easiest argument to discredit.


Assuming that Group A automatically wants to discuss these issues while group B does not doesn't seem much better, really.
Yet again, I never said that. I spoke out against the inconsistency both internally of denying themes of racism in DnD (it's part of the lore and mechanics) and how it might relate to player diversity. Full stop. At no point did I tell anyone how to run their game or that they should be forced to include any kind of social issue in their campaign.

[Unoriginal]

Before this continue and people get angry, I'd like to remind everyone of the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1), in particular the "Inapropriate Topic" section.

[Kane0]

My campaign world has plenty of it (both within the same bloodrace and between the three bloodraces), but it generally is not the focus of play unless the players choose to make it so, like getting knee deep in intrigue or deliberately heading into foreign locations. It's a part of the world much like muggings in back alleys and bribes to officials but it's there to make the world feel real, not to make a point politically speaking.

[Arcangel4774]

"Reverse Racism" is not a thing.

Agreed. All racism is racism. Requalify something as reverse racism to allow certain racist actions is still racism

[willdaBEAST]

And this is why.

White people don't experience racism. "Reverse Racism" is not a thing.

This is why it is a bad idea to try to have themes of racism in your games. Because you don't know what it is. All you're going to do is make a mockery of what racism really is.

If anything, let this be a plead to you to actually go educate yourself. That's all I'm going to say as there is nothing worse than a bunch of white people arguing about what racism is.
You're defining racism as systemic/institutional racism, which seems to be extremely common these days. That's fine, but you should clarify that. I agree there is no such thing as reverse racism when one group is being oppressed by another, but that's a very narrow definition of racism.

Definitions of racism almost always include systemic racism as part of the definition, but the primary meaning is generally for individual racism: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" - Merriam-Webster

Any individual can be racist (and almost certainly is to some degree), but systemic racism is a different concept. Racial prejudice seems to be the term that now means racism, if racism is solely determined to mean systemic racism. I have no problem with either definition, but it's clearly confused a lot of people and there needs to be some kind of consensus on the meaning.

[Dwarven Cabbage]

My current Pathfinder game has a rich history of where the Dragonborn were enslaved to the Dark Elves (more like Elder Scrolls dark elves) for thousands of years. The game started 50 years after a war fought by all the Free Races (humans, elves, dwarves, etc) in order to free them. Now that the Dragonborn are free, they face a stigma of some races being accepting of them and others not-so-much.

An instance was where the players were going into a walled, human city. Humans fought on the side of the dragonborn in the war all those years ago, but the guards at the gate harassed and pestered the dragonborn PC even after they'd already been let into the city. The other PCs tried to talk the guard into leaving but it led to some arrests (assaults on officers of the law) and negotiations with the Captain of the guard.

It exists in my world only as a means to show that the world can feel "real" at times, despite the fantasy that surrounds it.

[Willie the Duck]

I think it's also a bad sign that in a hobby like DnD, where the player base struggles to be inclusive (not only racially, but with gender and sexuality), there's resistance to addressing some of those issues when you're free of the constraints of real world politics.

I think one has to understand that there's also a lot of history of the D&D community not doing this well. I'm not sure what you've been around for, but I can think of a lot of examples: AD&D (1e) and the gendered stat limits. The harlot table. Drow. the Wizards.com forum threads during 3e (especially during the release of Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds). And of course all the wonderfully toxic alignment discussions which pop up around this game. Everyone's experience is different, but anecdotally in my own there's good precedence to be hesitant to trust that anything positive will come out of exploring those theme in any great depth. The freeing from the constraints of real world politics have not always been a positive thing. A lack of real world consequences sometimes brings out the worst in people (I say, on an internet forum, natch).

[Ganymede]

I agree there is no such thing as reverse racism when one group is being oppressed by another, but that's a very narrow definition of racism.

It is also the only sociologically meaningful definition of racism. Other definitions, such as the "race caused someone to be a jerk" definition, simply aren't very helpful for anything, really. Those other definitions also don't add anything compelling to a fantasy world. In short, the "Butt-chin at the Mos Eisley Cantina doesn't like you" definition of racism is neither valuable nor interesting.

[Honest Tiefling]

I understand your points, but you're repeatedly straw-manning my posts.

Perhaps I came across as too hostile in my posts. In which case, I do apologize, as such is unwarranted and I should have been more careful with my tone.

However, I do think my original point stands: Not wanting to experience or address racism or other issues does not mean that people want to ignore these issues, but could be for various other reasons. They might want to just play the game and whack things. They might feel uncomfortable addressing the issue, particularly with people they don't know or with experiences they are not familiar with. They might not know how to weave it into the narrative in a meaningful way other than 'racism bad'.

I don't think it is a bad sign that people don't want to address them in the game. Nor do I think this attitude is confined to those who have never experienced it, as we don't know who the heck is posting and even white males heterosexual cisgender whatever males can experience bigotry. It can occur for other reasons than just trying to silence other viewpoints, which is the idea I disagree with, and I think there are so many it is not a troubling sign on it's own.

Roleplaying can be a wonderful experience that really makes you think, as you have pointed out, and that I will not argue with. Perhaps it could be a powerful tool to help people understand others, but...Well, honestly, maybe that shouldn't happen when people are trying to discuss ways to murder the dragon to ransom the princess. That might get weird. From personal experience, it can also lead to silliness, as anyone who has likely roleplayed with a drow at the table can attest to. I can say for certain that I have played with men who don't mind ladies in leather bikinis with whips, but I can't say that it has really opened anyone's eyes.

Perhaps if you feel that it can be used positively in this regard, maybe tell us about how using racism in a game did actually involve a meaningful discourse.

[OldTrees1]

It is hard to not have discrimination in a fantasy setting because the setting deals with more kinds of differences than our IRL society has learn to recognize civil rights for. When is the last time your character considered the Illithid as a Mind Flaying Monstrosity to be avoided at all costs? What about the general avoidance of intelligent undead or even preaching the extermination of undead? Hell, what about devils/demons, are all of them inherently and forever irredeemable?

Those are questions our IRL societies have not had to think about. So settings we create will naturally, by reflecting the IRL society we take as default, have some of these preconceptions and reactions to these differences.

[Sigreid]

This thread has taken a turn that would probably be better off on another forum. I for one, only play the game with friends and family. If we feel a desire to address real world socio-political issues, we're not going to do it in a game we play for fun.

In any event I personally define racism as making assumptions about people based on the least interesting thing about them and one of the very few things they have absolutely no control over.

Sigreid out.

[krugaan]

This thread has taken a turn that would probably be better off on another forum. I for one, only play the game with friends and family. If we feel a desire to address real world socio-political issues, we're not going to do it in a game we play for fun.

In any event I personally define racism as making assumptions about people based on the least interesting thing about them and one of the very few things they have absolutely no control over.

Sigreid out.

There is so much insanity going on right now that arguing the pedantics of racism in a fantasy game does seem particularly petty.

[Slybluedemon]

The reason i think that Racism shows up in D&D is the fact that in D&D you have to deal with so many things we don't have to deal with IRL such as multiple intelligent species using currency to buy goods and services. Magic being casted as easy as breathing air. Dragons paying you to travel the world to stop evil.

Of course, we are going to grab on to racism when Roleplaying because its something we have seen, have participated in, and/or have been the victim of it. It's one of the easiest concepts to get in a fantasy world.

When you read "Dwarves hate Elves" you mark that down as something easy to do for your Dwarf character.

[Corran]

Well, I have mostly good experiences as far as incorporating a little racism in the game world is concerned.

First time it happened, was way back. The group had come upon a young green dragon who seemed rather friendly. One of the players at the table went: ''Guys, I read about green dragons the other day and there is no way we can trust him, he is going to get us in the back!'', or sth like that. The DM told the player to roll for his character to know that, player didn't make the roll, yet we all behaved as if we knew that (ie we were very careful and reluctant to continue dealing with the dragon). The DM handled that very well, by changing his script completely. Basically he threw all the lore about dragons out the window, and he turned the dragon into a secret ally of the party, who one time even helped us escape a very difficult situation. Eventually there was some dialogue between us and the dragon, and we basically asked him something along the lines ''But aren't you evil?'', only for the dragon to reply sth like ''you read one book about dragons that one human wrote, how many green dragons do you think he met before writing this book?''. Or sth close to that. Now, I know for a fact that the DM was not going for an anti-racist message, at least this was not his intention. He was trying to salvage the campaign for the most part, that's why he abandoned the idea of the villain dragon, and the dragon just appeared out of nowhere to save us to prevent a possible TPK. I know that, cause we were all (including the DM) pretty young at that time, and racism was not an issue we were very aware of (at least consciously). This is my old dnd group. Now that we are older, when we hang out from time to time, and the conversation will inevitably go to dnd campaigns of the past at some point, we often recall this particular campaign. ''Hey, do you remember the racist party?!'' (though to be fair, we mostly remember this campaign cause it was the first time the DM got rid of official lore and replaced it with his own, and seeing that for the first time, the realization that you can actually do sth like that was a big deal for us).

Tieflings and racism is a combination I have found enjoyable. There were a few times when the party would just be stopped at city gates and held a little longer for the guards to ask us questions, cause they had a tiefling with them (ie my character). One time the guards were trying to pick on me, only for the group to stick up for me. Not the epitome of a golden roleplaying opportunity, but it was a roleplaying opportunity nonetheless and it added something to the game, rather than subtract from it. Or one other time, I would play a character who was very supersticious (the whole spitting 3 times and making a circle thing whenever he saw one) and racist against tieflings in particular. And the poor fellow would desperately try to force his beliefs into the other party members because he really believed it and he wanted to warn them. One time the group took a dungeon crawl mission from a tiefling NPC. My character refused to even attend the meeting cause he thought it was a trap of sorts (even though he hdn't even heard of that tiefling NPC before). And when we took on the quest, my poor character would act paranoid most of the time, constantly looking left and right for signs of a trap or an ambush.

All that said, I did have one short experience of this sort that I didn't enjoy. I played a session DM'ed by a friend of one of the guys of my group. Basically this guy was ready to start a new campaign for his group, and he wanted to run the first session with us to give it a test. After a little while, it became clear to me that the guy was racist. I wont go into detail, suffice to say that all the references he made and all the in-game racism displayed was modeled very accurately after real life racism. And the way he did it showed it was more than just good acting. That was not pleasant.

All in all, I think adding racism to the game world can help make it a bit more real and alive, in lack of a better description. I do however think this is better accomplished if the DM is doing that for that exact reason and not for projecting their views or ''sense of humor'' or because they just cant help it.

[Jethro]

I fricken love this game of D&D.

One of the reasons I love it is beating the heck outta some baddie. Another is I love rolling dice. Another is watching a story unfold before me that I can directly affect. Another is I love to act.

But my favorite reason I love D&D is because of the moments where a character is put into a moral quandry. Those are simply golden. Shows like Critical Role make their bones off moments like that. Do I save the girl or kill the bad guy? Do I ally with the ne'er-do-well to stop the BBEG or turn the criminal in for the crimes they've committed? Even the simple, do I let the insult slide or slide my sword from it's scabbard, is a wonderful moment.

Not everyone likes this though. The topic of racism makes people uncomfortable...mostly because it forces us to examine our own beliefs and actions, just like many of those other moments do. For me, though, those are the moments I play for. Even when I play a bigoted, pompous, noble buffoon I am forced to examine my own beliefs and actions through theirs.

My most memorable moment was as a half-drow Drizzt-like character (my first toon - we all start somewhere :smallwink:) being talked to dismissed in a super racist manner...it set me (the player) on edge...but I had to examine what my char would do. And where I (the player) would have reacted in a challenging confrontational (possibly violent) way, my char wouldn't couldn't given the circumstances. It actually made me think of what it must have been like living in segregation - where injustice is legal justice. It was frustrating and infuriating and bloody wonderful.

Now that's not for everyone, but I'm pretty sure the OP was more interested in whether/how people use racism in D&D, and I can say for me it's a very interesting concept that I like exploring. As someone said, it's hard coded in the game already and, if ToA is any indication (which was just so SO SOOO disappointing to see some of the content in an otherwise well designed adventure), it's still present in the content produced, so for me it's strange when it isn't addressed in world...or even worse when it's used selectively and inconsistently...because IRL it's a part of my daily life just like having a job (dungeoneering) or having a drink at the bar (tavern) after a long day.

So I'd say it can be used well or not used at all. I'd be fine with either, just be consistent. If you want a Good vs. Evil type campaign, go for it and leave the moral gray areas behind. But if you want something a little murkier, racism is a gold mine of gray. Just be sure you're playing with people that like to examine that stuff and be consistent.

[willdaBEAST]

Perhaps I came across as too hostile in my posts. In which case, I do apologize, as such is unwarranted and I should have been more careful with my tone.
I appreciate that and I'm not trying to be contentious either.


Perhaps if you feel that it can be used positively in this regard, maybe tell us about how using racism in a game did actually involve a meaningful discourse.

When I ran CoS I didn't harp on race, but I made it clear that non-humans were a rarity in Barovia and while the citizens were suspicious of outsiders in general, they were especially suspicious of non-humans. This attitude alleviated once the party proved to be effective at disrupting some of the evil across the land. To me elements like this are important for immersion and add greatly to making settings feel like lived in spaces.

I think it's a simple way to make a NPC (hopefully) unsympathetic. Having them be extremely kind to one type of humanoid and rude to another is one way to give the players a clue that this NPC may not be the best ally. Similarly it can be effective to add nuance to a character or setting. That king who's daughter you rescued? Maybe he's a xenophobic jerk and you've returned the only thing stopping him from trying to eradicate his rivals. I like exploring gray morality and racism is one way to achieve that.

I played a Lizardfolk who was raised away from his people and was taught that his instincts and lack of empathy were wrong. When he went to Chult he had to overcome his racism towards his own people, slowly trying to understand their traditions and culture. His ideals of chivalry and fairytale endings were in direct conflict with survival in the jungles of his homeland.

I've never made racism a central theme, more part of the description of the world or characters. My current campaign has slavery as a focus, but that slavery is not racially motivated (well the Xanathar is the BBEG so from his perspective it is).

Like I wrote earlier, racism is a part of life like romance or sexuality. While none of those themes have to be part of a campaign and can be uncomfortable, I feel like I'm not creating a living and breathing world for my players if I ignore major aspects of life. Does that mean I feel the need to fully role-play sexual encounters? Definitely not.


I think one has to understand that there's also a lot of history of the D&D community not doing this well. I'm not sure what you've been around for, but I can think of a lot of examples: AD&D (1e) and the gendered stat limits. The harlot table. Drow. the Wizards.com forum threads during 3e (especially during the release of Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds).
I certainly agree, Chult is another great example. Even with ToA they went to great lengths to try to provide more diverse perspectives, but they also didn't hire a diverse collection of writers to accomplish that.

Racism like a lot of themes is not for everyone and can be handled horribly. My position on the matter is that you should challenge yourself and others with these complicated and delicate subjects. However, I also recognize that my ideal game sounds a lot like Jethro's, I love wading into murky gray morality and that's not for everyone.

Would I protest a game store that bans any racially motivated plots or character development? Probably not, but I also wouldn't want to play there.

[ZenBear]

My next character will be a Dwarf Ranger (Favored Enemy: Orcs) named Jed Forest of the South Carolina Baptist Confederate Congregation. (https://youtu.be/rbor4bNVhp8?t=13m36s)

[Malifice]

Racism IRL is almost always predicated on the existence of biologically discreet 'races', each then attribed specific traits positive and negative.

If you think that biologically discreet races exist, and that those races have particular traits, you're a racist.

The truth is that 'race' has no taxonomic meaning, and that 'race' is a subjective social construct and not an objective biological one. Biolgically discrete races IRL do not exist. The races (and the traits we assign to them) are entirely arbitrary, and socially constructed.

In the game, 'race' is a false term. It should really be 'species'. An Elf isnt a different race; its an entirely different species.

[Sinon]

If you think that biologically discreet races exist, and that those races have particular traits, you're a racist.

The truth is that 'race' has no taxonomic meaning, and that 'race' is a subjective social construct and not an objective biological one. Biolgically discrete races IRL do not exist. The races (and the traits we assign to them) are entirely arbitrary, and socially constructed.

This cannot be said enough.

[Honest Tiefling]

No offense willdaBEAST, but while your examples sound like more like ways to integrate racism in a more general sense to flesh out a setting, not to approach it to have a discourse that would be relevant to the modern world. I mean, I guess people would LIKE to have the ability to punch racists, but you can't really do that in most cases.

Do I think it is a bad thing? No, adding to a campaign setting is not a bad thing, and I'd wish more people did it. But I don't think it has much to do with the diversity at your table, either, since few of those examples are really going to be applicable to many people.


Racism like a lot of themes is not for everyone and can be handled horribly. My position on the matter is that you should challenge yourself and others with these complicated and delicate subjects. However, I also recognize that my ideal game sounds a lot like Jethro's, I love wading into murky gray morality and that's not for everyone.

I do agree that a roleplayer on either side of the screen should challenge themselves, but that doesn't mean charging headfirst into things. If the setting has themes that wouldn't allow racism (such as a heavy magocracy that wants to oppress the muggles of every race and doesn't give a hoot about your skin color or how many legs you have), or the DM doesn't feel like they can give a nuanced portrayal of racism and wants to hold off on it,, or people don't want to suffer through it when they do every day, I don't think that's a bad sign or a sign that they don't want to acknowledge these issues, ever.

[Malifice]

This cannot be said enough.

I remember a less enlightened time in RPG history where human 'races' were given different ability score modifiers and traits.

It was almost invariably the case that races with dark skin got penalties to intelligence and bonuses to strength, light skinned races were often the default with no mods (or bonuses to wisdom) and 'eastern' races got bonuses to dexterity and penalties to charisma.

Flat out racism.

Not as bad as RaHoWa but, still pretty bad.

[Kane0]

Just like most other things it's bad if it's forced, especially when it comes to entertainment.
It can be done and it can be done well, but forcing it is just asking for trouble.

[JackPhoenix]

I find race relations to be a nearly unavoidable facet of every D&D game because Rangers are such a popular class.

Favored Enemy. Racism is a class feature. 🤣

To this day, I remember my old dwarven cleric from PF, doing the math for an attack... "+1 BAB, +2 Str, +1 morale bonus from bardic inspiration, +1 competence bonus from Guidance, +1 bonus for masterwork weapon, +1 luck bonus from Divine Favor, +2 bonus from charge, +1 bonus for being racist against goblins." And after all that, I've rolled 1 and missed anyway.

[Malifice]

I find race relations to be a nearly unavoidable facet of every D&D game because Rangers are such a popular class.

Favored Enemy. Racism is a class feature. 🤣

Favored enemy isnt racism. In FR a Ranger could take FE vs a group (like the Zhents, or members of a Faith).

You just know a lot about a particular group of people, and how to fight them better (amongst other things).

Racism is the belief that homo sapiens is broken down in discreet biological 'races', and that those 'races' each have distinct traits (such as higher or lower intelligence, predispositions to certain behaviour, athletic ability and so forth).

Many people fall into that category by the way. Many people hold racist views. Indeed most people are racist to some extent or another. Often it's not malicious, it's just due to being misinformed, and the human propensity to stereotype and put people into convenient groups.

We tend to only treat it as a bad thing or racism when the person with that belief then advocates for, participates in or supports (expressly or implicitly) discrimination or different treatment based on those views.

I suppose you cant punish a though crime. But the racism is the belief, not the acts that flow from that belief.

[GreyBlack]

The elf gets called "knife ears." The dwarf is "stunty." Maybe you've even got humans being referred to as "dire halflings." These epithets are crazy common at the gaming table.

I believe that fantasy racism can be a good thing. I've got a write-up on the topic below the comic over here (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/fantasy-racism), but the TLDR is this: In a game of D&D you're "allowed" to explore themes of race and prejudice without “real” cultural hangups getting in the way. You aren’t going to risk offending the ethnically orcish guy at the table after all. More to the point, when paired with D&D's underlying Fellowship of the Ring theme (a bunch of diverse heroes work together to fight evil) you wind up with a pro-social sort of message underlying your game. In other words, including racial elements in your game has the useful side effect of encouraging empathy. For my money, this seems like a healthy sort of activity.

Question: Do you like to include racial themes in your games? Why or why not?

OVERT racism? Not generally (although the BBEG of my home setting is massively racist against everyone except for wood elves. This character is a wood elf). However, race is a theme in at least some of it because I like to explore preconceptions of the traditionally evil races and twist how the "good" races maintain their cultural supremacy (Dwarves are slavers, Elves don't have a centralized form of government, gnomes use their technological supremacy to bully other races on their continent, etc.). My setting is less about the races and more about how stories are told to reinforce a narrative, and how breaking that narrative apart can grant better understanding.

[Willie the Duck]

I remember a less enlightened time in RPG history where human 'races' were given different ability score modifiers and traits.
It was almost invariably the case that races with dark skin got penalties to intelligence and bonuses to strength, light skinned races were often the default with no mods (or bonuses to wisdom) and 'eastern' races got bonuses to dexterity and penalties to charisma.
Flat out racism.
Not as bad as RaHoWa but, still pretty bad.

That sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't place it. Do you remember what game or setting that was?



My position on the matter is that you should challenge yourself and others with these complicated and delicate subjects. However, I also recognize that my ideal game sounds a lot like Jethro's, I love wading into murky gray morality and that's not for everyone.

Would I protest a game store that bans any racially motivated plots or character development? Probably not, but I also wouldn't want to play there.

Okay, yes, true--You should not be expected to patronize a store whose values or decisions you disagree with. However, there is a huge amount of daylight between that specific (and rather far-fetched) scenario, and what you stated. Which was:


Again I'm not saying incorporating any of those issues into a campaign are mandatory, I'm pointing out that DnD has recognized it's issue with inclusivity and is trying to reach out to broader demographics. For part of the community to then say, "we don't want to discuss any of those issues, we're just playing a game", smacks of privilege (I'm not a fan of this word, I think it generates contention and isn't well understood but I couldn't think of a better term). White heterosexuals may not want to deal with heady social issues in their escapism, but they also don't have to deal with nearly as much racism, sexism or discrimination in their real lives. Doesn't that seem to be a double standard? "We recognize that our game isn't diverse, but don't bring any of your real life baggage (which I don't have to deal with as a heterosexual white man) into the game."

and:


I think it's also a bad sign that in a hobby like DnD, where the player base struggles to be inclusive (not only racially, but with gender and sexuality), there's resistance to addressing some of those issues when you're free of the constraints of real world politics.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound very similar to the scenario of a game store banning you from exploring racially motivated plots or character development. It sounds a lot more like you making demands of other gamers, and how they conduct their own private leisure activities, lest they incur upon themselves your judgment of privilege and double standard (I'm still not clear on that one).

Now, that was pretty hard pushback, I am aware. And I don't want to be confrontational here. Some of this might be wording and communication and everyone might not be disagreeing on positions. Privilege was never a great term to become part of the race/gender/sexuality debate as of late, much less to bring into this discussion. However, there is one that is... probably not better, but at least more appropriate... luxury. Those of us who are majority demographic in whatever way have the luxury of not thinking about our race/gender/sexuality/etc. while we are playing our silly little Reptiles and Labyrinths game do not. This is an undeniable truth. And it might be genuinely harder for them to treat D&D races or gendered monsters or whatever as fantasy fluff. It is not inherently resultant from that truth that the rest of us doing (ham-handed, most likely) race relations mockups in our games will accomplish anything beneficial.

[Sception]

I have only once, in all my years of playing tabletop games, stood up and walked away from a table mid session, and it was over poor handling of this specific issue.

The problem with fantasy racism in D&D is that it's typically handled exceptionally poorly by DMs who have basically no educated background in the history or reality of actual racism in the real world, let alone any concept of how it would look different in a fantasy world without the history of European colonialism - in particular the need to square the thereforto unparalleled inhumanity of European global conquest, colonialism, and intercontenental slavery with the humanist values of enlightenment philosophy, with our concept of racism as a pseudoscience & philosophy arising specifically to patch over that particular gulf of cognitive dissonance. Let alone the centuries long legal and economic history built on that foundation resulting in the deep and self-sustaining structural iniquity that comprises the legacy of that racism in the modern world. The lack of education isn't their fault really - there is almost no country in the world where the subject of actual historical and modern racism is a comfortable thing, particularly for the people in power, so almost nobody gets a proper historical perspective on it as part of a standardized public education.

Racism as we know it isn't just animosity between rival civic or ethnic groups, it isn't bad people thinking bad thoughts about other people just because. It's a highly specific mental construct particular to our own world history. A fantasy world without that history, especially one where different races are literally different species, might have vaguely similar animosities, but it most likely wouldn't look or feel very much like the racism we know. Heck, most fantasy is loosely based on Medieval Europe, a time period before racism as we understand it in the modern world had even come to be.

If you are considering going down this road in your own game, I recommend watching Lindsay Ellis's video breaking down the use of the 'fantasy racism' trope in the recent Netflix film Bright for an example of the potential common and serious serious pitfalls associated with the trope that you should take pains to avoid in your own world building:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLOxQxMnEz8

You could also try looking up critical deconstructions of the racial themes in Bioshock Infinite, the Dragon Age series, or most recently Detroit: Become Human for additional examples of things to avoid. Sadly, i do not have any particularly good examples to point to of 'doing it right'. Because this trope is almost never 'done right', and frankly I would recommend shying away from it altogether, beyond typical cliches of dwarves being gruff with elves or the like. Because this topic is so important, so hurtful, so widely (and often deliberately) misunderstood, and so particular to our specific real world historical context, it's probably just not something that a fun times fantasy tabletop game is equipped to handle well.

[Unoriginal]

That sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't place it. Do you remember what game or setting that was?

Pretty sure it was FATAL.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Question: Do you like to include racial themes in your games? Why or why not?

I do, though I understand why someone might not want to.

For me it's a realism*/world-building thing. If racism exists in the real world between different races of the same human species, how unlikely would it be that racism wouldn't exist between entirely different species of fantasy creatures?

I try to craft my worlds to feel natural and organic, e.g. the port city is cosmopolitan and (relatively) tolerant because many different species/races/cultures move through there and have contact, whereas in more isolated areas hostility towards outsiders (racial or otherwise) is more common.

*And before anyone says "It's a fantasy setting why does it have to be realistic?" Yes it is a fantasy setting, but the emotions, motivations and actions of the various NPC's have to feel organic and believable i.e. not a medieval fantasy world where everyone has the social mores of 21st c. San Fransisco.

[willdaBEAST]

No offense willdaBEAST, but while your examples sound like more like ways to integrate racism in a more general sense to flesh out a setting, not to approach it to have a discourse that would be relevant to the modern world.
No offense taken, I never claimed to run a campaign with racism as a discourse relevant to the modern world. You posed a specific question and I gave some examples off the top of my head from in game experience.

I think you could easily adapt a historical moment into the framework of DnD. For example the birth of hip hop in the Bronx or the rise of gangsta rap in Los Angeles. Both of those would deal heavily with racial issues, but also run the risk of being exploitive or insensitive. Personally I would want someone who experienced that era to run a campaign on those subjects, but it could be done with care by someone removed from those communities.

In my current campaign I take real world elements of how intertwined New England was with the slave trade in the Caribbean (rum was a huge commodity for the North and they sent salted cod South in return, it's even the national dish of Jamaica). What I'm interested in exploring is how despite feeling removed and superior to slavers, the North heavily relied on that labor and benefitted from the exploitation.


I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound very similar to the scenario of a game store banning you from exploring racially motivated plots or character development. It sounds a lot more like you making demands of other gamers, and how they conduct their own private leisure activities, lest they incur upon themselves your judgment of privilege and double standard (I'm still not clear on that one).

Now, that was pretty hard pushback, I am aware. And I don't want to be confrontational here. Some of this might be wording and communication and everyone might not be disagreeing on positions. Privilege was never a great term to become part of the race/gender/sexuality debate as of late, much less to bring into this discussion. However, there is one that is... probably not better, but at least more appropriate... luxury. Those of us who are majority demographic in whatever way have the luxury of not thinking about our race/gender/sexuality/etc. while we are playing our silly little Reptiles and Labyrinths game do not. This is an undeniable truth. And it might be genuinely harder for them to treat D&D races or gendered monsters or whatever as fantasy fluff. It is not inherently resultant from that truth that the rest of us doing (ham-handed, most likely) race relations mockups in our games will accomplish anything beneficial.

I think entitlement is a good term for the concept of privilege, luxury captures a lot of the concept as well. What I was trying to express is that while racism does not have to be part of any game, I recommend taking a long hard look at yourself if you're coming from a position of power socially and discourage exploration of those issues, especially when trying to be inclusive of people or groups that are marginalized. I'd also hazard a guess that lack of diversity and unwillingness to address diversity in game are linked (not fully, but there's a correlation). Again, there's no obligation. I'm pushing back against the idea that there's no place for exploring issues of diversity in DnD.

DnD has a recognized bad past when dealing with gender issues and diversity. Efforts are now being made to address that within WotC, which is important, but as players we have a lot of opportunity to contribute to that effort. With a mature and supportive group, I don't think anything should be left off of the table. Again I'm puzzled by claims that I'm making demands of anyone over anything, all I'm asking is for some self-reflection on these issues. I'm not even convinced everyone on this forum would agree that there are representation problems within DnD, which is why I think dialog is important.

For the campaigns I run, I have a session 0 where I discuss with the players both what kind of tone they want and what I hope to explore within the setting, making sure they're all comfortable with those themes. Currently one of my players expressed desire not to deal with things like sexual violence, especially against children, and I respect that. Similarly, what you do at your table is up to your discretion.

The only reason I brought up the game store scenario was to illustrate where my personal beliefs are, since there seems to be a push to have a concrete position.

[krugaan]

Racism as we know it isn't just animosity between rival civic or ethnic groups, it isn't bad people thinking bad thoughts about other people just because. It's a highly specific mental construct particular to our own world history. A fantasy world without that history, especially one where different races are literally different species, might have vaguely similar animosities, but it most likely wouldn't look or feel very much like the racism we know. Heck, most fantasy is loosely based on Medieval Europe, a time period before racism as we understand it in the modern world had even come to be.


Pretty much just called nationalism, back then? It's tribalism, and it's rooted deep within humanities more animal nature. DnD is largely like Star Trek: a bunch of humanoids exploring the galaxy, with typically anthropomorphic motivations. It seems absolutely plausible to me that racism would exist in DnD, because them v. us is a primal, subconscious part of us... that we have a large cerebrum that can suppress our instincts notwithstanding.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLOxQxMnEz8

You could also try looking up critical deconstructions of the racial themes in Bioshock Infinite, the Dragon Age series, or most recently Detroit: Become Human for additional examples of things to avoid. Sadly, i do not have any particularly good examples to point to of 'doing it right'. Because this trope is almost never 'done right', and frankly I would recommend shying away from it altogether, beyond typical cliches of dwarves being gruff with elves or the like. Because this topic is so important, so hurtful, so widely (and often deliberately) misunderstood, and so particular to our specific real world historical context, it's probably just not something that a fun times fantasy tabletop game is equipped to handle well.

Sort of interesting, might look it up later. I would put forth Deus Ex: Human Revolution as a decent example of racism.

[Plantae]

Racial themes are something I explore in my games, largely within a discussion about colonialism and imperialism. My current campaign is set on a continent with several native races that was invaded by a human and elvish empire in the not-so-distant past. The conquest is long over, and the invaders failed to fully conquer this continent, but they also never left. Some time has passed, and now all these groups live uneasily together.

For the most part, these different groups are generally just trying to live their own lives, but the story never loses sight of the fact that the imperials started this conflict, even though the different sides eventually agreed to make peace. These themes are not the primary focus of the story, which is driven by other plot factors, but the continuing cycle of violence is a major part of the campaign. There's a real tension between whether there should be peace for peace's sake, when this would involve ignoring certain historical grievances.

Three of the player characters are imperials (from very different provinces) who recently arrived on the continent. One is an imperial whose family settled on the new continent several generations earlier. And one is a member of one of the native races. Suffice to say the different perspectives make for a rather interesting play experience, but at this point they are all fire-forged friends.

One of the characters is an imperial human ranger who began the campaign with deep prejudice against one of the native races, due to the death of his mother, who came to the continent as a missionary spreading the imperial pantheon. However, his quest for vengeance against his mother's killers has forced him to confront the fact that much of what he's been told about the continent, its native people, and about his mother's own activities was a lie or a half-truth at best.

Frankly, I don't think the story of the campaign could be told without considering these types of themes. And I think it would have been more problematic to ignore them in the context of this kind of history, which involves some races attempting to conquer others. Given that a lot of fantasy settings involve conflicts between different fantasy races, it seems strange not to address those animosities in some way, though whether should involve analogues to racism in the real world is another question.

I also wouldn't ever run a game like this if I didn't think my players were okay with and even interested in exploring these types of themes; they're all pretty committed role-players, so for them, this is part of the experience of D&D. Everyone was well-aware that this campaign would have a darker tone and would involve certain uncomfortable themes. If that's not true for your group, then you shouldn't run this type of game.

[Hears You]

I have only once, in all my years of playing tabletop games, stood up and walked away from a table mid session, and it was over poor handling of this specific issue.

The problem with fantasy racism in D&D is that it's typically handled exceptionally poorly by DMs who have basically no educated background in the history or reality of actual racism in the real world, let alone any concept of how it would look different in a fantasy world without the history of European colonialism - in particular the need to square the thereforto unparalleled inhumanity of European global conquest, colonialism, and intercontenental slavery with the humanist values of enlightenment philosophy, with our concept of racism as a pseudoscience & philosophy arising specifically to patch over that particular gulf of cognitive dissonance. Let alone the centuries long legal and economic history built on that foundation resulting in the deep and self-sustaining structural iniquity that comprises the legacy of that racism in the modern world. The lack of education isn't their fault really - there is almost no country in the world where the subject of actual historical and modern racism is a comfortable thing, particularly for the people in power, so almost nobody gets a proper historical perspective on it as part of a standardized public education.

Racism as we know it isn't just animosity between rival civic or ethnic groups, it isn't bad people thinking bad thoughts about other people just because. It's a highly specific mental construct particular to our own world history. A fantasy world without that history, especially one where different races are literally different species, might have vaguely similar animosities, but it most likely wouldn't look or feel very much like the racism we know. Heck, most fantasy is loosely based on Medieval Europe, a time period before racism as we understand it in the modern world had even come to be.

If you are considering going down this road in your own game, I recommend watching Lindsay Ellis's video breaking down the use of the 'fantasy racism' trope in the recent Netflix film Bright for an example of the potential common and serious serious pitfalls associated with the trope that you should take pains to avoid in your own world building:



You could also try looking up critical deconstructions of the racial themes in Bioshock Infinite, the Dragon Age series, or most recently Detroit: Become Human for additional examples of things to avoid. Sadly, i do not have any particularly good examples to point to of 'doing it right'. Because this trope is almost never 'done right', and frankly I would recommend shying away from it altogether, beyond typical cliches of dwarves being gruff with elves or the like. Because this topic is so important, so hurtful, so widely (and often deliberately) misunderstood, and so particular to our specific real world historical context, it's probably just not something that a fun times fantasy tabletop game is equipped to handle well.

So much this, Racism is a construction of a society and history. Racism in a different history is just not going to look the same. If as a storyteller this is something you're going to deal with you need to make sure your world is built in a way that will handle it. What in you story creates this conflict is such an important question otherwise it just feels hollow.

Like, there's even interesting things to play around with in D&D because one of the most interesting things to me is how much longer or shorter races live then each other. Humans that live in a formerly elven city can't understand why the point-ears just can't get over something that happened a thousand years ago, while Elves are all "you're desecrating my grandmas house."

[Sigreid]

I'm actually much more likely to go with cultural rather than racial bigotry as a theme.

[mgshamster]

As a player, sometimes. I've done characters who were racist against other races. My last one was an elf who thought elves we're the superior species, and treated any non elf as lesser. Whenever I do this as a player, it's always a flaw that the character overcomes.

As a DM, it's entirely dependent on the theme of the campaign. In more realistic games or games that already have the theme in the basic setting, I'll include it.

In Atomic Highway, most humans are racist against mutants, and it's one of the things players have to deal with if they choose to play a mutant.

In Shadow of the Demon Lord, racism exists more commonly in the heart of the empire, especially against clockworks, Goblins, and orcs.

In high fantasy games like D&D, usually I just ignore it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm actually much more likely to go with cultural rather than racial bigotry as a theme. That's the smart way to go.

Any number of people in this discussion are mixing/confusing group versus group conflict with racism. While it's hard to argue (and I don't think it can be argued) that all racism isn't group versus group conflict/enmity, not all group versus group conflict / enmity is racism.

Racism is a particular subset of how people, as a group, deal with 'the other' but it is not the entire set.

As to ad-hoc's trolling, that poster is leaping upon the opportunity dangled by the OP. The hook was well and truly baited. I confess that I reported the OP since I thought it was a troll (but I guess I was wrong, my bad). I tip my cap to the participants who are doing their best to keep this a civil and productive discussion.

[Galactkaktus]

Racism IRL is almost always predicated on the existence of biologically discreet 'races', each then attribed specific traits positive and negative.

If you think that biologically discreet races exist, and that those races have particular traits, you're a racist.

The truth is that 'race' has no taxonomic meaning, and that 'race' is a subjective social construct and not an objective biological one. Biolgically discrete races IRL do not exist. The races (and the traits we assign to them) are entirely arbitrary, and socially constructed.

In the game, 'race' is a false term. It should really be 'species'. An Elf isnt a different race; its an entirely different species.

Aren't Elves a really bad example since they can evidiently have offspring with Humans?

[krugaan]

Aren't Elves a really bad example since they can evidiently have offspring with Humans?

Half Orcs, Half Dragons, Tieflings...

Yeah, trying to ascribe real world biology to fantasy races is kind of ... futile.

[Galactkaktus]

Half Orcs, Half Dragons, Tieflings...

Yeah, trying to ascribe real world biology to fantasy races is kind of ... futile.

I don't think so you just need to have the answer to the question can x female have fertile offspring with y male to know if they are members of the same species or not.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think so you just need to have the answer to the question can x female have fertile offspring with y male to know if they are members of the same species or not.

Not true. Several different species can have fertile offsprings.

In 5e the creatures who are compatible with different species were created that way by gods.

[Galactkaktus]

Not true. Several different species can have fertile offsprings.

Interesting could you give some examples?

[krugaan]

Interesting could you give some examples?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_cat

I'm sure there are more.

Mules, killer bees ... uh ... others.

[Lord Raziere]

This thread is why I stick to not having racism at all in my games, unless its a trait for a specific bad guy to have. Orcs and goblins and whatever, they can all be good, and there is always members who are good people, and I'm not going to designate any race as always evil. Because screw that, I'm playing it safe. and if anyone is murderhobo enough to disagree, good I don't want people like that in my games anyways. I love being an action super hero who does awesome combat, but I don't stoop to murderhoboism.

[Nifft]

As to ad-hoc's trolling, that poster is leaping upon the opportunity dangled by the OP. The hook was well and truly baited. I confess that I reported the OP since I thought it was a troll (but I guess I was wrong, my bad). I tip my cap to the participants who are doing their best to keep this a civil and productive discussion.

OP is trying to drive traffic to his web comic, nothing more.

The OP's provocation of discussion / disagreement / dispute is just a method for keeping the thread high on the page, so more people will see the OP and click the link.

[Galactkaktus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_cat

I'm sure there are more.

Mules, killer bees ... uh ... others.

Hinnies are sterile Mules are also sterile and male savannah cats are also sterile until the 5th generation after the first 50/50 mix when they are about 98,4% Serval.

As for the killer bees "The African honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata) is a subspecies of the Western honey bee." So both the western honey bee and the african honey bee are members of the same species.

[krugaan]

Hinnies are sterile Mules are also sterile and male savannah cats are also sterile until the 5th generation after the first 50/50 mix when they are about 98,4% Serval.

As for the killer bees "The African honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata) is a subspecies of the Western honey bee." So both the western honey bee and the african honey bee are members of the same species.

Ah, forgot about the fertile offspring part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

It's a distinct species on Wikipedia, and bees obviously must be fertile to survive in the wild?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clymene_dolphin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation

for short.

[Corsair14]

Very often. Most human cities and towns in a medievil world are going to be racist against the unknown. They might be ok with your normal demi-humans but weird stuff even in more diverse areas will be treated suspiciously at best. Lizardmen, birdmen, catmen, and especially demonic looking tieflings(who should be ridiculously rare anyway) would likely never be welcome in normal cities. In more rural towns and villages they would likely be met with outright hostility, torches and pitchforks as they take the blame for anything bad that occurs to anyone.

Fluffwise, elven cities likely would not allow non-elves or at least very limited non-elves inside. Certainly would be a stretch that they would allow half orcs or any other green skin race, more likely they would be pin cusions before they knew they were near the settlement.

[krugaan]

OP is trying to drive traffic to his web comic, nothing more.

The OP's provocation of discussion / disagreement / dispute is just a method for keeping the thread high on the page, so more people will see the OP and click the link.

Shrug, I think the discussion has merit.

I didn't click the link anyway.

[Galactkaktus]

Ah, forgot about the fertile offspring part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

It's a distinct species on Wikipedia, and bees obviously must be fertile to survive in the wild?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clymene_dolphin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation

for short.

Yes killer bees are fertile but the african honey bee is a subspiecies of the western honey bee so they are not different species. The dolphine thing was really interesting i'll read some more about it before I'll say anything about it since i don't know enough to assert anything yet xD

[krugaan]

Yes killer bees are fertile but the african honey bee is a subspiecies of the western honey bee so they are not different species. The dolphine thing was really interesting i'll read some more about it before I'll say anything about it since i don't know enough to assert anything yet xD

Ah, yeah, I read it wrong, it is still the same species name.

[OldTrees1]

Yes killer bees are fertile but the african honey bee is a subspiecies of the western honey bee so they are not different species. The dolphine thing was really interesting i'll read some more about it before I'll say anything about it since i don't know enough to assert anything yet xD


Ah, yeah, I read it wrong, it is still the same species name.

There are multiple different definitions of species that biologists discuss while discussing more detailed aspects. A sufficient genetic difference resulting in a sufficient phenotypical difference between the two populations can be seen as the low bar for speciation. The barriers to fertile hybrid offspring is a higher bar for speciation.

Of course D&D does not perfectly map to our understanding of how reality works. So you might never reach a good mapping of species to specific D&D races (Humans and Dragons being particular problem points) but the general idea of "they are species, what about discrimination between and within species?" holds.

[Wryte]

I recently brought my players through a desert town where they quickly realized that despite their party containing a dragonborn, a tiefling, and a tabaxi, it was the elves drawing all the attention... and not in a good way. The elven NPC who had hired them to escort her home overpaid for every good and service she purchased just to get the businesses to deal with her, and our lovely elven sorceress who had gotten quite used to being able to twist anyone around her finger suddenly found herself making all her charisma checks at disadvantage. At one point they entered the town tavern, and a pair of patrons who had been on the verge of breaking out into a fight with each other suddenly refocused on them, and had to be subdued. Even the tavernkeeper, who clearly fancied himself more enlightened than his peers, judging by his loudly stated support for the dragonborn/halfling couple (long story; our halfling ranger rescued a baby kobold in an earlier dungeon after the rest of the party killed its mother. She's been carrying it around ever since, and when she and the party's dragonborn rogue entered the tavern together, the keeper mistook it for their baby), extended the elven members of the party the courtesy of allowing them to sleep in the stables... for their own safety, of course.

A little digging by some of the non-elven party members turned up old legends about beautiful elven maidens causing chaos and conflict among human settlements with their supernatural powers, and a little further digging turned up that these elven women were actually shapeshifters called "dazzles" which feed on powerful humanoid emotions. The party (correctly) deduced that there must be a dazzle in town, and (incorrectly) that they could clear elves' reputations by unmasking it. Their NPC ally sadly warned them that it was a waste of time, as these attitudes toward elves were deeply ingrained all across the western side of the desert. Even if they revealed the dazzle, it wouldn't change anything.

They hunted the dazzle down, anyway, but it escaped, and there was nothing else for them to do but move on to their next destination.

[Sception]

The precise scientific definition of species is itself an intellectual construct rather than a "real thing" in the sense of existing outside of the concept. As already pointed out, the 'fertile offspring' definition would make humans and crocodiles the same species in D&D land, since dragons can produce fertile offspring with both in most settings.

The point is, humans, dwarves, goblins, and elves are meaningfully, biologically different creatures in D&D land in a way that, say, Northern European and East Asian people in the real world just simply aren't. Would that lead to something like our concept of racism arising apart from the particular context that produced it in our world, or would we see something very different? Interspecies stereotyping and animosities would certainly exist, but would they look at all like what we call racism? How would mixed species civilizations function? Would a caste system develop around that? Would the people of culture A feel more kinship with different species in culture A than with people if the same species, but from different culture B?


There is another issue to consider. In addition to the risk of 'getting it wrong', there's also the risk of bringing an issue ti the game that some of the people playing the game are there in part to get away from. Same with sexism & other similar forms of oppression. For a player who has to deal with the negative impact of these things as the background radiation of their entire lives, there's a good chance they'd rather just not have to think about that stuff at all at the game table. Imagine going to a game after hours of working a soul draining customer service job. While fireballing a few customers might be cathartic, chances are you would probably prefer to avoid anything that directly reminds you of that real world burden in the game altogether.

In that light, 'not addressed at all' might be not only easier, but also downright preferable to 'portrayed well'. Real world allegory is something D&D does poorly, but escapism is something D&D does well, and it's probably better in the long run to lean into the game and genre's strengths rather than their weaknesses, unless you absolutely know what you're doing, and your players know what they're getting into up front.

[Nifft]

The precise scientific definition of species is itself an intellectual construct rather than a "real thing" in the sense of existing outside of the concept. As already pointed out, the 'fertile offspring' definition would make humans and crocodiles the same species in D&D land, since dragons can produce fertile offspring with both in most settings. [*nods in lizardfolk*]

A word like "species" is a very poor fit for fantasy in general, and D&D in specific.



The point is, humans, dwarves, goblins, and elves are meaningfully, biologically different creatures in D&D land in a way that, say, Northern European and East Asian people in the real world just simply aren't. Would that lead to something like our concept of racism arising apart from the particular context that produced it in our world, or would we see something very different? Interspecies stereotyping and animosities would certainly exist, but would they look at all like what we call racism? How would mixed species civilizations function? Would a caste system develop around that?

I'd argue that the needs for social justifications of caste systems are primarily behind the invention of what we'd think of as racism.

[Galactkaktus]

The precise scientific definition of species is itself an intellectual construct rather than a "real thing" in the sense of existing outside of the concept. As already pointed out, the 'fertile offspring' definition would make humans and crocodiles the same species in D&D land, since dragons can produce fertile offspring with both in most settings.


No it whould make dragons the same species as both crocodile and humans but it whouldn't make humans and crocodiles the same species. Since humans and crocodiles can't have fertile offspring.

[Unoriginal]

No it whould make dragons the same species as both crocodile and humans but it whouldn't make humans and crocodiles the same species. Since humans and crocodiles can't have fertile offspring.

Science doesn't work that way.

If A is of the same species than B and C, then B and C are of the same species too.


In D&D, being able to reproduce is not an indicator of shared species at all. The various sapient species (or most of them, anyway) were created by separate gods at different points. Elves used to be perfect shapeshifters who could turn into any being, item or place, Dwarves were created from metal, etc.

[Galactkaktus]

Science doesn't work that way.

If A is of the same species than B and C, then B and C are of the same species too.


In D&D, being able to reproduce is not an indicator of shared species at all. The various sapient species (or most of them, anyway) were created by separate gods at different points. Elves used to be perfect shapeshifters who could turn into any being, item or place, Dwarves were created from metal, etc.

You should look up ring species.

[KorvinStarmast]

OP is trying to drive traffic to his web comic, nothing more. That too was part of the report, but I guess it's within bounds.

[Angelalex242]

What's the point?

If you really WANT to make elves hate dwarves in a Tolkien sort of way, super duper. If it's more of a world where Legolas and Gimli are bros for life, that's cool too.

At my table, it doesn't come up.

The only real 'ism' to be found is evilism.

Why'd you kill that guy?

"He pinged evil."

[Amdy_vill]

The elf gets called "knife ears." The dwarf is "stunty." Maybe you've even got humans being referred to as "dire halflings." These epithets are crazy common at the gaming table.
i love these


Question: Do you like to include racial themes in your games? Why or why not?
yes if the players are willing to explore it. thing like this really depend on what people come to the table for. so if i had a table that did not care for it i would not push it. me as a player: i love things like this in a game. it make me feel like i am in a real world and not just murdering things.

[randomodo]

/Shrug/ There's room for many kinds of settings and game tones. You don't have to have, for example, canon rampant discrimination against Tieflings if you don't want to. If you have the right group, a dark setting similar to dragon age and how it deals with elves, or The Witcher series is perfectly valid.

it does not make you a bad human nor a bad player if you don't like settings like that, and it does not make you a bad human or a bad player if you do.

[Nifft]

That too was part of the report, but I guess it's within bounds.

I asked, and it's not.

There's a thread here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?564282-Daily-Self-Promotion-Threads

Got closed before I had a chance to ask everything I'd wanted, though, so if you open a new thread furthering the topic I may chime in.

[JackPhoenix]

You should look up ring species.

Perhaps *you* should look them up. Ring species are the part of the same species, in your earlier example, it would mean that humans, dragons and crocodiles are the same species, but humans and crocodiles aren't neghboring subspecies, so they can't interbreed.

[Galactkaktus]

Perhaps *you* should look them up. Ring species are the part of the same species, in your earlier example, it would mean that humans, dragons and crocodiles are the same species, but humans and crocodiles aren't neghboring subspecies, so they can't interbreed.

That depends entierly on who you ask which is my whole point when it comes to ring species. It's not as easy as if species A is the same species as species B And species B is the same species as species C then species A and species C are also the same species.

Under speciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
"The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours)."

[Beelzebubba]

That stuff is so depressing in real life. I play D&D to escape.

I make any 'fantasy racism' cartoonish and amusing whenever I include it.

[Potato_Priest]

Personally, I enjoy some ‘grit’ in my fantasy, and thus I enjoy some reasonable treatment of racism, sexism, slavery, xenophobia, religious zealotry, government corruption, and all manner of other things that I frown upon in my actual life. They are historical and modern realities, and I see no reason why they wouldn’t be realities in most fantasy settings either. If you or your group like to ignore them then that’s fine, it’s none of my business anyway really. But I do like that sort of stuff.

[Eggy the Duck]

As a GM, when it fits the world and situation. Which is fairly often on a macro/world scale, and rarely on a micro/situational scale. That is to say that while racial/species tension and hate exist it usually takes a back seat when you have PC heroes involved.

As a player, I don't mind one way or the other so long as the GM or party member doesn't force it down peoples throat unnecessarily. Now, if it makes sense and adds to the experience in some way, sure. Gives more resources for both the players and the GM to work with if they choose to, or to ignore if they don't want to do anything with it right now.

For a game group where RP isn't a focus, probably not important either way. If it exists or not who cares? You're just there to kill and loot.

[Maxilian]

I'm ok with racism in DND, but in most cases you have to be careful of comparing DND racism with real life racism, as DND racism may be logical (A good example is Tieflings, they are literally creatures with the blood of demons and that can make fire appear around them, etc etc etc, so the racism is not that "ilogical" unlike real world)

[Malifice]

The only real 'ism' to be found is evilism.

Why'd you kill that guy?

"He pinged evil."

Which of course is also evil. Now the killer pings.

[JoeJ]

Which of course is also evil. Now the killer pings.

What is this "ping" you speak of? In this edition detect evil and good doesn't actually detect evil or good.

[kamap]

It has its uses and can be funny but its easy to go overboard with it and should never be a focus or a recurring theme.
Thats atleast my take on it.

My last character I played, was a grumpy dward who was ordered to go and find a certain party and keep it alive at all costs by his god, he really hated it.
He couldn't do anything to his god and the party members where the embodiment of his problems, so he called them all names so no race was singled out it was fun and funny at times but I didn't call them names all the time.
I used their names or hey you most of the time but if my character was fed up with something I'd call them names according to what race they were.

[Malifice]

What is this "ping" you speak of? In this edition detect evil and good doesn't actually detect evil or good.

When I drape a Talisman of Pure Good on the person.

Does he scream?

[Boci]

When I drape a Talisman of Pure Good on the person.

Does he scream?

Yes he does. How is your character telling the difference between a 6d6 scream and an 8d6 scream?

[Malifice]

Yes he does. How is your character telling the difference between a 6d6 scream and an 8d6 scream?

Good point.

I'll dominate person him into attuning to Robes of the Evil Archmagi.

He does that he's either a high level thief, or an evil spellcaster.

Guess I'll have to torture him till he confesses his evil while my undead minions hold him down. Then I'll draw and quarter the 'evil-doer'.

It's what a LG person would (indeed should) do.

[2D8HP]

...the emotions, motivations and actions of the various NPC's have to feel organic and believable i.e. not a medieval fantasy world where everyone has the social mores of 21st c. San Francisco.


Just curious (since I'm in and work for San Francisco), why did you use AFTER?


.....Real world allegory is something D&D does poorly, but escapism is something D&D does well, and it's probably better in the long run to lean into the game and genre's strengths rather than their weaknesses, unless you absolutely know what you're doing, and your players know what they're getting into up front.


I very much agree.

[krugaan]

Good point.

I'll dominate person him into attuning to Robes of the Evil Archmagi.

He does that he's either a high level thief, or an evil spellcaster.

Guess I'll have to torture him till he confesses his evil while my undead minions hold him down. Then I'll draw and quarter the 'evil-doer'.

It's what a LG person would (indeed should) do.

There's implied sarcasm here, right?

[DRD1812]

I make it clear before anybody creates their characters that half-orcs are widely viewed as unintelligent, violent, and dishonest. If you choose to play a half-orc you should expect to face significant discrimination. (Not surprisingly, this discrimination pushes many half-orcs into situations where crime is a more attractive option than it might otherwise be, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

That sort of thing seems fully in line with the Pathfinder description I'm most familiar with:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/half-orc/

In my mind, it's a major theme of the rules set rather than any individual campaign or or PC. That mess is baked in. Sure an individual or group can downplay the theme, but it's still swimming about in the general fantasy-world background of the game.

I'm intrigued by the idea of using this theme consciously. It's not especially common (or popular) to design with a theme-first attitude, and I could see how it would get heavy-handed in a hurry. If done well though, I'm willing to bet your could craft some compelling world moments. Witness the Dragon Age elf ghettos, for example. Why not something similar on the tabletop?

[Sception]

I think the thing most fantasy racism gets wrong is in presenting, whether explicitly or implicitly, a "reason for it", whether that reason in universe is accurate or not. The logic goes "reason -> bigotry -> oppression". Examples of explicit reasons include the manipulative shapeshifters from an earlier post in this thread, or to grab a film example the history of predator species killing and eating prey species in Zootopia. Examples of implicit inciting incidents include the case of half orcs, where bigotry towards them is implied to be a byproduct of orc violence. Or especially eggregiously cases like the drow who as part of their lore literally had their skin turned black by the gods as punishment for how evil they were holy **** how did that ever fly that shouldn't even have been an acceptable world building concept back in the 70s what the ever loving heck.


I'm not saying these attitudes don't make some amount of logical sense in universe, but as allegories for real world racism go they don't just fail, they fail in an especially misinformative way, with the (usually entirely unintentional) implication that racism in general must have some at least semi-logical underlying cause. In the real world, what we call racism is a lot less "logical" then that, and tends to arise in exactly the opposite pattern, oppression first, then racism to justify the oppression, then maybe some arbitrary reason to justify the racism.

Capital R Racism as we know it today was a post-hoc justification concocted to permit systems of violent oppression that already existed or were in the process of being created. It wasn't a logical response to a crime suffered, but rather an illogical justification for crimes being actively committed. "We are systemically stealing their land, or their riches, or enslaving them, or stamping out their religion or language, or kidnapping and indoctrinating their children, or even just outright killing them, but our supposed morals say you shouldn't do these things to people, so instead of not doing these things we're going to convince ourselves, and do everything in our power to convince them, that they aren't actually people in the first place." It was a mental crutch propping up a colossal case of cognitive dissonance. To be sure, those same crimes had been committed between and within cultures dating back to antiquity, but they didn't reach for the same racial excuse to justify them, largely because they weren't being committed on the same intercontinental scale. When it's the English oppressing the Irish or the Scottish, skin color isn't a useful basis for your after-the-fact justifications.

"Reasons" for the racism are also more often concocted post-hoc, whether couched in pseudoscientific, religious, or fabricated historical terms. Eg: phrenology, "13th tribe" malarky, early mormon beliefs about native americans. Either way, the supposed causes/reasons/justifications for the racism are devised after the fact to justify and perpetuate that racism, which itself was devised after the fact to justify and perpetuate the already existing aggression / oppression.


Fantasy Racism almost always gets the whole thing completely backwards, and the examples that are explicitly trying to stand as allegories for real world racism, whether the predators in Zootopia to the orcs in Bright to the elves in Dragon Age, tend to be the examples that get this most wrong. The species animosity in Tolkien barely counts as racism. Yeah, elves and dwarves grumble at each other, but it isn't treated especially differently from the animosity between Gondor and Rohan, and none of it is trying to be allegory for real world racism. Tolkien famously disliked and disapproved of allegory, and actively avoided deliberate allegory in his work. Elements of the mentality of his culture worked their way into his work, as is basically unavoidable, but they weren't put there deliberately.

If you're going to have racial or cultural tensions between different fantasy species in your game, but you want to maintain the fun times cooperative escapist fantasy aspect of the game, or at the very least don't want to invite heated real-world political arguments between the real human beings at your table, then I'd strongly recommend following tolkien's model - let there be rivalries and animosities (and friendships and alliances), but try to avoid direct allegory. Take queues from history, but don't try to directly mirror it, and make sure the history you're taking queues from is accurate to the setting you're depicting. Most D&D fantasy is medieval, and modern concepts of race and racism simply did not exist in the same way at that time.


About the closest I've seen published D&D material get to right with allegorical racism is Eberron's treatment of goblins & other monstrous humanoids on Khorvaire, where they existed and had their own civilizations on the before humans, elves, etc. arrived and violently conquered the continent, and now the "civilized" races look down on goblins and the like, viewing them as a lesser class of people / inherently savage or violent / etc, largely as an after-the-fact justification for the historical crimes their predecessors committed against them - toppling their civilizations, killing most of their people, and stealing their homelands in the first place. Even there though, you kind of have to read between the lines to get some of that, and there are things the setting still gets wrong in this regard.


And there's still the fundamental bit that different fantasy "races" are, in universe, actually different. Different creatures with different biologies, instincts, and abilities, in a way that real world races just aren't. A problem further complicated by the fact that one of the fantasy races is always labelled "human", generally the one with the culture most closely based in north/west europeans, while the others aren't. And while it's not at all consciously intended on the part of the world designers, there are some unavoidable negative implications baked in to any world where the fantasy english or french or german people are "humans", but the fantasy mongolian or chinese or japanese or indian or african or indigenous people are "not humans".

Which is yet another reason to avoid direct parallels to real world cultures & histories.

[Willie the Duck]

Or especially eggregiously cases like the drow who as part of their lore literally had their skin turned black by the gods as punishment for how evil they were holy **** how did that ever fly that shouldn't even have been an acceptable world building concept back in the 70s what the ever loving heck.

I recall Rob Kuntz or Mike Mornard addressing that. Gary stated something like, 'and these guys look like a photographic negative of an elf -- black sclera and white pupils, red irises, and black skin, but like actually black, not like black-person black. That make sense?' and the table of lilly-white gamers all said, 'oh sure, that's obvious. I can't see anyone potential problems.' Whenever I feel like that is simply implausible (no one could be that sheltered, right?), I remind myself that 1977 was closer to 1942 than it is to today, and Holiday Inn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_Inn_(film)) (1942) put Virginia Dale in Blackface during a musical number in celebration of Abraham Lincoln's freeing of slaves (the plot involved celebrating holidays with musical performances, including Abraham Lincoln Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%27s_Birthday)). It was genuinely a different time.

[Talionis]

I think you have to be careful with your table if you bring this up. Even if you can handle the subtexts, issues of race can quickly be misconstrued by different people. This can be such a hot button that you need to take the temperature of the table and possibly have a conversation about the issue with all your players before going down the road.

I think you can leave this out and not lose much.

If you have a mature table then you can have similar conversations like X-Men where they use racism towards Mutants as a "safe" analog to explore themes.

I am sure my tables have skirted around these issues, but we generally don't make them big issues or prolong them. To some extent, if taken far enough they are unavoidable, because if everyone hates all Goblins because Goblins raid the village, then you have a "form" of racism. Which can bring up the issue of whether there are any "good" goblins.

[DRD1812]

The species animosity in Tolkien barely counts as racism. Yeah, elves and dwarves grumble at each other, but it isn't treated especially differently from the animosity between Gondor and Rohan, and none of it is trying to be allegory for real world racism.

Nationalism is an interesting paradigm shift for this sort of interspecies interplay. It suggests a culture-first rather than a physicality-first element in world building. Dinotopia-style architecture or cultural practices centered on dragonborn breath weapons can be interesting, but in terms of narrative that stuff tends to be window dressing. In effect, the nationalism model places your focus on lore and world history rather than the (literally) skin-deep aspects of race. It reminds me of the demons and witches from "The Worm Ouroboros," and that's a refreshing setup in a time when the Horde and the Alliance are preparing to go back into a racially-charged war.


I'd strongly recommend following tolkien's model - let there be rivalries and animosities (and friendships and alliances), but try to avoid direct allegory. Take queues from history, but don't try to directly mirror it, and make sure the history you're taking queues from is accurate to the setting you're depicting. Most D&D fantasy is medieval, and modern concepts of race and racism simply did not exist in the same way at that time.

Tolkien's concept of allegory is slippery. He admitted to "applicability" in his work, and that concept is closer to a modern conception of allegory than Tolkien's strict "the ring stands for nuclear power" objections. If you have half-orcs running around your setting, it's tough to avoid parallels to Jim Crow, the one-drop rule, and all the other nastiness that comes with it. Especially when we're told that half-orc prejudice is common in the core racial description. This is the real trick with creating an interesting theme in any work, let along the tabletop: how do you handle the obvious parallels without making it an unpleasant Tolkien-style allegory? I'm not sure that you can wave it away with "modern concepts of race and racism simply did not exist in medieval times" for the simple reason that players are going to bring those concepts with them. In other words, it's much harder to leave behind the modern world for a table of six creatives than a novel written by only one. We bring our baggage to our fantasies, and attempts to shed that baggage can have unfortunate side effects (witness the unsavory blackening of the drow).


And there's still the fundamental bit that different fantasy "races" are, in universe, actually different. Different creatures with different biologies, instincts, and abilities, in a way that real world races just aren't.

This gets to the heart of the problem. If you try to "not see" real world race in a fantasy world, you wind up seeming willfully obtuse. "What? How can you object? They're half-orcs!" Sure they are: https://i.redd.it/hy9qei92hj501.jpg

But if "Bright" makes the parallel too transparent, the aforementioned problem of "marked" drow goes too far the other way, ignoring all the very-relevant sensibilities that modern audiences bring to the table. We're left walking a delicate tightrope, unable to rely on "it's just a fantasy" but unwilling to make a direct parallel.

Your instruction to "make sure the history you're taking queues from is accurate to the setting you're depicting" seems like the best solution. Patterns of oppression repeat themselves, and drawing broadly from historical relationships is a good path towards believable worlds. This book in particular is useful in that regard:

https://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Humor-Around-World-Comparative/dp/025321081X

I remember being impressed by how the jokes repeated themselves when two countries had similar socioeconomic relationships. That held true across epochs and continents. I think the same could apply to fantasy worlds as well.

In any case, thank you for responding in the spirit of the question. We're all trying to create good games and believable worlds. It's worth taking the time to have these conversations, and I appreciate the thoroughness of your response.

[OldTrees1]

I think the thing most fantasy racism gets wrong is in presenting, whether explicitly or implicitly, a "reason for it", whether that reason in universe is accurate or not. The logic goes "reason -> bigotry -> oppression". Examples of explicit reasons include the manipulative shapeshifters from an earlier post in this thread, or to grab a film example the history of predator species killing and eating prey species in Zootopia. Examples of implicit inciting incidents include the case of half orcs, where bigotry towards them is implied to be a byproduct of orc violence. Or especially eggregiously cases like the drow who as part of their lore literally had their skin turned black by the gods as punishment for how evil they were holy **** how did that ever fly that shouldn't even have been an acceptable world building concept back in the 70s what the ever loving heck.


I'm not saying these attitudes don't make some amount of logical sense in universe, but as allegories for real world racism go they don't just fail, they fail in an especially misinformative way, with the (usually entirely unintentional) implication that racism in general must have some at least semi-logical underlying cause. In the real world, what we call racism is a lot less "logical" then that, and tends to arise in exactly the opposite pattern, oppression first, then racism to justify the oppression, then maybe some arbitrary reason to justify the racism.

What about fantasy racism that follows the following pattern?
"difference -> fear -> oppression -> bigotry -> 'reasoning' "

While you can condense "difference -> fear -> ..." into "reason -> ...", I think doing so obscures judgement of those transitions. Sometimes the fears are not justified. Sometimes the reactions to the fear are not justified.

[Horsz]

It's strange that none have still point out that in fantasy setting, racism make actual sense because, i'm sorry to point out, but race actually exist, unlike in reality.

For all discussion about ring species and the like, at the end of the day some race actually have unavoidable perk. For example, even if you discard completely the notion that the race bonus to stat is actually real (ex: +2 charm for aasimar, +2 strength for orc, ecc), an elf still live 10 time the life span of a human, and an orc life less. So we already have an example of elf being superior, as they have way more time to study anything.
Another example are goblin, that breed stupidly fast: they get pregnant in nearly all copulation, and birth from 3 to 5 children at the time. Again, that is overkill as a characteristic in a sentient race, and could easily overwhelm mankind...

And even considering the ring species argument, a dragon is always superior to anything humanoid he breed with: first of all, the offspring are dragonborn and not dragon themself, meaning they don't have the size, life span or access to magic of a dragon, nor is semidivine stat. Than you have hag or demon, that can't be anything else but evil, due to their nature. I would always argue at any homebrewing of the 2 species that aren't evil, as that undermine their lore. Even Orc are arguably a bad race to breed with, as Grumish (at least in the forgotten realm) keep pushing any orc descendants (even the half orc) toward violence and his goal.

And after all, as anyone have still to answer to, who don't slaughter demon or goblin on the spot on a session? That is racism. Especially against poor goblin,that actually can be reformed, as a species. There is countless example in the lore of blue, demon or evil mage that lead enough goblin to for the deadly phenomenon of a goblin horde, something that never happen naturally due to Magabulet and the goblin society...

PS.: and occidental politic, especially that new concept of racism is sooo wrong applied to fantasy.