Diversity & Dungeons & Dragons

True, that’s just how it started :)

Because the "sentient races" are (implicitly or explicitly) mapped onto human races, and racial attributes in fantasy map to racial stereotypes in real life. I don't think anyone is upset that Orcs are "Medium" sized and gnomes are "Small." I think people might (reasonably) be upset that Orcs are pretty much universally depicted as strong, stupid, savages, which the game mechanically supports - (maybe not entirely) coincidentally, the same stereotypes that have been used to justify centuries of colonial pillage and enslavement.

And it really ought to be noted that this entire conception of "race" in fantasy exists thanks to JRR Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings is pretty much a colonialist fantasia written in the twilight years of a dying empire and that doesn't mean it's not a good book or that you shouldn't like it or that you have to cancel JRR Tolkien. I love and revere HP Lovecraft's stories, and we all know what an absolute freak that guy was. But it does mean that there is an ideology that's implicitly baked into the basic premise of the fantasy genre to such an extent that it seems utterly natural to us.

It's helpful here to apply some connotations to terminology. "Prejudice" may be everywhere, but "racism" has a specific meaning that implies a systemic component. It's not just about people being bigoted, but about their ability - consciously used or not - to weaponize that bigotry to negatively impact the lives of those they target.

That's why the "white European" thing is significant, because white Europeans have been very interested in colonizing and empire-building, and have therefore exerted an outsized influence on cultures all over the world. This has resulted in centering the values of white Europeans as "normal" and "baseline." Your own posts reflect that unconsciously. And it's not even a dig - you can be forgiven for not seeing it, because it really does taken stepping back and looking at things from another viewpoint, and the voices of people who can help us do that have historically been silenced and ignored.

The systemic portion of it is NOT the only definition. If an African American man discriminates against a white man, it's still racism.

In modern discussions of racism, no - "racism" is considered to have a power imbalance. That's why it's important to agree to definitions in discussions like this. For purposes of trying to reach an understanding about why marginalized people object to the things we're discussing in gaming, you have to understand that it's about power and who is wielding it.

So you're saying that the definition was changed so that only white people can be racist? That in itself sounds racist...

My opinion is that people need to stop looking for reasons to be offended 🤷‍♂️

Here's a helpful dictionary definition of racism:

rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

So no, the definition hasn't changed, but it is clearly the italicized part of the definition that I'm talking about and that is important when discussing the fact that the dominant culture is portraying itself as "default" and consigning non-dominant groups to an inherently lesser standing.
Interesting. My opinion is that people need to stop telling people that their lack of equality isn't a problem.

I would like to address the idea that this direction as reactionary and based only on emotions. There has been a long history of discussing race in D&D.

In fact, people have been talking about race in fantasy before there was Dungeons & Dragons. You can find criticism of the portrayal of race with the first printing of Lord of the Rings. Settings like Middle Earth and its children (including the Forgotten Realms) have this built-in the idea that race determines behavior, and some races are born evil and inferior and we can kill adults and children without hesitation. This has far too much resonance with the rhetoric of white supremacy toward people of color, especially black and indigenous people.

I remember when Warcraft 3 came out in 2002 and portrayed Orcs as a nuanced, civilized people with an interesting story. They weren't inherently good or evil or less intelligent. Eberron came out in 2004 and revamped race rules, such as alignment restrictions. The setting tossed out racial stereotypes, saying that all intelligent creatures from Orcs to Elves to Gold Dragons are not born inherently good or bad. That episode of Community where a character wears blackface to RP a dark elf happened in 2011, starting a lot of discussion about the inherit racial issues of the game. Pathfinder 2e started distancing themselves from even using the word race, dropping it from the game entirely in 2018.

Dismissing this issue as a reaction to current events is inaccurate.

As a curiosity, I’ve read somewhere that during Tolkien’s time, there was "scientific evidence" of some sort of genetic superiority/inferiority (which Hitler may have used to support his... aaa... theories let’s say...) I don’t think Lord of the rings was obviously about colonial empires, though the feeling at the time was definitely there and it always leaks into the books... like the American sci-fi/hero stuff post wars being always about the big smart and awesome know-it-all can-do guy with the pretty useless woman there just to boost his ego 😅 (a bit oversimplified but you get the idea). As I said, I’m not in opposition to WoTC’s decision at all. I agree it is emotional and basically also response to the zeitgeist. I think that, rationally and objectively the discussion is... too subjective and narrow ( that religious tolerance issue is as actual as racism!). They have modules and books about smart orcs that were brilliant military leaders, drows that refused their culture and evil goddess (yeah, that one), elves in cahoots with evil dragons and Angels falling from grace. Clearly nothing is a given in D&D lore.

I’d add that the Japanese empire was not white Europeans and that I can really see orcs as Germanic tribes, making them not the victims of human colonial empires (say UK vs India) but a culture of raiders with little technology (say Romans vs germans), hopefully showing some alternative reasoning to approach these D&D issue (which is what they are) and how subjective it really is.

Ok, as it's getting heated, I'm gonna lock this thread, and I will unlock this in a few hours. I'd like everyone to review the posts of people who they may not have necessarily agreed with and to try to see their point of view. I'm seeing a few posts that are argumentative, and remember that forums are NOT good places to argue, unless you're going to be very precise. Some points, specially those that are detailed, are easily misinterpreted, and frankly, I think we all have much more in common than not.

I want everyone to take time to think about this, so when I unlock this later on, we can continue the conversation on better grounds.

So Sandy Toksvig must be tall because she's Scandinavian? She's 5' tall. Following your example - if this were D&D, Scandinavians would have +2 to height and couldn't be below average height, and real-life Sandy Toksvig wouldn't be a valid fantasy character. That's what the current system does.

IRL variation between individuals is much larger than variation between groups. To assume something about an individual because they belong to a group would be a pretty stupid IRL, it makes no sense at all in a fantasy game.

---

Anyway - my point was that WotC have been including more nuanced and diverse characters in their modules over the years. They've said that they're going to continue doing this. Surely everybody agrees that this is a good thing.

Did anyone complain when 2e got rid of differential maximums and minimum attributes for male/female characters according to race? You know, when no human female fighter could have more than 18/50 strength and no halfling could have more than 17 strength ? Was there really a reason why half-orc characters couldn't have a WIS or DEX score higher than 14, regardless of their gender?

Was it reasonable to suppose that halflings being smaller could probably carry less? Yes, probably (in an anatomical, physical sense). Did it matter for the game? No, not really. Because all that 'supposed realism' went out the window as soon as you cast a spell or wore a pair of bracers. Was inflicting those limitations helping the game in any way? Not really, as decades of gaming since have proven...

I don't think anyone complained back then and the existence of this odd, unjustifiable rule simply faded from memory. One can just hope that the same will happen here: we'll get rid of racial attribute bonuses and penalties, and the game won't lose anything. We'll realize that all these legacy mechanics were getting in the way of our games, rather than helping them flourish. PCs are not (and have never been) 'average' in any sense (not even in the fantasy, I mean), so there is no need to use any average baseline to build them. Being a different 'race' can (and I argue, should) definitely be about a lot more than just bumping some stats up.

Just to clarify that this is exactly the opposite of what I meant to say.

I am going to back CESN up, I think.

From what I saw in this discussion, the problem is with terminology. The 'Races' in D&D and 'Races' in RL are different, the more appropriate term would be species. The stats and bonuses are there for game mechanics, to balance things out and make it interesting to play as certain race/species.

I wouldn't compare Orcs to African or Germanic tribes (outside of cultural inspiration), as African and Germanic tribes (or Scandinavians, as they were brought up) are humans and Orcs are not. I always assumed that they would have different phisiology compared to humans, therefore, they have, perhaps, a stronger muscle tissue and their brains are not as developed as human's brain is. Same can be applied to, say, elves, they are naturally more nimble, their body frame is smaller than humans' which would be translated to +2 to Dexterity in terms of game mechanics.

You, as a player, are the one who decides if your Orc character is smart or not or if your Elf is clumsy, the players are the ones who distribute the stats for their characters. Sure the previous editions had some issues but I don't think that I would have any interest in playing any other race/species if they all would have same stats as the cultural ascpect is determined by the world that the DM created.

Okay, it’s just when coupled with lines like...
...it reads like it’s out of The Bell Curve.

You say I’ve misunderstood you, and I have to believe you. You know what you meant better than I do.

Except CESN has said that this was this opposite of what he meant.

Taking your example, a +2 to dex for elves means that (with point buy) you can’t get a clumsy elf. Their minimum dex would be 10 (human commoner average).

I don’t think WotC have released their new mechanics to UA yet, but this I think this is exactly what they’re trying to get away from. I believe that they want to distance themselves from the idea that you can apply a group characteristic (elves are more dexterous on average) to an individual. Averages are based on large datasets, they tell you almost nothing about individuals.

But, who knows? It’s all speculation until they release their update.

The discussion has narrowed to distribution of ability score bonuses when making player characters, but I think important context is gets lost unless you look at the bigger picture.

The fact is that in some D&D settings there exists races of people that are born inherently dumb, irredeemably evil, or both, and that they are a plague upon the land coming to kill you, and it is virtuous to slaughter them and their children. "The only good Orc is a dead Orc." This matches really close with white supremacist beliefs and narratives, and how white supremacists describe Muslim and Black people and justify their hatred.

It is a reasonable thing to wonder why the Orc gets paired with dark skinned people. But that has been going on since Tolkien invented Orcs, which were dark-skinned. Since the publication of the Lord of the Rings, white supremacist groups have taken his work to be an allegory of the struggle of the aryan race*.
To this day, I've seen white supremacy groups making memes about immigrants being depicted as the Orcs in the LotR movies.

Anyway, all of this isn't D&D's fault exactly, but the creators built the game and its fiction and its language on top of this mess. Sure, Orcs are green now and not black but the association remains. And it's bothered people for a long time, especially people of color.

I think it's worthwhile looking at this connection to our hobby and untangling it.

---

* Tolkien was very vocal about not taking his work as allegory.

How dare you say this is a white thing. Look at the major genocided in the 20th century, few of them were white on black violence. Rwanda, Cambodia, the current anti Muslim pogroms in China. I'm deeply offended. Not as a white supremacist, but singling out the one race it's fine to do so to. This is a human problem, and truth be told, the white plague has been toward more freedom and equality not less.

Yeah, I'm sorry, Qralloq, but several hundreds of years of European colonialism would beg to disagree with you on this one.

He said it was a white supremacist thing, not a white thing.