Diversity & Dungeons & Dragons

From WotC yesterday: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd

Highlights:
* Orcs and drow are going to be less stereotypically evil - I think most DMs had already done this.
* The Vistani in CoS. Yeah.... I've run this module. It's pretty uncomfortable having to keep answering the players "Yes. It actually says that."
* Ability scores and races. I kinda understand where they're going with this, but that'd be a whole debate which I don't want to join on here. On the plus side we'll see fewer cliché characters where the race was chosen just for the bonus. I'm kinda sick of goliath barbarians, firbolg druids, tabaxi rogues and gnome wizards.
* They're going to try harder, and isn't that the main thing? I quite like the diversity in the new modules like WDH. It's clear that they're already trying quite hard.

I've always been of the school of though that prejudice and discrimination was something for the heroes to overcome. A social challenge if you will (after all you can't be fighting monsters and disarming traps all the time). But hey, god forbid we trigger any half-orcs or drows... **roll eyes**

Intellectual Reasoning vs. Emotional Reasoning ... too many "snap" decisions these days made with the latter method these days me thinks.

But, maybe it'll work. idk

I'm not sure what y'all trying to say here. But it sounds like you're agreeing with WotC.

I see what they're trying to do...I think. I just don't agree with the premise for the "change." But, to each their own.

I think it’s only good that they’re trying to be more inclusive in the future and rectify some of the mistakes that they’ve done. I’m not sure how the whole different ability scores/races thing will work in practice, so I’ll wait to pass judgment on that even if it seems slightly strange on the surface, maybe it works within context. But the rest seems absolutely fine to me, especially when it comes to official releases.

This all seems great, and very in-tune with the cultural moment. I noticed that they don't use the word "races" in their explanation of how the (seemingly entirely optional) new ability score rules will work. This is honestly such a simple, obvious, and long-overdue change.

I think it's really exciting when publishers analyze their past work with a critical eye, and are able to say, "Well, here's the stuff that made this game or module great, and here's where we missed the mark 30 years ago." I don't see how working to make more people feel included can do anything but strengthen a game and its community.

Why is it an "emotional response" when members of minority groups don't want to have to be confronted with material that offends them, but not when people freak out on the internet over half-orcs having something other than a +2 STR/-2 INT ability score modifier? Is that an "intellectual response"? How is it "intellectual" to adhere to stereotypes that are literally based on things like phrenology and scientific racism?

The premise for the change seems to be that people are sick of racist crap. Are you really saying you don't agree with that premise?

I wonder if this rethink of Orcs and Drow will carry over to other intelligent creatures? I came to D&D relatively late, and my group didn't understand why my cleric character insisted on giving last rites to dead Goblins we'd fought and so on. But as a player, it just seemed ethical. Goblins are an intelligent people with their own culture and customs. I guess what I'm saying is that WotC is in difficult waters in trying to distinguish "races" from "monsters." But it's a good question to ponder.

Was there a big outcry to WotC about the racism in D&D over the years? I might have missed all that...being a bit fresh to the tabletop community.

However, my comment was more related to the issue that much is happening very quickly in response to all the "racist crap."

Hence, the Emotional vs Intellectual comment.

That is a good question! :)

If you think this "racist crap" in D&D is modern, then I don't know what to tell you except - no, it's always been always been there. It's just now people aren't putting up with "racist crap" as much - does that bother you? Surely it can't bother you that people are trying to fix it.

As for "very quickly" - they've been on notice since at least 1981. Dragon Magazine, February 1981 https://annarchive.com/files/Drmg046.pdf (discussing part of Greyhawk).

Well... yes.

But the actual point here is that, if published gaming material contains demeaning stereotypes of analogs of RL groups of people, that is clearly not okay. Everyone should be able to join a game with the expectation of feeling equal and included, and it's hard to feel that when the module you're playing contains racist, ablist, or other bigoted assumptions or explicit insults.

It needs hardly be said that it's not half-orcs and drows who are objecting to the negative traits that these races have been saddled with, but members of non-white, non-European heritage groups who are clearly aware of why those negative traits have been applied as they are in the gaming material.

And you can't really have a campaign about overcoming prejudice and discrimination if the material doesn't acknowledge the bigotry that is baked into the concepts.

I also don't see how someone could possibly have a game about overcoming prejudice and discrimination when they meet every real-life attempt to do so with reactionary disdain and smug jokes at the expense of people who have been traumatized by violence and oppression.

And if those negative stereotypes and prejudices are not just that but the literal truth in the game setting

As always, a reminder to keep things civil. I'm seeing some really interesting points that phrase things better than I could have in the past, but keep things friendly.

I was chatting with bowl and ... this is really a non objective debate. No offence to anyone, I understand and agree with the idea. But, rationalising it...

First it is fantasy so yeah... by definition things don’t have to work as in the real world. We can always find the relationships we’re looking for. I mean I can say orcs are basically African tribes and so it’s racist (though some of those empires kicked some proper European ass!). But maybe they are germatic tribes. I mean those guys were big and carried axes no? That’s racist as well because... germans. In respect to the fantasy aspect. Is it ok to have movies about slavery and racism? Then why not games? Different media to explore the same concepts. (I think this is what Kalajel meant)

Second, if we want to go there, race is one problem in the big picture. I mean, I would complain about classes. Really? Barbarians? May as well call them savages or smash peoples! Or the fact that there are literally gods wanting to kill each other. I mean, religious intolerance is as bad as racism and the drow are simply on a crusade/jihad. It’s not personal, they just worship a demon. You can’t even argue they are a bunch of crazies making stuff up because She is real. Deep down, they are oppressed people, not evil.

Which, takes me to the next point... why are demons evil? Because they were born in hell? Just because they were unlucky? Well if that is acceptable, then a race created for evil like orcs should be ok. I mean, it’s the same logic no? Where do you draw the line? Demons are not only a group of sentient races... they are wiser and smarter than the average human... on average

Lastly, the race attributes are comparing to the average human. It’s stats. Is saying the average Scandinavian is taller than the average Japanese offensive? If not, why is it saying that a sentient races has, on average, less cognitive capacity than the human average? (Pretty sure no one argues about the orc +2 STR). Some will be smarter, some will be dumber. It’s just that it’s more likely that PCs will find a dumber one. Nothing is actually preventing any player from making a "orc wizard". I mean, it would just take the GM to not assume optimal and min/max parties and balance the combat no?

I think the issue is that all of the assumptions that are made about what is "default" or "normal" or "human" have invariably done so with the conscious or unconscious centering of traits and norms associated with white European culture and attitudes (not to mention, straight and male expectations and values). That's how the racism and bigotry gets baked right in, and it's why people who are white, of European descent, straight, male, etc. often don't see it. Because it centers their own understanding of the world and mirrors their experiences.

Those of us who aren't part of that overall dominant culture, however, see it - and feel it - very plainly.

I just want to briefly add for transparency that while we did chat about it, those aren't any sort of conclusions that we reached together. Those are just CESN's thoughts on the matter xD

Though I see we’re you’re coming from and agree, I’ll have to add that racism is not a white European thing. It is/was everywhere even where white Europeans are/were not. It is not even about white vs black. That is one form of racism. Second, an average man, an average woman, and average Asian or any other human have the same stats: 10 on everything. So I think it goes back to see what we want to see. And the dominant culture in the game is "human", so that’s the baseline.

(You are totally right about the real world, just thinking game rules here)

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.

My apologies to WotC and anyone it may offend, but my drow (an imaginary race in an imaginary world) are and will remain neutral evil as a whole. There are individuals who can overcome the natural inclination towards evil, but by and large, they are neutral evil (yes, I am well aware that they were originally chaotic evil).

Likewise, there will be imaginary races in this imaginary world who keep slaves. I'm sorry, but slavery has existed (and continues to exist) in some form for as long as anyone remembers. It was not unique to America, and even African tribes kept slaves, the Aztecs kept slaves, the Asian peoples kept slaves. It's a horrible thing, yes, and I never portray it as anything else, but it does happen.

Gnolls are savages; not because they are primitive (though they are), but because they eat sentient beings. That is an inherently evil thing. Therefore, gnolls are evil. And as far as referring to barbarians or Chultan/Amedio tribesmen as savage, let's look to the definition of the word savage: one of the (admittedly several) definitions is "lacking complex or advanced culture". Savage doesn't necessarily mean that they are inherently less than human, or lesser beings, it just means that they lack advanced culture.

Weird how "advanced culture" in DnD always seems to be analogous to medieval European culture

This.

The lack of historical awareness and perspective in this discussion is disheartening.

It is the baseline culture established for the world at large.

Again, in an imaginary world.

Right, exactly. The baseline culture established for the imaginary world of DnD at large is modeled after white, European, medieval culture. That is literally the point. Exactly what you just said.

With all the prejudices and skewed perspectives on non-white cultures that entails.

So change that. It's your world. No one is going to come to your house and take away your rule books because you decide that African culture is predominant, or Native American culture, or Chinese culture, or Inuit culture. It happens that in my campaign world, the analog to Africa considers the rest of the world to be barbaric savages because they are not civilized. Perspective.

I was about to say, these arguments are always somewhat stupid anyways because no one is forcing you to remove problematic tropes or racist stereotypes from your games if you don't want to. They're just making it a little easier for players who don't want those tropes shoved in their faces by default to find a table to play at.

But obviously you do you, no one cares what kinds of games you want to run except your own players.

European colonialism was bad and I don't think anyone is arguing about that.

What I believe Qralloq is trying to say is that not all evil and racism is about european colonialism. Saying all racism boils down to white supremacy is already a limited and, I risk saying, somewhat "american/european-centred" point of view in itself! This is why I mentioned the japanese empire: widely known and pretty "evil" if you ask any of the occupied peoples, but not white european. Obviously this interesting discussion would benefit greatly from the input of non-north Americans/europeans :D

In support of Qralloq, lets consider one of the core issues here: the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Horrible stuff that forced more people than my mind can even perceive out of their homes. This lasted about 3 centuries. In comparison, the Trans-Saharan slave trade lasted ... 9 centuries. The only association with europeans (besides they being sometimes the slaves!) was that a little country most won't be able to name noticed the amount of gold flowing and sent a couple of ships into the sea... effectively making it the precursor to the Atlantic slave triangle.

Also, and this is mighty uncertain, the numbers I found was 20 million africans displaced. Interestingly, the larger proportion of African slaves did not end in the US from what I could find! Mexican cartel violence is estimated to have displaced 740 million... I wouldn't trust these numbers blindly, but just to say that the full picture is bigger than "european white man" is evil ;)

I could not agree with you more

By that same token, if WotC decides to make their material less geared toward historical white European attitudes and prejudices, there's no reason you can't perpetuate them in your own games, regardless of what's published.

Strangely enough, one of my PbP groups over on the Paizo forums is currently struggling with this exact issue; is a monstrous being inherently evil and not to be trusted? We're playing through the Caves of Chaos and it has come to some frank discussion between party members (and players) whether a baby orc must be slaughtered lest it grow up to be evil.

Most recently, they had dealings with kobolds and the question was asked of me if kobolds could be taken at their word. I told them that it depends on the individual. Like any intelligent race, kobolds have free will. MOST kobolds are lawful evil, but this particular tribe was open to peaceful negotiation instead of rampant slaughter.

I'd say these are very interesting moral questions and will made a great campaign simply because they are there. It would be interesting to see how players will react to having the stereotypes reenforced or dispelled. However, these have been asked throughout the world during the entire human history, whenever there was a conflict or trust was essential.

I'll add another question to this. Orcs are evil from the "civilised" perspective, because they raid and pillage and rape border towns. There is indeed and assumption that players will play a "civilised" humanoid race of somewhat goodish alignment. But orcs are not bad from their own perspective right? So if players play a party of orcs under a regular tribal chieftain and not the "usual type" of campaign, this should turn things around no? Human are now evil and not to be trusted, no?

The oft-used statement "Google is your friend" works well for acquainting oneself with specific facts and statistics that one might otherwise have gotten wrong in a discussion. It is, however, not as useful for providing crucial cultural context and historical perspective on how facts and statistics fit into the overall picture, particularly on a topic that one hasn't really read about a great deal.

I already said I agree with what they are doing (first thing I wrote), but I'd have to say that this argument works the other way around 😅

By that same token, if WotC decides to make their material more geared toward historical white European attitudes and prejudices, there's no reason you can't ignore them in your own games, regardless of what's published.

It works the other way around because I literally wrote it as the inversion of WhtKnt's own statement, as an ironic rebuttal.

Sure, except if WotC decided to do that it would be an incredibly shitty thing to do, and what they're doing now is hurting absolutely no one. Key difference

😅 right... I may have missed that ;)

This is irrelevant. D&D, as the example here, was written by mostly white males. So the question is mostly on what influenced them, culturally. No ones talking about BLM in India, because it's not a revelant componet of the culture there. But it's very easy to see that western culture has ingrained components seeing non-white folks as lesser. Yes, other cultures do that too (India v Pakistan for example), but that doesn't matter to the question of TTRPGs written mostly by western, white males. It's a question of if we rise above that.

Westerns? White? or Americans? This sentence also bags a lot of cultures together. Would you say that current german culture has ingrained components seeing non-white folks as lesser? I mean, they keep taking all those refugees despite all the opposition and terrorist attacks they suffered and are pretty committed to not making the same mistake. Or estonian culture? Icelandics?

This goes back to that point I made earlier: I feel this is mostly an "american-centred" discussion with american-centred views on black vs white being projected into the game. Again, the way things are dealt with in the States are questionable at many levels and from various perspectives (like anywhere else I believe). And again, I agree that reducing discrimination makes perfect sense. Just focused on the relativity of all of this and how mapping things to reality is basically a personal exercise has you can see anything you want. Are dwarves an authoritarian regime? I always felt that fanatic focus on honour and family was very harmful to individuality. Maybe because authoritarianism is a greater fear and racisms where I'm from? (or not, just an example)

The thing that is so disturbing in this discussion is that it shouldn't have to come to a historical debate about whether or not white European colonial aspirations are greater than or less than whatever whataboutism others want to substitute.

People from non-white and other marginalized groups have categorically stated feeling excluded by the way published material portrays races and groups that are pretty obviously meant as analogs for non-white and other marginalized groups. That is, and should be, enough to prompt an action to make those people feel included, and heard.

Was the non-inclusive material intended to be hurtful? It doesn't actually matter, because it was, and they were told that it was. Just as there are people in this thread saying that it is.

The second salient point was already stated by Sassafras. Changing the published material to correct the stuff that is hurtful to non-white and marginalized groups hurts no one. It doesn't turn it around to make white European analogs inherently less intelligent or more "lacking a culture." It simply removes the stuff that non-white and marginalized people have been telling us they find insulting and demeaning.

I don't understand why anyone would find this controversial or be arguing against it.

Perhaps the occurrence of "Black Lives Matter" demonstrations in countries all over the world can shed light on this.

Curiously, I did not hear about Estonian or Icelandic demonstrations actually :D UK, Germany, France, New Zealand and Australian (I believe "black" here was more about Aboriginal peoples, not sure) and Japan (which I found weird... they are generally seen as pretty xenophobic but I did not see many "black people" there...). But different countries focus on different locations. Anyway, just listening to this "black people" and "white people" feels weird to me. It's just people. An American citizen was brutally killed by the police for no reason. To me, it doesn't matter what color. But I understand the tension and context is different there, unfortunately.

Thank you. We can only move forward if we stop seeing ourselves as different races and start seeing ourselves as a singular species.

And let history be history I'd add. A lesson to learn not to repeat or obsess about. "We" (were I'm from) were pretty bad as well, but it wasn't really "me". I can only hope "we" don't go as low as "we" went ever again. While checking for this discussion, I just found my place listed in the "16 Most Unbelievably Evil Empires In History" and the British empire wasn't even there!

It matters because of the proportions. Black people are killed by American police at many times the rate that white people are killed by them, and the way police treat black people is markedly more violent - and documented as such - than the way they treat white people. So that's why race matters, because the way black people in America are treated is immensely counter to the stated values of equality under the law that are enshrined in our constitution.

But again - this discussion is not about any of that. It's about what non-white and marginalized people say about the published D&D material and the efforts, however belated, by WotC to address the concerns. Why the continual effort to widen the discussion to matters not directly on point?

The problem there is it erases part of the problem. Yes, there's a problem with police killing Americans, but there's a bigger problem with police killing a particular group of Americans at a rate higher than another group. Yes, the goal is to see everyone as one, but you only get there by actively recognizing that's not the case right now.

This is a really good point. We should get back on track.

In my case, it was to ask why religious intolerance is still ok and where do we draw the line on not having predefined alignment? (which totally got lost) Why should sentient and highly intelligent creatures such as demons be strictly evil? I mean, all of them?

I have no idea how this is relevant. Have you felt excluded or demonized (heh) by D&D published materials as a result of this? Have you registered this as a deeply felt bigoted exclusion with WotC? Or is this one of the whataboutisms I mentioned earlier?

My issue with this is that you don't use the word bigots or racists. The default for "bad people who were racist" is by default White. Anyone from any country I see talk about this issue, it automatically defaults to white people.

Deleted by Keleth.

Since you insist on widening this thread beyond the stated scope, there is a wealth of evidence that the group in question appears to commit more crimes solely because they are considered the default suspects for crimes, because they are more heavily policed, because they are forced by poverty and the power structure into plea deals regardless of guilt, and because they are often framed by planted evidence.

ooo fire here 😅 Though I understand this is not meant to be in favour of the "crimes" from either "side", others may not understand this that way (That "it's not okay" will be missed for some reason or another). I would support the context behind the numbers argument someone used earlier. Assuming those number are right, them I'd suggest they are confounded with social status and wealth, making it not directly interpretable. I mean, in a brutal statistical way :D

So, just for teasing, you're saying that orcs and drow can't be evil because minorities or non-white think it is wrong to assume a race is evil as that is the permisse for racism which they are victims of... but it is ok to say another race is evil to the core because... bible I guess?

Also, I think religious intolerance is an issue as serious as racism nowadays, so if one is raised, why not the other? Hell! I could even question the social rules and how they apparently tend to end with male PCs harassing female NPCs! The question is, if they are going for this and are truly worried, are they going far enough?

No, I'm not saying any of what you just said. I also am not interested in engaging in "just for teasing" arguments. This is clearly sport for you, but for the people who've been hurt by the bigotries entrenched in the gaming materials, it's a serious impediment to their ability to feel equal.

Honestly, I don't much care anymore how anyone understands it, because if it's read without predetermined intent, it's pretty clear what I meant 😝

Fair point. I am wrong, and I apologize. I would like to amend my statement to "This matches really close with beliefs and narratives of extremist racist groups, and how racists describe minorities and justify their hatred." I won't edit my post, I want to leave it up there for the discussion to make sense. I apologize for offending anybody, especially two people I admire and enjoy playing games with.

Just for some context, my wife's mom, a 70-year-old Chinese lady who is very lovely, says totally racist things all the time. You don't have to convince me that people of color can be racist!

I do think that, in the context of Dungeons and Dragons, examining how these ideas are playing out in white supremacist narratives is more relevant than Chinese or African or Muslim supremacy. D&D wasn't designed by Hutu or Muslim creators, it was made by white creators. It wasn't inspired by Cambodian novels or a Muslim literary tradition, appendix N is large (exclusively?) white authors. Chinese supremacists aren't holing up the Orc as a symbol of what they think of Muslim people, but white supremacists are. Only yesterday did 5e even get released in a non-English language.

Every culture needs to examine their own racism. I'm white, so I examine racism in my culture. I'm sure Chinese games have Chinese bigotry and Muslim games have Muslim bigotry, but I don't play those games and I'm not them.

have you seen this?

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/314622/Ancestry--Culture-An-Alternative-to-Race-in-5e

Think about pain.

Think about your nerves burning, screaming, pleading, bargaining for clemency. Your universe has contracted to a singularity. There is no world; there is no "you"; there is only pain - like a pure mathematical fact.

Think about it.
Imagine it.

But you didn't feel it, did you?

We've all been in pain, but it's almost impossible to feel it unless it's occurring to you. I don't care how vivid your imagination, how powerful your metaphors and similies - theorized intellectual pain is not pain.

Me? I don't feel like I can talk about these issues. Unfortunately, Keleth, the really nice guy whose house we inhabit, politely asked on the front page...
The bastard! Making me do something I don't want to do!

I don't have to consider WHY! I already know why I don't want to talk about these issues. It's because I'm clumsy and insensitive with language. It's because I've never experienced nor felt the pain of racism. If there's an I-Spy book of privilege then I'm only missing the "member of the aristocracy" tickbox.

What am I supposed to do? White-splain racism? Quote statistics? Write an equation for an experience that needs to be felt?

I can imagine pain, but it's not the same as feeling it. I can imagine racism, but it’s not the same as experiencing it. Experiencing it Every. Single. Horrible. Day.

Fortunately, Keleth also asked...
...and that sounds like good advice. So, I'm happy to write about what WotC are doing with mechanics, and changes to modules - but on broader issue? Imma shut up and listen, try to understand, and try harder to support.

Especially as just having to listen, understand and support isn't likely to have anybody kneel on my neck until I die.

The heart of the matter is that WotC wants D&D to be inclusive. They want to produce a game that everyone can feel involved in and not "othered" in some form. While it is true that the DM is responsible for crafting a game in which their players can participate and have fun, ultimately WotC has created the materials upon which the games are built.

If those materials are written primarily from an Anglo-European Heteronormative Male perspective, there is a chance that the language used can unintentionally be from that perspective. There is a chance the decisions made regarding the mechanics of the rules can unintentionally result in "othering" individuals who do not identify with that perspective. I do not think that the writers of many D&D books intended to isolate or denigrate those that were different from them because for a lot of us, that's how we grew up. I believe that WotC is trying to change that.

For sake of reference, I am a hetero male. I cannot understand nor fathom what women, non-hetero men, or non-binary individuals go through on a daily basis. I can empathize that someone has been wronged or feels pain, but on the whole I am never personally affected by it. I'd like everyone to be treated equally and fairly.

And yet I still find myself calling women "girls" or "guys." I still sometimes say that my wife is hanging out with her "girlfriends," but I never say that I'm having a beer with my "boyfriends." Sometimes I'll accidentally slip some derogative term or colloquialism in my everyday conversation because that's what my normal was. People around me threw around phrases like "Indian Giver" or "They gypped me" around with little regard to the implications. We were never called out on the usage because the affected person or group was not around, and so we thought it okay.

I'm trying to be better. I'm trying to avoid problematic tropes and perspectives. I think WotC is trying to do the same. I think WotC recognizes that what was written in the past may have been the norm then, but now it is not okay. Now it hurts people or perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and those who are affected negatively by this are reminded of their "otherness."

It seems like we all agree that D&D should be inclusive. We may not agree with how WotC is trying to make it possible, and that's fine. Yes, what WotC is doing may be reactionary, but it's reacting to the voice of those who don't feel included.

I suggest that instead of dismissing WotC's actions, we focus on coming up with other ways to achieve the ideal. We try to build upon their intentions and see if we can further remove problematic tropes and language from our games and from our lives.