Fixing racism in D&D (/rpgs in general)

[Foxwarrior]

So they should all be able to live in an oxygenated environment, or have effective space suits? I at least don't object to only having one humanoid race

I think some people have developed an appreciation for the silly stereotypes of gnomes, or dwarves, or halflings and want to play such creatures in order to play around with such stereotypes. Sort of like that European thread thing, with the people wanting to bring in their Russian stereotypes, but for drunken Scottish dwarves or whatever instead. So yeah, basically I'm saying it's fun with racism.

[Harshax]

Completely independent of whether it's racist or culturally-supremacist or a bologna sandwich -
"Check this background box for +1 Int" is uniquely bad design for any game where you care a lot about your Int from a charop perspective: for example, if you are playing some derivative of 3rd edition D&D. If that box exists to check, not checking it is a trap option, and that penalizes any number of Wizard PCs who might not want to be from an island or a star elf or whatever.

When I think of INT, I think of Education not necessarily reasoning power, although it can be both. Not being a wizard from urban magitocracy or meritocracy where formularized education is commonplace isn't a trap option at all. It is playing against type though, and players can choose that at their own peril or leisure.

But I get where you're coming from. So the MC could present cultural/social defaults for the player that doesn't want to play against type, then let every player just pick two attributes for +2 to represent their training and upbringing, regardless of race.

The result is same and cultural inputs can be useful for quick NPCs.

[Omegonthesane]

Completely independent of whether it's racist or culturally-supremacist or a bologna sandwich -
"Check this background box for +1 Int" is uniquely bad design for any game where you care a lot about your Int from a charop perspective: for example, if you are playing some derivative of 3rd edition D&D. If that box exists to check, not checking it is a trap option, and that penalizes any number of Wizard PCs who might not want to be from an island or a star elf or whatever.

When I think of INT, I think of Education not necessarily reasoning power, although it can be both. Not being a wizard from urban magitocracy or meritocracy where formularized education is commonplace isn't a trap option at all. It is playing against type though, and players can choose that at their own peril or leisure.

You underestimate the importance of int to wizards in D&D. It's not the biggest stat - it's the only stat. Everything wizards care about in the editions people are likely to be familiar with runs off Intelligence and Intelligence alone. Every bonus to Intelligence must be acquired whatever the cost in such a framework.

Nothing short of putting a hard cap on the amount of Int beyond which no more will help you will ever make "having less than the most int you could ever theoretically have" not a trap option in that framework.

Playing against type for fluff is a lot harder when it comes with strict and weighty mechanical penalties.

[Username17]

Out of interest, what's the appeal of playing a non-human that is within human ranges for stats and culture? I mean, I get the appeal of elves, being smart and good looking and long lived and just better. Drow get spiders to attack people with and an excuse to be naked.

Dwarves, gnomes, halflings...people play them, so there is clearly some appeal, but I'm not seeing it myself. What's being lost by having human (or close enough) be one thing, and your other options being something really weird?

Avoiding charges of racism and cultural insensitivity for one.

Many players want to play something that's different from themselves. We've already talked about how many players want to have some facet of their character be directly analogous to a facet of themselves and that there is therefore a perceived need for characters to be "part human" even when their entire sales pitch is about their nonhuman aspects. But that pendulum can swing too far, and there isn't much point in role playing if the character isn't meaningfully distinct from the player. Yes, there are games where you roleplay "literally yourself, but in a weird situation" but most RPGs we concern ourselves on this board revolve around players selecting avatars that are something other than simple standins for themselves.

But it's also boring to roleplay characters who have no faults. Sometimes players want to play characters that are gluttonous, alcoholic, senselessly mercenary, lecherous, vain, cruel, or whatever. In many circles, choosing to play characters with such faults is considered better roleplaying. If you play a human with those traits, you're making a statement, and if you play a fictional alien with those traits, you're making far less of one.

Consider Quark from Deep Space Nine. He's a Ferengi, and a number of people have asked whether he represents an anti-Semitic stereotype. It's a reasonable question to have, and we won't get deep into the weeds of the various arguments pro and con (of which there are many) but simply leave it at the fact that the answer to that question is open to debate. But imagine if instead of being a Ferengi it was just Armin Shimerman, noted New Jersey Jewish actor, playing a human with all the same traits. That would be... very racist. Having a Jewish man playing a human who was obsessed with capitalist enrichment and constantly scheming for currency would not be arguably anti-Semitic, that would be obviously anti-Semitic.

When you say things about fictional groups of non-humans in a fantasy setting, that is automatically less racist and insulting than if you'd said the same things about groups of humans. The thing from Complete Halflings and Gnomes where it goes off on a ant about how the dark skinned Gnomes are stupid and steal shit is kinda racist. But if you made essentially the same rant about dark skinned humans there wouldn't be any "kinda" about it.

Making your statements about Elves and Gnomes doesn't make things automatically not racist - but it does make things less racist. There are demonstrably things you can get away with for your Orcs and Dwarves that absolutely would not fly with humans of varying skin tones.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

Is that why Harry Potter has banker goblins

Can you pull off a campaign about the evil inhumans controlling finance then.. though just making them human britishers seems to work

[Libertad]

The "nonhumans as an ethnic stand-in being less racist" may work if we had more mainstream works giving orcs/goblins/other monstrous races explicit cultural trappings of Western Europeans besides Norsemen which would "even the playing field" so to speak. Too many fictional authors end up going the Gringots route and mix in minority cultures with evil/monstrous races and that's where the sting lies. It's still racist, just coded in the plausible deniability that is your friendly neighborhood dogwhistle.

[OgreBattle]

So British empire banker goblins who will invade you under the pretense of fair trade are a Go

The way British are drawn in Nickelodeon cartoons is already goblinoid

[hyzmarca]

Nonhumans as ethnic standins is more racist, not less. Because by doing that you are saying, intentionally or not, that those ethnicities aren't human.

But British Banker goblins are a damn sight less offensive than Jewish banker goblins, that's for sure.

[Thaluikhain]

Nonhumans as ethnic standins is more racist, not less. Because by doing that you are saying, intentionally or not, that those ethnicities aren't human.

But British Banker goblins are a damn sight less offensive than Jewish banker goblins, that's for sure.

Especially when most or less every hero is also British. There were one or two French ladies and an eastern European guy, and that's about it.

[infected slut princess]

If I think American Indians are cool and I want an fantasy race inspired by Comanche warriors how do you do it so it's not racism.

[Omegonthesane]

If I think American Indians are cool and I want an fantasy race inspired by Comanche warriors how do you do it so it's not racism.

There's no sure fire method, but if you've consulted some descendants of Comanches they'll be better able to advise where the pitfalls might be

[Username17]

If I think American Indians are cool and I want an fantasy race inspired by Comanche warriors how do you do it so it's not racism.

This may have been intended as a jest, but it's a genuinely difficult question.

First off, let's be totally honest: Comanche warriors are cool. But equally importantly: Native Americans in general and the Comanche in particular have gotten a pretty raw fucking deal from western society.

Now that raw deal comes in several forms, but for the moment let's consider active and passive discrimination. Active discrimination is where people treat Native Americans in a shitty way because of negative stereotypes, and passive discrimination is where the needs and desires of Native Americans are totally fucking ignored because people forget (or pretend to forget) that they even exist. You are an active participant of active discrimination every time you repeat a stereotype that is part of an overall negative narrative about the people (which is most of them), and you're an active participant of passive discrimination whenever you're not talking to or about them (which is most of the time).

Does that sound like a catch twenty two? Yeah, it kinda is. Racism is so deeply ingrained into the fabric of our society that it's actually quite difficult to not be perpetuating the racism. Even the act of being paralyzed by indecision and not discussing the Comanche at all is succumbing to and ultimately perpetuating the racist treatment of the Comanche people.

Anyway, saying nothing at all is bad, but saying ignorant and offensive shit is often worse, and that's where Orcs come in. There's lots of cool stuff about Comanche warriors that maybe modern people don't particularly want to be associated with? You can rub the serial numbers off, and have fictional aliens have those traits without directly comparing modern people with 18th century nomadic warriors.

There are major pitfalls with this approach. Here are some of them:

• If you have recognizable Nordic people, but your Comanche have the serial numbers rubbed off so much that people can't tell they are Native Americans, that's erasure and we're in to the whole passive discrimination thing again.
• Some of the things you think are cool about Comanche warriors (or stories about Comanche warriors) are either offensive to actual Comanche people or associated with stereotypes that are offensive as a whole to Comanche people. And you probably don't know which things those are because you haven't been subjected to people doing fake "war whoops" from passing cars for your entire life and unfortunately they have.

It's a difficult needle to thread and since different real people are going to have different thresholds of offense, nothing you can do (or not do) is going to satisfy everyone. The important thing is to try your best and try to reach out to real people and get feedback. If you find out that you've accidentally crossed a line somewhere, don't double down - just fucking apologize and walk it back.

Nonhumans as ethnic standins is more racist, not less. Because by doing that you are saying, intentionally or not, that those ethnicities aren't human.

But British Banker goblins are a damn sight less offensive than Jewish banker goblins, that's for sure.

This is hilariously wrong. Jewish Bankers in Harry Potter would be British just as Goblin Bankers would be. It's British Bankers either way, because the story takes place in Britain. The only question is whether the British Bankers are further distinguished by being Goblins or by being Jews. And to a first approximation, the latter is obviously more racist.

-Username17

[souran]

It's a difficult needle to thread and since different real people are going to have different thresholds of offense, nothing you can do (or not do) is going to satisfy everyone. The important thing is to try your best and try to reach out to real people and get feedback. If you find out that you've accidentally crossed a line somewhere, don't double down - just fucking apologize and walk it back.

-Username17

This is probably the heart of the whole issue. Any game that wants to use historical analogs could be construed as being exploitative, appropriative, or just plain racist.

That sucks because yeah, playing samurai is cool and wanting to play in a sandbox that focuses on different myths and legends than the typical western ones is going to be interesting in part because of its foreignness to a lot of its typical players. That in an of itself can be seen as racist but but there is also no bright line from when you cross over from "interested outsider" to "appropriating imperialist."

You are going to have to just make some decisions, be honest and do your best, and as you noted apologize when you get called out. However, its also reasonable to defend RPGs as works of entertainment and not scholarly treaties.

[OgreBattle]

Do we have some recent 'case studies' of folks who drew ire with their recent RPG or game and suffered in sales for it?

[Username17]

Do we have some recent 'case studies' of folks who drew ire with their recent RPG or game and suffered in sales for it?

Vampire 5th edition.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

Do we have some recent 'case studies' of folks who drew ire with their recent RPG or game and suffered in sales for it?

With virtually any work of creative expression, there are some people who will claim to be aggrieved. Some of them may be legitimate, some of them may be pretending in order to respond to a perceived double-standard. Ie, white supremacists may be offended because your product is 'too woke', but pretend that it is 'not woke enough' so you should be 'unpersoned'.

Trying to be sensitive to the issues goes a long way to avoiding them. Acknowledging your sources before they end up in the blender and offering a bibliography for people who may find it inspiring/interesting is a good start. Acknowledging that while you may have drawn inspiration from myths and legends they aren't intended to directly depict anything (they include blending with your own imagination and the needs of the story). If you are attempting to include positive portrayals of minorities that have traditionally been portrayed negatively, while you won't be able to avoid ALL criticism, will help convey that the creative work is not meant to be appropriating.

[hyzmarca]

This is hilariously wrong. Jewish Bankers in Harry Potter would be British just as Goblin Bankers would be. It's British Bankers either way, because the story takes place in Britain. The only question is whether the British Bankers are further distinguished by being Goblins or by being Jews. And to a first approximation, the latter is obviously more racist.

-Username17

You can have Banker Goblins who live in Britain and drink Earl Grey tea and you can have Banker Goblins who live in Britain and eat Bagels.

[Username17]

You can have Banker Goblins who live in Britain and drink Earl Grey tea and you can have Banker Goblins who live in Britain and eat Bagels.

But probably those are the same Goblins. Any Banker Goblin who lives in Britain is going to be British and drink tea. The question of whether they are also coded as Jewish or Muslim or Scottish or whatever is a separate question.

But regardless of how the Banker Goblins are coded, traits that they have are less anti-Semitic than if you gave the same traits to uncoded, explicitly Jewish characters.

-Username17

[infected slut princess]

You are an active participant of active discrimination every time you repeat a stereotype that is part of an overall negative narrative about the people (which is most of them), and you're an active participant of passive discrimination whenever you're not talking to or about them (which is most of the time). Does that sound like a catch twenty two? Yeah, it kinda is.

Talking about it is probably racist...
Not talking about it is probably racist...

Difficult situation.

It's a difficult needle to thread and since different real people are going to have different thresholds of offense, nothing you can do (or not do) is going to satisfy everyone. The important thing is to try your best and try to reach out to real people and get feedback. If you find out that you've accidentally crossed a line somewhere, don't double down - just fucking apologize and walk it back.

If you can't satisfy everyone it means you will not satisfy someone. And not satisfying someone means you have to apologize and walk it back. But you can't know ex ante what is "not okay" because that is different depending on the someone. Different Comanches will have different perspectives on what is not okay. How do you judge which Comanches have reasonable objections and which ones do not.

[Username17]

How do you judge which Comanches have reasonable objections and which ones do not?

Talk to them. Try to see things from their perspective. If it still seems like they are being crankish assholes, ask a second opinion from someone else before you start doubling down.

So some people are just fucking unreasonable. You famously have various Christian nutbars demanding that the devil worship get taken out of D&D. And some of the people who are going to object to your content are basically that. And it's OK to ignore them.

But when the person in question is a member of a largely unheard minority and is saying that your statements are part of a broader oppressive narrative, you should look into that. You hear the perspective of white Christians pretty much every fucking day, and you can usually tell when they have a leg to stand on and when they are feigning offense in order to push people around. But when you're talking about people like the Comanche or the Romani, you don't hear from them very often and they probably actually are being subjected to forms of discrimination you hadn't even thought of. Doesn't mean that all of them are reasonable or sincere, but you should definitely look into it rather than dismissing allegations out of hand.

-Username17

[infected slut princess]

Sounds fair. People sometimes overlook reasonable concerns because they get rolled up with concerns that are hysterical and/or inauthentic.

[HereForOSSR]

(P.S. - I'm now posting under the name "Unity", because I decided to start posting instead of just browsing OSSRs)

You can't draw on things like orcs or gnomes without bringing racist baggage into the mix. Even if the orcs in your game aren't dumb violent brutes with customs and clothing that white people thought Africans wore, that's exactly what an orc is in popular understanding. Maybe you make them not dumb in your game, and take away their strength bonus (despite them visibly having enough muscle to uppercut a bear through a tree), and dress them in full body bearskin coats instead of "tribal African clothes", and have them be mild-mannered inhabitants of a frigid archipelago with a culture centered around shipbuilding.

By removing the racist bits, these orcs now have almost nothing in common with stereotypes of black people. But they also have almost nothing in common with orcs. You can't get rid of the racist elements without getting rid of most of what is typically understood to be the difference between orcs and humans. It is literally none of the things that traditionally describe an orc except that it has green skin and tusks. So why are we even trying to shoehorn the title "orc" into this race concept?

There is value in the classic idea of orcs, as a longstanding fantasy staple, and using them is just fine. There's also value to recognizing the fact that orcs are coded as black and using it to make your story better by examining themes of racism and colonialism, and doing that is great. And there's value in recognizing that orcs are a walking pile of racist tropes and avoiding them entirely. But by twisting your orcs into knots trying to wring the racism out of them, you end up with creatures that still have a whiff of racism from their history alone and also have been stripped of the things that identify them as a classic fantasy staple. When deciding to use or avoid orcs, by trying to find a middle ground you get negatives from both and positives from neither.

Additionally, you now have this race of unimposing mild-mannered shipbuilders who are called orcs but are demonstrably no such thing at all. It's like orcs cosplaying as an entirely different species. It's confusing to players, and is just generally a waste of everybody's time. Far better to just accept orcs for what they are or to show some creativity and go with something that's less racist, such as almost literally anything else except gnomes.

[Bertie Wooster]

Sorry, but what kind of Orcs is coded as 'Black'? I'm not American, so I have not a lot of experience of viewing stuff through the lenses of US racial politics, but I cannot remember any popular depictions of Orcs who are stereotyped as Black/African people. Maybe Warcraft ones?

[Kaelik]

Sorry, but what kind of Orcs is coded as 'Black'? I'm not American, so I have not a lot of experience of viewing stuff through the lenses of US racial politics, but I cannot remember any popular depictions of Orcs who are stereotyped as Black/African people. Maybe Warcraft ones?

All of them are, starting with Tolkien, and it's mostly through British stereotypes of Africans, not US of African Americans, though of course there is overlap.

[Iduno]

Sorry, but what kind of Orcs is coded as 'Black'? I'm not American, so I have not a lot of experience of viewing stuff through the lenses of US racial politics, but I cannot remember any popular depictions of Orcs who are stereotyped as Black/African people. Maybe Warcraft ones?

All of them. To the point that FASA was open about Shadowrun Orks being stand-ins for poor black and Hispanic people.