Racism in D&D

I generally save politics for my personal blog, and confine this one to more light-hearted RPG babble.  But there's been a lot of social activism in the RPG world this year.  Examples include the Combat Wheelchair, a podcast getting cancelled for themes of sexual assault, and various RPG companies receiving criticism for sexism in the workplace.

One thing I'm seeing more of is people calling out the inherent racism hard-coded into D&D's rules.  Even the word "race" itself seems to be on its way out, as several of the newer RPGs favor less problematic terms like "ancestry" or "heritage" instead.  D&D has always used "race" in a way that many deem inaccurate, as what they call race is actually closer to species.

My thoughts?  Well, I can't say I'm comfortable dissecting the subject of racism, not really having experienced it first hand.  The internet doesn't need another white person's opinion on what should or shouldn't piss off people of color.  So take my ramblings with a grain of salt.  

Personally I think that in a world with multiple types of sapient creatures, the word "race" could come to mean "species" instead of ethnicity.  But I don't feel like explaining that to every D&D newcomer, so it's probably easier to use a more accurate term.  I'll be perfectly happy if the next D&D book refers to races as "ancestries" or whatever, though a certain segment of fans will probably pitch a fit.  You can't please everyone.

Another thing that is bugging people is the concept of "always evil" races.  It would be one thing if they said the evil Goddess Lolth created the Drow, and part of her spirit resides in every one of her creations and their descendants, and therefore they are incurably evil.  Because then the entire species would just be puppets controlled by an obviously evil entity.  But the minute you introduce a single good Drow, you break that rule.  The existence of a good Drow reintroduces free will into the species, which means PCs can no longer slaughter every Drow on sight.

And then there's Orcs.  Now, Orcs exist in D&D because the PCs need an enemy.  They are the Stormtroopers of D&D, an army of warriors you can attack without worrying about screwing up your alignment.  And if D&D had kept Orcs as unrepentant killing machines, mindless monsters who just happen to wear clothes and use weapons, then there might not be a problem.  

But the various rulebooks and novels go back and forth on Orc civilization.  Sometimes they're irredeemably evil, but sometimes they're more like Star Trek's Klingons - a complex society that fetishizes war and has trouble getting along with other civilizations.  And just like the Klingons, as the lore has evolved over the years, it's become harder to justify thinking of Orcs as an evil race.

Obviously, context is everything.  If you encounter an Orc warband standing in the middle of the burning village they just razed, you don't need to ask each one, "Are you good or evil" before you slay them.  But if you see a single Orc walking through a forest, or find one tied up in the dungeon you're exploring, you might want to assess the situation before activating instant kill mode.

A possible patch for this is to make it obvious what god the enemy worships.  Tell your players up front, "Unless I say otherwise, every Orc you see is wearing the symbol of Gruumsh, an evil god of war."  It's pretty safe to assume that if you see a cultist wearing the symbol of Bane on his robes, you can shoot first without karmic penalty.  Consider it preemptive self-defense - anyone wearing a symbol of evil would have no problem killing you if they see you first.  It's not the best solution, but it beats "Hey, it's an Orc, let's kill it because it's an Orc."

Racial ability scores are also causing an uproar.  It's one thing to say that the average Half-Orc is stronger than the average Halfling.  But saying Gnomes are smarter than Dwarves is more problematic, especially since some of these races are uncomfortably similar to real world nationalities.  If both are sapient humanoids, then surely their intelligence will be based more on study than genetics, right?

And what about charisma?  Doesn't it seem like you would find your own species the most charismatic?  Isn't it weird that a Dwarf would find a Tiefling more charismatic than another Dwarf?  If a Half-Orc's culture considers a burp to be a compliment, they're not going to be charmed by the Half-Elf's table manners.

There is a document on the Dungeon Masters Guild website called "Ancestry & Culture: An Alternative to Race in 5e" that does a pretty good job of fixing this problem.  It separates each race's bonuses into Ancestral traits and Cultural traits.  Anything that is tied to genetics is Ancestral.  That includes things like size, speed, and innate abilities like a Dragonborn's breath weapon.  Cultural traits include learned abilities like stat bonuses, languages, and skills.  You can take any combination of Ancestral and Cultural traits, which opens up the possibility of cross-cultural characters, like a Dwarf that was raised by Elves.

So given the above, is it truly realistic that a 3 foot tall Halfling could start with higher strength than a 7 foot tall Half-Orc?  Or more specifically, would a Halfling raised by Half-Orcs be stronger than a Half-Orc raised by Halflings?  Surely Half-Orcs have a genetic head start, right?  But the Halfling would have spent more time exercising, just to keep up with their peers.  I don't know, but I do have this one friend who is a foot shorter than me, and he could probably break me in half.  So size isn't everything.

And how does one train up constitution?  You can exercise your muscles and your mind, you can learn social graces, there's all kinds of ways to improve your dexterity, but IMO it seems like constitution would be genetic.  However, this system really only works if all six stats are Cultural traits, so I guess Dwarven upbringing toughens you up.  Must be all that Dwarven ale.

Realistic or not, balanced or not, I do think that "Ancestry & Culture" fixes more problems than it causes.  Even if you're not into it for the "wokeness" of the document, it still has some great options for those who want to fine tune their character to a degree not possible with the PHB alone.  Plus it includes a couple of bonus adventures that take place in multicultural settings.  So check it out, it's worth a look.

An upcoming official D&D book, "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything", also appears to address the problem.  I'm pretty hyped for this book.  It looks a lot like "Xanathar's Guide to Everything", which is my favorite 5e supplement.  Even if a lot of the content was already published in Unearthed Arcana, it will be nice to have the updated versions all in one place.

Supposedly it has new character creation rules that take some of the racism out of it.  I imagine their solution will be similar to the one in Ancestry & Culture, but I can't say for sure.  Bigots are already whining about the book being too politically correct or whatever, despite the fact that the new rules are optional.

Imagine being such a bigot that you don't even want them publishing a completely optional book, just because it doesn't bow down to your narrow worldview.  I've met so many great people while playing D&D, that I sometimes forget that the hobby also draws a lot of toxic asshats.  But why should I be surprised?  D&D creator Gary Gygax himself was no saint, assuming this pic is genuine:

So maybe bigotry is so deeply ingrained in the system that it's impossible to root out.  But I refuse to believe that.  I think the game has become more enlightened in recent years, even if it does have a ways to go.  With any luck, the creators will continue to listen to the more inclusive part of their fanbase, instead of caving to the more toxic side.

Only time will tell.