Racism in Your Setting

[Jimp]

Hello and welcome to my first post!

While thinking about my own homebrew setting and the races I may include in it, a thought struck me. Racism. We all know that (sadly) racism exists in the real world between races, religions and even nationalities. this made me think: "Why not in my D&D world?"

So, my questions are: Is there racism in your world? If so, is it mild or extreme? Who is it between? Is it very serious?

There's the classical love/hate relationship between Elves and Dwarves but what I'm asking about is any other kinds. For example, maybe Sea Elves and Wild Elves completely hate each other and racist slurs are common when the two meet.

All input is welcome :)

[Golthur]

Nearly always - with the exception of a few enlightened races or groups. It's something that's never been absent in the real world, so I see no reason why it would be absent in a fantasy world. I'm not an "idealistic fantasy" guy

It makes my campaign worlds seem more real to my players. I even go so far as to invent various racial slurs (arbitrary words or phrases that just sound offensive) for the various races to call each other.

I usually have several different subraces of humans who dislike each other. In my current world there's an extreme hatred between the Nezumi (rat-people) and the Kaa-Siva (snake-people, a modified version of a homebrewed race here on GiTP). Orcs are currently regarded mostly as children by the humans.

[Gamebird]

In my game world, there's a strong hate of the humanoid races, to the point that a lone humanoid isn't safe in most small settlements, even if they're just passing through and are clearly a citizen. The average run of human is very tolerant of elves, dwarves and halflings, though most harbor some misgivings about gnomes. The other races are pretty stereotyped: elves are seen as aloof, ancient peckerheads, dwarves as earthy, hard-working smith-types, and halflings as green-thumb farmers and down-to-earth practical guys. Gnomes are seen as shifty weirdos and greedy sneak-thieves. Still, it's almost unheard of for a human to do anything vile to an elf, dwarf, halfling or even a gnome just because of their race.

The other races have their own prejudices about the ignorant, prolific and barbaric humans.

[Were-Sandwich]

Yeah. Just because WOTC PC's up their settings doesn't mean I should have to.

For instance, in my campaign the Grugachi (wild elves) and Asrai (other elves) are bitter enemies. I like the idea of coming up with racial slurs.

[Reltzik]

Is it just me, or has this topic popped up once or twice before?

I put racism into my settings. First, because the lack of it would sort of strain the suspension of disbelief. ("I disbelieve the illusion!" "All right, you're just a gamer geek sitting at a table with a bunch of other gaming geeks pretending to actually be doing something world-altering." "Um... no... wait... not that illusion. That one I want to keep.") Second, because the players all hold it anyway; which player DOESN'T by default see goblins as evil little creatures with no inherent value beyond their XPness? I know, there are a few, but they're far from the majority. And third, because nothing says Evil Villain like Nazi-esque genocidal tendencies. Yes, I know, the irony is sickening.

In my game setting Ravine, there's a bunch of humans who hold to a religion that all non-humans (save halflings and a bunch of domesticable animals) are actually demons in disguise, out to corrupt the souls of good people everywhere and eventually subject them to the worst tortures imaginable. One subrace of elves think of every other race as polluting and abhorantly common and avoids everyone else as best as possible. The dwarves are divided into racial clans, each of which thinks that they're the chosen of their god to rule the race. Most humans will hold prejudices about each other based on the lands they hail from. And the less said about drow-elf relations, the better. (But that's true in EVERY setting, right?)

..... um.... I triggered Goodwyn's law back there, didn't I?

[Jimp]

So far in my setting the only racist tendencies I have thought of are between Dwarves and Halflings. Dwarves tend to view Halflings as weak leeches who spend too much time feeling sorry for themselves (to do with the Halfling race's history in my setting) instead of getting on with rebuilding. The Halflings tend to view Dwarves as stuck up and naive because they have never faced practical genocide on the same scale as the Halflings. Though the two races have never entered into wars because of this, members of both races are wary of one another. Dwarves and Halflings do ocasionally travel together and get along but it's nearly always a love/hate relationship.

[Golthur]

Halfling genocide makes me happy
EDIT:

For instance, in my campaign the Grugachi (wild elves) and Asrai (other elves) are bitter enemies. I like the idea of coming up with racial slurs.

Interesting. I used the name Asrai for one of the main types of BFSM (Big, um, Friendly, Scary Monster) in my world.

[Jimp]

Halfling genocide makes me happy

You would like my setting then

[kailin]

Hate for the filthy elves.

[Were-Sandwich]

Halfling genocide makes me happy
EDIT:

Interesting. I used the name Asrai for one of the main types of BFSM (Big, um, Friendly, Scary Monster) in my world.

Its Games Workshop's term for their elves. I liked it, so I nicked it.

[Lykan]

In my game world, humans are a minority... So they get picked on all the time.

Monkey people.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Racism is quite prevalent my world's societies, though more over nationality and religious beliefs than actual race or ethnicity, just as my world's societies are also mostly male-dominated. It's more accurate for the period.

[mikeejimbo]

I'm in a Dragonlance Campaign. Everyone hates Kender, and we had a Draconian who called a Dragon he was talking to a racist.

[Dragonmuncher]

Racism's always been a part of D&D- everyone sees the elves as aloof, the dwarves as alternatingly dour and homocidal, halflings as frivolous, orcs and drow as inherently evil...

Of course, it depends on the setting, but you see what I'm talking about.

A more interesting question, I think, is sexism. There really isn't any sexism in the D&D game- it was one of those things that was intentionally ignored to make the (medieval Europe inspired) game more fun.

After all, it would probably get pretty annoying having every single female character you made be pressured into marrying at 15, and laughed at if she tried to do anything other than being a farmwife...

It's a good idea, I think- sexism would get tedious in games after a bit- but do people use it in their homebrew games?

[Golthur]

It's a good idea, I think- sexism would get tedious in games after a bit- but do people use it in their homebrew games?

Short answer, yes - but I don't make it a focal point. Different cultures in my homebrew also have different ideas about what "gender-appropriate behaviour" is. However, the key thing is that I don't want to make it non-fun for a player if they take a character of a gender that isn't "supposed" to be adventuring. So, usually the most I'll do is some raised eyebrows or a stern admonishment from some old-timer or a drunk (or a drunk old-timer )

[Pegasos989]

Yes, racism is in my settings. It is not only elves concidering every other race as worthless and sacrifiable lesser beings - which they do - but also diffrent ethnic groups of humans are viewed as being worth less, etc... I am also a World of Darkness -gamer, so that grim and gothic world inspires my worlds.

A more interesting question, I think, is sexism. There really isn't any sexism in the D&D game- it was one of those things that was intentionally ignored to make the (medieval Europe inspired) game more fun.

After all, it would probably get pretty annoying having every single female character you made be pressured into marrying at 15, and laughed at if she tried to do anything other than being a farmwife...

It's a good idea, I think- sexism would get tedious in games after a bit- but do people use it in their homebrew games?

Yes, actually there is sexism but I don't see that as any less fun. Well, there is no female players in my current groups so I can't tell from their viewpoints but I could imagine that a lot of concepts for why they are not forced to that (did their parents/husband die? Were they killed by her? Was she somehow able to avoid it by finding an old law prohibitting the marriage under certain conditions? Did her mentor marry her just to get her officially married and under his control so they could get back to study and train?) or maybe she is from a culture such as amazons or maybe... You know, I believe that female characters could have a lot of interested character backgrounds and concepts in a sexist world...


EDIT: Oh, and I am currently designing a bit less grim world with influences from real world. (Please nobody get offended when I base something on stereotypes. They are for fun, not meant to be insulting.) I have orcs as poor but hardworkin workers with little skills in common, etc. with status similar to mexicans in USA, etc. :P

EDIT2: Oh, and I also think that some feminist gamers would be more than happy to go medieval on men who laugh at them. Also, even though there is sexism among common folk, most high-level people have seen atleast a few powerful enough females to not assume too much.

[Gamebird]

sexism ... do people use it in their homebrew games?

I have it in mine, but it rarely comes up. I'm currently working under the theory that women's rights and easy access to handguns was not a coincidence in timing. Anyone in a D&D game world can get the equivalent of a handgun by learning magic or being granted miracles (spells) from a god. Wizards are too valuable to be sexist about who gets to be one. If it was an all-human endeavor, then yeah, there would be a lot of sexism and control of who got to use the big magical guns, but as it is humans are tossed in there to compete with goblins, orcs, drow, dragons, lizardmen and a whole lot of other things. I think that would cause people to encourage their own to power, no matter what sex they were.

That said, women have babies and men don't, so people expect a normal woman to have normal urges, want to find a mate, want to have sex, and want to raise children. Doing that takes away from time and opportunities to gain power in other ways, participate in the military or study a lot.

When I'm setting up NPCs, only 10% of the military is female. When working out political leaders they're almost always male (80%). When generating a family, I determine the level of the two adults, then give a 75% chance of the higher level person being the male.

----

All that said, in most humanoid tribes the situation is reversed. Females lead the political structure of the humanoids because the males fight amongst themselves so much and suffer a much higher attrition rate due to raiding, hunting accidents, etc. They have a much more complicated structure (or really no more complicated, but less familiar to mainstream USA). It's the same structure you see in economically distressed cultures. The men lead only in the short term and its generally the woman who brings home the bacon, decides where the family lives and decides who does what.

[Jimp]

It's a good idea, I think- sexism would get tedious in games after a bit- but do people use it in their homebrew games?

I'm not planning on having much sexism in my setting. My setting's worlds will generally be quite old and philosophically diverse. Society recognises that both men and women are generally equal in ability and in one's need for the other. Though some of the less civilised races may have sexist leanings. Even among civilised society, however, people will still joke about people in jobs that don't seem gender fitting. For example, nobody will question how good a bard a girl can be but some people are bound to laugh at the idea of a female fighter being head of the town guard.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Sexism is fairly simple in my world. The majority of societies are male-dominant. This means that women are usually seen as weaker and inferior, and usually looked down on. This is because they fill the traditional role of raising the children and in most societies they have no real power even at the higher levels of society. However, in my world, legendary heroes are simply people who have a great deal of connection to the plane of magic. The plane of magic subtly enhances their strength, skill and power. One can become heroic without a strong connection to the plane of magic through skill and perserverence, but one cannot become a true legend without it. The plane of magic, unlike these mortal societies, has no qualms about who it chooses to be strong with. Men, women - it makes no difference. Thus there are plenty of women who develop incredible skill in "unusual" field, but because of their skill nobody really challenges them for their sudden choice. Exceptions do include societies like the wizard's guilds and priesthoods, who usually recruit based upon ability, not upon gender or race.

[arivilar]

In my Eberronian campaign, one of the characters is a Shifter who is ashamed of his heritage. To build off of that, a merchant they are forced to guard is racist against shifters (bloody animal bloods)

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

Usually the kind of racism we have in today's world seems sometimes overpowered by the utter savage hate possessed by races like orcs. It is true nowadays there are things like orcish savagery going on, but too far away and I don't like getting into it.

[TheOOB]

Racism between different races is fairly common in my campaigns (elves dont like orcs and dwarves, humans are wary of gnomes and goblins and so one), but because of that there is little racism between members of the same race. To quote shadowrun "It's hard to belive that humans once cared about something so trivial as skin color".

When theres orcs and trolls to hate, you tend not to hate other humans as much, just so long as you hate something. It's how humans work.

[lsfreak]

Definitely, especially since I've decided to get rid of the typical near-omnipotent people that seem to roam DnD. Golbins? Psh, those are stories to scare kids, and only a handful of people would even be able to recognize them if they saw them. Elves? Killed on the spot, cuz either they're mad sorcerers bent on destruction or the heartless killers from the north. The barbarian race? Brutes, but nothing to be too scared of. And so on.
Of course, everything changes when you move up to the nobility, rulers, and scholors. Then the goblins are a distant threat to dwarven allies, and elves get the distinction of being "killed on the spot," "be highly cautious of them," or, if they're dark elves, "treat them with the highest honors possible," depending on the race (which your common person won't be able to tell the difference between the light-skinned ones, and dark elves haven't been seen in some 800 years). The barbarian races are allies, albiet distant and primitive ones.

[Triaxx]

I have in at least one setting, a reversal of what you might see as the traditional gender roles. In the Sun Kingdom (love the originality), the King is the peaceful diplomat, while the Queen is the Grand Leader of the army, and the First of the Knights of the Sun. There are thirteen Knights, all female.

They are supported by a partially mercenary band of women called the Sun Shadow Cavalry. They are considered the best in the world at what they do. I do allow a difference between men and women, at least humans. Men have an extra point of strength, and women an extra point of dex. It's not on the character sheet, but is calculated in when using weapon finesse, or a ranged weapon for women, and melee weapons for men. As well as carry weight and fatigue. Men take roughly an hour longer to tire, but suffer a greater penalty.

As for Racism, I have a different setting in which the High Elves, mostly Clerics, look down on most of the other races, and have elven words that translate to worthless for them. The Storm Elves, mostly mages, are at war with the Halflings. The Dwarves supply weapons to the Halflings, but are mostly neutral. The Humans and Gnomes have a rough alliance, because they're threatened from the north by Orcs, and Goblins. Those two use Minotaurs as slave labor, and it's creating a revolt.

So yes, I use racism, but only there. Most of the time I just plow over the details and ignore it as an unimportant element.

[Sergeantbrother]

I my Homebrew setting, I include lots of politically incorrect societal things.

Just about every culture is racist, sexist, religiously intollerant, etc. Not just with elves vs orcs and things like that, but racism between different human subgroups.

I also like to include harsh aspects which are true to medieval settings - such as severe punishments like torture and mutilation, ignorance of science, oppression of the poor, starvation and poverty, etc.

[arivilar]

In other words, it seems that racism adds to the texture. Of course, you could just make it inapparent and leave out that much work.

[Jarl]

Humans: Savages, don't trust 'em
Orcs: No better than humans
Dwarves: Dry, dusty, but all around good people.
Elves: No magic, no discernable genders, and nearly extinct.

-That's the short version.

[Triaxx]

Truthfully, even in the D&D rules, the Rangers Racial Enemy could be counted as Racism.

[Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick]

My campaigns tend to be lighter-hearted, and my tongue is seldom removed from my cheek, so....I don't use much 'heavy' racism.

Terms like 'blueskin', 'lizard', 'rottooth', 'grubber' etc. are fairly common (and refer to Claern, Mere-dragons, Returned, and Dwarves respectively), but they're about as offensive as 'dork' or 'jerk' would be here.

That's mainly a product of the fact that my setting is politics-heavy, with a wide variety of ideologically united, but racially diverse, groups struggling for control of resources, humanoid and otherwise. If members of any particular race decided to pick on any other , they'd have to contend with all the organizations that have members of that race....and be instantly crushed.
Discretion is the better part of valor, so even those races that don't like each other much keep their lips zipped in company.

Just imagine if renaissance Europe became dependent on trade with an economically and politically powerful Africa; would racism and ethnocentricity have been as prevelant? I think not, though I could be wrong.

I'm also working off the assumption that most fantasy cultures are as vulnerable to 'orientalism' as we are- they like exotic things, and when they've liked them enough, the exotic phases into the familiar without much comment being raised.

Also and lastly, Race is an invalid concept in genetic and anthropological terms, as phenotypic traits are the result of clinal variations in space, not genetic variation over time. Race is a purely cultural construction, and as such can be ignored or embraced or otherwise dealt with culturally- as I've done.

[arivilar]

If you think on it, nearly every setting organized by Wizards is somewhat racist: societies and cultures are based almost entirely on race. Elven kingdoms, Dwarven kingdoms, etcetera. One exception, and only to a limited degree, is Eberron.