"Politically-Correct" DnD Adventure??

[DnDMaronFletche]

I'm working on a Dungeons & Dragons adventure to play with a group made up of 30-somethings, plus. One friend has been the DM for a year and wants someone else to take over so he can be a player-character. I offered to take on that mantle, when I'm ready. So I'm working on an adventure.

Thing is, one of our members happens to be quite sensitive to "black issues" and seems to find racism in just about anything.

For example, last time we played, our party was captured by elves and imprisoned. I asked the DM, "Are these evil elves? Are they Dark Elves?" (having read in the 5e Player's Handbook about the Dark Elves or "Drow"). Our friend immediately jumped on me about "why is is that "dark" HAS to mean "evil"? Why you going there?!" Even when I tried to show him the "Dark Elves (Drow)" section of the Player's Handbook, he just wouldn't let it go that "Dark equals Evil" and we spent a good ten minutes on the subject. The DM made these "Wood Elves" who were reacting to us fearing an invasion of their lands to quell the situation.

So, my adventure was to have a world where all the races from the DnD Player's Handbook establish a "United Nations" kind of environment. I've even had the "human kingdom" have "sub-kingdoms" - kings ruling over their own territory, but under the authority of a single, human king. Well, for this friend/member player, I was going to have an African-like nation within this human kingdom where his character will come from - even having him be a Prince. However, now that I've experienced this "sensitivity" from him, I have the feeling I will get an issue if his character's family's "kingdom" is a small kingdom within a "White-Controlled" nation! I could make the primary kingdom a black family, however, I was planning on having one of this king's sons turn out to be evil - thus will go back to the "dark=evil" issue.

Anyone know how I can approach this? I really, REALLY don't want to get into a "racism" argument with him again! I'd be lost if he was to quit playing over it because, he's a great "diplomat" and I am hoping to have that dynamic in my storytelling. His dynamic has been great with our current DM and adventure since he's been able to negotiate our party out of a LOT of jams!

Could use advice!

[Emperor Ing]

Take him aside, and calmly inform him that pointing out or trying to find racism in everything is making the game awkward, uncomfortable, and un-fun for the rest of the group. Ideally it should stop this behavior, but even reducing it is a win. If it continues to be a nuisance, bring up kicking him out of the group privately with the rest of your friends.

[Keltest]

The appropriate response to a disruptive player is to tell them, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is unacceptable and continuing to act in that manner will result in their removal from the group.

Having said that, why do you need one of the subnations to be the "Africa like" subnation while the rest, presumably... aren't. This seems like going out of your way to invite this kind of unwanted behavior. Presumably people travel, trade occurs and the uberkingdom itself is relatively open within its own borders (compared to open to other, external nations not subject to the rule of the uberking), so why cant you just say that the populations are fairly well mixed?

Also, I would avoid elaborating on the ethnicity of any and all of the kings, including the uberking. Be explicit that it doesn't matter and that you refuse to call them out like that because it is an unimportant detail. If he continues to push, see the very first sentence in this post.

[Lord Raziere]

Ok, here is what you do, its actually quite simple and easy:

just let them define their own nation, let them tell you what nation they want for backstory and don't touch it in play. If you get into a fight with people, don't mention their race. instead of "a bunch of orcs attack you" just say "a bunch of raiders attack you" while using the same stats, or a bunch of bandits, or a bunch of soldiers from this empire that is known to enslave people. or a bunch of mercenaries from a guild that is known for its greed to the point of evil, things like that, notice how NONE these things need to mention their race or require a racial element to them.

If people press and try to get detailed descriptions of any of these people, just say that there are "a bunch of races" without specifying more and move on. you don't need to specify this stuff, mooks are mooks its only DnD's obsession with color-coding that you get the conceit that you HAVE to color-code the evil, when there are so many other ways to signal "EVIL GUY TO KILL" that are just as easy.

To wit, the list of non-racial things you can most likely kill with a clean conscience:
bandits
raiders
pirates
slavers
imperial soldiers
evil wizards
assassins
mercenaries
extortionists
torturers
pyromaniacs
evil cultists
thugs
ninjas
tamed guard beasts that attack people on sight
undead that a necromancer raised to follow his every order
cannibals

Just simply label them by what evil stuff they've ACTUALLY DONE, rather than what they appear as. Done.

[NePb]

Ok, here is what you do, its actually quite simple and easy:

just let them define their own nation, let them tell you what nation they want for backstory and don't touch it in play. If you get into a fight with people, don't mention their race. instead of "a bunch of orcs attack you" just say "a bunch of raiders attack you" while using the same stats, or a bunch of bandits, or a bunch of soldiers from this empire that is known to enslave people. or a bunch of mercenaries from a guild that is known for its greed to the point of evil, things like that, notice how NONE these things need to mention their race or require a racial element to them.

If people press and try to get detailed descriptions of any of these people, just say that there are "a bunch of races" without specifying more and move on. you don't need to specify this stuff, mooks are mooks its only DnD's obsession with color-coding that you get the conceit that you HAVE to color-code the evil, when there are so many other ways to signal "EVIL GUY TO KILL" that are just as easy.

To wit, the list of non-racial things you can most likely kill with a clean conscience:
bandits
raiders
pirates
slavers
imperial soldiers
evil wizards
assassins
mercenaries
extortionists
torturers
pyromaniacs
evil cultists
thugs
ninjas
tamed guard beasts that attack people on sight
undead that a necromancer raised to follow his every order
cannibals

Just simply label them by what evil stuff they've ACTUALLY DONE, rather than what they appear as. Done.

This seems really right on to me, except that Ninja has a racial quality to it. If the player is that picky, it may invite the same sort of conversation.

"Why ninjas? Why are the Asians the enemy in this fight?" "Who said they were asian?" "You said ninja, didn't you?"

This person seems like they are projecting their own race issues where there are none. I have removed people from games for much less.

[The Succubus]

You mentioned he got on well with the existing GM. How has that person run the games - could they offer any insights?

[Coidzor]

I'm working on a Dungeons & Dragons adventure to play with a group made up of 30-somethings, plus. One friend has been the DM for a year and wants someone else to take over so he can be a player-character. I offered to take on that mantle, when I'm ready. So I'm working on an adventure.

Thing is, one of our members happens to be quite sensitive to "black issues" and seems to find racism in just about anything.

For example, last time we played, our party was captured by elves and imprisoned. I asked the DM, "Are these evil elves? Are they Dark Elves?" (having read in the 5e Player's Handbook about the Dark Elves or "Drow"). Our friend immediately jumped on me about "why is is that "dark" HAS to mean "evil"? Why you going there?!" Even when I tried to show him the "Dark Elves (Drow)" section of the Player's Handbook, he just wouldn't let it go that "Dark equals Evil" and we spent a good ten minutes on the subject. The DM made these "Wood Elves" who were reacting to us fearing an invasion of their lands to quell the situation.

Have you considered not playing with the jerk?

So, my adventure was to have a world where all the races from the DnD Player's Handbook establish a "United Nations" kind of environment. I've even had the "human kingdom" have "sub-kingdoms" - kings ruling over their own territory, but under the authority of a single, human king. Well, for this friend/member player, I was going to have an African-like nation within this human kingdom where his character will come from - even having him be a Prince. However, now that I've experienced this "sensitivity" from him, I have the feeling I will get an issue if his character's family's "kingdom" is a small kingdom within a "White-Controlled" nation! I could make the primary kingdom a black family, however, I was planning on having one of this king's sons turn out to be evil - thus will go back to the "dark=evil" issue.

That's a horrible idea. Just absolutely horrible. It's not at all suitable if you're running into these issues and trying to appease someone like that in a way that is both badly done and transparent as appeasement is not going to be conducive to harmony.

There's no in-game solution for your "friend" not wanting to play the game when he can instead rip on you for being a racist.

[Scarlet Knight]

Have you considered not playing with the jerk?

That was my first choice.

Another is the next time he says something in your game is racist, you say "Yes. Yes it is. Bigotry is a rampant scourge throughout the realm. Especially among the elves...and the dwarves, and the orcs...and most humans. Hobbits seem to be ok with most everyone. So...what does your character do?"

[Ruslan]

All the humanoids in the world are good (give or take), or at least non-outright-evil. The enemies are non-humanoid monstrous critters. There you go.

[Kish]

Ok, here is what you do, its actually quite simple and easy:

just let them define their own nation, let them tell you what nation they want for backstory and don't touch it in play. If you get into a fight with people, don't mention their race. instead of "a bunch of orcs attack you" just say "a bunch of raiders attack you" while using the same stats, or a bunch of bandits, or a bunch of soldiers from this empire that is known to enslave people. or a bunch of mercenaries from a guild that is known for its greed to the point of evil, things like that, notice how NONE these things need to mention their race or require a racial element to them.

If people press and try to get detailed descriptions of any of these people, just say that there are "a bunch of races" without specifying more and move on. you don't need to specify this stuff, mooks are mooks its only DnD's obsession with color-coding that you get the conceit that you HAVE to color-code the evil, when there are so many other ways to signal "EVIL GUY TO KILL" that are just as easy.

To wit, the list of non-racial things you can most likely kill with a clean conscience:
bandits
raiders
pirates
slavers
imperial soldiers
evil wizards
assassins
mercenaries
extortionists
torturers
pyromaniacs
evil cultists
thugs
tamed guard beasts that attack people on sight
undead that a necromancer raised to follow his every order

Just simply label them by what evil stuff they've ACTUALLY DONE, rather than what they appear as. Done.

Yes, this. I quoted it because all of this is ideal for your described situation. If you want to have race=guaranteed personality traits in the setting, do it for a reason and understand what you're doing, don't just do it because "the book sez so and I am unprepared for anyone to frown at me when I check adversaries for membership in an evil dark-skinned subrace." He may, or may not, be oversensitive, but he's not wrong that "the black-skinned elves are evil, the pale-skinned elves are good" is a characteristic-of-that-time-by-which-I-mean-a-time-in-which-casual-racism-was-common writing decision, which it is quite disturbing most settings continue to uphold (the big exception, oddly enough, being Dragonlance).

[ProbabilityNerd]

I'm not a person of color, but I can tell you that kicking your friend out of your group (or even threatening to do so) is exactly the wrong thing to do. If your friend is seeing racism in your game, it's probably because there's subconscious racism in your game. If you do nothing about the racism in your game, then you are forcing your friend to, as a condition of participating in your story, play a game that reinforces subconscious biases that devalue him as a person based on the color of his skin. And furthermore, without someone to call out subconscious racism in your game, it will subtly reinforce the subconscious racism of your players.

Don't do the "African-like" nation. That's cultural appropriation.

Another is the next time he says something in your game is racist, you say "Yes. Yes it is. Bigotry is a rampant scourge throughout the realm. Especially among the elves...and the dwarves, and the orcs...and most humans. …"

If your game world can have dragons and magic, it can be free of bigotry.

In conclusion, what bothers you more: being criticized on your imaginary world, or contributing to the racist oppression of people of color?

[Lord Raziere]

Yes, this. I quoted it because all of this is ideal for your described situation. If you want to have race=guaranteed personality traits in the setting, do it for a reason and understand what you're doing, don't just do it because "the book sez so and I am unprepared for anyone to frown at me when I check adversaries for membership in an evil dark-skinned subrace." He may, or may not, be oversensitive, but he's not wrong that "the black-skinned elves are evil, the pale-skinned elves are good" is a characteristic-of-that-time-by-which-I-mean-a-time-in-which-casual-racism-was-common writing decision, which it is quite disturbing most settings continue to uphold (the big exception, oddly enough, being Dragonlance).

yes. I think its a problem in fantasy in general that of all the things extruded fantasy products continue to emulate of older works is their biggest flaws. I mean the genre is supposed to be fantasy right, then why do we keep having fantasies to escape to, that introduce MORE racism rather than LESS? we escape the real world by going into one where an evil is more ubiquitous and acceptable, because of some nebulous divine force says its ok? That doesn't seem right to me.

and yes perhaps the guy is being over-sensitive and a jerk to the group and perhaps that should be fixed. if they are that disruptive, ok, tell them to calm down

but I still think there is something wrong with the fantasy genre when it comes to this sort of thing and would much rather have a setting where my orcs aren't just cannon fodder and are actual people instead. Elder Scrolls and WoW actually do a good job of writing this thing better than most, because in both you can play an orc, and no one cares. they're both proof that the whole heroic fantasy genre can work without a designated evil race, because in one, pretty much the whole world is run by an empire and every race is apart of it while another has the Horde faction who while not holding the same values as the alliance still have noble traits and causes I'd argue even for the worst of them.

[2D8HP]

....Thing is, one of our members happens to be quite sensitive to "black issues" and seems to find racism in just about anything....

....Could use advice!

I don't really have any advice, just an anecdote.

My first gaming circle went from about 1978 to 1986, we were born between 1965 (the DM) and 1971 (my little brother), five of us (including me) were white, two black, and one Asian.

IIRC correctly we felt more divided by age than by race, but in retrospect our racial differences did manifest themselves in our tastes in movies, whites liked "Excalibur" (Knights in armor, an all white cast) more, and my two black friends liked "Hamburger Hill" (Vietnam war, with a mixed cast) more. We all liked "Conan the Barbarian" (Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan, James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom), and it was a movie that sparked what was the biggest racial friction between me and a friend.

Just as there a lot of movies from the 1990's still being broadcast now, I grew up watching movies from the 1940's and 50".
I was watching an Abbott and Costello movie on television while my friend was over, and there was a scene where the waiters at restaurant (all black) suddenly began to sing and dance. My friend looked at me with a bit of anger and asked, "Is this movie just to make black people look stupid?". I told him, "If you watch more of the movie, you'll see that all the white people seem pretty dumb to". He did, laughed and said, "Your right, they're all stupid".

So was my friend too sensitive?
Probably, but in time I became aware of some reasons why, for example, as much as I liked Conan, there was another Schwarzenegger film "Total Recall" that has a small character and scene that just makes me cringe.

So I guess I have some small advice, don't apologize for what you don't have to apologize for, but also try to see the world through your friends eyes.

Good luck.

[Telonius]

Historically, fantasy literature has had a really, really poor track record on this kind of thing. I'm talking back to HG Wells and the Morlocks/Eloi divide, if not before. That went on through Howard's stories (not just Conan), which are unfortunately par for the 1930s-era course; even through to Tolkien and his evil "sallow-skinned" folks and "swarthy southerners" under Sauron's sway. The genre has baggage, and the "always evil" dark-skinned Drow are another entry. It's real, it's there, it's part of the genre, and it's got to be ignored, changed, subverted, accepted, or dealt with however each group decides to deal with it.

I would encourage talking that sort of thing out with the players beforehand, or outside of the session. The conversations might not be comfortable, but at the very least they can give everyone an idea of what to expect. If somebody really can't have fun with the way the rest of the group wants to play it, that's up to you to hash out.

[Lemmy]

PC culture being offended and finding ways to be victimized by every little thing while ruining everyone's fun?! I'm shocked...

Anyway... I reinforce Emperor Ing's advice:

Take him aside, and calmly inform him that pointing out or trying to find racism in everything is making the game awkward, uncomfortable, and un-fun for the rest of the group. Ideally it should stop this behavior, but even reducing it is a win. If it continues to be a nuisance, bring up kicking him out of the group privately with the rest of your friends.

[Xyril]

He kind of has a point about the dark elves thing, though. I think he's wrong to lay it all on you--the evil dark elves thing was created by someone else and has been around so long that not only is it a cliche, it's inversion, the noble dark elf defying the evil ways of his race, is also pretty much a cliche, and we've all just absorbed it without thinking too much about context.

Some people are too sensitive, but honestly some people aren't sensitive enough and completely lack self awareness. Your vague mention of an "Africa-like nation" worries me. I've seen a ton of people complain about racism--sometimes I thought they were making valid complaints, other times not so much. In the context of tabletop gaming, I've only personally experienced witnessed one instance where somebody complained about racism. I was just watching a game that had started a few sessions ago, and at first glance I thought the guy was overreacting. Then I listened to the GM describe their entry into Chieftain Obungo's antechamber: Seemingly alone and unguarded, the Chief surprised the heroes as they charged him by calling his elite warriors, the masked jungle spear-chuckers, seemingly out of nowhere. After the heroes fled to a neighboring village, I realized that Obungo was a bit of an anomaly--where he spoke like a Bond villain with a bad British accent, the other residents of the dark jungle spoke jive like the two black guys and that one old white lady on Airplane! Also, the low level encounter tables were populated by groups of jungle bunnies.

This was ridiculous enough that at that point, I think that the likelihood that the GM was legitimately that oblivious and offensive was slightly smaller than the likelihood that the black player (or my visiting friend and I) were being trolled. I'm sure you're a much less ridiculous person, but any time you go out of your way to link some fantasy culture to a real life culture--particularly one you do not belong to, and evidently have made no real efforts to understand on anything but the most superficial level--you run the risk of inadvertently tripping into all sorts of inaccurate or offensive stereotypes, or tripping into some other cultural baggage. Except for one rather amazing game that that was pretty sensitively crafted, and some rather pedestrian games where it was relevant because the Nazis were the villains, you don't really see people casually tossing the Holocaust into their settings. It's almost as if they weighed consideration for the feelings of their Jewish players against the value of using that setting versus pretty much any other setting.

The nature of D&D is that it's mostly spoken word--you can pretty much go the entire game without mentioning anyone's (human) ethnicity or drawing explicit links to real cultures without having to go out of your way to do so. Like that anecdote I just told you? You know one guy was black, because it was relevant. You don't know anyone else's race, and (I'd like to think) I didn't have to make any obvious awkward phrasing to avoid revealing their races. If you're revealing that the black players nation is Africa-like, and that it's surrounded by a bunch of prosperous white nation, you're making a conscious choice to do so. You should ask yourself why.

[Xyril]

PC culture being offended and finding ways to be victimized by every little thing while ruining everyone's fun?! I'm shocked...

Exaggerated criticism of PC culture being used as a bludgeon to preemptively silence complaints about something you find offensive without having to consider whether or not those complaints have merit?! I'm equally shocked...

Personally, I don't think following Ing's advice will be particularly productive if you preface the conversation with "Look buddy, everyone here is tired of you and your people's constant PC whining..." Tends to put people on the defensive.

[Ruslan]

So I guess I have some small advice, don't apologize for what you don't have to apologize for, but also try to see the world through your friends eyes.

Quoting because good advice bears repeating.

[Knaight]

I was going to point this out before other people got to it, but this is being blown way out of proportion. The thing being objected to is an evil race turned black by their evil when they turned away from a benevolent god to their enemy. It bears more than a little resemblance to circa-1800 racist nonsense, and while that's certainly not intended it's not like the parallel isn't pretty blatantly obvious. It's hardly a case of looking for a pretext, particularly given that this exists in the context of someone who is demonstrably generally a good player and not someone with an axe to grind against the game looking for flimsy pretexts to begin the grinding.

[Coidzor]

I was going to point this out before other people got to it, but this is being blown way out of proportion. The thing being objected to is an evil race turned black by their evil when they turned away from a benevolent god to their enemy. It bears more than a little resemblance to circa-1800 racist nonsense, and while that's certainly not intended it's not like the parallel isn't pretty blatantly obvious. It's hardly a case of looking for a pretext, particularly given that this exists in the context of someone who is demonstrably generally a good player and not someone with an axe to grind against the game looking for flimsy pretexts to begin the grinding.

This is someone who blew up over asking if the party was dealing with drow since the DM was being vague enough that OP had to ask.

They're the one blowing things out of proportion. Drow are stupid, but starting a fight and accusing people of being racist for being aware of the existence of drow as part of the game's setting and asking if they were involved is also pretty out there in lala land.

[MoonCat]

PC culture being offended and finding ways to be victimized by every little thing while ruining everyone's fun?! I'm shocked...

Alternatively, casual racism in pop culture alienating a subset of people who are personally affected by these issues through microaggressions.

Or as you might put it, ruining their fun.


Honestly, the only way to say speaking out against racist issues ruins "everyone's" fun is if you pretend all gamers are white dudes who don't have to deal with racism (and sexism) on a daily basis. The rest of us get our fun periodically ruined anyway.

[Weimann]

I mean, to be perfectly clear about it: the guy is right. Black tends to equal evil in many western pop-cultural contexts. It ties into both a Christian tradition where black is the colour of death, and an American context where black is connected with racial discrimination. A player can be forgiven for questioning that, all the more if they weren't familiar with the dark elves and just heard "Are they dark and therefore evil?". D&D does have inherent racism in it, and he accurately pinpointed one of the cases (if through a tangential lead).

It can, however, be argued that the subject of criticism should be the publication, not the people in the group.

To answer the question, I don't think you can run an adventure in a group where you don't feel comfortable. This is why it's important to have a discussion at the start of the game where you bring up particular subject matters that are sensitive to the players, and talk about setting assumptions and how to approach them. That way, if and when it comes up in the game, there's a foundation of knowledge of how it should be handled.

The solution here, as I see it, is to take some time before the next session and talk about racism in the game. In my mind, the best way to go might be to say that yes, there is racism in the setting. Then, make sure that the fiction of the game explores that in a way that shows more nuance than corresponding to established D&D norms. By now, you can't ignore it. You'll have to instead engage with it on your, rather than the publication's, terms.

The other solution is to kick the guy out, but I suppose that's not a solution for him.

[Lemmy]

Alternatively, casual racism in pop culture alienating a subset of people who are personally affected by these issues through microaggressions.

Or as you might put it, ruining their fun.


Honestly, the only way to say speaking out against racist issues ruins "everyone's" fun is if you pretend all gamers are white dudes who don't have to deal with racism (and sexism) on a daily basis. The rest of us get our fun periodically ruined anyway.

Racism against what? Dark elves? Are there any dark elves out there offended by how they are portrayed by media? Or are we all going to pretend that those dark elves are dark because of a connection to black people, rather than, you know... literal darkness? Should white people be offended by the "white walkers" of ASoIaF/GoT? Or are they not allowed to pretend that the creature's name is an allusion to human ethnicity, rather than cold and ice?

It's no surprise that someone who their head so deep into self-victimization that their first reaction to any and every little thing that bothers them is to see it as an act of aggression and/or bigotry gets their fun ruined periodically. The player asking "why are the DARK elves evil?" is a pretty clear example. Maybe if their first and main assumption were not "everyone of this race/sex is racist/sexist", they'd see that most of the time, even if someone really does something that genuinely hurts their feelings, said someone didn't do it out of prejudice, but either because they wanted to be hurtful because they don't like whoever they did it to, or, most likely, by mistake. Calling a minor offense a "micro-aggression" is like accusing of assault someone who accidentally steps on your toes.

If a player imagines some bizarre connection between a fictional race and a real human ethnicity despite their having zero similarities and cry-bullying the GM into changing the game just for his sake, then that player is ruining everyone's fun and is the only one in the table behaving in a way that could be considered racist.

So I maintain my advice: tell the player to grow up or GTFO.

[Dr.Samurai]

I was going to point this out before other people got to it, but this is being blown way out of proportion. The thing being objected to is an evil race turned black by their evil when they turned away from a benevolent god to their enemy. It bears more than a little resemblance to circa-1800 racist nonsense, and while that's certainly not intended it's not like the parallel isn't pretty blatantly obvious. It's hardly a case of looking for a pretext, particularly given that this exists in the context of someone who is demonstrably generally a good player and not someone with an axe to grind against the game looking for flimsy pretexts to begin the grinding.

He reacted to "are these dark elves". The word "dark" here could have meant several things, especially when prefaced with "are these evil elves". In fact, if you really didn't know anything about drow, jumping to the conclusion that "dark elves" means "black" elves doesn't seem automatic. Since evil elves might suggest dark as in "suggestive of or arising from evil characteristics or forces; sinister".

In other words, there is room here to speculate that this person might be a little too sensitive, and trying to make changes to prevent an outburst might not be very easy. I say this as someone annoyed that most characters that aren't white in D&D are orcs or drow or tieflings or dragonborn or what have you. That bugs me. But his reaction seems unreasonable.

There may be issues of racism in the game. It doesn't mean that some people aren't just looking to find a problem where none really exists.

[Themrys]

Calling a minor offense a "micro-aggression" is like accusing of assault someone who accidentally steps on your toes.

Micro-agression is when everyone steps on your toes quite accidentally all the time, and swears it was an accident, but for some reason, only you and the people you share a certain characteristic with have their toes stepped on all the time, while to others, who are also in the possession of toes, this happens only rarely.


To all those who suggest to threaten to kick the player out of the group if he doesn't "grow up" or such, you are aware that this will almost certainly result in him leaving?

At least if he's himself affected by racism, which I would assume is the case, because people who aren't usually don't let racism get in the way of their fun.



How to solve this: The obvious way would be to just ask. Presumably this player knows the game and what parts of the source material he finds objectionable.

Other than that, the advice already given on just not having "evil races" in the game is good - it is lazy storytelling anyway.

[ProbabilityNerd]

I'll take "white fragility" for $200, Alex.

[Themrys]

Honestly, the only way to say speaking out against racist issues ruins "everyone's" fun is if you pretend all gamers are white dudes who don't have to deal with racism (and sexism) on a daily basis. The rest of us get our fun periodically ruined anyway.

Yes. And honestly, the suggestion to threaten a player with kicking him out because he points out the racism and this spoils "everyone's" fun is laughable. If you admit out loud that the racism is there on purpose and you have no intention to reduce it, you can as well just tell him to leave.

If the sexist DM I once played with had told me that he objects to my pointing out his casual sexism, I would most certainly not have wasted anymore of my time trying to help him improve. I'd have accepted that he's a sexist ******* and wants to be one, and have left the group.

[Rynjin]

I'm not a person of color, but I can tell you that kicking your friend out of your group (or even threatening to do so) is exactly the wrong thing to do. If your friend is seeing racism in your game, it's probably because there's subconscious racism in your game.

Or he's "seeing it" because he likes ****ing with people. People have been making these kinds of jokes looooooooooooooooooong before this random guy did. "The BLACK Stallion? BLACK Friday? BLACK magic? DARK Elves? Why's it gotta be black, huh?"

Don't do the "African-like" nation. That's cultural appropriation.

Because as we all know, white people are only allowed to tell stories set in Europe or vaguely European seeming settings. Anything else is racist.

In conclusion, what bothers you more: being criticized on your imaginary world, or contributing to the racist oppression of people of color?

Using Drow in your campaign is not "oppression" by any stretch of the word. You SJW types should really learn the definitions of words, or at least just make up new ones like "micro-aggression" instead of twisting existing words to the breaking point just to fit your narrative.

[aberratio ictus]

Ok, here is what you do, its actually quite simple and easy:

just let them define their own nation, let them tell you what nation they want for backstory and don't touch it in play. If you get into a fight with people, don't mention their race. instead of "a bunch of orcs attack you" just say "a bunch of raiders attack you" while using the same stats, or a bunch of bandits, or a bunch of soldiers from this empire that is known to enslave people. or a bunch of mercenaries from a guild that is known for its greed to the point of evil, things like that, notice how NONE these things need to mention their race or require a racial element to them.

If people press and try to get detailed descriptions of any of these people, just say that there are "a bunch of races" without specifying more and move on. you don't need to specify this stuff, mooks are mooks its only DnD's obsession with color-coding that you get the conceit that you HAVE to color-code the evil, when there are so many other ways to signal "EVIL GUY TO KILL" that are just as easy.

To wit, the list of non-racial things you can most likely kill with a clean conscience:
bandits
raiders
pirates
slavers
imperial soldiers
evil wizards
assassins
mercenaries
extortionists
torturers
pyromaniacs
evil cultists
thugs
ninjas
tamed guard beasts that attack people on sight
undead that a necromancer raised to follow his every order
cannibals

Just simply label them by what evil stuff they've ACTUALLY DONE, rather than what they appear as. Done.

This is still the best advice in the whole thread.

Also, I just wanted to chime in and say I hate the concept of "cultural appropriation". Sharing culture brings people together, and everybody should be allowed to enjoy jazz or European classical music and wear whatever hairstyle they like. Shouting "cultural appropration" at everything just divides people.

That said - I`d still strongly advise against making an "African Kingdom". He most likely would take offense to that, especially if you get it wrong, and don`t do enough research. Let him instead build his kingdom himself, like Lord Raziere said.

[Rynjin]

The problem with an "African-like kingdom" is more that...Africa's not a kingdom, it's a continent.

That, itself, is a weird stereotype (and one established companies, even ones that claim to be progressive *cough*Paizo*cough* keep perpetuating). Base it off a SPECIFIC country if you want one. Is it Egypt? Nigeria? South Africa? The Congo? What?

Ironically if this is the part he'd called you out on, I'd be more on his side.