Role Playing Games (RPGs) have long been an escape for society’s misfits, at least since Gary Gygax and Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) released Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) in 1974. Based on an older tradition of role play (off-shoots of theater), they are a way to hang out with friends and imagine new worlds where we can be something other than what we currently are. You can play a different species (or race, or ethnicity), a different sex or gender, you can have a different appearance, different attributes and abilities and even different “alignments.”
Fans of HBO’s West World will know that you can choose a white hat (i.e. to be a good guy), or a black hat (playing the villain). So too, in the 1974 release of D&D you could be Lawful (law-abiding and honorable), Chaotic (rebellious and individualistic), or Neutral (seeking a balance). These categories were based on the works of Michael Moorcock (famous for Elric of Melnibone) and Poul Anderson (famous for Three Hearts and Three Lions). Later, in the 1977 release, TSR included the axis of Good (altruistic, with respect for life), Neutral and Evil (selfish, with no respect for life) to the mix. You could play as Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Neutral, etc., but you had to declare up-front. It was supposed to be fun. However, this world wasn’t without problems.
Some players were upset by the 1980’s campaign, “The Curse of Strahd,” which used stereotypes of Romani peoples as a basis for their Vistani, a group of nomadic travelers. Yes, works of fiction are reductive by necessity. How could you adequately represent an entire culture in a module that has several dozen other “working parts?” That brings us to Kenneth Burke’s idea that:
In short, all attempts to represent something through the use of symbols are reductive in nature, and lead us to believe certain things, which may or may not be true. Though such reductionism may have been “par for the course,” Wizards of the Coast (WotC, the creators of Magic: The Gathering)–who bought TSR in 1997–nevertheless worked with a Romani consultant to present the Vistani in a less reductive light.
Further, some creatures, monsters and races were given certain alignments, and choosing one of these races for your Player Character (PC) grants you certain attribute bonuses and abilities unavailable to other races. This is again the nature of gaming: There has to be a structure of rules to allow players to individualize their characters. To their credit, D&D and other role-playing games have always emphasized the need for diverse parties to prevail against a wide range of problems and threats. However, is the structure of a threat enough to ensure diverse outcomes? And are the rules allowing for creativity and individual experiences or causing more problems?
If we think there’s such a thing as an inherently evil race, then might we suspect that some groups or people in our own world are inherently, irreparably evil?
Critics have always noticed the problems with the idea of an entire race or species–that isn’t a devil or daemon–that are inherently evil (or entirely anything, for that matter), but the problem wasn’t the most pressing. If you don’t like the rules, change them or don’t play.
Nevertheless, critics of popular culture have also long acknowledged, with Kenneth Burke, that “Literature”–and in this category we should include all of popular culture–“is Equipment for Living.” That’s why I study stand up comedy. Thus we learn life lessons from stories we read and watch, and perhaps even moreso from stories in which we participate.
A lot of people also don’t tend to question the world around them: It is what it is. These people may take that same mindless approach to games, never questioning the rules or systems of the game–it wouldn’t occur to them to change the rules. And these rules represent a further selection and deflection of real-world rules.
This is how I got into D&D, at about 9 years old, in fourth or fifth grade. My friends and I weren’t cool like the Stranger Things kids, creating our own campaigns and worlds. We bought and played modules–preset adventures and campaigns. We read through accepted the world on-face, and faithfully tried to represent our characters and complete quests.
If we haven’t questioned either set of rules (in-game or real life), we certainly never question whether or not the rules of the game apply IRL. But our mindless approach doesn’t mean our acceptance of those in-game rules doesn’t bleed over. If we think there’s such a thing as an inherently evil race, then might we suspect that some groups or people in our own world are inherently, irreparably evil?
So, though it may not have been the most pressing issue, in response to the recent events concerning race, WotC decided to make some changes. The company released a statement and a six-point plan for improving the game, including this tidbit:
Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right.
The plan includes [Note: This is the order in which they appear. I’ve numbered them for easier reference; WotC doesn’t give them a numeric ranking]:
- More diverse depictions of the so-called, “evil” races (drow and orcs) in upcoming titles.
- Implementing a review process for books and modules up for reprint.
- The ability to customize characters, even with regard to “racial bonuses,” to emphasize the individuality, even among members of the same “race.”
- Continuing to revise “The Curse of Strahd” and related projects.
- Employing experts and sensitivity readers in all the revisions of past books and modules.
- Recruiting a more diverse staff.
Parts 1, 2, 4 and 5 seem all of a piece: revisions to prevent reducing races and ethnic groups in the literature down to set attributes, especially not problematic and oversimplified ones. And part 6 they should have been doing all along.
However part 3 will fundamentally change how the game is played. If your character’s attributes aren’t necessarily tied to the race you’ve chosen, then we should see much more diversity in the characters represented. It remains to be seen how these rules will shake out, but I’m happy at least that WotC aren’t just parroting #BlackLivesMatter, nor are they just throwing money at the issue. They’re trying to be better when doing what they do. That makes them role models.
Comments? Thoughts? Something I missed?
