"Racist" and Other Anachronisms

[Wytchee]

The word anarchy is pretty entrenched in the FR setting. The Nelather/Pirate isle, for instance, are described as an "Armed Anarchy," and there's even aweapon propertt called "Anarchic."

I get where you're coming from, Wytchee, I just don't agree.

I'm more concerned, again, with the context in which these terms are spoken in character than I am with whether or not the word literally exists in the Forgotten Realms setting.

The examples you cited are a bit of a red herring, as I would wager they are not referring to Anarchism in the political sense, but rather in the colloquial, as in reference to chaos/lawlessness; the context in which I object to using these terms would be political.

Examples:

"This is lawlessness! This is anarchy!" protests the befuddled paladin.
^this would be totally fine.
"I am the harbinger of doom, the steward of anarchy!" gloats the edgy blackguard.
^also okay.

However,

"I'm an anarchist. I am opposed to illegitimate hierarchies. Here, won't you read my manifesto?" is really strange considering the setting, is all I'm saying.

It's the difference between a faction living communally and that faction being called communist. Not the perfect analogy, but it works.

I hope that clears things up. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, anyway.

[Baron Saturday]

*drags you back up the hill to sacrifice upon my altar of pedantry*

[One Two Three Five]

Anachronisms

This setting has space ships

[Baron Saturday]

This setting has space ships

I always forget about illithid space ships. And whenever someone reminds me, I hit the hard liquor until I forget again.

Thank you for contributing to my budding alcoholism.

[JediMindTrix]

Please corpsebash

[Wytchee]

Anachronisms

This setting has space ships

I made abundantly clear that the terms being (imo) anachronisms wasn't the central issue, here.

[Kuma]

"I'm an anarchist. I am opposed to illegitimate hierarchies. Here, won't you read my manifesto?" is really strange considering the setting, is all I'm saying.

True! However, the setting was written without any consideration for the idea of peasant revolts (which have happened since the year 209BC at the earliest) and non-evil "Chaotic" (alignment-wise) government. Further, most of y'all are liberals and will 1: get the wall and 2: use the term 'anarchist' as a pejorative.

If I were to play a character opposed to hierarchies and started handing out manifestos, I probably wouldn't call myself an anarchist IC (I'd probably just find another word that means exactly the same thing, make one up, or give myself a guild-y title instead), but I assure you a lot of other people will. The point I'm trying to make here is that if a character is being called this for their actions, one should not blame the character but those calling her this. However...

I'm trying to understand if you're opposed to specifically the word with its loaded and slightly anachronistic meaning (i.e: "opposition to illegitimate hierarchy" and an actual form of philosophical thought, rather than just "discord"), or if you're opposed to characters with worldviews and philosophies that could be described as anarchist/socialist/syndicalist or what have you - I feel this is a very important distinction to make. I can agree with the former, but I'll violently disagree with the latter.

EDIT: Furthermore, Sigil - which is a part of the greater D&D setting we play in, has a number of obscure references throughout the server, and a number of characters and quests have involved - has the following as part of its core setting...

Revolutionary League

("Anarchists"), who believe that social order and man-made laws are inherently corrupt and must be destroyed—though none of their members can agree on what, if anything, should replace them. Like the Indeps, they don't have a factol or a headquarters, though they have many safe houses and secret meeting places.

[Wytchee]

Stuffs.

I think you wildly misinterpreted the spirit of my post; it's wasn't meant to discredit or deter roleplay on this theme. I felt the use of terms topical to our modern political climate was jarring and obtuse ("anarchist" was just a single example I came up with) in line with Irongron's post.

It ruins the "escapism" factor for a lot of people, myself included. The purpose of my post was to ask people to consider that.

[Kuma]

Stuffs.

I think you wildly misinterpreted the spirit of my post; it's wasn't meant to discredit or deter roleplay on this theme. I felt the use of terms topical to our modern political climate was jarring and obtuse ("anarchist" was just a single example I came up with).

It ruins the "escapism" factor for a lot of people, myself included. The purpose of my post was to ask people to consider that.

Then I more or less agree, just that everyone needs to ensure that we're blaming the people using the term, not the characters on the receiving end of it.

[Irongron]

https://youtu.be/t2c-X8HiBng

[Opustus]

I think the announcement was pretty clear, but I'll give a little more background here, and what led me to this decision.

This isn't just about the term being anachronistic, but also deeply offensive. Being called a racist is something very serious, and in our world is understood as discriminating against people based upon a false assumption that someone is genetically inferior/inclined to a certain behaviour based upon their heritage. The thing is, in FR this isn't a 'false assumption', goblins are generally evil, tiefling really do have 'devil-blood', as the announcement states racial conflict is part of the FR, and more broadly,the fantasy setting.

This is a genuinely serious slur to use against someone, and simply does not translate into this setting, unless immediately clarified with the caveat that this does not refer to the commonly understood meaning of the term. Calling another character or group 'racist' is therefore akin to saying 'paladins are all sex-pests, or character x is a homophobe.' It is a needlessly inflamatory term.

As a new player if someone said 'Hey, I don't talk to Clem Fandango and his crew because they're all known racists.' I'd be seriously concerned about just what kind of game I'd stumbled into, and just what was tolerated here. If you play a tiefling and someone doesn't trust you as a result, or suspects you're indulging in human sacrifice, they're not being 'racist' but being entirely logical in terms of the setting.

Back in the day I saw this happen all the time with the good aligned kobolds and goblins that once dwelled in Cordor, and it was just horrible to witness.

Recently, while monitoring certain reports and character chatter I saw this was being used way too much, and while as Grumpycat said we're unlikely to throw the book at someone implying this, I also want to nip this habit in the bud before it goes any further.

Racism can also be understood as our common thought patterns of people whom we perceive as different (colour, nationality, religion) which can discriminate against people in a most palpable way. This is certainly a thing in FR. And as you said, if racial tensions are commonplace in FR, shouldn't we have proper words to discuss them with? It's not like "racist" is a bad word, I fail to see how it's more offensive than bigot, xenophobe, and a slew of other words unrelated to the concept of "race" or "racism".

I just seem to very strongly disagree with your (or the DMs' in general) understanding of what is allowed/tasteful/inflammatory in our fantasy setting. I could, with good conscience, playing my dwarf who believes in the freedom of sexual expression call someone a "homophobe" for thinking or expressing that homosexuality is somehow bad. I guess she could call that person a bigot or a prude, but that doesn't make nearly the same statement.

I understand that "racism", "racist", and "race" as terms which denote qualities of a person are conflicted in the real world due to socio-political inflammations, but it's not the players we are calling names but the characters. Isn't our RP rife with discriminatory and offensive terminology?

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I got called a bigot for being prejudicial against a tiefling - and not racist. So, the policy update seems to be working!

[Mr_Rieper]

I just seem to very strongly disagree with your (or the DMs' in general) understanding of what is allowed/tasteful/inflammatory in our fantasy setting. I could, with good conscience, playing my dwarf who believes in the freedom of sexual expression call someone a "homophobe" for thinking or expressing that homosexuality is somehow bad. I guess she could call that person a bigot or a prude, but that doesn't make nearly the same statement.

I understand that "racism", "racist", and "race" as terms which denote qualities of a person are conflicted in the real world due to socio-political inflammations, but it's not the players we are calling names but the characters. Isn't our RP rife with discriminatory and offensive terminology?

We've already established, long ago, that homophobia isn't a thing in FR. At all. Please don't go around making a big deal about homophobia. Attack the individual about being rude and disrespectful if you must, but homophobia is NOT a thing. It's commonly accepted in the Realms that people can be partners with whomever they want.

In fact, the whole homophobia and racism things are very closely related. Both of which are so common that nobody would think to use them as slurs. Homosexuality being so common that nobody finds it strange, and racism being so common that nobody has a specific word for it.

[Opustus]

If a person is being homophobic as in offensive towards homosexuality or homosexuals, why could my character not call it homophobia? I am not making a big deal about homophobia per se, I am making a big deal about why does my using of the word have to be such a big deal? I don't get, I mean I really don't, why it might be on the banned word list. My characters, as I read FR as a setting, might use the word "homophobe", even if this might not align with your personal understanding. I don't get why you people must inhibit my use of language--or that of others.

[The GrumpyCat]

Racism can also be understood as our common thought patterns of people whom we perceive as different (colour, nationality, religion) which can discriminate against people in a most palpable way. This is certainly a thing in FR. And as you said, if racial tensions are commonplace in FR, shouldn't we have proper words to discuss them with? It's not like "racist" is a bad word, I fail to see how it's more offensive than bigot, xenophobe, and a slew of other words unrelated to the concept of "race" or "racism".

I just seem to very strongly disagree with your (or the DMs' in general) understanding of what is allowed/tasteful/inflammatory in our fantasy setting. I could, with good conscience, playing my dwarf who believes in the freedom of sexual expression call someone a "homophobe" for thinking or expressing that homosexuality is somehow bad. I guess she could call that person a bigot or a prude, but that doesn't make nearly the same statement.

I understand that "racism", "racist", and "race" as terms which denote qualities of a person are conflicted in the real world due to socio-political inflammations, but it's not the players we are calling names but the characters. Isn't our RP rife with discriminatory and offensive terminology?

I'll re-affirm the situation.

We don't mind you using the term 'Racist' very occasionaly. We will only grow concerned when it is a word your character uses frequently.

If this bothers you - why are you using the word 'Racist' so much?

Are you using it in reference to monsterous races?

If so you shouldn't be. The hatred of monsterous races isn't racism - it's common sense. LIkewise a heavy distrust of Tieflings isn't not racist, it's common sense

'But what about hatred of 'goodly' races, like elves and such? Isn't that racism?'

Yes, you're right. And using that to describe the situation is fine. But here's the thing - why are you going after this person so much?

I mean don't get me wrong, someone saying elves are icky is bad yeah, but surely you have more to worry about? Like the massive goblin hoard in the mines. The Huge portal to the hells. The dozens of warlocks running about. The undead appearing on Cordor lands. The Banites gathering in Minmir? Arn't all these things more important than some guy who says 'I hate elves?'

'Yes, yes, but this guy - he killed some elves!'

'Ok. Then call him a murderer. Call him a torturer. Call him after the things he's -done- that should warrent such outpouring of hatred. There's tonnes of things you can then call them! But if a huge chunk of your rp seems to be about the ability to call someone 'Racist' then I think you really need to look at your character concept.

[One Two Three Five]

Arn't all these things more important than some guy who says 'I hate elves?'

Probably more important than hating elves too, but your mileage may vary.

[Opustus]

Are you using it in reference to monsterous races?

If so you shouldn't be. The hatred of monsterous races isn't racism - it's common sense. LIkewise a heavy distrust of Tieflings isn't not racist, it's common sense

While I agree on the generalisation of it being common sense, I am still free to play a character who views the hatred of monstrous races as racism or racist thinking? I'm not meaning that I would, I'm just checking. What our characters say in-game are not truths but interpretations that shape the world (I guess you don't want the world shaped in the direction of "racist" being a mundane word). I just want to make sure that our characters may interpret things as they want.

And sure, killing tonnes of elves could very well be understood as racism IC, who knows? The point is, I don't feel it's for me to decide (technically it's for you to decide, methinks). Censorship is a silly thing in roleplaying game, if the object of censorship is not an actual problem -- which I don't think this is -- because it interferes with how we choose to roleplay our characters.

Just to be sure, I'm not trying to influence your decision, I think it's not a drastic one and to a degree I understand your reasoning. I'm merely doing this for the sake of argument and that we know, as players, what your stance is based on. I'm all for transparency and discussing stuff till the ink runs out, but I understand if some feel it's conflicting or exhausting.

[Queen Titania]

Are you using it in reference to monsterous races?

If so you shouldn't be. The hatred of monsterous races isn't racism - it's common sense. LIkewise a heavy distrust of Tieflings isn't not racist, it's common sense

While I agree on the generalisation of it being common sense, I am still free to play a character who views the hatred of monstrous races as racism or racist thinking? I'm not meaning that I would, I'm just checking. What our characters say in-game are not truths but interpretations that shape the world (I guess you don't want the world shaped in the direction of "racist" being a mundane word). I just want to make sure that our characters may interpret things as they want.

And sure, killing tonnes of elves could very well be understood as racism IC, who knows? The point is, I don't feel it's for me to decide (technically it's for you to decide, methinks). Censorship is a silly thing in roleplaying game, if the object of censorship is not an actual problem -- which I don't think this is -- because it interferes with how we choose to roleplay our characters.

Just to be sure, I'm not trying to influence your decision, I think it's not a drastic one and to a degree I understand your reasoning. I'm merely doing this for the sake of argument and that we know, as players, what your stance is based on. I'm all for transparency and discussing stuff till the ink runs out, but I understand if some feel it's conflicting or exhausting.

The real core of the entire announcement, underneath the underneath and to make it simple, is to treat monsters as monsters. A tiefling treated as a horrible evil thing shouldn't be called out as racist because that doesn't make sense in the setting. Tensions between the goodly races are normal as well, if not to the same extreme.

This doesn't mean "Don't play a character that gets along with everyone", or a character that is uncomfortable with these things. We are merely saying the word is out of place in the setting.

As Grumpy said it is not all out censorship, it is a request to respect the setting, closer to the equivalent of asking you not to emote your gonne actually being a laser shooting gun that doubles as a phone invented by the future company of Apple Fey.

[Wytchee]

If a person is being homophobic as in offensive towards homosexuality or homosexuals, why could my character not call it homophobia? I am not making a big deal about homophobia per se, I am making a big deal about why does my using of the word have to be such a big deal? I don't get, I mean I really don't, why it might be on the banned word list. My characters, as I read FR as a setting, might use the word "homophobe", even if this might not align with your personal understanding. I don't get why you people must inhibit my use of language--or that of others.

Because 'homophobe' is far too topical for a fantasy setting, the primary function of which is escapism. Please don't use modern terms like this in character. >.>

[Bashagain]

Back in the day I saw this happen all the time with the good aligned kobolds and goblins that once dwelled in Cordor, and it was just horrible to witness.

Recently, while monitoring certain reports and character chatter I saw this was being used way too much, and while as Grumpycat said we're unlikely to throw the book at someone implying this, I also want to nip this habit in the bud before it goes any further.

Thank you, Irongron! Thank you!

I think a good approach to Arelith fantasy setting is WWTS: What Would Tolkien Say?

Would Frodo lobby for goblin rights? Would Gimli ever gruffly grunt, “Aye Aragorn, that Sauron is a real fascist”? Would Legolas ever ask Aragorn, “do you think Samwise has a certain feelings for Frodo?”, Only to be questioned by Aragorn, “What are you implying, Legolas? Are you homophobic?”

Infrequently, as Pythonesque parody, I would probably chuckle at the absurdity of such terms and concepts if uttered by Arelith Characters. But frequent encounter of modern day concepts in Arelith would be - as the original post puts it - immersion breaking.

[Wytchee]

Aye Aragorn, that Sauron is a real fascist

[Dr_Hazard89]

If a person is being homophobic as in offensive towards homosexuality or homosexuals, why could my character not call it homophobia? I am not making a big deal about homophobia per se, I am making a big deal about why does my using of the word have to be such a big deal? I don't get, I mean I really don't, why it might be on the banned word list. My characters, as I read FR as a setting, might use the word "homophobe", even if this might not align with your personal understanding. I don't get why you people must inhibit my use of language--or that of others.

Because 'homophobe' is far too topical for a fantasy setting, the primary function of which is escapism. Please don't use modern terms like this in character. >.>

I think I'd have to agree. Homophobia really seems like a modern term. I don't think that word came about until the late 1960s/early 1970s (correct me if I'm wrong). It would be out of place in history, let alone a fantasy setting where there really isn't any stigma associated with it. There are entire (and very common) races that consider it the norm.

I think that there's tasteful and funny ways to inject modern terms/thinking into RP, but it should really be used rarely for a giggle in the appropriate company. Like that time Pert yelled DUDE! That was great and we all loved it.

[Dovesong]

WEELLLL
We didn't ALL love it
XD

[PlunderBunny]

Wytchee, I agree that the use of the terms "racist" and "racism", even if they might be appropriate in a strictly textbook definition sense when applied to certain actions/attitudes within the setting, should be avoided on the basis of them being charged terms. These terms could easily be inflammatory to many people on whatever point of the political spectrum for a variety of real-world reasons, and I agree with what seems to be the primary (or one of the major) reasons for the DM stance on this: Don't do it because it could easily bring up real-world anxieties and concerns, offending or ruining the fun of the game for many people.

However...

...a fantasy setting, the primary function of which is escapism...

I don't think notions of escapism need to enter into it. It seems to me that, because many people could easily have their day ruined by seeing these charged terms pop up in-character, it shouldn't be done. I'd imagine the stance falls under the simple purview of the Be Nice rule and its clause regarding "potentially offensive roleplay", without letting the idea of escapism (and related concepts of anachronism or realism) even come into consideration.

[Dovesong]

Also uh homophobia would probably not be a thing as none of the FR religions carry the aversion to homosexual relations that the Big Three do.