There is no 'racism' in ArmageddonMUD

[Down Under]

Isn't it problematic that the only way we draw on to 'RP Fantastical Racism' is from RL Racism though?

Meaning -- when people are being 'racist' in game, they are using what they know from RL as tropes of racist behavior to exemplify in the game world.

Even though we might be acting within a fantastical context, we are portraying based on what we know and understand racism to be.

Racism / Fantastical Racism is present in Dark Sun, but not nearly as emphasized as it is on ArmageddonMUD.

Yes. It is 'problematic.' Nearly all conflict in Armageddon is 'problematic.'

There is literally no where else to draw on conflict tropes from than RL themes.  That is and will always be true until creatures from another dimension or aliens decide to invade Earth. 

What is being discussed here is word creep.  There are problematic issues around a word.  You change the word without actually changing the root cause issue, so the new word becomes problematic, so you change the word again... rinse and repeat.  The only way to actually solve the root cause here would be to make an OOC rule against racism/speciesism.  I am not sure that is something this game needs.  It's not a cuddle-puddle universe.

You're not wrong -- I don't think changing the word from 'race' to 'species' without a whole lot of documentation/attitude shift and matching expectations would do anything besides what you mention, word creep.

For reference, some links to articles on Wizards of the Coast's reticence to return to Dark Sun as IP for 5E:
https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/dark-sun-problematic

Tying ability scores to background rather than race:
https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/one-dnd-races-backgrounds-unearthed-arcana


I don't think racism / race-politics (or slavery, not to open that can of worms) are essential to the theme of the game. I think we are used to them being parts of the game and theme, so it's difficult for us to imagine the game without them as core themes.

Looking at the recent changes to city elves for example, and providing cultural context as to why elves are treated the way they are, is definitely a positive step. The Magefall incident and all of the context provided there also gives greater depth to Gemmed RP and why commoners might hate Gemmed Magickers, or why they might support them.

Honestly, not really sure what the answer is -- ArmageddonMUD is a 30 year old game with a lot of baggage and inertia. Maybe it's just something to be mindful of in RP? I dunno.

[Dresan]

Does changing the word change what we do?

To quote smarter people than me, words are important.

I love the themes of the game, and I want to continue playing them for years to come. And I believe this clarification within the documentation will allow us to preserve the RP we enjoy. There is already a history of staff having to step in to deal with people misinterpreting the themes in one way or another.

I get some people don't feel the need to change after 30+ years of the game's history, and are likely annoyed at the suggestion.  However, that is just really another indicator that the game should complete remove itself from these politically charged topics in today's real life culture as soon as possible. After all, this is not even a battle that needs fighting, as there is abolutely no need or benefit to use this inaccurate terminology within the game.

[FantasyWriter]

I agree words are INSANELY important.
AND words are how we communicate ideas that, in truth, go so far beyond what we can communicate with each other (the Greek concept we get the word 'idea' from) and that people view differently but have to share a common language to communicate. Changing the lable, does not change what is inside the box, and it feels like there are two different themes is this converstaion that may be getting confounded.  Changing the word, vs changing in-game culture and documentation.

I think staff's decision to take the OOC policing of game docs (within reason) and keeping the pushback IC was and is a great move toward solving a lot of the issues we have around racism in the game. You can play a strictly document-following human templar, a leader who will hire anyone who you think will make you more coin or bring you more prestige, or an elf that longs for human society [shiver]... scratch it, kill that last one with fire!

I think this is an important and justified discussion for us to all have even if I disagree with the direction the OP would like to take it.  Thank you, Dresan, for bringing up and letting us all have our say.

[burble]

Call me an old school AD&D'er but I always saw it as alignment over race (you could have a party of any mixture of playable races as long as their alignments didn't conflict). That's the way it has been in all the single player AD&D games I've played over the years. Can't you play a half-demon in Baldur's gate 3?

Removing the forced racial conflict in Arm's docs would not be a loss.

Just change the docs. Keep the tribalism, remove the rape stuff about half-elves. A lot of work but just assign a help-file or doc to each high karma player and have them do the rewrite...earn that karma!

[Dresan]

If staff changed city elves to give mul strength the longer you hanged around them the hatred for celves would magically disappear tomorrow.

Similar levels of hatred should exist for mages but i am sure staff have to continuously remind people they shouldn't be best friends with them just to gain access to those kick ass buffs.

If the staff ever happens to make celf OP as dwarves or delves, this clarification will also be beneficial to help players understand why open intimate relationships with celves is bad.

[Markku]

Keep the tribalism, remove the rape stuff about half-elves.

This was softened a while back:
"If you are new to Armageddon MUD, you should be aware that the vast majority of half-elves are not the product of loving relationships."

[Agent_137]

I think this is a good thing to consider. However there is a strong counter point here https://www.dndbeyond.com/races

In D&D parlance, what you call species are called races. And in all the D&D settings I know, there is no racism among differently colored humans, but there is frequently racism among the different D&D races.

Changing references to speciesism would be very confusing for everyone who comes to Arm from a D&D background. That said, it is probably good to clarify the distinction somewhere so that people without a D&D background can read it and understand.

D&D are already changing have already changed from race to species for the same reason.

https://www.polygon.com/23488097/dungeons-dragons-race-species-rule-change-announcement-wotc-unearthed-arcana

2 years ago they said that, but they're still calling it race on dndbeyond that they own and expect players to use every game?

If they're serious about the change they're sitting on it hard.

Let's just make it clear that it's a species thing and not a IRL race thing without changing all the terms... which dnd isn't even doing evidently. 

Keep the tribalism, remove the rape stuff about half-elves.

This was softened a while back:
"If you are new to Armageddon MUD, you should be aware that the vast majority of half-elves are not the product of loving relationships."

A very weak softening. It's still a bunch of rape that some staffer injected into Arm that isn't in the source material.  But that's a side topic.

[HazelHomewrecker]

This is such a strange discussion on both sides of the equation.

Being able to roleplay racism in Armageddon does not make you a racist just because you need to draw on real world prejudice and experience, since after all, Elves, Dwarves (don't quote me about Dwarfism I do not care), Muls, Half-giants and Half-Elves do not exist in our reality. The only way we know how to do anything is from exposure and experience, and if you're concerned that roleplaying to the game's established lore and documentation is going to make you racist in real life, maybe you should work on that.

I can roleplay a straight man. I can roleplay a homosexual woman. I am neither of those, but that does not make me incapable of doing it, nor does it MAKE me a straight man or homosexual woman just because I CAN.

If the documentation of the game says that you should hate an elf as a human, because elves are untrustworthy (even though that's changed recently), then you should not trust the elf because they're an ELF, not because of the color of their skin. The same goes for literally any mix and match scenario from any of the handful of Zalanthan races.

This isn't an issue. I agree that the game is starting to feel more... "we're all happy friends lets hold hands" and honestly I'm not a fan of the sudden wave of en masse inclusion, the raw, nitty gritty and harsh world is what really hooked me to the game, but we as players are given the OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE whether or not we want to be racist (and please, can we stop arguing word choice, it's.. really not important, and some of you are doing so to completely detract from the topic just for the sake of being contrarian) in-game. If you want to hate all elves, kill all mages and break the bones of every half-elf you see, then you are free to do so. If you want to smooch on gemmed, mack on elves and pop out half-elves all week long, you are free to do so.

In all honesty, I believe these changes to foster and even more volatile in-game society, and that's a GOOD thing. It will promote so many different stories and plots between PCs.

[Tuannon]

I tend to agree, the only really easily detectable hostility in the game is based on who you work for or who you work with.

The magefall stuff has been building up very slowly, and I feel like it'll just take all the race tension energy when it finally kicks off.

On topic, yep.. It's an argument about word choices. Also references are being made to references, not actual usable rules or facts I think.

[Kavrick]

D&D are already changing have already changed from race to species for the same reason.

https://www.polygon.com/23488097/dungeons-dragons-race-species-rule-change-announcement-wotc-unearthed-arcana

It's a weird thing because their website still says race. Honestly I don't really get it, this really is semantics. Even if DnD in particular decides that it's going to start using 'species', so many other games, TTRPG systems and stuff still say 'race'. I think the average RPG player see's race as 'different intelligent humanoids', where 'species' is usually more monstrous stuff. Because humans are the only intelligent race on earth when it comes to being on the same level, I've never personally attributed race to any irl counterpart, I also think trying to draw parallels is a little weird because of it.

I'd like to say any sane human being will not equate irl racism to fantasy racism, we're all adults here at the end of the day and I think it's expected to be mature about these sorts of things. Fantasy races are actually supposed to have completely different ways of thinking, physiology and other massive differences, comparing that to humans that have slightly different bone structure, tones of skin and stuff like that is a hard sell.

Also sorry Usiku, this wasn't entirely supposed to be a reply to you, just my general opinion, I just wanted to address the dnd thing:

[val]

Pathfinder, which is run by a very diverse crew, uses 'ancestry' instead of 'race' and talks about prejudices instead of any -isms. I like that one.

[Valkyrja]

Pathfinder, which is run by a very diverse crew, uses 'ancestry' instead of 'race' and talks about prejudices instead of any -isms. I like that one.

It is my hope that we can modernize ArmageddonMUD in the coming years to appeal to a new audience while keeping our core harsh themes. I do not believe the game needs "racism" to be interesting or fun. We've seen a lot of great roleplay between the different social classes based on the adjustments to elves by the wonderful @Hulrouk and I strongly believe we should adjust the rest of our problematic material in the future to move in the same direction.

[Gimfalisette]

I'm generally in favor of replacing the word "race" in game with something better in order to move farther away from RL biases. I think "speciesism" would work fine even though as explained above, elves and humans are technically the same species. Zalanthas doesn't have that scientific understanding though so species is acceptable as a descriptor.

[dumbstruck]

Pathfinder, which is run by a very diverse crew, uses 'ancestry' instead of 'race' and talks about prejudices instead of any -isms. I like that one.

I really like this as a terminology.

[Dresan]

I think "speciesism" would work fine even though as explained above, elves and humans are technically the same species. Zalanthas doesn't have that scientific understanding though so species is acceptable as a descriptor.

I thought so too. They are still different subspecies after all.

But given of the strong sentiments, which unfortunately will likely get worse over months and years, I am starting to wonder if its best to just change halfelves to being infertile now and be done with this entire topic in one go, rather than letting it linger and fester.

That said, even a tiny retcon seems like a tall mountain to climb at this point. 

[Tailong]

I long for a time when people leave their real world 'prejudices' and generalizations at the door when they come play. Zalanthias isn't Earth, and we shouldn't be bringing earthy 'morals and ethics' to it.  Let it be its own thing.

Using Pathfinder terminology is fine, but where does this end? What is the endgame, a completely altered game that so watered down and 'safe' it won't be worth playing? I'm personally a-okay with how things are, and think it's too damn watered down now.

[Valkyrja]

Using Pathfinder terminology is fine, but where does this end? What is the endgame, a completely altered game that so watered down and 'safe' it won't be worth playing? I'm personally a-okay with how things are, and think it's too damn watered down now.

What do you mean by "watered down"? What is watered down about Season 1's Arm?

[Kavrick]

Pathfinder 2e is probably my favorite tabletop RPG system. It is probably the first one I've seen that uses a different word for races, and it does make a lot of sense based on the massive variety that they have. I also do love that on the pathfinder 2e website (nethys), they have a 'you might' and 'others might think you' section for reach race/class, both giving info on how different races and classes are seen and may see the world without hard-lining it into forced racism.

For reference, this is the Grippli one, probably my favorite race of funny frog people.

(you might need to right click, open image to read)

[Dresan]

I do find it utterly astonishing that some people equate this suggestion to trying to promote less IC hate and conflict.

[FantasyWriter]

Some people are. That was what I was saying about there seem to be two different themes running through the thread. The solely technical argument about what is the best language to use, which I think was your original intent and another that looks something like: if we don't make this change, we are furthering real-life racism and bringing it into the game/community with a subset of: there is too much IG prejudice in the game and that needs to be changed.

[flurry]

I think "speciesism" would work fine even though as explained above, elves and humans are technically the same species. Zalanthas doesn't have that scientific understanding though so species is acceptable as a descriptor.

I thought so too. They are still different subspecies after all.

But given of the strong sentiments, which unfortunately will likely get worse over months and years, I am starting to wonder if its best to just change halfelves to being infertile now and be done with this entire topic in one go, rather than letting it linger and fester.

That said, even a tiny retcon seems like a tall mountain to climb at this point. 

This is exactly what concerns me about the original proposed change. Retconning the half-elves to accommodate a change of one word seems like a bit too much. Likewise, if we were going to use 'species' it really only makes sense to use it correctly (or else why even use that word and not something else).

In my opinion, 'species' and especially 'speciesism' seem out of place for a fantasy game. The Pathfinder language seems like a decent alternative though.

[Dresan]

In my opinion, 'species' and especially 'speciesism' seem out of place for a fantasy game. The Pathfinder language seems like a decent alternative though.

I don't completely dislike the words ancestry and prejudice but I feel they don't quite get the point across as strongly. The word ancestry in particular would not be a huge improvement to the word race.

Maybe we could mix them up a bit, use species/subspecies and prejudice to avoid the -ism but still stress the appropriate biological divisions?

[Lizzie]

Or - we could put our real-world (and totally justified) sensitivities aside, and accept that the word "racism" in the context of fantasy RPGs doesn't mean the same thing as it means in the real world.

No one uses the word IN the game - you don't hear dwarves complaining that they're targets of racism. No elf to my knowledge has ever accused a human of committing acts of racism against him. No half-giant has commiserated with his fellow half-giant about the racism imposed on him by half-elves.

Elves know that humans consider them to be inferior. Humans know that elves consider them to be inferior. Dwarves know that they are superior to both humans and elves. Half-elves know that everyone thinks of themselves as superior to them. Half-giants are more interested in your pretty tourmaline bracelet than what you think about their race. And nobles KNOW that they are superior to everyone else, no matter what DNA runs through their veins.

Call it racism, or speciesism, it doesn't matter because those are OOC constructs, used OOCly, and not discussed within the game itself anyway.

[dumbstruck]

I think "speciesism" would work fine even though as explained above, elves and humans are technically the same species. Zalanthas doesn't have that scientific understanding though so species is acceptable as a descriptor.

I thought so too. They are still different subspecies after all.

But given of the strong sentiments, which unfortunately will likely get worse over months and years, I am starting to wonder if its best to just change halfelves to being infertile now and be done with this entire topic in one go, rather than letting it linger and fester.

That said, even a tiny retcon seems like a tall mountain to climb at this point. 

This is exactly what concerns me about the original proposed change. Retconning the half-elves to accommodate a change of one word seems like a bit too much. Likewise, if we were going to use 'species' it really only makes sense to use it correctly (or else why even use that word and not something else).

In my opinion, 'species' and especially 'speciesism' seem out of place for a fantasy game. The Pathfinder language seems like a decent alternative though.

Honestly all of this sums up my position perfectly. By all means keep all the IC tensions between dwarves, humans, elves, and so forth, but there's only one other 'coded' race that is lorewise the same species (in the sense that the same species can typically breed and produce fertile hybrids and those outside of species produce sterile offspring, hence muls, literally why they're sterile). That said, I don't like even considering to myself that my past time is fantasy racism. Racism sucks. And in a very real sense in all cases but humans/elves it's literally untrue. Because dwarves, as a different species, produce sterile offspring when reproducing with humans. I like the terminologies of ancestry and prejudice. I don't think you need edgy wording to try and convey force in a dynamic personally.

[Inky]

To those of you who have posted that you will not think about this, and then just quoted each other:  you bring nothing to this discussion (which I realize is your intent).  You're just being low-key trolls by posting that you won't give this any thought (which, by the way, you obviously did because you responded).

With that said, if you have no intention of posting actual opinions and actively contributing to the discussion, refrain from posting.

If you want to ascribe the worst possible intention to a three second post, you're free to.

But since you asked so nicely I'm going to give you an actual opinion that I know everyone is going to hate: Nobody here is equipped to untangle the thorny issues of racism that churn out from this game. Sure, there have been positive changes. But we're STILL playing in a game where elves are depicted as living in a real world adjacent ghetto where poverty seems to equal nothing more than trash, hooded cloaks and brutality. Or are alternatively depicted as bloodthirsty feather-dressed aboriginals (they even got the verbing-noun names haha wtf).

But furthermore the proposed change completely misses the point. Changing 'race' to 'species' not only misses every forest for every tree, it smacks of real world 'race realism' to the point where it actually makes me cringe. And then the conversation moves to biological speciation and... I just can't.