Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SerpyMatt 09-27-06, 12:51 AM	Hiyas all. Well, I've just recently started DMing my 2nd campaign, and I told my players the campaign was non evil. Well, one of the players has made his character a human supremecist basically. If it's not human, he doesn't like it one bit. I tend to think this can only go down an evil path, but he keeps saying that he can be a racist and still be good aligned... his current alignment is Chatic Good. I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. Thanks for any input.
Hammerhead 09-27-06, 12:53 AM	If he just doeson't like them id say he could be non evil. However if he wants to hurt them he'd definetly be evil
fatal error 09-27-06, 12:55 AM	Yea, I'd be leniant and say that how he acts upon his racism should determine whether he can be good, neutral or evil. However, I foresee good being hard to maintain.
Saberus 09-27-06, 12:59 AM	I'd say, since the Ranger can declare a racial enemy, ie, be racist against that species. I'd say, as long as he doesn't try to kill non-human NPCs for no reason, he can still be good.
Necrosis 09-27-06, 01:00 AM	lol possibly the lawful alinment (human law is the only law) might fit better-is some ways a human supremist is very lawful view of the world...
Dunelord 09-27-06, 01:07 AM	I'd say, since the Ranger can declare a racial enemy, ie, be racist against that species. I'd say, as long as he doesn't try to kill non-human NPCs for no reason, he can still be good. A ranger doesn't have to hate them, he just knows how to kill them. I admit they go together, but not the same thing.
Reversefigure4 09-27-06, 01:33 AM	Yes, easily. Hate =/= evil. There's lots of things a character can hate: Elves, trees, cities, scorpions, water, mummies. It doesn't make them evil. The character who kills elves on sight then desecrates their corpse is evil, no question. The one who simply swears at the dandelion-eaters is not evil, just prejudiced. That said, I don't think much good can come of a human supremicist character unless you are working in an all-human party. Why would such a character trust a half-orc, an elf, and a gnome to watch his back while he sleeps?
Bowlich 09-27-06, 01:35 AM	Question: How is s/he going to get along with the other players? If there is an elf in the party will s/he refuse to help and cause inter-party conflict? If the player's character won't or can't work in a team setting then that may cause some serious issues within the party. That said the player wants to start as a xenophobic chaotic-good human then I'd let him/her do so--however: If the player's character intentionally seeks to antagonize or cause pain and suffering to non-humans then I'd kick 'm down to evil; If the player's character merely refuses to provide aide or help non-humans then kick 'm to neutral; If the player's character willingly provides assitance to everyone in need--but is perhaps (personality wise) not the most pleasant individual towards non-humans then it'd be a fine-line but would be allowed to keep chaotic-good.
FeceMan 09-27-06, 01:48 AM	It is absolutely possible to be a racist and non-evil. Remember, there's a difference between being an ******* and being evil!
Bulletproof_Condom 09-27-06, 01:51 AM	Non-evil is fine. I just wouldn't let him be good (unless the race he irrationally fears/hates is like demons or something).
Salla 09-27-06, 02:01 AM	One personality trait doesn't determine alignment by itself. There's a whole host of other factors to consider as well, as well as the aforementioned 'how he expresses his racism', ie whether verbally or violently. I'd definitely call this a strike against Good, however, but one strike doesn't mean you're out. :)
Seraphine_Harmonium 09-27-06, 02:03 AM	It is very possible to be racist and non-evil; just look at the elves. All mention of them has so far been having the elves as victims of hate (a recurring motif on this forum, but I digresse) The elves are described as being aloof to anyone who is not an elf. However, elves are quite often chaotic good. There's no reason why there couldn't be a human who just thinks ill of the "fairies" or the half-orc "brutes," halfling "gypsies," etc., but is still at his core a good person who believes in good and righteousness.
myeviltwin 09-27-06, 02:04 AM	Remember that just because the character sheet says "NG" (or even "LG") doesn't mean that the character's every thought and action can be classified as good. A righteous paladin might be tempted to steal or torture to accomplish his goals. A vile necromancer might have a soft spot for kittens. Any realistic character should have some aspect that doesn't match their alignment perfectly; otherwise you're just choosing one of nine pregenerated (and boring) personalities.
Esponer 09-27-06, 02:05 AM	A racist character can be nonevil, and even good. In fact, an nonracist in a D&D setting is as ridiculous as an atheist in a D&D setting (presuming a fixed pantheon known and proved). Racism is the theory that members of each race possess characteristics specific to that race — that's a fundamental tenet of D&D, and it's undeniable that elves have characteristics specifically different to humans. I'm sure this definition could be called into question, but even so, the idea of the supremacy of one's race is certainly not a trait linked solely with those of nongood alignments — again, it seems a common theme of many elves that they believe just this, and yet many elves are immediatelly labelled as "good" in high fantasy.
Salla 09-27-06, 02:24 AM	Remember that just because the character sheet says "NG" (or even "LG") doesn't mean that the character's every thought and action can be classified as good. A righteous paladin might be tempted to steal or torture to accomplish his goals. A vile necromancer might have a soft spot for kittens. Any realistic character should have some aspect that doesn't match their alignment perfectly; otherwise you're just choosing one of nine pregenerated (and boring) personalities. And that's 1000 points for myeviltwin.
Dolomite 09-27-06, 02:34 AM	I have known Rasicts in real life and they hate blacks, but they are good people and do good things. They also((IF they actually like you)) treat said person from the race they hate differently than others of that race, if for no other reason than "He's not like the others". It gives a good RP opportunity if the person is going that personal growth route as the character is shown that you judge every person on their own merits. Now if this person is going to use this to go on a persecution rampage and just attack those he hates on sight then good he ain't. Just watch and see how he develops the character and which direction he goes in with this, then adjust accordingly.
CharlieRock 09-27-06, 02:38 AM	Well, he may be right. No one thought Archie Bunker was evil. But, I think your right in this case. Supremecy of someone is usually evil. And lets be clear on that, he is playing a racial Supremecist. Not someone who just thinks that all elves are arrogant (or some other commonly heldracial stereotype.)
Moon-Lancer 09-27-06, 03:12 AM	well who knows if being a racist is evil, but no question, this guy is going to put a damper on your non evil game, or at least test the limits of netural. On another note, but similar, if good can only be judged on actions, then the same would go for evil. It depends how he acts out his predjudice. has he given you any more detalse on how he intends to play his charicter?
Amon_WinterfallIV 09-27-06, 04:52 AM	Dwarves abd Elves don't get along too well, and yet they are both good aligned. In a world where different races do exist, going "Its an Orc, they like to fight and kill things for no reason" makes sense, despite being racist. Now, dislike or opinions (I'm Human, therefore humans are best) can be totally parallel to alignment, or they can make someone seriously L and seriously E. Just my two CPs
oxybe 09-27-06, 06:42 AM	yes. in a game i am a player, our dwarf is pretty much a racist. any orc, half orc or giant does not get the benefit of the doubt. he gives them the "evil eye" and watches them like a hawk. the second they step a bit out of line he starts berating them or attacking them depending on what was done. otherwise the dwarf is a jolly, happy guy who's more then happy to sit by a roaring fire and sing in drunken merryment with a crowd. he's a great comrade and incredibly loyal. sometimes foolhardy, but it's all good. that racist aspect is only part of who the character is. the dwarf himself is LN, but only because he's not always doing the right (or righteous) thing. he would rather be a good neighbour then a bad one, but he feels no need to actively go out and help people. if we were to change that one aspect of him, he'd be LG in no time. but he would still have that prejudice and ill will towards orc blooded and giant blooded people.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-27-06, 06:59 AM	Sure, he can be racist without being evil. In a system where your actions affect your alignment, he can even be good. It all depends on what he's doing, not what he's thinking about. Well, unless you consider some of the greatest monsters in real-world history (who thought they were morally right) good rather than evil. Keep an eye on the character's actions, and judge based on that.
Mandarbgrim 09-27-06, 07:15 AM	Also noting that it is perfectly fine to have character flaws & be Good. I think the person could even act on the racism a bit. Example being that you act different toward goblins than humans in a standard game. In a sense you start out unfriendly. Racism is already in the game. You just happen to start out unfriendly with Elves everytime you meet them.
Arkan_Shadesfire 09-27-06, 07:41 AM	Racism isn't inheirently evil, just a bit misguided perhaps. Look at it this way: The PC's are decieved into thinking that a neutral but reclusive and ornery wizard is actually an evil necromancer that's been attacking a nearby village. They confront the wizard, he defends himself, and the party kills him. Was that an evil act? Or just a tragic misunderstanding? The point is that a racist individual believes his opinions are correct. Now, if those opinions are "It's cool to kills elves 'cause they aren't really people" then you're still looking at an evil character--but even if he views all non-human races with the same prejudice most adventurers have for, say, goblins (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20051021.html)--that doesn't make him evil unless he goes around attacking them on sight or torturing them for fun or somehting like that.
oxybe 09-27-06, 07:45 AM	Sure, he can be racist without being evil. In a system where your actions affect your alignment, he can even be good. It all depends on what he's doing, not what he's thinking about. Well, unless you consider some of the greatest monsters in real-world history (who thought they were morally right) good rather than evil. the main diffrence between real-world and D&D is that in RL there is no defined "good" and "evil", only what each individual percieves as good & evil, which might happen be similar to that of his neighbour. sometimes those people gather together and try to force themselves on others. while i feel no sympathy or love for people like Hitler and his men, there are probly some people who belive to this day that he was right. as repulsive as i believe that is, all i can do is fake a smile, hold back my fist and say : if that is what you belive, so be it. real life sucks that way. in RL, there is no set prereqs for Good & Evil. only what each individual believes. D&D has, by default, a "list". that list, very much like santa's, has a Good & Bad side. you are Good if you meet requirements A, B & C. you are Evil if you meet requirements D, E & F. it is very Black & White. no shades of gray. they are making some progress with this with Eberron, which even the deities (the people who make "the list") break the convenience of the 1-step cleric rule. there can be Lawful Good Blood of Vol members and Chotic Evil silver flame members that can still cast spells.
Aeromus 09-27-06, 07:54 AM	In the Star Wars universe "most" Human-species treat all alien species as 2nd class or worse citizens. But, most human-species aren't evil. Take Liea for example, she shows extreme prejudice to wookies in Star Wars: A New Hope. But, Luke does not. In fact for the most part Liea doesn't even act like Chewbacca is more then a tool. Sure she's mean to Han Solo as well but for an entirely different reason. Driods also despite having personalities and being self aware are still still treated as objects. And, in D&D everyone is racist against Drow, but that doesn't make them evil either. So no racism doesn't equal evil, or even non-good. It does equal ignorance though.
Pandaemoni 09-27-06, 08:05 AM	First, reading the PHB literally, alignments are ased on actions and not subjective beliefs. If you only help people and never harm anyone, you wind up being good, even if you only help humans and badmouth non-humans at every opportunity. There's a solid reason for this "evil acts" definition of alignment...its because a DM can never be 100% sure of a chanracter's motives, but can be sure of his acts. Players may commit questionable acts with seemingly reasonable justifications, when deep down the player just wanted a moment of evil and the stated justification is a pretense. To get around that, D&D tends to assume you judge actions and ignore attitudes. Meanwhile, in the real world, we actually judge both. Second, there is the question of how this racism manifests itself. A 1,000 year old elf might well view elven culture as mature and superior to all the culture of the "child races." A cultural preference is not evil, even if it manifests itself as "we're number one and all you guys suck!" It's when you start advocating for bad things to be done to the other races (or, certainly, doing bad things yourself) that you clearly cross the line into evil. The gray area is when you do not cause harm to the other races, but you actively ignore their plight or, worse, revel in it. "Actively ignoring" or "taking pleasure in" skirt the line between being acts and mere attitudes. While they are mostly attitudes, it offends our real world sense of propriety to hear characters spout such nonsense and yet view themselves as "good."
Epicweaver 09-27-06, 08:45 AM	Pandaemoni is right on in his/her interpretation.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-27-06, 11:07 AM	And your player is right: Humans are a superior races because this generation they're min-maxed conquerors and take your lands, and in 20 years the next generation of min-maxed farmers and millers are dominating the economy. Humans are the only race whose racial abilities potentially make them good at non-combat activities. You think a dwarf's stability and ability to move in ehavy armor is gonna help plant the sorgham? You can be sure the human's bonus feat and free skill points will.
SerpyMatt 09-27-06, 11:47 AM	Thanks for all the replies... it's given me a few different views on the topic :) I'm gonna allow it for now, I just hope it doesn't go down a crazy path.
Sulaco 09-27-06, 12:10 PM	Hiyas all. Well, I've just recently started DMing my 2nd campaign, and I told my players the campaign was non evil. Well, one of the players has made his character a human supremecist basically. If it's not human, he doesn't like it one bit. I tend to think this can only go down an evil path, but he keeps saying that he can be a racist and still be good aligned... his current alignment is Chatic Good. I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. Thanks for any input. Loathe as I am to concede the point as I despise racism and racists in real-life, yes he can still be good. He's still and a-hole, of course, but you can be an a-hole and not be evil. How he chooses to act on this racism will ultimately determine his true alignment. There is already a certain a mount of racism built into the game - elves and dwarves don't get along, everyone "knows" orcs areevil, etc. - and this has no impact on the characters' alignments, so this should be no different.
cog_and_taz 09-27-06, 06:09 PM	The same, I loathe racism, but look at the classic worldose-intolerant paladin.
pinkbunny 09-27-06, 06:18 PM	one of my characters has an extremly elf supremist father, who I'd say is LN. Too much of a jerk to be LG. Racial supremism would be a lawful trait in my book.
bhu 09-27-06, 06:30 PM	I think you have less worries about whether or not hes evil and more about "how likely is he to get the party killed at any given opportunity". If hes quietly racist you have no problem. If he draws his sword and screams "hey ******" every time he sees an elf before charging, you have trouble.
DarkNick 09-27-06, 06:49 PM	I think he is trying to find a loophole to play how he likes. I can't think of anyother reason why he would personaly want to play a recist except to be able to be an arse to everyone. You can debate that it is possible to be good and a racisit. But do you really want a racist character in your game? Its not really about good/evil anymore, but about party harmony. I think allowing this guy to be racist is a mistake. I can see the following sort of thing happening "I'm going to murder this elf that is tied up becasue I'm racist". "I don't want to save him, they should be slaves". No good will come :raincloud
Gorbeck 09-27-06, 07:23 PM	Personally I think it depends on how much you accept the alignment descriptions from the PHB. The Lawful Evil description says: [A lawful evil character] condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. Personally, I don't see how a racist character could be non-evil because his racism would have to manifest itself somehow, and that manifestation couldn't possibly be anything but evil. A snear or a harsh word to an orc child innocently playing in the street, loudly proclaiming how dwarves taint the land so that the table of dwarves in the corner can hear, purposely bumping into the elderly elf in the crowd as he passes, none of these things scream "good" or even "neutral" to me. Even inaction could be evil. Overhearing a plot to assassinate the kind and gentle halfling mayor and doing nothing, witnessing a caravan of gnomes being ambushed and not helping them, laughing as a group of elves are beaten and bullied out of a human bar. If the PHB is to be believed, these are not the actions of a good character. After all: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Of course, the character could try and hide his racism, secluding himself and allowing it to fester. But at some point his racism will appear, and the first time he goads a dwarf into a fight just for being a dwarf, the first time he defends himself from the elves he just insulted, the first time his blade falls on an orc for no reason other than the fact that he's an orc, he is no longer good. Just my two cents.
Pandaemoni 09-27-06, 07:57 PM	Lots of good characters are racists. Any character who ever slaughtered an anonymous goblin or an orc on sight did so based on "prejudice" against its "race" (not all goblins and orcs are evil, after all). I am blessed with players who almost always do try to parley with all sentient beings and who leave the non-hostile ones alone, but not all of them have always been that way. As someone noted, a Ranger's favored enemy ability is often played as a sort of racial prejudice against the species against which it is directed. Racism also doesn't have to be in the form of killing the races you dislike. The human who never listens to his dwarf companion's advice, because he thinks dwarves are souless animals who are not as smart as your avereage human--he's racist. The human who feels that the "demi-humans" of the world should all have human rulers to guide them into enlightenment and save them from their innate barbarism, is racist. Personally, I am a "speciesist" when it comes to my dogs, always happy to believe that they are stupider and weaker than me, and that it's okay to treat them as property. Truth is, they *are* stupider and weaker than me, and are better off under my benevolent mastership...but my feeling of superiority doesn't mean I want to inflict pain on them (quite the contrary). I run my speciesist household to the greater good for all of us, even the stupid dogs. Suppose my dogs were smarter, though, as smart as me, but with a greater demand for snausages: I might still think that I am better than them (as God gave me a soul, and they have none). Does my benevolent dictatorship become evil?
Gorbeck 09-27-06, 10:12 PM	Lots of good characters are racists. Any character who ever slaughtered an anonymous goblin or an orc on sight did so based on "prejudice" against its "race". Thankfully, I've never played in or DMed for a group like this. As a DM if my group did this I wouldn't see it any differently then if they happened upon an anonymous human and slaughtered him. If you kill an obviously sentient, moderately intelligent being just because you believe it to be evil, you've done a bad thing. But like you said, racism doesn't have to be about killing the races you don't like. Simply feeling superior to others doesn't make you evil. What I was suggesting though is that this feeling of superiority will eventually manifest itself in some non-good way. To use your own examples, hopefully the dwarven companion will eventually catch on to the fact that he's never taken seriously and get to the root of the situation. I can't see this turning out well. And when the human presents his plan for enlightenment to the group of demi-humans, I'd like to see how they react to the opinion that they're inherintly barbaric. I don't want to get into a philisophical debate over this. It just seems to me that any feeling of superiority will eventually lead to evil. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I also think the rules for alignment set a good precedent for what actions are and are not good, but I know many people would disagree with me on that.
WCH 09-27-06, 10:39 PM	One personality trait doesn't determine alignment by itself. There's a whole host of other factors to consider as well, as well as the aforementioned 'how he expresses his racism', ie whether verbally or violently. I'd definitely call this a strike against Good, however, but one strike doesn't mean you're out. :)I agree completely. Racism is evil. However, you could be mostly good, and be a racist, and therefore be overall Good. You couldn't be Exalted, though, which means no Paladinhood for you.
xanadu 09-28-06, 02:55 AM	A vile necromancer might have a soft spot for kittens. Did anyone else laugh at loud while reading this :rofl:
IbanezNinja 09-28-06, 03:27 AM	Racism is evil. I disagree for DND. I know in real life everyone is a unique person but in DND most of the times stereotypes are true. I mean honestly, if you see an illithid walking towards you in DND, you aren't going to think "Hmm, a random traveler. I am going to ask him if he needs any assistance." Because everyone knows that illithids are evil and treat all other races as livestock and want to eat you brain. I mean come on, there is a class, the ranger, whose MAIN CLASS FEATURE IS ABOUT BEING RACIST. Have you ruled that all rangers are evil, or on their way because they are racist and work towards hurting the races they hate an extra amount? In dnd, being racist is not inheriently evil. You couldn't be Exalted, though, which means no Paladinhood for you. First off, being exalted is WAY DIFFERENT than being a paladin. I've seen "Being exalted means you have to make the average paladin look like a shifty crack dealer."on the boards and it's true. Exalted is complete pure good, bordering on outsider style being crafted from good, where as a paladin is just a good guy who upholds justice. That being said, if a paladin becomes racist against demons, would you strip him of his paladinhood?
Andorxor 09-28-06, 04:36 AM	I mean come on, there is a class, the ranger, whose MAIN CLASS FEATURE IS ABOUT BEING RACIST. That is not true.There is nothing that says that the ranger gets his power from hate or a feeling of superity.He only has advantages against members of specific species.That advantages can be explained in lots of different ways: - He trained with them when he was younger and learned alot about them - His homevillage is constantly attack by a evil tribe of this species - His archenemy is of this species and he has prepared himself to face him in battle .....
Pandaemoni 09-28-06, 10:33 AM	That is not true.There is nothing that says that the ranger gets his power from hate or a feeling of superity.He only has advantages against members of specific species.That advantages can be explained in lots of different ways: - He trained with them when he was younger and learned alot about them - His homevillage is constantly attack by a evil tribe of this species - His archenemy is of this species and he has prepared himself to face him in battle ..... That being said, many a Ranger is played as if he has a burning hatred for his favored enemy, especially where the favored enemy is not a human or demihuman race. If the character plays his Ranger that way, should be automatically assume the character is evil?
Callista 09-28-06, 12:39 PM	Here's an example of some Good-aligned racists: Lord of the Rings. Legolas and Gimli. Both begin by being prejudiced against each others' races. Neither has had much contact with the other's race (arguably, Gimli has had none at all); and the recent history between their respective peoples--Legolas's kin holding Gimli's father and his companions captive during "The Hobbit"--wasn't exactly positive... not to mention the whole Smaug fiasco. I'd like to put forward that both Legolas and Gimli, before they met, were Good-aligned; you see that in their character (I'd put their alignments at CG and LG, respectively, though the movie Legolas is more NG); and were prejudiced against each other's races. But you also see what happens when two Good-aligned racists are each exposed to a decent member of the hated race? They start out as rivals, sure; but then the rivalry turns friendly, a way of keeping up spirits; and they begin to look at each other as individual people, instead of representatives of some nebulous stereotype. As we know, by the end of the story, Legolas and Gimli are close friends--so much so that Legolas takes Gimli with him over the sea, unprecedented for a Dwarf. LoTR fan chatter aside, I think that a Good-aligned racist, after being exposed to a (non-evil) member of that hated race, will begin to lose some of that racism. A Good-aligned human who hates halflings for being shiftless gypsies, and ends up having to work with one, will probably start to see halflings as individuals. There's another option, though: A Good racist can retain his racism even after being exposed to a member of the hated race... but he will not remain Good for long. Let's take that human and halfling again, and say the halfling is a CE thief--he's into the adventuring business for the money, and doesn't care who he hurts to get it. Now his human companion sees the halfling, and his prejudice is confirmed: Halflings are shiftless thieves--and, worse, they'll do totally reprehensible things, CE-style, to get what they want. Eventually, the Good-aligned human begins to treat the halfling badly--but not only him. Because his exposure to an evil halfling has made his prejudice even deeper and more unshakable, he begins to regard all halflings through the same eyes he sees his party member. After he has treated enough halflings with scorn, and been hurtful enough towards them, and been motivated by hate instead of love long enough, his alignment will start to slip towards Neutral (which is where it will stay, if he doesn't actively hurt anyone); his motivations and actions are now no longer Good, if not enough to turn him to Evil. Prejudice is a very serious character flaw to add to a Good character. It can go either way; but eventually, something's got to give: Either the prejudice fades, or the character's alignment slips towards Neutral (or even Evil, if there are any baby-killing incidents involved). Beware of creating a character who hates any race, even an "Often Evil" one like orcs or kobolds; if his hatred is stronger than his morals, you will find yourself role-playing a "Fall of the Hero" storyline... Not that this is a bad thing, if you've planned for it; but it's a nasty surprise when continuity demands it from what you hoped would be a heroic character with a tragic flaw.
razorboy 09-28-06, 01:25 PM	Here's another way to look at a potentially good-aligned character who is nonetheless a racist. For example, let's take a well-meaning elf, who honestly thinks that elves with their thousands of years of experience and building civilization, are better off than other races. He wants to help other races and so tries to instruct them on how to build something, how to properly prepare food, how to make tools, cast magic, and so on, and so on, whether or not members of other races actually want his help. Does he think himself superior to other races? Yes. Does that make him racist? I would say that yes, it does. But is he an evil character? No, he may be misguided, and annoying to members of other races, but he is not doing anything evil, quite the opposite (at least in the intent). IbanezNinja has a point about stereotypes in D&D - most adventurers do stereotype, and do play racist characters. Most adventurers with the exception of the more good-aligned among them, will not hesitate to slaughter a tribe of goblins, and would probably not chat up a mind flayer as Ibanez pointed out. They do so because they grow up in the environment where most people are convinced that certain races, ethnic groups, religions, and so on, are evil and should be wiped out or driven off. If from the moment you were born, your parents will tell you tales of ferocious orc raids, or evil dragons eating travellers and sheep, you would probably grow up expecting orcs and dragons to be evil. From our modern enlightened perspective, we'd call the inhabitants of many D&D worlds religious bigots, racists, and prejudiced. But it doesn't mean that all of those people are evil. If it was, most adventurers and every cleric of Corellon who preaches death to orcs would probably glow with an evil aura when a paladin looks their way. :)
celestialkin 09-28-06, 01:46 PM	I’ve had a few racist incidents in my life, and I can tell you from experience that racism/hatred and evil pretty much go hand in hand. Can someone really hate an entire group of people to the point that he considers himself (and his kind) superior, and not be evil? Racism isn’t just “not liking” someone, it’s downright hatred, anger, and disgust towards other people. It’s a deep-seated want to hurt, exclude, punish, or even kill other people for no other reason than who they are. I could somewhat understand if you’re player wanted to play a character who grew up isolated from other races, and just doesn’t understand them, or something along those lines. But if he wants to play a human supremacist then he pretty much falls under the evil alignment in my opinion.
Sulaco 09-28-06, 01:51 PM	I agree completely. Racism is evil. However, you could be mostly good, and be a racist, and therefore be overall Good. You couldn't be Exalted, though, which means no Paladinhood for you. Racism is vile, despicable, vomitous and I abhor it deeply, but it is not evil in and of itself. Racism is certainly not nice, but a paladin does not need to be nice in order to be a paladin. Indeed I would find a paladin with deeply held personal prejudices but who follows the path of good despite them to be far more interesting. Imagine a paladin who hates elves - I mean really hates them, can't even stand to have one touch him - yet when evil threatens an elf village he defends them and defeats the evil, saving hundreds of elf lives, in spite of his personal feelings because it is the right thing to do. The whole point of the paladin is placing the good of the many above his own, and that means doing what is right in spite of his personal prejudices.
Sulaco 09-28-06, 02:02 PM	I’ve had a few racist incidents in my life, and I can tell you from experience that racism/hatred and evil pretty much go hand in hand. Can someone really hate an entire group of people to the point that he considers himself (and his kind) superior, and not be evil? Racism isn’t just “not liking” someone, it’s downright hatred, anger, and disgust towards other people. It’s a deep-seated want to hurt, exclude, punish, or even kill other people for no other reason than who they are. Actually, it's not. Racism is the belief that one ethnic group - or in the case of D&D actual race) is morally or biologically superior or inferior. Outright hatred is just on manifestation of this. You cannot say accuratley that "racism/hatred and evil pretty much go hand in hand" cos you have interacted with many, many racists many, many times and have likely never even known that they were racists. That aside, racism in the real-world has no bearing on the subject in a D&D world and we should be able to calmly and rationally discuss the latter without needing to invoke the former. This is immaterial now, however, since Godwin's Law has reared it's ugly head it is only a matter of time before this thread is locked.
celestialkin 09-28-06, 02:26 PM	Actually, it's not. Racism is the belief that one ethnic group - or in the case of D&D actual race) is morally or biologically superior or inferior. Outright hatred is just on manifestation of this. You cannot say accuratley that "racism/hatred and evil pretty much go hand in hand" cos you have interacted with many, many racists many, many times and have likely never even known that they were racists. That aside, racism in the real-world has no bearing on the subject in a D&D world and we should be able to calmly and rationally discuss the latter without needing to invoke the former. This is immaterial now, however, since Godwin's Law has reared it's ugly head it is only a matter of time before this thread is locked. I personally disagree, but I'm sorry if I'm responsible for having this thread locked.
drake_vampiel_d 09-28-06, 02:43 PM	Just my opinion here I've been following this tread now for 2 days and I am now going to throw in my 2 cents (just what we all need:rolleyes: )anyways, The characters actions should dictate whether or not his alignment is good or not let him start whith what ever alignment he wants and then as his character grows and acts it can always change (example: he stars out Lwful good-he goes out into the town and since he is racist against gnomes (just an example wanting to get away from elves) he goes and starts one on fire in town square. Obviously against the law *poof* nolonger lawful definatly not good *proof* no longer good. But if his character just hold a hatred for them and is willing to work around it i.e. has one in the group but doesn't help them but never harms them then he's at least neutral)
Cifer 09-28-06, 02:59 PM	I think he is trying to find a loophole to play how he likes. I can't think of anyother reason why he would personaly want to play a recist except to be able to be an arse to everyone. You can debate that it is possible to be good and a racisit. But do you really want a racist character in your game? Its not really about good/evil anymore, but about party harmony. I think allowing this guy to be racist is a mistake. I can see the following sort of thing happening "I'm going to murder this elf that is tied up becasue I'm racist". "I don't want to save him, they should be slaves". No good will come So we should give our characters no personality traits because actions might be motivated by them? Wait, something here smells funny... Personally, I don't see how a racist character could be non-evil because his racism would have to manifest itself somehow, and that manifestation couldn't possibly be anything but evil. A snear or a harsh word to an orc child innocently playing in the street, loudly proclaiming how dwarves taint the land so that the table of dwarves in the corner can hear, purposely bumping into the elderly elf in the crowd as he passes, none of these things scream "good" or even "neutral" to me. Even inaction could be evil. Overhearing a plot to assassinate the kind and gentle halfling mayor and doing nothing, witnessing a caravan of gnomes being ambushed and not helping them, laughing as a group of elves are beaten and bullied out of a human bar. See, the strange part is that the very same character also happens to care for little children (well, human children) not getting hurt, donates to charity and helps elderly grannies over the street (as long as they are human). Those are not the traits of an evil character - does that mean the character has no alignment or is it just that good and bad traits are capable of balancing against each other since in D&D none of both are considered superior to the other? I’ve had a few racist incidents in my life, and I can tell you from experience that racism/hatred and evil pretty much go hand in hand. Racism in the real world is most definitely one of the greatest and most stupid evils. Racism in a fantasy world which usually has never had any historical period of enlightenment is most probably common. Most people don't have much contact to other races, usually staying in their own village or city - do you really think that only a few poor misguided would get the idea that "those treehuggers" don't do any honest work, just magicing everything and never ploughing any acre and seducing the women, ye-know-it's-happened-to-old-Bains?
Pandaemoni 09-28-06, 03:17 PM	Racism isn’t just “not liking” someone, it’s downright hatred, anger, and disgust towards other people. It’s a deep-seated want to hurt, exclude, punish, or even kill other people for no other reason than who they are. That's not entirely the whole picture. The poem White Man's Burden, by Rudyard Kipling is typically regarded as racist (if you assume he was serious, as many who read it do), but it is a call for whites to rule the world benevolently (feeding, clothing and teaching the famine stricked "half-devil and half-child" races of the world). If one *really* were to believe that one were superior, there would be no need for a deep-seated desire to hurt, exclude and punish. For example, most adults believe themselves to be superior (smarter, wiser, stronger, etc) than children and they do not have those sorts of feelings. Not all racism needs to be modern American racism, it could just as well take the form of 19th century belief that the "lesser" races need your guidance and rulership to save them from savagery.
orionm42 09-28-06, 03:34 PM	Racism isn’t just “not liking” someone, it’s downright hatred, anger, and disgust towards other people. It’s a deep-seated want to hurt, exclude, punish, or even kill other people for no other reason than who they are. As Sulaco noted, the above is not the "classic" definition of racism. Perhaps an offical definition is in order... Main Entry: rac·ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi- Function: noun 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination - rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective Institutionalized racism has existed in many cultures throughout history...and slavery and / or racial segregation are often manifestations of that racism. Were all those "civilized" societies that permitted slavery or segregation "evil?" Personally, I don't think so. Especially considering the fact that I live in one of those societies.
Gorbeck 09-28-06, 04:29 PM	See, the strange part is that the very same character also happens to care for little children (well, human children) not getting hurt, donates to charity and helps elderly grannies over the street (as long as they are human). Those are not the traits of an evil character - does that mean the character has no alignment or is it just that good and bad traits are capable of balancing against each other since in D&D none of both are considered superior to the other? {WizO_Cat: Please refrain from discussion of real life religious and political figures and organizations since such conduct is against the Code of Conduct. Thanks.} IbanezNinja had a great point about D&D stereotypes. There are things in D&D that can be assumed to be evil. Dragons are born good or evil, depending on their color, and anyone living in a world where dragons are common place would know this. However, most humanoid creatures can be any alignment. Drow are almost always assumed to be evil but in Forgotten Realms there's a drow deity devoted to redeaming the drow and returning them to the light. There's a difference between being suspicious of other races and being racist towards them. As for paladins becoming racist towards demons, I would expect a paladin to hate any evil which would include demons. But that's a hatred based on actions, not race. Evil creatures act evil so it's perfectly alright for a good or even neutral character to want to end the suffering that's brought on by evil creatures. In fact there are dozens of game mechanics that encourage this: detect evil, smite evil, circle of protection from evil, etc. There's no Circle of Protection from orcs. There's no Detect Elf. There's no Smite Halfling. :D As for a rangers favored enemy being a form of racism, I would whole-heartedly disagree. Most smart DMs make their rangers pick a favored enemy that they have had repeated contact with. If a player wants to pick dragons for his favored enemy, he'd better have a good reason why he would know how to detect and kill dragons. Think about it, if you grow up in the wild and live in bear country, you're going to know how to defend yourself from bears. If that means killing them, then you better be good at killing them if you want to stay alive. Likewise, if a ranger's village is constantly attacked by giants, he'd better be good at defending himself and others from giants, and sometimes the best defense is a good offense. The concept of benevelent dictatorships has come up a few times but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Tell me, how would you feel if an alien race landed on Earth and began enslaving us "for our own good." I wouldn't be happy about it, no matter how nice they were to us. The freedom of choice is more valuable than some people make it seem.
IbanezNinja 09-28-06, 06:43 PM	I’ve had a few racist incidents in my life, and I can tell you from experience that racism/hatred and evil pretty much go hand in hand. Morality in dnd is very different from morality in real life. In real life there is no such thing as a group of people that are inherently evil. There aren't a whole race that treats every other race like livestock and plots to take over the world and eat their brains. I go back again to the example of illithids. Here is a small sample of their reproductive cycle. This is the real mystery of the illithid life cycle, for illithids do not grow their own bodies. Instead, a mature tadpole is inserted into the ear, nostril, or eye of a helpless humanoid captive. Over a period of several days, the tadpole burrows into the host brain, consuming gray matter and gaining body mass in a nearly equal ratio. The only way for them to reproduce is to take captive slaves and have their spawn bore out their brains. Also, the chances of a good mindflayer that doesn't want to murder you are astronomically low due to the elder brain that lives in the center of their community. Because of an elder brain’s awareness, mind flayers are of necessity among the most lawful of creatures. Plotting against the community or the elder brain is impossible. Even deviating from the social norm is likely to bring about swift corrective action ranging from a single stern warning to coercion or psychic annihilation, depending on how harsh that particular elder brain cares to be at the moment. That means that not being evil can lead to an instant annihilation from the elder brain. So tell me again how it is wrong to be racist against illithids? Evil creatures act evil so it's perfectly alright for a good or even neutral character to want to end the suffering that's brought on by evil creatures. This is my main point. In dnd there are creatures which are assumed (And rightfully so) to always be evil. If you are walking around in real life and see a grizzly bear, do you think it will be friendly and go try to pet it? Or will you try and get away in the safest and quickest way possible? The thing is that all grizzly bears can easily and would feel no remorse in killing a human. It's the same way in dnd. There are some creatures that simply are the way they are, and won't change.
Gorbeck 09-28-06, 07:18 PM	That means that not being evil can lead to an instant annihilation from the elder brain. So tell me again how it is wrong to be racist against illithids? Hating illithids because they're evil doesn't mean you're racist against illithids, it means you hate evil and thus you hate everything that is evil, including illithids. In dnd there are creatures which are assumed (And rightfully so) to always be evil. Of course, but the rules make it pretty clear that it's ok for good and neutral characters to hate evil. Beholders, red dragons, liches, mind flayers, any character with any idea of the world he's in will know that these things are evil. But then he won't be attacking them because of their race, he'll attack them because of their alignment.
Pandaemoni 09-28-06, 07:27 PM	The concept of benevelent dictatorships has come up a few times but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Tell me, how would you feel if an alien race landed on Earth and began enslaving us "for our own good." I wouldn't be happy about it, no matter how nice they were to us. The freedom of choice is more valuable than some people make it seem. There are two questions that that raises: (1) Are parents evil for restricting the freedom of their children? What if their children are 17? Of course the answer is "no." The reason the answer is "no" is because as a species we accept the notion that parents are emotionally and intellectually superior to their children and that they act in their on children's best interest. If we did not accept that premise, then the "discrimination" that occurs against children would look pretty chilling (no voting rights, limited rights to free speech, assembly and a host of other matters, corporal punishment against them buy their "guardians" is legal within certain bounds, limited control of their own bodies, etc.) In the unusual case where it can be demonstrated that a child is more emotionally and intellectually stable than their parent, we accept that as more of less an aberration--one so rare that we still generally allow the immature parents to retain absolute legal control except in very limited circumstances. Suppose we have one of those rare cases before us, where the child is demonstarbly more stable and emotionally and intellectually mature than his parents. He sues to be emancipated, but his parents fight it, preferring to maintain control over him. Are those parents "evil"? Despite the fact that those immature parents have no rational basis to refuse that child his liberty, I still don't think they are evil. There's a good chance that parents would be so prejudiced that they honestly believe the child is better off under their control, regardless of the actual maturity of the child. Some parents still believe that even after their children have reached the age of majority. That's not especially evil. (2) What if the aliens land and do not seize control, but merely criticise, telling every human they meet how stupid we all are, encouraging us to abandon our primitive, savage ways, and follow their culture instead. Suppose that they continue to belittle those humans who do follow their culture for being dumb, just not quite so much as they do the "savage primates" who still follow so-called "culture" and traditions of humanity. Suppose they grudgingly offer superior medical care and technology to those who adopt their customs, but refuse to offer any help or aid of any sort to any "monkeymen" who stick to human culture. They are still "racist" because they are still prejudging all humans based on our species, but they aren't forcing anybody to do anything...they are just obnoxious. Is being obnoxious "evil?" (If so, are chauvinists "evil" when they pronounce their country to be "number 1!" or "the greatest country on Earth" when in the presence of foreigners?) Would it make the aliens any less racist if humans actually were uniformly dumber and more violent than them?
Cifer 09-28-06, 08:12 PM	Would it make the aliens any less racist if humans actually were uniformly dumber and more violent than them? Funnily enough, this question leads to the further question "Are illithids evil when their food is on average about 10 points less intelligent than they are, which incidentally also is the difference between humans and cattle?" So many interesting moral questions, so few answers. And I'd still like to see what happens when a mind flayer meets an ethergaunt... @Gorbeck Had your post any reference to the quote from mine that was not censored out that I missed? Hating illithids because they're evil doesn't mean you're racist against illithids, it means you hate evil and thus you hate everything that is evil, including illithids. Er, doesn't it simply mean that I hate them because they want to eat my brain, however evil or exalted that may be? Hating someone "because they're evil" sounds a bit too clichee for me, which is a reason I prefer Eberron where moral quandries are more complex than "Detect Evil!".
AaronDireBear 09-28-06, 08:23 PM	In the Star Wars universe "most" Human-species treat all alien species as 2nd class or worse citizens. But, most human-species aren't evil. Take Liea for example, she shows extreme prejudice to wookies in Star Wars: A New Hope. But, Luke does not. In fact for the most part Liea doesn't even act like Chewbacca is more then a tool. Sure she's mean to Han Solo as well but for an entirely different reason. Driods also despite having personalities and being self aware are still still treated as objects. And, in D&D everyone is racist against Drow, but that doesn't make them evil either. So no racism doesn't equal evil, or even non-good. It does equal ignorance though. Actually, its not all ignorance. In fact ignorance has nothing to do with it. Thats just a word people like to throw around (gets kinda annoying after the first fifty times its said, really). The less you know about Drow the less you're likely to hate them, because the deeper you delve into their society the more depravity and evil you'll find. Glabrezu and graduation, nuff said. Furtehrmore, truth is truth. One is not racist if what they are saying is true. Political correctness should NEVER EVER EVER interfere with the facts!
Lord_Varos 09-28-06, 09:59 PM	One is not racist if what they are saying is true. Political correctness should NEVER EVER EVER interfere with the facts! Please clarify this, or I know that some people on this board will track your IP address and set your computer on fire. Right after your hair.
WCH 09-29-06, 12:50 AM	Please clarify this, or I know that some people on this board will track your IP address and set your computer on fire. Right after your hair.Well, for instance, "Elves are faster than humans but not as tough" is not racist. "Elves are weak namby pamby sissies who can't weild greatswords," on the other hand, is racist. According to his definition, at least. :P If you wanted a human analogy... "Certain groups of east asian humans have less hair than their Scottish counterparts" would not be a racist remark, for instance. The problem in humanity is that most of the "racial" differences are incredibly small, totally irrelevent, or not even true. It's especially laughable to say anything about "all black people," since there is far more genetic diversity among Africans than in the rest of the human race -- so, yes, some of African descent are tall, and some have large noses... but there are other areas in Africa where the opposite is true.
Reversefigure4 09-29-06, 02:52 AM	So we should give our characters no personality traits because actions might be motivated by them? Wait, something here smells funny... Not quite. You should restrict your character's personality traits to ones that won't motivate actions that will disrupt the enjoyment of the gaming group and the game as a whole. A dwarf who dislikes bathing, for example, is unlikely to disrupt a group and thus is a fine personality trait. A psychotic assassin who murders everyone he meets on a Tuesday is a personality trait that can quite easily destroy a game. There's a whole host of "Don't Play" traits and characters, who are frowned upon in most gaming groups because they destroy games. A racist character may or may not be one of them, depending on how the game runs and what actions their racism takes form in.
Always-Late 09-29-06, 04:12 AM	"Well, I've always hated elves, but I guess you're okay. You're not like those other elves." Party dynamic problems solved.
Pandaemoni 09-29-06, 08:49 AM	Well, for instance, "Elves are faster than humans but not as tough" is not racist. "Elves are weak namby pamby sissies who can't weild greatswords," on the other hand, is racist. According to his definition, at least. :P I rather think of racism as also including "prejudice" (as in "pre-judging"). Saying "most halflings are thieves" *is* racist despite the fact that many are, if you use that stereotype as a basis for prejudging individual halflings you meet. If you take an invidious racial stereotype, even one that is true most of the time, and assume by default that it is true with respect to an individual (placing the burden on that individual to prove that he or she is not like the stereotype), you are a racist.
Righter8 09-29-06, 09:44 AM	I will admit, I haven't read the previous posts. I did play an Elf who was definately prejudice against any non-elves, and even against certain other Elves who he thought were "beneath" him. I constantly refrerred to the half-elf in out party as 'half-man' instead of his name. The character never did anything evil. On the other hand, he never went out of his way to assist the other members of the party either. I roleplayed this character with a work ethic I learned in the military (which is what this character was, ex-soldier try to get home): "You don't need to like the people you work with, you just need to work with them". My character KNEW the other characters would watch his back, because they needed him to watch theirs.
AaronDireBear 09-29-06, 04:23 PM	What? Would you rather you live and believe a lie and say that there is no such thing as a racial trait? You are saying it is better to twist and distort the facts and ignore the truth than "risk offending someone"????
allenchan 09-29-06, 04:30 PM	If you take an invidious racial stereotype, even one that is true most of the time, and assume by default that it is true with respect to an individual (placing the burden on that individual to prove that he or she is not like the stereotype), you are a racist. Indeed, I remember reading an essay once for a class of mine that went off this principle. They argued that not all stereotypes are negative traits. Ergo, not all racism is negative. Though I am well aware some people feel any type of sterotype is bad, but screw them. If people think I'm a good cook because I'm part Italian, honestly, I'm ok with that.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-29-06, 05:12 PM	I'd be more concerned that he wants to play a chaotic aligned racist. One of the core tenets of a chaotic alignment is different = okay. It's all that political/religious dogma and crooked laws that make racism easy.
Balor von Balorvitch 09-29-06, 06:43 PM	It all depends on how far they take the racism. If said man preached that "All halflings are worthless vermin who steal honest mens money" then he can still claim good but... the same person i would expect to agree with the public whipping or deaths of halfling 'rogues' with no evdience. Since he thinks all halflings are thieves he would have no reason to act. If he did act on the halfings behalf then he isn't very racist he is just a dude that likes to talk about things he doesn't know about. Speaking of this topic I got lectured by my DM for doing something similar I was a drow Eldritch Knight and we meet a halfling in Kyrnn. I hide my coin purse. He said "You are a good align drow you shouldn't be racist" "I responded "He is ******* Kender!" :rofl:
Vestigial_Thumb 09-29-06, 09:44 PM	One of the core tenets of a chaotic alignment is different = okay. If they're different from you, for example...
Grandpa Gamer 09-30-06, 12:49 AM	Hiyas all. Well, I've just recently started DMing my 2nd campaign, and I told my players the campaign was non evil. Well, one of the players has made his character a human supremecist basically. If it's not human, he doesn't like it one bit. I tend to think this can only go down an evil path, but he keeps saying that he can be a racist and still be good aligned... his current alignment is Chatic Good. I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. Thanks for any input. Getting back to the original question . . . An active or blatant racist could be said to be merely staying true to his/her 'personal code of conduct', so "lawful" would be no problem. However, since his actions are neither random nor capricious, then "chaos" really doesn't enter into it. And, since racism is by definition the acceptance of one's own as superior over others, I see no balancing or juxtapositioning of the values of law or chaos that "neutral" would imply (at least in the first part of the alignement description). As for the second part: if someone quickly lends a helping hand to an old human woman who has tripped and fallen, but stands there and jeers because an old halfing or gnomish woman has fallen, then by no stretch of the imagination can he be called "good". "Good" implies selflessness and/or kindness in thought or deed, and the above example would only illustrate the deliberate suppression of kindness - again, not remotely "good"ness. Even if you wanted to rationalize a racist culture, that institutional racism was the societal "norm", that still harks back to the explicit superiority/inferiority inherent in racism. In my book, a character that is blatantly racist, but does not actively seek out and perpetrate mischief, would be Lawful Neutral. A racist character that DOES cause harm for malice or self-gain would be Lawful Evil. A Chaotic Good racist is contradictory. Racism is not about the conflict between lawfulness or chaos, but between Good and Evil. I simply can't see a logical rationalization for a racist character being "good". Any player playing a Chaotic Good character, but consistantly role-plays a racist attitude, is cruising for an alignement check - that is, if the DM is brave enough to be honest enough.
Always-Late 09-30-06, 01:16 AM	Take the paragon of chaotic good. Make him hate halflings, due to some horrible atrocity perpretrated on him by some halflings many years ago, but begrudgingly help halflings in need anyway, because it's good for his image as paragon of chaotic good. Works?
Chippy_the_Devourer 09-30-06, 01:40 PM	Let's take a look at Dominic Deegan. Siggy was racist against orcs, but he didn't go out of his way to kill them. However, he was extremely intolerant of them. Yet he was still a good person. Racism doesn't equal evil. If a racist was so intolerant that they didn't bother to even talk to the race they hate, even that is not evil. A racist is only evil when they try to murder someone. Also, I really hate how we use the word racism. Racism is hate against a race. A black man and a white man are both **** sapiens. They are the same race, just different from each other. If there was another species on the planet with human intelligence, anyone who hates them would really be a racist, as they are against another race. If a human hating another different-looking human is racism, then that just makes me wish more that I was a different species on some other planet.
Cifer 09-30-06, 03:05 PM	They are the same race, just different from each other. Sorry to dissapoint you, but this is incorrect. You are talking about species, a term that is probably too scientific for a fantastical RPG to use - but as soon as we are getting to the difference between Humans and dwarves, we ought to talk about species, not race. Race in the biological sense is defined as a certain population of a species. Thus, racism is named entirely correct. Saying that elves are superior to all would be speciesism. (Although biology is a bit screwed up by D&D since there are many "races" that can crossbreed. Still, I see this less as evidence they are the same species but more that certain definitions don't apply to D&D)
Illithid_Tentacles 09-30-06, 03:13 PM	Being a dumbass is not evil. Beating or killing someonme because of how they were born is.
Andorxor 09-30-06, 03:42 PM	Let's take a look at Dominic Deegan. Siggy was racist against orcs, but he didn't go out of his way to kill them. However, he was extremely intolerant of them. Yet he was still a good person. Racism doesn't equal evil. If a racist was so intolerant that they didn't bother to even talk to the race they hate, even that is not evil. A racist is only evil when they try to murder someone. And look where he ended.
theotherdraxen 09-30-06, 11:19 PM	Racism doesn't equal evil the same way that wanting to kill doesn't equal killing. I had a character that was obstensibly (sp?) Lawful Good, but was also racist. He was an Aasimar Marshal, and a Lieutenant in the military. His racism and prejudice was based on his belief that humans were morally superior to the other races. He had a patriotic complex, so any race that went to war with his was put on his 'bad guy' list. He particulary hated Tieflings. His favorite weapon was his cold-iron longsword. The thing was, he trusted his group because the elf and two half-elves proved themselves (and he didn't realize that one of the half-elves was a Tiefling). He reacted to the other races poorly to begin with, but that was because they threatened his dear home city. Personally, anyone who plays a non-racist character at 1st level, IMO, is playing unrealistically. Most people in D&D grow up far away from other races, and are bound to have at least a few prejudices about them. They grow up in isolated communities. Racism is a big theme of D&D and many fantasy novels. The trick is to start out with a few racial prejudices that disappear in the presence of the other races. The general I mentioned above would later come to accept all the other races (even the Tiefling) and create a military/political mechanism to help liberate and advance the 'half-citizens' living in his home city. He lost his racism. A good-aligned racist should quickly realize that his unfounded hatred is...well, unfounded. They will shed their racism in the name of greater good.
theotherdraxen 09-30-06, 11:25 PM	The only problem I have with the OP's player is that he wants to play Chaotic Good. IMO:Racism seems to be a lawful quality. A lawful good character is far more likely to be racist than a chaotic one. Lawful characters cling to ideals, while chaotic characters have flexible minds, and are more able to adapt their beliefs based on the facts before them.
High Octane 10-01-06, 03:19 AM	I tend to think this can only go down an evil path, but he keeps saying that he can be a racist and still be good aligned... his current alignment is Chatic Good. Yes. As long as he is in other ways good. The darker side of human nature is a penchant for hatred. Even if you dont want to hate, you often do. Racism is hate, usually based in envy, upbringing, or being wronged by someone of that race and being reminded of that person by that trait.
Grandpa Gamer 10-01-06, 12:41 PM	First, reading the PHB literally, alignments are ased on actions and not subjective beliefs. If you only help people and never harm anyone, you wind up being good, even if you only help humans and badmouth non-humans at every opportunity. There's a solid reason for this "evil acts" definition of alignment...its because a DM can never be 100% sure of a chanracter's motives, but can be sure of his acts. Players may commit questionable acts with seemingly reasonable justifications, when deep down the player just wanted a moment of evil and the stated justification is a pretense. To get around that, D&D tends to assume you judge actions and ignore attitudes. Meanwhile, in the real world, we actually judge both. Second, there is the question of how this racism manifests itself. A 1,000 year old elf might well view elven culture as mature and superior to all the culture of the "child races." A cultural preference is not evil, even if it manifests itself as "we're number one and all you guys suck!" It's when you start advocating for bad things to be done to the other races (or, certainly, doing bad things yourself) that you clearly cross the line into evil. The gray area is when you do not cause harm to the other races, but you actively ignore their plight or, worse, revel in it. "Actively ignoring" or "taking pleasure in" skirt the line between being acts and mere attitudes. While they are mostly attitudes, it offends our real world sense of propriety to hear characters spout such nonsense and yet view themselves as "good." A guess a further clarification of my position would be in order: I make a difference between prejudice and racism. Prejudice is a mental predisposition; whereas racism is taking specific action to hurt or thwart. As Pandemoni accurately stated, all first-level characters have some sort of prejudice. By their very nature, starting characters are young and inexperienced, their viewpoint on life has been filtered through the lens of family/tribe/village/city-ward/guild - and race. A racist, however, not only has an opinion, but is more than willing to put it into action. A prejudiced character may keep his hand on his belt-pouch when a halfling in leather armor walks by, but a racist would stick his boot out to trip the halfling, then taunt him while he's down. To some, this would only seem a matter of degree, but what IS alignement BUT a matter of degrees?
Kursk 10-01-06, 01:44 PM	Actions not attitude makes someone good/evil.
Cifer 10-01-06, 02:17 PM	The only problem I have with the OP's player is that he wants to play Chaotic Good. IMO:Racism seems to be a lawful quality. A lawful good character is far more likely to be racist than a chaotic one. Lawful characters cling to ideals, while chaotic characters have flexible minds, and are more able to adapt their beliefs based on the facts before them. Racism certainly is a lawful quality (well, except for the fact that there are half a dozen definitions for law&chaos, some of them not even being mutually exclusive - but it's lawful for the definition I like to use myself). The question is with how many other chaotic traits it is balanced. Picture a character who can't stand authority, changes his allegiances like his trousers, has no problems with stealing and uses almost no moral code - is he suddenly lawful because he is of the opinion that all orcs should be exterminated? I'd see him as solidly chaotic with one lawful trait.
Seraphine_Harmonium 10-01-06, 06:32 PM	What? Would you rather you live and believe a lie and say that there is no such thing as a racial trait? You are saying it is better to twist and distort the facts and ignore the truth than "risk offending someone"???? I agree with you completely. Society has gotten out of hand to the point where we think that it is some sort of mortal sin to say ANYTHING that might offend ANYONE. It's all the ACLU's fault. The problem is that it affects our gameplay. We think that anyone who makes a racial or societal generalization is suddenly evil, but this concept is ridiculous. So long as the person does not actively attempt to kill or cause harm to those he is racist against (or plots/plans to), who is to say he is evil? The mention of most humanoids in D&D being racist against drow is a very good point. The racism in that case is well founded, but it is still racism. And yet these people are not automatically evil.
jagraham 10-01-06, 09:46 PM	I agree with you completely. Society has gotten out of hand to the point where we think that it is some sort of mortal sin to say ANYTHING that might offend ANYONE. It's all the ACLU's fault. The problem is that it affects our gameplay. We think that anyone who makes a racial or societal generalization is suddenly evil, but this concept is ridiculous. So long as the person does not actively attempt to kill or cause harm to those he is racist against (or plots/plans to), who is to say he is evil? The mention of most humanoids in D&D being racist against drow is a very good point. The racism in that case is well founded, but it is still racism. And yet these people are not automatically evil. Nah, you've got it backwards on the ACLU. The American Civil Liberties Union is a free speech group. They frequently protect the rights of racist groups to express their views, which they are maligned for. Say a town passed an ordinance against playing D&D, who would come to our defense? I do agree that we should not project too much of our real world political correctness into a fantasy game. D&D is full of races, such as Orcs or Drow, who are fair game, and things run smoothly because of it. I think that if a PC is bigoted, there is an opportunity to explore something safely you can't in real life, and presents the opportunity to change. In The Lord of the Rings, one of the great themes is the friendship that developed between Legolas and Gimli. For the bad guys, it can be used as good storytelling to show just how bad they are. Say the villian captures some people and has the humans taken to the dungeon, but has the halflings killed on the spot. That establishes the villain has it coming, and even makes it sweeter when the party makes him pay. So I'd say that alignment is more about how you act upon your biases, rather than the reverse.