Do Dwarf Elf alingments bug anyone else?

[Fortinbras]

Has anyone noticed that elves are supposed to be chaotic but they rarely act like it? Elves tend to be extremely polite, regal, solumn people. They are monogamous. They are the acient race and they seem to happily devot themselves to doing something for hundreds of years.

Dwarves are rowdy and often drunk. They tend to be somewhat rude and crude.

Does this make sense to everyone else?

[Starbuck_II]

Has anyone noticed that elves are supposed to be chaotic but they rarely act like it? Elves tend to be extremely polite, regal, solumn people. They are monogamous. They are the acient race and they seem to happily devot themselves to doing something for hundreds of years.

Dwarves are rowdy and often drunk. They tend to be somewhat rude and crude.

Does this make sense to everyone else?

I've never thought aboyt it before.

But yeah the flavor text and the mechanics don't match...wow

[Narmoth]

I guess most dwarf adventurers, who are "somewhat rude and crude" and "often drunk" are the ones that don't fit in with the LG society of the dwarfen kingdoms
The elves are mostly chaotic due to their loose political structure in previous editions. In 2nd ed, a lot of the law-chaos axis was on how the race was governed. I guess they just kept it.

[kpenguin]

Has anyone noticed that elves are supposed to be chaotic but they rarely act like it? Elves tend to be extremely polite, regal, solumn people. They are monogamous. They are the acient race and they seem to happily devot themselves to doing something for hundreds of years.


Wait, what? Elves are flighty and their interests change from decade to decade.


Dwarves are rowdy and often drunk. They tend to be somewhat rude and crude.

Since when? Dwarves are solemn and live orderly, tradition-bound lives in the mountains.

See what I did there?

[Ganurath]

On Dwarves: Dwarves aren't drunk, they're just drinkers that also happen to be violently xenophobic. You can hardly call a race Chaotic for having a culturally favored form of recreation. If anything, I'd say that the arrogant, openly rascist isoloationists have more trouble on the Good-Evil axis than on Law-Chaos.

On Elves: Elven individuals are Lawful. Elven society is Chaotic, provided you follow what's stated in the racial profiles and not just do your own thing. For example, in the campaign world I'm working on there are LN elves with Hidden Tree Villages connected by Teleportation Circles that are surrounded by patrols, and a NE minority in the Evil Human Empire, exemplifying the dark side of elven pride and superiority so as to help emphasis the Empire over the Evil.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Has anyone noticed that elves are supposed to be chaotic but they rarely act like it? Elves tend to be extremely polite, regal, solumn people. They are monogamous. They are the acient race and they seem to happily devot themselves to doing something for hundreds of years.

Dwarves are rowdy and often drunk. They tend to be somewhat rude and crude.

Does this make sense to everyone else?

None of those are alignment traits.

Elves are individualistic - that's the main point of D&D Chaotic. Individual > society.

Dwarves are clannish - that's the main point of D&D Lawful. Individual < society.

For practical purposes (mortals, rather than planar philosophy or outsiders), the Good-Evil axis is self-explanatory, and the Chaotic-Lawful axis is about your relation to society.

[Tempest Fennac]

If Dwarves are xenophobic as a race, I'd say they shouldn't really be good due to discriminating against other races. I'd say Elves being chaotic while Dwarves are lawful fits due to how their societies work, though. (I tend to ignore listed alignments altogether due to them making races 1-dimentional, though).

[Riffington]

Well, let's take two clear dwarven pursuits: mining and warfare.
Mining is done very differently by lawful and chaotic people, because it's very dangerous and the day-to-day rewards vary so greatly. If you are a chaotic miner, you are likely to be very quick to jump into a new lode, which is risky but also very rewarding. After all, that one day may get you as much gold as you'd make all year. If you are a lawful miner surrounded by other lawful miners, you are going to want to make sure you all get fair profits and also minimize risk. This is best done by putting a certain amount of profit-sharing in place, while creating rules for how well-shored a tunnel must be.
Do dwarves make sure their tunnels are safe and well-shored, or do they run off into the crevasses to try to find precious materials before their coworkers do?

Similarly, warfare is done differently. Lawful warriors will be well-disciplined, will have regular training hours, and will emphasize strategy. Chaotic warriors are more likely to make quick tactical decisions, will be less well-disciplined, and training will take more of the form of competition.
Do your dwarves hold ranks well against goblin invaders, or do the bold ones break ranks to rush out for a momentary tactical advantage? How do they decide who leads?

Elves seem to be very different from campaign to campaign, and are harder to talk about.

[Leon]

What is the Alignment of choice for a Dwarf Elf

[SolkaTruesilver]

I think you should rather look at examples of the dealings the elves and dwarves have with their neighbour. The dwarves are always straightforward, reliable, and determinate.

Usually, the elves will be fickly, and go "if the time is right" when trouble arise (their support is not assured, and they won't come on a matter of principle).

You could also try find good examples in Warhammer Fantasy (which I find very good depiction of both classic fantasy elves and fantasy dwarves). You look at the difference of the two human kingdom which has been directly been influenced by either of those two elder races:

- The Empire has been helped by the dwarves. As such, the dwarves sent technological help, traders, and army. They gave them proper and open cultural background to distrust anything magic, 'cause it causes chaos.

- Bretonnia has been helped by the Elves of Athel Loren. As such, the elves managed to manipulate the nobility to unite into a single kingdom, they set up a religion which fortify the supremacy of the nobility and uses a strange mix of their own power and human's spirituality to empower these Knights to be the greatest Knights of the Old world. Also, the Elves go on and capture any children which show magical capabilities to make sure they don't provoke... problems with Chaos. (The girls are sent back to properly enforce the religion previously mentionned).

If you look at the High Elves of Warhammer, they are less chaotic in nature than the Elves of Athel Loren. But they are still somewhat manipulative. They decided to help the humans setting up the Colleges of Magic, so they humans would not loose control over their own capabilities, but they made sure that these Colleges would report to the Loremaster of Hoeth. They also promoted and trained the roots of a secret police faction (the Grey Order) that don't even report to the Emperor to make sure the Empire stay clear of corruption.

The dwarves hold grudges forever, and actually have a system to register and make sure their race never forget an insult. The Elves denied complete responsability over the actions of their own kins (Dark Elves), and completely disregarded everything they knew about Dwarf Culture by commiting the worst possible insult to the Dwarven Ambassador.

As you can see, the Elves can be nice peoples, but they are fickle and often inconsiderate of other culture's feeling. They are a manipulative people that happens to be more gifted than humanity, has a longer life span.

The Dwarves as usually straightforward, honest, and you usually don't second-guess their motives. They will hold you to your words, your responsability, and they act the same for themselves.

[Jayabalard]

Has anyone noticed that elves are supposed to be chaotic but they rarely act like it?No. None of the stuff that you mention is is opposition to their alignment, and you're ignoring the most important piece of what makes those two races tend toward law or chaos, whic his the fact that Dwarven society is ruled by law and tradition and Elven society is highly individualistic.

[Shadowbane]

Wait, what? Elves are flighty and their interests change from decade to decade.



Since when? Dwarves are solemn and live orderly, tradition-bound lives in the mountains.

See what I did there?


I see what you did there. Anyway, you're right. Dwarves ARE solemn, and are very orderly. Think of Bruenor Battlhammer. Honor and character all the way, just like ol'Drizzy.

[Talya]

None of those are alignment traits.

Elves are individualistic - that's the main point of D&D Chaotic. Individual > society.

Dwarves are clannish - that's the main point of D&D Lawful. Individual < society.

For practical purposes (mortals, rather than planar philosophy or outsiders), the Good-Evil axis is self-explanatory, and the Chaotic-Lawful axis is about your relation to society.

Exactly. I don't think anyone could have stated it better.

[Godskook]

Has anyone noticed that elves are supposed to be chaotic but they rarely act like it? Elves tend to be extremely polite, regal, solumn people. They are monogamous. They are the acient race and they seem to happily devot themselves to doing something for hundreds of years.

Dwarves are rowdy and often drunk. They tend to be somewhat rude and crude.

Does this make sense to everyone else?

Only if you think Miko defines the paladin concept...

Seriously? No. Look at V and Durkon. Stereotypical of their races, imho.

Which one is more chaotic? V, who is willing to sell hir soul to save hir family - who is willing to provoke a rivalry with Belkar to prevent a conversation about a drunken kiss - whose spouse is only loosely attached maritally* - who worships a god seemingly because it give hir power.

Which is more lawful? Durkon, who refuses an enjoyable relationship because of her duty - whose greatest wish concerns where his grave is located - who won't go home because he was told he couldn't - who worships a god out of loyalty, and perhaps, some blind faith.



*Inkyrius' behavior towards V in recent comics is not that of a lawful person. Hir attitude is such that indicates that either can end the relationship on moment's notice, which (s)he does. They also act like this behavior is 'normal' for elves in so much as, justified or not, an elf has the right to leave hir spouse if (s)he feels it is warranted. Clearly this is polar to Durkon's attitude towards marriage, where a bad marriage is tolerated, rather than ended.

[SoD]

Dwarves, emulating the chaos of an orderly, governed, traditional culture removed from other races.

Elves, showing how lawful an individualistic, arrogant, flighty race who lives in trees can be.

Yeah. Right.

[Faleldir]

Dwarves drink more alcohol than humans because they have better fortitude saves, not because they're addicted.

[VirOath]

The whole xenophobic tint on Dwarves has less to do with being evil and more to do with being smart and long lived bastards.

Humans are Neutral, Dwarves are LN. Dwarves are slow to trust, believing your aren't a friend unless you've been around a few decades. Yet, if that same friend is facing down an army of darkness and certain defeat, you can expect any dwarven friend to be right by his side, claiming to even the odds and that they can take'em.

Dwarves have the same capacity for good and evil as humans do, just that a severe distrust of arcane magic puts them at odds with some races, and racial feuds and conflicts puts them at odds with others. They don't forget favors or grudges easily.

And that said, almost any race can walk through the front gates of any Dwarven city. Just 'conditions' (Removal of weapons, warnings, etc.) might be applied, and you can expect some races of adventures to be distrusted and unfairly treated to start with until they prove themselves. At which point, you'll find that Dwarves don't give a creed about your creed if you've done them a great deed.


And Elves are the most fickle race, outside of the Fey. Not only do their interests change every few decades, save those that devote themselves to a single focus (IE, Adventures or class levels) but even then they may be more of hobbies, or worst. They even change their sexuality just to try something new.

Then again, being nigh immortal, they have to change things up constantly to keep themselves from being bored.

Lawful isn't being orderly in every sense of the word to the point of being obsessive compulsive and Chaotic doesn't mean being flaky, unreliable and completely random. Lawful is more likely to think of what is expected of them before acting, and Chaotic is more likely to think as who they are before acting, without thinking of what others would think of them.

[TheOOB]

Really, chaotic good is kinda defined by elves, and lawful good is defined by dwarves. Dwarves have a rigid honor bound society where tradition and the good of the whole are prioritized over the whims of the one.

Elves are creatures of passion and fancy, tending to prefer to work on great arts and waste their years away as opposed to seeking long term ends.

[Salt_Crow]

I dunno... adventuring far away from their lovely brews make dwarves more stoic perhaps?

Or maybe it's their law/tradition to drink till you drop. Then they're kinda lawful in a sense that would be quite likely to start yet another War of Alignment Axis.

[BlueWizard]

Depends on the humanoid city.

[hewhosaysfish]

What is the Alignment of choice for a Dwarf Elf

Chaotic Lawful, obviously.

[Harperfan7]

If you read the descriptions of the races in the PHB and MM it will make a bunch more sense. You're only seeing the cliche surface.

Also, dwarves aren't completely lawful, and elves aren't completely chaotic.

[Myrmex]

On Dwarves: Dwarves aren't drunk, they're just drinkers that also happen to be violently xenophobic. You can hardly call a race Chaotic for having a culturally favored form of recreation. If anything, I'd say that the arrogant, openly rascist isoloationists have more trouble on the Good-Evil axis than on Law-Chaos.

Since when is racism Evil?

[JonestheSpy]

Since when is racism Evil?


Wow, that's almost impossible to address without going into verbotten politcal turf. Can we just say that all decent people in the modern world agree it is and move on?

Now in a fantasy like DnD where you've got zillions of intelligent species, often in competion and or/constant war with each other, it makes the situation a bit more complicated. It's compares better to real world nationalites than "races" in the real world, I guess. The elves and dwarves have old greivances that go back millinia, and no one forget and forgives - like the Serbs and the Albanians, or kinda like the grudges that still linger in the U.S. over the Civil War.

[Myrmex]

Wow, that's almost impossible to address without going into verbotten politcal turf. Can we just say that all decent people in the modern world agree it is and move on?

Which modern world? IRL, or you know, the one with dwarves and stuff? Cause I thought we were talking about things that don't exist.


Now in a fantasy like DnD where you've got zillions of intelligent species, often in competion and or/constant war with each other, it makes the situation a bit more complicated. It's compares better to real world nationalites than "races" in the real world, I guess. The elves and dwarves have old greivances that go back millinia, and no one forget and forgives - like the Serbs and the Albanians, or kinda like the grudges that still linger in the U.S. over the Civil War.

No, not at all like that. Dwarves ACTUALLY have -2 charisma penalty, orcs REALLY do have -2 int and -2 cha. Orcs were created to be tools of war by a hateful deity who dwells in the lower planes whose alignment is Chaotic Evil.

Racism is entirely justifiable in D&D, and for good reason. Any character that was preaching racial harmony and equality would literally be a deluded fool.

[Starbuck_II]

Which modern world? IRL, or you know, the one with dwarves and stuff? Cause I thought we were talking about things that don't exist.

Actually, Dwarves exist in real life too. Halfings lived in Australia; of course they have freakishly long arms.

D&D seems more like specism than racism: since at least 1/2 of the races can mate with each other.

[golentan]

Racism is entirely justifiable in D&D, and for good reason. Any character that was preaching racial harmony and equality would literally be a deluded fool.

Racism is not justifiable. Ever. Never-Ever Never. Pretty much all the racial mods are within a standard deviation, and we know that some are cultural (mongrelfolk: -2 int because of lack of education). So I'm not buying that because on average an orc is 10 IQ points lower than a human that the orc standing next to me is. And if I went around assuming inferior intelligence made people less people, I'd be excluding pretty much everyone I know. Plus, if you're that racist you probably are thinking of orcs as enemies. Making the mistake of underestimating an enemy is just plain dumb, and I have never seen it end well for practitioners of the habit.

It's justifiable to defend yourself from a raiding party. It's good sense to treat something that looks like a raiding party with suspicion (though morally grey when you begin judging that by it's racial composition, it's still good sense). It's unjustifiable to assume that something is a raiding party and partake in "preemptive defense" (that's referred to as assault and battery on the low end of the scale, and warcrimes on the high end).

Yes, the rules are set up to encourage racism. Especially with metagame knowledge, or with historically accurate RPing. The rules are also set up to encourage you to stab a foe in the back with a poisoned knife while he sleeps whenever possible. Let me know how many paladins you see doing that.

[Myrmex]

Racism is not justifiable. Ever. Never-Ever Never. Pretty much all the racial mods are within a standard deviation, and we know that some are cultural (mongrelfolk: -2 int because of lack of education). So I'm not buying that because on average an orc is 10 IQ points lower than a human that the orc standing next to me is. And if I went around assuming inferior intelligence made people less people, I'd be excluding pretty much everyone I know. Plus, if you're that racist you probably are thinking of orcs as enemies. Making the mistake of underestimating an enemy is just plain dumb, and I have never seen it end well for practitioners of the habit.

It's justifiable to defend yourself from a raiding party. It's good sense to treat something that looks like a raiding party with suspicion (though morally grey when you begin judging that by it's racial composition, it's still good sense). It's unjustifiable to assume that something is a raiding party and partake in "preemptive defense" (that's referred to as assault and battery on the low end of the scale, and warcrimes on the high end).

Yes, the rules are set up to encourage racism. Especially with metagame knowledge, or with historically accurate RPing. The rules are also set up to encourage you to stab a foe in the back with a poisoned knife while he sleeps whenever possible. Let me know how many paladins you see doing that.

Did you miss the part where orcs were literally created for war by a war god?

[Godskook]

Did you guys miss the part where D&D speciesism can not be directly compared to our world's racism? Humans wanting to kill of mongrelfolk(D&D) is more comparable to humans wanting to kill off dolphins(real life), than anything real world humans do to other humans.

The rules of D&D actually prevent real-world racism from becoming an issue in game because D&D doesn't even recognize race in 3.5 core, at least for PCs, and from what I can tell, in other places, when it does recognize races, it is the exception instead of the rule.

Hell, Rich even talked on this in-comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html

[Myrmex]

Actually, D&D recognizes race amongst non-humans, such as arctic kobolds or desert goblins, or the 30 flavors of elf. Humans, though, don't get much like that. Races of Destiny, maybe, with skulk and illumian.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Did you guys miss the part where D&D speciesism can not be directly compared to our world's racism? Humans wanting to kill of mongrelfolk(D&D) is more comparable to humans wanting to kill off dolphins(real life), than anything real world humans do to other humans.

The rules of D&D actually prevent real-world racism from becoming an issue in game because D&D doesn't even recognize race in 3.5 core, at least for PCs, and from what I can tell, in other places, when it does recognize races, it is the exception instead of the rule.

Hell, Rich even talked on this in-comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html

I guess you could say that the humans, elves, orcs, hobbits, etc... are different species that are in the same biological family the way Zebra, Asses and Horses are.

But yhea, it's specieism. In one view (utilitarian) of morality, there is nothing wrong with specieism, as it would lead to the supremacy of your species on the face of the world, the way the first men killed-off the Nehandertals. No competition might be better.

And also, in most settings, the orcs already act like this.

[Josh the Aspie]

I'd like to point out a few things here on the Xenophobia angle.

Several words have gained some connotations that are often attached to a word, even if that's not how they are meant by the user, so I'll start with how I use the following words, for the rest of the post.

Discriminate: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately. This is the more traditional meaning, that has been over-taken by other more negative ones, to the point where I am not aware of a synonym that does not have the attached stigma.

For example, when I choose to eat a Papa Murphie's Hawaiian DeLite pizza, instead of one of their higher calorie normal Hawaiian pizzas, it is because I am a discriminating eater on a diet. In this case, it is a positive thing, because I am making myself healthier by paying attention to what I eat.

Racism: Showing preference for, or giving advantage to, members of one race, over one or more other races; or showing preference against, or applying disadvantage to, members of one race in comparison to one or more other races.

Given the above meanings, a person who is Racist, often is not very discriminating about individuals, choosing pre-conceived notions, rather than judging or feeling out each individual in a class.

Bias: A pre-existing preference for, or against something. A persistent force on readings or judgment in one direction or another. Racism is a kind of this. Bias can also, in some cases, be positive. I personally have a bias towards healthy foods, and organic examples of those healthy foods receive an additional positive bias, despite their often higher prices.

Prejudice: A pre-judging of something, before having seen, met, or experienced the thing that is judged. I have long ago decided that I dislike pesticides being on and in my food, and prefer organic foods, to non-organic. I have pre-judged in favor of organic carrots, and against non-organic carrots, when I have a choice between the two. Dwarves have often pre-judged that they would rather trade with a human than an orc.

Now that I've shown what I mean by these words, hopefully, HOPEFULLY, what I'm about to say will not have meanings I do not impart on the words imparted upon them for me.

People learn. It's a good thing. I've done research on what my over-weight condition will do to me, I've learned that loosing weight feels great, and so I have decided ahead of time, pre-judged, if you will, that I am going to make an effort towards loosing more weight. As a part of this I am prejudiced against filling, healthy foods that will help me loose weight, even if they cost more, and against high energy density foods that, for people like hikers, may be superior options.

By not having to do my research each time, but instead, judging my general course of action ahead of time, I can do my research more thoroughly, and make better choices, because of the additional information I have available when doing said research, rather than debating the issue time and time again at the grocery store. I still make individual choices, weighing what I already know, and the priorities I have set, and if new information comes to light, I will likely think on this, and consider it for future decisions... but the theme of my long term choices is already set.

Because of this, I am biased towards organic carrots and celery, and against deep dish, meat lovers pizza, at least until my circumstances change, and I do not need to work nearly so hard to reduce my calorie intake.

I have also learned that touching hot metal and holding onto a hot pan to move it is a BAD idea without pot holders, and am unlikely to repeat this mistake often, because I know I will burn myself if I do.

In my opinion, the above shows that bias, and prejudice are natural parts of a human's life, and can be good things.

Now, on to prejudice and the Fantasy world.

Let's have a town of any standard PC race. Let's say that there are no existing prejudices or opinions about other races for some arbitrary and non-relevant reason.

Now, your community produces some goods that are better than those in some other community. You produce enough to sustain yourselves, and produce enough to have some excess goods. Other villages find out about this. They send some people to look into this.

I'll say the village is human for this example. Some elves come to the village. They look like very interesting creatures. You talk, chat, offer to trade. suddenly they abscond with your goods, slaying the head man of the village. Okay, that's definitely bad.

The dwarves and orcs, however, have been trading with you very nicely this whole time. Well, you reinforce your village a bit, burry the head man, etc.

Another group of elves come, and swear they are unaffiliated with the ones that stole from you before. Your community is wary, and slow to trust, but they offer to pay handsomely for your goods, and ask only to be allowed to prove their good intentions. Warily, you let them in. It happens again, but this time a child is carried off with them, along with the goods.

How many times does it take before Elves are turned away at the gate? Now? 10 times from now? 100? Never?

If you turn them away at the gate, and they start sending raiding parties... what happens the next time you see elves heading towards your village at high speed? Do you assume they are merely eager to trade? Or do you hail arrows down upon them to protect your village from the (likely) coming attack? Generally, in my opinion, a sensible person would hail arrows unless they saw a clear white flag. And if the flag had been abused in the past, probably even then.

So why is it different if it's the Orcs that have been raiding, slaying, killing off the farm folk? Over time, a race looses the assumption of innocence, and becomes, by default, the enemy. This is racism. This is bias... but is it wrong? Is it evil? Or is it simply a person learning from circumstances that to trust an orc is likely a very dangerous choice, that should not be taken if one has a choice?

Elves and Dwarves have long memories, far longer than those of any individual human... and each have a very long abiding distrust and dislike for orcs. In fact, they train for war with those creatures specifically in mind.

Does this mean that they are evil? Or merely that they recognize a consistent threat, and seek to protect themselves from it?

If an individual orc walked up to an Elven or Dwarf settlement, it would not likely be trusted. Is that wrong?

Now, if the orc surrenders it's self, has a white flag, and disarms it's self... I'm fairly sure it would be allowed to speak it's peace, at the point of a weapon... but unless it had a VERY compelling case, I doubt it would be allowed entrance to that community, unless it had other, more trustworthy beings with it, to vouch for it, and take the responsibility for it's actions.

If said Orc, in company of a human, an elf, and a Dwarf, were to prove it's self gregarious, fair, a good customer, it might be a bit more welcome, and able to keep more of it's gear. If it raised arms to help defend the community, then it would likely meet with far less distrust, perhaps even acceptance from some members of the community as a good being.

Now, does the initial distrust of the village show them to be bad, icky, nasty people for distrusting the orc at first? I say no. If, no matter what, the village as a whole continued to revile -that- orc, even after it saved dozens of town members, being wounded for it's trouble. (I use it, due to not having a sufficient gender neutral pronoun), I would agree that this would be a mark against the town. But otherwise, I believe that the initial suspicion, and lack of trust for the orc is natural, healthy, and wise. Similarly, for individuals as the race, as for the town it's self.

Now, more specifically towards the Dwarves. The dwarves are hardly more xenophobic, by the traditional meaning (afraid of outsiders, or the outside) than elves or humans. But there is something that tends to touch close to this.

Dwarves and Elves each have a very strong bias in favor of things of their own race. They each have strong philosophies, and long practice of choosing, and experience and familiarity with the ways of their own people.

The elves are quite individualistic, and seek new experiences where they can get them in a very out-going way. A new face in the community (or a new community to explore), may be looked upon as a diversion as positive as journeying through a new forest, or experiencing a new vintage of wine... yet for the majority, they still prefer elven wine. They still prefer trees to plains, and they still prefer an elven ballad to a human one, let alone one from the dwarves, when comparing the qualities. They are likely to complement a great poet or writer on the nuance of his verse, his understanding of subtleties, and his descriptions of nature, or a warrior upon the finesse he displays with his rapier, praising them as being 'elf like' in some circumstances, as a high complement.

The dwarves, likewise, have a like for things that seem dwarven. They will take more readily to a stalwart viking like human, with a broad chest, a thick beard, and a well used, well crafted axe, than to a poet with a rapier...

Yet more than the experience of trade, or new understandings with other peoples, more than the ability of the individual to range afield and experience more, the dwarves value the companionship if their kin, the hearth fire of their home, a tale of the ancestors that bear their own names. They value the protection of the hearth, and to bathe in the presence of the ones that made them in their temples, and to do homage by making things that last, as well. This tight bond, this love of their community, and family, that makes up more of them self in the knit, in the companionship than any part that is theirs alone in themselves, bonds them all very tightly.

If a dwarf faces battle, with his kin, who likely encompas a full quarter of the whole hold, if not more, people he has foght beside time and time again, against the outside, the other, who has assaulted their gates before... the orcs, the hobgoblins, the giants... anything that has proven a threat... he knows the ones beside him. He knows a deep and abiding trust, that for each face among those with him, his saftey, and the saftey of others present, is far more precious than any individual life. He knows that as surely as he would give his life to protect this sacred home, this sacred bond... so would any here, man, or woman.

There is a sacred trust in this... one that certain members of other races understand instinctively. It is these that dwarves will most find companionship with... but there can be no replacing that sacred bond... that bond... which it would be worse to loose, than life it's self. And because of that... because of that trust and loyalty, any trust they can feel for someone that is not a part of that bond feels pale by comparison... as pale as an elf would find an elven ballad sung by the lips of a lad that has not yet spent a year on his craft.

And it is that comparison of trusts that causes many to find the dwarves to be 'xenophobic'. At least, when I think of dwarves, this is the origin of it that I understand it to be. People see a lack of trust in outsiders... an insularity in the dwarves. And in truth, compared to that trust of hearth and hold... they do not trust the other races nearly so well. It is not that they fear the outside... it is simply that the outside does not often offer something as reliable as a single dwarf, let alone all the dwarves that surround most dwarves from birth to grave.

And yet where dwarven and human, or dwarven and elven bonds form... when a dwarf finds in a man or elf the kind of trust he might in another dwarf, especially when they have lived long beside them... I would think that this bond enfolds them.

It has been said in source books that if a dwarf forms a true friendship with a line of humans, which may take a generation or more to do, that bond will extend to the rest of that line. In my understanding, this is because the humans have become a part of that great and long lasting bond. The dwarf knows the mettle of those that he speaks with, sees, and with whom he clasps hands... and he knows the deep level of trust that he can draw upon, and give with these elves or men.

At least that is how I view it.

I apologize if I have rambled.

[golentan]

Did you miss the part where orcs were literally created for war by a war god?

No I did not. What's your point? I'm designed for war. Should I be ostracized?

Doesn't unwillingness to trade with a group in the real world promote that group taking up banditry or conquest as well to supplement? I seem to recall that.


Did you guys miss the part where D&D speciesism can not be directly compared to our world's racism? Humans wanting to kill of mongrelfolk(D&D) is more comparable to humans wanting to kill off dolphins(real life), than anything real world humans do to other humans.

What? And you think I'm okay with killing off dolphins? Or chimps? Or any organism with higher brain function for that matter?

Josh: You race some good points. But the issue is when you default to assuming that a person who as of yet has done you no harm is hostile. The group of armed individuals moving towards you rapidly is almost certainly a raiding party. But this is true regardless of their race. So you ready yourself in case it is, but you shouldn't fire the first shot no matter how pragmatic it is. And when something consistently proves hostile you are certainly entitled to be cautious, but that doesn't include preventing individuals from entering your town. Race may be an indicator, but it shouldn't make the top three in my book. Being cautious may well involve confiscating their weapons and keeping tabs on their movement, but even that is getting a bit gray for me unless you treat all strangers the same way.

Regardless, it's generally easier to identify a person's intentions by what they carry than by what they look like themselves. Swords/Bows/Axes/Machine guns: Probably a threat. Bags of grain: Probably not a threat. It takes ages to fish a weapon out of a bag of grain anyway, so you'd likely have time to calmly walk up and amputate an offending limb.

It's probably stupid, and it's undoubtedly why I keep getting shot, but I assure you that it's worth it. If you don't stop killing elves for being elves, how can you expect them to stop killing humans for being humans? Decency has to start somewhere.

[Myrmex]

No I did not. What's your point? I'm designed for war. Should I be ostracized?

Yes, if it is true that you are designed to be the racial enemy of an elf, and I am an elf, I will be extremely distrustful of you and advocated for your destruction. I value myself more than others, especially those who seek to do me harm.


Doesn't unwillingness to trade with a group in the real world promote that group taking up banditry or conquest as well to supplement? I seem to recall that.

If you could give the source from where you see to recall that, that would be great.


What? And you think I'm okay with killing off dolphins? Or chimps? Or any organism with higher brain function for that matter?

Do you think I care?


And when something consistently proves hostile you are certainly entitled to be cautious, but that doesn't include preventing individuals from entering your town.

/facepalm at naivety


Race may be an indicator, but it shouldn't make the top three in my book.

What sort of bizarre campaign setting are you playing in?


Being cautious may well involve confiscating their weapons and keeping tabs on their movement, but even that is getting a bit gray for me unless you treat all strangers the same way.

You are just asking for pain.


Regardless, it's generally easier to identify a person's intentions by what they carry than by what they look like themselves. Swords/Bows/Axes/Machine guns: Probably a threat. Bags of grain: Probably not a threat. It takes ages to fish a weapon out of a bag of grain anyway, so you'd likely have time to calmly walk up and amputate an offending limb.

Drawing a weapon is a move action, unless your BAB is at least +1, then it's part of a move action. So probably not.


It's probably stupid, and it's undoubtedly why I keep getting shot, but I assure you that it's worth it.

What's worth it? Getting raped and murdered by orcs? Sorry, but the rest of the town disagrees with you.


If you don't stop killing elves for being elves, how can you expect them to stop killing humans for being humans? Decency has to start somewhere.

Interesting that you bring this up. Have you ever heard of prisoner's dilemma? Look it up on wikipedia. It's really fascinating stuff.

Anyway, it's what evolutionary biologists use to explain why cooperative, seemingly altruistic behavior evolved in social groups, and how social groups work.

While humans and elves in D&D likely have this sort of forward thinking capacity, I doubt that the orcs do. Every piece of source material describes them as chaotic, bloodthirsty, and violent. War is in their nature in a way that it is not for us, IRL.

You make the mistake that anything with over 3 intelligence is a tabula rasa, a blank slate. While certain individuals (ie, PCs) may be, it would be foolish to assume that you can trust a mindflayer or beholder, or that that ogre probably doesn't want to burn down your house, steal your cows, and eat your kids, after the last 10 ogre attacks.

[KIDS]

I think the blame lies with the Law and Chaos alignments, not Dwarves and Elves. As several posts above nicely describe, you can apply real life morals to D&D, but you can't describe them with alignments.

[Godskook]

Racism: Showing preference for, or giving advantage to, members of one race, over one or more other races; or showing preference against, or applying disadvantage to, members of one race in comparison to one or more other races.

I use a slightly different definition for racism. To me, it is showing preference due to differences that are negligible or irrelevant, or due to differences that have been overcome.

For instance, a character in a D&D who prefers to adventure with a gray elf wizard instead of, say, a wood elf wizard, isn't necessarily a racist. However, if he were to refuse a qualified wood elf wizard for a lesser gray elf wizard, that would be racist.

Another for instance, say there's an elven school of wizardry. They only want the smartest of students to get in. Gray elves have +4 int, compared to wood elves. If all applicants are accepted based purely on their int score, the school would naturally favor gray elves, and that wouldn't be racist. If the school was aware of the lesser int of wood elves and said "we don't accept wood elves at our school", that would be racist. If instead, they instituted a program where qualified gray elves weren't accepted so that unqualified wood elves could be, that would also be racist. Still another possibility is that they consider that an int score isn't the only thing to judge a candidate by, and consider what other stats should be used to make the best wizards. Con and Dex are both important to a good wizard, so the school opens its doors to agile, accurate, durable, and well-concentrated wizards, even if their int score isn't as great as someone else, provided it was at least, say, a 14 at level 1. Since wood and grey elves are equally suited for con and dex, this new policy evens out the proportions of the two races some(not entirely), without being racist.

Of course, in our world, most deficiencies are culturally or societally based instead of racially. Here, race is mostly a cosmetic, especially in our technology age where muscle-mass and size are becoming more irrelevant.


I apologize if I have rambled.

Don't worry, an intelligent ramble is hard to come by.


What? And you think I'm okay with killing off dolphins? Or chimps? Or any organism with higher brain function for that matter?

No, just trying to put things in a better perspective.

If I were wandering around alone in the woods, and a racially different human appeared before me, provocation would be necessarily required for I to get hostile towards him. On the other hand, if instead, it was a gorilla, all I'd need was a reason to believe that a preemptive attack would be safer for me and that waiting was dangerous, and I'd kill it. I believe my life is inherently more valuable than a gorillas. On the other hand, I think all human life has equal inherent value(which can be enhanced or devalued through our deeds).

[Josh the Aspie]

Josh: You race some good points. But the issue is when you default to assuming that a person who as of yet has done you no harm is hostile. The group of armed individuals moving towards you rapidly is almost certainly a raiding party. But this is true regardless of their race. So you ready yourself in case it is, but you shouldn't fire the first shot no matter how pragmatic it is. And when something consistently proves hostile you are certainly entitled to be cautious, but that doesn't include preventing individuals from entering your town. Race may be an indicator, but it shouldn't make the top three in my book. Being cautious may well involve confiscating their weapons and keeping tabs on their movement, but even that is getting a bit gray for me unless you treat all strangers the same way.

Regardless, it's generally easier to identify a person's intentions by what they carry than by what they look like themselves. Swords/Bows/Axes/Machine guns: Probably a threat. Bags of grain: Probably not a threat. It takes ages to fish a weapon out of a bag of grain anyway, so you'd likely have time to calmly walk up and amputate an offending limb.

It's probably stupid, and it's undoubtedly why I keep getting shot, but I assure you that it's worth it. If you don't stop killing elves for being elves, how can you expect them to stop killing humans for being humans? Decency has to start somewhere.


Thank you. I am glad to discuss with someone who is willing to discuss things openly, as you seem to be so far. However, I feel I must disagree with you on some of your points.

When members of any group routinely seek to harm you, it is unreasonable to restrain yourself from actions which may save your life, and that of others, from the actions of other members of that group. Also, those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

To assume that an individual orc is more likely to do harm than good is not the problem. It is if you may -safely- give him a chance to do good, to redeem your opinion of this individual, and you refuse this, that the problem originates. The especially good may even take a risk to allow another to prove themselves... but this risk should be theirs alone, not a risk this person imposes upon others.

Yes, any group approaching you swiftly on horseback MAY be a raiding party, or MAY have a peaceful purpose. However, once they have approached to the point you can tell they are armed, are prepared for battle, and can fire without simply wasting your ammunition, several facts are likely to become clear. The presence or absence of a banner of peace, or marks identifying their origin (heraldry) are certainly among those.

If they are of a group that has proven friendly in general, they will likely be greeted in a cautious but otherwise friendly challange. "Hold. Erik, son of Vold, why have you come bearing steel?" "I come to ralley help against the hoard of goblins approaching your sister village, Soran!" "Enter and dismount, we will fetch the captain of the guard."

On the other hand, strangers will likely be met with set pikes, drawn bows, etc, depending on the height of the protective wall. "Hold. Who goes there?" "I am Doraneath Esowaheil, of the city Sowathan, of the great Fir forests of the east. I pass hunting the wicked dragon that has captured my bride, daughter of the lord of our city. We require lodging, and fresh horses, for we have road far these last three nights and days. We have gold, and your assistance will be viewed with favor by our lord." "Wait there, while we fetch the captain of the guard!"

No shots fired. They are able, thus far, to persue that which they seek, despite the town being cautious. Do you see any problems above thus far?

Now, what about forces that have proven hostile at the past? There is every reason that, baring some strange departure from the past, such as an un-betrayed flag of truce, there will be a raid. There is no reason to imagine that anything but bloody death is about to follow.

The sargeant of the guard on the gate may choose to let them approach in the case that they may plead their case for peaceful interaction... but if he does so, he risks the life and health of his men, as every foot the raiding group grows closer, the less likely that the defending forces will be able to use their fortifications and distance to their advantage for the length of the encounter, cutting the orcs (or elves, or magical purple marshmellow people) down before they burst upon the defenses. By waiting without a good reason to believe that -this- time will be different, the man in charge is risking not only his life, and that of the other guards, but the lives of women and children that may lie less than a dozen feet into the town. Is that -good- to allow what has proven, thus far, to be a raiding, pillaging group, to gain the chance at those innocents behind you, when you have the ability to do else-wise?

If they bear a white flag, and they have not abused it in the past, they may be able to approach in time of need, or if they have had a change of heart, and wish to sue for peace. That is the purpose of the standard, and to fire upon a group that has born this standard for the first time in your seeing would indeed be reprehensible.

There ARE avenues for members of that other race to approach in peace, if they have not abused them in the past. But if they do not take that avenue, or have perverted that symbol of peace in the past... well, there is a reason these symbols exist, and why it is heinous to abuse them.

-----

Now, if the orcs are approaching bearing a loaded cart of what appears to be grain, this may well be baffling enough to allow them to approach within shouting distance (but no more) to explain what they are doing there. If they do not stop when hailed, and continue to approach, even after being hailed 2 or three times... well, see the above.

-----

And yes, it is acceptable to keep other people out. That is the reason for doors (especially ones with locks on them), city walls, and gates - to keep people from entering the protected area. The town is an area for people to be safe in.

Now, let's say a lone orc approaches, hands up, obviously in mode of surrender, even wearing weapons and armor. Okay, he can get into shouting distance, and the soldiers can -likely- take him out with all of their bows trained on him, even if he decides to start something. He says he wishes to speak. Fine, he can disarm completely, and approach. He can then give the message (as much precaution taken to avoid the guards being killed or assaulted, such as speaking to him only through a slit in the gate door, for example).

Turns out that this orc wants to come into town, and trade. The last several times that was tride, even before armed assaults on the town wall, it didn't turn out so well.

You say there is no reason to keep him out. There are plenty of reasons. Each and every prior attack, prior raid, prior lost life, the young girl that was carried off and never seen again, the slain headman, who had sought nothing but peace with these people. All of these are pieces of information about how either this orc, or others of the group from which he comes, have behaved in the past. Might this orc be different from the others? Yes, perhaps, but others have used that claim to do harm to the village. Is there a reason to think this one is any different? Not really, no. Is there any reason to risk letting him in? More than likely... not really. Unless he has gems, nothing he is carrying is likely to be of sufficient worth the pay of the two guards that would have to be put on him to escort him through town, let alone the risk that taking two guards off the wall to deal with one orc would provide... this might be a tactic to thin the number of guards on the wall before the assault. And all of this is before you even consider the innocents not 3 buildings away.

Part of the role of good is to stand between evil, and the innocent. Part of being good is to protect the innocent from harm.

Now, let's say that a pair of truely altruistic, and trusted folks are walking by. They might offer to take charge of the orc, if the orc will wait for them to fetch their weapons (them being off duty guardsmen), and give them part of his profit for their trouble. The guard would not be reduced... so perhaps this is an acceptable option.

Or, perhaps, there are more trusted folks outside the walls WITH the orc. They offer to vouch for the orc, take responsibility, and take charge of him. So long as the orc stays unarmed, this actually seems an entirely reasonable course to me.

And if that orc came with sacks of grain, and no weapons? Well, yes, it's still reasonable to keep him out. But the quarter master and a few guards might head out, under the watchful arrows of the guardsmen, in order to bargain for the grain, examine it, and take charge of it. If the orc accepts a reasonable price, and goes off in peace... this same orc would be met with less suspicion, and after a time, might be allowed into the city with only inspections of his grain sacks. -This- orc... if the guards can learn to distinguish him from another. If enough of this type of orc begins showing up, and the people learn of a new, more peaceful movement of orcs in the realm, the stigmas may, over time, fade.

But it is entirely reasonable to expect that a member of a given group will behave in a manner similar to those you have met before, until you have reason to believe otherwise. It keeps you from getting burned... just like learning not to pick up a boiling pot of water by the bowl with bare hands. In fact, you are not using your faculties of reason if you form none of these associations.


I use a slightly different definition for racism. To me, it is showing preference due to differences that are negligible or irrelevant, or due to differences that have been overcome.

For instance, a character in a D&D who prefers to adventure with a gray elf wizard instead of, say, a wood elf wizard, isn't necessarily a racist. However, if he were to refuse a qualified wood elf wizard for a lesser gray elf wizard, that would be racist.

Another for instance, say there's an elven school of wizardry. They only want the smartest of students to get in. Gray elves have +4 int, compared to wood elves. If all applicants are accepted based purely on their int score, the school would naturally favor gray elves, and that wouldn't be racist. If the school was aware of the lesser int of wood elves and said "we don't accept wood elves at our school", that would be racist. If instead, they instituted a program where qualified gray elves weren't accepted so that unqualified wood elves could be, that would also be racist. Still another possibility is that they consider that an int score isn't the only thing to judge a candidate by, and consider what other stats should be used to make the best wizards. Con and Dex are both important to a good wizard, so the school opens its doors to agile, accurate, durable, and well-concentrated wizards, even if their int score isn't as great as someone else, provided it was at least, say, a 14 at level 1. Since wood and grey elves are equally suited for con and dex, this new policy evens out the proportions of the two races some(not entirely), without being racist.


I entirely agree with how you use this, and in fact included these situations in my own definition. In the case of preffering a high testable intelligence is not a case of racism, it is a case of being discriminating, and choosing those with high intelligence scores, showing a positive bias towards high int scores. Just because they prefer high int scores doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with preferences about race. So they aren't making their decisions based on race, but rather based on int scores. Thus, since they aren't making a decision based on anything having to do with race (other than one sub racing -happening- to have a higher percentage of people by population that have the level of intellegence), it's not racism.

Similarly, if bankers in this world refuse to make loans to people that live in the pauper's quarter of a city, due to their high risk, and the majority of those people happen to be refuges from the recent gnome/goblin conflict, doesn't necessarily mean that they have any racist attitude against gnomes (although they may), it simply means they have a negative bias against risk.

And if a high elf comes to be leader of a predominantly human city, and starts making mandates about people having to bathe daily, stinky people who protest being forced to take daily baths aren't necessarily racist against high elves. They simply may protest all the work they have to do to arrange for that water to get into and out of private places for baths without indoor pluming, thus making them stinkier after the bath than before they began. They may even begin to complain about city wettening, as the dirt streets the stinky people tend to live on begin to cake mud all over, from all the bathwater saturating the streets.



Of course, in our world, most deficiencies are culturally or societally based instead of racially. Here, race is mostly a cosmetic, especially in our technology age where muscle-mass and size are becoming more irrelevant.


Keep in mind that many differences are tied to socioeconomic class in many well to do nations, even more so than belonging to any sort of sub-culture. Poor children tend to have very hard time getting access to supplementary educational materials, such as books to read at home, or field trips to historical locations, or visits to museums that require you pay to get in. The programs in their schools also tend to cut music, recess, and many other programs that BOOST their ability to retain other information. Music and mathematics have shown a proven link, especially since music can be used to teach many students mathematics, who may otherwise find it a challenge to learn. :P Just how easy is it for a student that learns 3/4 time and quarter notes to get fractions?

Then again, you -are- correct. Different sub-cultures, at least here in America, can have a great effect on a person. In the poorer portions of some communities, people have given up, and some parents throw out their children's homework, telling them they are waisting their time. These parents won't even taken their children to free museums a 10 minute drive, or half hour walk away, and this exacerbates the condition horribly. In other poor areas, some members of the community are so determined to make a better life that in a single generation they go from poverty, to their children having incredible chances in life... perhaps a single individual pulls themselves out of harsh beginnings. Two examples of this are Abraham Lincoln, and Barak Obama.

Speaking of real world examples, I'd like to state that in my opinion it is not sexist if there is a low proportion of women who become firefighters, if this is due solely to the fact that there are fewer women who meet the strength requirements than there are men who meet the strength requirement.




Don't worry, an intelligent ramble is hard to come by.


Why thank you! I take that as a complement.

[Starbuck_II]

(or elves, or magical purple marshmellow people) down before they burst upon the defenses.

But both elves and magical marshmellow people taste like Chicken... is it wrong to like chicken?

[Faulty]

In one view (utilitarian) of morality, there is nothing wrong with specieism

Excuse me, but Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer is one of the few well known individuals today who actually speaks out againbst speciesism. He wrote Animal Liberation.

[Josh the Aspie]

Excuse me, but Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer is one of the few well known individuals today who actually speaks out againbst speciesism. He wrote Animal Liberation.


But both elves and magical marshmellow people taste like Chicken... is it wrong to like chicken?

Apparently, according to Peter Singer... yes.

[Roderick_BR]

Wait, what? Elves are flighty and their interests change from decade to decade.



Since when? Dwarves are solemn and live orderly, tradition-bound lives in the mountains.

See what I did there?

Yeah, what he said. Dwarves have a rigid militar mentality. Being loud drinkers doesn't make them chaotic. And elves are more about "freedom" than most human cities.
The books Races of Stone (for dwarves) and Races of Wild (for elves). They have whole chapters dedicated to how their societies work in typical D&D campaign worlds.
As a magazine here said once: "dwarves are not miniature vikings."

[Faulty]

Apparently, according to Peter Singer... yes.

It's not wrong to like chicken, it's wrong to eat chicken.

[Stephen_E]

Outside of Outsider subtypes and spell effects DnD alignment crunch is silly and should be ignored as a general rule IMO. Alignment fluff, as all fluff, should only be used as you desire.

So no, the Dwarf/Elf thing doesn't bother me because I don't take any of it very seriously. (I have a similiar attitude to RL political parties. I don't pay any serious attention to what they call themselves or each other, it's only what the individual members and cliques do that matters).

Stephen E

[Josh the Aspie]

It's not wrong to like chicken, it's wrong to eat chicken.

But that's how I like chicken. :P

Back to Dwarves.

Dwarves in different settings can be viewed in different ways, and especially in home campaigns, your millage may differ.

However, for insight on how -I- view Dwarves...

Let's look at a dwarven settlement.

Take a company of United States Marines, and remember that eternal and sacred bond that I talked about in my last post about dwarf culture.
Now add 2 companies of United States Army combat engineers, who do all of their combat training/rifle work with the Marines.
Add chaplains, who are also combat medics. Lots of them.

Now, cut them off from most civilian supply lines, so that all resource gathering / allocation falls to the combat engineers. (And realize just HOW easy it is for this many combat engineers to get some good stills together)

Now, base this group in a single military base, with base housing, which happens to be dug into the side of a mountain... with appropriate fortifications.
Now realize that this army base also contains all of their families, from the youngest to the oldest.

Now, replace guns with axes, and hammers (and some picks and cross bows).
Now, arrange for these marines to each live to be about 300-400 years old, so that the active duty period is over a century.
Now make them somewhat shorter, and give them all beards, and armor to help deflect the swords, arrows, axes, and hammers of their opponents.

Now, add that everyone here, including women, is either a US Marine, a US Army Combat Engineer, a chaplain, or someone that is a retired member of one of those groups, or destined for it, with a strong majority of the women being either engineers, or chaplains.

Now, shift the religion to the worship of your campaign's Dwarven Gods... and give the Combat engineers a religious desire to make everything they make not only incredibly useful and practical, but also very beautiful... and remember that they're going to be on active duty, in a permanent base, for over 100 years.

And just as a final thought... this particular base has been around for over 20 generations.

Oh, and the base commander's brass... is actually gold... and in the shape of a crown, likely made a direct part of his armored helm.

Now, change the phrase. "I am a Marine" to be "I am a Dwarf"

Did I forget anything?

Oh, and smoking is allowed on base. :P

[JonestheSpy]

Regarding the moral and ethical ramifications of racism in a DnD world, I think it can be boiled down to the difference between fantasy and science fiction.

In fantasy, you can count on the orcs being bad guys. They are evil, they're going to want to kill and probably eat you, and not going to change. If done badly, that can mean they just seem like cardboard cutouts; if done well, they're scary and nightmarish. It's not simplistic, it's mythological, tapping into our unconscious selves, archetypes both lower (orcs) and higher (elves).

In a science fictional outlook - one that I think DnD has been leaning toward more and more over the years - it's much more nuanced. Imagine your typical science fiction space opera - loads of intelligent species interacting with each other via trade, war, culture, etc. , each looking out for its own interests but not inherently 'good' or 'evil'. But in DnD, instead of a bunch of different intelligent races evolving on different planets, they're all thrown together on one.

Now obviously it's never quite that clear cut - Tolkien had elves that fell to evil and tragic distrust between basically good races that only helps the forces of evil, and plenty of sci-fi has had races that were for all intents and purposes as flat-out bad guys as orcs, but hopefully the idea is pretty clear.

And in the world that tilts more toward fantasy, judging an individual by their race makes some sense - there's absolutely no merit in trying to set up trade with the orcs, they'll just try to steal your stuff and kill you. Whereas in a world of many different races all just trying to survive as best they can, it makes to try and convince some orcs that they're better off trading with you than fighting.

[Fishy]

If I can get meta for a moment, stereotypes happen in the real world because of people making unfair generalizations about groups of several million unique individuals.

Stereotypes in fiction happen because an author has to describe groups of several million unique individuals in however many paragraphs he has. In a sense, the D&D races have been created out of stereotypes and generalizations, by necessity.

[Josh the Aspie]

If I can get meta for a moment, stereotypes happen in the real world because of people making unfair generalizations about groups of several million unique individuals.

Stereotypes in fiction happen because an author has to describe groups of several million unique individuals in however many paragraphs he has. In a sense, the D&D races have been created out of stereotypes and generalizations, by necessity.

:P I thought this entire conversation was about OOC as much as IC.

And that's one way they happen. A lot of generalizations really are NOT fair, and are made from one or two individuals.

Then again, some stereotypes are VERY fair.

If you have a need to start from an area of probability, most military folks in the US will be pro-military, and anti-gun control. Most of them will also be very loyal to the country.

Similarly, most Jewish fellows won't eat pork.

Many folks in special ed programs will have some sort of social difficulty to deal with, and may need patience with it.

Are any of the above ALWAYS going to be the case? Heck no. In fact, in some areas, the majority of people will be the opposite of what you will find in a national, or world wide average. As long as one keeps in mind that a stereotype is a useful generalization, but will not apply in all cases, a stereotype (in general) is not inherently destructive (though some stereotypes are, by their very nature, destructive).

But if you're planning a dinner and intend to invite a friend you know is Jewish, but have never asked about whether or not he observes the rules on pork... are you going to buy pork for dinner? Or are you going to play it safe, and buy a different meat for the main dish?

[SolkaTruesilver]

Excuse me, but Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer is one of the few well known individuals today who actually speaks out againbst speciesism. He wrote Animal Liberation.

There is a difference between how you treat lesser species on the scale of authority and direct competitors for sentience supremacy.

Now, I don't have any problem with my ancestors making sure the Neanderthals died off so our species would be the dominant one on the globe. It's competition, survival of the fittest. The best specie wins.

Now, please see the difference between:

- "ism" between races of the same specie (Blacks & Whites, Grey Elves and Wood Elves)
- "ism" between species of the same intellectual scale (Orcs and Dwarves, Humans and Neanderthals, Elves and Humans)
- "ism" between species not on the same intellectual scale (Sentients vs Animals).

The last one don't even qualify as a "between", since it's gonna be more of a "Sentient is bigotted against the animal" than anything else.

I have to say, the problem of exploring the morality aspect of dealing with another specie of the same intellectual scale than you (regardless of the competitiveness factor) hasn't been really explored beyond analysis of our past or fiction's depiction.

We usually depict fantasy specieism as racism, and seeing exactly how all these species look the same between each other (up to the point of having interbreeding!), I don't really blame them for having that mindset.

But if we are talking about an alien specie. A really alien, that has nothing alike us in its sociology, biology, etc... One that we couldn't even eat their food because of different biochemistry.. Maybe we cannot even speak to them! Now, seeing as this specie is intelligent ennough to wipe humanity if it really wanted to, what would the morale compass used?

The actions depicted in "Ender's Game" comes to mind. (btw, I haven't read the rest of the serie). The whole xenocide has started because of a misunderstanding, and the potential of destruction. We, humanity, have come close to self-annihilation during the cold war because of ideological differences and competitive mindsets. But we managed to avoid it because we could speak to each other.

It's a tough call to make. In our common Fantasy settings, I'd understand the dwarves' xenophobia. their specie is on the decline becausse of external attackers. Humans and Orcs are developping faster than they do, and they are a clear threat. The Elves have powerful magic and high mobility, where the Dwarves have a siege mentality. The difference of mindset between those two species add to the alienness of point of view. They distrust them, because they don't understand them. There is no way for the specie to understand the Elves, ever. Maybe a few individuals, but that's gonna be it.

Same for the elves regarding the dwarves and humans. Same for many around. This is xenophobia born out of ignorance. The other kind depicted would be one like Hobbits vs Humans. They are very much alike, too much alike, even. These two species are direct competitor (you could say that one is almost parasitic to the other.. hehe) regarding the kind of land they want, the kind of job they want. Their mindsets are somewhat close to each other's so they can understand each other. It's purely decided on a "us" and "them" mentality.

[Berserk Monk]

Um, rude does equal lawful. Look at Miko. If you're lawful, you're going to stick to those laws and think less of those that don't and who live their lives on a whim.

Likewise, chaotic people are friendly because the aren't bound to act a certain way all the time. They can be themselves without worrying about some dumb code. Look at Elan: he's chaotic and he's friendly.

[Josh the Aspie]

Then again not everyone who is lawful is rude, and not everyone who is chaotic is friendly. Examples: Hinjo, Roy, Belkar.

[Stephen_E]

Then again not everyone who is lawful is rude, and not everyone who is chaotic is friendly. Examples: Hinjo, Roy, Belkar.


Umm..., Roy is frequently rude. He's improved recently (maybe been dead has helped) but even so if pushed the sarcastic prick side of him leaps out.

Stephen E

[MeklorIlavator]

Um, rude does equal lawful. Look at Miko. If you're lawful, you're going to stick to those laws and think less of those that don't and who live their lives on a whim.
Wait. Did you seriously bring up Miko as an example of how to act? You realize that she's meant to be an example of how not to act?


Likewise, chaotic people are friendly because the aren't bound to act a certain way all the time. They can be themselves without worrying about some dumb code. Look at Elan: he's chaotic and he's friendly.
You might be on to something here. I mean Belkar sure is friendly, Right? Oh...wait...