Scalenex
2007-03-06, 02:29 PM
Preamble (you may skip this paragraph if you want to see my point quicker): The Dark Ages began with the fall of the Roman Empire. The Dark Ages special more or less began with the Visigoths sacking Rome. They loot and destroy the cultural symbols and advancment of civilization. The good ol' History Channel gave motive and depth to the Visigoths. They turned to the Roman Empire out of desperation for their territory was facing constant threats from the Huns. Working together, the Visigoths helped the Romans beat the Huns. Then when hard times hit, Rome turned it's back on them. It was already declining and it was debateable whether they could have helped the Visigoths. The Visigoths attacked, again out of desperation because they could no longer support themselves and wanted to get what they needed from the Romans one way or the other. (If don't like my historical paraphrasing, that's fine).
These "barbarians" had motivations and depth. They were arguably no less Evil (though certainly less Lawful) than the Romans they fought. There was much moral grayness when viewed through the lense of modern history. To the Romans (and to the many of early Western cultures that succeeded Rome), the Visigoths were unclean, ammoral, violent, savages, more animal like than human. Can you see where I'm getting? In D&D, civilization is threatened by orcs and other monstrous humanoids. Even their languages are often described as bestial. Throughout history, to psyche people up for violence, the first step is dehumanize the enemy. This is basically the same whether it's a terrorist cell, nationalist army, or racial supremacy group. It's easier to not care about someone or something you view as separate from yourself. Even people's feelings towards animal rights illustrates this. People have a more compassion for dogs and cats which are mammals like ourselves (and domesticated and familar) than fish or insects. If your enemies start out as non-human, you wouldn't spare much thought to slaying them and taking their stuff. Even Rich got into some of this with Redcloak's increasing character depth lamenting his kin who humans have killed.
There are a lot of arguments that the alignment system encourages black and white morality. D&D doesn't have the moral ambiguity of the real world or even some other RPGs, but there is as much room for morality based roleplaying as the players and DM are willing to put into it. That being said, I think the large number of non-human races is more restricting to morally based themes than the alignment system is.
P.S. Since I asked no questions and only made statements, many can branch out from this, so this thread is nigh un-hijackable. I would prefer to discuss the symbolism of humanity or lack there of as it plays out to D&D and morality but since that's pretty deep, History Channel (or history in general) inspriation for D&D games, human v non-human barbarians, and a myriad of other things are fair game.
These "barbarians" had motivations and depth. They were arguably no less Evil (though certainly less Lawful) than the Romans they fought. There was much moral grayness when viewed through the lense of modern history. To the Romans (and to the many of early Western cultures that succeeded Rome), the Visigoths were unclean, ammoral, violent, savages, more animal like than human. Can you see where I'm getting? In D&D, civilization is threatened by orcs and other monstrous humanoids. Even their languages are often described as bestial. Throughout history, to psyche people up for violence, the first step is dehumanize the enemy. This is basically the same whether it's a terrorist cell, nationalist army, or racial supremacy group. It's easier to not care about someone or something you view as separate from yourself. Even people's feelings towards animal rights illustrates this. People have a more compassion for dogs and cats which are mammals like ourselves (and domesticated and familar) than fish or insects. If your enemies start out as non-human, you wouldn't spare much thought to slaying them and taking their stuff. Even Rich got into some of this with Redcloak's increasing character depth lamenting his kin who humans have killed.
There are a lot of arguments that the alignment system encourages black and white morality. D&D doesn't have the moral ambiguity of the real world or even some other RPGs, but there is as much room for morality based roleplaying as the players and DM are willing to put into it. That being said, I think the large number of non-human races is more restricting to morally based themes than the alignment system is.
P.S. Since I asked no questions and only made statements, many can branch out from this, so this thread is nigh un-hijackable. I would prefer to discuss the symbolism of humanity or lack there of as it plays out to D&D and morality but since that's pretty deep, History Channel (or history in general) inspriation for D&D games, human v non-human barbarians, and a myriad of other things are fair game.