I dislike evil races. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

xBlackWolfx

2015-09-29, 08:28 PM

This is something that's bothered me for a while. The concept of entire species being evil, despite obviously having the mental capacity to differentiate right from wrong.

Orcs are probably the most prominant example of this, though they are supposedly below average intelligence. But other things like gnolls and illithids and w/e which clearly are intelligent are all evil automatically.

Why is this??? I don't see why it would be necessary. Yeah, its okay to have them as villains, but why must they always be villains? I mean, the playable races can also appear as bandits and other villains. So why must all 'monsters' be villains?

As for why I feel this way, my first experience roleplaying was on a roleplaying server for bioware's neverwinter nights. And by roleplaying I don't mean rollplaying. It was a light to medium roleplay server. Anyway, on that server they were very liberal about what you could play. You didn't have to follow along with forgotten realms lore, or even have any knowledge of it. And you could play pretty much anything you wanted. They even implemented a system so that you could play as various subraces and monsters. They had probably a dozen different subraces of elves. You could also play as goblins and kobolds (both of which were quite popular, oh and faries too). You could play a good drow. You could play a full-blooded orc or hob goblin. And this wouldn't bar you from entering cities and such.

Because of this, the thing I learned to value most in roleplaying is choice. I actually dislike a lot of the retroclones because they only have 4 races and 4 classes. I was used to having more races than I could count and having like 10 classes (how ever many nwn had, can't remember). And yes, I do show a lot of facination with talislanta, though sadly I find most of the things in there bizarre and unrelatable. I never cared for dwarves and elves, I admit, but obviously things like jhangarans and baetreans and w/e else aren't really an improvement to me.

What are your thoughts on all this? As far as I'm concerned, if a race is intelligent you should be able to play it. They might face discrimination, but that doesn't mean you can't play it. I mean you can a be a half-orc or golem or half-changling or god knows what else, but you can't be a full-blooded orc or goblin or gnoll just because 'they're all evil'. And honestly, that just screams of racism to me.

Strigon

2015-09-29, 08:41 PM

OldTrees1

2015-09-29, 08:43 PM

The Monster Manuel agrees with you (It is in the back of the book, after all the monsters).

1) The stat blocks for Demons list them as "Always Evil", later in the Monster Manuel it details that "Always X" is hyperbole and really only means "Almost all are X". For lesser adjectives like "Usually" or "Often" the frequency of these exceptions increases ("Often X" is barely any tendency at all).

2) You might notice that many monsters have ECLs in 3.5. This is to allow you to play something like a Mind Flayer(ECL 16 IIRC) or a Rakshasa(ECL 14 IIRC).

Blackhawk748

2015-09-29, 08:43 PM

For nearly all of the "Evil" races, they're listed as "Mostly Evil", or "Often Evil".
This is because their society promotes Evil behaviour; Orcs are often bandits, and their tribes rely on banditry. Goblins are scavengers, trying to get to the top of their respective hills.

They aren't all evil, but most are. Now, for things like Demons, sure; they're inherently Evil, but the others just turn out that way because it's their culture.

This, the best way to look at it is like this. Orcs dont think they're evil, raiding is good Orc behavior. Humans think Orcs are Evil, so Orcs are Evil.

Its like Vikings in actual history, everyone thought they where the bad guys, to them it was just part of their culture.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-29, 08:43 PM

You do realize that they -can- be other alignments under the rules, right?

Entries that say usually or frequently evil say so because the default culture of that creature lends itself to evil or because the creature takes particular enjoyment from evil actions as an effect of its non-human psychology. Only -always- evil creatures are inherently evil by their very nature and even they, providing an int of 3 or greater, can choose to rise above that nature.

What you've got to realize is that morality, right and wrong, is a social construct resulting from humans being a social species. That D&D uses a rules construct for alignment that loosely fits with a broad cross-section of real world moral codes is a serious cause for confusion.

If you're brought up through your entire lifetime being constantly told that might makes right then you will believe that strength is good (however you believe strength manifests itself) and weakness is evil. The objective alignment system will often disagree with you but that doesn't matter since only casters can detect alignment and they are far too rare to assume that one has told you yours. For that matter, both good and evil's meanings are a result of linguistic constructs. Their meaning could well be inverted in orcish and being noted as evil by a shaman could be a point of pride for such a character.

Tl;DR: you're either overthinking this or underthinking it to have found yourself at your current conclusion.

Draconium

2015-09-29, 08:44 PM

Sayt

2015-09-29, 08:44 PM

Part of this ties into the monocultural nature of a lot of non-humans in fantasy races.

Whereas on say, Golarion (Paizo's universe, and just because I'm familiar with it more than say, Eberron), humans can be Kellid, or Varisian, or Tian with varying cultures amongst ethnicities and nations, a Dwarf is more or less a Dwarf. And you can expect dwarves to be gruff, reserved, work stone and metal, and probably drink beer.

Orcs are all violent primitives, Hobgoblins are ironfisted fascists, etc, because they come from cultures that value those views, but the problem with this is that there's an unrealistic monoculture put in place. Where there is a plurality of non-human culture within a species, it tends to just be the Good and EVil versions of those races: Dwarf and Duergar, Elf and Drow. (IMHO, Paizo are getting a bit better at this as they explore more outside of the Inner Sea, but it is a trait across a lot of high fantasy that the non-human races are monocultural. Hell, half the time the humans are also monocultural, but that's another matter.

Now, to a certain degree, the fantastical races play something of a second fiddle to humans, and they get a correspondingly lower pagecount on them, and one culture each might be all page-space budgeted for them, but it is compounded by their depiction in Adventures paths and modules.

Edit:
This, the best way to look at it is like this. Orcs dont think they're evil, raiding is good Orc behavior. Humans think Orcs are Evil, so Orcs are Evil.

Its like Vikings in actual history, everyone thought they where the bad guys, to them it was just part of their culture.

There's also the fact that they were predominantly farmers and traders, and the raiding thing is, to my understanding, an overblown modern myth cooked up in the mid 18th century and blown up in the 20th.

Yael

2015-09-29, 08:45 PM

I think because alignment is seen by a "human" perspective, so for what an Illithid (an aberration mindset and bodyset) may be correct, or at least not bad, a humanoid will find it gruesome and evil to its beliefs. The game has to have a reference point for alignment, and someone has to be in the evil side. Besides, as explained in the BoED, not all evil races are evil, look at the exalted Mind Flayer that appears in that book. Also, consider that if a race says it is usually X, it means they aren't entitled to that alignment (as the Mind Flayer, MM p188), unless they are representations of such alignment (as the Succubus, for example, entitled to Chaotic Evil).

EDIT: Argh, I got not even swordsaged here, more like pathfinder'd :smalleek:

OldTrees1

2015-09-29, 08:47 PM

Anlashok

2015-09-29, 08:52 PM

The concept of a cultural bias toward behavior that would generally be considered evil or destructive isn't even a fantastical one. Now throw fully alien perspectives and biologies on top of that and it doesn't really seem that far fetched at all.

In reality, it just makes them non-sapient - if a race must always have a certain outlook, then are they really free-willed?
Except they don't always have a certain outlook.

Draconium

2015-09-29, 08:52 PM

Luckily no monster is Always Evil. The closest is the monsters that are "Always Evil" (which requires reading the Monster Manuel to learn that "Always Evil" =/= Always Evil)

Thankfully, you're right. Even so, though, I highly dislike the idea of a race being evil in almost every case with a few exceptions, unless they're Evil Outsiders or something that ius literally formed of Evil. And even then, I'm not overly fond of that.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-29, 08:53 PM

I think you've basically summed up one of the biggest issues with alignment there is. Having a race that is Always Evil is supposed to make it so you don't feel bad when your characters slaughter them for money and XP. In reality, it just makes them non-sapient - if a race must always have a certain outlook, then are they really free-willed?

The biggest problem with alignment, by the widest of imaginable margins, is that people want it to be simple when it's not.

Number two is not being familiar with all of the relevant rules

Number three is being unable to separate the concepts of alignment and morality.

Number four; inability to set aside personal biases when the game rules say a thing is or isn't good/evil and you disagree.

Fifth, but certainly not last, is trying to hold characters responsible for the actions of other people in some weird "aligned by association" setup that makes no gods blasted sense.

Once you get past each of these, the alignment system actually can enhance a game greatly if you choose to make it a central feature.

It's too bad most people trip over at least one of the above mentioned problems.

Draconium

2015-09-29, 08:55 PM

Psyren

2015-09-29, 08:55 PM

It's not meant to be a reflection on them biologically/psychologically, but rather culturally.

The thing is, neutral and good drow/orcs/hobgoblins are born all the time. They just rarely, rarely make it to adulthood, and statblocks are for adults (unless you're a dragon.)

It also isn't stopping you from playing a good orc, drow or hobgoblin. Remember, just by being a PC you're already the crazy 0.1%.

Nifft

2015-09-29, 09:02 PM

Ah, you hate evil races!

That's fantastic, we have an opening in the Smiting And Scouring Division which ... oh, you don't hate evil races in the usual way.

Hmm.

(...) And you could play pretty much anything you wanted. They even implemented a system so that you could play as various subraces and monsters. They had probably a dozen different subraces of elves. You could also play as goblins and kobolds (both of which were quite popular, oh and faries too). You could play a good drow. You could play a full-blooded orc or hob goblin. And this wouldn't bar you from entering cities and such.

Because of this, the thing I learned to value most in roleplaying is choice. I actually dislike a lot of the retroclones because they only have 4 races and 4 classes. I was used to having more races than I could count and having like 10 classes (how ever many nwn had, can't remember). And yes, I do show a lot of facination with talislanta, though sadly I find most of the things in there bizarre and unrelatable. I never cared for dwarves and elves, I admit, but obviously things like jhangarans and baetreans and w/e else aren't really an improvement to me.

What are your thoughts on all this? As far as I'm concerned, if a race is intelligent you should be able to play it. They might face discrimination, but that doesn't mean you can't play it. I mean you can a be a half-orc or golem or half-changling or god knows what else, but you can't be a full-blooded orc or goblin or gnoll just because 'they're all evil'. And honestly, that just screams of racism to me.

You can play whatever your group says you can play.

There are PC stats for most of those races that you mention.

Most games use evil races as designated acceptable targets, meaning you don't need to think too hard about morality during combat with those targets.

Is that racism? It would be if they were real people, but they're not real, so it's not really comparable to racism. They're a narrative device to enable a certain kind of game, just like the alignment system, and the class system, and hit points.

But if you don't like 'em, it's easy to throw them away. Replace the evil races with foreign human cultures, and everything plays out just fine.

smcmike

2015-09-29, 09:05 PM

Strigon

2015-09-29, 09:09 PM

There's also the fact that they were predominantly farmers and traders, and the raiding thing is, to my understanding, an overblown modern myth cooked up in the mid 18th century and blown up in the 20th.

Actually, I recently bought a book about this sort of thing; for centuries surrounding roughly the tenth century, Vikings were a bit of a recurring nightmare - invading, taking over, getting pushed out, build up defenses, let them rot, start all over.

Anyway, yeah; evil races are mostly just following their culture, like everyone's been saying.
Of course, that line of thinking becomes harder to apply to things like dragons, who don't traditionally have a social structure. Nonetheless, some types turn out to be of one alignment nearly all the time.
Anyone have a reasonable explanation for this? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html)

Kantolin

2015-09-29, 09:09 PM

It's both setting-dependent and game-dependent.

Introducing any race (including humans, in certain games) causes undue pressure on the DM to accommodate. The style of the game changes a bit if people everywhere need to act suspiciously due to a goblin being a member of the party, let alone if nobody in the party is a nonevil race. That's one reason to limit racial options.

Another is that, in certain settings, it may be nearly or literally impossible. Being an orc in a Lord of the Rings setting would understandably be nigh-impossible - people's response is 'attack on sight it's obviously a scout'.

And finally, some settings firmly define why given races are evil. In one of my more recent settings, gnoll are evil because they were never really given the free will of other races - they're evil because their deity is evil and it physically pains them not to cause torment. You could thus /theoretically/ get 'the odd gnoll out', but that would take away from gnoll as a whole, so I'd rather that not happen.

In other settings, orcs are evil because they're naturally aggressive and have trouble getting food otherwise, and thus a trade agreement could result in the (say) local dwarves and local orcs actually getting along - leading to a sense of camradarie that goes beyond just the food-and-soldiers. Especially since there's plenty and I mean plenty of assaults from beyond The Junction(tm), so both groups always need to be sending soldiers in - and the orcs actually /like/ fighting, so it totally works out! Of course, then word reaches up to the central dwarven Kingdom who doesn't like these dwarves working together with orcs, and...

...*Cough*, I guess that one got away from me there. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, mind you, those are just 'reasons why you would limit them'. I personally like 'evil' races as well and tend towards enabling them, even if it's just the 'odd one out'. But hey.

Jallorn

2015-09-29, 09:21 PM

A lot of it is tradition. In part you can thank Tolkien for fantastic racism. Only in part though, because really Tolkien didn't have fantastic racism if you looked a little deeper. On the surface it seems like he's got evil orcs, better-than-you elves, rocky dwarves, and simple hobbits. Look at the main books people know, though, and you'll see that there's significant cultural differences between different tribes of Hobbits even though they all live in the Shire. Everyone in the heart of the Shire, where Bag End is, agree, for instance, that Tooks, who live out on the eastern edge and, in fact, are kind of in charge, are, "a bit odd," because they happen to like exploring and adventuring at all.

There's a large cultural difference between Rivendell, Mirkwood, and Lothlorien elves. There are even mentions of different kinds and tribes of orcs. The only race we get a monolithic feel for are the dwarves, and that's tempered by the fact that we only actually meet anyone from a single one of their tribes.

But, the argument can be made, we still have always Evil orcs. Well, turns out that orcs don't have souls. The closest they have is actually a piece of their creator, Melkor, making them just extensions of him and his will, really. Orcs aren't actually people.

xBlackWolfx

2015-09-29, 09:47 PM

Deophaun

2015-09-29, 09:56 PM

OldTrees1

2015-09-29, 09:59 PM

......

I don't even know what to say to such a sickening comment.

I honestly suspect that games like this may actually encourage racism, by instilling the belief that an entire race can be purely evil or stupid or w/e.

To be fair, racism is a cognitive bias that is easier to fall into the more alien the "other" is. Orcs are about as Alien as Martians, Illithids are about as alien as things from H.P. Lovecraft. Thus I applaud anyone who has learned to understand such people.

While specific details might encourage such(I have not seen any evidence of such in my small sample size), I have noticed that RPGs can grow one's ability to empathize/understand people that are more and more alien. When I first started I would attack any hostile Orc, now I would treat even demons as people.

Draconium

2015-09-29, 10:02 PM

Question: How many sapient races do you know of? What is the sample size of your study?

Personally, I only know of one, and I'm not about to come to any conclusions based on just that.

Considering we're talking in the context of a fantasy game, as alignment doesn't apply to real life in any possible way, since real people are for more complex than that, and that is the entire point of this thread? Saying there's only one is in a completely different context, so don't try to use that logic.

I believe Rich has a few relevant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108) quotes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120) on the subject...

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-29, 10:04 PM

I don't think you are overthinking it at all. The concept of Evil races are problematic for pretty obvious reasons. There are two responses to this problem - either acknowledge it and just accept that this is a game, and should be taken lightly, or engage with it.

If it's so obvious, why don't you spell it out for us. Unless you're going to go into some tripe about it normalizing racism, then I'd rather gouge out my eyes than read it.

If you engage with it, you can focus on the way culture or context makes them evil, rather than something inherent, or you can question the evil label and humanize them, or you can distance them further from humanity: this really isn't a problem when your evil "race" is some sort of aberration or devil.

There's nothing to think about in most cases. Their culture, as defined by the default description for such, laudes evil behavior and minimalizes or discourages good behavior. Done. You can capture and convert individuals or even try to sway whole tribes but their racial culture, in the overall, will still be churning out generation after generation of evil brigands. Then of course there are their evil, racial gods that push their culture in that direction.

You can, of course, rewrite their entire culture and remove the usually/sometimes/often evil tag from their stats but that's something altogether different. You'll need to change their gods too, if you use them.

Anyway, yeah; evil races are mostly just following their culture, like everyone's been saying.
Of course, that line of thinking becomes harder to apply to things like dragons, who don't traditionally have a social structure. Nonetheless, some types turn out to be of one alignment nearly all the time.
Anyone have a reasonable explanation for this? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html)

In the particular case of dragons, they have some sort of genetic memory thing at play. It's not as strong as the aboleth genetic memory but dragons -hatch- knowing how to speak draconic and everything else they need to survive. They also -do- have a loose social structure under their respective gods, bahamut and tiamat. For another example, mindflayers are usually evil, in no small part, because they are incapable of experiencing the emotions that typically lead to traditionally good behavior (LoM for details).

SangoProduction

2015-09-29, 10:05 PM

Meh, I'm hopping in as well.

I do remember a Succubus Paladin by Wizards.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

Deophaun

2015-09-29, 10:14 PM

Considering we're talking in the context of a fantasy game, as alignment doesn't apply to real life in any possible way, since real people are for more complex than that, and that is the entire point of this thread?
A fantasy game where alignments are solid concept and intelligent creatures are spawned from the physical essence of ideas? Of course everyone will have the same exact degree of will!

Saying there's only one is in a completely different context, so don't try to use that logic.
Fixed.

Honestly, you have two sources to draw from: reality, and the game world. Basing if off the former represents extreme arrogance, and the later actively undercuts your argument. So, what are you basing this off of?

Besides, in a game where charm and dominate and geas-like effects are under every rock, the only people with free will are the ones currently subject to protection from evil. Everyone else is just a puppet, waiting on a puppeteer.

I believe Rich has a few relevant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108) quotes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120) on the subject...
Here's an opposing link for you. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

smcmike

2015-09-29, 10:20 PM

If it's so obvious, why don't you spell it out for us. Unless you're going to go into some tripe about it normalizing racism, then I'd rather gouge out my eyes than read it.

There's nothing to think about in most cases. Their culture, as defined by the default description for such, laudes evil behavior and minimalizes or discourages good behavior. Done. You can capture and convert individuals or even try to sway whole tribes but their racial culture, in the overall, will still be churning out generation after generation of evil brigands. Then of course there are their evil, racial gods that push their culture in that direction.
.

I didn't spell it out because I think it truly is obvious, but also because I think it's perfectly reasonable to just remember that it is a game, and not something worth getting worked up over. If you honestly want me to explain my reasoning, I can try, but I'm not interested in arguing about it or trying to convince you.

LudicSavant

2015-09-29, 10:24 PM

To say that the alignment system has not been used to send a racist message at various points in D&D's history is to be in denial, plain and simple.

D&D has some pretty nasty prejudice in its roots. Just look at old issues of Dragon Magazine (http://annarchive.com/files/Drmg003.pdf):

There will be four major groups in which women may enter. They
may be FIGHTERS, MAGIC USERS, THIEVES and CLERICS. They
may progress to the level of men in the area of magic and, in some ways,
surpass men as thieves. Elven women may rise especially to high levels in
clerics to the elves. Only as fighters are women clearly behind men in all
cases but even they have attributes that their male counterparts do not!
Characteristics;
Strength 18 sided die and 1 six sided die.
Wisdom, Intelligence, Dexterity and Constitution all use 3 6 sided dice.
(Any woman scoring 13 or 14 in strength may add 1 to her constitution
score.)
Instead of Charisma BEAUTY is rated on 2 20 sided dice numbered 1-
10 (so the range is 2-20, not 2-40.

.....................................

Fighting Women (warriors) may incorporate the spells of Seduction,
Charm Men or Charm Humanoid Monster depending on their level and
beauty scores (see spells of seduction, et al). Women’s strength scores
range from 2-14. Thus some weaponry and types of armor are too
difficult for them to wield/bear without undue fatigue.

The spell [seduction] enchants the victim. He will remove his armor and lay down his
weapon(s) (only talismans & Rings will not be laid aside) and attempt an
encounter with the lady.

We had people saying that it wasn't a problem because they weren't real people back then, too. :smallfrown:

Draconium

2015-09-29, 10:25 PM

I only posted the links because he made points I agree with, and he put it a lot better than I could. You have every right to disagree with him, or with me. I can't stop you, nor would I want to.

Honestly, I don't want to get drawn into an argument, so I'm just going to leave it at this:

If PC races are the only races with any degree of free will, how come there are Level Adjustments for what are normally considered monster races? That would imply that they are making the choice to go adventuring, which in turn, implies free will. (Speaking from a fluff standpoint, as the mechanical reason is probably "some people want to play those races.")

Even if you say the other races still don't, there's still the fact that things such as goblins and kobolds, as they were the monsters called out in the OP, still have free will despite being usually evil. So do dragons, and they're "always" a certain alignment. Heck, even succubi have an LA, which would seem to indicate even a literal incarnation of Evil and Chaos can choose another way - see the succubus paladin that was already mentioned.

So do these races, at the very least, have free will? If not, than I don't know what to tell you to try and convince you otherwise.

OldTrees1

2015-09-29, 10:26 PM

A fantasy game where alignments are solid concept and intelligent creatures are spawned from the physical essence of ideas? Of course everyone will have the same exact degree of will!

Depends,
1) Is something Evil/Good because it is Immoral/Moral?
2) Is Free Will a prerequisite for Moral Agency?

In campaign where the answer to both 1 and 2 is Yes (My reading of the rule books suggests this is the default assumption), then nothing with an alignment lacks Free Will.

Sidenote: One's Will does not need to be in unbreakable control of the body for it to qualify as a Free Will. (Just as being in control of the body is not a sufficient condition for having Free Will)

LudicSavant

2015-09-29, 10:30 PM

Here's an opposing link for you. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

It would only be an argument from authority if he said his argument was correct just because Rich said it. He made no such claim.

Shame on you for misusing a fallacy.

Anlashok

2015-09-29, 10:35 PM

I believe Rich has a few relevant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108) quotes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120) on the subject...

The hamtastical degree of righteous indignation makes these two of the funniest posts I have ever read on this forum. The implication that somehow preferring a more simplistic system that doesn't dwell on ethical or philosophical dilemma not only is the wrong way to play the game but that the people who prefer that style are somehow fundamentally bad people is just... wow. I'm going to self invoke Poe's law just to avoid having to make a sanity check after reading those.

Nifft

2015-09-29, 10:36 PM

......

I don't even know what to say to such a sickening comment.
The correct response would be for you to say, "Ah, you're right, characters in fiction are not the same as real people."

Stabbing an NPC -- whether the NPC is human or orc -- is not a crime in the game.

It would be a crime in real life.

Games are not real.

That's good.

And this kind of **** high lights one thing I have noticed about rpgs: a lot of people who play them are openly racist. I mean, years ago on myspace I noticed that the WoW page had a guy in its top friends or w/e who was plainly and obviously a white surpremist (he had a white power logo as his profile picture). And I've noticed stuff like this even beyond then. Granted, not all roleplayers are racist, I'm not saying that, but a surprising many of them are.
It's disturbing that you're using bigotry because you dislike bigotry.

Consider how you'd feel about: "Granted, not all orcs are evil, I'm not saying that, but a surprising many of them are."

I honestly suspect that games like this may actually encourage racism, by instilling the belief that an entire race can be purely evil or stupid or w/e.
It's difficult to say.

Stories about malicious goblins, ogres, witches, and faeries pre-date RPGs significantly.

Stories about the Evil Other (demons, devils, devae, djinn, dragons, and other d-words) pre-date RPGs significantly.

When the Greek myths talk about driving back the centaurs and their chaos, it's not particularly racist, because centaurs aren't a real race. They are a personification, the symbol of something which was real. You can't be racist against debauchery and disorder -- that's just nonsense because debauchery and disorder aren't people.

We're still telling stories, and the stories are sometimes about personifications of reality -- dragons may represent pride and greed, for example; slaying a dragon may be emblematic of a hero's journey through some hardship or another.

Games are not the same as stories, but there's a lot of cross-pollination, and you can pretty easily see where games get such story elements as "evil races".

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-29, 10:50 PM

To say that the alignment system has not been used to send a racist message at various points in D&D's history is to be in denial, plain and simple.

Anything can be prejudiced if you see everything as prejudiced. Fantasy racism is division along lines of species with very real (for anything in a fantasy game, anyway) differences between groups in biology, psychology, and culture influenced by various divine entities with their own agendas in a world where good and evil are real, quantifiable forces.

Any similarity to any real dynamic between two human groups is entirely coincidental (guaranteed a loose similarity at best) and trying to say it sends a message is like trying to say fishermen who profess a distaste for seafood are sending a message that seafood is evil and wrong.

D&D has some pretty nasty prejudice in its roots. Just look at old issues of Dragon Magazine (http://annarchive.com/files/Drmg003.pdf):

We had people saying that it wasn't a problem because they weren't real people there too. :smallfrown:

Women are real, orcs are not. One of these things is not like the other.

Also, Dragon magazine was not, is not, and has never been owned by the same people as D&D, to the best of my knowledge. Their input to the P&P RPG culture is their own, not some inherent part of the system then and certainly not part of a different but related system some 20 40ish years later.

This is equivalent to saying that the hyper-religious zealots that claimed D&D players worshiped the devil were right.

Bonzai

2015-09-29, 10:51 PM

Aside from cultural differences, there are physicologal differences as well. Humans consider the willful killing of sentient life to be evil. Illithid have to in order to eat. Therefore Illithids following their natural behavior are generally considered to be evil by polite society. Elves may consider the destruction of a forest to be evil, but humans might do so for the good of their people and to provide shelter and farmland. Biological needs drive social behavior, and D&D judges all by human norms.

smcmike

2015-09-29, 10:52 PM

When the Greek myths talk about driving back the centaurs and their chaos, it's not particularly racist, because centaurs aren't a real race. They are a personification, the symbol of something which was real. You can't be racist against debauchery and disorder -- that's just nonsense because debauchery and disorder aren't people.

Except, of course, that claiming that Greek myths aren't racist because centaurs aren't real is kinda like saying Greek myths aren't mysogynistic because Amazons aren't real. Of course Greek and Roman myth was racist. A lot of it was fundamentally about defining who the Greeks were. One aspect of this definition was not-Persian, a definition that European racists have used to support their beliefs for millennia.

Which isn't to say that you can't read Greek myth, or enjoy the narrative of free citizens versus exotic subservient subjects in 300. Though all I really noticed were the abs.

tadkins

2015-09-29, 10:54 PM

I don't really see non-outsider races themselves as being good or evil. You've got their societies labeled as such in each universe.

There are good groups of orcs, gnolls and drow just as there are evil humans, elves and halflings. The Jerren especially are creepy as hell.

Nifft

2015-09-29, 10:54 PM

Except, of course, that claiming that Greek myths aren't racist because centaurs aren't real is kinda like saying Greek myths aren't mysogynistic because Amazons aren't real

Points up thread to this:

Women are real, orcs are not. One of these things is not like the other.

LudicSavant

2015-09-29, 10:59 PM

Anything can be prejudiced if you see everything as prejudiced.

Is this guy for real? I say that a specific thing is prejudiced, you immediately start talking about seeing everything as prejudiced? :smallannoyed:

Clearly you do not intend to have a rational conversation here.

Women are real, orcs are not. One of these things is not like the other.

None of the things that orcs do are things that humans don't do. The differences are almost purely cosmetic. Moreover, when you talk about whether something is good or evil, you're talking about their behavior (or you think that something can be evil without ever doing anything wrong, which is even more problematic), and the behaviors orcs engage in are just as accessible to real people as they are to orcs.

OldTrees1

2015-09-29, 11:06 PM

Is this guy for real?

Regardless of if he is for real, it is a true statement about our ability to warp our perspective of others to suit our goals. The manner the statement was used merely further supports the point behind the saying.

It is far too easy to fight a twisted version of your opponent. Easy enough that people rarely stop for clarification when they unknowingly misunderstand their opponent, since the accidental strawman they unknowingly constructed is such an easier target to fight.

The question is, are you going to continue to reply in kind, or break free?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-29, 11:08 PM

P.F.

2015-09-29, 11:09 PM

Mkay, in D&D, creatures with no moral faculty are explicitly defined as neutral. A friendly dolphin isn't good and a man-eating tiger isn't evil: they are animals with no sense of right or wrong.

Races on the other hand can have alignment tendencies based on their culture and possibly on brain structure and function. This runs the gamut form orcs and goblins, who might only be considered evil because they grow up in a cheat-bribe-and-rape-culture to yugoloths and demons that are literally evil personified.

Perhaps instead of viewing evil races as a sinister metaphor for human cultures (and there have been some pretty horrific human cultures), we should view the human and demi-human races as a hopeful commentary: in a world where evil is real and detectable, where demons walk the earth, and where men and women fall to the temptations of the forces of darkness every day, human nature is still basically good.

Callos_DeTerran

2015-09-30, 12:00 AM

Perhaps instead of viewing evil races as a sinister metaphor for human cultures (and there have been some pretty horrific human cultures), we should view the human and demi-human races as a hopeful commentary: in a world where evil is real and detectable, where demons walk the earth, and where men and women fall to the temptations of the forces of darkness every day, human nature is still basically good.

So much this.

There is a HUGE difference between an 'Always Evil/Often Evil' race like say...orcs or goblins and 'ALWAYS EVIL' made-of-concentrated-quantities-of-kilonazis species like demons and devils. Especially in how they become evil and why they are so often evil in the first place. Orcs/goblins/hobgoblins/etc. are products of their species' history, religion, society, and personal views and when the first three of those items tend to point orcs/goblins/hobgoblins/etc. towards evil, that's when they get the 'Always Evil/Often Evil' label because odds are when you meet one...well...they are evil in some manner or the other. To use orcs as an example, in orc society if you don't believe in might makes right, its probably because you are on the wrong side of that equation...an probably dead honestly. Your chief deity (not counting demon lords and whatnot) has the biggest hard-on this side of Khorne for the murder of anyone 'not orc'. History tells you that other species are holding you back from greatness because they're scared of orc supremacy (orc version of history, not the actual one where they just attack rape-murder-pillage). Everyone around you buys into this dogma of hatred so yeah, its not surprising that a large percentage of orcs turn out evil.

So why hopeful? Probably cause they do have choice in the matter...in almost every setting where you see the 'monster' races intermingling with the rest of the world, they tend to be mellowed out from how they are typically portrayed. Alignment is malleable and will change over the course of a being's life. Sure, for a lot of orcs (to continue using the example) will probably just shift between different kinds of evil...or to neutral at times, but more drastic change is possible. Usually this is on an individual scale but it can happen on a larger one too with exposure to other 'not-orc' cultures. The same applies for any mortal evil race.

As it pertains to PCs, any species the DM allows is up for grab, period. PCs are, by definition, the exception to the rules in almost every capacity. That doesn't mean a monster-race PC is going to have it easy, but it is well within their rights to ask their DM if they want to play such a race.

...also...why are goblins, orcs, dwarves, elves, and such referred to as race? This is a genuine question because I don't think that term applies in the literal sense. Wouldn't they qualify as species in their own right and not as races which suggests they are off-shoots of a singular ancestor?

EDIT: Also, and I can't believe I forgot this, but just because a creature is Evil (capital or lower case letter) does not mean it is alright to kill it just for that reason. As a DM and a player, I have never played an actually good character who just...killed someone just because they were evil because that is not what a Good person does and as a DM players will quickly stop being good if they do the same thing.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 12:06 AM

In fact I am.

People who see racial, gender, or otherwise politically charged messages in entertainment media that has a barely passing resemblance to anything close to reality tend to see such messages in everything.

I gave a specific example of a message I felt was prejudiced. Instead of address whether or not you felt that message was prejudiced, you started making wild assumptions about my character, talking about what kind of "people" I am or what those kind of people supposedly tend to do.

Why can't you talk to the actual person talking to you about the actual examples they're giving? Why do you feel a need to make such sweeping generalizations?

All because I said that I felt like this:

There will be four major groups in which women may enter. They
may be FIGHTERS, MAGIC USERS, THIEVES and CLERICS. They
may progress to the level of men in the area of magic and, in some ways,
surpass men as thieves. Elven women may rise especially to high levels in
clerics to the elves. Only as fighters are women clearly behind men in all
cases but even they have attributes that their male counterparts do not!
Characteristics;
Strength 18 sided die and 1 six sided die.
Wisdom, Intelligence, Dexterity and Constitution all use 3 6 sided dice.
(Any woman scoring 13 or 14 in strength may add 1 to her constitution
score.)
Instead of Charisma BEAUTY is rated on 2 20 sided dice numbered 1-
10 (so the range is 2-20, not 2-40.

.....................................

Fighting Women (warriors) may incorporate the spells of Seduction,
Charm Men or Charm Humanoid Monster depending on their level and
beauty scores (see spells of seduction, et al). Women’s strength scores
range from 2-14. Thus some weaponry and types of armor are too
difficult for them to wield/bear without undue fatigue.

The spell [seduction] enchants the victim. He will remove his armor and lay down his
weapon(s) (only talismans & Rings will not be laid aside) and attempt an
encounter with the lady.

was not okay.

So, I do see a gender issue there. You then dismissed me by saying that "People who see racial, gender, or otherwise politically charged messages in entertainment media that has a barely passing resemblance to anything close to reality tend to see such messages in everything."

I wonder, do you not see an issue with the quote?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 12:18 AM

I gave a specific example of a message I felt was prejudiced. Instead of address whether or not you felt that message was prejudiced, you started making wild assumptions about my character, talking about what kind of "people" I am. All because I said that I felt like this:

was not okay.

So, I do see a gender issue there. You then dismissed me by saying that "People who see racial, gender, or otherwise politically charged messages in entertainment media that has a barely passing resemblance to anything close to reality tend to see such messages in everything."

I wonder, do you not see an issue with the quote? :smallconfused:

Given that it's nearly 40 years old and represents a view very few people hold in the modern era, no. Not any more than the fact that Paula Dean used the N-word when she was younger. Things change over time; people, games, societal tolerances for various behaviors and so on.

Even if there was a point where there were genuine racial undertones in how the game portrayed various races, they're long dead and any such undertones perceived now are far more telling about the people seeing them than the game itself.

Also, race and gender are not the same thing. Even if I did agree that the antiquated article you've dredged up mattered at all, it still wouldn't have any bearing on the discussion at hand which is about fantastic races, not gender.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 12:21 AM

Given that it's nearly 40 years old and represents a view very few people hold in the modern era, no. Not any more than the fact that Paula Dean used the N-word when she was younger. Things change over time; people, games, societal tolerances for various behaviors and so on.

Wow. I think you just definitively proved xBlackWolfx's point.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 12:30 AM

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 12:33 AM

{{Scrubbed}}

Could you perhaps stop making up outrageous positions to stuff in my mouth for the length of a single post? :smallconfused:

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 12:43 AM

Could you perhaps stop making up outrageous positions to stuff in my mouth for the length of a single post? :smallconfused:

Which is it then? Can sins of the past be forgiven or not? If they can then a 40 year old article (on a different subject, no less) is irrelevant. If they can't then my point is hyperbolic but in need of a proper counterpoint.

P.F.

2015-09-30, 12:52 AM

But it's just a made-up game, you can't use real world morality on fantasy creatures, and the rules say, ...

But fantasy writers in the 70's were sexist!

Of course, you could just do away with the alignment system altogether

But that would be a house-rule!

But it's all relative anyway, I mean to each other, hippopotami are attractive

But I'm not racist some of my best friends are orcs

This is starting to become indistinguishable form the perennial "why must necromancy be evil" thread.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 12:57 AM

This is starting to become indistinguishable form the perennial "why must necromancy be evil" thread.

At least that argument has some nuance.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 12:57 AM

But, the argument can be made, we still have always Evil orcs. Well, turns out that orcs don't have souls. The closest they have is actually a piece of their creator, Melkor, making them just extensions of him and his will, really. Orcs aren't actually people.

In both LoTR, and The Silmarillion - theres a "I don't think The Shadow made the orcs - it only ruined and twisted them" theme - the quote being from Frodo, but something similar being said in The Silmarillion with "so say the wise" as attribution.

And in Morgoth's Ring:

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

NeverSleeps

2015-09-30, 02:13 AM

As has been said, "Always Evil" and Entirely Evil are different. The Drow society is evil because their creator goddess is extremely Evil, she lives off of Evil, feeds off of it, and enjoys it in ways that do not make me feel okay without a lot of abjuration and an epic level party handy to stop it.

Drow can still be Good, though. It's just a Good Drow won't have the ability to fight the Evil Drow around them as easily, because they'll be less likely to kill and extort and such, whereas their competition will be happy to encourage it and eager to punish the Good Drow for breaking from the ways of their deity. Whereas on the Surface, Liches and Big Bads are murdered, hunted, and destroyed by the Wandering Murderhobos that we play, in the Underdark presumably Big Goods are destroyed the same way.

As for it being a racist idea, that's silly. Yes, it was at one point, but there has been a lot of effort to expunge that and when it comes down to it, it's only racist if the DM and players let it be racist, if you really want to play a Good Drow, or a Good Gnoll, go ahead! I've DMed for Good Beastmen parties, and it was a blast to figure out how they subverted their culture and learned to fight the norm. They set up this cool Underground Railroad deal, and eventually it was all about them fooling their societies into giving them high ranking positions so that they could open their gates to the Armies Of Heaven coming down to free their race from oppressive evil god-rulers.

But here's the thing, in D&D and general RPG cosmology, Evil is THING. You can gather it into a physically observable mass, and stick it on your coat. You can do the same thing with Good. Often these concepts within the context of D&D are misinterpreted, namely that Good must be pleasant or nice, and that Evil must be unpleasant or mean. Many Good aligned creatures or characters are very mean and harsh, while Evil are charming, and at least a certain interpretation of fair. A big thing that the Mortal Races have going for them in most settings though is this ability to define themselves, whereas the Dragons and other immortal beings are defined by their existence, Dragons of each type are defined by their concept intermixed with the very idea of power, and exist from it. But they can never exist without it, and so must remain themselves for eternity.

EDIT: As pointed out below, even Fiends can occasionally defy expectation, but they still detect as evil, which I presume is because they're sorta made of it? In any case, kudos, hamishspence, for pointing that out.

So if you see racism and feel you absolutely must deal with the fact that the poor Drow are misunderstood, stick your character in the Underdark for awhile and see how Good you turn out without being Mary-Sue levels of resilient to the conditions around you. In places like the Underdark, or societies like that of the Orcs, you either do some reprehensible things or you're at war with the very powers that you rely on for basic survival. It's not necessarily that your neighbors are evil because they're Drow, they're evil because the Creator Goddess of your people meddles and influences your society a ton compared to other divines and she is legitimately a disgustingly evil thing, a force of and about Evil at her core.

Doing harm, rape murder pillage etc. just because you want to fit in with your people, on the Great Cosmic Scale does not save your soul because the Gods in this hypothetical are all too aware of the fact that Evil is a thing, and regard it the jurisdiction of mortals to decide in life what they choose to do, that's why the Gods allow and safeguard the concept of Free Will.

So I guess I don't see why anybody doesn't understand that an Evil society does not necessarily mean Good Drow or whatever aren't possible, it just means that if you fit in and follow your traditional values, rape is still wrong. Slavery is still wrong. No amount of Drow Charisma checks makes slavery right.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 02:23 AM

A big thing that the Mortal Races have going for them in most settings though is this ability to define themselves, whereas the Dragons and other immortal beings are defined by their existence, Dragons of each type are defined by their concept intermixed with the very idea of power, and exist from it. But they can never exist without it, and so must remain themselves for eternity.

Except that, at least in 3rd ed, they're not. "Always X alignment" in the 3rd ed MM specifically allows for the possibility of alignment change. As does the [Evil] subtype that all fiends have - it says that when an [evil] subtype being is not evil aligned, it still detects as Evil.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 02:53 AM

Boci

2015-09-30, 03:06 AM

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 03:13 AM

Yes it does. Orcs are vermin, they need to be culled.

Now consider the implications of a gamer enthusiastically making that sort of statement, given what the Greyhawk canon tells us about orc nature and behavior. The canon shows us that the orcs are psychologically pretty much just like humans, and points out that many orcs are not Evil, including specific details about non-Evil orcs.

Boci

2015-09-30, 03:18 AM

Now consider the implications of a gamer enthusiastically making that sort of statement, given what the Greyhawk canon tells us about orc nature and behavior, including the fact that many of them are not Evil.

Ummm.....nothing? There's a difference between depiction and endorsement, and I don't buy that someone playing D&D is suddenly going to stand up from the table and say "You know this game is right, black people are ruining the country!" Nor do I believe that it will influence their view of the race in subtler ways either.

Orcs are psychologically pretty much just like humans, and that many are not Evil?

So are Africans. If I'm playing an British aristocrat at the time of the colonization, then in game I'm probably going to be assuming black people are sub-human when I roleplay that character.

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-30, 03:24 AM

Ummm.....nothing? There's a difference between depiction and endorsement, and I don't buy that someone playing D&D is suddenly going to stand up from the table and say "You know this game is right, black people are ruining the country!" Nor do I believe that it will influence their view of the race in subtler ways either.

So are Africans. If I'm playing an British aristocrat at the time of the colonization, then in game I'm probably going to be assuming black people are sub-human when I roleplay that character.

Discussions about large, often uncomfortable topics are important. Even if it's through a game. Even if it's just you and your friends exploring what these concepts mean to you in a fantasy setting. Whether or not you or your group utilizes games in this way is immaterial and anecdotal.

As per your second comment, I would actually take some time to read about the complexities of topics like eugenics and the myriad of complex beliefs and actions that are associated with that time period. It was very far from cut and dry. But this is a sidetrack and I won't go further into it.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 03:26 AM

In Greyhawk, Agelong is a holiday celebrated annually by the elves and endorsed by Corellon Larethian, greater deity and embodiment of Good. It is celebrated by ritually cutting yourself with daggers made of volcanic glass, joining a hunting party, and "striving to slaughter as many orcs as possible during the night" for no other reason than to glorify the memory of Corellon's victory over Gruumsh.

...Really speaks for itself.

Agelong: Agelong is the celebration of the elven creation, the observance of the legendary battle between Corellon Larethian and Gruumsh One-Eye. This holy day serves to remind the elves of the presence of their enemies. Held at the summer solstice, Agelong is the perfect elven excuse to go orc-hunting. On the night of the hunt, elves nick themselves with obsidian daggers and let their blood flow into the earth, simulating the bloodletting that made their existence possible. They then swoop down from their homes and kill as many orcs as they can find during this night.

This is the exact quote from the TSR book published in 1992. The emphasis is mine.

A) Some elves use the holiday as an excuse to indulge in their racism. There's nothing there to suggest it is sanctioned by the church of Correlon Larethian. Though it is rather doubtful that the church would stand against it, given that orcs and elves have had enmity against one another since the creation of each of their races when their gods did battle with one another.

B) This holiday and its associated ritual hunting are notably absent from any 3rd edition book published by WotC.

C) Fantasy races hate each other because their gods hate each other. So what? Otherwise decent people do sometimes have character flaws. Abhorent ideology of one kind or another is not an uncommon one.

Elves are racist as balls against orcs (who reciprocate in kind) but they also value life in a more general sense, favor peace over war with most other races, highly value art, and so on. Condemning an entire race over a common flaw they don't even share in the absolute is exactly the kind of over-sensitivity I was kicking up such a fuss over before.

Seriously, do you have anything from this millennium to support the idea that D&D is inherently racist toward any real life group?

Also, both elves and orcs, who are more different from each other than either is from human, are still not real.

Boci

2015-09-30, 03:30 AM

Discussions about large, often uncomfortable topics are important. Even if it's through a game. Even if it's just you and your friends exploring what these concepts mean to you in a fantasy setting. Whether or not you or your group utilizes games in this way is immaterial and anecdotal.

I agree. But if someone asks me what the implications of X are and I don't think there are any implications of X, what am I meant to say? It just feels to me like asking a chess playing what are the implications that diplomacy isn't an option in the game. Does it promote violent solutions?

As per your second comment, I would actually take some time to read about the complexities of topics like eugenics and the myriad of complex beliefs and actions that are associated with that time period. It was very far from cut and dry. But this is a sidetrack and I won't go further into it.

Do I also need to research early 20th century wartime medicine if I want to play a nurse in WWI? Researching a role is great, but its not required. In fact it comes off as an attempt to silence me, especially when you say "do your research", rather than giving an example.

My university course touch upon colonialism (it was a literature course), and I have no idea why I need to further research the possibility of a racist aristocrat living in Africa.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 03:31 AM

Ummm.....nothing? There's a difference between depiction and endorsement, and I don't buy that someone playing D&D is suddenly going to stand up from the table and say "You know this game is right, black people are ruining the country!" Nor do I believe that it will influence their view of the race in subtler ways either.

So are Africans. If I'm playing an British aristocrat at the time of the colonization, then in game I'm probably going to be assuming black people are sub-human when I roleplay that character.

I agree that there is a difference between depiction and endorsement. I would not object to racism being depicted or roleplayed. I object to it being called moral out-of-character. My problem with Agelong is that it is a case of endorsement, not merely depiction. We are told, out of character, that the elves are the good guys and the orcs are the bad guys here.

Perhaps even more importantly, I commonly see players endorse it.

Boci

2015-09-30, 03:35 AM

I agree that there is a difference between depiction and endorsement. I would not object to racism being depicted or roleplayed. I object to it being called moral out-of-character. My problem with Agelong is that it is a case of endorsement, not merely depiction.

Why so? Kelb_Panthera pointed out the key detail of "excuse" in the fluff of Agelong (and the fact that that it isn't mentioened in 3.5). To you, what moves Agelong from depiction to endorsement?

MyrPsychologist

2015-09-30, 03:36 AM

I agree. But if someone asks me what the implications of X are and I don't think there are any implications of X, what am I meant to say? It just feels to me like asking a chess playing what are the implications that diplomacy isn't an option in the game. Does it promote violent solutions?

Do I also need to research early 20th century wartime medicine if I want to play a nurse in WWI? Researching a role is great, but its not required. In fact it comes off as an attempt to silence me, especially when you say "do your research", rather than giving an example.

False Analogies are really difficult to respond to. So to avoid having a discussion about why your analogies are fallacious, I'll just say that I sincerely disagree with your comparisons.

And in the context of evil races or uncomfortable roles, understanding the cultural context within the world (or within the time frame that your world is emulating) is incredibly helpful in understanding how individuals act. The rules are ultimately a guideline and a DM can choose to portray any race in any way they want. They could make orcs misunderstood and persecuted nomads or keep them as a looming evil marauding horde. Neither of these is actually superior and the choice will depend on the context.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 03:36 AM

Now consider the implications of a gamer enthusiastically making that sort of statement, given what the Greyhawk canon tells us about orc nature and behavior. The canon shows us that the orcs are psychologically pretty much just like humans, and points out that many orcs are not Evil, including specific details about non-Evil orcs.

Stop right there. Show me text from -any- D&D source that says this. I dare you. There are cannonic examples of non-evil members of typically evil races but they are -always- presented as exceptions to the standard trends of their races and the very idea that the very real (for a fantasy setting) biological and physiological differences between races would have no impact on their psychology is patently absurd.

Fantasy races are not humans with a few minor cosmetic changes. They are different creatures altogether that bear a superficial resemblance to humans.

Boci

2015-09-30, 03:38 AM

And in the context of evil races or uncomfortable roles, understanding the cultural context within the world (or within the time frame that your world is emulating) is incredibly helpful in understanding how individuals act. The rules are ultimately a guideline and a DM can choose to portray any race in any way they want. They could make orcs misunderstood and persecuted nomads or keep them as a looming evil marauding horde. Neither of these is actually superior and the choice will depend on the context.

I know. So maybe people should stop calling others racists for liking a different approach to the game?

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 06:18 AM

Stop right there. Show me text from -any- D&D source that says this. I dare you.

Don't know about D&D source - but this is The Giant's interpretation of the way people actually play the game and write the stories:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12719590&postcount=178

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 06:41 AM

Don't know about D&D source - but this is The Giant's interpretation of the way people actually play the game and write the stories:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12719590&postcount=178

There's a difference between a completely alien mindset and one that isn't quite human.

While orcs and elves ('cause why not stick with what's already on the table) aren't quite the same as humans, they do share basic needs; food, shelter, water, material resources, etc. These motivations, naturally, will create some similarities but the more nebulous factors of social instincts and the pressures that come from them could go any number of ways and of course there are the differences in mental capacity having their direct influence while physical differences have a more indirect influence, vis-a-vis how they physically interact with the world around them.

What's tough is getting in the heads of outsiders, elementals, and aberrations. Creatures with much more alien outlooks than a normal mortal could have.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 06:46 AM

In D&D novels though - mind flayers, devils, etc come across as very human.

OldTrees1

2015-09-30, 07:11 AM

Don't know about D&D source - but this is The Giant's interpretation of the way people actually play the game and write the stories:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12719590&postcount=178

Quite true. It is harder to construct an intelligence from scratch (especially since getting down to scratch includes eliminating some preconceptions normally hidden to us) so most monsters/races/species/aliens are just "Human but XYZ". However this method works fairly well at faking inhuman intelligence when the deviation is made large enough (Uncanny Valley being an exception).

However, humans being social creatures that had intraspecies conflict, humans are extremely practiced ad dividing into us/other and then making up excuses to exclude the "other". This is one of the founding mental traits for racism, sexism, xenophobia(local or literal) as well as bias towards these fictional "Human but XYZ"s.

I suggest everyone just take a quick empathy self examination:
1) Imagine aliens exist IRL. Remember aliens are not likely to be human so they will probably be more alien than illithids.
2) Are you the kind of human that could coexist diplomatically with said aliens?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 07:13 AM

In D&D novels though - mind flayers, devils, etc come across as very human.

I can't recall any instances of those creatures in more than bit parts in any of the novels I've read. Usually as a mustache twirling, puppy-kicking, card-carrying villain that would barely pass as a character, human or otherwise. Could you point out some examples? I'd really like to see something more nuanced.

Gah, I just remembered the demon eating Wulfgar's babies. :smallyuk:

OldTrees1

2015-09-30, 07:22 AM

atemu1234

2015-09-30, 08:16 AM

{{Scrubbed}}.

While I cannot refute your anecdotes, I can offer my experience that in my games, I've never once had a white supremacist. I've never noticed a correlation. Though, considering my group is ~50% made up of people who are gay, bisexual or transgender it may be skewed to the left a bit.

In my experience, you get an even mix. From good people to bad people, it's no different from the rest of the world.

This is starting to become indistinguishable form the perennial "why must necromancy be evil" thread.

All threads become one.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-09-30, 08:54 AM

atemu1234

2015-09-30, 09:06 AM

This discussion of "are other races basically human or alien" is missing a key point: this is a game of imagination. If you don't want to deal with cultural nuances and moral relativism, YOU DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE IT. There's nothing wrong with saying "orcs are semi-sentient man-eating monsters in this game," because the mere act of saying it makes it true. If you so desire, there can be no such thing as a nice orc, and you can use whatever reason you choose to explain it.

You are ALLOWED to have a Big Gorram Heroes game with monolithic evil cultures, and it's every bit as legitimate as the next one. Not everyone wants to get morality in their dungeon crawl.

True, but that does not necessarily void the necessity of pondering the inevitable conclusions of one's stance on the argument.

In my games, intelligent races that are not alignment subtyped basically follow the system below:

~25% of one alignment - often.
~50% of one alignment - usually.
`75% of one alignment - always.

A cultural bias towards an alignment is often taken into account, and in my games different versions of the same race (IE, a different tribe of orcs) will have different alignment predispositions, and sometimes different stats.

smcmike

2015-09-30, 09:08 AM

There is an interesting conversation to be had here, but it seems like some people are just getting defensive or taking offense. So just to head that off, let me say that I don't think you are a racist for liking D&D. We all like D&D. It's fine.

So here's the thing - anytime you deal with a fictional world, you are opening a mirror on our own world, one which can reflect back all sorts of things, including attitudes about race.

A non-D&D example: James Cameron's Avatar, which was about aliens and humans, but was also about European colonialism and capitalist environmental degradation. I thought it was clumsy, when viewed through that lens, but was also very fun, and not bad-hearted.

Similarly, when you are running a campaign and, to take an example from this thread, you insert an Underground Railroad narrative, you are, in some level, talking about real-world race relations. That isn't a bad thing, just something to consider. It isn't hard to imagine a DM designing a campaign in such a way as to make these real world parallels quite toxic, though I hope that sort of thing is rare.

In another way, though, using fantastical races solves a problem. By making it fantastical, you can create a complex world without directly implicating real-world race, whereas if the various regions of your fantasy world are inhabited by humans of varying skin colors, you might run into problems when it comes time to make some of them the bad guys.

On the other hand, it is an inherently racist world. Here I don't mean "racist" as a pejorative, but merely as a descriptor. The first thing you notice when encountering another sentient being in D&D is their race, and that often defines the terms of your relationship. It seems to me that most major modern fantasy writers shy away from Tolkein-style races, and I think for good reason.

Anyway, those are just some thoughts.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 09:37 AM

True, but that does not necessarily void the necessity of pondering the inevitable conclusions of one's stance on the argument.

In my games, intelligent races that are not alignment subtyped basically follow the system below:

~25% of one alignment - often.
~50% of one alignment - usually.
`75% of one alignment - always.

A cultural bias towards an alignment is often taken into account, and in my games different versions of the same race (IE, a different tribe of orcs) will have different alignment predispositions, and sometimes different stats.

I believe it's more like "75% = usually" and "95% = always." Exceptions to both are rarer than half.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 09:39 AM

I can't recall any instances of those creatures in more than bit parts in any of the novels I've read. Usually as a mustache twirling, puppy-kicking, card-carrying villain that would barely pass as a character, human or otherwise. Could you point out some examples? I'd really like to see something more nuanced.

Most of the archfiends in Ed Greenwood's Elminster in Hell spring to mind. The imp in R. A Salvatore's Cleric Quintet books, to some extent. Various fiends in Jeff Grubb's Tymora's Luck. While somewhat "card carrying" there's still plenty of "humanity" to them.

The shapeshifting Malaugrym in Greedwood's Shadow of the Avatar books are aberrations descended from humanity - and still exhibit a great deal in the way of human traits.

I believe it's more like "75% = usually" and "95% = always." Exceptions to both are rarer than half.

The PHB points out that there's considerable variation within Usually - the "inborn tendency" of kobolds is much weaker than that of beholders, for example.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 09:40 AM

So here's the thing - anytime you deal with a fictional world, you are opening a mirror on our own world, one which can reflect back all sorts of things, including attitudes about race.

This, this right here, this is what I take issue with.

A fictional world -can- be a reflection of reality in some regards while (obviously) not in others but it doesn't -have- to do so. People see in art what they -want- to see in art, consciously or unconciously, regardless of the intent of the artist.

A game, however, is only as artistic as you choose to make it. Particularly with pen and paper RPG's there is a social interaction and in any game there is a problem solving aspect, either of which can completely overwhelm any sense of artistry that's put into it.

There's also the simple fact that mentally healthy people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality and -should- know that lessons applicable to one are not, and sometimes cannot be, applicable to the other.

{{Scrubbed}}

Psyren

2015-09-30, 09:46 AM

{{Scrubbed}}

This is pretty harsh and also overly simplistic. While it's true that elves and orcs don't have to be a commentary on IRL attitudes to race, society etc., it does no harm to acknowledge that they can be, and very often are (even unintentionally.) After all, orcs and elves may be fictional, but they were devised by designers who are not for an audience that is not, at the very least to resonate with our own experiences, if not speak to them directly.

Our mutual benefactor The Giant put it best:

This is treading very close to real-world religion already, but suffice to say that if you have a means of verifying the non-existence of any given deity in the real world, there are a few billion people who might want to give it a spin.

But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism. So if I can make even one person think about how we treat people of other races (or religions, or creeds, or what have you) by using the analogy of Redcloak, then it will have been time well spent on my part.

Boci

2015-09-30, 09:57 AM

This is pretty harsh and also overly simplistic. While it's true that elves and orcs don't have to be a commentary on IRL attitudes to race, society etc., it does no harm to acknowledge that they can be, and very often are (even unintentionally.)

It doesn't hurt to acknowledge it sure, but also it doesn't hurt to acknowledge the possibility that not everything is done for an alternate reading.

If
Orks and elves being at war is a allegory for racial hatred in the real world
Orks and elves living together in perfect harmony is an allegory or possibly satire of two foreign cultures overcoming their differences
Orks and elves living in alternating periods of peace for the most part but occassionally having diplomatic tensions, skirmishing and every 100 years or so even outright war is an allegory for the unstable relationships between cultures through the ages

Then what is an allegory for "I wanted to make a campaign world and real world allegory wasn't quite on my mind, but I had to establish the relationship between the sentient races of the world"?

Telonius

2015-09-30, 10:04 AM

The idea of an always-evil (or even an "always-evil") race doesn't sit completely well with me. Most of the time, when you're making any kind of a story, there have to be antagonists. People have been using orcs and goblins as generic "bad guys" for centuries, mainly because it's easy. The storyteller doesn't have to show that this character is an acceptable target, and doesn't have to spend much time or effort developing the character or their motivations. Show up with green skin and tusks, and you might as well be carrying a sign that says, "I'm a villain." Nobody worries that the troll just wants lunch; it's totally okay that the billy goat rushes him off the bridge.

Sometimes, this is fine. You want to make a race of beast-creatures that takes their orders from the Evil Wizard? Sure, go ahead. But it starts getting uncomfortable as soon as you introduce free will into the equation. Are those beast-creatures actually people, with opinions of their own? Even Tolkien (in some of his Letters) expressed some reservations about how he'd handled the origin of his Orcs. They'd originally been Elves, tortured over the course of centuries by Morgoth, his version of the devil.

Unfortunately, the stereotypical, "traditional" imagery of most of the "always-good" and "always-evil" races tends to mirror some of the nastier real-world racist imagery. Elf and Aasimar art tends toward the pale-skinned (space-frog Mialee aside); goblin, orc, Tiefling, and (more obviously) Drow tend to the darker range. That's part of the genre, and has been for at least a century now, going back to Robert Howard and HP Lovecraft, if not farther (HG Wells and the Morlocks/Eloi might be one of the earliest examples that's recognizably sci-fi or fantasy). Pretending it's not there will not serve any helpful purpose. But how do you deal with it?

It is true that some societies can tend to produce people who are more likely to go out of their way to respect or disrespect life, to help or hurt people. Dealing with that, as a societal trait rather than an inborn characteristic, can add a huge layer of complexity to a book or a setting. Not everybody is going to be up to the effort you'd need to address it in a mature, respectful, and realistic way. When it's dealt with at all, it's usually in kind of extreme cases. People might make it so that there's a significantly smaller amount of free will in an always-evil race. You'll have things like the Drow, who are kept evil by a horrific set of cultural practices enforced by direct divine intervention. The evil is not inborn; individuals, like a certain dual-scimitar-wielder, can break free of the culture given enough effort. (Hashtag #notalldrow ...?) Or, they might throw out the idea of always-X races entirely. This can make for a more complicated, thoughtful game. It focuses more on individual reasons for choosing good or evil. It's certainly more work for both the players (who can't necessarily shoot on sight) and the DM (who needs to work out what the society generally wants, and how the individuals fit in).

Nifft

2015-09-30, 10:08 AM

smcmike

2015-09-30, 10:12 AM

This, this right here, this is what I take issue with.

There's also the simple fact that mentally healthy people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality and -should- know that lessons applicable to one are not, and sometimes cannot be, applicable to the other.
{{Scrubbed}}

{{Scrubbed}}

If you don't want to read the game as a metaphor, don't! I generally don't either. But that doesn't mean it can't function that way, and because it can function that way, it's something to be aware of. There are traps you can fall into which may make some people uncomfortable, even if you never intended offense - for example - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceJews

Boci

2015-09-30, 10:16 AM

If you don't want to read the game as a metaphor, don't! I generally don't either. But that doesn't mean it can't function that way, and because it can function that way, it's something to be aware of. There are traps you can fall into which may make some people uncomfortable, even if you never intended offense - for example - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceJews

And the second example on that page?

"Jynx was accused of being a caricature of a black woman with its pitch-black skin, huge lips, and name evoking voodoo. The truth is a bit more complicated. It's mostly based on the Yuki-Onna from Japanese folklore but its appearance is partially inspired by Swarthy Pete, a Moorish servant of Saint Nicholas who is often depicted in European Christmas stuff as a Black Face caricature"

Yes, fiction can be an allegory for real life. But sometimes people will read fiction wrong.

NeverSleeps

2015-09-30, 10:16 AM

Similarly, when you are running a campaign and, to take an example from this thread, you insert an Underground Railroad narrative, you are, in some level, talking about real-world race relations. That isn't a bad thing, just something to consider. It isn't hard to imagine a DM designing a campaign in such a way as to make these real world parallels quite toxic, though I hope that sort of thing is rare.

I like what you're saying, but I'd also like to point out that most of my players were not considering themselves in the 'aesop' of the campaign, and the ones that had the most fun were playing evil members of the Establishment that the other members had to work with to get jobs done for the greater good. They had to work with torturers and murderous guards to make their little plans work, and this made great conflict and roleplay.

Racism and Evil in gradients is good, because it means that players can be forced to weigh tough decisions. Is slavery worse than death? Do they work with the genocidal dictator or the slaver against the other? Or do they stick hard to their morals inflexibly, and just fail to stop both? Obviously stopping both might be possible in the long term, but still. Making these kinds of hard choices is great stuff.

That said, D&D's wonderful tools for our imaginations can be abused, yes. But I kind of think anything can, and it's just our responsibility to differentiate between in-character racism, which is good because it's useful to develop us as people and just fun to figure out and toy with, or serious racism which is a literal Evil in the world and must be stopped. We think we don't fight epic wars and alongside loyal party members in real life for some reason, but we do, it's just instead of the manifested evil demon having horns and blowing fire, it's in words and norms which we like to pass off. We fight against the devil of racism, sexism, moral relativism, etc and for some reason say we're still Commoners while we do it, which is okay, because a fighter can say he's a regular dude all he wants, but if he saves the day, well, it's a happy ending after all.

smcmike

2015-09-30, 10:20 AM

And the second example on that page?

"Jynx was accused of being a caricature of a black woman with its pitch-black skin, huge lips, and name evoking voodoo. The truth is a bit more complicated. It's mostly based on the Yuki-Onna from Japanese folklore but its appearance is partially inspired by Swarthy Pete, a Moorish servant of Saint Nicholas who is often depicted in European Christmas stuff as a Black Face caricature"

Yes, fiction can be an allegory for real life. But sometimes people will read fiction wrong.

Um, Swarthy Pete is racist as heck.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 10:22 AM

Boci

2015-09-30, 10:25 AM

Um, Swarthy Pete is racist as heck.

He's also male. So Jynx being the stereotypical African American woman was a misread.

Yes, those people were way off base being offended by Jynx as a representation of a black-face caricature rather than a representation of a black female caricature. :smalltongue:

Ninja'd by smcmike

I'm not saying Jynx wasn't problematic, her design was changed to address these concerns, just that people read too much into the situation. For instance, Jynx being fat relates to the idea of her being a black woman, since unless I am wrong, fat is not a common stereotype for black males.

Foreigner in Hungary here are often offended by Negro sweets:

https://www.google.hu/search?q=negro+cukor&biw=1455&bih=726&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIhOiujomfyAIViJZyCh3gfgFB

Which were created by Pietro Negro. Not that I can blame them, I made the same faulty assumption the first time I saw them too.

Seto

2015-09-30, 10:33 AM

Hum, I ended up saying a lot more than I first wanted to. Oh, well.

About that Giant quote that you gave, Psyren - and against Kelb_Panthera's point :

But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism.

Emphasis mine. First, a concession. I agree with this quote and the Giant's stance on committed art overall, but I disagree with the way this quote is often used (that is to say, "if you don't want to think about social issues while gaming, you're doing it wrong"). Mr Burlew's talking about OotS here. OotS is literature, therefore a public product that touches a lot of people. Your games or mine, are not. This explains why Burlew feels he has much responsibility towards his readers and society, and why we're allowed to feel like we don't. I'll go even further. In my view, even literature does not necessarily aim to be "wortwhile" or "meaningful" - so a fortiori, a game does not have to. There is nothing wrong with engaging in petty escapism.
What does that establish ? That if you're aiming at playing a morally meaningful and engaging game, then murderhoboing your way through orcs, just because they're orcs, is not the way to go. If you do and think that's ethically sound, then there really is a moral problem with you and races.

Now how about those that don't want a morally complex game where orcs are a metaphor of racism ? They resent being told that the way they play the game is an endorsement of racism. They should. However, that doesn't mean their games cannot be analyzed through that lens. I'm not saying they're being actively racist or that what they're doing is morally wrong : I mean that they may be using material with underlying racist prejudice, or internalizing some of it in the process. They're not endorsing racism, they're just not going out of their way to root it out. (Which is fine by me, because I tend to support choice-based rather than duty-based ethics). They're letting it go its way, and they go theirs.
And that has nothing to do with authorial intent (the exception being when you're actively trying to be progressive, as with OotS) : it just tells things about society. If you tell me "hey, wanna grab a drink ?", that's neither a commentary on sound frequency, nor on your feelings. Despite that fact, the sentence conveys both the sound of your voice and its possible shakiness due to stress, joy or what have you. The perpetuation of societal power-structures through cultural products is very much the same : it's not the message, it's most often not intended, it's not malicious and it doesn't make the artist/gamer a bad person (it just makes them a normal human person raised in some society, basically), but if you look for it it's there.

Which brings us to your earlier point, Kelb : when one starts to analyze things in terms of racism/sexism/etc., yes, one starts seeing it everywhere. It is an extremely hard task to decide whether one's concern is still legitimate or one is bending things and taking it too far. It is your right to think that we are conspiracy theorists. As for me, I'm leaning towards the opposite side : we see it everywhere because, well, most of the time, it's there. The trick is to deal with it, think and make people think, and work towards changing things (as Rich is doing) without feeling morally superior and lashing out at everyone that ventures a different kind of argument.

smcmike

2015-09-30, 10:43 AM

I think that's pretty well said, Seto.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 10:47 AM

There's indeed nothing wrong with a campaign or campaigns centered around petty escapism and murderhoboing, if that's what a table wants to run - but various trappings of the game system itself, alignment in particular, seem to be at odds with that viewpoint. They refer to things like genocide as being evil, but go on to present various evil races as akin to viruses that cannot be redeemed or reasoned with, and therefore implicitly present genocide as a pragmatic if not virtuous option. They mean well in doing so - after all, trying to redeem every orc, drow or ogre you came across would bog down the game immensely - but by presenting these high ideals for characters to aspire to, they're inviting this kind of scrutiny themselves. For a murderhobo game, it might be better to dispense with alignment entirely and just say (to quote Yahtzee): "enemies over there, kill they ass."

And yes, I know the Giant was referring to storytelling rather than games there, but I see less of a distinction there - after all, games are fantasy fiction too.

xBlackWolfx

2015-09-30, 10:49 AM

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised how much discussion my little topic has made, even though I've only made 1 reply to this thread.

My view on the racism thing, even it isn't real that doesn't make it right. Would it be okay for us to roleplay kkk members in a fantasy universe? No, obviously not. And why would it matter if orcs are real or not??? They're still sentient intelligent beings (even if they are below average intelligence). Racism in any form isn't right, and its definitely not right to make it a source of entertainment. And besides, you don't need racism to tell who's the bad guy and who isn't. I mean, in the ancient world everyone just styled their armor differently or carried battle standards or something like that to tell who was on who's side. It was actually pretty rare that race alone could be used as a reliable indicator of whose side someone was on. Europeans didn't have this benefit when fighting each other, obviously. Neither did the Japanese.

As for the 'always-evil-orcs' thing, honestly I accepted it myself when I first got into rpgs in my early twenties. And in the past I have tried to find ways to rationlize this. Honestly, I came up with two:

1. The orcs are an artificial race created to fight wars. Eventually they rebelled and escaped, now the world is plagued by unnatural abominations that can only think about destroying everything it sees.
2. The 'orcs' are actually demon-possessed undead essentially. This was inspired by the actual history of these folkloric creatures. They are wholly evil, because they are actually souls that were sent to hell. They actually 'reproduce' by murdering people, then throwing their bodies into magical tar pits that they create. They later emerge as 'orcs' now possessed by the soul of one of their kind. For the record, I don't even call these things orcs, but there's real way to write their name in English (I'm an amateur linguist). Their name would be written in the IPA as azmʊrɬi, if anyone here is actually familiar with the IPA.

Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about these two. The latter one, thinking about it, even it makes no sense. If the asmurɬi use these tar pits to return to the mortal world to wreck havoc time and time again, then why don't other dead souls do the same thing???

Really, I see no way of making something inherently good or evil outside of making it into an animal. A dragon is obviously a dangerous animal that needs to be put down, but if you give them intelligence, and the ability to speak, well that kinda makes killing them a lot more questionable.

edit: And in reply to the previous post, which was made while I was typing this, yes, I was kind of more referring to fantasy fiction, but RPGs do technically take place in fantasy fiction, so its kind of a moot distinction.

Nifft

2015-09-30, 10:50 AM

Seto

2015-09-30, 10:51 AM

And yes, I know the Giant was referring to storytelling rather than games there, but I see less of a distinction there - after all, games are fantasy fiction too.

I rather agree, I was mostly reasoning in terms of impact : literature generally gets to more people and does not stay in the home circle. (I was talking about individual games ; the D&D franchise, by contrast, is a massively successful cultural product). Also, some D&D games are more problem-solving than fiction, in which case I'm not sure they should be covered by that quote.

Boci

2015-09-30, 10:52 AM

My view on the racism thing, even it isn't real that doesn't make it right. Would it be okay for us to roleplay kkk members in a fantasy universe?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? Exploring the anatomy of hatred is, to me at least, a fascinating concept, and frankly from I've heard about the KKK, their structure is intriguing. They have titles like Grandwizard and Dragon, and I've heard members say that associating with black people is fine, but marrying them isn't and thus they don't consider themselves racist, with is an interesting ideology to explore.

ComaVision

2015-09-30, 10:56 AM

Would it be okay for us to roleplay kkk members in a fantasy universe? No, obviously not.

Sounds kind of fun to me. Playing a backwards, racist hick in a strange universe would be entertaining.

Again, most people don't have an issue separating the game from real life.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 11:00 AM

Boci

2015-09-30, 11:05 AM

Of course it's okay to for a player or even an entire group to roleplay such a heinous viewpoint. What I would look askance at would be if a game or setting was written whereby such views are presented as sympathetic or right. Say, a game where the mechanics reward you for how many rapes you commit or how many helpless innocents you slaughter.

At least D&D doesn't do that - fights that are not challenging don't give any XP, so at a minimum slaughtering people who have no hope of fighting back is a waste of your time.

Arguably some parts of the Book of Vile Darkness do this, specifically the sacrifice section and the creation of the alchemical item that mimicks word of recall.

Black Crusade I think rewards such actions, since you are a cultist of one of four Chaos Gods (or the concept of Chaos Undecided), so Slaanesh (Prince of Perverse Pleasure) and Korne (Blood God of Slaughter) would look kindly upon such acts, though I don't think there's a concrete system for it.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 11:09 AM

Arguably some parts of the Book of Vile Darkness do this, specifically the sacrifice section and the creation of the alchemical item that mimicks word of recall.

Black Crusade I think rewards such actions, since you are a cultist of one of four Chaos Gods (or the concept of Chaos Undecided), so Slaanesh (Prince of Perverse Pleasure) and Korne (Blood God of Slaughter) would look kindly upon such acts

Oh sure, you get rewarded in the short term (XP, favors, boons, all of that) but the assumption in D&D is that you have to avoid the afterlife for eternity after that, because it's going to suck. So the game is saying that such behavior doesn't truly pay off in the end.

In addition, BoVD itself is explicitly aimed at DMs to make vile villains with, and not PCs anyway, even though PCs can technically use some of the material. ("Hide This Book!" BoVD pg. 4.)

Boci

2015-09-30, 11:15 AM

In addition, BoVD itself is explicitly aimed at DMs to make vile villains with, and not PCs anyway, even though PCs can technically use some of the material. ("Hide This Book!" BoVD pg. 4.)

Not only does the book have a sort section on how to run an evil campaign at the end of it (which two variants, one in which the they get their comeuppance from a NPC party of good adventurers and one in which they don't), I also don't give much credit to author intent in a book which has the disclaimer "This book is not an excuse to turn your game into a dreary slog through the bowels of utter depravity" and then proceeds to be the most terrible written (from a fluff standpoint, the mechanics are cool), "lol so dark, me so mature" book on evil I have ever read to this date.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 11:26 AM

Even so, that was the intent of the book - PCs can certainly use it, but it's not really for them, rather it's primarily for NPC use.

I'm not saying it can't be used to run an evil campaign where the players run vile characters - just that even with it, D&D as a whole assumes that paradigm to be the exception rather than the rule, as it should.

Even the section you mention, about running evil campaigns, spells out that there should be negative implications/additional considerations for the players as a result.

Evil characters commit acts that have consequences. It is far more likely that a group of evil characters will incur the wrath of the local king, the city constabulary, or a nearby order of knighthood that will hunt them down for their crimes. Soon, the places normally considered safe by PCs—namely, towns and cities—are anything but safe. This means that over the long term, evil characters must become self-sufficient. They have to be able to provide their own places to live outside normal, civilized society. They must learn to work outside standard circles, obtain their needed supplies in a different way, and gain information through new channels. Even if the evil PCs work hard to avoid these implications (using disguises, covering up their evil acts, and so on), the very act of disguising their evil is still a point of departure from a traditional campaign.

And the Conclusion at the end of the book reiterates that BoVD is not attempting to "glorify evil." A game that does, where truly evil acts like the ones I mentioned above face fewer obstacles and zero consequences, would be a problem for me.

137beth

2015-09-30, 11:39 AM

The biggest problem with alignment, by the widest of imaginable margins, is that people want it to be simple when it's not.

Number two is not being familiar with all of the relevant rules

Number three is being unable to separate the concepts of alignment and morality.

Number four; inability to set aside personal biases when the game rules say a thing is or isn't good/evil and you disagree.

Fifth, but certainly not last, is trying to hold characters responsible for the actions of other people in some weird "aligned by association" setup that makes no gods blasted sense.

Once you get past each of these, the alignment system actually can enhance a game greatly if you choose to make it a central feature.

It's too bad most people trip over at least one of the above mentioned problems.
The issue with alignment is that while it can be used well, it is explained in such a way so that most people end up misinterpreting it and so it ends up causing more problems than it solves.

Sounds kind of fun to me. Playing a backwards, racist hick in a strange universe would be entertaining.

Again, most people don't have an issue separating the game from real life.
What I (and probably xBlackWolfx, though I obviously can't speak for him) find objectionable is not the act of playing a fictional racist character, but when the real player (not the fictional character) then describes their character as "Objectively Good" in the 'totally objective alignment system'. At that point, you've crossed the line from fictional racism to real racism. On the one hand, you can play a terrible person in a fictional story. Your fictional character might even believe they are Good. On the other hand, if you, the real person, start describing your character as Good on your supposedly-'objective' morality scale, you are endorsing the character's actions.
Unfortunately, many people who play paladins do just that: play terribly racist characters and continue to insist that their character is 'objectively good'. And many DMs encourage such behavior.

Boci

2015-09-30, 11:40 AM

And the Conclusion at the end of the book reiterates that BoVD is not attempting to "glorify evil."

To which I ask, whose are the authors trying to convince, the reader, or themselves? Okay, maybe "glorify" isn't the right word, but it certainly revels in it. Otherwise they wouldn't have designed a magical item whose creation can be summarized as:

"A mage wanted to rape his two daughters, but decided instead to rape two of his slaves, after altering their physical forms to resemble his two daughters."

A game that does, where truly evil acts like the ones I mentioned above face fewer obstacles and zero consequences, would be a problem for me.

To me, before anything else though, that just unbelievable. Of course evil actions have their consequences, so do good action, even neutral actions. Actions have consequences.

ComaVision

2015-09-30, 11:51 AM

Unfortunately, many people who play paladins do just that: play terribly racist characters and continue to insist that their character is 'objectively good'. And many DMs encourage such behavior.

It just so happens that I'm playing such a Paladin! I've killed every goblin I've come across because they detect as evil and there is nothing in the world to suggest that they are in any way redeemable.

You'll be pleased to learn that I did find good orcs and giants, so they haven't been wiped out wholesale.

I'm sorry I'm such a horrible racist. I guess I may as well get a swastika tattooed on my chest now.

xBlackWolfx

2015-09-30, 11:53 AM

@137ben Honestly, I just had a problem with people playing evil characters in general. But when you think about it, that is actually pretty stupid. I mean, the DM has to portray the villain characters afterall. Why can't the players? And writers of course talk about villains all the time. Often the villains are just as detailed and though-out as the heroes, if not more so.

I guess the problem honestly is depicting things like this as morally right even when they're not. Oh, and the paladin thing, the goblins webcomic poked fun at this once (note that i haven't read the comic in years, so my info may be out of date). The comic featured a paladin villain who would travel around murdering orcs and goblins and whatnot. He even murdered children. At one point, he finds I believe a human (or at least non-monster) child that was adopted by a bunch of orcs he just slaughtered. He kills the child, justifying it as 'he must kill even potential evil'. The goblin characters later point out that this kind of behavior would cause him to lose his status as a paladin (the characters in the comic are aware they live in a role-playing game, at one point they even look at some character sheets for some heroes who are coming to raid their camp).

Nifft

2015-09-30, 11:56 AM

He even murdered children. At one point, he finds I believe a human (or at least non-monster) child that was adopted by a bunch of orcs he just slaughtered. He kills the child, justifying it as 'he must kill even potential evil'.

Children are the most pure form of evil in our world.

I say this as an experienced babysitter.

ComaVision

2015-09-30, 12:08 PM

I guess the problem honestly is depicting things like this as morally right even when they're not. Oh, and the paladin thing, the goblins webcomic poked fun at this once (note that i haven't read the comic in years, so my info may be out of date). The comic featured a paladin villain who would travel around murdering orcs and goblins and whatnot. He even murdered children. At one point, he finds I believe a human (or at least non-monster) child that was adopted by a bunch of orcs he just slaughtered. He kills the child, justifying it as 'he must kill even potential evil'. The goblin characters later point out that this kind of behavior would cause him to lose his status as a paladin (the characters in the comic are aware they live in a role-playing game, at one point they even look at some character sheets for some heroes who are coming to raid their camp).

To my knowledge, that was never explained. The Dwarf is undead or something though, you get to see him with his helmet knocked off later. It would've been nice to actually have the explanation for all that.

smcmike

2015-09-30, 12:10 PM

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? Exploring the anatomy of hatred is, to me at least, a fascinating concept, and frankly from I've heard about the KKK, their structure is intriguing. They have titles like Grandwizard and Dragon, and I've heard members say that associating with black people is fine, but marrying them isn't and thus they don't consider themselves racist, with is an interesting ideology to explore.

Sounds kind of fun to me. Playing a backwards, racist hick in a strange universe would be entertaining.

Again, most people don't have an issue separating the game from real life.

Yeah, I find this totally icky.

When you tie it in with the KKK, you are explicitly talking about real world racism. As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty similar to dessing up in Nazi paraphernalia and "playing" death camp. Also, building a campaign around harassing and murdering innocents in order to advance a goal of racial oppression sounds like a pretty crappy plot, as campaigns go.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't play a racist character who hates orcs or dwarves or whatever. That's fine. Just don't tell me your campaign is modeled on the KKK, but that any connections I draw between it and real-world racism are just me being sensitive.

Even when these ideologies are brought in and explicitly labeled as the bad guys, this can be problematic, as it can be using very real death and oppression as a sort of cheap and unearned way to juice up a plot. Tarantino's takes on slavery and Nazism are great examples of this. I liked them both quite a lot, but they made me uncomfortable - which is part of what I liked about them.

Again, as a necessary disclaimer: I'm not impugning your motives. I agree that the ideologies and structures of racism can be fascinating to study, and I'm sure you aren't suggesting such a campaign out of any real world racial animus.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 12:19 PM

To which I ask, whose are the authors trying to convince, the reader, or themselves? Okay, maybe "glorify" isn't the right word, but it certainly revels in it. Otherwise they wouldn't have designed a magical item whose creation can be summarized as:

"A mage wanted to rape his two daughters, but decided instead to rape two of his slaves, after altering their physical forms to resemble his two daughters."

As long as that mage is either going to the Lower Planes or is forced to take various measures to keep himself from doing so, portrayals of such depravity are fine. If Evil had no rewards at all then its allure would make no sense. Short term gains aren't an issue.

But if that mage did such a thing and then made it to Celestia without any form of sincere repentance (possibly including the destruction or attempted destruction of his creation), that would be a problem.

To me, before anything else though, that just unbelievable. Of course evil actions have their consequences, so do good action, even neutral actions. Actions have consequences.

I meant negative ones, on balance.

Boci

2015-09-30, 12:20 PM

Yeah, I find this totally icky.

When you tie it in with the KKK, you are explicitly talking about real world racism. As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty similar to dessing up in Nazi paraphernalia and "playing" death camp.

Surely roleplying a KKK member is similar to roleplaying a Nazi, dunno why you're making the jump to dress up. Is roleplaying a mage and occultic ritualist pretty similar to donning a gown and going out into the the woods to cast a spell in RL?

Also, building a campaign around harassing and murdering innocents in order to advance a goal of racial oppression sounds like a pretty crappy plot, as campaigns go.

Sure, which is why that probably wouldn't be the plot. Since this is a D&D thread, to give an example specific to that, the plot would involve a party where one or member members in addition to being adventurers are also member of the KKK, or the in game fantasy equivalent.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't play a racist character who hates orcs or dwarves or whatever. That's fine. Just don't tell me your campaign is modeled on the KKK, but that any connections I draw between it and real-world racism are just me being sensitive.

If the racist character is modeled off the KKK then of course there's real world parallels, I don't think anyone is debating that, just the notion that any in game racism must be linked to real world racism.

Amphetryon

2015-09-30, 12:23 PM

It seems to me that as soon as you remove the possibility from the game that some creatures are just Evil by their nature, you remove killing enemies as a viable first alternative to any conflict. A reasonable argument could even be made that you remove killing enemies as a viable alternative at all, since those you killed were acting as a result of complicated socioeconomic pressures of their own, rather than malice, and by killing them you demonstrated a complete lack of willingness to empathize and reach an equitable solution.

At that point, one is basically labeling all of the shiny weapons, armors, offensive spells, an indeed the entire Combat section of the PHb as a giant TRAP designed to let the DM forcibly change the PCs to Evil.

Personally, that's not the D&D game I'd prefer to play, most of the time. I'd even venture to say that it's not the game as it's actually designed.

Boci

2015-09-30, 12:30 PM

As long as that mage is either going to the Lower Planes or is forced to take various measures to keep himself from doing so, portrayals of such depravity are fine. If Evil had no rewards at all then its allure would make no sense. Short term gains aren't an issue.

But if that mage did such a thing and then made it to Celestia without any form of sincere repentance (possibly including the destruction or attempted destruction of his creation), that would be a problem.

Fair enough, this was more to do with my objection to the authors having their cake and eating it by being incredibly immature showing no restraint when it came to writing the book but then sandwitching it between two PSA disclaimers about how evil is best in moderation or something.

The mage who made Despoiler of Flesh is never said as going to Hell, but we can all guess that what happens to him.

I meant negative ones, on balance.

Can evil PCs get a happy ending that doesn't involve redemption? They successfully crush those who opposed them, outlaw the various good religions in the land, instituting instead their religion as the only state faith, with a loyal army to keep the population under control with a puppet king who is little more than an instrument of their will, game ends with the party sitting down around a table, enjoying a well earned glass of brandy?

At that point, one is basically labeling all of the shiny weapons, armors, offensive spells, an indeed the entire Combat section of the PHb as a giant TRAP designed to let the DM forcibly change the PCs to Evil.

That's a bit harsh. A more realistic take on morality doesn't have to result in alignment traps. A crap DM may, but a crap DM can ruin almost any aspect of the game.

Sometimes shades of gray morality can be used to add a new dynamic to a plot hook of "the orcs and elves are fighting" to "we're good? we side with the elves then".

Psyren

2015-09-30, 12:36 PM

Can evil PCs get a happy ending that doesn't involve redemption? They successfully crush those who opposed them, outlaw the various good religions in the land, instituting instead their religion as the only state faith, with a loyal army to keep the population under control with a puppet king who is little more than an instrument of their will, game ends with the party sitting down around a table, enjoying a well earned glass of brandy?

Of course they can. And then the storytellers stop talking (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html), thus we never have to show whatever comeuppance they may get onscreen. But so long as the game system itself says "this is what generally happens to evil folks" then I'm fine.

Boci

2015-09-30, 12:39 PM

Of course they can. And then the storytellers stop talking (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html), thus we never have to show whatever comeuppance they may get onscreen. But so long as the game system itself says "this is what generally happens to evil folks" then I'm fine.

Okay, but why does there have to be an implication of off screen comeuppance when the good character victory scene presumably won't have them?

Amphetryon

2015-09-30, 12:41 PM

That's a bit harsh. A more realistic take on morality doesn't have to result in alignment traps. A crap DM may, but a crap DM can ruin almost any aspect of the game.

Given enemies that are never, under any circumstances, intrinsically Evil, please describe a scenario where attacking the enemy with lethal force is the Good first option. It's not a soldier following orders, because most stories I know give soldiers the authority, even the responsibility, to refuse to obey unethical/immoral orders. It's not defense of one's home/homeland, because the marauders have motives besides 'Rape, Murder, Arson, and Rape' as the reason for invasion; the Good first option is to find a peaceable solution rather than a violent one when confronted with other moral beings who have been put in a position of making immoral choices.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 12:45 PM

Okay, but why does there have to be an implication of off screen comeuppance when the good character victory scene presumably won't have them?

There doesn't, in fact a sufficiently powerful evil party could remake the entire cosmology such that evil souls are no longer punished or something. But as far as I know, that isn't the default for any setting save Eberron (whose afterlife sucks regardless of alignment.)

Boci

2015-09-30, 12:48 PM

Given enemies that are never, under any circumstances, intrinsically Evil, please describe a scenario where attacking the enemy with lethal force is the Good first option. It's not a soldier following orders, because most stories I know give soldiers the authority, even the responsibility, to refuse to obey unethical/immoral orders. It's not defense of one's home/homeland, because the marauders have motives besides 'Rape, Murder, Arson, and Rape' as the reason for invasion; the Good first option is to find a peaceable solution rather than a violent one when confronted with other moral beings who have been put in a position of making immoral choices.

Good is not stupid. When marauders are riding towards a village weapons drawn yelling battle cries, you are not obliged to pursue an peaceful option first, even if they were ultimatly driven to raid because of hunger.

Besides, why do you assume a DM intent on a more shades of grey morality won't bend the guidelines of alighment to allow good characters to kill first, say a church sanctioned assassination? Even if they don't and you want to argue non of the above are Good, they aren't neccissarily evil either. There's still the middle ground of neutral.

Tuvarkz

2015-09-30, 12:48 PM

Amphetryon

2015-09-30, 12:53 PM

Good is not stupid. When marauders are riding towards a village weapons drawn yelling battle cries, you are not obliged to pursue an peaceful option first, even if they were ultimatly driven to raid because of hunger.

Besides, why do you assume a DM intent on a more shades of grey morality won't bend the guidelines of alighment to allow good characters to kill first, say a church sanctioned assassination? Even if they don't and you want to argue non of the above are Good, they aren't neccissarily evil either. There's still the middle ground of neutral.

Are you really saying that attempting a peaceful solution to armed conflict is stupid? Is that really what you intended to say?

Boci

2015-09-30, 12:57 PM

Are you really saying that attempting a peaceful solution to armed conflict is stupid? Is that really what you intended to say?

In some situations? Yes. You don't try to negotiate with the serial killer who broke into your house and is charging at you brandishing a butcher's cleaver.

Plus, why are you only interested in killing first? It is boring to attempt diplomacy but occasionally have such attempt break down and fail, and then needing to resort to violence? Is the enjoyment of the combat ruined because you didn't get to open with fireball?

xBlackWolfx

2015-09-30, 01:07 PM

smcmike

2015-09-30, 01:12 PM

Given enemies that are never, under any circumstances, intrinsically Evil, please describe a scenario where attacking the enemy with lethal force is the Good first option. It's not a soldier following orders, because most stories I know give soldiers the authority, even the responsibility, to refuse to obey unethical/immoral orders. It's not defense of one's home/homeland, because the marauders have motives besides 'Rape, Murder, Arson, and Rape' as the reason for invasion; the Good first option is to find a peaceable solution rather than a violent one when confronted with other moral beings who have been put in a position of making immoral choices.

This isn't a real question, is it? The only scenario in which you find lethal force to be morally justified is when the target of that force is intrinsically evil? (not even plain old "evil," but "intrinsically evil!")

I guess it depends on your definition of "first option." Couldn't a good soldier say "I'd prefer a peaceful option, but I don't see any," then get on with business?

If the only thing that makes your "good" character's actions justifiable is the race of the enemy, that seems pretty problematic to me.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 01:18 PM

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 01:23 PM

I think the hobby can be improved by not labeling races by alignment.

Want to have evil societies? Okay, fine, but that's not what we're actually doing in many of our books. Races and species are getting labelled, not cultures. Why not just say that a society is Evil, rather than label the race in the Monster Manual?

Want to have an evil orc horde that's heroic to kill? Sure, we can have that. Why not just have the orc horde do something evil instead instead of just saying that they're guilty by virtue of their species?
The Giant said something fairly similar:

The Giant on alignments in the MM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12743252&postcount=511)

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 01:25 PM

This is pretty harsh and also overly simplistic. While it's true that elves and orcs don't have to be a commentary on IRL attitudes to race, society etc., it does no harm to acknowledge that they can be, and very often are (even unintentionally.) After all, orcs and elves may be fictional, but they were devised by designers who are not for an audience that is not, at the very least to resonate with our own experiences, if not speak to them directly.

Our mutual benefactor The Giant put it best:

I'll gladly acknowledge that the game -can- be used that way. Of course it can. What I object to is the idea that it's inherent and inextricable to -any- form of fiction. I also object to the Giant's implied view that fiction without deeper meaning is somehow qualitatively better than "petty escapism." Life is full of drama and ethical concerns and all of that bother. I take great offense at the idea that I'm somehow doing something wrong by not including it in my relaxation pass-times like reading fantasy novels and playing RPG's. Yes, it is escapism but in a world full of stresses that's hardly petty.

Not only does the book have a sort section on how to run an evil campaign at the end of it (which two variants, one in which the they get their comeuppance from a NPC party of good adventurers and one in which they don't), I also don't give much credit to author intent in a book which has the disclaimer "This book is not an excuse to turn your game into a dreary slog through the bowels of utter depravity" and then proceeds to be the most terrible written (from a fluff standpoint, the mechanics are cool), "lol so dark, me so mature" book on evil I have ever read to this date.

The entire purpose of the book was to describe evil at its worst in as many ways as the author could think of and put mechanics to it. Including constant reminders that you don't have to use all of them and/or mostly non-evil options would've been a waste of word space and outside the scope of the book, respectively. The contents of the work are bookended with reminders that this is primarily a DM book for making villains truly heinous. What could've reasonably been done differently without going outside the book's intended scope or short-changing just how vile evil can be?

The issue with alignment is that while it can be used well, it is explained in such a way so that most people end up misinterpreting it and so it ends up causing more problems than it solves.

Every time I ever see arguments brought up about it, I invariably see at least one of the flaws I mentioned. Probably the most egregious of these is that people take a thing being mentioned in the BoVD at all as an indication that that behavior is, itself, evil rather than being a behavior associated with evil. It's a fine distinction but an important one and -many, many- people miss it. I was serious about that first one being the biggest problem by far.

What I (and probably xBlackWolfx, though I obviously can't speak for him) find objectionable is not the act of playing a fictional racist character, but when the real player (not the fictional character) then describes their character as "Objectively Good" in the 'totally objective alignment system'. At that point, you've crossed the line from fictional racism to real racism. On the one hand, you can play a terrible person in a fictional story. Your fictional character might even believe they are Good. On the other hand, if you, the real person, start describing your character as Good on your supposedly-'objective' morality scale, you are endorsing the character's actions.

Racism is not evil in D&D. It's a common enough character flaw in the game but an otherwise good character who murders goblins on sight may well still ping on a detect good scan. Being subject to a character flaw gives a character depth but, unless it's his sole, defining characteristic, it is still possible for him to overcome it and be a good aligned character.

Unfortunately, many people who play paladins do just that: play terribly racist characters and continue to insist that their character is 'objectively good'. And many DMs encourage such behavior.

Smite on sight paladins can be problematic because they make nuance impossible. Nevermind the classically evil races, such characters tend to treat their own race the same if they ping the evil-dar. If, however, the game is just a beat down the door, kill the thing, and take its stuff bit of escapism where nuance is neither needed nor wanted -you- become the problem by getting all up in arms about something the group is using as a target designator, at best, instead of a story-telling tool.

Read; it's not racism, it's a unique to fantasy form of -ism; something like alignmentism or maybe even alignment supremacy since, in the game's cosmology as presented, all four alignments are equal cosmic forces that must be in balance for the world to function properly.

Amphetryon

2015-09-30, 01:25 PM

This isn't a real question, is it? The only scenario in which you find lethal force to be morally justified is when the target of that force is intrinsically evil? (not even plain old "evil," but "intrinsically evil!")

I guess it depends on your definition of "first option." Couldn't a good soldier say "I'd prefer a peaceful option, but I don't see any," then get on with business?

If the only thing that makes your "good" character's actions justifiable is the race of the enemy, that seems pretty problematic to me.

I specified 'first option'. It's a deliberate distinction.

EDIT TO ADD: If a Character doesn't first attempt, rather than just conceive, the nonviolent option, then that Character is merely paying it lip-service. Paying lip-service to, and then willfully declining to attempt, the Good option is rarely the hallmark of Good Characters, if ever.

Boci

2015-09-30, 01:26 PM

I think this thread is getting caught up in persecution complexes. The discussion isn't about who is or isn't a bad person... or at least I think it shouldn't be.

Then why were you demanding we justify having racist elves in our game and claiming Kelb was proving PMxBlackWolfx's point about racism?

The entire purpose of the book was to describe evil at its worst in as many ways as the author could think of and put mechanics to it. Including constant reminders that you don't have to use all of them and/or mostly non-evil options would've been a waste of word space and outside the scope of the book, respectively. The contents of the work are bookended with reminders that this is primarily a DM book for making villains truly heinous. What could've reasonably been done differently without going outside the book's intended scope or short-changing just how vile evil can be?

1. I don't have to assume the premise for the book was a good idea, and I don't. A book on evil is good idea. A book on ta serious of the worst things the author could think of thrown together into a 200 page stream is not. See Champion of Ruin for a book with more useful evil fluff.

2. Having said that, the disclaimers, "not an excuse to turn your game into a dreary slog through the bowels of utter depravity" was the thing that was pushing it.

Nifft

2015-09-30, 01:27 PM

I'm not saying evil-doers shouldn't be killed, I'm saying that its not right (or realistic even) for all members of one species to be assumed as evil.

In some settings, you'd be correct.

In other settings, you'd be wrong.

Not all games are meant for all people.

However, I'm a bit curious -- if you like playing the outcast alien inhuman "monster" races, and you dislike the inhuman "good" races, wouldn't it ruin your own type of fun to make the "monster" races equally "good"? Isn't one aspect of your type of fun that you're the special misunderstood snowflake with all the moral high-ground over the prejudiced ignorant masses? Removing the prejudice and ignorance from those masses seems like it would spoil that aspect.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 01:30 PM

Then why were you demanding we justify having racist elves in our game

No such thing was ever demanded. Hence me thinking that there's a persecution complex involved here. I would really appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth. :smallannoyed:

Here's what I actually said about racist elves:

I said that Agelong was a thing, and described what Agelong was, and said that I felt the example spoke for itself. In a later response to you, I explicitly clarified that I did not feel that depicting in-character racists was the problem.

OldTrees1

2015-09-30, 01:31 PM

I think the conversation should be about how we can make the hobby better. So, I'll start on that.

I think the hobby can be improved by not labeling races by alignment.

-snipping good examples-

Want to say that something is Evil? Make an effort to show rather than merely tell. This is just a general rule of good writing. Evil should not merely be an informed attribute (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute).

Well said.

Let's examine this under some of the various ways DMs handle alignment:

1) The "forget alignment" DM
Does not notice a change.

2) The "morality -> alignment" DM
Makes sense, this allows for when WotC doesn't know what they are talking about.

3) The "alignment is an arbitrary team tag" DM
Huh. I guess I have to decide my own tags, makes more work for me but it still works.

So while this proposed change is not universally beneficial, it is not a net negative either.

Boci

2015-09-30, 01:32 PM

No such thing was ever demanded. Hence me thinking that there's a persecution complex involved here.

Then what did you mean by "Now consider the implications of a gamer enthusiastically making that sort of statement,"?

EDIT TO ADD: If a Character doesn't first attempt, rather than just conceive, the nonviolent option, then that Character is merely paying it lip-service. Paying lip-service to, and then willfully declining to attempt, the Good option is rarely the hallmark of Good Characters, if ever.

Being good doesn't mean automatically giving obviously evil creatures a chance at the expense of innocent lives.

No such thing was ever demanded. Hence me thinking that there's a persecution complex involved here. I would really appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth. :smallannoyed:

I would really apreciate it if you stopped denying what you said and acknowledged your mistakes, like ommitted the word "excuse" in Agelong fluff and evidently being unable to back up the claim that orks are the same as humans by Greyhawk cannon.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 01:36 PM

Then what did you mean by "Now consider the implications of a gamer enthusiastically making that sort of statement,"?

I was talking about a player making that statement out of character, not a character making that statement.

Edit: Some stuff was added in the previous post after I replied (or perhaps while I was replying? Whatever).

I would really apreciate it if you stopped denying what you said

I have not denied saying anything that I have said. :smallannoyed:

If you want to show what I said, might I suggest simply quoting my text instead of paraphrasing? I feel that you are paraphrasing me inaccurately and, as a result, putting your own words in my mouth.

and evidently being unable to back up the claim that orks are the same as humans by Greyhawk cannon.

There's the paraphrasing again. Okay, first off, my position is that they are similar to humans, not literally the same. Second off, evidenced by... what, exactly? The fact that I haven't yet taken the time to answer that particular question? The fact that I haven't taken the time to answer a question doesn't mean I do not possess an answer for that question. :smallsigh:

Orcs display human universal facial expressions, a human range of emotions, human-like locomotion, primate body structure, human social mechanics, human speech capability, cultures that resemble real human ones, human-like size, check the boxes on human cultural universals like dance and music, display human reasoning skills, lust for human mates, and even bear viable offspring with humans. These aren't starfish aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens), here.

Boci

2015-09-30, 01:37 PM

I was talking about a player making that statement out of character, not a character making that statement.

Okay, and why bring that up? Do you also double check someone playing a street thief rogue isn;t a real life thief?

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 01:42 PM

Racism is not evil in D&D. It's a common enough character flaw in the game but an otherwise good character who murders goblins on sight may well still ping on a detect good scan. Being subject to a character flaw gives a character depth but, unless it's his sole, defining characteristic, it is still possible for him to overcome it and be a good aligned character.

"Bigoted to the point of committing out-and-out Murder" and "Good-aligned" don't really go together - murder is, after all, "one of the most evil acts a character can commit".

Bigotry in general is problematic with Good:

Eberron: The Forge of War p 108:

Bigotry/Prejudice

"You don't like, and don't trust, members of your hated group. At best, you ignore them when possible. More likely, you are actively rude and off-putting, perhaps even prone to violent outbursts. You have no interest in dealing with these people, negotiating with them, or cooperating with them; you'd rather see them all go away, or even all dead.

It cannot be stressed enough that in a game of heroism, as Dungeons and Dragons is normally played, this is not an appropriate attitude for a good-aligned character."

Killer Angel

2015-09-30, 01:43 PM

I'm not saying evil-doers shouldn't be killed, I'm saying that its not right (or realistic even) for all members of one species to be assumed as evil.

If a species feeds on intelligent beings (Mind Flayer), it's hard to not judge them as evil.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 01:44 PM

I think this thread is getting caught up in persecution complexes. The discussion isn't about who is or isn't a bad person... or at least I think it shouldn't be. Laying blame is irrelevant to me. I think the conversation should be about how we can make the hobby better.

So, I'll start on that.

I think the hobby can be improved by not labeling races by alignment.

Want to have evil societies? Okay, fine, but that's not what we're actually doing in many of our books. Races and species are getting labelled, not cultures. Why not just say that a society is Evil, rather than label the race in the Monster Manual?

Want to have an evil orc horde that's heroic to kill? Sure, we can have that. Why not just have the orc horde do something evil instead instead of just saying that they're guilty by virtue of their species?

Want to have an escapist fantasy where you go murderhoboing about? Okay, fine, but don't start saying out of character that the murderhobos are sympathetic heroes and the victims are eeevil and totally deserved it for being filthy goblin vermin.

Want to have a society that's mostly full of evil people but has a few good apples? Okay. Don't say that the race is Evil despite its exceptions. The idea that "exceptions prove the rule" is used all too commonly in real life racist screeds. In logic, exceptions falsify a rule.

Want to have your elves be racist? Okay, but make sure that the characters are saying racist things, not the out-of-character narrator. So, I shouldn't see the narrator (who is not being presented as an unreliable narrator) saying that when goblins use guerilla tactics it's malicious and scheming and cowardly, but that when elves use guerilla tactics it's cautious and clever and bold.

Want to say that something is Evil? Make an effort to show rather than merely tell. This is just a general rule of good writing. Evil should not merely be an informed attribute (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute).

There's an inherent problem with this, from a game design perspective, that's being overlooked here.

While informed attributes as a trope in narrative fictional works is a bit hacky, in gaming they're exceedingly useful for simplifying enemy designation and short-handing what is reasonably expectable from different groups. Stereotyping makes the whole interaction with civil and uncivil races much, much easier for a more hack-and-slash, turn off my concerns over right and wrong, loot the dungeon because it's there style of game.

Not everyone -wants- a game where moral quandries abound at every corner or to explore the depths of the human(oid) condition. Some people just want to slam an axe into the head of something sufficiently different from themselves that they don't have to worry if it was justified or not.

What you're proposing makes a very popular form of escapism much harder for the game to support and -that- is far, far more problematic to my mind than the rights and feelings of beings that, and stay with me here, do not exist.

Boci

2015-09-30, 01:44 PM

"Bigoted to the point of committing out-and-out Murder" and "Good-aligned" don't really go together - murder is, after all, "one of the most evil acts a character can commit".

Bigotry in general is problematic with Good:

But bigoted is "unreasonably attached to a belief". If a race is 90% evil (or however much of a %-tage "every" is), it arguably isn't unreasonable.

Besides, Eberron deliberately subverted this trope with was established fluff in previous worlds like greyhawk and forgotten realms.

smcmike

2015-09-30, 01:48 PM

I specified 'first option'. It's a deliberate distinction.

EDIT TO ADD: If a Character doesn't first attempt, rather than just conceive, the nonviolent option, then that Character is merely paying it lip-service. Paying lip-service to, and then willfully declining to attempt, the Good option is rarely the hallmark of Good Characters, if ever.

I'm a little lost. Do you allow Good characters in your games? How does that work? Simply because their enemies are "inherently evil," whatever that means?

I'm not talking about paying lip service to a nonviolent option, I'm talking about not seeing any nonviolent options. If an enemy army is invading my village and slaughtering everyone they see, what nonviolent option do you suggest? If the party is being hunted by assassins, is a good-aligned character obligated to figure out a way to avoid killing those assassins? Is this any different when those assassins are "evil" orcs rather than simple murderous humans?

Good is not stupid.

As far as just wanting escapism, that's fine, and is pretty easy to do. Either avoid moral dilemmas by signalling that all the bad guys are bad and just not worrying about it, or accept that your character isn't good.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 01:50 PM

Besides, Eberron deliberately subverted this trope with was established fluff in previous worlds like greyhawk and forgotten realms.

The Forge of War comment's worded in a fashion that suggests it applies to D&D in general.

It's not like goblins don't exist as "civilized town residents" in Greyhawk or Faerun, after all.

Boci

2015-09-30, 01:53 PM

The Forge of War comment's worded in a fashion that suggests it applies to D&D in general.

Your free to interpret it that way, but no one is obliged to take something from a setting specific splatbook famous for subverting traditional D&D models and then applying it as their game default.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 01:55 PM

For a more generic "Bigotry is associated with Evil" (LE in this case) quote:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.

OldTrees1

2015-09-30, 01:56 PM

If a species feeds on intelligent beings (Mind Flayer), it's hard to not judge them as evil.

Strangely it is creatures like these that make the most interesting subjects when not slaughtered on sight.

Illithids do not need to feed on intelligent beings despite usually doing so but let's ignore that fact for a more interesting case.

If a creature exists such that it must either eat intelligent beings or perish itself:
1) How did this moral dilemma shape its personality(with multiple subjects they might have responded differently)?
2) What morally permissible options remain for such a creature?
...

Boci

2015-09-30, 01:57 PM

For a more generic "Bigotry is associated with Evil" (LE in this case) quote:

Again, bigotry has an "unreasonable" clause which arguably doesn't apply to "Always Evil" races.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 01:58 PM

"Bigoted to the point of committing out-and-out Murder" and "Good-aligned" don't really go together - murder is, after all, "one of the most evil acts a character can commit".

Bigotry in general is problematic with Good:

I didn't say it was a low hurdle to overcome, just that it can be. It's certainly difficult to keep a paladin from falling that way in a game with a more nuanced, by the books approach to alignment (butcher non-evil goblin, fall) but even that extreme class can work with it unless the DM intentionally forces the issue by including non-evil targets amongst the enemy raiding party or some-such thing.

It's, at least in part, a matter of the expectations of the gaming group as much as anything to do with the rules, setting, and characters in question.

I was talking about a player making that statement out of character, not a character making that statement.

I honestly wouldn't bat an eyelash at a player declaring he hated elves with the burning passion of a thousand exploding suns. Same for orcs, pixies, vampires (sparkly or otherwise) or any other thing that is not a real thing that exists.

Boci

2015-09-30, 02:02 PM

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 02:04 PM

In a sufficiently large metropolis with the death penalty, a Lithid could work as an executioner. If the brains of the recently dead are also acceptable, even smaller cities could sustain multiple lithids even, maybe paying for brains in advanced from dying people who want to see their family looked after well.

Another possibility - adventurer. Illithid seeks out situations where they must kill in self-defence or defence of innocents - and their means of killing is brain-extraction.

Boci

2015-09-30, 02:09 PM

Another possibility - adventurer. Illithid seeks out situations where they must kill in self-defence or defence of innocents - and their means of killing is brain-extraction.

Two problems:

1. This is more unreliable. As long as the average deathrate has a buffer before the lithid stares, they will be fairly secured foodwise in the city, less so for an adventurer.

2. Conflict of interest. Lithid adventurers has a interest in not finding peaceful solution. This ties into the above, as a lithid who just thread may be happy to find a peaceful solution, one who had already "skipped a couple of meals" may be a bit eager to jump the gun. Still, morally a better options than humanoid livestock or the psionic matrix.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 02:19 PM

Strangely it is creatures like these that make the most interesting subjects when not slaughtered on sight.

Illithids do not need to feed on intelligent beings despite usually doing so but let's ignore that fact for a more interesting case.

If a creature exists such that it must either eat intelligent beings or perish itself:
1) How did this moral dilemma shape its personality(with multiple subjects they might have responded differently)?
2) What morally permissible options remain for such a creature?
...

You might like iZombie (https://www.google.com/search?q=iZombie&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). The protagonist must eat brains in order to remain sapient.

Also, a point another poster made about illithids:

Let's talk about Illithids, this'll be fun. According to The Illithiad (shush, bear with me), a mind flayer needs one brain of a month to stay alive - that's bare minimum - and it needs to be from an intelligent creature with the ability to reason (no using Int 4 critters, the mind flayer needs meat). Smart and clever brains taste better. We are told they keep slaves for this, or make raids.

This means one mind flayer, at minimum, needs to kill 12 people a year. Now, since the brains have to be adult brains, they need a maturation period of 16-17 years or more. That means the minimum brain input a mind flayer needs to get to a given brain is about 150 brains. That's a lot of raiding or slave raising. Illithiad also says there's ~100 or more illithids in a given city or town run by them, on top of what the elder brain eats (we'll ignore it for a moment). That's 15,000 brains over the course of 16 years, which may not seem like much, but that's the bare minimum - it's like forcing your entire population to live on unseasoned instant ramen for a decade and a half. In order for your population to maintain that level of consumption, you should probably have about ten times that - you need breeders and educators (you want your brains smart, they need to be tasty) and then you need to keep up their maintenance - feeding them and pumping away their waste is a big job. You also need to house them, can't keep them in cages, it makes for horrible food.

Basically what this means is that you might have a small group of illithids in charge of a huge city-cult devoted to them and devoted to producing smart, intelligent members of the populace who might even petition to be eaten, on top of the rabble-rousers and troublemakers (this is probably why the ancient Gith had high enough numbers to stage a coup and win). Welcome to the city of mind flayers, where health care is free, education is robust and fun, but hey, don't break the law.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 02:22 PM

I'm not saying evil-doers shouldn't be killed, I'm saying that its not right (or realistic even) for all members of one species to be assumed as evil.

For me at least, besides the obvious moral problems, this is immersion breaking. I was reading an actual play of a game of basic fantasy, it seemed interesting (though a bit too mundane for my tastes), but one thing that really took me out of it was the behavior of the goblins they fought. They just acted all evil for no apparent reason other than to be evil. I mean, at least give them a motivation besides 'i kidnapped the girl bc I'm evil ho-ho-ho!'. I mean, even when faced with the prospect of death they wouldn't reveal where the girl was, even though there was nothing for them to lose if they told, and nothing to gain if they didn't. I also dislike how the book describes goblins as being 'vile creatures' or something like that. Even though they obviously show intelligence, I mean the picture in the book shows one wearing some fairly well-kept armor!

Yes, this would be in character for a psychopathic character, but an entire species that is like this for no apparent reason??? That just takes me out of the game.

And yes, I'm the kind of guy who plays skyrim without doing the dark brotherhood questline, and I don't go around just killing things for no reason. I only really make an exception of bandits, wolves, or anything that tries to kill you if you get too close (though if I run into a bandit camp and they tell me to back off, I normally do unless they have a bounty on their head).

Question:

You are aware that almost no creature of the humanoid or monstrous humanoid type (I'd have to double check the latter but I'm fairly certain) is actually listed as always evil, right? That tag is typically reserved for creatures that are pretty alien compared to humans; dragons, fiends, fey, the odd magical beast, etc.

The example we've mostly been harping on, orcs, are listed as "often chaotic evil." Just shy of the majority of the race falls into chaotic evil while most of the remaining majority is split between CN and NE with some, not necessarily insubstantial, portion being one of the remaining alignments.

Most of the time you're excused from killing orcs as enemy combatants unless you're raiding their villiages and warrens, slaughtering non-combatants; something I don't see even the most alignment agnostic DM letting slide for supposedly good characters. The DM's that let that sort of thing slide tend to ignore alignment altogether as a couple of nigh meaningless letters on the character sheet.

smcmike

2015-09-30, 02:23 PM

Lithids are bizarre enough that they don't draw the same sort of scrutiny for metaphors. It actually annoys me quite a bit when shows like True Blood use vampires as metaphors for bigotry. Vampires are predators. The proper response to a vampire is a stake.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 02:24 PM

Boci

2015-09-30, 02:25 PM

The DM's that let that sort of thing slide tend to ignore alignment altogether as a couple of nigh meaningless letters on the character sheet.

They probably do, although I know one who doesn't. He argues it is the duty of human to slay all orcs, kobolds and goblins, completely compatible with a good alignment. We tend to disagree a lot about the philosophy of world building.

Lithids are bizarre enough that they don't draw the same sort of scrutiny for metaphors. It actually annoys me quite a bit when shows like True Blood use vampires as metaphors for bigotry. Vampires are predators.

So are humans. Then again I guess few would argue that a bull killing a farmer wasn't self-defense.

I think what makes it petty is the notion that you can have a species - even a fictional one - that is otherwise sapient and intelligent, susceptible to Diplomacy and outright redemption, yet at the same time able to be butchered en masse without qualm or ethical concerns. It's like, why bother making them humanoids with an Int score at all if they're going to be bared from using those things?

I imagine because LotR. Or at least one interpretation of the orcs within.

Elderand

2015-09-30, 02:30 PM

Questioning the morality of killing a creature whose existence is dependent upon feeding on inteligent creature is the wrong question to ask.

The real question is this: Is it really worse to kill an inteligent creature over a non inteligent one ? I posit that it isn't, it's just humanocentrism that make us say that, we are inteligent so of course we think it's worse. And not only is it humanocentrism, it's very hypocritical because it's not even applied logicaly. If it were it would be far less of a crime to murder an infant or a mentaly challenged person than it is to murder an able bodied adult. People tend to think it's the opposite.

The whole questions of morality is flawed from the very start because there is no objective morality, just a list of trait we have deemed important because we have them. Morality is neither objective nor impartial.

In the world of dnd, there is an objective good and evil but when you really think about, it's not really. Good, simply, isn't. And Evil isn't either. The alignement system is a grand dictatorial cosmic joke, even from an in universe perspective.

The truth is that in universe there is one side and then there is another side, which side you pick and consider good or evil doesn't really matter.

You can very easily justify being any alignement for the greater good, that's how unobjective this objective system really is. There is no objectivity to be found anywhere, just bias, assumption and things that are favored or not.

Once you accept that, there is no issue with race being labelled as always evil, because evil is just a word, just a way to signify these people are on the opposite side from the one you are expected to pick. Might as well classify them by randomly assigned colors. The drazi electoral system isn't so crazy afterall.

OldTrees1

2015-09-30, 02:33 PM

Two problems:

1. This is more unreliable. As long as the average deathrate has a buffer before the lithid stares, they will be fairly secured foodwise in the city, less so for an adventurer.

2. Conflict of interest. Lithid adventurers has a interest in not finding peaceful solution. This ties into the above, as a lithid who just thread may be happy to find a peaceful solution, one who had already "skipped a couple of meals" may be a bit eager to jump the gun. Still, morally a better options than humanoid livestock or the psionic matrix.

If you combine both methods (slow&secure with fast&risky) then the result could support a larger group or at least have more leeway for droughts.

You might like iZombie (https://www.google.com/search?q=iZombie&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). The protagonist must eat brains in order to remain sapient.

Also, a point another poster made about illithids:

Nice links.

Lithids are bizarre enough that they don't draw the same sort of scrutiny for metaphors. It actually annoys me quite a bit when shows like True Blood use vampires as metaphors for bigotry. Vampires are predators. The proper response to a vampire is a stake.

A stake is a good response to a predator that is trying(now or later) to eat a person without that person's consent. But I don't think being a predator is sufficient, especially since Vampires are one of the easiest predators to feed without inflicting any harm (ghouls are the easiest but it is a tough distinction).

Boci

2015-09-30, 02:34 PM

Seto

2015-09-30, 02:38 PM

I'll gladly acknowledge that the game -can- be used that way. Of course it can. What I object to is the idea that it's inherent and inextricable to -any- form of fiction. I also object to the Giant's implied view that fiction without deeper meaning is somehow qualitatively better than "petty escapism." Life is full of drama and ethical concerns and all of that bother. I take great offense at the idea that I'm somehow doing something wrong by not including it in my relaxation pass-times like reading fantasy novels and playing RPG's. Yes, it is escapism but in a world full of stresses that's hardly petty.

No one is saying you're playing the game wrong. You don't want to place the game under moral scrutiny, and since it's something minor that you do for fun and that doesn't negatively impact anyone, that's completely your prerogative. If you placed everything under moral scrutiny you'd go crazy ; at least, I would, and I don't think it's reasonable to hold oneself to those standards. But please don't be offended when some of us do place the game under moral scrutiny and find it lacking, as if that was an implicit reproach against those who don't. No one is trying to guilt-trip you into doing the same thing ; by all means, turn off your ethical concerns when it comes to the game. I turn off my own ethical concerns about things that you might regard as morally unfortunate. I just don't dismiss the opinion of people whom they are significant to. Not everyone finds the same questions important. Everyone has to pick their battles.

As for literature, escapism and inherent value. I am intimately convinced that trying to get across ethical or political points does not add to the artistic value of a work, but on the contrary often detracts from it. However, I also think that the artistic value of a work is distinct from its entertainment value and its moral value.
You might like reading because of the entertainment value you find in fantasy novel. That's the point of escapism. And it's valid. And I suscribe.
Doesn't change the fact that the moral value of a work that deals with ethical dilemmas, if it's well-handled, will inevitably be greater than the moral value of an escapist work (that's to say, none).
From his declarations on the subject, Rich Burlew's top priority seems to be the moral value of his work, followed by the artistic value and lastly the entertainment value. You have a different value system when it comes to fantasy literature. No big deal.

Amphetryon

2015-09-30, 02:39 PM

I'm a little lost. Do you allow Good characters in your games? How does that work? Simply because their enemies are "inherently evil," whatever that means?

I'm not talking about paying lip service to a nonviolent option, I'm talking about not seeing any nonviolent options. If an enemy army is invading my village and slaughtering everyone they see, what nonviolent option do you suggest? If the party is being hunted by assassins, is a good-aligned character obligated to figure out a way to avoid killing those assassins? Is this any different when those assassins are "evil" orcs rather than simple murderous humans?

Good is not stupid.

As far as just wanting escapism, that's fine, and is pretty easy to do. Either avoid moral dilemmas by signalling that all the bad guys are bad and just not worrying about it, or accept that your character isn't good.
I never said I didn't allow Good in my games. What I said was that removing the notion that some creatures are inherently Evil as an option makes it extremely difficult to justify ever using lethal force as a first option within D&D's morality system. This is particularly the case, in my experience, within 3.X, where the stories a DM helps create with the Players are often more nuanced than Ye Olde Dungeon Crawl that was more popular, in my experience, in prior editions, and where the Alignment issue is a bit less cut-and-dried, as hamishpence ably demonstrates in his posts.

There are plenty of non-violent options available to a D&D Character. There's finding out what is motivating the attacks and solving that issue without bloodshed. There is magic which does no harm (Sleep, Entangle, Color Spray, etc.). There is an array of social Skills which can immediately change an encounter (I do not believe I need to detail how easy it is to do this with Diplomacy here, but I'll point you to other threads where such details exist if need be). There's leaving the battlefield and establishing a new home. There's Subdual damage, as an option when actually engaged. I have no doubt I've left options out. A Character who sees no non-violent options - quoting you: "Couldn't a good soldier say "I'd prefer a peaceful option, but I don't see any," then get on with business?" - is either willfully blind, or woefully unimaginative.

When dealing with sapient, sentient beings who cannot be inherently Evil (because the thread is mainly about the notion that inherently evil sapient, sentient beings shouldn't be a thing), then a Character who declines to explore any of the listed non-violent options is, herself, doing Evil. Note, as an aside, that merely pinging as Evil via Detect Evil is no excuse for lethal force, either, as "Detect, confirm Evil, SMITE!" is widely agreed as a surefire way to make a Paladin fall for Evil deeds.

Boci

2015-09-30, 02:43 PM

When dealing with sapient, sentient beings who cannot be inherently Evil (because the thread is mainly about the notion that inherently evil sapient, sentient beings shouldn't be a thing), then a Character who declines to explore any of the listed non-violent options is, herself, doing Evil.

Unless failure to act immediately would endanger innocent lives, including there own. So people mid-murder spree (or about to begin one) or assassins are all fair game, and you are not obliged to inflict non-lethal damage against them.

Besides, you keep implying the inability for good characters to use lethal force as a first option is somehow bad. Why is that?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 02:43 PM

I think what makes it petty is the notion that you can have a species - even a fictional one - that is otherwise sapient and intelligent, susceptible to Diplomacy and outright redemption, yet at the same time able to be butchered en masse without qualm or ethical concerns. It's like, why bother making them humanoids with an Int score at all if they're going to be bared from using those things?

People frequently treat -humans- as disposable slaughter targets in video games and RPG's. Games don't have to involve ethics or morality at all. Many, many games call on players to have the characters do things they'd never even consider doing in real life and players do so, not only without qualm but while enjoying the doing of it.

That's half the point of escapism for many people. Fantasy makes it easier by removing even the semblance of taking human lives by making the enemies unmistakably "other."

Unless I'm mistaken, his point is less "Kelb's game is doing it wrong" and more like "The D&D game is trying to have its alignment cake and eat it."

The game is, indeed, trying to have its cake and eat it too in an effort to make the broadest range of games possible. Like any other portion of the rules, alignment can be used heavily for more nuanced interactions or glossed over for a simpler game or even outright dropped if you find it entirely undesireable. This is a feature, not a bug.

I actually enjoy a game that takes a more nuanced approach to alignment. I find the system and its interactions with different societal definitions of morality absolutely fascinating. However, I take grievous offense at the idea that someone who has a different preference is "doing it wrong," which is very clearly the position of some of the folks who've commented on this thread.

OldTrees1

2015-09-30, 02:46 PM

Questioning the morality of killing a creature whose existence is dependent upon feeding on inteligent creature is the wrong question to ask.

The real question is this: Is it really worse to kill an inteligent creature over a non inteligent one ? I posit that it isn't, it's just humanocentrism that make us say that, we are inteligent so of course we think it's worse. And not only is it humanocentrism, it's very hypocritical because it's not even applied logicaly. If it were it would be far less of a crime to murder an infant or a mentaly challenged person than it is to murder an able bodied adult. People tend to think it's the opposite.

The whole questions of morality is flawed from the very start because there is no objective morality, just a list of trait we have deemed important because we have them. Morality is neither objective nor impartial.

This gets quite deep into the real world discussion of Ethics and MetaEthics. If I understand the forum rules correctly I can't get into too much detail here.

However the gist of the discussion would be:
There are numerous self consistent theories that have been constructed in circular manner(moral intuitions -> moral theories -> correct moral intuitions -> correct moral theory -> ...) which is the reason for their self-consistency.

However these moral intuitions don't really have a good argument to justify our trust in their accuracy. So this throws all these moral theories into question(faulty premise -> faulty or true conclusion). However when we speak of "Objective Morality" as the concept(2 things that are morally equivalent in every significant detail will have the same moral character if judged) rather than as a particular moral theory, our faulty moral intuitions do not weaken the concept. So while we cannot learn such an Objective Morality via our moral intuitions, we have no support to conclude one does not exist.

TLDR: We(humanity) do not know if their is or is not an Objective Morality therefore we cannot yet conclude if their is or is not an Objective Morality. Oh, and no Moral Theory can be trusted.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 02:54 PM

Spare me.

Relax, no need to get hostile :smalltongue:

People frequently treat -humans- as disposable slaughter targets in video games and RPG's.

Thing is, I'm not a fan of those games either. If it's not self-defense (or in defense of something else that needs defending), I don't feel particularly heroic. This is why murderporn games like Postal and Hatred never appealed to me, though even those at least make an effort of having the protagonist not be sympathetic. And I feel comfortable labeling games like that "petty" too.

That's half the point of escapism for many people. Fantasy makes it easier by removing even the semblance of taking human lives by making the enemies unmistakably "other."

The issue though is that they're not truly "other" if they have families, friends, societies, hopes, dreams etc. The D&D game gave orcs all of those things, and wondering why they bothered is a legitimate line of inquiry.

The game is, indeed, trying to have its cake and eat it too in an effort to make the broadest range of games possible. Like any other portion of the rules, alignment can be used heavily for more nuanced interactions or glossed over for a simpler game or even outright dropped if you find it entirely undesireable. This is a feature, not a bug.

I actually enjoy a game that takes a more nuanced approach to alignment. I find the system and its interactions with different societal definitions of morality absolutely fascinating. However, I take grievous offense at the idea that someone who has a different preference is "doing it wrong," which is very clearly the position of some of the folks who've commented on this thread.

I don't know if you consider me to be one of those folks, but again, I'm not responding to you so much as I am the inherent dissonance of the D&D game itself. It's almost saying "here, put yourself in the shoes of these races, only don't do that and kill them without thinking about it instead."

Elderand

2015-09-30, 02:54 PM

Right, but neither a child or a mentally retarded person are non-intelligent.

Aren't they ? It depends entirely upon your definition of inteligence and last I checked that wasn't settled yet. Infants are about as smart as a dog and far less able to fend for themselves. Is it worse to kill an infant or a dog ? Objectively, neither is worse. One is from our specie and has the potential to contribute to society to a larger degree than the other but that's just, again, morality centered around our own point of view.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should kill infants or mentaly challenged people. My point is that any discussion of morality is based entirely upon a set of core assumption that's going to vary from individual to individual let alone from culture to culture or specie to specie. DnD, far all it's attempt at objective morality is failling hard at it. It's still subjective, it's just that the subjectivity is one degree removed from the real world because there's a bunch of superpowerful cosmic outsider backing either side. But in the end it's still turtles all the way down.

I'll still do what I think is right and fight for it, both in real life and in game. Not because I'm arrogant enough to believe my point of view is more moral or better. But simply because it's my point of view.

Boci

2015-09-30, 02:58 PM

Aren't they ? It depends entirely upon your definition of inteligence and last I checked that wasn't settled yet. Infants are about as smart as a dog and far less able to fend for themselves. Is it worse to kill an infant or a dog ? Objectively, neither is worse. One is from our specie and has the potential to contribute to society to a larger degree than the other but that's just, again, morality centered around our own point of view.

Really? The ability to contribute to society is an objective difference?

atemu1234

2015-09-30, 03:02 PM

Sounds kind of fun to me. Playing a backwards, racist hick in a strange universe would be entertaining.

Again, most people don't have an issue separating the game from real life.

^ This guy gets it.

Lithids are bizarre enough that they don't draw the same sort of scrutiny for metaphors. It actually annoys me quite a bit when shows like True Blood use vampires as metaphors for bigotry. Vampires are predators. The proper response to a vampire is a stake.

^ This guy too.

Elderand

2015-09-30, 03:06 PM

Really? The ability to contribute to society is an objective difference?

Is it ? Why is contributing to society good ? Because society is good ? It certainly is for us
From the point of view of other species society is unimportant or even evil.

No objectivity to be seen here, just our own point of view.

Boci

2015-09-30, 03:13 PM

Is it ? Why is contributing to society good ? Because society is good ? It certainly is for us
From the point of view of other species society is unimportant or even evil.

No objectivity to be seen here, just our own point of view.

Then why are you advocating not killing infants if it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things? Objective moral or not, we all agree killing infants is bad, and universal is good enough.To argue otherwise if to invoke the perfect solution fallacy.

smcmike

2015-09-30, 03:19 PM

I never said I didn't allow Good in my games. What I said was that removing the notion that some creatures are inherently Evil as an option makes it extremely difficult to justify ever using lethal force as a first option within D&D's morality system. This is particularly the case, in my experience, within 3.X, where the stories a DM helps create with the Players are often more nuanced than Ye Olde Dungeon Crawl that was more popular, in my experience, in prior editions, and where the Alignment issue is a bit less cut-and-dried, as hamishpence ably demonstrates in his posts.

There are plenty of non-violent options available to a D&D Character. There's finding out what is motivating the attacks and solving that issue without bloodshed. There is magic which does no harm (Sleep, Entangle, Color Spray, etc.). There is an array of social Skills which can immediately change an encounter (I do not believe I need to detail how easy it is to do this with Diplomacy here, but I'll point you to other threads where such details exist if need be). There's leaving the battlefield and establishing a new home. There's Subdual damage, as an option when actually engaged. I have no doubt I've left options out. A Character who sees no non-violent options - quoting you: "Couldn't a good soldier say "I'd prefer a peaceful option, but I don't see any," then get on with business?" - is either willfully blind, or woefully unimaginative.

When dealing with sapient, sentient beings who cannot be inherently Evil (because the thread is mainly about the notion that inherently evil sapient, sentient beings shouldn't be a thing), then a Character who declines to explore any of the listed non-violent options is, herself, doing Evil. Note, as an aside, that merely pinging as Evil via Detect Evil is no excuse for lethal force, either, as "Detect, confirm Evil, SMITE!" is widely agreed as a surefire way to make a Paladin fall for Evil deeds.

So what is the excuse for GOOD lethal force in your games? If there is always a nonlethal option, and you can't kill something even for being inherently evil....

I like inherent evil just fine. I just don't like inherently evil human-like races. As far as I'm concerned, a paladin that loves staking inherently evil vampires is fine, even if he happens upon them sleeping. He's also fine if he kills a bunch of human bandits in the midst of attacking innocent travelers with lethal force - he could try to scare them off or capture them, I guess, but I don't see any moral imperative to do so. If they run off they'll just kill more innocents, and if he captures them they'll just be killed anyway.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 03:19 PM

Relax, no need to get hostile :smalltongue:

Yeah, sorry about that. I thought better of that and removed it from my post but, apparently, not quick enough.

Thing is, I'm not a fan of those games either. If it's not self-defense (or in defense of something else that needs defending), I don't feel particularly heroic. This is why murderporn games like Postal and Hatred never appealed to me, though even those at least make an effort of having the protagonist not be sympathetic. And I feel comfortable labeling games like that "petty" too.

It's not limited to killing, ya know. Even so, you like what you like and that is your prerogative. The point I'm trying to make is that those games -do- appeal to a fairly sizeable demographic and trying to shut them out by forcing moral considerations down their throats isn't good for anyone.

The issue though is that they're not truly "other" if they have families, friends, societies, hopes, dreams etc. The D&D game gave orcs all of those things, and wondering why they bothered is a legitimate line of inquiry.

Again, it's about having broadest possible appeal. Many DM's never depict these aspects of orcish life and that cements them firmly as "other" to the players while others can take this and run with it to create a more morally ambiguous game where orcish evil is a result of societal and religious pressures that drive most orcs to evil and/or chaos. Both are valid ways to play the game.

I don't know if you consider me to be one of those folks, but again, I'm not responding to you so much as I am the inherent dissonance of the D&D game itself. It's almost saying "here, put yourself in the shoes of these races, only don't do that and kill them without thinking about it instead."

3.X is freakin' schizophrenic on a whole host of issues, not just alignment, in order to make possible as many games and stories as it can. In this particular case, it's not so much do A but, nevermind, do B instead. It's more that you can do A and B in this game. That they're mutually exclusive just means you have to choose one or the other.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 03:22 PM

I imagine because LotR. Or at least one interpretation of the orcs within.

Oh I do know where it came from, but D&D already consciously made the decision to break with LotR in several ways. For example, D&D Orcs form tribal societies and can use magic. Other races like Drow don't have a LotR counterpart at all.

In LotR. the philosophy is different as well. There is one Big Bad (well, one Big Bad and his lieutenant), and orcs are their creation. There is no need for demons in a setting like LotR because the orcs fill that role, they were literally born to be bad. Not so D&D.

So asking why they chose to make their evil races so different from LotR but then treat them as invariably perverted like LotR does, is a legitimate line of inquiry.

The Giant said something fairly similar:

The Giant on alignments in the MM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12743252&postcount=511)

I feel the Giant is very on-point when it comes to this subject, at least every time I've seen him address it.

For instance: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108

And: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120

All of these.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 03:24 PM

Most of the time you're excused from killing orcs as enemy combatants unless you're raiding their villiages and warrens, slaughtering non-combatants; something I don't see even the most alignment agnostic DM letting slide for supposedly good characters. The DM's that let that sort of thing slide tend to ignore alignment altogether as a couple of nigh meaningless letters on the character sheet.

I've seen some arguments in the past that Gygax himself was that kind of DM, shrugging the killing of orc infants off with "Nits make lice".

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 03:25 PM

The Giant said something fairly similar:

The Giant on alignments in the MM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12743252&postcount=511)

I feel the Giant is very on-point when it comes to this subject, at least every time I've seen him address it.

For instance: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108

And: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120

"Nits make lice".

That exact phrase has a very bloody history :smallfrown:

Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians. ... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.
— - Col. John Milton Chivington, talking about why he eradicated all of the children at a military inquiry

Elderand

2015-09-30, 03:27 PM

Then why are you advocating not killing infants if it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things? Objective moral or not, we all agree killing infants is bad, and universal is good enough.To argue otherwise if to invoke the perfect solution fallacy.

Nothing ever makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. So even thinking about the grand scheme of things when considering whether or not to do something is pointless. And you are so far off base with your application of fallacy toward my position it's not even wrong.

The whole point is that anything can be justified, anything at all. In the abscence of objectivity you can only uses axioms and make decision based on those. IE what you feel is right.

The paladin isn't any better than the orc, the demon, the ilithid or the gibbering mouther. They just have a different premises for their decisions.

And something being recognized as being universal is a very crappy justification for anything. What is universal changes overtime.

Much better to simply drop all pretenses and arrogance of morality and simply admit the real reason why you do thinsg, because you think it's right.

There is no need to justify your moral decision because, in truth, you can't.

Boci

2015-09-30, 03:29 PM

I feel the Giant is very on-point when it comes to this subject, at least every time I've seen him address it.

For instance: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108

And: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120

Unless I missed something, these links were already posted, and subject matter discussed. Rich makes some good points, but he is dismissive of those who hold another opinion.

Oh I do know where it came from, but D&D already consciously made the decision to break with LotR in several ways. For example, D&D Orcs form tribal societies and can use magic. Other races like Drow don't have a LotR counterpart at all.

In LotR. the philosophy is different as well. There is one Big Bad (well, one Big Bad and his lieutenant), and orcs are their creation. There is no need for demons in a setting like LotR because the orcs fill that role, they were literally born to be bad. Not so D&D.

So asking why they chose to make their evil races so different from LotR but then treat them as invariably perverted like LotR does, is a legitimate line of inquiry.

A lot of D&D 3E is grandfathered in from previous editions.

There is no need to justify your moral decision because, in truth, you can't.

Just because you can't doesn't mean others can't.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 03:30 PM

That exact phrase has a very bloody history :smallfrown:

This was the thread in question:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

Boci

2015-09-30, 03:33 PM

This was the thread in question:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

Last thing he said about that phrase was:

"Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question."

He dodges the prisoner question because his enemies never surrender because they expect to die and considers pacifism lawful stupid.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 03:37 PM

I've seen some arguments in the past that Gygax himself was that kind of DM, shrugging the killing of orc infants off with "Nits make lice".

He's also the reason we call things like the tomb of horrors gygaxian. The man had a brilliant idea that he and arneson went on to use to make a pass-time we all love but by modern standards he'd be labeled as a terrible DM by many a player.

A character rising above ignominious roots is a common trope for players and writers that use traditionally evil races, see Salvatore's drow mary sue. Why can't a game rise above being created by men who had character flaws? Smacks of sins of the father nonsense to me.

LudicSavant

2015-09-30, 04:00 PM

This was the thread in question:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide :smallbiggrin:

There it is. :smallfrown:

Psyren

2015-09-30, 04:01 PM

A lot of D&D 3E is grandfathered in from previous editions.

I'm aware - but the question I think this thread is about is "should it be?"

Boci

2015-09-30, 04:09 PM

I'm aware - but the question I think this thread is about is "should it be?"

Like most things that effect the feel and tone of the game in such broad strokes and are not covered by hard mechanics, the answer is always going to be "That's depends, does the group like what this does for the game".

Amphetryon for one like it and doesn't seem too keen on tweaking it, whilst you me and plenty of others prefer a more gray areas approach to morals.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 04:13 PM

Like most things that effect the feel and tone of the game in such broad strokes and are not covered by hard mechanics, the answer is always going to be "That's depends, does the group like what this does for the game".

Amphetryon for one like it and doesn't seem too keen on tweaking it, whilst you me and plenty of others prefer a more gray areas approach to morals.

I'm going beyond "should it be at individual tables" though. Rather I'm going to "should it be presented in the base game as it currently is."

The Giant said it more eloquently than me; you thought his posts dismissive and that's fine, but it doesn't settle the issue (if it's even possible to settle.)

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 04:16 PM

I'm aware - but the question I think this thread is about is "should it be?"

Absolutely.

There are players who want a more mechanically robust game that still enjoy the feeling and tropes of the older editions. They do have to adjust to the fact that 3.X feels a bit different (or houserule so it doesn't) in certain mechanical aspects but the societies and setting feeling that are based on those tropes -should- be kept around for those players and others like them to enjoy.

Boci

2015-09-30, 04:19 PM

I'm going beyond "should it be at individual tables" though. Rather I'm going to "should it be presented in the base game as it currently is."

The Giant said it more eloquently than me; you thought his posts dismissive and that's fine, but it doesn't settle the issue (if it's even possible to settle.)

Based on this thread, I think the default work. Adding shades of grey will always require effort, it may be a bit easier if WotC presented orcs in a more complex light, but it would still largely be up to the DM, so why not have the default view the one that means the game works out of the box, especially since this seems to be the view most compatible with adventure models.

Besides, this thread seems to have shown that whilst people wanting moral complexity at best get accused of forging alignment traps for players, people who want less are in danger of being called racist (even if that was limited to the earlier parts of the thread), and that would only get worse if they had to make orks always evil.

Psyren

2015-09-30, 04:22 PM

Absolutely.

There are players who want a more mechanically robust game that still enjoy the feeling and tropes of the older editions. They do have to adjust to the fact that 3.X feels a bit different (or houserule so it doesn't) in certain mechanical aspects but the societies and setting feeling that are based on those tropes -should- be kept around for those players and others like them to enjoy.

And for the record I agree, Drow wouldn't feel like Drow to me without the vast majority of them being vile backstabbing gits for example.

But I do think the game can do a better job of explaining that "Always" doesn't actually mean "always," and "usually" means your chances of rehabilitating them are actually fairly good if you're highly persuasive.

I guess ultimately I can see merit on both sides, and I'd be much more comfortable with exploring the darker side of human nature through gaming if that darker side weren't so plainly evidenced on the news too. That's just me though.

Seto

2015-09-30, 04:28 PM

Besides, this thread seems to have shown that whilst people wanting moral complexity at best get accused of forging alignment traps for players,

At worst. You mean at worst.

Boci

2015-09-30, 04:29 PM

At worst. You mean at worst.

I MAY. I MAY have meant at work worst.

xBlackWolfx

2015-09-30, 06:49 PM

Everyone seems to think what I'm saying is that rpgs shouldn't have villains. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that intelligent beings shouldn't be assumed to be evil just because of their species. That is just plainly and obviously racist. And besides, I see it as lazy. 'I did it because I'm evil ho-ho-ho' just screams of ineptitude. What, couldn't you seriously come up with a better motivation besides 'I did an evil thing because I'm a goblin'???

And like I said before, I prefer highly pluralistic worlds. If that means that goblins and orcs have to be playable races, so be it. Besides, I actually think its more interesting that way. I for one never really cared for the standard races, besides maybe halflings (at least, until I found out they were hobbits with the serial number scratched off). On that nwn server I mostly played drow, both evil and good. Yes, you can have llothite drow, but that doesn't mean all drow should be branded as evil. That's like saying all whites are white-supremists, even though that is obviously not true. Its illogical and really detracts from the game for me.

atemu1234

2015-09-30, 07:41 PM

Everyone seems to think what I'm saying is that rpgs shouldn't have villains. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that intelligent beings shouldn't be assumed to be evil just because of their species. That is just plainly and obviously racist. And besides, I see it as lazy. 'I did it because I'm evil ho-ho-ho' just screams of ineptitude. What, couldn't you seriously come up with a better motivation besides 'I did an evil thing because I'm a goblin'???

And like I said before, I prefer highly pluralistic worlds. If that means that goblins and orcs have to be playable races, so be it. Besides, I actually think its more interesting that way. I for one never really cared for the standard races, besides maybe halflings (at least, until I found out they were hobbits with the serial number scratched off). On that nwn server I mostly played drow, both evil and good. Yes, you can have llothite drow, but that doesn't mean all drow should be branded as evil. That's like saying all whites are white-supremists, even though that is obviously not true. Its illogical and really detracts from the game for me.

Okay, let me start from the beginning -

In no game have I ever played has there been a situation where the players just 'went after' a creature because of its race. They need to be hooked in, usually by actually evil actions they have good evidence occurred.

The reasoning behind creatures being 'often' to 'always' evil is usually cultural - goblins aren't evil because they're goblins, unless your DM is an absolute moron. They're evil because they grew up in a tribe that taught them -to be- evil. Yes, you could attempt to change this - but this requires many more sunk resources than killing them, and should not be expected, anymore than soldiers are expected to use nonlethal force when very lethal force is being levied against them.

And we have remarkably specific examples of good drow - because of a very systematic indoctrination system they are known for.

Again, I must reiterate - in no game should the players commit genocide. Moreover, in no game has that ever been an acceptable style of play. If you face an army of people who are going to attempt to kill you, you must respond in kind - with lethal force.

It's a little less like 'all white people are white supremacists' and 'all klansmen are white supremacists'. The second is pretty much universally true.

However, I do agree with one thing - the monster manual descriptions are ridiculous. The best way to interpret them is that the 'good' orcs tend to form their own tribes and keep away from the evil ones, simply because being good in an evil society tends to suck.

Strigon

2015-09-30, 07:58 PM

Everyone seems to think what I'm saying is that rpgs shouldn't have villains. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that intelligent beings shouldn't be assumed to be evil just because of their species. That is just plainly and obviously racist.

I've been trying very, very hard to stay out of this conversation, because it seems quite obvious to me that there is no chance of reconciling the two(ish) viewpoints presented here.
However, I must disagree here.
The main reason racism has fallen out of favour is that it is objectively wrong. Cliche as it sounds, once you look past minor physical differences, we are all humans. We all have the same psychological responses to events, we all have the same physiological needs. What we want, at our core, is almost always the same; belonging, safety, loved ones - all things all humans want.
A doctor doesn't specialize in, say, Asian physiology, or a psychiatrist doesn't specialize in African psychology, because we all function the same way.

The same is not true of different species; Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, all look like humans, but they aren't. Their respective anatomies and psychologies are quite possibly radically different; they almost certainly must be (Though since this is never explicitly said in most universes, this is technically just a guess.) very different at their core.
Which could imply that they have an overwhelmingly large chance of being Evil. Which is not racist. If it is an objective fact, it can't possibly be racism. A black man, for example, saying that a white man wouldn't survive where his people came from because his skin wouldn't handle it, would not be racist. He'd be quite right; without proper shelter, the white man would probably die far faster than the black man.

In the same vein, if Orcs are usually Evil (Which is generally true) then that is objective fact. Acting with that in mind is not racism. Even writing a world where that's fact, if properly explained, isn't racist.

Finally, about the free will argument? Being sentient and having free will does not mean you have a choice in absolutely everything - especially outlook. Many - quite possible all - people have plenty of things put into their brains that tell them how to think, feel, and act that are both hard-coded into our DNA and taught at an age so young it's really quite impossible to remove. Yet we're still sentient, and with free-will.
For example, nearly everyone on Earth that is a fully-functioning adult sees children as something we need to protect. Not everyone likes children, but most will watch out for them, and help them long before they'll help an adult in trouble. Even people who don't particularly feel like protecting children generally won't do them any harm, and those that do harm children, we generally describe as having something very wrong with them; something we don't say about everyone who harms an adult.

What else must we do? Well, we're forced to eat, sleep, avoid pain, unless something goes quite wrong we'll almost always stick with our parents, we'll seek out company - all things humans are practically forced to do (and in some cases literally forced to do) by our bodies and minds, and nobody's saying these things mean we aren't free will.
Now, I'm sure you'll point out that there is a big difference between being forced to eat and being forced to be evil. And you're quite right. But there is a precedent that has been set which should not be ignored.

Finally, I should point out that, even ignoring everything else I've said on the matter, we can't say that a free-willed, sentient creature must have an individual morality, or even personality, because we really don't know. We have exactly one data point when it comes to species that we can confirm are sentient; us. We can speculate all the livelong day about what free will means, how it interacts with morality, and the implications of physiological responses on free will, but at the end of the day, we do not have enough hard data to rule out the possibility of an entirely Evil race, for any definition of Evil. All we know about free will, we got from exactly one source - which is not a large enough sample size to extrapolate the limitations of free will.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 08:00 PM

Everyone seems to think what I'm saying is that rpgs shouldn't have villains. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that intelligent beings shouldn't be assumed to be evil just because of their species. That is just plainly and obviously racist. And besides, I see it as lazy. 'I did it because I'm evil ho-ho-ho' just screams of ineptitude. What, couldn't you seriously come up with a better motivation besides 'I did an evil thing because I'm a goblin'???

Of course you're not saying no villains. That's absurd. That fantastic racism should automatically be considered a bad thing is -also- absurd. Presuming that a typically evil creature is not evil gets a lot of well intentioned characters stabbed, looted, and left for dead.

Again, they are typically evil for a reason. The most common reason, if you trace all the way to the root, is that their evil gods want them to be that way and the religions surrounding those gods shape their racial societies to produce evil people by rewarding evil behavior and marginalizing or punishing good behavior. You can't ignore the influence of religion in a world where it's just ideology, much less in a world where there are definitely extant powers working toward definable purpose and influence the world by empowering those willing to serve that purpose.

You can, if you so choose, change this by removing, altering, or replacing these gods and reshaping their societies to something you find more palatable but ultimately the only creatures that are evil just for the lulz are the creatures actually listed as always evil in their stat blocks; which, as I mentioned before, are pretty rare.

In the case of fiends, I honestly can't believe anyone would have trouble accepting that, in spite of impressive mental faculties and free will, a creature that is literally raw, elemental evil personified would be evil of an evil alignment by default.

Nifft

2015-09-30, 08:09 PM

smcmike

2015-09-30, 08:20 PM

Another way to deal with "inherently evil" races is to make them inherently not function like natural humanoids.

For example, Goblins. They've got mythological roots in common with Fey, so let's make them evil and unnatural Fey.

Let's say that Pixies and Sprites and such are born from big, beautiful flowers deep in the untouched virgin woodlands. Goblins, then, might be born from toadstools -- specifically, toadstools which sprout from the cursed and rotting corpses of sentient humanoids. One humanoid corpse might birth three or so goblins. (Those faerie circles of mushrooms are not particularly innocent in this world.)

Like other Fey, Goblins don't have children as such. They have no evil babies to cause moral dilemmas. They capture people, chop the people up, and turn the corpses into more Goblins, using curses taught to them by the demons who created Goblins in the first place.

There.

Objectively evil Goblins without racism.

I love evil fey goblins.

As for the point that racism is natural, rational, and correct in a setting where various human-like races are physiologically different and more inclined to evil - yeah, that's the problem. If in-game racism were irrational and clearly wrong, it can be dealt with as an easy allegory for the evils of out of game racism. When it's not, that's when the allegory gets problematic. That Gygax quote is the perfect example of the problem.

Nifft

2015-09-30, 08:25 PM

I love evil fey goblins. Thanks.

As for the point that racism is natural, rational, and correct in a setting where various human-like races are physiologically different and more inclined to evil - yeah, that's the problem. If in-game racism were irrational and clearly wrong, it can be dealt with as an easy allegory for the evils of out of game racism. When it's not, that's when the allegory gets problematic. That Gygax quote is the perfect example of the problem. I've used both in the same game.

X, Y, and Z are inherently evil "races". You don't fight them with honor, you try to exterminate them like a disease.

A, B, and C are funny-looking foreign people. You do treat them with honor, and expect the same in return.

Both will end up crossing swords with you.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 08:38 PM

As for the point that racism is natural, rational, and correct in a setting where various human-like races are physiologically different and more inclined to evil - yeah, that's the problem. If in-game racism were irrational and clearly wrong, it can be dealt with as an easy allegory for the evils of out of game racism. When it's not, that's when the allegory gets problematic. That Gygax quote is the perfect example of the problem.

For real. Spell out for me in as excrutiating detail why this is a problem.

If fantasy racism is right because they're not human (or real) then it doesn't translate to real life at all. There are no elves or dwarves or orcs or goblins to be racist towards.

If fantasy racism is wrong because those races are humans with minor cosmetic differences, it's still just as wrong in reality.

In the latter case, you're making sweeping changes to the game simply by declaring them the same as humans (and being inconsistent unless you use human racial stats for all of them) and there's no reason not to change eveything else about them anyway.

Either the game's descriptions of races are meaningful, and it's not a problem because they're neither human nor real, or they aren't, and there's no problem because they don't mean anything.

It only becomes a problem when you actively choose to ignore the very notable differences that make non-humans non-human while trying to retain all the things that go with their non-human status; religion, racial society, etc. You're making a problem where one doesn't inherently exist, I strongly suspect, because of a general distaste for the concept of racism and the history that goes with it in the real world.

This doesn't even go to my point about real world biases preventing people from properly grasping alignment as a rules construct. This is just a failure of imagination in figuring out why these creatures might be this way.

If you find fantasy racism distasteful, fine. Discard it and rewrite the race relations in your game, as is your prerogative, but don't make a mountain out of a flat prairie just because you think mountains make a nicer view.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 10:32 PM

There it is. :smallfrown:

As well as:

The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them so as to correct their ways or else do as the NG party did. CN and LN opponents would likely slaughter the lot.

Nifft

2015-09-30, 10:40 PM

A CG force might enslave them so as to correct their ways

That runs very much against my conception of CG.

...

However, now I'm picturing Ebenezer Scrooge as a LN champion of slavery ("to improve the lesser races"). His notable quotes might include: "Are there no prisons, no orc-phanages, no orc-houses?"

In only two generations, orc-ganized labor strikes would destroy that civilization.

hamishspence

2015-09-30, 10:44 PM

It just shows how much alignment has changed since 1st ed.

Ravian

2015-10-01, 12:36 AM

I always seem to keep harping on it, but this is one of the reasons I love Eberron.

Alignment is treated with far more nuance in that setting, even the specific alignments are treated as a mutable thing. Even if a paladin detects someone as evil, that is not a valid excuse in any court of law to simply kill them. (Even aside from the possibility that the guy is lying about being a paladin. Clerics can fake pretty much all the stuff that Paladins can as far as can be seen in a courtroom.)

An innkeep who waters his beer and charges too much to travelers that have no place else to stay is likely evil, but he hasn't done anything wrong under the law, and so the most a paladin likely can do is admonish him for his behavior.

The Neutral Good Leader of one of the major nations is actively trying to reignite one of the worst wars in their history, while the Lawful Evil Leader of another is the biggest advocate of peace.

Inborn alignments are also almost entirely removed, at most serving more as indicators of how some societies of the races function.
For example, Goblinoids, rather than being usually lawful evil, have societies that tend towards more organized social structures, and due to a history of racism by the humanoid races often have deep-seated issues with those individuals.

Orcs meanwhile tend towards more loosely organized societies that place value on personal strength. This means some tribes often have a might makes right attitude, but it's also a factor that has contributed to the Orcs of one region living rather peacefully with Humans due to a belief that Half-Orcs are considered desirable by Orc tribes (Since they tend to be more adaptable, aren't sensitive to light, and even have the potential for dragon-marks unlike full-blooded orcs)

They also do well with trying to make these attitudes vary between cultures. (there's not a huge number of non-human cultures, but they're better at it than some.) For example the above entry on Orcs mostly describes those from the Shadow Marches. In the Maze of the Demon Wastes, there's a large tribe of Orcs that encourage paladins, fighting against demons under the guidance of a different form of one of the largest lawful good religions in the setting.

Elves have two primary nations, one of which celebrates a form of undeath meant to sustain their greatest members while the other has a warrior culture that celebrates the stories and deeds of their ancient forbears.

Drow have three known cultures. One is tribal dwelling in the jungle and reveres a number of animal gods (Chief among them the Scorpion.) The second live in volcanic regions and serve fire giants. The third live Underground and focus on containing aberrant incursions through shadow magic. Many of these groups can be antagonistic (all of them have a xenophobic streak to varrying degrees), but offer a good amount of variety to avoid lumping all of them in one neat slot.

The only creatures with an inborn alignment are most varieties of outsiders, and even they are described as lacking free will because of this trait. In many ways outsiders are literally born from a plane's desires, and for the most part their actions are influenced by their plane of origin. (A fiend from the plane of fire has an innate pyromania that they are unable to shake, while an angel from the plane of battle can't help but see everything as a noble war against some easily recognizable foe.) Dragons have no correlation between alignment and scale color, undead may be sustained from the life force of the living but they're not necessarily ***** about it, even some species of Abberants range in alignment. (though that alignment is often through a logic that no sane mind can comprehend, so you may have issues with "good" mindflayers removing your brain for study, out of some rationalization that if the brain's still alive and well sustained, more good may occur from the results of the study than evil from the removal. If you're lucky they may even remember to put it back when they're done!)

hamishspence

2015-10-01, 12:47 AM

LudicSavant

2015-10-01, 11:25 AM

Psyren

2015-10-01, 12:40 PM

LudicSavant

2015-10-01, 12:42 PM

@ Detect-and-smite: A paladin in any setting would not be able to get away with that, and likely fall. Detecting as evil is not grounds for slaughter.

Any setting, you say? Are you sure about that?

I seem to recall various settings explicitly letting paladins get away with that.

Tvtyrant

2015-10-01, 12:44 PM

You know you do not have to use them? I can't really see what the problem is, as D&D is a very flexible system for fluff. If you want all free willed races just play them that way.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 01:57 PM

@ Detect-and-smite: A paladin in any setting would not be able to get away with that, and likely fall. Detecting as evil is not grounds for slaughter.

@ Watering beer and usury: A Paladin in any setting would likely limit themselves to admonishing such an individual, or if he has the means, help the travelers pay for their room.

While that's certainly true in a more nuanced setting, like you and I prefer, it's not universally true.

As I've been trying to get across this whole time, different people play the game differently. With some groups, smite-on-sight paladins (blech :smallyuk:) are perfectly acceptable. Granted, these groups are not playing by strictest RAW but few people do so that's not a big deal.

Of note: eberron's treatment of alignment makes it possible for a paladin to have a few slip-ups on such matters without issue, by RAW, IIRC.

Ravian

2015-10-01, 02:41 PM

Of note: eberron's treatment of alignment makes it possible for a paladin to have a few slip-ups on such matters without issue, by RAW, IIRC.

Yeah, all things considered I was somewhat surprised that they were still limited to Lawful Good only considering how Eberron's Clerics can be any alignment they want to (Gods are too distant/possibly non-existant to care) But yeah the big thing is that Good does not necessarily mean right. It's almost more accurate to judge good and evil in Eberron to be more like White and Black in MtG. Good means more selfless and more likely to put others before yourself, while evil is more selfish and willing to take advantage of others. Both of those attitudes can be applied to causes that might be considered good or evil though depending on your perspective.

Zrak

2015-10-01, 05:05 PM

I've always had more of a problem believing the races that aren't usually evil. It's not like the society of the drow is really markedly more malicious, callous, or cruel than a given feudal society, so what I wonder is where all these enlightened, progressive human kingdoms with modern legal protections and widespread gender equality are coming from. It's always felt disingenuous to set fiction in fantasy world analogous to a period in our own history when things like slavery, extreme sexism, and institutionalized torture were the norm, but to pass off those aspects to other species while keeping our own mostly clean. That isn't to say I think all settings should be gritty, dark miseryfests that wallow in the worst parts of our history, but I do think it's strange how many of those aspects relatively escapist settings retain, but pawn off on non-humans.
Similarly, I take much more issue with the way evil-aligned human nations are typically Othered in terms of their vague ethnic counterpart cultures. The "evil" human nations are rarely the generic medieval Western European feudal societies, which I think is much more problematic than anything to do with orcs.

Do I also need to research early 20th century wartime medicine if I want to play a nurse in WWI?
If you want to do a good job, or you want an argument based on the hypothetical WWI nurse character to be persuasive, yes. In general, if you're going to talk about something in any context, you should know what you're talking about, at least if you want to be taken seriously.

A non-D&D example: James Cameron's Avatar, which was about aliens and humans, but was also about European colonialism and capitalist environmental degradation. I thought it was clumsy, when viewed through that lens, but was also very fun, and not bad-hearted.
Avatar is a great parallel, since it brings to mind the giant pitfall in trying to equate D&D "racism" to racism in the real world, namely the awkward, unfortunate implications inherent in identifying the victims of racial prejudice and/or European colonialism with non-humans.

If a species feeds on intelligent beings (Mind Flayer), it's hard to not judge them as evil.

This has always seemed strange to me. I don't really get why killing and eating things that can talk, even when doing so is explicitly necessary for your survival, is inherently evil, yet killing and eating things which can demonstrably feel fear and pain but cannot speak or make fire, even when it's not necessary for survival, is A-okay. That isn't to say that eating meat in real life is inherently evil, or even that I think it's evil, just that I don't really see a sound distinction being made. The general hallmarks of "sapience" seem like a totally arbitrary, not to mention cynically self-serving, place to draw the line between what is and is not okay to eat.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 05:22 PM

This has always seemed strange to me. I don't really get why killing and eating things that can talk, even when doing so is explicitly necessary for your survival, is inherently evil, yet killing and eating things which can demonstrably feel fear and pain but cannot speak or make fire, even when it's not necessary for survival, is A-okay. That isn't to say that eating meat in real life is inherently evil, or even that I think it's evil, just that I don't really see a sound distinction being made. The general hallmarks of "sapience" seem like a totally arbitrary, not to mention cynically self-serving, place to draw the line between what is and is not okay to eat.

Illithids aren't evil because they eat sapient beings. Killing as necessary to survive is neutral.

Illithids are evil because they're, at best, indifferent or, at worst, horribly cruel to their slaves, each other, and every other creature that isn't self-evidently more than powerful enough to destroy them. They are psychologically incapable of the feelings that are necessary for most characters to become and remain good (again, LoM). Their near absolute adherence to logic, an understanding of human(oid) psychology, and a convincing argument that there is more to be gained from working with humanoids than on them can shift one north of neutral on rare occasion. A chaotic illithid is a much stranger thing than a good one.

They're ultimately evil because they're amoral and, thus, are not only willing but, because of their particular culture and dietary concerns, often do commit evil acts with no semblance of remorse or regret.

LudicSavant

2015-10-01, 05:34 PM

The general hallmarks of "sapience" seem like a totally arbitrary, not to mention cynically self-serving, place to draw the line between what is and is not okay to eat.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has talked in the past about how he worries that if alien life were ever to encounter us, they may well conclude that there is no intelligent life on earth. As an example, he points out that many humans do not regard chimps as intelligent, despite their remarkable degree of similarity to humans. Perhaps our most brilliant people could be matched by a hypothetical alien's toddlers, as our toddlers can match chimps. Or maybe the difference would be a lot more than that slim genetic difference between humans and chimps.

Psyren

2015-10-01, 05:41 PM

This has always seemed strange to me. I don't really get why killing and eating things that can talk, even when doing so is explicitly necessary for your survival, is inherently evil, yet killing and eating things which can demonstrably feel fear and pain but cannot speak or make fire, even when it's not necessary for survival, is A-okay. That isn't to say that eating meat in real life is inherently evil, or even that I think it's evil, just that I don't really see a sound distinction being made. The general hallmarks of "sapience" seem like a totally arbitrary, not to mention cynically self-serving, place to draw the line between what is and is not okay to eat.

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint but where do you draw that line? Depending on the study you read, even plants can "demonstrably feel pain" too. And they certainly feel emotions in D&D, and even have memories, judging by spells like Speak With Plants. The fact is that any living creature that can't photosynthesize has to eat something.

Without getting into real-world religion or philosophy though, eating non-sapient animals in D&D is okay because the moral paragons of D&D settings say it is. I doubt Leonals and Ursinals are going around eating tofu. Gods like Erastil are Lawful Good for instance and they have no problem with hunters shooting deer with pointy arrows, so long as they do it in moderation.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has talked in the past about how he worries that if alien life were ever to encounter us, they may well conclude that there is no intelligent life on earth. As an example, he points out that many humans do not regard chimps as intelligent, despite their remarkable degree of similarity to humans. Perhaps our most brilliant people could be matched by a hypothetical alien's toddlers, as our toddlers can match chimps. Or maybe the difference would be a lot more than that slim genetic difference between humans and chimps.

Since you bring him up, NdG's take on being an omnivore is a fairly simple one:

“I would request that my body in death be buried not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth, so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime”

Zrak

2015-10-01, 05:41 PM

Illithids aren't evil because they eat sapient beings. Killing as necessary to survive is neutral.

Illithids are evil because they're, at best, indifferent or, at worst, horribly cruel to their slaves, each other, and every other creature that isn't self-evidently more than powerful enough to destroy them. They are psychologically incapable of the feelings that are necessary for most characters to become and remain good (again, LoM). Their near absolute adherence to logic, an understanding of human(oid) psychology, and a convincing argument that there is more to be gained from working with humanoids than on them can shift one north of neutral on rare occasion. A chaotic illithid is a much stranger thing than a good one.

They're ultimately evil because they're amoral and, thus, are not only willing but, because of their particular culture and dietary concerns, often do commit evil acts with no semblance of remorse or regret.

This addresses only the parenthetical example, rather than the general point around it, which is the part to which I was responding. I was not saying that I've never understood the reason for the alignment of Mind Flayers, specifically, but that the general claim that a species which feeds on intelligent beings is therefore evil has never really made sense to me.

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint but where do you draw that line?

While it's a difficult question, I don't think the problem being without a perfect or objectively correct solution makes any solution as good as any other, and I really can't see any justification for the line being drawn at the typical hallmarks of sapience. Not knowing the right answer doesn't mean we don't know which answers are wrong.

Boci

2015-10-01, 05:49 PM

If you want to do a good job, or you want an argument based on the hypothetical WWI nurse character to be persuasive, yes. In general, if you're going to talk about something in any context, you should know what you're talking about, at least if you want to be taken seriously.

The problem is "Do some research" is a very popular and sometimes empty dismissal employed by people who have no real counter argument. As such, saying someone doesn't know the topic well enough to hold an opinion on it should not be thrown around lightly needs to be justified. I am still waiting to find out what critical piece of knowledge I missed about a British aristocracy believing blacks to be subhuman in the era of colonization.

For example: You clearly don't understand ethics. Please research Kant at bare minimum if you want to be taken seriously.

See what I mean?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 05:59 PM

This addresses only the parenthetical example, rather than the general point around it, which is the part to which I was responding. I was not saying that I've never understood the reason for the alignment of Mind Flayers, specifically, but that the general claim that a species which feeds on intelligent beings is therefore evil has never really made sense to me.

There's actully nothing in RAW that says that eating sapient creatures (labeled as canabalism in game terms) is, itself, evil. Evil creatures will often hunt and eat sapient creatures for the express purpose of canibalizing them, revelling in their terror and pain, outside of the need to eat.

Hunting and eating creatures as you need, so that you can eat and not die, sapient or otherwise, is neutral.

It's a question of necessity over intentionally cruel sport.

Boci

2015-10-01, 06:03 PM

There's actully nothing in RAW that says that eating sapient creatures (labeled as canabalism in game terms) is, itself, evil.

Nitpick: That's not cannibalism. Cannibalism, as of Book of Vile Darkness, is an evil act, but it is defined as a preference for the flesh of sentient creatures when the flesh of non-sentient would be equally is not more nourishing.

So yeah, larger point is correct. Lithids are not automatically evil for brain munching.

Then again, Book of Vile Darkness also categorizes rapists as a subset of the psychopath, a decision especially jarring as the previous paragraph acknowledges that the kill crazy psychopath they define is not the clinical definition.

Zrak

2015-10-01, 06:24 PM

The "era of colonization" was not a single, monolithic period; colonization as we understand the term began in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century and persisted into well into the twentieth century and even, to a certain extent, persists today. Attitudes about colonialism and the colonized were neither static throughout entire the half-millennium-and-counting of colonialism nor universally shared by all members of a given social group. In other words, it's erroneous to take any attitude on the subject as a given merely because the character is from a certain period. Depending on the specific moment during the long history of colonialism you're referring to, the attitude you describe might even be extremely anomalous.

Boci

2015-10-01, 06:27 PM

The "era of colonization" was not a single, monolithic period; colonization as we understand the term began in the fifteenth century and persisted into well into the twentieth century and even, to a certain extent, persists today. Attitudes about colonialism and the colonized were neither static throughout entire the half-millennium-and-counting of colonialism nor universally shared by all members of a given social group. In other words, it's erroneous to take any attitude on the subject as a given merely because the character is from a certain period. Depending on the specific moment during the long history of colonialism you're referring to, the attitude you describe might even be extremely anomalous.

So given that I was using the racist aristocrat to make the point "Its fine to play a character who is racist against real life people, so why wouldn't it be okay in fantasy", this information, whilst an interesting addition, does not in fact undermine my point and I did not need to reference it.

Ravian

2015-10-01, 06:30 PM

Then again, Book of Vile Darkness also categorizes rapists as a subset of the psychopath, a decision especially jarring as the previous paragraph acknowledges that the kill crazy psychopath they define is not the clinical definition.

I feel like BoVD and BoED should just be ignored when it comes to trying to define good and evil. Philosophers have been at it for thousands of years and still haven't reached a satisfactory conclusion, I doubt a pair of RPG supplements could sort it out.

And yes one of the big issues with Mind Flayers eating brains is that one has to consider the metric between sapience. Some philosophers have theorized that sapience is simply a measure of species-ism. A chimp is as intelligent as a human toddler, but experimenting on a chimp is far more ethical than experimenting on a toddler or a mentally disabled adult human at Toddler level development. That said while Mindflayers are on average more intelligent than humans its still not nearly as wide a gap as between humans and chimps.

The other issue is whether or not Mind flayer's need to subsist on intelligent minds. If it's just a matter of taste than they are evil, regardless of how they treat the humans, but if they derive no nutrients from less intelligent beings than the issue becomes far more muddy.

LudicSavant

2015-10-01, 06:30 PM

Since you bring him up, NdG's take on being an omnivore is a fairly simple one:

“I would request that my body in death be buried not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth, so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime”

Can you show me the source for that quote, please?

Edit: Found it! https://inspirationalfreethought.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/just-when-you-think-youre-asking-a-wise-and-profound-question/ :smallbiggrin:

Zrak

2015-10-01, 06:35 PM

You chose a curious way to make that point. Because of the example you chose and the way you phrased it, you gave the impression that your argument hinged on the (erroneous) idea that the character's racism was intrinsic to or inevitable given his upbringing, rather than the more general idea that one can play a character whose views one does not share. I read your argument to be that it would ahistorical to play a British aristocrat from any point in the past five-hundred years who didn't view non-whites as subhuman, which is entirely incorrect.

Boci

2015-10-01, 06:42 PM

I feel like BoVD and BoED should just be ignored when it comes to trying to define good and evil. Philosophers have been at it for thousands of years and still haven't reached a satisfactory conclusion, I doubt a pair of RPG supplements could sort it out.

Its not even that. Champions of Ruin is potentially useful for such a descussion. Most of BoVD's fluff is just poorly written.

You chose a curious way to make that point. Because of the example you chose and the way you phrased it, you gave the impression that your argument hinged on the (erroneous) idea that the character's racism was intrinsic to or inevitable given his upbringing, rather than the more general idea that one can play a character whose views one does not share. I read your argument to be that it would ahistorical to play a British aristocrat from any point in the past five-hundred years who didn't view non-whites as subhuman, which is entirely incorrect.

Okay fair enough. The reason I used the personal pronoun is because I was thinking about myself. If I were making a character in the time period, I would make them that way because i would want to explore the role racism played in the narrative of colonialism.

I read your argument to be that it would ahistorical to play a British aristocrat from any point in the past five-hundred years who didn't view non-whites as subhuman, which is entirely incorrect.

Oh please. British aristocrats are view blacks as subhuman nowadays, why would they not in history? (Joke...for the most part)

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 06:49 PM

I feel like BoVD and BoED should just be ignored when it comes to trying to define good and evil. Philosophers have been at it for thousands of years and still haven't reached a satisfactory conclusion, I doubt a pair of RPG supplements could sort it out.

They were never intended to do so. They were designed to create a rules structure that would be a universal reference point for what is good and evil in the game world.

You don't have to agree with what they say when defining good and evil as aspects of morality in the real world but to ignore what they say about the constitution of good and evil as alignments in the game system makes objective alignment as a concept collapse. Even in the game world, morality and alignment don't have to match up perfectly. IMO, the game is far more interesting when they don't.

This goes back to my points about people being unable to set aside their own biases and separate the game rules structure from actual morality.

Boci

2015-10-01, 06:51 PM

They were never intended to do so. They were designed to create a rules structure that would be a universal reference point for what is good and evil in the game world.

No, according to you BoVD was an excuse to throw together the worst things they could think of in case the DM needed help making their villains extra bad. That is not compatible with the above goal.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 07:14 PM

No, according to you BoVD was an excuse to throw together the worst things they could think of in case the DM needed help making their villains extra bad. That is not compatible with the above goal.

That's a lot of straw, man.

The two books together were intended to create a more universal rules structure.

BoVD, specifically, was intended to innumerate and describe the deepest depths of evil's depravity in furtherance of the above goal. How can you define evil without describing it?

BoVD was not an excuse for anything. There was a desire, even a need, for alignment to be better defined as evidenced by the near constant discussions over the matter and the fact they almost universally agreed that it was not well enough defined. WotC's product design team saw this and responded. I can only imagine that the teams that designed those books were sorely disappointed that they were so poorly received by the community.

Boci

2015-10-01, 07:20 PM

That's a lot of straw, man.

The two books together were intended to create a more universal rules structure.

BoVD, specifically, was intended to innumerate and describe the deepest depths of evil's depravity in furtherance of the above goal. How can you define evil without describing it?

You quantify it. Filling a book with the extremes doesn't help anyone. No one read that book and went

"Wow, now I know that kidnapping someone and forcing them to inflict pain upon me whilst I sexually assault them is evil. Thanks Book of Vile Darkness"

(At least I certainly hope they didn't)

Early on the book does in fact attempt tackle the multitude of evils any game setting, indeed any world, would display. But this is quickly abandoned in favour of a maximum squick competition and thus the book looses most of its use as guideline to alignment. As I said before, Champions of Ruin is a more mature and useful look at evil.

smcmike

2015-10-01, 07:25 PM

For real. Spell out for me in as excrutiating detail why this is a problem.

If fantasy racism is right because they're not human (or real) then it doesn't translate to real life at all. There are no elves or dwarves or orcs or goblins to be racist towards.

If fantasy racism is wrong because those races are humans with minor cosmetic differences, it's still just as wrong in reality.

In the latter case, you're making sweeping changes to the game simply by declaring them the same as humans (and being inconsistent unless you use human racial stats for all of them) and there's no reason not to change eveything else about them anyway.

Either the game's descriptions of races are meaningful, and it's not a problem because they're neither human nor real, or they aren't, and there's no problem because they don't mean anything.

It only becomes a problem when you actively choose to ignore the very notable differences that make non-humans non-human while trying to retain all the things that go with their non-human status; religion, racial society, etc. You're making a problem where one doesn't inherently exist, I strongly suspect, because of a general distaste for the concept of racism and the history that goes with it in the real world.

This doesn't even go to my point about real world biases preventing people from properly grasping alignment as a rules construct. This is just a failure of imagination in figuring out why these creatures might be this way.

If you find fantasy racism distasteful, fine. Discard it and rewrite the race relations in your game, as is your prerogative, but don't make a mountain out of a flat prairie just because you think mountains make a nicer view.

There is a lot here. My point is pretty simple, though. I don't like the idea of genocide being a "good" option, and am uncomfortable with other forms of "justifiable" racism against races that are basically similar to humans. I see parallels. Apparently, I'm not alone, as that very sad bit about Gygax made clear.

Human-similar is a tricky part, of course, but D&D "races" are all basically like humans - they raise families and live in societies and so forth. I have much less trouble with undead or fey or devils, - though I suppose one could argue that all of these represent some sort of a problematic "othering," they don't raise the same sort of parallels for me. I also like the point that human societies aren't particularly good either - perhaps this is really a problem of good, rather than of evil.

But hey, play your game. It's not like I have sworn off Orc-slaying myself.

LudicSavant

2015-10-01, 07:36 PM

The thing about the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds is that they fail utterly to create internally consistent definitions.

cfalcon

2015-10-01, 07:40 PM

I like the evil race concept. I like that they fundamentally just are incapable of good in some cases, and in others it is just so rare that there's essentially no counter examples. When I see an alignment like "Always Evil", I know that, for at least this narrow part of the game, the players don't have to second guess and negotiate, something that they otherwise have to do when dealing with races that have a full range of alignments.

Big fan.

Nifft

2015-10-01, 07:45 PM

The thing about the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds is that they fail utterly to create internally consistent definitions.

IMHO they both work well as grab-bags for inspiration, and terribly as coherent wholes.

I've gotten good use from:
- Souls as currency.
- Liquid Pain as a disturbing high-end aristocratic drug.
- Vile damage as an occasional threat.
- Some of the poisons.
- Some of the spells.

... but it's not a coherent whole. It's a bunch of EVIL ideas all mashed together for a DM to draw from when designing his or her specific campaign or setting.

LudicSavant

2015-10-01, 07:47 PM

IMHO they both work well as grab-bags for inspiration, and terribly as coherent wholes.

I've gotten good use from:
- Souls as currency.
- Liquid Pain as a disturbing high-end aristocratic drug.
- Vile damage as an occasional threat.
- Some of the poisons.
- Some of the spells.

... but it's not a coherent whole. It's a bunch of EVIL ideas all mashed together for a DM to draw from when designing his or her specific campaign or setting.

Yeah. The Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds do a lot of things. Defining a coherent objective alignment system is not one of them.

Boci

2015-10-01, 07:47 PM

IMHO they both work well as grab-bags for inspiration, and terribly as coherent wholes.

I've gotten good use from:
- Souls as currency.
- Liquid Pain as a disturbing high-end aristocratic drug.
- Vile damage as an occasional threat.
- Some of the poisons.
- Some of the spells.

... but it's not a coherent whole. It's a bunch of EVIL ideas all mashed together for a DM to draw from when designing his or her specific campaign or setting.

I'd say most of the mechanics are pretty neat. Some of the prestige classes are hit and miss and most of the feats are underpowered, but there are some good ones, the templates are useful, the creatures fine, spells and magical items are probably the best part. Its just fluff that's overall terrible, at least IMO.

Nifft

2015-10-01, 07:52 PM

I'd say most of the mechanics are pretty neat. Some of the prestige classes are hit and miss and most of the feats are underpowered, but there are some good ones, the templates are useful, the creatures fine, spells and magical items are probably the best part. Its just fluff that's overall terrible, at least IMO.

I liked the prestige classes so much, I re-wrote most of them (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?77916-BoVD-3-5e-Hellbound!).

:smallamused:

Jay R

2015-10-01, 07:55 PM

This is only a problem if you choose to make it one.

I have no problem believing that there are peaceful Good orcs on another continent, but that the ones near the player character adventures happen to be members of tribes whose culture lead them to be evil. I can even believe that there are some Good orcs in those tribes, who are either beaten into submission, or stay quiet for self-protection, or flee the tribe and live alone in the wilderness avoiding all other sentients.

The idea of an evil race simply denotes, for gaming purposes, a tribe that will constantly raid your tribe, and that have proven impossible to negotiate with - like certain periods of the Vikings, Vandals, Mongols, Apaches, and feel free to add other examples, throughout the history of the world.*

*Note that I said "certain periods". There are examples of peaceful periods for all of these tribes.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 08:08 PM

There is a lot here. My point is pretty simple, though. I don't like the idea of genocide being a "good" option, and am uncomfortable with other forms of "justifiable" racism against races that are basically similar to humans. I see parallels. Apparently, I'm not alone, as that very sad bit about Gygax made clear.

Genocide is explicitly -not- an option that good characters have. Fortunately, outside of DM fiat mcguffins, genocide isn't an option for any character that isn't either a great leader or an extremely powerful spellcaster and even then you have to get past divine politics.

Human-similar is a tricky part, of course, but D&D "races" are all basically like humans - they raise families and live in societies and so forth. I have much less trouble with undead or fey or devils, - though I suppose one could argue that all of these represent some sort of a problematic "othering," they don't raise the same sort of parallels for me. I also like the point that human societies aren't particularly good either - perhaps this is really a problem of good, rather than of evil.

Fey are not significantly different from some of the more extreme humanoid races and several PC races are, in fact, fey creatures.

But hey, play your game. It's not like I have sworn off Orc-slaying myself.

I want to be clear. I'm not trying to tell you that your preferences are wrong. What I'm trying to get you (and others) to see is that they are -your- subjective preferences and, to a lesser extent, that there are some logical inconsistencies to them. Trying to force those preferences on others and on the game as a whole is far more "problematic" than any amount of fantasy racism ever could be.

Psyren

2015-10-01, 08:19 PM

Nitpick: That's not cannibalism. Cannibalism, as of Book of Vile Darkness, is an evil act, but it is defined as a preference for the flesh of sentient creatures when the flesh of non-sentient would be equally is not more nourishing.

So yeah, larger point is correct. Lithids are not automatically evil for brain munching.

Actually, LoM disproves this. Illithids can subsist on cow brains or what have you just fine, and in fact if they were to do so they would likely even help the environment by eating parts of livestock that are typically discarded by other species. But they won't because they consider these brains bland and undesirable (LoM pg. 74) and so they do choose to go after sapients, particularly sapient races that are not already bred as thralls.

So while needing to eat brains doesn't make them evil, choosing to eat humanoid brains exclusively does.

I want to be clear. I'm not trying to tell you that your preferences are wrong. What I'm trying to get you (and others) to see is that they are -your- subjective preferences and, to a lesser extent, that there are some logical inconsistencies to them. Trying to force those preferences on others and on the game as a whole is far more "problematic" than any amount of fantasy racism ever could be.

No one here is trying to force anything. For one thing, I doubt the decision-makers at WotC or Paizo are even reading this forum, never mind this thread.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 08:23 PM

You quantify it. Filling a book with the extremes doesn't help anyone. No one read that book and went

"Wow, now I know that kidnapping someone and forcing them to inflict pain upon me whilst I sexually assault them is evil. Thanks Book of Vile Darkness"

(At least I certainly hope they didn't)

Early on the book does in fact attempt tackle the multitude of evils any game setting, indeed any world, would display. But this is quickly abandoned in favour of a maximum squick competition and thus the book looses most of its use as guideline to alignment. As I said before, Champions of Ruin is a more mature and useful look at evil.

If the book had only been the first chapter, how many people do you think would have bought it?

How about all those old legends and stories of characters being rewarded by dark entities for dark deeds, are those tropes and notions unworthy of being used?

You say quantify it. How?

The book would not have done well as a product without mechanics sections and filling those sections called on the designers to draw on the stories and legends surrounding evil as a concept.

Besides which, you point out an obviously evil example of behavior but what about less clear points; lies, killing, betrayal; things that circumstance can make very, very gray?

As for champions of ruin, that book is good for a lesson on how to use evil in the game but does nothing to define it. It does, however, have the problem of being a FR supplement rather than a general one. Some people avoid setting specific material for a variety of reasons and may never so much as give that book a second glance for that reason alone.

Boci

2015-10-01, 08:26 PM

Actually, LoM disproves this.

Well that's boring. I'd probably change that fluff to make them require sapient brains if lithids were to feature in any major in the game, as that produces more interesting logistics as described previously. But good to know that lithids evil tag is justified by RAW.

Psyren

2015-10-01, 08:30 PM

Well that's boring. I'd probably change that fluff to make them require sapient brains if lithids were to feature in any major in the game, as that produces more interesting logistics as described previously. But good to know that lithids evil tag is justified by RAW.

Another consideration is that they're all psions, every last one of them. If they really wanted to they could learn Sustenance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/sustenance.htm), and teach it to their tadpoles. But eating sapient brains gives them too much joy, so they don't.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 08:30 PM

No one here is trying to force anything. For one thing, I doubt the decision-makers at WotC or Paizo are even reading this forum, never mind this thread.

Perhaps not consciously but by saying that playing differently is wrong they're telling others that they shouldn't do it that way. That's about as forceful as you can get on the internet without running afoul of various cybercrime laws.

As for Paizo and WotC, I don't see Paizo changing somethig so deeply grandfathered into the system without a compelling reason and the reception of WotC's attempt to do so being so poorly received makes it even more so while WotC has dropped the game altogether and aren't changing anything about it ever again barring a stunning reversal of course.

Boci

2015-10-01, 08:37 PM

If the book had only been the first chapter, how many people do you think would have bought it?

Not quite the argument I was going for. It was more "The subsequent chapters should have been written to the standard of the first chapter or higher".

You say quantify it. How?

By covering more grey areas?

The book would not have done well as a product without mechanics sections and filling those sections called on the designers to draw on the stories and legends surrounding evil as a concept.

The mechanics aren't the problem, the fluff is. Lich loved is really interesting feat mechanically. Needing to bonk zombies to get it is a detail I could have done without.

Besides which, you point out an obviously evil example of behavior

Yes, and the fact that each time I am able to point out a different obvious example (like the noble lady with the torture dungeon underneath her castle. She's not even a good encounter, she has no PC class levels) should probably be highlighting a flaw of the book.

but what about less clear points; lies, killing, betrayal; things that circumstance can make very, very gray.

So any particular gray areas the book highlighted you feel need mentioning? There are a couple, but none from later in the book, unless I've forgotten some.

As for champions of ruin, that book is good for a lesson on how to use evil in the game but does nothing to define it.

It does a better job than the book of vile darkness ever did, not that that sets the ceiling high. Its a shame it is a setting specific book.

Psyren

2015-10-01, 08:40 PM

Perhaps not consciously but by saying that playing differently is wrong they're telling others that they shouldn't do it that way. That's about as forceful as you can get on the internet without running afoul of various cybercrime laws.

Which isn't forceful at all, so how's about we all amicably agree to disagree? :smalltongue:

Personally I'm happy with what PF did - dropping "always" and "usually," as well as problematic statements like "the creature is born with the listed alignment" and specific percentages. Instead they simply say the following:

The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

smcmike

2015-10-01, 09:12 PM

Genocide is explicitly -not- an option that good characters have. Fortunately, outside of DM fiat mcguffins, genocide isn't an option for any character that isn't either a great leader or an extremely powerful spellcaster and even then you have to get past divine politics.

Fey are not significantly different from some of the more extreme humanoid races and several PC races are, in fact, fey creatures.

I want to be clear. I'm not trying to tell you that your preferences are wrong. What I'm trying to get you (and others) to see is that they are -your- subjective preferences and, to a lesser extent, that there are some logical inconsistencies to them. Trying to force those preferences on others and on the game as a whole is far more "problematic" than any amount of fantasy racism ever could be.

When I say "genocide," I include participation in acts of killing civilians based upon their race, which can easily come up. I've seen it, anyway, and it can be a strange dynamic.

You have displayed a bit of a persecution complex throughout this thread. You really don't need to be so defensive. I think I've been pretty clear that I think this is something worth talking about, not some sort of prescription for "fixing" everyone's gaming habits.

As far as logical inconsistency, I'm sure there are some present in my partially-formed thoughts on the matter. I'm thinking as I go here, and this issue is largely emotional anyway, and runs in shades of grey. I think we'd agree that it is possible to construct a D&D campaign with the standard races that is objectionably racist, right? And we can also agree that the vast majority of campaigns do not fall in this category, or even anywhere in its vicinity. It's just the details in the middle we are talking about.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 09:31 PM

Not quite the argument I was going for. It was more "The subsequent chapters should have been written to the standard of the first chapter or higher".

Which part, specifically, do you take issue with outside of it pushing past your squick tolerance? You imply the first chapter was reasonably well done, if perhaps not perfect. It is the -only- chapter that deals with structuring evil as a game concept rather than describing it as a thing in the game world.

Just as any individual game has elements of narrativism, gamism, and simulation, every well done supplement has to include bits to support and further these elements. Defining alignment into a more universal outline serves the narrative, describing the depths of depravity aids in simulationism, and rules crunch throughout serves gamists. Outside of a few well-known crunch errors, it's a decent piece. It's natural that some people would find the subject matter distasteful but condemning the book over distaste seems like a bad idea to me.

By covering more grey areas?

There are innumerable specific circumstances that create gray. To go beyond very broad strokes would be folly as even the very broad strokes that were painted created and continue to create more dischord in direct conflict with the intended purpose of the pair.

I'll ask you this; is there any broadly applied behavior that you can think of, such as lying, vengeance, or theft, that is commonly used by evil that is, none the less, gray under the right circumstances? Note that my examples are common tools and behaviors of evil but are not defined, outright, as evil in BoVD.

The mechanics aren't the problem, the fluff is. Lich loved is really interesting feat mechanically. Needing to bonk zombies to get it is a detail I could have done without.

Fluff is mutable. If you don't like it you can change it. On lichloved; Vampires, vain liches, and a handful of other undead aren't necessarily as utterly disgusting as, say, an atropal scion. It doesn't have to make a squicky picture in your mind's eye. There's not much to do about the idea of banging a corpse no matter how pleasant looking short of a refluff. How about something like "Sharing an intimate relationship with intelligent undead for an extended period has made you less noticeable to their ilk." In this case "intimate" meaning confidences, lengthy discourse, close friendship and the like. Remember that evil can have friends too.

Yes, and the fact that each time I am able to point out a different obvious example (like the noble lady with the torture dungeon underneath her castle. She's not even a good encounter, she has no PC class levels) should probably be highlighting a flaw of the book.

Not at all. You presume that a supplement can have only one purpose, in this case either describe or define evil. This is not so. Both are being done here and every supplement has an element of aiding those who are less creative in sparking new ideas.

So any particular gray areas the book highlighted you feel need mentioning? There are a couple, but none from later in the book, unless I've forgotten some.

You know there aren't. The latter portion of the book is spent describing evil so as to contrast with the latter portion of BoED which does the same for good. Like the core rule books, this pair was intended to be used together but can be used independently. You can make a coherent game without the MM but that doesn't make it a good idea.

It does a better job than the book of vile darkness ever did, not that that sets the ceiling high. Its a shame it is a setting specific book.

I disagree. As I said, it does a fine job of describing how to use evil in a game or even how to run a game with an evil party but it does nothing at all for defining or describing evil as a concept or part of the alignment rules.

I get that your skeeved out by the book. That's fair since some of the stuff in there is pretty skeevy but I think that you may be letting that cloud your assessment of the book on the whole.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to like the book just that it is decently done from a design perspective.

xBlackWolfx

2015-10-01, 09:34 PM

I certainly didn't expect this to be such a hot topic. Posts are seriously being made faster than I can keep up with them. I'm completely lost as to what everyone is trying to say now.

P.F.

2015-10-01, 09:49 PM

I certainly didn't expect this to be such a hot topic. Posts are seriously being made faster than I can keep up with them. I'm completely lost as to what everyone is trying to say now.

Seriously...

tl; dr anyone?

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 10:06 PM

When I say "genocide," I include participation in acts of killing civilians based upon their race, which can easily come up. I've seen it, anyway, and it can be a strange dynamic.

Without an organization or extreme power it is simply not possible for a lone figure to be part of a genocide.

For most characters it's not even hateful racism, just what they've been taught is the proper solution to the circumstance, "Kill the orc before he kills you," and in 90+% of circumstances where an orc meets one of the "civilized" races it's exactly right because orcs are taught "take what you want and if something stands in your way, kill 'em." Combine that teaching with a raiding culture rather than a trading culture and the vast majority of orc/non-orc interaction will involve weapons and bloodshed where neither side is even considering that the other is anything more than an enemy.

You have displayed a bit of a persecution complex throughout this thread. You really don't need to be so defensive. I think I've been pretty clear that I think this is something worth talking about, not some sort of prescription for "fixing" everyone's gaming habits.

We're talking. What's the problem? I don't feel I'm being persecuted. I don't actually play the type of game I'm defending.

What I am is offended. The idea that anyone is "doing it wrong" or that the game is screwed up beyond salvaging because of the mere possibility of a DM including something that is intended to parallel real life race relations in a way that suggests that one race is superior/inferior to another in a way that is intended to apply to their real life parallels pisses me off.

Pete's sake just look at that sentence. I'm annoyed that it even needs to be said that such hypersensitivity is just as harmful to society and its subcultures as the thing it's trying to prevent.

As far as logical inconsistency, I'm sure there are some present in my partially-formed thoughts on the matter. I'm thinking as I go here, and this issue is largely emotional anyway, and runs in shades of grey.

There is no gray here. Fantasy racism is not real racism, in no small part, because the races involved are not real. Any percieved parallels to reality say far more about the viewer than what they're viewing.

I think we'd agree that it is possible to construct a D&D campaign with the standard races that is objectionably racist, right?

Not without intent. In which case, the problem is the racist at the table not the game on it.

And we can also agree that the vast majority of campaigns do not fall in this category, or even anywhere in its vicinity. It's just the details in the middle we are talking about.

For there to be a middle there have to be two extremes. A racist game is the result of racist players and a non-racist game is equally the result of players that are not. Both can include fantasy racism to varying degrees though the former will most likely feature it to a greater degree, typically. In all cases the game has almost nothing to do with it beyond providing distinct races. What middle ground are you talking about?

smcmike

2015-10-01, 11:12 PM

Without an organization or extreme power it is simply not possible for a lone figure to be part of a genocide.

Fair enough. I suppose the term I should have gone with is massacre. Though involvement in a war to eradicate orcs doesn't sound all that far fetched.

We're talking. What's the problem? I don't feel I'm being persecuted. I don't actually play the type of game I'm defending

What I am is offended.

Potayto, potahto.

The idea that anyone is "doing it wrong" or that the game is screwed up beyond salvaging because of the mere possibility of a DM including something that is intended to parallel real life race relations in a way that suggests that one race is superior/inferior to another in a way that is intended to apply to their real life parallels pisses me off.

And now you are putting words in my mouth, so as to better take offense. The game is screwed up beyond salvaging?

There is no gray here. Fantasy racism is not real racism, in no small part, because the races involved are not real. Any percieved parallels to reality say far more about the viewer than what they're viewing.

Not without intent. In which case, the problem is the racist at the table not the game on it.

Well, I think we are getting somewhere I terms of defining our disagreement, anyway.

While I agree that intent is all that really matters if your goal is to debate whether a person is a bad, evil racist, that isn't the point of this conversation at all.

Here's an example, an extreme only to prove my point: imagine that there was a srtting designed by racists, who modeled the fictional races directly on real life racist stereotypes, with a central conflict focusing on their dreamed-of race war. Now imagine a group playing that game, without any knowledge of this history. The intent of this group is not racist, nor does playing the game make them racists. But the game is certainly problematic, right? And if someone showed up at the table and said "this all sounds a bit racist to me," would it really be right to say "these races aren't real - therefore it is all in your head, and ps you are a hypersensitive ninny?"

Again, just an hypothetical.

Psyren

2015-10-01, 11:23 PM

Here's an example, an extreme only to prove my point: imagine that there was a setting designed by racists, who modeled the fictional races directly on real life racist stereotypes, with a central conflict focusing on their dreamed-of race war. Now imagine a group playing that game, without any knowledge of this history. The intent of this group is not racist, nor does playing the game make them racists. But the game is certainly problematic, right? And if someone showed up at the table and said "this all sounds a bit racist to me," would it really be right to say "these races aren't real - therefore it is all in your head, and ps you are a hypersensitive ninny?"

Again, just an hypothetical.

Just wanted to say you're phrasing the central conflict here more eloquently than I seem able to, so kudos.

Zrak

2015-10-01, 11:24 PM

Not without intent. In which case, the problem is the racist at the table not the game on it.

I agree with the latter half of the sentence, but I don't think the former half is true at all. A lot of people are pretty racist sub- or unconsciously, and can say and do pretty racist things without trying to or even thinking they are.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-02, 12:51 AM

Fair enough. I suppose the term I should have gone with is massacre. Though involvement in a war to eradicate orcs doesn't sound all that far fetched.

Launching or voluntarily taking part in such a war is where it crosses the line into evil by default.

Potayto, potahto.

Really? You don't see a difference between a sense of persecution and taking offense over a principle?

And now you are putting words in my mouth, so as to better take offense. The game is screwed up beyond salvaging?

Hyperbole perhaps. Do you deny that you think the defaults are basically wrong? Wrong to the point that a change is necessary?

Well, I think we are getting somewhere I terms of defining our disagreement, anyway.

While I agree that intent is all that really matters if your goal is to debate whether a person is a bad, evil racist, that isn't the point of this conversation at all.

My point is that the person is the problem if there is one. You can't blame the game itself for bad things people do with it anymore than you could blame a tire iron for smashing the kneecaps of a poker cheat.

Here's an example, an extreme only to prove my point: imagine that there was a srtting designed by racists, who modeled the fictional races directly on real life racist stereotypes, with a central conflict focusing on their dreamed-of race war. Now imagine a group playing that game, without any knowledge of this history. The intent of this group is not racist, nor does playing the game make them racists. But the game is certainly problematic, right? And if someone showed up at the table and said "this all sounds a bit racist to me," would it really be right to say "these races aren't real - therefore it is all in your head, and ps you are a hypersensitive ninny?"

Again, just an hypothetical.

What does the example have to do with D&D 3.X, the game we're actually discussing?

But to answer your question, if the designers were ham-fisted enough to make the stereotypes obvious enough to satisfy the level of racism that you're talking about here, then only someone who has no conception of such stereotypes could miss it. If a group of such people were to play that game then they'd never draw the parallels between the fantasy races in the game and the real races they were intended to reflect. In that case, there's no problem.

When an outside party came along and told them that the game was racist, I wouldn't call them hypersensitive, I'd call them a racist. They're clearly too focused on racial stereotypes -and- trying to spread them to people who have no such preconceptions. A genuine egalitarian would, perhaps, note that there were parallels but certainly wouldn't launch into any kind of diatribe about it. Maybe he'd ask if anyone else noticed anything off about it. Unless the designers very openly stated their intent, you'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

If the designers clearly stated their intent, nobody who wasn't already a racist would buy it.

I agree with the latter half of the sentence, but I don't think the former half is true at all. A lot of people are pretty racist sub- or unconsciously, and can say and do pretty racist things without trying to or even thinking they are.

If there's no intent, it's not racism. It's unfortunate coincidence. Almost invariably, every instance I've ever seen of supposedly unconscious racism being called out was some person or group being hypersensitive about race in a way that comes off far more racist than the thing they're pointing out or bunk studies that wouldn't pass muster with any kind of basic scientific rigor. The remainder was unfounded nonsense that didn't even make sense as any kind of racism.

Racism is in actions; treatment of people based on their race. Anything else is just unfortunate.

That's not to say racism isn't still a thing but it's an -active- thing, not a passive one. People who are racist know they're racist, they also think their racist beliefs are right.