Barbarians Week on the History Channel stimulated deep thoughts about D&D

[Scalenex]

Preamble (you may skip this paragraph if you want to see my point quicker): The Dark Ages began with the fall of the Roman Empire. The Dark Ages special more or less began with the Visigoths sacking Rome. They loot and destroy the cultural symbols and advancment of civilization. The good ol' History Channel gave motive and depth to the Visigoths. They turned to the Roman Empire out of desperation for their territory was facing constant threats from the Huns. Working together, the Visigoths helped the Romans beat the Huns. Then when hard times hit, Rome turned it's back on them. It was already declining and it was debateable whether they could have helped the Visigoths. The Visigoths attacked, again out of desperation because they could no longer support themselves and wanted to get what they needed from the Romans one way or the other. (If don't like my historical paraphrasing, that's fine).

These "barbarians" had motivations and depth. They were arguably no less Evil (though certainly less Lawful) than the Romans they fought. There was much moral grayness when viewed through the lense of modern history. To the Romans (and to the many of early Western cultures that succeeded Rome), the Visigoths were unclean, ammoral, violent, savages, more animal like than human. Can you see where I'm getting? In D&D, civilization is threatened by orcs and other monstrous humanoids. Even their languages are often described as bestial. Throughout history, to psyche people up for violence, the first step is dehumanize the enemy. This is basically the same whether it's a terrorist cell, nationalist army, or racial supremacy group. It's easier to not care about someone or something you view as separate from yourself. Even people's feelings towards animal rights illustrates this. People have a more compassion for dogs and cats which are mammals like ourselves (and domesticated and familar) than fish or insects. If your enemies start out as non-human, you wouldn't spare much thought to slaying them and taking their stuff. Even Rich got into some of this with Redcloak's increasing character depth lamenting his kin who humans have killed.

There are a lot of arguments that the alignment system encourages black and white morality. D&D doesn't have the moral ambiguity of the real world or even some other RPGs, but there is as much room for morality based roleplaying as the players and DM are willing to put into it. That being said, I think the large number of non-human races is more restricting to morally based themes than the alignment system is.

P.S. Since I asked no questions and only made statements, many can branch out from this, so this thread is nigh un-hijackable. I would prefer to discuss the symbolism of humanity or lack there of as it plays out to D&D and morality but since that's pretty deep, History Channel (or history in general) inspriation for D&D games, human v non-human barbarians, and a myriad of other things are fair game.

[its_all_ogre]

erm? and this is news to who exactly?

[Olethros]

I have always viewed the Races of D&D, and indeed almost all Tolkenesk fantasy races, as character studies of the human psyche/morality in total. In other words, the core races of D&D represent the basic elements of the human personality. (I will now purposefully try to completely ignore/avoid the Freudian psyche divisions, because Freud was a nut-bar) Dwarves the industrious, no-nonsense, job-finisher; Elves intellect and reason; Halflings, childish mischief, fun, wonder; Gnomes Lust (for many things, not just carnal) and Humans themselves the capacity for all this to co-mingle and change. The primary "evil" races, goblins, orcs, kobalds, etc, are all representations of the excesses or perversions of these core personality elements. As we can see a beginning point for the issue with D&Ds functionality as a morality play, and instead how it lends itself to a kind of grand swirling psychoanalysis of the war within self.

Alternatively it could all be about my inner desire to solve all problems with decisive action without moral consequence. The number of times I wanted to smite evil on my sister’s deadbeat boyfriends...

[BCOVertigo]

That being said, I think the large number of non-human races is more restricting to morally based themes than the alignment system is.

I dunno, it might make individual monsterous races seem less monsterous. But theres no reason to think that just because orcs get 'brought into the fold' of the civilized races that the geniunely inhuman ones will be too. Many of the monsters are just that, monsters. Their ways are heinous and destructive and unthinkable to the civilized (more player friendly) races. In those cases even if a lone mindplayer or vampire proves an exception to the rule and finds ways to exist without horribly offending others nothing about the way the race as a whole is percieved will change.

If you're worried about demonsterizing all your creatures, think about why they are considered monsters in the first place. Is is just because they don't have a traditional society and look different? If so they probably would make a better 'neutral party' who could turn hostile if provoked than out and out enemies. But if they eat other intelligent races for fun or makes thralls of them for experimenting on/slavery or tear gates to the far realm with their very presence that's probably enough to make them unacceptable to any decent 'human' being.

Alternatively it could all be about my inner desire to solve all problems with decisive action without moral consequence. The number of times I wanted to smite evil on my sister’s deadbeat boyfriends...

Who knows for sure? On a completely unrelated note, have you considered Shadowbane Inquisitor? They have good dental....

[Swordguy]

This is creepy. My wife and I had this exact same discussion last night after the Viking episode. You're even raising the points as she did.


...Maria? Is that you?

[Matthew]

Yeah, I noticed this whole 'Dark Ages' series on the History Channel. We're not even supposed to use that terminology any more...

Anyway, there's a thread over on the Home Brew Forum about this sort of thing [i.e. D&D Monsters and Human Historical Archetypes]. As It's All Ogre says, this is a fairly familiar territory. It's up to the individual DM how he treats Monstrous Races; personally, I seek to dehumanise Monstrous Races as much as possible...

[Saph]

Throughout history, to psyche people up for violence, the first step is dehumanize the enemy.

Accusing opponents of dehumanising you is also a tactic that's been used throughout history. Then once you've persuaded them that you're actually just misunderstood, you can kill them and take their stuff. These things go both ways.

Even Rich got into some of this with Redcloak's increasing character depth lamenting his kin who humans have killed.

Well, yes, but for all we know the reason they got killed was because they were trying to wipe out the humans in the first place. It's probably not the best idea to trust everything Redcloak says.

There are a lot of arguments that the alignment system encourages black and white morality. D&D doesn't have the moral ambiguity of the real world or even some other RPGs, but there is as much room for morality based roleplaying as the players and DM are willing to put into it.

Actually, I think the D&D alignment system encourages morality-based roleplaying. But no matter what system you use, making things ambiguous won't make things more ethical - if good and evil are so mixed up that they're impossible to tell apart, why pay any attention to them at all? Just do whatever you like and come up with some sort of justification afterwards.

Which is what a lot of PCs end up doing anyway, come to think of it, and not just in D&D. :)

- Saph