Help me avoid Racist tropes in my setting!

[ARTHAN]

While I think that racism in and of itself is a worthless word....you are confusing discrimination with racism.

The OPs example isn't even racism/racist. Which is what really bothers me, more so than your random definition.

It looks like you consider all forms of bias and bigotry to be "racism", which seems like an inaccurate use of the word to me.

Also, it seems that animals are usually perceived with a positive bias. You'll see a lot more individuals proclaiming things like "dogs are the best people" or "I don't need friends, dogs are better" than saying things in the other direction.

Good answers, both of you. However, in order to proceed any further to our conversation, we need a word to describe misbehavior, mistreating etc. towards any certain group (men, women, children, animals, race etc.) and I think racism is a good word for such an example, so I suggest to use the word racism for such a purpose from now on. Do you agree, do you propose a different word or do you want to stop the discussion altogether?

[Lacco]

There is racism against women

...you mean sexism?

Or racism against a country.

I assume you mean anti-(country) sentiments or (country)phobia. Xenophobia?

Or racism against animals.

You mean speciesism?

Or whatever...

You mean whateveritism?

Ok, bad jokes aside, I've quickly checked the work you have done on the separate thread and have 4 comments/questions:

1. While I commend you on your decision to support your claims with facts, every analysis is only as good as its basic assumptions. Therefore please provide an argument for following question: Why choose Charisma of 9 or less for "ugly" (despite the image of the monster)? Please assume that "my job is both easier" is not an argument worth any salt by itself, and the claim it is "more accurate and more objective" stands on very weak basis.

2. Conclusion no. 2 states that around 50% of evil creatures are neither ugly nor stupid, while the rest is either ugly or stupid or both. You continue stating that "while the balance is almost equal between the handsome/clever/evil and the stupid/ugly/evil and that means justice".

Your claim is not correct. According to your own numbers, that out of 173 evil creatures, 93 evil creatures have CHA 10+ AND INT 10+ (53.76%), while only 44 (25.4%) are "stupid and ugly", which I assume means both CHA and INT are below 10. Which leaves us with 36 creatures that have either CHA or INT 10+, but not both. That system is actually negatively balanced - but against good and neutral creatures.

The fact that you ignored this basically defeats the purpose you stated (checking for stereotypical "if ugly then stupid/if evil then stupid"

3. Conclusion no.2 continues with "the edition leaves free space to various mean people (like me, for example) to put labels to various creatures. I mean, does it hurts the role-playing that much if we put an INT of 10 and a CHA of 10 not only as the average but as the base score for every creature too?"

I will refrain from commenting on this from game balance point of view (there are people who take this more seriously as I do, and I assume you will get your answer from them soon). For this I would need a bit more information on what you mean by "base score for every creature"... but from point of view of "justice" as you called it: if creatures get INT 10 and CHA 10, why not put STR 10 as base for everyone (including PCs and NPCs)? Wouldn't it be... fairer? Why roll 3d6 for PC attributes (or even 4d6b3)?

4. Conclusion no. 3. "I mean, come on, there are animals out there who are more intelligent than a 3-years-old human and, in terms of ambushing their prey, for example, are pure Einsteins, why animal-like creatures have to remain to an INT of 1-2 forever? I think a good change to the future would be animal's INT and CHA to be treated like any creature's INT and CHA."

I think Traveller 5 treats animals differently - IIRC, instead of INT they get a different attribute - Instinct - which allows them to act with animalistic intelligence (e.g. instinctive ambushes, certain ability to learn). On one hand, this allows a better simulation of animals in your fantasy world. On the other, more bookkeeping and much harder eyeballing in play. And while I assume you are correct in your assumption that DnD does not contain such distinction on attribute level (none that I know of - I may be mistaken), I also assume that for its purposes it does not need one.

TL:DR: DnD could model animal intelligence differently, but other than that it does what it does. Please, someone in DnD community, explain why "put an INT of 10 and a CHA of 10 not only as the average but as the base score for every creature" is a terrible idea from game balance point of view.

[ngilop]

Good answers, both of you. However, in order to proceed any further to our conversation, we need a word to describe misbehavior, mistreating etc. towards any certain group (men, women, children, animals, race etc.) and I think racism is a good word for such an example, so I suggest to use the word racism for such a purpose from now on. Do you agree, do you propose a different word or do you want to stop the discussion altogether?

That (bolded part of quote) is LITERALLY the definition of discrimination. Of which racism is a very specific form.

[Nifft]

The OPs example isn't even racism/racist. Which is what really bothers me, more so than your random definition.

The OP's example is about mixing up fantasy races with real-world "races", scare quotes intentional, and since he's mixing up races with "races" it's not totally wrong to use the word racism.

Good answers, both of you. However, in order to proceed any further to our conversation, we need a word to describe misbehavior, mistreating etc. towards any certain group (men, women, children, animals, race etc.) and I think racism is a good word for such an example, so I suggest to use the word racism for such a purpose from now on. Do you agree, do you propose a different word or do you want to stop the discussion altogether?

I used the words bias and bigotry in my post. Those are both valid.

As mentioned in a post above, discrimination is also a solid choice.

TL:DR: DnD could model animal intelligence differently, but other than that it does what it does. Please, someone in DnD community, explain why "put an INT of 10 and a CHA of 10 not only as the average but as the base score for every creature" is a terrible idea from game balance point of view.

Intelligence in D&D games seems to model academic book-learning, not ambush tactics.

Animals are absolutely garbage at academics and book-learning.

[ARTHAN]

That (bolded part of quote) is LITERALLY the definition of discrimination. Of which racism is a very specific form.

Ok, cool, so discrimination is what I am looking for, thanks.

@lacco36:

Your comment made me understand that I have to better explain my conclusions to my other topic. I admit I was somewhat rushed while I was writing down those...

EDIT:

@Nifft:

Taken from page 9 from PHB of 3.5th edition:
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. ... ItÂ’s also important for any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills. ... An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has scores of at least 3.

It doesn't seem to be restricted to academics and books. Think about dolphins; they are probably smart enough to even craft things but they lack the hands to do so, why should they have an intelligence of only 2, for example?

[Lacco]

Intelligence in D&D games seems to model academic book-learning, not ambush tactics.

Animals are absolutely garbage at academics and book-learning.

I can definitely get behind this statement. Can't get those basilisks to reference their sources correctly...

Also: that's why I brought Traveller 5 up: it tries to model the animalistic intelligence. D&D does not try that - but why would it? Tactics of creatures as such are not dictated by INT if I remember correctly, so there is no need for that.

Your comment made me understand that I have to better explain my conclusions to my other topic. I admit I was somewhat rushed while I was writing down those...

Also the base assumptions, limitations, decisions you make down the way... when constructing an argument, especially for relatively sensitive topic as discrimination, you should be as clear as possible, ensuring details are not lost but keeping the word count down.

That's why I don't do stuff like that while away from work. Too lazy, too tired.

[ngilop]

The OP's example is about mixing up fantasy races with real-world "races", scare quotes intentional, and since he's mixing up races with "races" it's not totally wrong to use the word racism.



I used the words bias and bigotry in my post. Those are both valid.

As mentioned in a post above, discrimination is also a solid choice.

Intelligence in D&D games seems to model academic book-learning, not ambush tactics.

Animals are absolutely garbage at academics and book-learning.

I have always imagined animal intelligence not so much indicative of problem solving and learning, but of sapience vs sentience thing.

[Nifft]

@Nifft:

Taken from page 9 from PHB of 3.5th edition:
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. ... ItÂ’s also important for any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills. ... An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has scores of at least 3.

It doesn't seem to be restricted to academics and books. Think about dolphins; they are probably smart enough to even craft things but they lack the hands to do so, why should they have an intelligence of only 2, for example?

That would be a flaw of cherry-picking from a summary instead of looking at what the thing actually does.

Intelligence is mostly Knowledge checks. (Mostly, not exclusively.)

Survival is also a form of knowledge, though: knowledge of how to survive in the wilderness. And yet it's not an Intelligence skill. Does that mean Survival is not learned, or that knowing how to survive is a rejection of reason? No, that would be a false binary. Survival is a Wisdom skill because it's not academic book learning, even though it is a type of learning.

All skills are things which can be learned.

I can definitely get behind this statement. Can't get those basilisks to reference their sources correctly...

Also: that's why I brought Traveller 5 up: it tries to model the animalistic intelligence. D&D does not try that - but why would it? Tactics of creatures as such are not dictated by INT if I remember correctly, so there is no need for that.

I'm picturing a basilisk at a desk, with a pipe in one hand, a quill in another, and two open books in his remaining forelimbs, peering at them through his spectacles.

His housekeeper makes a sarcastic comment while bringing him his evening tea, and in exasperation he looks at her over his horn-rimmed spectacles -- damn, now he needs another housekeeper.

I have always imagined animal intelligence not so much indicative of problem solving and learning, but of sapience vs sentience thing.

Intelligence is not well understood by even the foremost experts, so it's going to be difficult for an underpaid game writer to surpass that.

Furthermore, the sorts of traits I've seen would be absolutely worthless for games intended to be played by people who aren't transhuman -- there's no way for the game's rules to let a player emulate holding more simultaneous uncertainties, for example, nor to emulate having more chunking capacity, nor to emulate better pattern-synthesis, nor to make the player depressed due to being unable to communicate meaningfully with NPCs outside of the +3/-3 intellect band...

Let's just go with "IRL intelligence is not well understood".

[Liquor Box]

With all the respect, if homo erectus lived today and was able to defend themselves they probably would had found that post of yours quite racist imho. Racism, in spite the definition and the origin of the word, is not all about 'race'.

There is racism against women, for example. Or racism against animals. Or racism against a country. Or whatever...

Anyway, I am not more innocent than you, I suppose. I have categorized all 5th edition MM creatures as evil, ugly and stupid.

I think other posters have established with you that what you are talking about is discrimination, not racism.

You are absolutely right, it is discriminatory (discriminating on the basis of species) to say the homo erectus is less intelligent than homo sapien.

But the question then becomes whether it is justified discrimination. Racism is generally not justified, because there is no justification for saying that one real world race is less intelligent than another.

But some forms of discrimination clearly are justified. For example, you talk about discrimination against animals. If you were to say that a cat was less likely to become a rocket scientist than a human because it is less clever, you'd be discriminating against the cat, but your discrimination is justified.

Likewise, it would be justified to discriminate by saying that homo erectus is less likely than a human to have the mental hardware to become a doctor. Homo erectus (like the cat, although not to the same extent) is less intelligent than humans.

The same is true for orcs. It is justified to say that orcs are less likely than humans to become wizards due to being less intelligent because it is true.

In summary racism is not justified because there's no good reason to believe real world races are more or less intelligent than one another. Saying that different less intelligent species (like orcs, homo erectus or cats) are less intelligent is justified, because in each case there's good evidence that it is true.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Also, it's a good point to add that an orc wizard, while not optimized, is still possible as a pc. As is an orc with max charisma.

[Feast]

This entire thread is ridiculous.

[NigelWalmsley]

It doesn't seem to be restricted to academics and books. Think about dolphins; they are probably smart enough to even craft things but they lack the hands to do so, why should they have an intelligence of only 2, for example?

The system has limited resolution. We've simply decided we don't care that much about accurately modeling differences in animal intelligence. You get "smart animals" (2 Intelligence) and "dumb animals" (1 Intelligence). You could do more with that, but it doesn't get you much value. Also if you do that, you get some awkward questions. If you roll 3d6 for stats, that means that about 1 in 200 people (about 1 in 1,000 for 4d6 drop the lowest) has an Intelligence of 3. Are those people supposed to be only marginally smarter than housecats?

[ARTHAN]

The system has limited resolution. We've simply decided we don't care that much about accurately modeling differences in animal intelligence. You get "smart animals" (2 Intelligence) and "dumb animals" (1 Intelligence). You could do more with that, but it doesn't get you much value. Also if you do that, you get some awkward questions. If you roll 3d6 for stats, that means that about 1 in 200 people (about 1 in 1,000 for 4d6 drop the lowest) has an Intelligence of 3. Are those people supposed to be only marginally smarter than housecats?

Actually, I think I can answer that. An INT of 3 means you cannot read or write or speak or count, you are like tarzan and even worse than that because Ogres are clever in front of you. And that is another flaw of the animal INT; in reality, tarzan is actually smart, very smart. What INT score should tarzan have in your opinion, dear community members?

[hamishspence]

Actually, I think I can answer that. An INT of 3 means you cannot read or write or speak or count,

That's not true in 3e at least.

This thread goes into more detail on debating how Int 3 is supposed to work.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...eal-with-3-int

[Wizard_Lizard]

The system has limited resolution. We've simply decided we don't care that much about accurately modeling differences in animal intelligence. You get "smart animals" (2 Intelligence) and "dumb animals" (1 Intelligence). You could do more with that, but it doesn't get you much value. Also if you do that, you get some awkward questions. If you roll 3d6 for stats, that means that about 1 in 200 people (about 1 in 1,000 for 4d6 drop the lowest) has an Intelligence of 3. Are those people supposed to be only marginally smarter than housecats?

Yep, sounds about right.

[Bohandas]

All your examples are animals with the exception of Neanderthal which was a humanoid. And here is the problem; half-orcs are people and humanoids, not animals.

Not being animals doesn't make them human. The animals were used as examples because, like elves or orcs, they are an entirely different species.

I find it troubling and deeply sad that even in forums dedicated to fantasy and speculative fiction most people are unable to even imagine a spaient creature that isn't just a cheap reskin of an ordinary boring human.

[ARTHAN]

Not being animals doesn't make them human. The animals were used as examples because, like elves or orcs, they are an entirely different species.

I find it troubling and deeply sad that even in forums dedicated to fantasy and speculative fiction most people are unable to even imagine a spaient creature that isn't just a cheap reskin of an ordinary boring human.

I find it troubling and deeply sad that someone makes personal attacks like this one. :P
I can answer you but I won't bother, sorry...

EDIT: In case this was not a personal attack, I apologize for my reply. Lately, I am hypersensitive...

[snowblizz]

I find it troubling and deeply sad that even in forums dedicated to fantasy and speculative fiction most people are unable to even imagine a spaient creature that isn't just a cheap reskin of an ordinary boring human.

It's not that strange, we have no actual basis to hang that imagination on. However much we try, we cannot truly think in alien, only in various degrees of rubbermask alien.

Maybe if Neanderthals still existed we could have learned what it is to interact with sapience that isn't effectively exactly like us. Even the tiny sliver of difference in humans are hard for us to overcome.

[Lacco]

Actually, I think I can answer that. An INT of 3 means you cannot read or write or speak or count, you are like tarzan and even worse than that because Ogres are clever in front of you. And that is another flaw of the animal INT; in reality, tarzan is actually smart, very smart. What INT score should tarzan have in your opinion, dear community members?

Just for my understanding as nonDnD person: does INT 3 mean you can not read/write/speak/count... or that you can not learn to read, write or speak or count?

Tarzan's INT score is above average if the few comics I had when I was a kid have any canonical value. His skills in reading/writing and speaking were sub-par.

Not being animals doesn't make them human. The animals were used as examples because, like elves or orcs, they are an entirely different species.

That is also my understanding.

Humanoid does not equal automatically human. And while humans are mostly abundant in the worlds I create for my entertainment (as well for the others) - mainly because they allow me to easily form different cultures while being relatively familiar - I prefer other races to have relatively different vibe. Re-skinning is nice, reimagining even nicer.

For example: I like the idea of elves, but not elven races as provided by many settings.

What I like to imagine is that there are ancient elves, and somewhere in the fantasy world there is an elven teenager, with several thousand years of experience, who decides to visit his neighbors - the new human village - and see if their ladies would be interested in meeting him.

He goes there, listens to their conversations, starts to catch words and understand. Oh, look - it's not a village anymore. A city! How exciting!

Now let's see... am I able to hold a conversation? Seems to me that yes... what? Where's the city? What are these ruins? Neighboring country? ... oh, elven gods. I have to learn their language now. Hope they are similar. Still, could impress some elven ladies with already dead human language!

I find it troubling and deeply sad that someone makes personal attacks like this one. :P
I can answer you but I won't bother, sorry...

EDIT: In case this was not a personal attack, I apologize for my reply. Lately, I am hypersensitive...

Oooh! A new game, perhaps?

I find it troubling that there is no RPG with sentient basilisks that have to pay their taxes and go to universities (preferably Hogwarts-styled UNI)!

[ARTHAN]

Oooh! A new game, perhaps?

I find it troubling that there is no RPG with sentient basilisks that have to pay their taxes and go to universities (preferably Hogwarts-styled UNI)!

Actually, I find the idea of sentient basilisks quite cool, having some of them paying taxes and going to universities could be an interesting set up. I already imagine a D&D-style basilisk surrounded by books and using 2 out of his 8 legs like hands to hold a tome about arcane magic and reading it quietly while wearing a special pair of basilisk-styled glasses.
See, I have imagination guys. My imagination may make you vomit but I have one.

[Lacco]

Actually, I find the idea of sentient basilisks quite cool, having some of them paying taxes and going to universities could be an interesting set up. I already imagine a D&D-style basilisk surrounded by books and using 2 out of his 8 legs like hands to hold a tome about arcane magic and reading it quietly while wearing a special pair of basilisk-styled glasses.

My basilisk would most probably just frantically study the evening before an exam, switching 4-5 books at the same time, each borrowed from a different lady-basilisk.

However: would there be other species in the school? If yes, the basilisk-proof glasses would be necessary. If not...

Also: what would the local university sport team be?

See, I have imagination guys. My imagination may make you vomit but I have one.

I think we can safely assume that nobody here vomited due to your imagination.

And I fail to see where someone proposed you have no imagination. I merely commented upon the base your analysis stood upon - which has nothing to do with your imagination or lack of it.

Others here also commented upon your terminology, mostly with the purpose to have a clearer debate.

Considering the topic at hand, the debate seems to be pretty civil.

It's not that strange, we have no actual basis to hang that imagination on. However much we try, we cannot truly think in alien, only in various degrees of rubbermask alien.

Maybe if Neanderthals still existed we could have learned what it is to interact with sapience that isn't effectively exactly like us. Even the tiny sliver of difference in humans are hard for us to overcome.

This is an interesting point.

And I have to agree: even with my best attempts, I can produce only my own thoughts, or merely a projection of what I think other people's thoughts would be.

How can I then produce thoughts for completely strange race...?

In this way, stereotypes, tropes and even reskinning/reimagining become no longer crutches, but actually legs upon which the worldbuilding filled with strange races has to stand.

[ARTHAN]

I think we can safely assume that nobody here vomited due to your imagination.

And I fail to see where someone proposed you have no imagination. I merely commented upon the base your analysis stood upon - which has nothing to do with your imagination or lack of it.

Others here also commented upon your terminology, mostly with the purpose to have a clearer debate.

Considering the topic at hand, the debate seems to be pretty civil.

Ok, cool. I think I am way too hypersensitive today. I hope I will be better tomorrow. Real-life sometimes gets in the way.

Anyway, I think there could be more species in the school of magic. The basilisk has a Grell pal that, since it lacks eyes, he is immune to the gaze of his friend. When they are alone and no one is watching, the Grell takes the glasses from the Basilisk because they fit very well on his beak but once the glasses fell from the Grell and almost broke. Since then, the Basilisk swore not to respond to his friend's telepathic commands for a whole minute! Too bad Grell didn't know that basilisks have a different time system and their minute is equal to a month! :P

[Bohandas]

I find it troubling and deeply sad that someone makes personal attacks like this one. :P
I can answer you but I won't bother, sorry...

EDIT: In case this was not a personal attack, I apologize for my reply. Lately, I am hypersensitive...

It's not you personally. It's seemingly everyone. Both here and on EN World. (in fact, considerably moreso on EN World)

[Wizard_Lizard]

Nothing really to contribute
merely mentioning that do the basilisks have like school clubs with role playing games and dice?
Also my basilisk is a music nerd don't ask how they play instruments, coz I have no clue.

[Lacco]

It's not you personally. It's seemingly everyone. Both here and on EN World. (in fact, considerably moreso on EN World)

Now that is actually sad to hear.

Nothing really to contribute
merely mentioning that do the basilisks have like school clubs with role playing games and dice?
Also my basilisk is a music nerd don't ask how they play instruments, coz I have no clue.

Making miniatures when basilisk would be rather easy. Just find a spell for reducing target size and look at them. Job done, another goblin figure.

What music would a basilisk like? Theoretically he could play a string instrument using limbs or tongue. I was told it was possible.

[Kantaki]

Nothing really to contribute
merely mentioning that do the basilisks have like school clubs with role playing games and dice?
Also my basilisk is a music nerd don't ask how they play instruments, coz I have no clue.

Maybe they play the kazoo?

[Wizard_Lizard]

Maybe they play the kazoo?

Probably might be able to play some for of drums. Maybe specialized instruments to accomodate their bulky physique?

[Xuc Xac]

Just for my understanding as nonDnD person: does INT 3 mean you can not read/write/speak/count... or that you can not learn to read, write or speak or count?

Tarzan's INT score is above average if the few comics I had when I was a kid have any canonical value. His skills in reading/writing and speaking were sub-par.

In the original books, Tarzan was a super genius. He taught himself to read and write by looking at his father's traveling library. He was lost in the jungle for 18 years, but he knew about world geography and history and he knew who he really was (John Clayton II, Viscount Greystoke). He learned to speak every language he was exposed to, fluently and eloquently, in a matter of days and could even talk to some animals. In D&D, he would have 20+ in all his ability scores if the books are accurate.