# The problem with Evil races is not what you think



## Aging Bard (Jun 28, 2021)

This is a delicate topic. I very much want commentary to course correct me where necessary. Thank you in advance.

In a recent video, long time RPG creator Jim Ward (Metamorphosis Alpha, Gamma World) protested against the de-emphasis of alignment and elimination of absolutely Evil races like orcs in 5e, while praising its accessibility to new players.

In a perfect world, we understand that games are not real, and anything we do is not real. WE have no such problems with chess, for example. But in an RPG, we embody a character that we act through. That character is not real, but the emotions we feel while playing that character are real. This is where the problems begin.

If I were running a game with nothing but professional actors, I could trust them to be professional. The emotions they bring to their characters are just acting, and are not real.

If I were running a game with a small group of very trusted friends, whose morality I think I know, I would trust their role playing to a point, as long as they understood what they were doing was not real.

The problem comes in all other situations. I simply cannot trust when a player I do not know well wants to act out rape, racism, misogyny, or the like as anything but wish fulfillment. They may really be just role playing, but that requires trust, and trust takes time. To be frank, I do not think RPGs are the appropriate arena to act out wish fulfillment. That's what therapy is for, and I am very pro-therapy.

So the conflict arises from people who insist upon trust and their asserted goodwill to act out their dark fantasies. This is simply not possible or reasonable. Trust must be earned over time.

And so we come to Evil races. Old cis-white dudes (which includes me!) need to be very clear that these are not racist or misogynist proxies, and it is NOT unreasonable to suppose this. Goodwill is not the default, it must be earned. That may be disappointing for those wanting to see good in most, but it is the truth that not everyone is good.

To reiterate, I very much welcome comments to better refine my commentary. Thanks again in advance.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 28, 2021)

The issue of evil races was hashed over a lot in other threads (search for Orcs). One argument about Orcs in particular is that parts of the descriptions of the orcs almost word for word matches the language used by racists and eugenicists in the late 19th and early 20th century, and once you see it, it's hard to unsee. Which seems bad for a race that can be a PC, or make half-orcs, or just be there to slaughter with no moral qualms.  For example, there are some lined up quotes at:









						D&D 5E - WotC's Jeremy Crawford on D&D Races Going Forward
					

On Twitter, Jeremy Crawford discussed the treatment of orcs, Vistani, drow and others in D&D, and how WotC plans to treat the idea of 'race' in D&D going forward. In recent products (Eberron and Wildemount), the mandatory evil alignment was dropped from orcs, as was the Intelligence penalty...




					www.enworld.org
				




and more









						D&D General - Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity
					

Excellent point @Dire Bare.  And, the laugh was for your first paragraph, which actually did make me giggle.  :D  Otherwise, yeah, thumbs up to you.  That Arcanists Press book looks very interesting.  Cool beans.  Now, if they would just make a Fantasy Grounds .mod file for it, I'd be all over it.




					www.enworld.org
				




Here are some other links (that include that one) that have some things to think about:









						D&D General - WotC’s Official Announcement About Diversity, Races, and D&D
					

Following up on recent discussions on social media, WotC has made an official announcement about diversity and the treatment of ‘race’ in D&D. Notably, the word ‘race’ is not used; in its place are the words ‘people’ and 'folk'.    Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is strength, for only...




					www.enworld.org
				





Here are two blog posts by James Mendes Hodes as well:









						Orcs, Britons, and the Martial Race Myth, Part I: A Species Built for Racial Terror — James Mendez Hodes
					

This is the first installment of a two-article series about the racist origins, nature, and ramifications of orcs, a malevolent humanoid species from English author John Ronald Reuel Tolkien’s Middle-earth fantasy setting. I started researching this article with the hypothesis that a collection of n




					jamesmendezhodes.com
				












						Orcs, Britons, and the Martial Race Myth, Part II: They're Not Human — James Mendez Hodes
					

This is the complement to my  previous article , “Orcs, Britons, and the Martial Race Myth, Part I: A Species Built for Racial Terror.” In the previous article, we learned how racist myths from the British academy and army fueled JRR Tolkien’s creation of orcs as an analogue for Asian people. Today




					jamesmendezhodes.com
				




Similar things are probably true for various other humanoid races (why are hobogoblins portrayed the way they are? drow? etc...).  In any case, for the future, it seems like if one needs a species that's always evil, an easy fix is to make it the undead or alien-chest-burster or something that no one would ever make show up as a "person".


----------



## Reynard (Jun 28, 2021)

The problem is not with the orc as inherently evil servicer race. The problem is with the orc as a sapient, free willed being we then cast in the role of Savage (noble or otherwise) and slaughter wantonly. The orc as "demon" is just that, but the orc as "other" is highly problematic. 

My inclination is to say that there is nothing wrong with creating a stock enemy species, servant of the dark lord for your game, but due to the cultural baggage associated with orcs, goblins and others, it is best to make that thing out of whole cloth, free of the associations noted in the OP.


----------



## Aging Bard (Jun 28, 2021)

Right, but Always Evil monsters elides the problem of potentially Evil monsters. The latter should be possible, but bad players make this problematic. The problem is bad players, not unreal Evil races, and that we really don't want to deal with bad players as fiercely as we should because they might be our friend or sibling. They need to go without question.


----------



## Aging Bard (Jun 28, 2021)

Reynard said:


> The problem is not with the orc as inherently evil servicer race. The problem is with the orc as a sapient, free willed being we then cast in the role of Savage (noble or otherwise) and slaughter wantonly. The orc as "demon" is just that, but the orc as "other" is highly problematic.
> 
> My inclination is to say that there is nothing wrong with creating a stock enemy species, servant of the dark lord for your game, but due to the cultural baggage associated with orcs, goblins and others, it is best to make that thing out of whole cloth, free of the associations noted in the OP.



The need to do this is because of bad racist players, as I note below. Certain players are the problem, not the rules.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> Right, but Always Evil monsters elides the problem of potentially Evil monsters. The latter should be possible, but bad players make this problematic. The problem is bad players, not unreal Evil races, and that we really don't want to deal with bad players as fiercely as we should because they might be our friend or sibling. They need to go without question.






Aging Bard said:


> The need to do this is because of bad racist players, as I note below. Certain players are the problem, not the rules.




The distinction between always evil and potentially evil seems regularly blurred in general - there's a long time famous non-evil Drow, there's a beholder that runs an inn iirc, and there were non-evil orcs in Greyhawk according to a post earlier today.

It doesn't take bad players to make always evil species problematic when the language used to describe them easily ends up (either purposefully or accidentally) similar to the language used to describe real world groups of oppressed people.  

See #2 above for examples.


----------



## Aging Bard (Jun 28, 2021)

Cadence said:


> It doesn't take bad players to make always evil species problematic when the language used to describe them easily ends up (either purposefully or accidentally) similar to the language used to describe real world groups of oppressed people.



No, only bad players would make the problematic interpretation. Good players would see the problem and reject it. I assume players have agency and knowledge. If they lack these, I might cut them some slack, but only to a certain degree.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> In a recent video, long time RPG creator Jim Ward (Metamorphosis Alpha, Gamma World) protested against the de-emphasis of alignment and elimination of absolutely Evil races like orcs in 5e, while praising its accessibility to new players.



Oddly, he said the purpose of not only keeping alignment but applying it to an entire race in the game was for roleplay, which I don't understand at all.  You can set up a much richer world with more roleplay if you have several humanoid factions, all with their own practices and motivations and none of which being automatically 'good' or 'evil'.  On the other hand, if orcs etc are just evil, then the default action becomes combat.  He further expressed concern that the children ages 7-12 coming into the game would never understand the true Gygaxian vision of it, as expressed by alignment and evil orcs.  It was a bewildering set of comments.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> No, only bad players would make the problematic interpretation. Good players would see the problem and reject it. I assume players have agency and knowledge. If they lack these, I might cut them some slack, but only to a certain degree.




When the words used to describe a fictional race are almost word-for-word what real world racists and eugenicists used to describe real world human groups, it seems odd to blame the player who sees that and can't unsee it (especially when they belong to one of those groups). I'm missing why that's a player problem.

Why does the DM need something that fits the slot the racists and eugenicists of old needed - for a near-humans to be lesser and evil?  Why can't the DM just use undead, far-realms aberrations, and  demons.


----------



## DemoMonkey (Jun 28, 2021)

You could create a brand new evil race, run past a dozen cultural consultants to ensure there is no unintentional points of comparison with any real world race or culture, and establish them as basically and inherently evil to use as unapologetic villains in the game...

And within 2 months you will have players wanting to play them.

And within 2 more they would be complaining that they shouldn't actually be evil.

The problem has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with the contrary and perverse nature of humans in general and players in specific. The best way to get people to want something is to tell them they can't have it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> Right, but Always Evil monsters elides the problem of potentially Evil monsters. The latter should be possible, but bad players make this problematic. The problem is bad players, not unreal Evil races, and that we really don't want to deal with bad players as fiercely as we should because they might be our friend or sibling. They need to go without question.



Hard disagree.

The idea that only "bad players" lean into the negative stereotypes embodied in our favorite fantasy races is hogwash, IMO.

It's systemic racism. The kind of racism you don't always realize you're engaging in until somebody points it out to you. Even if you are a "good player" . . . skilled, mature, tolerant, open-minded, and work hard not to be racist.


----------



## Aging Bard (Jun 28, 2021)

Dire Bare said:


> Hard disagree.
> 
> The idea that only "bad players" lean into the negative stereotypes embodied in our favorite fantasy races is hogwash, IMO.
> 
> It's systemic racism. The kind of racism you don't always realize you're engaging in until somebody points it out to you. Even if you are a "good player" . . . skilled, mature, tolerant, open-minded, and work hard not to be racist.



No, that's exactly wrong. Systemic racism needs to be called out as wrong, not forgiven. If you don't realize it, you have a problem and are arguing for lack of agency. This is trying to forgive certain levels of racism as benign. No. All racists need to work at being non-racists.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> No, that's exactly wrong. Systemic racism needs to be called out as wrong, not forgiven. If you don't realize it, you have a problem and are arguing for lack of agency. This is trying to forgive certain levels of racism as benign. No. All racists need to work at being non-racists.




It doesn't feel like you read @Dire Bare 's post the same way I did...


----------



## Aging Bard (Jun 28, 2021)

Cadence said:


> It doesn't feel like you read @Dire Bare 's post the same way I did...



Perhaps, but I know how to read, and I did read that post.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 28, 2021)

Can't the problem also just be because it's boring, lazy worldbuilding?


----------



## R_Chance (Jun 28, 2021)

DemoMonkey said:


> You could create a brand new evil race, run past a dozen cultural consultants to ensure there is no unintentional points of comparison with any real world race or culture, and establish them as basically and inherently evil to use as unapologetic villains in the game...
> 
> And within 2 months you will have players wanting to play them.
> 
> ...



This is pretty much exactly what I thought on first consideration. Then...

Remember when Orcs were strictly "monsters"? Then came half Orcs which pretty much looked human and were playable. Different, but a hidden difference. Then the half Orcs looked more Orcish and were still playable. Now Orcs. There are several reasons for this beyond "forbidden fruit" (which is still a big one I think). The other reasons being: 1) challenging role playing, 2) the desire to have an excuse for evil actions, and one other more complex reason. The desire to play a marginalized character is number 3. This could be #1 of course, or the desire for a unique (relatively) character, or it could be a reflection of how the player feels about life for a number of reasons. Individual player motivations can be hard to judge though unless you know them well. It can be hard even then...


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> No, only bad players would make the problematic interpretation. Good players would see the problem and reject it. I assume players have agency and knowledge. If they lack these, I might cut them some slack, but only to a certain degree.



No, you're wrong. This is the "the offended people are choosing to be offended" BS claim that's been around as long as "I'm offended by this" claims have been. Whether or not the "I'm offended by this" claim is true, "you're choosing to be offended by this" is always an incorrect response. Always. You cannot be fake-offended/"choose to be offended". You can pretend to be offended. You can look for offensive things in something. However, telling someone that "you're not actually offended by this, and if you are, _you're the racist_" is wrong, especially when the people who are seeing the offense by something are the people that the language that is being used to describe that thing are parallels to language used to disparage their cultural/racial group in the past.

This is essentially the "Uno Reverse Card" of this issue. For as long as people have been raising concerns about this issue, people have also been saying "No u!" right back at them. And this isn't going to change until either of the following happens:

The people getting offended by the issue/raising awareness about the issue stop speaking about it. 
The people who say "No, u!" start actually trying to be in the shoes of the people who are offended by the issue, and empathize with their offense. 
Option 1 should not happen, because no one should have to be quiet about their pain just because others don't like admitting that their pain is real, and Option 2 can happen, but the people who act that way are almost always quickly replaced by other ignorant people that share the same viewpoints as they did.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> In a perfect world, we understand that games are not real, and anything we do is not real. WE have no such problems with chess, for example. But in an RPG, we embody a character that we act through. That character is not real, but the emotions we feel while playing that character are real. This is where the problems begin.



I don't really have any intense emotional feelings while playing D&D or other role playing games.  At least not any more intense than those I have while bowling or playing a board game.  I don't feel the same emotions my character does and in many situations what I feel will be completely different.  For example, when my Rogue in _Rise of the Runelords_ took an ogre's hook to the face and died instantly at the first hit I was laughing because it was hilariously awesome.



Aging Bard said:


> The problem comes in all other situations. I simply cannot trust when a player I do not know well wants to act out rape, racism, misogyny, or the like as anything but wish fulfillment. They may really be just role playing, but that requires trust, and trust takes time. To be frank, I do not think RPGs are the appropriate arena to act out wish fulfillment. That's what therapy is for, and I am very pro-therapy.



I would argue that the most popular RPG is an adolescent power fantasy and coincidentally a lot of fun.  In my years of gaming, I don't think I've ever witnessed a player or DM act out a sexual assault in game.  I don't doubt that it happens but I've never been worried when playing with new people.  



Aging Bard said:


> And so we come to Evil races. Old cis-white dudes (which includes me!) need to be very clear that these are not racist or misogynist proxies, and it is NOT unreasonable to suppose this. Goodwill is not the default, it must be earned. That may be disappointing for those wanting to see good in most, but it is the truth that not everyone is good.



I think most of us have made it very clear that evil races aren't a proxy for racism.  It's just that the other side either doesn't accept that argument or doesn't think it's relevant.  (Which is fine, I'm not here to get into that particular argument again.)  But you've got a lot going on in this post and I think I'm more interested in the emotional aspect of game play.  Because I think we're pretty far apart on this.


----------



## R_Chance (Jun 28, 2021)

Gradine said:


> Can't the problem also just be because it's boring, lazy worldbuilding?



Cut out the "boring" and "lazy" and you might be right. Could be right anyway  But, it pretty much depends on the individual world. The last time I checked they are not all the same.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 28, 2021)

Gradine said:


> Can't the problem also just be because it's boring, lazy worldbuilding?



I think there are competing philosophies behind world building.  Personally, I view a game world's primary purpose as being a place where PCs can have interesting adventures.  There are a whole swath of things I never think about because it doesn't lead to interesting adventures.  Do I really care what that this kingdom's primary export is wheat or how their economy really works?  Only if it has an impact on the adventure.  But other people love creating a living breathing world that seems real filling it with details that may or may not someday become relevant to game play.  Very often those worlds are more fun to read.  Probably more fun to make too.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 28, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I would argue that the most popular RPG is an adolescent power fantasy and coincidentally a lot of fun.  In my years of gaming, I don't think I've ever witnessed a player or DM act out a sexual assault in game.  I don't doubt that it happens but I've never been worried when playing with new people.




I've been lucky in avoiding that too.  But Jean Wells and Kim Mohen in Dragon #39 wrote on the difficulty female players found themselves running into






Roger Moore's article on Women in D&D in Dragon #57 was brought up elsewhere recently.




That he felt the need in the paragraphs that follow to explain that having NPCs rape female players characters was a bad thing says something about the state of some of the folks at RPG tables.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> Perhaps, but I know how to read, and I did read that post.



You didn't read it very well, as you pretty much took the opposite take on my intent.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 28, 2021)

_But what if the killer robots the PCs must destroy really have some self-awareness?_

I always like to go back to the original monster manual in cases like this. You can ally with or charm any of them, and you can try to kill any of them, given the consequences. Many are intelligent. Many have treasure that you may want to take. (And Orc don't really stand out in analogy terms. Unless the issue is hating elves and being good miners). 

The discussion of alignment is very brief, and notes it can be modified by "good or evil intent" and thats it relevant for "general behaviour". It also notes the two definitions of monster--something you encounter--and something "horrible and wicked" and gives the example of an encounter with an evil high priest as being one and likely the other. Sadly the EHP is not stated up, even with the section on "Men".


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 28, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> _But what if the killer robots the PCs must destroy really have some self-awareness?_



Frankenstein, Blade Runner, etc


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 28, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Frankenstein, Blade Runner, etc



Exactly.


----------



## ccs (Jun 28, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> _But what if the killer robots the PCs must destroy really have some self-awareness?_



Sweet, they're worth more XP!


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 28, 2021)

ccs said:


> Sweet, they're worth more XP!



And you can still salvage their parts.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> This is a delicate topic. I very much want commentary to course correct me where necessary. Thank you in advance.



Dude, the course correction has been offered, but you’re not hearing it.

As others pointed out already, the issue isn’t the existence of always-evil races.  It is the existence of always-evil races that are described in terminology linked to real-world racism and bigotry. 

It is- and always has been- lazy worldbuilding to rely on negative stereotypes.   It instantly alienates those at whom those slurs and stereotypes have been directed.  It is just that it has taken 40 years for those concerns to be taken seriously by the majority of the gaming community.

For context, consider that DC Comics‘ Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) had an Asian sidekick nicknamed “Pieface“ introduced in 1960.  The character was commonly referred to by that name until the 1990s, when Thomas Kalmaku told Hal off.  Ask an Asian comic book fan, and you’ll probably be told that nickname was *NEVER* OK.  But it took a literal generation for there to be a recognition and correction.

That is where the RPG hobby is now.


----------



## ccs (Jun 28, 2021)

Reynard said:


> My inclination is to say that there is nothing wrong with creating a stock enemy species, servant of the dark lord for your game, but due to the cultural baggage associated with orcs, goblins and others, it is best to make that thing out of whole cloth, free of the associations noted in the OP.



Yeah.  See, I'm lazy though.  So I'm just going to keep using evil orcs, goblins, etc.  I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

Tell you what though.  I'll throw you a bone & concede that _somewhere_ in my make believe world there might well be not-evil-people-orcs.
But as the DM?  I guarantee that unless _you_ make the effort to go find them, the only orcs you'll meet are the evil ones.   There might be a story reason for that - but the only way you'll ever learn it is to make an effort on your end.  These orcs aren't "people".   They are mobile sacks of HP & XP armed with axes.  So as they raid your villages, plunder caravans, & such?  You can slaughter them like the generic bad guys that they are.
Oh, and don't worry about the children.  The only young orcs you'll be meeting are simply weaker versions of the adults armed with smaller axes, & are just as evil.


----------



## Yora (Jun 28, 2021)

Dire Bare said:


> Hard disagree.
> 
> The idea that only "bad players" lean into the negative stereotypes embodied in our favorite fantasy races is hogwash, IMO.
> 
> It's systemic racism. The kind of racism you don't always realize you're engaging in until somebody points it out to you. Even if you are a "good player" . . . skilled, mature, tolerant, open-minded, and work hard not to be racist.



It's not that orcs or drow are stand-ins for any specific human group.
It's that the existence of evil and savage races in fantasy gets us used to accepting that some groups are inherently evil and savage and can't be reasoned with and don't deserve approaching humanely.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> The need to do this is because of bad racist players, as I note below. Certain players are the problem, not the rules.





Aging Bard said:


> No, only bad players would make the problematic interpretation. Good players would see the problem and reject it. I assume players have agency and knowledge. If they lack these, I might cut them some slack, but only to a certain degree.



This makes no sense.

The problem with the racist stereotypes that underpin (in particular) Orcs, Goblins and Hobgoblins as presented in D&D, inherited largely from JRRT, is that they are racist stereotypes. It's not a _bad_ player who notices these things: it's an intelligent one.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2021)

*Summary*

This is a summary of the problem with respect to what the 5e D&D Monster Manual describes on page 7 as the "savage and brutal" "races" — orcs, goblins, etc.

1. Orcs and similar monsters are almost exactly the same as humans: shape; size; sentience; language; tool use; wear clothes or armour; build structures; biological needs — food, water, shelter; feel pain; can be injured or suffer from disease; mortal; lack of inherent magical powers; bear children; interbreed with humans and produce viable offspring; social; organised societies; culture; religion.
2. The ways in which they are not like humans correspond to racist ideas about non-white people: evil; bloodthirsty; worship evil gods or demons; widespread pulp-style cannibalism* and human** sacrifice; sexual threat; high fertility rates; dominant 'genetic' traits; bestial; inferior intellectual abilities; uncivilised; primitive; superstitious; always tribal; incapable of forming state societies.
3. These traits are racial, biological, inherited, and unchangeable. This is the same as the modern idea of scientific racism.
4. Orcs and similar monsters possess some non-negative traits that they share with real world non-white peoples such as darker skin, shamans and witch doctors (AD&D 1e DMG), non-state societies, or the hobgoblin's Japanese hair style and armour (D&D 5e MM).

*Referring to eating any sentient being not just their own kind.
**Or any other sentient being.

*Supporting Evidence and Argument*

The following posts, from later in this thread, develop and give evidence for the argument above:

Morally and intellectually inferior
High fertility rates, dominant 'genetic' traits, and abundant population
"Savage" and "civilised" races, devil worship, 'human' sacrifice, and 'cannibalism'
Racial determinism in D&D and its similarity to scientific racism
Goblin/hobgoblin art and East Asian peoples
A counter-argument to the objection that the "savage" races are more like animals than people
Possible sources for AD&D 1e's half-orc "mongrels" that "favor the orcish strain heavily"

These posts are from older threads:

Racialisation of evil humanoids in AD&D 1e
The use of the racial slur "mongrel" to refer to half-orcs in AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e
D&D 5e made things worse
Parallels between "The Brute" racial caricature and orcs
Parallels between racism directed at Native Americans and evil humanoids in D&D

In 2005 Gary Gygax explicitly made a connection between a racist's view of non-white people and evil humanoids in D&D when he used the term "nits make lice" to justify the killing of evil humanoid women and children.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2021)

This post is about the late 19th century theory that European stories about fairies, dwarves, and similar "little people" were based on a real non-white people who had inhabited the continent. Several Appendix N authors — HP Lovecraft, Robert E Howard, and Abraham Merritt — used this idea in their published works. Howard and Merritt wrote stories in which diminutive fantasy races and these imagined indigenes are portrayed as one and the same.

This post is not claiming that the theory of "little people" euhemerism (the idea that a myth is rooted in fact) is true. However Appendix N authors, and even Gary Gygax, believed it to be true. It therefore has a bearing on whether fantasy races in D&D can be considered to be based on real world peoples.

*Popularisation of the Theory*

The existence of Pygmies became known to Europeans in the 1870s. Carole G Silver, _Strange and Secret Peoples_ (1999):

Travelers and "scientists"... saw the Pygmies' appearance and behavior as analagous to those of supernatural dwarfs... Sir Harry Johnston... remarks that Pygmies remind him "over and over again of the traits attributed to the _brownies and goblins_ of our fairy stories"... Another traveler comments that the behavior of a group of Pygmies is reminiscent "of the descriptions of _gnomes _and elves in European legends"... Sidney Hinde describes Pygmies as "small demons" and "gnome-like beings," whose "seemingly magical appearance" and ability to vanish make him "almost doubt their being human" (pg 136)​
This gave added weight to the theory of "little people" euhemerism popularised by folklorist David MacRitchie. _Strange and Secret Peoples_:

MacRitchie's hypothesis that the fairies of Scotland and Ireland were really non-Aryan, Finno-Ugaric peoples... — that there had been little, yellow, slant-eyed dwarfs all over northern Europe — now seemed plausible. (pg 138)​
Building on the work of all who came before him, David MacRitchie popularized what came to be known as the "pygmy theory" in his important and controversial book, _The Testimony of Tradition_ (1890). His argument was reiterated and further elaborated in _Fians, Fairies and Picts_ (1893). Buttressing his case with philological, topographical, traditional, and historical proofs, MacRitchie correlated fairy lore with the archeological remains of underground abodes as evidence for the existence of an ancient, dwarflike non-Aryan race in England. The idea was not new, but the development of archaeology as a science and the increased exploration of prehistoric sites gave MacRitchie's new euhemerism a force beyond the theoretical. A sort of Victorian Thor Hyerdahl, he crawled through and diagrammed mounds and tunnels to prove the validity of his assertions.​​The heart of MacRitchie's argument was that the Finno-Ugrian or Mongol peoples (including the Lapps) were also the Fians (the race preceding the Scots) and the Picts of Irish and Scottish history, and that they had coexisted with the other inhabitants of England until at least the eleventh century. Skilled in medicine, magic, and masonry, they inhabited concealed underground earth houses — later known as fairy hills or fairy forts — and sophisticated chambered mounds like Maes-Howe in the Orkneys or New Grange and the other mounds at Boyne. (pgs 47-48)​
*From MacRitchie to Appendix N*

Lovecraft and Howard were familiar with the work of the Welsh horror writer, Arthur Machen, who had read MacRitchie. Ian Duncan, _Spawn of Ossian_ in the collection _Global Romanticism_ (2015):

Lovecraft liberally acknowledged the influence on his work of Machen's "fantastic lore of lurking 'little people,'" referring to an earlier, emphatically British invention of a sinister alien nation nested beneath our everyday reality... On the remote hillsides of the Celtic fringe the protagonists of Machen's tales stumble across the traces of hideous survivals of a subhuman pygmy race of "prehistoric Turanian inhabitants of the country," the traumatic memory of which has been laundered over the millennia into folk legends of quaint or mischievous "little people." Emerging at night from their underground lairs to kidnap and molest local lasses, Machen's aboriginal troglodytes are a depraved antination, a primal horde that manifests itself to civilized onlookers as an abhorrent, pullulating reversion to "the black swamp whence man first came."...​​Machen, in turn, took his cue from the late-Victorian popular ethnologist David MacRitchie… MacRitchie popularized the euhemeristic thesis that folk traditions of fairies, brownies, pixies, and other "little people" preserved the collective memory of a diminutive prehistoric "Mongoloid race" or "Ugrian race of Finns" that infested the British Isles before the advent of the Celts. (pgs 14-15)​
"Turanian" is an outdated term for Central Asian peoples.

*Howard and Merritt*

Robert E Howard, _The Children of the Night_ (1931):

"When Von Junzt speaks of Picts, he refers specifically to the small, dark, garlic-eating peoples of Mediterranean blood who brought the Neolithic culture into Britain. The first settlers of that country, in fact, who gave rise to the tales of earth spirits and goblins."​​"I can not agree to that last statement," said Conrad. "These legends ascribe a deformity and inhumanness of appearances to the characters. There was nothing about the Picts to excite such horror and repulsion in the Aryan peoples. I believe that the Mediterraneans were preceded by a Mongoloid type, very low in the scale of development, whence these tales –– "​​"Quite true," broke in Kirowan, "but I hardly think they preceded the Picts, as you call them, into Britain. We find troll and dwarf legends all over the Continent, and I am inclined to think that both the Mediterranean and Aryan peoples brought these tales with them from the Continent. They must have been of extremely inhuman aspect, those early Mongoloids."...​​Humans they were, of a sort, though I did not consider them so. They were short and stocky, with broad heads too large for their scrawny bodies. Their hair was snaky and stringy, their faces broad and square, with flat noses, hideously slanted eyes, a thin gash for a mouth, and pointed ears…​​These Children of the Night seemed not human to us, with their deformed dwarfish bodies, yellow skin and hideous faces. Aye – they were reptiles – vermin…​​I had never before seen a village of the Children. There was a cluster of earthen domes, with low doorways sunk into the ground; squalid dwelling-places, half above and half below the earth. And I knew from the talk of the old warriors that these dwelling-places were connected by underground corridors, so the whole village was like an ant-bed, or a system of snake holes. And I wondered if other tunnels did not run off under the ground and emerge long distances from the villages.​
Abraham Merritt, _Dwellers in the Mirage_ (1932):

I bent over the little man. His eyes were open; he was glaring up at me. Like his skin, his eyes were yellow, tilted, Mongolian. They seemed to have no pupils, and they were not wholly human…​​"It's the food of the Yunwi Tsundsi you're eating. Fairy food, Leif! You can never eat mortal food again."...​​Whence had the Little People come into the Shadowed-land? And where had they learned that ancient tongue? I asked myself that, and answered that as well ask how it came that the Sumerians, whose great city the Bible calls Ur of the Chaldees, spoke a Mongolian language. They, too, were a dwarfish race, masters of strange sorceries, students of the stars...​​"The Yunwi Tsundsi — the Little People — how  long have they dwelt here?"​
*Gary Gygax*



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> The early English folklore had elves akin to small humans, likely based on the Picts, and called stone arrowheads they found 'elf bolts'.



Source


			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> As I envisage them, the Wild Elves are more or less just that. [Picts]



Source

It should be noted that, in contrast with other versions of "little people" euhemerism, we don't know whether Gygax considered Picts to be non-white.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Jun 28, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> It should be noted that, in contrast with other versions of "little people" euhemerism, we don't know whether Gygax considered Picts to be non-white.



Ok, I'll bite.

I don't know all the details, but I do know that D&D has inherited a ton of things from mythology and folklore, and from influences like pulp fantasy and Lord of the Rings. And like many authors at the time, their work was coated in their view of the world, which often had racist undertones. A very good friend of mine did his master's on racism in fantasy literature and we talked about it many times, it's interesting stuff.

Personally, I have absolutely no issues with using Orcs as a tribalistic, brutal, savage society that are mostly evil. But I always had a little discomfort with the way D&D portrayed Hobgoblins as eastern asians. To me, they're monsters. You can still reason with them, possibly ally them and all that in-game. But I most often use them as a force to be reckoned with. But I could absolutely see how the language used to describe them could be problematic, but that's something I'll leave for others to judge.

But, and this is my main point, can we agree that we should absolutely care if the concept of an elf was based on the Picts more than a thousand years ago? The concept and idea of an elf today is so far removed, both in time and subject, to what it was back then that it should absolutely not matter. The parallels that people draw between some species in fantasy sometimes are tied to groups that are still minorities today and suffer from it, or come from a somewhat recent reinvention (orcs, elves, etc), but talking about picts seems like borderline insanity to me.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2021)

This post considers fantasy races with the characteristics of real world races in two Appendix N works – Edgar Rice Burroughs, _At the Earth's Core_ (1914), and JRR Tolkien, _The Lord of the Rings_ (1954-1955). In the first case the connection to a real world race is explicit, in the second it is only made explicit in a private letter. _At the Earth's Core_ (emphasis mine):

Chattering and gibbering through the lower branches of the trees came a company of manlike creatures evidently urging on the dog pack. They were to all appearances *strikingly similar in aspect to the Negro of Africa*. Their skins were very black, and their features much like those of the more pronounced Negroid type except that the head receded more rapidly above the eyes, leaving little or no forehead. Their arms were rather longer and their legs shorter in proportion to the torso than in man, and later I noticed that their great toes protruded at right angles from their feet – because of their arboreal habits, I presume. Behind them trailed long, slender tails which they used in climbing quite as much as they did either their hands or feet.​
In _The Lord of the Rings_, orcs are described as "swart" (an archaic term for dark-skinned), "slant-eyed", and "crook-legged" or "bow-legged". Human-orc hybrids are "sallow faced" and "squint-eyed". The Uruk-hai, another hybrid, are "black orcs". Orcs call the Riders of Rohan "Whiteskins".

"Whiteskins" may derive from James Fenimore Cooper's _Leatherstocking Tales_. In these stories, "white-skins" is used frequently to refer to Europeans. For example _The Pioneers_ (1823): "I look — but I see no white-skins; there are none to be seen but just and brave Indians."

Tolkien interview (1964): "It [Middle-earth] resembles some of the history of Greece and Rome as against the perpetual infiltration of people out of the East."

In Letter #210 (1958) to Forrest J Ackerman Tolkien commented on a movie script he had received. It therefore represents his carefully considered opinion. He corrected the way orcs had been described:

The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.​
Dimitra Fimi explains this passage in _Tolkien, Race, and Cultural History_ (2008):

This statement is important from an anthropological point of view, as it seems to reflect popular ideas of the traditional hierarchy of the three extreme human racial types: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid and the Negroid... In this case, Tolkien seems to identify himself with the 'European' race, usually associated with the Caucasoid, and chooses for his villains the physical characteristics in extreme of the so-called Mongoloid race, traditionally seen as inferior from a western European perspective. At the same time, the identification of Orcs with the Mongoloid race evokes popular ideas on racial degeneration and mental disability. For many years – officially until 1961 – the medical condition today known as 'Down's Syndrome' – was referred to as 'Mongolian idiocy' or 'Mongolism'. The term originated in the writing of John Langdon Down, who was the first to describe and study the condition… Writing during the second half of the nineteenth century and influenced by racial anthropology, Down came to view mental disability as a regression to earlier, less 'developed' races of humans.​


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> That character is not real, but the emotions we feel while playing that character are real. This is where the problems begin.



I think I've demonstrated that the problems began a good deal earlier than that!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 28, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> ... but talking about picts seems like borderline insanity to me.



*Mod Note:*

"They disagree with me, so I will dismiss them with accusations of mental illness," is particularly weak, hyperbolicly insulting form of rhetoric that is grounded in prejudice against those with mental illness.   Please do not use this on these boards ever again.  Thanks.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 29, 2021)

As I have said; define what is EVIL in your game.  Cold-blooded murder, mind control (including slavery), worship of certain gods, cannibalisms, kicking puppies, races that do a number of things on the list and so on...


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> In _The Lord of the Rings_, orcs are described as "swart" (an archaic term for dark-skinned), "slant-eyed", and "crook-legged" or "bow-legged". Human-orc hybrids are "sallow faced" and "squint-eyed". The Uruk-hai, another hybrid, are "black orcs". Orcs call the Riders of Rohan "Whiteskins".
> 
> "Whiteskins" may derive from James Fenimore Cooper's _Leatherstocking Tales_. In these stories, "white-skins" is used frequently to refer to Europeans. For example _The Pioneers_ (1823): "I look — but I see no white-skins; there are none to be seen but just and brave Indians."



I think this reinforces that "men" or _humanity_, in JRRT, are normatively associated with Europeans, and especially north-western Europeans.

In another recent thread I've posted that the contrast between humans and Hobbits really starts to break down once we are dealing with "everyday" rather than heroic-type humans (contrast Ioreth, or Butterbur, with Eomer or Faramir). Somewhat similarly, the contrast between Orcs and humans starts to break down once we turn away from Rohan and Gondor and Dale and environs, to the peoples who live East and South of those places.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 29, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think I've demonstrated that the problems began a good deal earlier than that!



Its a deconstruction, no doubt about it. 

Though "bloodthirsty; worship evil gods or demons; widespread pulp-style cannibalism* and human** sacrifice; sexual threat; fecund; dominant 'genetic' traits; bestial; physically superior*** ; low intelligence*** ; uncivilised; primitive; superstitious; always tribal; incapable of forming state societies." Describes ancient barbarians, views of dark age and medieval Europeans (both from present day and by their neighbours), and kinda describes D&D world more generally or at least its more interesting parts. (and is also ironic in present political discourse, but I can't go there). 

But let's accept the basic premise. Or least the basic coincidence. 

Does it mean there is a problem for D&D? Does it mean people should change how they play?

Should these races be removed from the game? 

There has been a huge change on how many people not only view  their fellow humans, but also their fellow animals. There has also been a big change in presentation of "monsters" in media. 

Should that change how people play?


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 29, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> Its a deconstruction, no doubt about it.
> 
> Though "bloodthirsty; worship evil gods or demons; widespread pulp-style cannibalism* and human** sacrifice; sexual threat; fecund; dominant 'genetic' traits; bestial; physically superior*** ; low intelligence*** ; uncivilised; primitive; superstitious; always tribal; incapable of forming state societies." Describes ancient barbarians, views of dark age and medieval Europeans (both from present day and by their neighbours), and kinda describes D&D world more generally or at least its more interesting parts. (and is also ironic in present political discourse, but I can't go there).
> 
> ...



Yes.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

@Doug McCrae has provided an analysis, based on a reading of texts with an eye to the historical connections between them. It's not a _deconstruction_.

What anyone does in response to that analysis seems like a matter for them. For a lot of people, engaging with art and literature is a fairly personal thing.

But there are some response that seem obviously inapt: eg telling people that they are projecting when they see racist tropes in D&D and the literary heritage that it draws on.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think this reinforces that "men" or _humanity_, in JRRT, are normatively associated with Europeans, and especially north-western Europeans.
> 
> In another recent thread I've posted that the contrast between humans and Hobbits really starts to break down once we are dealing with "everyday" rather than heroic-type humans (contrast Ioreth, or Butterbur, with Eomer or Faramir). Somewhat similarly, the contrast between Orcs and humans starts to break down once we turn away from Rohan and Gondor and Dale and environs, to the peoples who live East and South of those places.




As a brown person from a former nation colonised by the English, I’m in an unusual position when it comes LOTR. I always tended to identify with the swarthy Haradrim and Southrons rather than the Gondorians and Riders of Rohan, nonetheless I was able to accept that Orcs were not human - they were the monstrous ’Other’.

However as DnD has evolved things like Tieflings and Dragonborn have been added which increasingly makes the Othering of Orcs diffcult. Tieflings are actual demonspawn, embodiments of _actual cosmic evil, yet they are_ welcomed in your party and interact happily in DnD towns

In a world where Bob at the pub is the spawn of Asmodeus and Charlie at work breaths fire, its a bit hard to justify a dislike of the Orcs because they happen to be brown


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

@Tonguez, thanks for the post.

I read you as saying that changes in the "demography" of the "friendly"/player-facing options makes the traditional framing of Orcs harder to accept at face value. Have I understood properly?


----------



## Galandris (Jun 29, 2021)

Cadence said:


> When the words used to describe a fictional race are almost word-for-word what real world racists and eugenicists used to describe real world human groups, it seems odd to blame the player who sees that and can't unsee it (especially when they belong to one of those groups). I'm missing why that's a player problem.
> 
> Why does the DM need something that fits the slot the racists and eugenicists of old needed - for a near-humans to be lesser and evil?  Why can't the DM just use undead, far-realms aberrations, and  demons.




Orcs were at some point described as being the extension of the will of Gruumsh to defile the land, very close to demons. It didn't solve the problem, which is the wording used to describe orcs being reminisent of 19th century racist propaganda.

You mention undead as acceptable "always evil" creatures. Why? If one is bitten by a zombie, he deserve to be cured, not shot. In the specific context of total loss of consciousness, one might argue that he is actually dead and that the behaviour is no longer sentient, attributable to the zombie disease, so it might warrant killing, but it would sidestep the issue since sentient-ness would have been removed. Let's take vampires: why would it be OK to kill vampire on sight? They are sentient and they have problematic dietary needs, but to kill them on sight just because they're vampire (who in 5e don't need to drink blood) ? And liches? Why kill them on sight? I don't think it's better than killing sentient orcs for being orcs. Once you accept a species as sentient, you can no longer justify killing them anymore than you can justify killing humans.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 29, 2021)

Galandris said:


> You mention undead as acceptable "always evil" creatures. Why? If one is bitten by a zombie, he deserve to be cured, not shot. In the specific context of total loss of consciousness, one might argue that he is actually dead and that the behaviour is no longer sentient, attributable to the zombie disease, so it might warrant killing, but it would sidestep the issue since sentient-ness would have been removed. Let's take vampires: why would it be OK to kill vampire on sight? They are sentient and they have problematic dietary needs, but to kill them on sight just because they're vampire (who in 5e don't need to drink blood) ? And liches? Why kill them on sight? I don't think it's better than killing sentient orcs for being orcs. Once you accept a species as sentient, you can no longer justify killing them.



For the vampire it feels like it depends on the nature of vampirism in the world.  Is it like in Dresden where they can fight against the beast?  Or is it a case where they've been replaced by the beast?  Are there undead like Wraiths or Spectres that have an intelligence but can only live by killing the living and turning them to their cause?

Are demons, devils, and the ilithid sentient? The xenomorphs from Aliens and borg from ST?


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 29, 2021)

To the OP:
There is, fundamentally, no  real problem with supposed inherently evil beings in RPGs, except when:

They are portrayed as having free will
They are clearly humans disguised
They are PCs
They are redeemable.
Their evilness is merely cultural.
If one can be redeemed, all can be. 
If they have free will, it's not truly free unless they can choose other than evil
If they are merely cultural evil, conversions are possible, and again, it's not inherent evil.

If available as a PC, then they pretty much need either free will or magical intervention. Failing those, they're substandard options.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 29, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> The problem comes in all other situations. I simply cannot trust when a player I do not know well wants to act out rape, racism, misogyny, or the like as anything but wish fulfillment. They may really be just role playing, but that requires trust, and trust takes time. To be frank, I do not think RPGs are the appropriate arena to act out wish fulfillment. That's what therapy is for, and I am very pro-therapy.




What are RPGs if not wish fulfillment? We want to be heroes. It has nothing to do with therapy.

The issue is not wish fulfillment. The issue is that with some players a side of them is revealed that is very dark, and not compatible with the tone and goal of a tabletop game. Their expectations do not line up with the rest of the group.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> @Tonguez, thanks for the post.
> 
> I read you as saying that changes in the "demography" of the "friendly"/player-facing options makes the traditional framing of Orcs harder to accept at face value. Have I understood properly?



Yes essentially this  , especially as Orcs have increasingly lost their monstrous traits and are depcted increasingly as “human-with-tusks” so they start to blend in on the elf-human-dwarf-orc continuum.

I’m reminded of Pratchetts ruminating on the issue in the form of Reg Shoe the Dead Rights activist who constantly protests the unfair treatment of Discworlds Zombie population. Then in Feet of Clay Pratchett then tags the escalation of prejudice against Golems with the line “The living hated the undead, and the undead loathed the unalive”


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 29, 2021)

Galandris said:


> You mention undead as acceptable "always evil" creatures. Why? If one is bitten by a zombie, he deserve to be cured, not shot. In the specific context of total loss of consciousness, one might argue that he is actually dead and that the behaviour is no longer sentient, attributable to the zombie disease, so it might warrant killing, but it would sidestep the issue since sentient-ness would have been removed.




Keep in mind that most of us are probably thinking of undead as presented in D&D, not The Walking Dead. Undead in D&D, specifically zombies, are not created by a desease, but most often by evil magic. They are a defilement of the natural order, created only to do harm. They are like a bunch of animated skeletons, but with rotting meat.



Galandris said:


> Let's take vampires: why would it be OK to kill vampire on sight? They are sentient and they have problematic dietary needs, but to kill them on sight just because they're vampire (who in 5e don't need to drink blood) ?




This will depend on how vampires are depicted in your game. The standard vampire from classic horror movies, is an evil monster that feeds on human blood. But there are plenty of vampires in modern fiction that are good.



Galandris said:


> And liches? Why kill them on sight? I don't think it's better than killing sentient orcs for being orcs. Once you accept a species as sentient, you can no longer justify killing them anymore than you can justify killing humans.



Liches are created through evil magic and evil rituals. They may be sentient, but they are evil monsters, and a sin against the natural order. The acts they commited to become a Lich make them really really bad. Of course you can choose to frame them in a more positive light. But even then, the act of making yourself a Lich is despicable, according to D&D lore.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 29, 2021)

Yora said:


> It's not that orcs or drow are stand-ins for any specific human group.
> It's that the existence of evil and savage races in fantasy gets us used to accepting that some groups are inherently evil and savage and can't be reasoned with and don't deserve approaching humanely.



Tolkien's orcs were. That they are " in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." (Letter #210, June 1958, to Ackerman)

Some have read even more into it, making Tolkien's orcs stand-ins for the Communists... China, Mongolia, and the USSR.  

Not a few of Tolkien's generation were far more openly racist... not just in the UK, but also in the US, and in most Commonwealth nations. Eugenics was common in most 1st and 2nd world nations.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

I have no qualms with the notion of evil creatures, hordes of savage orcs pillaging the lands whilst the bastions of civilisation defends against them. They are what they are, fantastical tropes drawn from literatures and mythology to be played against with little concern.

Quibbling over then contemporary thinking that may or may not have influenced their design and only looking at historical sources with a modern contextual lens to justify accusations of racism or not is a form of genetic fallacy I have no wish to indulge in at the table. 

My table has always been, and always will be inclusive to everyone who wishes to sit at it, as have many tables been since D&D‘s inception (despite recent attempts of historical revisionism suggesting otherwise).

The full rainbow of humanity’s uniqueness and diversity has always been represented at my table (as indeed, that is one of the defining aspects of humans as a race in D&D), but we won’t have a bland homogeneity of just humans but with green skin or pointy ears at our table .

Tools that use creatures as ethnic stand ins for their racist fantasies will always do so, despite any attempts to change the rules, the way to deal with them is the same as it’s always been, to walk from their table.

Of course, as always, what you do at your table is your business. But I would not seek to hand wring and denigrate your game as morally unacceptable either.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Tolkien's orcs were. That they are " in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." (Letter #210, June 1958, to Ackerman)
> 
> Some have read even more into it, making Tolkien's orcs stand-ins for the Communists... China, Mongolia, and the USSR.
> 
> Not a few of Tolkien's generation were far more openly racist... not just in the UK, but also in the US, and in most Commonwealth nations. Eugenics was common in most 1st and 2nd world nations.



He’s not saying that Orcs ARE Asian. He is responding to Zimmerman who thought they should have feathers. The fuller quote is:

”[They have]squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types”

Now, I absolutely do not defend the language used here. It is certainly crude and offensive to our modern ears and certainly reflects the racial attitudes of the time.

What he is actually saying, is making a comparison to someone who doesn’t have an idea of their looks. It’s like when you are describing a film to someone who hasn’t seen it before, “it’s a bit like Star Wars meets desperately seeking Susan.”  Here he is saying, imagine typical Asian features, but then twist them, make them distorted, less human etc.

Again, absolutely crude and offensive to us and I will not defend the language used in a modern context, but it is important to understand that here, he is not saying they are based on Asian people. He is making a crude analogy (that is certainly unacceptable today) on how they look To someone who didn’t get his vision.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> I have no qualms with the notion of evil creatures, hordes of savage orcs pillaging the lands whilst the bastions of civilisation defends against them. They are what they are, fantastical tropes drawn from literatures and mythology to be played against with little concern.
> 
> Quibbling over then contemporary thinking that may or may not have influenced their design and only looking at historical sources with a modern contextual lens to justify accusations of racism or not is a form of genetic fallacy I have no wish to indulge in.





transmission89 said:


> He’s not saying that Orcs ARE Asian. He is responding to Zimmerman who thought they should have feathers. The fuller quote is:
> 
> ”[They have]squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types”
> 
> ...



You seem to be the one who is guilty of a fallacy.

_Why_ does JRRT reach for those tropes to characterise his "inherently evil" people? Because those tropes are part of a repertoire, grounded in racist ideas and a more broadly racialised worldview, that is readily available to him.

You also mischaracterise what he says. He obviously _does not _say "imagine typical [East] Asian features, but then twist them, make them distorted, less human etc". The word _human_ does not appear in what you quote. He appeals to (what he takes to be) European reactions to certain non-Europeans.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> You seem to be the one who is guilty of a fallacy.
> 
> _Why_ does JRRT reach for those tropes to characterise his "inherently evil" people? Because those tropes are part of a repertoire, grounded in racist ideas and a more broadly racialised worldview, that is readily available to him.
> 
> You also mischaracterise what he says. He obviously _does not _say "imagine typical [East] Asian features, but then twist them, make them distorted, less human etc". The word _human_ does not appear in what you quote. He appeals to (what he takes to be) European reactions to certain non-Europeans.



And what fallacy would that be? That’s a weak “no you” retort.
The genetic fallacy means (as demonstrated with the wedding ring example) that even if you could objectively prove that every fantastical monstrous trope in D&D had unequivocal, racially motivated origins, it has little to no relevance to how these creatures are utilised in the game.

Tolkien’s quote around “degraded and repulsive versions of” (not actual baseline phenotypic characteristics ) suggest a twisting from the norm. Twisting from a human norm would make it less human in appearance no? He is trying to draw a distinction away from Zimmerman’s imagining of beaks and feathers. And again, I do not subscribe to his language used at all. 

Certainly, his world view was characterised by his context, as is everybody’s. Certainly, his words would be called out were they uttered today. I would happily do so. It seems you are happy to acknowledge the setting context yet condemn him with a modern lens. Which is in itself problematic because then all literature prior to the last decade must be condemned as it is tainted by world views that are not our own.

If you could pick any historical progressive person to meet, they would still hold values that would shock or discomfort our modern sensibilities. Because it needs to be contextualised. Ie, are their views extreme from their contemporaries? 

If we are to condemn Tolkien for his letter here, then surely he should be applauded for earlier letters.

For example, Nazism did not spring up from no where, anti semitism had been rife in the western world for some time (and unfortunately persists to this day). Tolkien’s pro Jewish rebuttal to Nazi questions around a possible Jewish heritage should be acknowledged in attempts to question how prejudicial he was in relation to his contemporaries.

Relating it back to his Orcs, they are more biblical for his sources. His Elves are akin to angels, Orcs, corrupted versions of those, echoing a fallen angel trope.

Possibly the only explicit Orc based on a real world subculture would be the Games Workshop Orc based on English football hooligans.

For anyone concerned, as an Englishman, you have my blessing.  It’s all good.


----------



## Yora (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> You seem to be the one who is guilty of a fallacy.
> 
> _Why_ does JRRT reach for those tropes to characterise his "inherently evil" people? Because those tropes are part of a repertoire, grounded in racist ideas and a more broadly racialised worldview, that is readily available to him.
> 
> You also mischaracterise what he says. He obviously _does not _say "imagine typical [East] Asian features, but then twist them, make them distorted, less human etc". The word _human_ does not appear in what you quote. He appeals to (what he takes to be) European reactions to certain non-Europeans.



That's supposed to be an excuse?


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 29, 2021)

Yora said:


> That's supposed to be an excuse?



Well, I shouldn't speak for pemerton, but clearly he's not making an sort of excuse for Tolkien or the language used. Quite the opposite.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

Yora said:


> That's supposed to be an excuse?



It’s absolutely not an excuse.  Merely a contextualisation of a quote and a rebuttal to the claim that this quote shows Tolkein based his Orcs on Asians.


----------



## Yora (Jun 29, 2021)

Though it does support the claim that he based orcs on "others".


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

Yora said:


> Though it does support the claim that he based orcs on "others".



Well again, he’s evoking the fallen angel imagery.

Regarding others and othering. That in itself, in the abstract is no bad thing (to be absolutely clear, you apply that to real world peoples, that’s definitely wrong and a problem). A lot of folk lore, myth and creatures from many cultures around the world have creatures and monsters that are the other. Beings that have superficial human features but have aspects that are “wrong”, specifically making them other worldly, inhuman etc. These can be both positive and negative to the perception of these mythical/fictional beings.

This can range from European folklore such as the elves and dark elves to Asian demons that aren’t necessarily demons as we think of them today. Humans have done this for millennia.

As stated, the only problem then is if you apply these attributes explicitly to real world groups to “other them” (see for example Nazi propaganda around Jewish people) or indeed a lot of “scientific” works on black peoples.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> @Doug McCrae has provided an analysis, based on a reading of texts with an eye to the historical connections between them. It's not a _deconstruction_.



You know that this is basically the definition of deconstruction, in this context. 

I am all for applied literary theory.  

But what that means in a game context may not be as obvious.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

Yora said:


> That's supposed to be an excuse?



For what?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Tolkien’s quote around “degraded and repulsive versions of” (not actual baseline phenotypic characteristics ) suggest a twisting from the norm. Twisting from a human norm would make it less human in appearance no? He is trying to draw a distinction away from Zimmerman’s imagining of beaks and feathers. And again, I do not subscribe to his language used at all.
> 
> Certainly, his world view was characterised by his context, as is everybody’s. Certainly, his words would be called out were they uttered today. I would happily do so. It seems you are happy to acknowledge the setting context yet condemn him with a modern lens. Which is in itself problematic because then all literature prior to the last decade must be condemned as it is tainted by world views that are not our own.



Greene's _The Quiet American_ was written by an Englishman, a little more than 10 years younger than JRRT, and published in 1955, 3 years before Letter 210. I've already linked to Zadie Smith's essay on Greene, upthread. The lens through which I'm criticising JRRT's racist ideas, and reliance upon racist tropes, is modern only in the sense that it is available to me as it undoubtedly was available to him.



transmission89 said:


> It’s absolutely not an excuse.  Merely a contextualisation of a quote and a rebuttal to the claim that this quote shows Tolkein based his Orcs on Asians.



There is no rebuttal. That's your fallacy.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 29, 2021)

The problem with always-evil species is that they'll never last 3 generations. All species must protect their young and evil ones do not. It would be better to have extreme xenophobia ones. They would treat those outside their tribe very harshly but still be benevolent to those inside.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2021)

TerraDave said:


> Its a deconstruction, no doubt about it.





TerraDave said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> > @Doug McCrae has provided an analysis, based on a reading of texts with an eye to the historical connections between them. It's not a _deconstruction_.
> ...



I had a look at the section on deconstruction in Terry Eagleton, _Literary Theory 2e_ (1996), and I don’t think it applies to anything I’ve written in this thread.

Certain meanings are elevated by social ideologies to a privileged position, or made the centres around which other meanings are forced to turn. Consider, in our own society, Freedom, the Family, Democracy, Independence, Authority, Order and so on…

If you examine such first principles closely, you can see that they may always be 'deconstructed': they can be shown to be products of a particular system of meaning, rather than what props it up from the outside. First principles of this kind are commonly defined by what they exclude: they are part of the sort of 'binary opposition' beloved of structuralism. Thus, for male-dominated society, man is the founding principle and woman the excluded opposite of this; and as long as such a distinction is tightly held in place the whole system can function effectively. 'Deconstruction' is the name given to the critical operation by which such oppositions can be partly undermined, or by which they can be shown partly to undermine each other in the process of textual meaning…

Deconstruction, that is to say, has grasped the point that the binary oppositions with which classical structuralism tends to work represent a way of seeing typical of ideologies. Ideologies like to draw rigid boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not, between self and non-self, truth and falsity, sense and nonsense, reason and madness, central and marginal, surface and depth. Such metaphysical thinking, as I have said, cannot be simply eluded: we cannot catapult ourselves beyond this binary habit of thought into an ultra-metaphysical realm. But by a certain way of operating upon texts - whether 'literary' or 'philosophical' - we may begin to unravel these oppositions a little, demonstrate how one term of an antithesis secretly inheres within the other…

Deconstruction tries to show how such oppositions, in order to hold themselves in place, are sometimes betrayed into inverting or collapsing themselves, or need to banish to the text's margins certain niggling details which can be made to return and plague them. Derrida's own typical habit of reading is to seize on some apparently peripheral fragment in the work — a footnote, a recurrent minor term or image, a casual allusion - and work it tenaciously through to the point where it threatens to dismantle the oppositions which govern the text as a whole.​
D&D does prominently present "binary oppositions", such as Good and Evil, demihumans and humanoids, or civilisation and wilderness. But I haven’t been trying to "demonstrate how one term of an antithesis secretly inheres within the other", with the aim of denying the existence of a higher source of meaning. I haven't been looking at the "text's margins" or a "peripheral fragment" – evil humanoids, particularly orcs, are probably the most important monsters in D&D. Tolkien, Howard, Lovecraft, and Burroughs are influential Appendix N authors.

I think I’ve been doing exactly what @pemerton describes – demonstrating influences and parallels between texts.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Greene's _The Quiet American_ was written by an Englishman, a little more than 10 years younger than JRRT, and published in 1955, 3 years before Letter 210. I've already linked to Zadie Smith's essay on Greene, upthread. The lens through which I'm criticising JRRT's racist ideas, and reliance upon racist tropes, is modern only in the sense that it is available to me as it undoubtedly was available to him.
> 
> 
> There is no rebuttal. That's your fallacy.



Point: Tolkien’s Orcs were a stand in for a real world ethnicity, specifically East Asian.
My claim: They were not.
That is what a rebuttal is. “To claim OR prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.  So clearly it stands as a rebuttal. Which still makes it not a fallacy.

Certainly, I am in agreement with you that the descriptive language a lot of the time evokes wider culture racially motivated fears of different physicality. As was rife in all manners of literature. But not utilising them as a stand in as claimed.

I don’t agree with any of the racial vocabulary used, I don’t endorse it, I stand against it when it is used or implied today. But I don’t seek to criticise unfairly from a modern perspective historical figures without application of context.

Tolkein’s Orcs were his fallen angels, inspired by his readings of myth and legends  (despite the hurtful language used as an aid to describe their physicality).

D&D Orcs were obviously inspired by this, to be used as a monster in game, regardless of original literary inspiration, in such a way that, the origins have reached a point of irrelevance if their origins cause discomfort.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Point: Tolkien’s Orcs were a stand in for a real world ethnicity, specifically East Asian.
> My claim: They were not.
> 
> <snip>
> ...



I don't know what you mean by "stand in". It's not a phrase I've used. It's not a phrase that @Doug McCrae has used.

When @aramis erak says that they are "stand ins", I take the meaning to be along the lines of _they occupy the same place in JRRT's fantasy works as he conceives "Eastern" peoples (Huns, Mongols, Turks) to occupy in relation to European civilisation_. It doesn't rebut this claim to show that JRRT also describes Orcs as fallen.

There are many ways to think about falling, about what it threatens in human life, about how one might represent it in a fantasy story. One way is to use a cursed ring as a motif, and to frame the threat as _greed_, _expedience_ and _betrayal_. Another is to use the sorts of tropes JRRT draws upon in his account of Orcs, and to frame the threat as _an army of relentless, innumerable soldiers bent upon the destruction of the peoples of the "West"_.

JRRT did both.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't know what you mean by "stand in". It's not a phrase I've used. It's not a phrase that @Doug McCrae has used.
> 
> When @aramis erak says that they are "stand ins", I take the meaning to be along the lines of _they occupy the same place in JRRT's fantasy works as he conceives "Eastern" peoples (Huns, Mongols, Turks) to occupy in relation to European civilisation_. It doesn't rebut this claim to show that JRRT also describes Orcs as fallen.
> 
> ...



That wasn’t the context of his quote.
And before we go further with his view of peoples of the east in terms of Mordor being of the east and such, again, it’s important to remember that’s a subjective interpretation not a literal statement from the author that is what it is.

If we are to engage in literary theory, critiquing work, it is imperative one must remember that it is fully subjective and we bring our own experiences and baggage within our reading and interpretation of it. As Tolkein didn’t explicitly label Mordor = culture x, it has to be subjective. It can’t be stated as an objective smoking gun.

The orcs werent falling, i said they were (from Tolkeins musings on them) inspired and more representative of the biblical fallen angels. Certainly, as you say, he expressed falling into evil in a number of ways, such as with the rings which you highlighted. And as an army of soldiers unrelenting bent on the destruction on the west, to me, I’d interpret that more of his visions of the German war machine advancing west wards from his ww1 days.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 29, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> The orcs werent falling, i said they were (from Tolkeins musings on them) inspired and more representative of the biblical fallen angels. Certainly, as you say, he expressed falling into evil in a number of ways, such as with the rings which you highlighted. And as an army of soldiers unrelenting bent on the destruction on the west, to me, I’d interpret that more of his visions of the German war machine advancing west wards from his ww1 days.




Tangentially, in Tolkien, isn't the idea of those who have never seen the light also a big deal? There are the elves that never journeyed towards Valinor, and then the ones who never made it there.  There are the men that were never in the early few weren't in the early families that fought beside the elves, and then there are those that never got taken to Numenor.   Are the men of the east those that fell, or those that neither the elves nor Valinor ever bothered to reached out to (besides sending the Blue Wizards)?


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Tangentially, in Tolkien, isn't the idea of those who have never seen the light also a big deal? There are the elves that never journeyed towards Valinor, and then the ones who never made it there.  There are the men that were never in the early few families that never fought beside the elves, and then there are those that never got taken to Numenor.   Are the men of the east those that fell, or those that neither the elves nor Valinor ever bothered to reached out to (besides sending the Blue Wizards)?



I believe so. It’s certainly a motif that is worth exploring.  It’s been a while since I’ve gone in-depth on it so I don’t feel qualified to give an accurate personal assessment on that aspect. If anything, this just means another dive into the silmarillion which is no bad thing!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> That wasn’t the context of his quote.
> And before we go further with his view of peoples of the east in terms of Mordor being of the east and such, again, it’s important to remember that’s a subjective interpretation not a literal statement from the author that is what it is.
> 
> If we are to engage in literary theory, critiquing work, it is imperative one must remember that it is fully subjective and we bring our own experiences and baggage within our reading and interpretation of it. As Tolkein didn’t explicitly label Mordor = culture x, it has to be subjective. It can’t be stated as an objective smoking gun.



I find it slightly ironic to assert the subjectivity of literary criticism as part of a defence of JRRT, given his own views about the relationship between knowledge, truth, language and (what he called) "sub-creation".

I also don't think the notion of "smoking gun" is relevant here. JRRT is not on trial.

But I think it would be absurd to assert that his location of heroic peoples in the North and West of his imagined world, with the evil coming from the East and South, is coincidence or is arbitrary.



transmission89 said:


> And as an army of soldiers unrelenting bent on the destruction on the west, to me, I’d interpret that more of his visions of the German war machine advancing west wards from his ww1 days.



Or, as the propagandists of the time put it, "the Hun".


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Are the men of the east those that fell, or those that neither the elves nor Valinor ever bothered to reached out to (besides sending the Blue Wizards)?



In Appendix A there is discussion of the influence of Numenoreans, including "Black" (ie fallen/evil) Numenoreans, as colonisers of Middle Earth including Harad.

A complication - which emerges most fully when one considers Denethor's reference to "heathen kings" when he plans to immolate himself and Faramir - is that the Numenoreans also have not had the full benefit of revelation and salvation, given that they are pre-Christian. Still, there is a clear distinction drawn between those who acknowledge true spiritual forces (eg Faramir and his troop looking west at dinnertime) and those who sacrifice to Melkor and pay homage to Sauron - which one gathers is the case for most of the Southrons at least, and at least some of the Easterlings (others of these may be "merely" heathens).


----------



## Lord Shark (Jun 29, 2021)

Dire Bare said:


> Yes.




Pretty much this. 

This is a situation where us "old white cishet guys" might be better served by just _shutting up and listening_ instead of immediately trying to reframe the situation as about us ("but at _my _table _I..."_). 

The Game Police will not come and stop you if you have brutish, stupid, ugly, and always-evil orcs in your campaign. But the world is moving on, and don't be surprised if you find yourself getting left behind.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I find it slightly ironic to assert the subjectivity of literary criticism as part of a defence of JRRT, given his own views about the relationship between knowledge, truth, language and (what he called) "sub-creation".
> 
> I also don't think the notion of "smoking gun" is relevant here. JRRT is not on trial.
> 
> ...



Well, indeed, he’s well known also for his dislike of allegories and stating LOTR is not an allegory, yet it doesn’t stop others critiquing it as an allegorical work (such as , I don’t know asserting his evil coming from the east or south as meaningfully applying to actual real world groups).

It seems to me that from many of the comments that he and his works are on trial to some extent.  If we are using debates around his work and views as justification for demanding rewrites for writing derivative of his.

I love critiquing, exploring and analysing fiction. Literary theory is a great way to do it, but it is, to some extent, intellectual masturbation. It’s great applying different lenses to explore different fiction from different perspectives. But one has to acknowledge that if you are looking for specific things in your lens, you will undoubtedly find them. This applies to a racial lens, feminist lens, post feminist lens, queer theory etc. Especially when combined with the baggage that any reader brings to their reading of the text. It is an inherently subjective process.

Which makes it a less than stable, suitable platform for demanding changes to a game because of your (not specifically you, a general your) subjective interpretation of the works.

Which brings us back to the idea of the genetic fallacy. At the end of the day, even were Tolkein the most appalling racist, his creation of the Orcs the most vile, coded piece ever, it matters not to how they’ve been used on the table, in whatever way you’ve chosen to use them. How you choose to use them. Historically, they’ve been deployed as generic bad guys, a group similar to the nazis (fictionally acceptable to mow down with little moral consequence). Little more developed than that. If you wish to explore them further and go down the “novel” route of examining of orc culture as people (already done to death in the nineties and early noughts) have at it. Either view bears little relation to how Tolkien actually used them (yes they were bad and were mowed down, but they also were used by him to represent aspects unacknowledged by D&d)


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

Lord Shark said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> This is a situation where us "old white cishet guys" might be better served by just _shutting up and listening_ instead of immediately trying to reframe the situation as about us ("but at _my _table _I..."_).
> 
> The Game Police will not come and stop you if you have brutish, stupid, ugly, and always-evil orcs in your campaign. But the world is moving on, and don't be surprised if you find yourself getting left behind.



Seems a bit judgemental to assume that all who are arguing against this fall into that category.

That same argument could be applied to those demanding these changes to the completely fictional races too. No game police will come and take your books if you want races that have different attributes etc.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 29, 2021)

Strange that some think Tolkien was speaking of Asians when he talked about people of the east. He fought in WW1 and people of the east would be Germans.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 29, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> Strange that some think Tolkien was speaking of Asians when he talked about people of the east. He fought in WW1 and people of the east would be Germans.




There are a lot of countries in the east. When someone talks about an eastern look, they don't mean German.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 29, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> Strange that some think Tolkien was speaking of Asians when he talked about people of the east. He fought in WW1 and people of the east would be Germans.




Of course the Germans in WW1 were readily referred to as The Hun, linking them with the barbarous enemies coming out of Asia and the link is made by Tolkiens own writing. Even more so in his linking of Orcs with Haradrim (and the _Corsairs_ of Umbar) who are explicitly brown,  being a pastiche of north African, Indian and Ottoman traits. He even describes the black men of Far Harad as half troll

Tolkien may not have been overtly racist, but his heroes are whitemen fighting against the evil degenerate darkskinned enemy


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> Of course the Germans in WW1 were readily referred to as The Hun, linking them with the barbarous enemies coming out of Asia and the link is made by Tolkiens own writing. Even more so in his linking of Orcs with Haradrim (and the _Corsairs_ of Umbar) who are explicitly brown,  being a pastiche of north African, Indian and Ottoman traits. He even describes the black men of Far Harad as half troll
> 
> Tolkien may not have been overtly racist, but his heroes are whitemen fighting against the evil degenerate darkskinned enemy
> View attachment 139117



Alternatively evoking the hun imagery that persisted (informed by the Romano Christian view) that they were essentially the anti christ, bestial foe, destroying pure and good civilisation (again from a very biased Roman point of view. Of course, appalling propaganda to apply to enemies, but such as it was.

And we are just going to ignore the white villains that exist with the story to fit this reading? Of course there’s the undercurrent of white vs dark skinned (that is informed by the wider culture of the day), but I don’t think he’s trying to make a statement of white people are good, black people are bad. Really, that conflict is tangential to the main thrust of the narrative. 
Again, I think just an uniformed cultural bias in writing (like for example, older fantasy art work predominantly featuring white people, as they were painted by white artists, or a near invisibility of LGBT people in media until relatively recently).


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 29, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I find it slightly ironic to assert the subjectivity of literary criticism as part of a defence of JRRT, given his own views about the relationship between knowledge, truth, language and (what he called) "sub-creation".
> 
> I also don't think the notion of "smoking gun" is relevant here. JRRT is not on trial.



It's such a common and frustrating misconception that discussing the historical context of an author or the way that tropes get taken up and redeployed so quickly becomes "oh you're just saying this author is racist and dismissing the entire work."  It disables analysis and makes the conversation highly reductive. 




pemerton said:


> But I think it would be absurd to assert that his location of heroic peoples in the North and West of his imagined world, with the evil coming from the East and South, is coincidence or is arbitrary.



It's always striking to me how many fantasy worlds copy the geography of the real world - forgotten realms and game of thrones come to mind.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 29, 2021)

In the context of D&D, how sure do you feel a PC must be that a target is wholly evil (and not capable of redemption) before the PC kills said target?


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 29, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> In the context of D&D, how sure do you feel a PC must be that a target is wholly evil (and not capable of redemption) before the PC kills said target?



Part of the tension is that dnd uses combat as the default for conflict resolution, and that _can_ close down possibilities for what the PCs do in any given situation, or make the game not fun for some people, since you're aren't engaging as much with the mechanics as much if you aren't fighting. So, what the PCs do _should_ be contextual: are they being attacked?  How do they feel about killing things--is that the only response to evil?  What is the system of law and definitions of crime like in this world?  But I've been in dnd sessions where all these questions get reduced to, well the paladin did a detect evil and this creature is evil so roll initiative.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 29, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> It's such a common and frustrating misconception that discussing the historical context of an author or the way that tropes get taken up and redeployed so quickly becomes "oh you're just saying this author is racist and dismissing the entire work."  It disables analysis and makes the conversation highly reductive.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always striking to me how many fantasy worlds copy the geography of the real world - forgotten realms and game of thrones come to mind.



You’re right, it’s frustrating when the discussion of historical context comes up and is only utilised in support of a specific analysis, ignoring context when it doesn’t suit. It absolutely is reductive and dismissive. Again, literary theory is great when sitting back pontificating with a glass of wine, not so great as a foundational argument about wider systematic changes in derivative work. So, if one wants a literary theory discussion of Tolkein and an analysis of his works through various lenses, I’m down for that. 
Arguing that fictional races are problematic cos Tolkien, that’s where the dispute comes in.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2021)

JRR Tolkien's conception of orcs changed over time. His last writing on the subject was an essay _Orcs _(1959-1960) (with two minor notes added in 1969) published in JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien, _Morgoth's Ring_ (1993):

Though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they [orcs] 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. (pg 419)​
Tolkien's view of how orcs ought to be treated in 1960 was more humane than Gary Gygax's in 2005, expressed in a thread on Dragonsfoot. He supported the killing of prisoners by a paladin and even considered the execution of non-combatants to be acceptable Lawful Good conduct:



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed




The orcs in Tolkien's _Orcs _are rather human:

They needed food and drink, and rest, though many were by training as tough as Dwarves in enduring hardship. They could be slain, and they were subject to disease; but apart from these ills they died and were not immortal, even according to the manner of the Quendi; indeed they appear to have been by nature short-lived compared with the span of Men of higher race, such as the Edain. (pg 418)​
But a minority are Tolkien's equivalent of demons – incarnated fallen Maiar:

Morgoth had many servants, the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar; and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms. Those whose business it was to direct the Orcs often took Orkish shapes, though they were greater and more terrible. Thus it was that the histories speak of Great Orcs or Orc-captains who were not slain, and who reappeared in battle through years far longer than the span of the lives of Men. (pg 418)​
They are no longer corrupted elves, but corrupted men. JRR Tolkien: "The theory [of corrupted men] remains nonetheless the most probable." (pg 417) Christopher Tolkien: "This then, as it may appear, was my father's final view of the question: Orcs were bred from Men." (pg 421)


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 29, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> Tolkien's view of how orcs ought to be treated in 1960 was more humane than Gary Gygax's in 2005, expressed in a thread on Dragonsfoot. He supported the killing of prisoners by a paladin and even considered the execution of non-combatants to be acceptable Lawful Good conduct:



Your link goes to the wrong page, and truncates the quote. The corrected link goes over here, and the full paragraph is as follows:



> 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. Evil opponents would enlist, enslave, or execute them according to the nature of the Evil victors and that of the survivors. Enlistment would be for those of like alignment, slaughter for those opposite the victors' predisposition to order or disorder. Enslavement is an option for any sort of Evil desiring workers.


----------



## Esau Cairn (Jun 30, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> This is a delicate topic. I very much want commentary to course correct me where necessary. Thank you in advance.



Nothing personal, but the very title of this thread is antagonistic.



Aging Bard said:


> The problem with Evil races is not want you think​



Not only because I taught in university for years, but just as a reader, this statement inherently says that you believe you know what I think and that what I think is--by your perspective--not just incorrect, but wrong.

To constructively suggest another option: "The problem with Evil races may not be what you think" or even "The problem with Evil races is fraught with ethical and ethnic problems". As is equating "race" in frpg terms to cultural ethnicity in our world. Or hazards of speaking for others.

However, there ample evidence that all of the above are quite common.

Makes me glad I play with the group I do.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Well, indeed, he’s well known also for his dislike of allegories and stating LOTR is not an allegory, yet it doesn’t stop others critiquing it as an allegorical work (such as , I don’t know asserting his evil coming from the east or south as meaningfully applying to actual real world groups).



You seem to be confusing (at least) _allegory_, _symbolism_,_ trope _and _theme_. JRRT didn't - when he denied that LotR was allegory, he meant it was not allegory in the strict sense. (He did write some allegories - there is a good discussion of this in Shippey's book.)

LotR is clearly not an allegory of the fall of the Roman Empire (Eastern or Western) nor of British colonialism in North Africa and Asia nor of either World War.

But it is not devoid of meaning. Some of that is linguistic - the book reflects JRRT's own professional views as a philologist. Some of that is theological - it is a very Christian work. Some of that is literary - Lothlorien, for instance, renders the world of the fairy story in the form of the naturalistic novel, which I (at least) think is a major literary achievement. And some of that is racial. No doubt there are many other sorts of meaning also to be found in it.



transmission89 said:


> It seems to me that from many of the comments that he and his works are on trial to some extent.  If we are using debates around his work and views as justification for demanding rewrites for writing derivative of his.



The above is utter non sequitur.



transmission89 said:


> I love critiquing, exploring and analysing fiction. Literary theory is a great way to do it, but it is, to some extent, intellectual masturbation. It’s great applying different lenses to explore different fiction from different perspectives. But one has to acknowledge that if you are looking for specific things in your lens, you will undoubtedly find them. This applies to a racial lens, feminist lens, post feminist lens, queer theory etc. Especially when combined with the baggage that any reader brings to their reading of the text. It is an inherently subjective process.
> 
> Which makes it a less than stable, suitable platform for demanding changes to a game because of your (not specifically you, a general your) subjective interpretation of the works.



This is both false - a denial of difference across different works and authors, and a feeble attempt to flatten them all into sameness - and also a strange assertion from someone who seems to think that the identification of Orcs with a fall is not a mere subjective act of onanism.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> It's such a common and frustrating misconception that discussing the historical context of an author or the way that tropes get taken up and redeployed so quickly becomes "oh you're just saying this author is racist and dismissing the entire work."  It disables analysis and makes the conversation highly reductive.



Agreed.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> In the context of D&D, how sure do you feel a PC must be that a target is wholly evil (and not capable of redemption) before the PC kills said target?



My own view is that the easiest way to deal with this problem is to frame most violence by heroic-type PCs as either defensive or consensual. (Often it might be both.)

That tends to be consistent with the romantic world view that is typical of fantasy.

It tends to paint assassins, pre-emptive strikers, poisoners, and sorcerers who strike secretly from afar as morally dubious - but that is also consistent with that romantic world view!


----------



## Aging Bard (Jun 30, 2021)

Esau Cairn said:


> Nothing personal, but the very title of this thread is antagonistic.



It is personal (an attack, to be clear), you know it is, and the title is not antagonistic. Stop the passive aggressiveness.


Esau Cairn said:


> Not only because I taught in university for years,



Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. And I have a Master's degree. So what?


Esau Cairn said:


> but just as a reader, this statement inherently says that you believe you know what I think



No I do not, and I never said that. You are wrong.


Esau Cairn said:


> and that what I think is--by your perspective--not just incorrect, but wrong.



No I do not, and I never said that. Again you are wrong.


Esau Cairn said:


> To constructively suggest another option: "The problem with Evil races may not be what you think"



This is wordsmithing


Esau Cairn said:


> or even "The problem with Evil races is fraught with ethical and ethnic problems".



This shows me that you did not read what I wrote. The problem is _people_ making such vile interpretations. Games are unreal. People who want to assert such interpretations are the problem, and should be shunned. If you are unable to separate the unreal game from your feelings among players of good faith, then that is your problem, not the game's problem. But as I said, lots of players cannot be taken at good faith, and their toxic influence confuses player feelings and game objectives. This is a very real problem, which is why toxic players needs to be ejected. Playing in a setting with ethical problems is fine as long as the players understand that the setting is problematic and act accordingly. Now you not wanting to play in such a setting is your choice and is fine, but without any conflict what are you fighting? Several commentators have suggested undead or other clearly Evil monsters. That's also fine, but it's boring. The greatest monsters are evil humans. If you are uncomfortable with the reality of humans in a _completely unreal setting_, then I don't know what to say. As I said, it's a matter of trust. If you can't trust your group to understand the unrealness of the game (i.e. they are getting off on racism, sexism, etc.), the you need a different group. Based upon your final comment, you have the right group!


Esau Cairn said:


> As is equating "race" in frpg terms to cultural ethnicity in our world. Or hazards of speaking for others.



I did not do this. Race = species, and most RPG players know this. Changing the terminology is fine with me, but so is not changing it, as I am fine with abstract definitions.


Esau Cairn said:


> However, there ample evidence that all of the above are quite common.



Agreed, which I addressed and rejected. Again, did you read what I wrote?


Esau Cairn said:


> Makes me glad I play with the group I do.



Which was my point!


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 30, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My own view is that the easiest way to deal with this problem is to frame most violence by heroic-type PCs as either defensive or consensual. (Often it might be both.)
> 
> That tends to be consistent with the romantic world view that is typical of fantasy.
> 
> It tends to paint assassins, pre-emptive strikers, poisoners, and sorcerers who strike secretly from afar as morally dubious - but that is also consistent with that romantic world view!




I can see that.

Also, thank you for taking time to offer a thought-out response. Often, I find that the most difficult part discussing these topics is that many people assume that offense is meant.

For me, I'm not really sure what makes sense. I would agree that certain types of attack are seen as morally dubious. (That could be an entire discussion about combat and honor -lawfulness?- on its own. Is the long-range archer less good than the melee paladin? The unarmed monk using only their fists?)

One the other end of the spectrum, there are canon examples of devils who were redeemed (and there's some level of consent and non-evil thought presumed possible by the elevation of tieflings to a PC race. With that in mind -in a game where killing creatures is assigned point values- I'm never sure where the general consensus about right/wrong is seen to be.

On a more personal level, my own view is admittedly "skewed" by influences from sword-&-sorcery, Arthurian fantasy, anecdotal experience with combat, and etc. So, I ask questions as a way to explore where others feel the default lines of morality should be.

It gets even more complicated when things like Mindflayers are considered. To reproduce, Mindflayers engage in an act which is a severe violation of a sentient being's body autonomy. So, how would a hypothetically "good" Mindflayer have a family without engaging in acts which would be seen as less-than-good by others?

•edited to touch up some grammar and spelling


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> It's always striking to me how many fantasy worlds copy the geography of the real world - forgotten realms and game of thrones come to mind.



Side trek perhaps, but other than that there's a mix of land and ocean (i.e. it's an earth-like setting), a breathable atmosphere, and that it's cold to the north (and south) and warm toward the equator, I fail to see how the geography of either of those examples lines up with the real world.

The human/humanoid cultures tend to line up in fairly close analogs to reality, sure - but that's not geography; or at best vaguely touches some edges of it.

Geography is maps and what is on them.  It's right there in the word: _geo_ (earth) _graph_ (chart or drawing or map) _y_.

Geology is a sub-branch, climatology another, oceanography another, and so on.  So-called "cultural geography" is really a wrongly-named sub-branch of sociology - says he, who had no choice but to study some of it in order to get his degree...


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2021)

"The problem with evil races is not what you think"

I beg to differ with the interpretation in the OP.

The problem with evil races (i.e. inherently-evil creatures) is that for some inane reason the designers have, over time, slowly allowed them to become playable as PCs; taking them from pure "monsters" that only the DM ever had to worry about to something players become - or can become - invested in.  Further, making them PC-playable means that to satisfy a large number of tables the inherent underlying evil-ness has to be stripped away; yet the inherent underlying good-ness of creatures like Dwarves and Elves and Halflings (Hobbits) is allowed to remain.

Dragonborn as core-game PC?  Tiefling as core-game PC?  Orcs and a bunch of other "humanoid" creatures as PC?  Sheer idiocy - _unless the game allows and supports evil PCs_, in which case go to town on 'em! 

@Dannyalcatraz - re your post upthread about designing a new evil creature/culture from scratch and then using terminology to describe it and its attitudes that doesn't match terminology used to describe and-or belittle at least one real-life culture:  great idea, except that given how many different ways various cultures have been described and-or belittled over time, is there any useful terminology left that hasn't been thusly tainted?


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 30, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> It gets even more complicated when things like Mindflayers are considered. To reproduce, Mindflayers engage in an act which is a severe violation of a sentient being's body autonomy. So, how would a hypothetically "good" Mindflayer have a family without engaging in acts which would be seen as less-than-good by others?




If they only attacked evil races, they would be good. Good and evil are black and white. Simple.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

pemerton said:


> You seem to be confusing (at least) _allegory_, _symbolism_,_ trope _and _theme_. JRRT didn't - when he denied that LotR was allegory, he meant it was not allegory in the strict sense. (He did write some allegories - there is a good discussion of this in Shippey's book.)
> 
> LotR is clearly not an allegory of the fall of the Roman Empire (Eastern or Western) nor of British colonialism in North Africa and Asia nor of either World War.
> 
> ...



I’m confusing nothing. Allegory: a story […] that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning.

It’s not a non sequitur, it’s a tying back a diversion into discussion of Tolkein back to the premise of the thread.

Im also not making denials of differences or flattening anything. In fact that’s stating literally the opposite, that you’ll get as many different different readings of work as people who are reading them.

As to Tolkien’s orcs, I never said otherwise and made clear im as happy to engage in it as any other.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 30, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> I can see that.
> 
> Also, thank you for taking time to offer a thought-out response. Often, I find that the most difficult part discussing these topics is that many people assume that offense is meant.
> 
> ...




I'm don't think there is a general consensus about right/wrong in the game. Read any alignment thread. Or this thread. (I'm sure you've read this thread. Just being rhetorical.)

For me, I prefer to play characters who talk first and hit second. Usually. I will sometimes play characters who are, how shall I put this? A-Holes. But I prefer for my characters to have reasons for any fighting they do. The reasons can and do change from genre to genre and campaign to campaign. There are some lines I will not cross for my own reasons. There are other lines I will not cross out of respect for the other players' needs.

Of course that's when I'm not GM. When I'm GM I do, naturally, play some right A-Holes. But even then I avoid crossing lines that will offend my players.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 30, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Side trek perhaps, but other than that there's a mix of land and ocean (i.e. it's an earth-like setting), a breathable atmosphere, and that it's cold to the north (and south) and warm toward the equator, I fail to see how the geography of either of those examples lines up with the real world.
> 
> The human/humanoid cultures tend to line up in fairly close analogs to reality, sure - but that's not geography; or at best vaguely touches some edges of it.
> 
> ...



It's ok I'm pedantic too sometimes.

But c'mon, the Toril map has clear geographic analogues with earth:

The maztica area looks like the Americas, Osse is a large island to the east of everything, the main action happens among the temperate forests and plains of the sword coast, the tropical analogue is to the south of this and filled with jungles,  there's an area with a range of mountains called "Tabot."

The Got known world is a bit more subtle, but still broadly analogous: area with most of the action is temperate forest and moors/grasslands, to east are drier plains, to the south and east hot, sandy areas.  Each of those are populated with fantasy analogues of real earth cultures.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 30, 2021)

Not to mention all those European looking people and European like cultures in Not-Europe. African looking people and African like cultures in Not-Africa. Etc.

Geography is more than just maps.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> It's ok I'm pedantic too sometimes.
> 
> But c'mon, the Toril map has clear geographic analogues with earth:
> 
> ...



GOT is hardly subtle, Westeros is literally an upside down British Isles . 

I think to some extent, it’s just easier from a world building pov. There are reasons why different biomes are like they are, if you’re not confident in all the geographical reasons for their conditions, you can’t go far wrong placing analogous places in the same location. The same for providing a quick stereotype (not in a negative way, more as a short cut to clue the reader in) of your fantasy culture. These guys are the “not Celts” of this world etc…


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> "The problem with evil races is not what you think"
> 
> I beg to differ with the interpretation in the OP.
> 
> ...



Sure- I’ve done it before in another thread on ENWorld when this came up before.  I don’t remember the thread or details from back then, though.

However, decades ago, a priest gave a sermon at my church that opened with, “Satan…is _*beautiful*!  _If he looked like a monster, we would all run from him. But we don’t. We go TOWARDS him. We find him attractive.”

Etc.

An always evil race could just as easily be incredibly gorgeous.  See Michael Moorcock’s Melniboneans.  Even the Pan Tangians looked like normal humans, despite their association with the darkest lords of Chaos.

D&D halflings could be the Uber-evil race without any visual changes.  Borrow a page from Dark Sun and make them into carnivores with a taste for sentients.  Maybe even domesicatirs of burrowing creatures, like bulettes… explaining their preference for elves.

Ignoting that because you WANT to telegraph their inner nature?  You can still use words like “brutish” and “savage” if they’re not ALSO used with other terminology associated with bigotry, like “dark-skinned” or what have you.

Making them non-mammalian would be a great way to avoid unfortunate RW parallels.

The same all goes for cultures.  Your baddies don’t have to be the barbarians at the gate.  If the 20th century taught us anything, it’s that advanced societies can commit great evil within the world.  See also the colonial era.  Or think about how the subjugated people in the New Workd viewed their Incan, Mayan, etc. overlords.

Look at one of the species in the sci-fi show, _Defiance._ The Omecs are feared by everyone- super advanced, physically powerful, attractive, looked like purple Drow/vampires, considered other sentient species livestock- fit for servitude or *sauces.  *Not a stereotype.

I could keep pointing at sci-fi, too.  Stephen Donaldson’s Amnion are scary as hell, but tick no RW stereotypes.

What were the main enemies in _Stargate: Atlantis?  _An advanced race of corpse-white creatures.

The Borg.  Replicators.

The Kromags from _Sliders_ invert the brutish stereotypes, again by being a technologically advanced race.

The Dominion.  The Ori.

Etc.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 30, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> If they only attacked evil races, they would be good. Good and evil are black and white. Simple.




Which circles back to my original question: how sure of a being's evilness must one for it to be that simple?


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 30, 2021)

making new thread instead... ignore this


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 30, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sure- I’ve done it before in another thread on ENWorld when this came up before.  I don’t remember the thread or details from back then, though.
> 
> What were the main enemies in _Stargate: Atlantis?  _An advanced race of corpse-white creatures.




The Wraith - space vampires.

Sci Fi is a good source of advanced evil races but as you intimate in reference to the Omecs, even there they tend to be analogous to Elfs/Vampires (Wraith) or Hobgoblins (Kromagg). The problem of Orcs is them being cast as primitive other rather than merely hypermilitant.

The challenge is to present a race that is both savage-beastial and humanoid and not a therianthrope


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> my own view is admittedly "skewed" by influences from sword-&-sorcery, Arthurian fantasy, anecdotal experience with combat, and etc. So, I ask questions as a way to explore where others feel the default lines of morality should be.



In another recent thread sparked by some of these same issues, I posted that I think that aesthetics don't always track morality.

When it comes to RPGing, and especially FRPGing, like you I am influenced by sword-and-sorcery and Arthurian/romantic fantasy. (I have no personal experience with combat.)

Sword-and-sorcery gives us (i) a lot of consensual violence - brigands, pirates, reavers etc who live and die by the sword - and (ii) a very low threshold for defensive violence. Whatever the truth of these as real moral positions, they are coherent enough (in my view) to be incorporated into FRPGing in a way that allows our heroes to come across as tolerably heroic rather than murderous thugs.

Arthurian romance also gives us consensual violence (jousts, and some chivalric warfare). It tends to frame defensive violence in more stark terms - the evildoers act in such a way that violence is the only answer (see eg the Battle of the Pelennor Fields). A third type of permissible violence that arises in the context of Arthurian-type romance is just retributive violence (this is a factor justifying the assault of Aragorn and Gandalf's forces against Mordor in the concluding scenes of Book 5 of LotR). Again, whatever one's views about punishment and retribution in reality, I think this can be incorporated into FRPGing in a reasonably coherent way.



Argyle King said:


> For me, I'm not really sure what makes sense. I would agree that certain types of attack are seen as morally dubious. (That could be an entire discussion about combat and honor -lawfulness?- on its own. Is the long-range archer less good than the melee paladin? The unarmed monk using only their fists?)



I think a long range archer _sniper_ is somewhat dubious, although if s/he only starts shooting once the battle is on that seems less egregious. And to make a typical FRPG game work, we have to make some allowance for archer PCs.

But whereas there is a plausible argument, within the broadly S&S or romantic/Arthurian framework, that a soldier who goes to battle has more-or-less consented to being shot at, the same doesn't go to striking without warning from secrecy. That doesn't rule out all ambushes - some are probably legitimate defensive violence, and if the place is known to be one where ambushes are likely (eg a disputed mountain pass) then there is at least a type of implicit consent. But assassination, sorcery delivered via long distance curses, etc all seems to me to fall on the dubious side of the line.



Argyle King said:


> One the other end of the spectrum, there are canon examples of devils who were redeemed (and there's some level of consent and non-evil thought presumed possible by the elevation of tieflings to a PC race. With that in mind -in a game where killing creatures is assigned point values- I'm never sure where the general consensus about right/wrong is seen to be.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It gets even more complicated when things like Mindflayers are considered. To reproduce, Mindflayers engage in an act which is a severe violation of a sentient being's body autonomy. So, how would a hypothetically "good" Mindflayer have a family without engaging in acts which would be seen as less-than-good by others?



I've got no views about hypothetically good Mindflayers. To me it seems to live in the same space as vampires in some contemporary fiction who drink cow blood or rely on blood drives or whatever. If others want to explore those possibilities of course they can go to town, but it's not something I'm going to default to in my own FRPGing.

(If the players, via their PCs, redeemed a vampire or Mindflayer that would be a different thing but no doubt they would have ideas about how to cross the diet bridge and so the problem wouldn't be mine to solve purely by hypothesis.)

As far as devils and typical vampires and mindflayers are concerned, I think the violence used against them is generally justifiable as defensive and/or retributive.



DrunkonDuty said:


> I prefer to play characters who talk first and hit second. Usually. I will sometimes play characters who are, how shall I put this? A-Holes. But I prefer for my characters to have reasons for any fighting they do. The reasons can and do change from genre to genre and campaign to campaign. There are some lines I will not cross for my own reasons. There are other lines I will not cross out of respect for the other players' needs.



I don't play very often. In FRPGing, my default PC is a knight of a religious order (so a cleric or paladin in D&D). But on the weekend a friend and I started a new Burning Wheel campaign with a PC each and mutual GMing.

My PC is a JRRT-style Dark Elf - I think the Tolkienesque way that BW handles Elves, Dwarves and Orcs is pretty amazing. My PC Aedhros does not intend to confine himself to morally permissible violence as I've described earlier in this post: when he and Alicia (my friend's PC) were robbing an innkeeper, I (as Aedhros) was ready to stab the innkeeper with my black-metal long knife Heart-seeker. But my friend, wearing his GMing hat, insisted that I make a Steel check to commit cold-blooded murder, and I failed and hence hesitated. This gave him, in his capacity as Alicia, time to cast a Persuasion spell and thereby persuade me not to kill the innkeeper.

I mention this as an example of the variety of moral textures that I think are possible in FRPGing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> The Wraith - space vampires.
> 
> Sci Fi is a good source of advanced evil races but as you intimate in reference to the Omecs, even there they tend to be analogous to Elfs/Vampires (Wraith) or Hobgoblins (Kromagg). The problem of Orcs is them being cast as primitive other rather than merely hypermilitant.
> 
> The challenge is to present a race that is both savage-beastial and humanoid and not a therianthrope



Well…therianthropy and “bestial” kinda go hand in paw.  It’s just a sliding scale.  A spectrum, if you will.  On one end, you’ve got more animorphic races like Kobolds, troglodytes, Sahuagin, lizard men, true anthropomorphic animals, etc.  On the other, more human-looking types with exaggerated fangs, claws and suchlike.  In the middle are the shapeshifters.

And as I noted, a race need not be bestial _in any way_ to be evil.

But let’s say you WANT something truly bestial.  9 times out of 10, you’re probably going to use a predatory species.*  You still don’t have to go with the usual suspects, the ones that get used in stereotyping humans.  Why not something in the badger family- an evil race of anthro wolverine?

What about shrikes?  Every one of those little guys is a tiny, flying Vlad the impaler.

Hell, I reworked the bat-like Seshayans from StarDrive into rulers of the Underdark, fallen into forgetful decadence, unaware of their former greatness.

Evil Hippos?  Evil Elephants?

I did a homebrew race of anthro porcupines, once.  Coulda been evil, with a penchant for coating their spines with toxins,

Or skip the middleman- evil Anthro poisonous frogs.







* Ibixians were CN, as I recall.  Equicephs were LE.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 30, 2021)

@pemerton 

I find a lot of what you say to be reasonable and thoughtful. 

Most of my "struggles" come from when conversations about real-world bias intersectwith fantasy (especially fantasy built upon very different assumptions about what is "real") in a way which puts most of the topic into extremely binary terms of assumed offense on the part of the creator(s) of a narrative. In terms of conflict, morality has (I believe) areas of gray. Hypothetically, this is why many legal systems includes a human component in the form of a judge (and/or jury) rather than strictly adherence to written law. 

(Related: On the other end of things, it's why I believe extremely lawful antagonists can sometimes be scarier than evil; there's a complete absence of empathy or emotional motivation for such a being. The cosmic horror of being so far beneath a being's view of "right" that nothing about you matters is like being a bug headed toward an inevitable windshield.)

Which, in and of itself is somewhat contradictory I guess because there are settings in which alignment (good/evil) is defined as tangibly binary.

In the past, I've taken the position that the "reality" of a fictional world would (to some extent) need to be considered to determine if something like "always evil" orcs is badwrongfun. But that position has been said to be bad because of a fallacy which I don't even personally agree is a fallacy from the perspective of either logic or ethics. 

In world where they're literally bred and biologically programmed to contain "evil" -which is an actual tangible and objective thing, I don't see it as wrong for a PC to have the general attitude of "yeah, f' those guys."

In world where some higher level of sentience is ascribed and the conflicts are more nuanced than programmed bad guys, I think it's different.

In either case, I think it's a problem if all of the bad guys are made to look and act like a marginalized real-world group. So, I acknowledge that as why some depictions of D&D races are not acceptable. 

Though, I am also find it worthwhile to ask what level of (if any) real-world inspiration is allowed to be used when creating a fantasy culture. When writing a story, can an author borrow aspects of a culture or religion upon which to base an idea? Is it expected that every aspect of a story is somehow wholly original? I would guess that the answer is somewhere between, but even asking those questions or trying to explore them often leads to assumed offense or assumed bigotry in contemporary culture. 

None of which is meant to imply that the various -isms do not exist in fantasy. In many cases, they very clearly do. 

This took a very different turn from how I thought I would respond. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do not think the societal rules for what's okay and what isn't are always very clear, and I think there are times that it's even less clear when things such as art, narrative, and story are explored. If violent conflict is also in the mix, I think it's even less clear.

What are the generally acceptable rules of engagement concerning whether or not a PC stabbing a foe is okay?

As screwed up as it may sound, IME there have been times when it seemed reasonable to choose my own survival over something (or someone) else -even without wizards or demons being involved. Years afterwards, I did struggle with whether or not that made me a bad person, but it seemed to make sense at the time. I can't say with certainty that my own individual decisions would be different or better in a D&D world.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> @pemerton
> 
> I find a lot of what you say to be reasonable and thoughtful.
> 
> ...



This is absolutely spot on, on many levels. You’re right that societal rules are not clear on many aspects and in fact can and do change, even within a society, a sub group on a regular basis.

Which is why it is a problem when a group demands changes across the board to fit their vision, dismissing counter arguments as out moded. It’s a dance that’s been done many times before and like fashion and trends, yo yo back and forth.

For example, outside the topic du jour, discussions around game complexity. On many levels, 4E had attributes of a complex game and 5E, as a reaction to that, stripped many elements back (as did many other games conceived at a similar time). Looking at the current online discourse, there is seemingly an appetite once again for more complex elements.

Back to the topic at hand, a rule of thumb is to do what works for your table, ignore wider discussion and don’t worry about it. Anything you do can and will offend someone, somewhere on some level (michaelangelo’s David statue for example)*. Play the game, create the fiction your way and damn the rest.

*before the usual suspects pile on, no this isn’t me stating or advocating you have carte Blanche to go out of your way to create something specifically, purposely offensive to certain peoples.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 30, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well…therianthropy and “bestial” kinda go hand in paw.  It’s just a sliding scale.  A spectrum, if you will.  On one end, you’ve got more animorphic races like Kobolds, troglodytes, Sahuagin, lizard men, true anthropomorphic animals, etc.  On the other, more human-looking types with exaggerated fangs, claws and suchlike.  In the middle are the shapeshifters.
> 
> And as I noted, a race need not be bestial _in any way_ to be evil.
> 
> ...




One of the many things I liked about the 2002 Master of the Unverse Reboot was that the bat-like Speleans and trogdolyte-ish Caligars were both monstrous races at war but both ‘heroic’, Indeed other than Snakemen practically all the Races of Eternia were treated as essentially honourable people with members who could be swayed to villainy or heroism

It might be the way to go - there are no evil races, just people who should be judged for their individual actions


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 30, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Tolkein’s Orcs were his fallen angels



Tolkien didn't think of his orcs as fallen angels, at least if fallen angel is considered synonymous with demon as it is in Christianity.

JRR Tolkien, _The Annals of Aman_ (1958) in JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien, _Morgoth’s Ring_ (1993):

Orcs we may name them; for in days of old they were strong and fell as demons. Yet they were not of demon kind, but children of earth corrupted by Morgoth, and they could be slain or destroyed by the valiant with weapons of war. (pg 109)​
In Letter #71 (1944) he seems to view them as separate categories (emphasis mine): "a motley alliance of *orcs*, beasts, *demons*, plain naturally honest men, and angels." A similar separation is employed in Letter #131 (1951) (emphasis mine): "elves, dwarves, the Kings of Men, heroic 'Homeric' horsemen, *orcs and demons*, the terrors of the Ring-servants and Necromancy, and the vast horror of the Dark Throne." Letter #144 (1954): "Orcs (the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English _orc '_demon', but only because of its phonetic suitability)." "Phonetic" means the sound of speech, not its meaning.

However Tolkien did regard other entities in his fiction as demonic or even Satanic. _The Annals of Aman_: "in Utumno he [Melkor] wrought the race of demons whom the Elves after named the Balrogs." (pg 70) _Quenta Silmarillion_ (1951-1952), in _Morgoth’s Ring_:

Melkor built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were the first made of his creatures: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days. (pg 159)​
In Letter #153 (1954) Tolkien refers to Morgoth as "Diabolus". Letter #156 (1954): "the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron". In the same letter, Sauron's deception of the Númenoreans is a "Satanic lie".

It can be concluded that balrogs are the closest analogues in Tolkien's fiction to demons, while Morgoth and Sauron are Satanic. Orcs are something else.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> Most of my "struggles" come from when conversations about real-world bias intersect with fantasy (especially fantasy built upon very different assumptions about what is "real") in a way which puts most of the topic into extremely binary terms of assumed offense on the part of the creator(s) of a narrative. In terms of conflict, morality has (I believe) areas of gray.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



To me there seems to be a lot going on in what you've posted. Probably too much for me to fully respond to all of it.

I personally find the notions of _bias _and _bigotry_ useful in some contexts and not others. For instance, there are studies (at least in Australia; I imagine also in the US, Canada and the UK) which indicate that resumes that are otherwise identical attract different degrees of interest from prospective employers depending on the race/ethnicity that is suggested by the job applicant's name. That seems like a phenomenon where notions of bias (be that deliberate or "implicit") might have work to do.

When I'm looking at a literary work, I'm not normally forming a view about the author. I'm interested in the ideas that are conveyed by the work. These might include elements that reflect or were shaped by bigotry - eg a certain conception of how certain racial/ethnic markers correlate with threats to human life and civilisation. Whether or not the author is/was a bigot would be a different question.

I think that there are two issues, at least, that one might want to keep in mind when drawing on real cultures - particularly "minority" cultures (ie cultures that tend to be on the receiving rather than dealing end in contemporary political structures) - in the fantasy context. One: don't replicate correlations/interpretations that are grounded in, or express, bigoted ideas. Two, and on the assumption that you are not a participant in the culture in question: be cautious that your work isn't crowding out the work of those who are participants in the culture in question bringing their conception of their culture to life.

I don't see that either of those issues dictates a particular answer in any given case. But there are probably some approaches to authoring fantasy worlds that they do rule out.



Argyle King said:


> As screwed up as it may sound, IME there have been times when it seemed reasonable to choose my own survival over something (or someone) else -even without wizards or demons being involved. Years afterwards, I did struggle with whether or not that made me a bad person, but it seemed to make sense at the time. I can't say with certainty that my own individual decisions would be different or better in a D&D world.



To me this seems to raise a pretty different issue! One reason I prefer to work in political than moral philosophy is that I incline towards particularism in morality; and look to social and political institutions to resolve matters of interpersonal justice.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 30, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> Which circles back to my original question: how sure of a being's evilness must one for it to be that simple?




How can you be unsure? It says they're evil in their description. Either you play the game as written (which means you don't have to worry about morality) or you interpret it as real.

And if you pretend it's real, how do purely evil races survive? A completely evil race would name their offspring Spare Rations 1, Spare Rations 2, Spare Rations 3, ... Being evil, they would not just be selfish but go out of their way to hurt others, any other including their own offspring. So how can the race survive if infanticide is a requirement?

As I said before, a race cannot be purely evil. It can at most be extremely xenophobic but purely evil races cannot last.

And if they're not completely evil, you judge individuals by their deeds and not condemn entire populations by the actions of some or even most.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> Tolkien didn't think of his orcs as fallen angels, at least if fallen angel is considered synonymous with demon as it is in Christianity.
> 
> JRR Tolkien, _The Annals of Aman_ (1958) in JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien, _Morgoth’s Ring_ (1993):
> 
> ...



You’re spot on, I meant more in the figurative sense, evoking of rather than literal in the lore. Referencing the mythology and religion influencing him. As the Elves have this more angelic quality of them compared to the more whimsical woodland elves. Of d&d or earlier works.

(so again a literary theory interpretation ) if orcs (originally at least as Tolkein agonised over settling on origin) were the twisted corrupted elves, Made, turned into symbols of hate, that’s the kinda imagery I was alluding too.

of course, I do like the idea as well of him later settling on them being corrupted men. It becomes that perfect symbol of the war machine making man a monster. So either one works I. Different ways


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 30, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> You’re spot on, I meant more in the figurative sense, evoking of rather than literal in the lore. As the Elves have this more angelic quality of them compared to the more whimsical woodland elves.
> 
> (so again the literary theory interpretation ) if orcs (originally at least as Tolkein agonised over settling on origin) were the twisted corrupted elves, Made, turned into symbols of hate, that’s the kinda imagery I was alluding too.
> 
> of course, I do like the idea as well of him later settling on them being corrupted men. It becomes that perfect symbol of the war machine making man a monster. So either one works I. Different ways




Tolkein studied old tales of northern Europe. The oldest tales of elfs had them as beings of white that helped travellers. As time when on, they went from good to indifferent to mischievous to wicked to evil. And their skin when from white to dark.

Middle Earth reflected this as elves were the older good, angelic beings and orcs the newer evil, dark ones.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> Tolkein studied old tales of northern Europe. The oldest tales of elfs had them as beings of white that helped travellers. As time when on, they went from good to indifferent to mischievous to wicked to evil. And their skin when from white to dark.
> 
> Middle Earth reflected this as elves were the older good, angelic beings and orcs the newer evil, dark ones.



Yes indeed, quoted me just before my edited reference to that . And that’s how I like to interpret it on one level.

On another, them as soulless, hateful, depersonalised tools of war and industry, tearing down an English Pastral (sp) ideal. Which I think is a purposeful echo of the Romantacism movement from older literature.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> The problem is _people_ making such vile interpretations. Games are unreal.




There's this idea going around that if a thing is fictional, it cannot be harmful.  That all responsibility for any harm done by fiction rests on the reader - the author is blameless.

This is incredibly bogus. 

I could write a fictional piece about Smaging Smard, talking about how they are racist, sexist, have poor math skills and even worse hygiene, and how they enjoy knocking children's ice cream cones to the ground to make them cry.  And then, by your logic, I can blame you for "interpretting" that I am talking about you.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> Tolkein studied old tales of northern Europe. The oldest tales of elfs had them as beings of white that helped travellers. As time when on, they went from good to indifferent to mischievous to wicked to evil. And their skin when from white to dark.




Except, in the original language the desription is ambiguous.  "Dark elf" is more likely to mean "dark of heart" than "dark of skin" in the original.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 30, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Except, in the original language the desription is ambiguous.  "Dark elf" is more likely to mean "dark of heart" than "dark of skin" in the original.




Or unknown as in dark horse or dark ages.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

Umbran said:


> There's this idea going around that if a thing is fictional, it cannot be harmful.  That all responsibility for any harm done by fiction rests on the reader - the author is blameless.
> 
> This is incredibly bogus.
> 
> I could write a fictional piece about Smaging Smard, talking about how they are racist, sexist, have poor math skills and even worse hygiene, and how they enjoy knocking children's ice cream cones to the ground to make them cry.  And then, by your logic, I can blame you for "interpretting" that I am talking about you.



That fictional piece is not really equivalent about Smaging Bard though as obvious pieces of disguised parody or slander, or outright hate speech disguised as narrative  can be either legitimised (as in parody works) or dealt with legally.

No one is has said reader must bear _all _responsibility. But creative works are a two way process between authorial voice and intent and reader understanding, experience etc.

And specifically at the table it’s very much a group’s responsibility to decide what works for their particular needs.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> And specifically at the table it’s very much a group’s responsibility to decide what works for their particular needs.




Sure.  But then, if a thing does not work for your particular needs... that's the basis of _criticism_.  

Ergo, if some bit of D&D rules or cotent doesn't work for you, that's a bit that's valid to criticize.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Sure.  But then, if a thing does not work for your particular needs... that's the basis of _criticism_.
> 
> Ergo, if some bit of D&D rules or cotent doesn't work for you, that's a bit that's valid to criticize.



Indeed, there’s lots of potential different things to criticise. And other groups might not share your groups’ particular issue or not agree with your view of it as an issue. Something might only be an issue for a particular while because of circumstance (such as renaming of demons and devils before they slowly made their way back in).

I don’t think anything is invalid to criticise, I just don’t think all criticisms are valid. And that applies equally to all. The validity of a criticism is also subjective as to what is “valid” to you.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 30, 2021)

My personal view is that Tolkein's inspirations are not nearly as important as overall subtext of orcs as the uncivilized barbarians at the gate. Even outside any particular racial animus the trope is itself racist or at the very least ethnocentric in a pretty appalling way as far as I am concerned. That does not mean we should avoid it entirely in fiction, but to treat it entirely uncritically is not a good look for us or the professor.

Then again I do not view the point of literature of any kind as a means of escape, but rather a means to look at ourselves more critically than we otherwise might. Like Moorcock I view the use of fantasy as a means to retreat to a 'simpler time' as promoting aristocratic values. I find Tolkein's work has merit despite that romanticism of the gentry and ethnocentrism, but I have difficulty how you could look at the work and not see it.


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

Campbell said:


> My personal view is that Tolkein's inspirations are not nearly as important as overall subtext of orcs as the uncivilized barbarians at the gate. Even outside any particular racial animus the trope is itself racist or at the very least ethnocentric in a pretty appalling way as far as I am concerned. That does not mean we should avoid it entirely in fiction, but to treat it entirely uncritically is not a good look for us or the professor.
> 
> Then again I do not view the point of literature of any kind as a means of escape, but rather a means to look at ourselves more critically than we otherwise might. Like Moorcock I view the use of fantasy as a means to retreat to a 'simpler time' as promoting aristocratic values. I find Tolkein's work has merit despite that romanticism of the gentry and ethnocentrism, but I have difficulty how you could look at the work and not see it.



Well, let’s not forget, it’s appalling to us in a modern context. I suspect it was viewed as a more accurate description to the citizens of caffa as the mongol horde launched diseased cadavers into their city, or to the citizens of Rome as it was sacked.

The description from accounts would certainly leave a memetic legacy, a well of inspiration for authors to draw from.

I’ve never said those elements aren’t there. Indeed they are. As all fiction will draw from sources that inform the author. That’s inescapable. Alas, humanity has the infinite capacity to be less than excellent to each other , and has done since the dawn of time. All works of beauty, inspiration and creativity derive on some level from these aspects as well. The different critical lenses we can use when examining the works will emphasise and magnify different parts, based on what level and approach to we want to examine a piece.

To some extent, it means that each table has to ask, “how relevant is it?”  Each piece. Because even if we remove the current topic du jour, and look at a different aspect, D&D, at its heart, embraces violence. Humans historically, have been very good at it. Using it to subjugate one another, taking what they want or need. D&D Essentially glorifies it. Declares that there is a right time to take a life, that it is an appropriate solution to a conflict.

Do I believe that is a problem in the game? Not at all. Do I embrace violence in real life? No. Are there works of fiction that have a positive view of violence, or also present violence as an acceptable approach? Yes.

We can all be critical of every aspect of work. We also can assess the relevance of different aspects of work to the wider tale trying to be told of the game we try to play.

Warfare and the desire to inflict harm is the problematic origin of combat in the game.  We don’t use it in the game to seek to literally harm others at the table. We divorce it from its original context if we find it uncomfortable or not relevant to how it’s used.

Others may feel differently, about the extent of “relevance” to them. They are welcome to


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 30, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Part of the tension is that dnd uses combat as the default for conflict resolution, and that _can_ close down possibilities for what the PCs do in any given situation, or make the game not fun for some people, since you're aren't engaging as much with the mechanics as much if you aren't fighting. So, what the PCs do _should_ be contextual: are they being attacked?  How do they feel about killing things--is that the only response to evil?  What is the system of law and definitions of crime like in this world?  But I've been in dnd sessions where all these questions get reduced to, well the paladin did a detect evil and this creature is evil so roll initiative.



One of the reasons combat is so pervasive in D&D is that combat is fun.  Many players are at the table with kicking ass as a primary motivator, and many DMs enjoy throwing combat encounters at their players.  Are those people just playing wrong now?  Are we adding this to the list of activities and content we're not allowed to enjoy anymore?


----------



## Cadence (Jun 30, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> One of the reasons combat is so pervasive in D&D is that combat is fun.  Many players are at the table with kicking ass as a primary motivator, and many DMs enjoy throwing combat encounters at their players.  Are those people just playing wrong now?  Are we adding this to the list of activities and content we're not allowed to enjoy anymore?



This feels like it's a theme that's dealt with all the time in better westerns (Six Shooter, Gunsmoke, Fort Laramie, Tales of Wells Fargo, etc...). Wild west justice is something you just have to do sometimes and there are plenty of gun fights against bad guys that deserve it -- but lynching folks when there was a marshal or sheriff nearby, or immediately assuming it was the native Americans doing bad based on scant evidence and going all out against an entire tribe in any case, were both portrayed as awful.  And trying to identify the bad guys by ethnicity failed a lot.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 30, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Well, let’s not forget, it’s appalling to us in a modern context. I suspect it was viewed as a more accurate description to the citizens of caffa as the mongol horde launched diseased cadavers into their city, or to the citizens of Rome as it was sacked.




Or when US soldiers fire on civilians from a helicopter. Repeatedly. Modern context? Bah. There are still barbarians and most of them are now in power.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> Or when US soldiers fire on civilians from a helicopter. Repeatedly. Modern context? Bah. There are still barbarians and most of them are now in power.




*Mod Note:*
This seems to be going toward real-world politics.  Please step back from that precipice.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 30, 2021)

Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> This seems to be going toward real-world politics.  Please step back from that precipice.




The real world is full of as many horrors as the past. That's the heart of this thread: is evil OK in fiction and games or does it have real life consequences?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> The real world is full of as many horrors as the past. That's the heart of this thread: is evil OK in fiction and games or does it have real life consequences?




*Mod Note:*
2) If you really, really disagree with a moderator's position on a moderating issue, please don't argue about it on the boards. That means _no calling out of moderators, and no challenging their decisions in the thread_.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 30, 2021)

Micah Sweet said:


> One of the reasons combat is so pervasive in D&D is that combat is fun.  Many players are at the table with kicking ass as a primary motivator, and many DMs enjoy throwing combat encounters at their players.  Are those people just playing wrong now?  Are we adding this to the list of activities and content we're not allowed to enjoy anymore?



No, of course not.  Combat _is_ fun!  That's my whole point.  And dnd is a combat-centric game.  I'm saying that this fact (that combat is fun and the preferred activity of a lot of players) skews the fiction in dnd, including the fiction of good and evil.  The range of options that players might think of in other games are somewhat closed down.  In 5e, this includes even running away in many cases.  I'm not saying these options are eliminated; you can still anything you want, but then you are ignoring the fun part of the game.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 30, 2021)

of course combat is fun, people still engage in martial arts and combat sports precisely because its fun, the problem discussed in this thread comes to the justification of combat based on a definition of other races as evil.

At the battle of Camlann Arthur fights his kinsman Modred, both sides are Britons, Modred and Morgana are still described as evil but it is not linked to race. Conan was Cimmerian (Celt) and conquered Aquilonia (France), admittedly the depictions of the darked skinned Stygians and Afghuli wasnt good but in conans case the characters were human and the enemy defined more by their civilised hypocracy than by their skin tone.

Its Tolkien that gives us Orcs and Hardrim as swarthy foreign degenerates


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 30, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> How can you be unsure? It says they're evil in their description. Either you play the game as written (which means you don't have to worry about morality) or you interpret it as real.
> 
> And if you pretend it's real, how do purely evil races survive? A completely evil race would name their offspring Spare Rations 1, Spare Rations 2, Spare Rations 3, ... Being evil, they would not just be selfish but go out of their way to hurt others, any other including their own offspring. So how can the race survive if infanticide is a requirement?
> 
> ...




There are some real-world animals which function in a way which isn't far from the hypothetical culture you've outlined here. 

Beyond that, my question about certainty of evilness is one that I pose in the context of how elements of contemporary real-world look at fictional worlds.

As said previously, Demons and Devils are said to be always evil, but there are examples of such beings finding redemption. What level of burden is there to prove that a being cannot possibly be redeemed before it's seen as acceptable to resort to baser violent means?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Indeed, there’s lots of potential different things to criticise. And other groups might not share your groups’ particular issue or not agree with your view of it as an issue. Something might only be an issue for a particular while because of circumstance (such as renaming of demons and devils before they slowly made their way back in).
> 
> I don’t think anything is invalid to criticise, I just don’t think all criticisms are valid. And that applies equally to all. The validity of a criticism is also subjective as to what is “valid” to you.



In this thread you have tossed around various readings of JRRT's Orcs: fallen angels, more generic fallen/evil beings, soulless expressions of a war machine, etc.

Yet you criticise others, who have much more considered readings based on a greater degree of cited textual material as "subjective" and engaged in "intellectual masturbation".



transmission89 said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > My personal view is that Tolkein's inspirations are not nearly as important as overall subtext of orcs as the uncivilized barbarians at the gate. Even outside any particular racial animus the trope is itself racist or at the very least ethnocentric in a pretty appalling way as far as I am concerned. That does not mean we should avoid it entirely in fiction, but to treat it entirely uncritically is not a good look for us or the professor.
> ...



Hang on, so now you _agree _that JRRT's Orcs are evocative of "Mongol Hordes" and of those who sacked Rome, and express a "memetic legacy"?

And this is why we kill them in D&D games?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 30, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Hang on, so now you _agree _that JRRT's Orcs are evocative of "Mongol Hordes" and of those who sacked Rome, and express a "memetic legacy"?



Battle of Pelennor Fields or "Battle of What if Constantinpole Didn't Fall?"


----------



## transmission89 (Jun 30, 2021)

pemerton said:


> In this thread you have tossed around various readings of JRRT's Orcs: fallen angels, more generic fallen/evil beings, soulless expressions of a war machine, etc.
> 
> Yet you criticise others, who have much more considered readings based on a greater degree of cited textual material as "subjective" and engaged in "intellectual masturbation".
> 
> ...



I have not criticised others personally, nor would I have the arrogance to claim my readings more considered than others and would expect the same courtesy. 

When Ive Discussed critical literature as subjective and intellectual masturbation, I have and continue to apply that to my own readings of the text and discussion as it comes to literature. You mistake my meaning of the term as to be insulting.  Far from it. As I’ve stated previously, I enjoy various readings of texts and different interpretations, in fact, were this thread serious about that specific aspect, I’m sure the discourse would range much further along it. 

My position has been clear and consistent from the off. That discourse is fine when discussing texts, and the various interpretations and levels of subjectivity. It serves its own purpose and reward. But that to me, it’s less relevant to the game we play as is and is a poor foundation to build a case to change the game upon.

My original statement that brought us on this wonderful Tolkien diversion was a rebuttal to the original claim that Tolkien’s Orcs were a stand in for East Asian people.

You will note, being the astute, considered reader that you are, that I have agreed with you on many points around the fact that context and society do impact on what we write, communicate and perceive. These two positions are not contradictory.

The reference to the mongol hordes and sacking of Rome was to the notion of ”barbarians at the gates”, specifically around real world context. The memetic legacy of that is part of the informing context. But still, a wonderful attempt to conflate the two.

Now, were we to examine this idea of orcs “evoking” this memetic legacy as a fictional idea (outside of Tolkien), we say that orcs are just orcs, they are not stand ins for any real world group or ethnicity, I do not see that as a bad thing. If you want that in your fiction/game, the warmachine, man (in general, not a specific group) at his worst during war, a literal monster, the orc would serve well at this. You are free from unintentional parallels with your fantasy human kingdoms and cultures.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 30, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> There are some real-world animals which function in a way which isn't far from the hypothetical culture you've outlined here.
> 
> Beyond that, my question about certainty of evilness is one that I pose in the context of how elements of contemporary real-world look at fictional worlds.
> 
> As said previously, Demons and Devils are said to be always evil, but there are examples of such beings finding redemption. What level of burden is there to prove that a being cannot possibly be redeemed before it's seen as acceptable to resort to baser violent means?




It is impossible to prove that a being cannot be redeemed. Violence is only justified when there is imminent danger. The question is how many evil acts and how severe are they that would justify simple executing the being to prevent future acts?


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 30, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> If they only attacked evil races, they would be good. Good and evil are black and white. Simple.



Committing evil against evil doesn't make you not evil, or even neutral. In Call of Cthulhu for example, if a bunch of Deep Ones drag some Nazi's off to do unspeakable acts to them, both are still the baddies.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 30, 2021)

So I get the deal with orcs and such, but how do people feel about evil non-humanoid creatures? For example, I find the Neogi to have a pretty interesting and bizarre alien culture, what with the cycle of ownership and wheeling/dealing where, for example, a slave can own their master's master and this makes perfect sense to the neogi. Their reproduction is horrific, where older neogi are basically lobotomized and pumped full of embryos that ear their way out, with the ironic honorific of "great old master".  Their culture is built on slavery, expansion, and cruelty, so seems appropriate to label it evil. If we ever get a Spelljammer setting, it would feel kind of lame to water down this alien horror with a #notallneogi disclaimer. Are people more accepting of it because they're eel spiders?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 30, 2021)

ehren37 said:


> Are people more accepting of it because they're eel spiders?



Yes. With respect to the currently evil races, there's two ways to go imo:
1) Human* and not evil.
2) Alien and evil.

The problem (or at least part of it) is:
3) Human and evil.

So orcs, for example, can be improved either by removing the evil part (option 1) or by making them more like demons or other inhuman monsters (option 2).

*By "human" I mean races with very human-like attributes such as:


Doug McCrae said:


> shape; size; sentience; language; tool use; wear clothes; build structures; biological needs – food, water, shelter; feel pain; can be injured or suffer from disease; mortal; lack of inherent magical powers; bear children; interbreed with humans and produce viable offspring; social; organised societies; culture; religion.


----------



## Campbell (Jul 1, 2021)

I'm not totally opposed to sentient creatures that act in mostly cruel ways. I just think it should be done with a critical look at the tropes and they should not be inherently cruel. Pathfinder Second Edition does a fairly good job of threading the needle with a bunch of traditionally evil ancestries. Orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, and kobolds have societies that are pretty cruel in general and a fair number of those you encounter will probably be engaging in acts of cruelty. However, they also depict societies where not every orc is cruel and their culture has some very admirable qualities as well even though on the balance they tend to live very violent and aggressive lives. They also don't let the civilized ancestries off the hook entirely for their role in perpetuating the cycle of violence even though it's very understandable why they do.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 1, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> It is impossible to prove that a being cannot be redeemed. Violence is only justified when there is imminent danger. The question is how many evil acts and how severe are they that would justify simple executing the being to prevent future acts?




I don't know. 

How does the average PC gain enough knowledge of Orc Hencnman #3's backstory, so as to decide if stabbing them and picking up the adventure's allotted treasure parcel is okay?

I think a lot of the problem is that most conversations about this sort of thing paint with too broad of a brush. Often, even attempting to parse things out or ask questions is met with assumptions of some sort ism-based motivation.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the majority of this thread appears to be open to having an actual discussion (at least thus far).


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 1, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> How does the average PC gain enough knowledge of Orc Hencnman #3's backstory, so as to decide if stabbing them and picking up the adventure's allotted treasure parcel is okay?



This is one of those highly setting dependent issues. In Tolkein's setting, they're very nature is metaphysically corrupt.




Argyle King said:


> I think a lot of the problem is that most conversations about this sort of thing paint with too broad of a brush. Often, even attempting to parse things out or ask questions is met with assumptions of some sort ism-based motivation.



All issues have that potential to one degree or another.

I do agree the brush is often too broad, but the problem also runs to many seem to think evil is just the most extreme flavors...

while, in reality, evil beings are cooperative when they see benefit to doing so. They obey laws when the perceived risks outweigh the perceived rewards. They can function in society. They don't break their word just to break their word - even the chaotic evil keep their word when it is to their benefit.

I've known a couple significant evil beings. Heinous crimes. But generally, very prosocial. Just completely about self-interest. Being of amusement value and occasional utility justifies having and helping friends. A legacy generates care for children. Donations to charities for the deductions, and to hide ill gotten gains.



Argyle King said:


> I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the majority of this thread appears to be open to having an actual discussion (at least thus far).



Don't jinx it!


----------



## Aging Bard (Jul 1, 2021)

This thread has evolved _exactly_ as I hoped. I don't even need to be a part of it anymore, you all get it (though I may drop in occasionally). Fantastic! And I thank you all for what you are teaching me, sincerely.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> It is impossible to prove that a being cannot be redeemed. Violence is only justified when there is imminent danger. The question is how many evil acts and how severe are they that would justify simple executing the being to prevent future acts?





Argyle King said:


> How does the average PC gain enough knowledge of Orc Henchman #3's backstory, so as to decide if stabbing them and picking up the adventure's allotted treasure parcel is okay?



Unless anyone wants to come back to it, I'm going to skip the _treasure _aspect of this, as I think that raises a whole lot of other questions around property rights, robbery, etc.

But I think that limiting permissible violence to imminent danger - which is a pretty standard contemporary approach to the morality of legitimate violence - will hinder a lot of FRPG play. That's why, upthread, I suggested two other bases: consensual violence, and retributive violence.

If Orc Henchman #3 is part of a gang of bandits, that may be sufficient to justify the use of violence against him. If it turns out that these bandits are actually not bad guys (eg they're Orcish Robin Hoods, or a legitimate Orcish national liberation movement) then even though retributive violence wasn't justified, it may be excusable in the sense that the PC wasn't culpable in thinking the Orcs were baddies prior to getting that additional, exonerating information.

If Orc Henchman #3 is part of a tower guard, like the Orcs of Cirith Ungol in LotR, then I think this is where consent becomes relevant. By fighting in defence of their tower, rather than surrendering, they are rendering themselves permissible targets of violence. In real life it takes more than the preceding sentence to explain why it's permissible to attack soldiers, and in any event many people doubt that someone can consent to being killed in this sort of way (once reason why consensual duelling is illegal in many, probably most, places). But I think in the context of FRPGing the fact that the Orc is a soldier who chooses to oppose other soldiers (ie the PCs) is enough to do the moral work.

Now if we are talking about a situation which looks like nothing more than a home invasion by the PCs - the Orcs aren't bandits and so aren't liable to retributive violence, and are fighting in defence of their homes and their fellows - the case for justifiable violence seems harder to make out. Maybe the Caves of Chaos gets close to this?



ehren37 said:


> So I get the deal with orcs and such, but how do people feel about evil non-humanoid creatures?





Doug McCrae said:


> Yes.





Campbell said:


> I'm not totally opposed to sentient creatures that act in mostly cruel ways. I just think it should be done with a critical look at the tropes and they should not be inherently cruel.



For me, I feel it's about the tropes and themes that are being drawn on and re-articulated. And it's of the nature of fiction that this can happen in all sorts of ways.

For instance, fighting alien eaters-of-the-brains-of-the-living, or alien slavers - using _alien_ in the sci-fi sense - seems innocuous enough: those seem like cruel practices, and the violence used against the aliens seems like legitimate defensive and/or retributive violence (given the broader conceits of FRPGing).

But I think a game that focused on a military campaign to _wipe out_ Mind Flayers or Neogi might be distasteful (at least) because of the way it implies the permissibility of genocidal violence, and of widespread ecological violence as well perhaps.

Again speaking just for myself, this is yet another reason why I prefer FRPGing to be focused on _the situation_ - the call to action that confronts the protagonists - rather than on _the world_. Let me fight _this demon_ without worrying so much about the moral meaning of wishing the end of all demons everywhere; or if I'm playing a non-heroic PC, let me focus on _this moment of criminality_ without worrying about the moral meaning of criminality as such.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 1, 2021)

Do you think it would be possible for a campaign setting written today to approach some of darker aspects of man and morality without the contemporary audience at large assuming that those who wrote and world-built such a project somehow condoned or championed bad behavior?

In short: is there room in the tabletop games of today to explore harsher worlds and situations?

If no, I am curious to hear thoughts on why video games, movies, and other mediums are permitted to do so but it's out of bounds for TTRPGS.

If yes, what do you feel an author/creator should do to indicate a clear divide between the personal real-world beliefs of the author/creator and the in-game "realities" of how fictional societies and situations are portrayed?


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 1, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> Do you think it would be possible for a campaign setting written today to approach some of darker aspects of man and morality without the contemporary audience at large assuming that those who wrote and world-built such a setting assuming the product somehow condoned or championed bad behavior?
> 
> In short: is there room in the tabletop games of today to explore harsher worlds and situations?
> 
> ...



I posted this elsewhere (I think), but this post explores some of these topics: Productive Scab-picking: On Oppressive Themes in Gaming

It quotes this twitter thread among other things:


Does anyone know of an RPG that takes up themes of colonial violence in an interesting way, that they like?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> Do you think it would be possible for a campaign setting written today to approach some of darker aspects of man and morality without the contemporary audience at large assuming that those who wrote and world-built such a setting assuming the product somehow condoned or championed bad behavior?
> 
> In short: is there room in the tabletop games of today to explore harsher worlds and situations?
> 
> ...



I think the answer to your main question is _yes_.

I don't know BitD except by (its extensive) reputation, but I think it might be an example of what you ask about: ie it is concerned with tomse of the darker aspects of humans and morality.

Vincent Baker has multiple RPGs that can deal with harsh worlds and situations - Poison'd (almost inevitably), In A Wicked Age (not inevitably, but that's certainly one way it can trend) and of course Apocalypse World.

Even Burning Wheel picks up serious elements from JRRT and from pulp fantasy in a way that some other FRPGs don't. BW's elves run the risk of committing suicide out of Grief (see eg Maedhros at the end of the Silmarillion); BW's dwarves run the risk of being driven mad by their Greed; the Life Paths for human include slavery and servitude lifepaths as well as lifepaths for knights and wizards.

What none of those RPGs do - and I think it's not a trivial difference from D&D - is project a moral judgement (good/evil) onto the situations and possibilities that the games open up.

A couple of examples might illustrate the point:

(1) In AW, each character has a special consequence that flows from having sex with another character. For the Driver, this is

If you and another character have sex, roll+cool. On a 10+, it’s cool, no big deal. On a 7–9, give them +1 to their Hx with you on their sheet, but give yourself -1 to your Hx with them on yours. On a miss, you gotta go: take -1 ongoing, until you prove that it’s not like they own you or nothing.​
Cool and Hx are both stats - Cool largely self-explanatory, Hx the stat that measures how well one character knows another. -1 ongoing is a debuff. Now if/when I get to run AW with my group I'm probably inclined to turn "have sex" into "share an intimate moment", because I'm a bit of a prude when it comes to RPGing, but that's not what's relevant here. Notice what this character ability tells us: _a cool Driver isn't someone who makes connections or gets hung up on other people_. Notice what this ability doesn't tell us: _whether its good or bad that a cool Driver lives their life like that_.

The player of the Driver might be out to prove that _it's not like they own me or nothing!_ Because the player probably wants to get rid of the debuff. But the player doesn't have to admire his/her character. Maybe s/he feels sorry for them! Or maybe we can look at the Driver like we do Shane - it's great when they come into town and help the little folk deal with the oppressors; it's a shame that they can never form bonds and settle down. Or maybe something else.

(2) In BW, Elves accrue Grief (which is a rated attribute the same as Speed, Will, Perception, Agility, etc) based on the experiences they have. There is a table of experiences: roughly, the more suffering the Elf witnesses or undergoes, and the more they depart from their own values and commitments, the more their Grief increases. Sometimes (it's a highly rationed ability) an Elf can call on their Grief to give a bonus to a check - but this in itself tends to increase their Grief.

Is an Elf who draws on their Grief admirable or regrettable? Is this "giving in", or is it "giving back as good as the Elves have got"? As an Elf player, do you want to keep your Grief low, or do you let it grow?

The game doesn't dictate an answer.​
What does Vincent Baker (designer of AW) think is the truth about human intimacy? I don't know, beyond what I can infer from the fact that he seems to have been in a long-term relationship/marriage (?). What does Luke Crane (designer of BW) think is the proper role of grief, and grief-induced rage, in human affairs? I don't know. But I know that he can design a game that gives voice to Tolkienesque ideas better than any other I know!

I'm not saying these games, or these designers, are perfect. (I know that Crane lost his position with Kickstarter due to his professional affiliation with Adam Koebel.) I think BW, in particular, has some gendered elements in its framing which run pretty close to the line if they don't cross over it - and it's interesting to see some changes in this respect in the most recent version. But I don't think anyone is going to read these games and think that Vincent Baker is advocating that we all should be cool Drivers, or that Luke Crane is cool with slavery or gender inequalities or unbridled grief-fuelled rage.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 1, 2021)

pemerton said:


> But I think a game that focused on a military campaign to _wipe out_ Mind Flayers or Neogi might be distasteful (at least) because of the way it implies the permissibility of genocidal violence, and of widespread ecological violence as well perhaps.
> 
> Again speaking just for myself, this is yet another reason why I prefer FRPGing to be focused on _the situation_ - the call to action that confronts the protagonists - rather than on _the world_. Let me fight _this demon_ without worrying so much about the moral meaning of wishing the end of all demons everywhere; or if I'm playing a non-heroic PC, let me focus on _this moment of criminality_ without worrying about the moral meaning of criminality as such.



Reminds me of one of my favorite Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes - "The Survivors".  For those who haven't seen it but want the spoiler quote, google: Kevin Uxbridge you don't understand


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 1, 2021)

Reynard said:


> The problem is not with the orc as inherently evil servicer race. The problem is with the orc as a sapient, free willed being we then cast in the role of Savage (noble or otherwise) and slaughter wantonly. The orc as "demon" is just that, but the orc as "other" is highly problematic.
> 
> My inclination is to say that there is nothing wrong with creating a stock enemy species, servant of the dark lord for your game, but due to the cultural baggage associated with orcs, goblins and others, it is best to make that thing out of whole cloth, free of the associations noted in the OP.



Forgive me if this is rehashing: The way I see it is, there is "nothing new under the Sun" is the problem here. As an example, what color is the skin of your newly made up evil servitor race? I guess you could say "bright blue" and you're OK, but essentially whatever characteristics the thing has, they will probably evoke someone in the real world. That is someone's stereotype of someone else will share some element of it. @Cadence says 'make it a chest burster', and that is a strategy that I do think works. Yet it obviously can seem pretty limited! 

Obviously the other answers amount to 'provide sufficient nuance to undermine any negative stereotype'. This seems to be the strategy being followed by most game companies in their products. It is helpful and a good idea, but it is always in danger of falling short in the eyes of someone. So there is always going to have to be a set of issues around who will tolerate what and where to draw lines. It won't ever go away.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 1, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> But, and this is my main point, can we agree that we should absolutely care if the concept of an elf was based on the Picts more than a thousand years ago? The concept and idea of an elf today is so far removed, both in time and subject, to what it was back then that it should absolutely not matter. The parallels that people draw between some species in fantasy sometimes are tied to groups that are still minorities today and suffer from it, or come from a somewhat recent reinvention (orcs, elves, etc), but talking about picts seems like borderline insanity to me.



I think we do have to care when people distort this history, or selectively interpret it, in order to support racist agendas and such, yes. I don't see your example here being something that D&D is doing in a NEGATIVE direction, but interestingly it seems to me that elves are a stereotyped examplar of racial PERFECTION as imagined by European whites. Certainly they come off that way. JRRT's elves are fair skinned, often golden-haired, tall, super intelligent, physically immortal, and otherwise possessed of various highly positive traits. They are also associated with the West, put in opposition to orcs, which he explicitly calls out as a proxy for 'mongolians', etc.

So, the origin of the idea of elves could well be something we want to explore, and something we want to understand and not allow to be co-opted. Lest anyone consider this kind of co-opting unlikely, you merely need to look at the myths about the Roman Empire which have been built up in Europe over the past 4 centuries which drastically distort its racial identity, attitudes, literature, etc. and have been used to buttress a lot of racial/cultural superiority ideology and justify a lot of colonialism. We should be careful to understand the cultural origins of our ideas.


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 1, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think we do have to care when people distort this history, or selectively interpret it, in order to support racist agendas and such, yes. I don't see your example here being something that D&D is doing in a NEGATIVE direction, but interestingly it seems to me that elves are a stereotyped examplar of racial PERFECTION as imagined by European whites. Certainly they come off that way. JRRT's elves are fair skinned, often golden-haired, tall, super intelligent, physically immortal, and otherwise possessed of various highly positive traits. They are also associated with the West, put in opposition to orcs, which he explicitly calls out as a proxy for 'mongolians', etc.
> 
> So, the origin of the idea of elves could well be something we want to explore, and something we want to understand and not allow to be co-opted. Lest anyone consider this kind of co-opting unlikely, you merely need to look at the myths about the Roman Empire which have been built up in Europe over the past 4 centuries which drastically distort its racial identity, attitudes, literature, etc. and have been used to buttress a lot of racial/cultural superiority ideology and justify a lot of colonialism. We should be careful to understand the cultural origins of our ideas.



Again, he doesn't call them out as a proxy for mongolians at all. The reason for this "cultural baggage" is because people keep repeating this false assertion.

To be clear, there is a sense of imagery, an evoking “the other”. A then typical social bias, but this has already been mentioned when discussing external effects on work. But this is certainly not the same as saying this imaginary creature is a stand in or proxy for this specific group of peoples.

For those demanding of a more considered view: Revisiting Race in Tolkien’s Legendarium: Constructing Cultures and Ideologies in an Imaginary World

The Orcs as used in D&D fill that roll of a blank slate enemy where there is no implication of real human cultures. They are meant to be the solution to the problem being described.

EDIT: As a further aside to those that seek conclusions beyond connotations of the evils of the southern and eastern humans that were enslaved to Sauron’s will, I offer this quote of Samwise’ thoughts:

““It was Sam’s first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man’s name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace.”

Hardly a passage written by someone who could only conclude that people of colour were irredeemably evil and that white is right etc. The  only irredeemable are the orcs, for they are fully embraced to Sauron’s will, tied hopelessly and dependent to his evil machinations, for they are but instruments of his will: 
“
[T]he creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope.”

And further views of his opinions on ethnicities can also be found in his opinions on apartheid.


----------



## mythago (Jul 1, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Does anyone know of an RPG that takes up themes of colonial violence in an interesting way, that they like?




Dog Eat Dog does this explicitly:









						Dog Eat Dog - Liwanag Press | DriveThruRPG.com
					

Dog Eat Dog - Dog Eat Dog is a game of colonialism and its consequences. It tells the story of the natives of a small Pacific island a




					www.drivethrurpg.com


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 1, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Point: Tolkien’s Orcs were a stand in for a real world ethnicity, specifically East Asian.
> My claim: They were not.
> That is what a rebuttal is. “To claim OR prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.  So clearly it stands as a rebuttal. Which still makes it not a fallacy.
> 
> ...



Methinks the Lady doth protest too much...


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 1, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Methinks the Lady doth protest too much...



I protest not enough if inaccurate assertions are continually being made. But by all means, continue casting aspersions upon my character.

I get the motive, I get the well intentioned point. I get the desire to explore literature more deeply and draw a deeper understanding of the human condition.

But I also feel it wrong to continually create links between fictional creatures (and in this case, literal monsters) and real world peoples where they don’t exist. Especially when the oft cited evidence is wrong

This is not to say there is no link between older prejudicial views informed thoughts,concepts, ideas, language and imagery that sparkedthese creatures. this is the inescapable reality of context upon author. But that’s not the same as saying the creatures themselves are these things, or meant to be proxies of these or have a direct correlation.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 1, 2021)

Tolkien Letter #210 (1958):

The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.​
For an interpretation of "Mongol-types" by Dimitra Fimi see my previous post upthread. It most likely has the same sense as the outdated racial classification "Mongoloid", which refers to East Asian peoples.

Post from an older thread arguing that the D&D goblin is based on the goblins in JRR Tolkien's _The Hobbit_ (1937). In Tolkien's Middle-earth, orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins are the same type of being. _The Hobbit_: "_Orc _is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated _goblin _(or _hobgoblin _for the larger kinds)."

Artwork for the hobgoblin entry in the _AD&D 1e Monster Manual_ (1977). The armour appears to be based on that of a Japanese samurai:






Selected part of the artwork for the goblin entry in the _D&D 5e Monster Manual_ (2014). Note the yellow-ish skin and East Asian hairstyle:





Selected part of the artwork for the hobgoblin entry in the _D&D 5e Monster Manual_ (2014). Note the Japanese samurai-style armour and East Asian hairstyle:


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 1, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> Tolkien Letter #210 (1958):
> 
> The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.​
> For an interpretation of "Mongol-types" by Dimitra Fimi see my previous post upthread. It most likely has the same sense as the outdated racial classification "Mongoloid", which refers to East Asian peoples.
> ...



Yeah, refer to my first post on that quote where I’ve already explained what that is and what it is not. I’ve already gone over the language used and again, have discussed that language within its context. I’m not going to repeat it, this just shows you’ve not read what I wrote, whether or not you agree or disagree. Like you show youve not properly read the article where you’ve linked a quote from the Dimitra Fimi, paragraphs are spent talking about the origin of Orcs (hint, not as a stand in for East Asians), and focus solely on the paragraphs that do have the (definitely not appropriate in a modern age) language used as a crude descriptive aid. Which again, I’ve already discussed in my earlier posts (we both agree it’s not acceptable in a modern context). 

So the images, we are back now on D&D. A wonderful selection of images you have there. Hang on though, where’s your image of the Orc from the AD&D monster manual? Seeing as we are trying to draw a direct line from the racist Tolkien origin of Orcs to D&D, we have that creature directly in there.




This armour doesn’t look particularly East Asian to me. What about the Goblin?  The progenitor of the Orc? Well here he is from Od&D:




Still not East Asian, lets try the the AD&D monster manual:



Noooopppeee. It’s almost like there’s cherry picking going on to try and prove a point.

Ok so, the AD&D Hobgoblin, something not in Tolkien’s work, but, I get it, theres that wider issue in D&D itself. The hobgoblin’s Schtick, is that unlike other goblinoid, these guys are super disciplined, martial focused etc. Now, Gary and co in the early days of D&D Filled it with a grab bag of ideas, myths, legends, folklore, mashing up ideas and elements of history from all over the world. In this mindset, this fever of excitement and grabbing things, what is a feudal army that was renowned (rightly or wrongly) with this discipline, focus, dedication, and with a badass, distinctive looking armour? Awesome, samurai fit the bill. And well, it became the look of hobgoblins. I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that 5th edition, an edition designed at its core to appeal to a nostalgia of the older games after the divisive 4e would include art work that evoked older editions artistic direction!

Having read lots of the early days of the hobby, there’s enough to suggest that little thought when into adding something beyond “oh my days that’s cool, whack it in”, but I’ve seen very little that suggests there was a concerted effort on the part of any of the early creators to go out of their way to make goblinoids be representative of any specific ethnicity. Certainly, a level of sensitivity is lacking to a modern audience accustomed to such things, but no deeper meanings there.

As always, if they aren’t a fit for your group, that’s fine. It’s what works for your table.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 1, 2021)

@transmission89 Here's a post from a previous thread on the ways in which evil humanoids were given characteristics perceived to be non-European in 1e AD&D (1977-1979), which was not the case in OD&D (1974). Summary: skin colours, witch doctors and shamans, non-state societies, "mongrel" used to refer to half-orcs, orcish fecundity, orcish 'genetic' dominance, hyena-headed gnolls, hobgoblin samurai armour.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 1, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Now, were we to examine this idea of orcs “evoking” this memetic legacy as a fictional idea (outside of Tolkien), we say that orcs are just orcs, they are not stand ins for any real world group or ethnicity, I do not see that as a bad thing. If you want that in your fiction/game, the warmachine, man (in general, not a specific group) at his worst during war, a literal monster, the orc would serve well at this. You are free from unintentional parallels with your fantasy human kingdoms and cultures.



This is unsupportable just on the basis of what has been presented in this thread. We have a letter written by JRRT in which he states unequivocally that the Orc is evocative of (looks like and therefor will be associated with by the human mind, as that is how it works) 'mongolians' (IE central or east Asian people). Next we have the geographical and geocultural parallels between Middle Earth and our world. Certainly JRRT was AWARE of these? Certainly it must, at some point in the 40+ years of his creative endeavors, have occurred to him that this parallel would be evocative? I hold it rather difficult to oppose that IT WAS EVOCATIVE TO HIM. Else why so many parallels exist? 

Thus they MUST BE in LotR certainly stand-ins for exactly what they evoke! How could it not be thus???!!!! To say otherwise is ridiculous and in fact insulting to a man of considerable intellect and thoughtfulness. I further submit that he has TOLD US THIS WAS HIS INTENT when he stated this orc/Mongol association. He states it in terms of it being what we would call a 'trope' today. Mongolians are a horde of destructive, fecund, aggressive, civilization destroying, easterners and he is evoking all of these traits by describing orcs in the same fashion. This IS his intent! It cannot be otherwise. This is how literature (of any quality) must work! It paints a picture in the mind of the reader by evoking things, by drawing parallels which create associations in the minds of readers so as to bring this picture to life. 

And I think this failure to understand this whole point taints your arguments in general to be honest. I understand, and even agree to a point, that Tolkien was probably not trying to say that actual Asian people are basically orcs. Nor necessarily saying that evil comes from the east, etc. He is however using these stereotypes to draw a picture. This alone is hurtful to the people so stereotyped. Cast yourself in the shoes of a person of color who is DAILY subjected to systematic and often particularized prejudice, and then consider how they should view literature which evokes the stereotypes used to model this oppression and justify it. 

I mean, I am DEFINITELY not a disadvantaged minority here. I have been married to one, and am married to another, even that doesn't give me any license to explain the experience or claim I fully understand it. @Tonguez I'm guessing does, but it is not their job to fill us all in on the nature of the experience. Still, I can say that my observation is that this sort of depiction is a real bummer, and its (lack of) deliberateness is not even really very relevant. People get really tired of looking at it. 

Obviously the larger topic is pretty complicated, and culture is a huge mass of complicated stuff. So nobody can give simplistic answers to any of it. What do we do with legacy material? Should we change how we play D&D, and/or how it is written? Do we need to worry about it if we are all not people whom it would bother? What do I know? I'm just some guy. Personally I generally don't go in a lot for super stereotyped characters/NPCs/Races/whatever. OTOH I think @pemerton is right in saying that a lot of the violence that is depicted in D&D can be seen as justifiable. It is more a question of who is standing in for whom? Think about what would go through your mind if the depiction of orcs sounded more like people from your home town...


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 1, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Having read lots of the early days of the hobby, there’s enough to suggest that little thought when into adding something beyond “oh my days that’s cool, whack it in”, but I’ve seen very little that suggests there was a concerted effort on the part of any of the early creators to go out of their way to make goblinoids be representative of any specific ethnicity. Certainly, a level of sensitivity is lacking to a modern audience accustomed to such things, but no deeper meanings there.



I think intentionality is not really the point.  In fact, what is perhaps more telling is the thoughtlessness, from 1e-5e, that various tropes are reproduced and other cultures appropriated and stereotyped (e.g. "Oriental Adventures," but also Mazteca, Chult).  The fact that it doesn't occur to certain creators that their version of "fantasy x" are crude stereotypes, both in text and image, indicates that they take for granted the dominance of their own cultural position.  This is not limited to Gygax and co; see Tomb of Annihilation and such.  It is frustrating to encounter a grotesque distortion of one's own heritage and ethnicity only to be told, 'relax, it's just fantasy.'


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 2, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Tolkien was probably not trying to say that actual Asian people are basically orcs.



Yes, the issue is not that they're identical. The issue is the combining of (real or perceived) characteristics of real world peoples with negative traits.

For example WWII propaganda directed against Japanese people wasn't literally saying that Japanese people have fangs or that they are rats. It was associating the real with the unreal to produce a racist message.

In a similar way Tolkien associates what he considers to be real – features of the "least lovely Mongol-types" – with the unreal – inhumanly evil orcs.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 2, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I think intentionality is not really the point.  In fact, what is perhaps more telling is the thoughtlessness, from 1e-5e, that various tropes are reproduced and other cultures appropriated and stereotyped (e.g. "Oriental Adventures," but also Mazteca, Chult).



I think 3e and 4e did a decent job removing some of those tropes. But 5e brought them back, in some cases even making things worse, for the reason transmission89 gives:


transmission89 said:


> 5th edition, an edition designed at its core to appeal to a nostalgia of the older games



That had its downside!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> Do you think it would be possible for a campaign setting written today to approach some of darker aspects of man and morality without the contemporary audience at large assuming that those who wrote and world-built such a project somehow condoned or championed bad behavior?
> 
> In short: is there room in the tabletop games of today to explore harsher worlds and situations?
> 
> ...



Sure, I think it is possible. You would want to avoid centering it on some sort of racial/ethnic/cultural division in which one side is depicted as 'evil', at least unless they are non-human enough to not evoke any associations with actual people/cultures. One way would be to simply avoid that entirely. The scenario involves humans, they are not specifically of different cultures or ethnicity etc. In terms of what the 'bad behavior' is, I think we all have a good idea what sort of limits are likely to be needed. Again, we're looking at the avoidance of appearing to justify certain unacceptable but common social behaviors, like violence against women. 

So, it has to be approached with some care, but that leaves a lot of territory and doesn't exclude the above elements as elements, just limits how they need to be depicted. 

In terms of how do you depict a divide? I'm not sure that is a huge requirement. That is, if you were following restrictions such as I've outlined, it shouldn't reasonably look like you are condoning or encouraging anything which would be offensive or problematic. Right? Life is harsh in your game, people are sometimes forced to make really tough choices and do things that we don't normally consider proper behavior, but the reasons are clearly survival. There's going to be some lines, but I think that can work. If you are going to make the PCs members of a society which behaves in ways we today find unacceptable, then you're going to have to explain very clearly how and why that is, and still keep within certain lines.  Some things won't fly.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 2, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think 3e and 4e did a decent job removing some of those tropes. But 5e brought them back



@Malmuria For an example, this post from a previous thread talks about how lizardfolk pulp-style 'cannibalism' (in the sense of eating other sentient beings), changes between editions. In OD&D and 1e they're 'cannibals'. In 3e that becomes a "largely unfounded" charge. But in 5e they are back to being 'cannibals'.

Lizardfolk are probably based on the horibs in Edgar Rice Burroughs' _Tarzan at the Earth's Core_ (1930). Burroughs frequently used the pulp cannibalism trope.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 2, 2021)

It feels like human groups in the real world have a way of rallying (or at least uniting) when there is an other to put themselves against. Or of making someone else be the other when they need to feel better about themselves and their circumstances. And of dehumanizing that other to justify the worst of behavior against them.  And they imbue their vision of that other with a panoply of negative emotional and motivational traits, and if possible try to associate outward ones (skin color and hue, eye shape, or clothing styles or accent if those others don't work) to build a separation.  It feels like that never goes anywhere good, and often leads to heinous atrocities.

What benefit does having a human-ish other, one that is distinguishable by visible traits, bring that is worth the cost of reinforcing the expectation that those who are different are potentially that vile other?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

Cadence said:


> It feels like human groups in the real world have a way of rallying (or at least uniting) when there is an other to put themselves against. Or of making someone else be the other when they need to feel better about themselves and their circumstances. And of dehumanizing that other to justify the worst of behavior against them.  And they imbue their vision of that other with a panoply of negative emotional and motivational traits, and if possible try to associate outward ones (skin color and hue, eye shape, or clothing styles or accent if those others don't work) to build a separation.  It feels like that never goes anywhere good, and often leads to heinous atrocities.
> 
> What benefit does having a human-ish other, one that is distinguishable by visible traits, bring that is worth the cost of reinforcing the expectation that those who are different are potentially that vile other?



Its a valid question. Part of the answer is simply that your RPG will be pretty niche if it won't tell such stories at all (of conflict with other 'humans'). That excludes most of literature and folklore!


----------



## Campbell (Jul 2, 2021)

@Malmuria 

Exalted Third Edition's setting does what I feel is a pretty good job at addressing themes of colonial power in a pretty nuanced way that really does not give any particular world view too much of a moral high ground. The Solar Exalted are caste as the rightful rulers returned after a betrayal from the more numerous Dragon Blooded Exalts and their Sidereal viziers, but it's very likely that in their excess the Solars of old deserved their fate. 

The Dragonblooded rule the Realm, a dynastic empire that retains control of satrapies/tribute states that feed the expansion of the Realm's military might. They are responsible for much cruelty, but in many ways keep the world safe from various spirits, fey folk, and rampaging gods. 

Lunars are the Fangs at the Gates, vengeful and aggrieved skin walkers who were not able to save their Solar mates. They have waged an endless war of aggression against The Realm ever since. They are in many ways an inversion of the Barbarians at the Gates trope, but portrayed in much more nuanced way. 

Pretty much the entire meat of the setting is taking a critical look at the power relationships that exist between feudal/colonial powers and those on their edges. It does so in a way that leaves it very open to interpretation who is right and who is wrong while very much not shying from the darkside of the impacts of imperialism and the great man theory of history on the countless mortals who live in Creation. 

It also has shonen anime style fights.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Again, he doesn't call them out as a proxy for mongolians at all. The reason for this "cultural baggage" is because people keep repeating this false assertion.
> 
> To be clear, there is a sense of imagery, an evoking “the other”.



Yes. When JRRT wants to evoke an evil "other", he draws upon readily-available racist tropes.



transmission89 said:


> I also feel it wrong to continually create links between fictional creatures (and in this case, literal monsters) and real world peoples where they don’t exist. Especially when the oft cited evidence is wrong
> 
> This is not to say there is no link between older prejudicial views informed thoughts,concepts, ideas, language and imagery that sparkedthese creatures. this is the inescapable reality of context upon author. But that’s not the same as saying the creatures themselves are these things, or meant to be proxies of these or have a direct correlation.





transmission89 said:


> this is certainly not the same as saying this imaginary creature is a stand in or proxy for this specific group of peoples.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





transmission89 said:


> Having read lots of the early days of the hobby, there’s enough to suggest that little thought when into adding something beyond “oh my days that’s cool, whack it in”, but I’ve seen very little that suggests there was a concerted effort on the part of any of the early creators to go out of their way to make goblinoids be representative of any specific ethnicity. Certainly, a level of sensitivity is lacking to a modern audience accustomed to such things, but no deeper meanings there.



You seem very keen to rebut views that no one in this thread has voiced.

Was JRRT a virulent racist? Or just very relaxed about the deployment of racialised tropes? I don't know. I'm commenting on his work. Likewise for the material in D&D. No one in this thread has said that the authors of D&D set out to express racist views. Maybe they did; maybe they didn't. The point is that they, like JRRT, expressed obviously racist ideas.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2021)

I just read the essay Revisiting Race in Tolkien’s Legendarium: Constructing Cultures and Ideologies in an Imaginary World

In its discussion of the sources of JRRT's ideas and tropes, it doesn't seem to me to add a great deal to what is already in Shippey, and what @Doug McCrae has already mentioned in this thread.

It certainly doesn't provide any basis for supposing that there are no affinities between JRRT's work and racial tropes and stereotypes!


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I just read the essay Revisiting Race in Tolkien’s Legendarium: Constructing Cultures and Ideologies in an Imaginary World
> 
> In its discussion of the sources of JRRT's ideas and tropes, it doesn't seem to me to add a great deal to what is already in Shippey, and what @Doug McCrae has already mentioned in this thread.
> 
> It certainly doesn't provide any basis for supposing that there are no affinities between JRRT's work and racial tropes and stereotypes!




Thank you for doing the reading. I shouldn't be so lazy but I'm glad someone  else did it.


----------



## Aging Bard (Jul 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Yes. When JRRT wants to evoke an evil "other", he draws upon readily-available racist tropes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, this is exactly right, and is the essence of _implicit bias_. Humans are natural pattern matchers, and it is mostly a helpful adaptation. But it also produces implicit bias: anything different from what we know as "normal" is potentially a threat. This is where we must fight against our innate evolutionary programming to not see differences as threats. It is hard, but very necessary. Overt racism, sexism, _et al_. is comparatively easier to deal with than the huge amount of implicit bias and resulting microaggressions. It's a never ending obligation to be attentive and empathetic.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2021)

DrunkonDuty said:


> Thank you for doing the reading. I shouldn't be so lazy but I'm glad someone  else did it.



I found it a bit disappointing, because it promised to tell us something meaningful about JRRT and race/racism, but what it actually did was catalogue his influences and ways those are expressed. All the conclusions are left as exercises for the reader; and at least in the case of this reader it didn't really change my thinking or shed significant new light.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 2, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Its a valid question. Part of the answer is simply that your RPG will be pretty niche if it won't tell such stories at all (of conflict with other 'humans'). That excludes most of literature and folklore!



Are the conflict stories with 1-dimensional 'human' bad guys as interesting as the stories with some complexity and variety?  How are westerns if either all the native Americans or all the settlers are genocidal?  How interesting is a WWII story if all of the Germans (military and civilian) are the equivalent of Rudolph Hoess?  Insert any number of other real world conflicts present or past.

I think several of the other threads on "orcs" came to a fairly agreed upon conclusion that many of the difficulties (in avoiding the one-dimensional and avoiding othering) can be solved by having each humanoid species portrayed as having a range of views and morality and not simply as things that should be mowed down whether combatant or non-combatant, adult or child.  

It feels like a lot of westerns, fantasy stories, etc... can do that without angsting about every single act of violence or death.


----------



## Aging Bard (Jul 2, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Are the conflict stories with 1-dimensional 'human' bad guys as interesting as the stories with some complexity and variety?  How are westerns if either all the native Americans or all the settlers are genocidal?  How interesting is a WWII story if all of the Germans (military and civilian) are the equivalent of Rudolph Hoess?  Insert any number of other real world conflicts present or past.
> 
> I think several of the other threads on "orcs" came to a fairly agreed upon conclusion that many of the difficulties (in avoiding the one-dimensional and avoiding othering) can be solved by having each humanoid species portrayed as having a range of views and morality and not simply as things that should be mowed down whether combatant or non-combatant, adult or child.
> 
> It feels like a lot of westerns, fantasy stories, etc... can do that without angsting about every single act of violence or death.



This is a great comment. No additional input needed.


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 2, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> This is unsupportable just on the basis of what has been presented in this thread. We have a letter written by JRRT in which he states unequivocally that the Orc is evocative of (looks like and therefor will be associated with by the human mind, as that is how it works) 'mongolians' (IE central or east Asian people). Next we have the geographical and geocultural parallels between Middle Earth and our world. Certainly JRRT was AWARE of these? Certainly it must, at some point in the 40+ years of his creative endeavors, have occurred to him that this parallel would be evocative? I hold it rather difficult to oppose that IT WAS EVOCATIVE TO HIM. Else why so many parallels exist?
> 
> Thus they MUST BE in LotR certainly stand-ins for exactly what they evoke! How could it not be thus???!!!! To say otherwise is ridiculous and in fact insulting to a man of considerable intellect and thoughtfulness. I further submit that he has TOLD US THIS WAS HIS INTENT when he stated this orc/Mongol association. He states it in terms of it being what we would call a 'trope' today. Mongolians are a horde of destructive, fecund, aggressive, civilization destroying, easterners and he is evoking all of these traits by describing orcs in the same fashion. This IS his intent! It cannot be otherwise. This is how literature (of any quality) must work! It paints a picture in the mind of the reader by evoking things, by drawing parallels which create associations in the minds of readers so as to bring this picture to life.
> 
> ...




I pick yours to reply to because I think it’s an accurate distillation of a lot of the counter views and also isnt just repeating points in a banal manner like I’ve not already critiqued them. (Yes, I get it, there were racially loaded terms used by people within that context, it doesn’t mean it’s representative of what they are.  wait witch doctor? wasn’t this the same poster arguing that Orcs were clear Asian analogues?) almost like there’s nothing more than these tenuous links to bring to the discussion.

Firstly, as it’s only a brief, tangential aside, when it comes to imagining orcs sounding like people from your home town, I don’t have to. As I’ve already stated, one of the few types of orcs that are actually explicitly based on a sub group of people are the games workshop orcs. And it’s pretty hilarious. And on a more serious note, as a grandson of the last generation of Nevi Wesh Romani, having had their culture destroyed, being forced into council homes after WW2 “for their own good” (and having watched a contemporary film about “these poor gypsies”) and having that sense lost to me as an opportunity, I can relate to some degree  to the pain aspect. Doesn’t mean that I agree with some of the ultimate conclusions drawn from this discussion.

Secondly, let’s stop pretending and presenting that this argument is only older white guys and bigots keen to preserve this racist status quo vs peoples of colour and their younger white allies arguing for the inevitable tide of progress. It’s dismissive and reductive of an opposing view. I’ve gamed with and am friends with and have watched talks of enough peoples of various age, ethnicities and various sub groups that also disagree with these conclusions, that it’s not as binary as that (also before others pile on, this is not an appeal to the “I’m not racist, some of my best friends are…” so don’t bother).

Thirdly, indeed you are right, there are parallels and evocations that can be drawn from stereotypes and imagery, this is how fiction works. Am I meant to be shocked at the revelation that western man from the early 20th century with a keen understanding and passion for historical cultures, who set out in his works to create an English based mythos (to fill the void that was created when the potential was stolen by Norman cultural subjugation) wrote from a early 20th century western perspective?

So we can agree that Tolkien was not saying actual Asian people are Orcs? So can we stop making that claim citing that letter? Yes it was unacceptably crude, yes it’s an appeal to othering from a then early 20th century European perspective. The othering was the point.

An othering of a monstrous creature is, in and of itself, not a bad thing. Again, this has been done for time across all cultures’ mythos. A creature like us, our potential for the best or worst of humanity (regardless of ethnicity, all humanity) as well as unlike us, to measure ourselves against (to be looked up to, in the case of the elves, or to be feared in the case of Orcs). The “mistake” in Tolkien’s othering from a modern perspective was to utilise phenotypical characteristics to do so. But it’s almost like society progresses and changes, and in a globalised society, the idea of the other has changed, I’ll not condemn his works for it, again, context is king. But again, despite this mode of othering, an Orc is an Orc, not a stand in for any particular group and should not be used as such or claims made that it is representative of such.

Now to D&D specifically and what to do with it. It circled back to my original point on genetic fallacy.  You’re right that culture is complicated, and there are many issues. D&D is game built root and stem on all these tropes, based on fiction and myth. That’s is raison detre  It seems not to represent specific cultures, but a whole group of “what’s cool” mashed together in a blender. For example, lots of various European cultures and folklore mashed together (which is why the critique of oriental adventures misses the point, it doesn’t seek to accurately detail a specific culture). These are as much a gross distortion and mash up of culture as any other. It’s not seeking to replicate any individual, it’s not looking to be representative in that aspect.

Trying to “fix” different aspects based on these tropes leads to a non game. If we are to determine that fiction and mythos it is problematic (because, regardless of cultural source, pretty much all sources have problematic elements regardless of where they are from in the world, that’s just the way humans have been regardless of ethnicity) then you are left with very little. And what is not a problem today , may become a problem tomorrow, you are left rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship (because you’ve removed these elements from the vessel). You yourself have identified this problem when you commented earlier about concerns with swapping out the orc is effectively a palette swap (my paraphrasing).

The way to approach this should be in avoiding the genetic fallacy, we recognise the game for what it is, a collection of tropes to enjoy a fantasy romp in, and ignore what we perceive to be problematic origins of tropes as they have no basis or relevance in how those tropes are delayed in the game.

For example, D&D’s idea of race is based on a defunct Victorian model. It’s not advocating for retaining it, it’s just utilising within the context of legacy of an old game. It means nothing more beyond its meanings within the game itself.

We recognise the tropes of finding a lost temple in the jungle and robbing it of its treasures for what they are. But again, within the game, there is no advocating of this beyond what it means within the game itself.

An Orc in the game. Let’s pretend that you know nothing about orcs. D&D is your first exposure to it. There is nothing within the writing of the game itself that makes allusions to certain ethnicities. Words like “savage” or “bestial” to describe them are quite apt and are not loaded words in and of themselves. Now of course, you’ve read, you have context. You know that these words have been applied to various ethnicities before. This is the effects of reader upon works in action (and again, no this isn’t an appeal to “no you’re the racist for pointing out”…so again don’t bother). There has to be recognition that that’s what you’re bringing to the game, to the reading. So it’s down to you to decide if you can put that aside and enjoy orcs for what they are, or if your understanding of context means that you’d prefer an alternative.

Finally, none of this, none of what I’ve said is an argument against progress, nor that we should say, “well, this is just a tangled, complicated mess so why bother”. I find calls of people advocating for these changes of the game that state, “well the world is changing, youll be left behind”, or accusations that I’m trying to keep an old, white dominated world insulting and arrogant, a sense that their argument is automatically right.

We can and will do better. Already, we are seeing much better human interpretations within gaming (see for example Paizo’s new Mwangi book and compare with older writing on the area) as well as better depictions of humans across the spectrum. I applaud this, I value this.

What I object to is the statement  as fact of “monsters as people”, when it is not fact. It is opinion. A well meaning one, but one that in my view is asinine and demeaning.

I’ve already repeated aspects now multiple times across posts which suggests we have reached a point where views are entrenched and there’s nothing more that can be added to the conversation. Regardless of differing of opinion, I wish all happy gaming and a continuing of being excellent to one another.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 2, 2021)

Let us also not forget: For JRRT's generation, casual racism was endemic throughout most of the first world nations.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> For example, D&D’s idea of race is based on a defunct Victorian model. It’s not advocating for retaining it, it’s just utilising within the context of legacy of an old game. It means nothing more beyond its meanings within the game itself.




I don't think this Victorian model is as defunct as you think it is. 

Nor is the game devoid of meaning beyond itself. It is a (admittedly small) part of the wider media culture.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> let’s stop pretending and presenting that this argument is only older white guys and bigots keen to preserve this racist status quo vs peoples of colour and their younger white allies arguing for the inevitable tide of progress.



Who is this addressed to? Who do you assert is "pretending and presenting" such things?



transmission89 said:


> So we can agree that Tolkien was not saying actual Asian people are Orcs? So can we stop making that claim citing that letter?



Who is this addressed to? Who do you assert is making this claim?

EDIT: Here is a direct quote from the @AbdulAlharred post you quoted:

I understand, and even agree to a point, that Tolkien was probably not trying to say that actual Asian people are basically orcs. Nor necessarily saying that evil comes from the east, etc. He is however using these stereotypes to draw a picture. This alone is hurtful to the people so stereotyped.​
What do you think is the point of your argument that there is no use of racialised and racist tropes in JRRT'w work?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Who is this addressed to? Who do you assert is "pretending and presenting" such things?



I hope I'm not being accused of pretending to be anything other than one of the "older white guys"! I'm upfront about being 50!


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Now to D&D specifically and what to do with it. It circled back to my original point on genetic fallacy.  You’re right that culture is complicated, and there are many issues. D&D is game built root and stem on all these tropes, based on fiction and myth. That’s is raison detre  It seems not to represent specific cultures, but a whole group of “what’s cool” mashed together in a blender.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



To try and get some clarity, here are some passages from the AD&D rulebooks. Are you saying that removing this sort of thing from D&D would make it a "non-game"?

PHB​(p 17)
Orcs are fecund and create many cross-breeds, most of the offspring of such being typically orcish. However, some one-tenth of orc-human mongrels ore sufficiently non-orcish to pass for human. . . . it is assumed that player characters which are of half-orc race are within the superior 10% . . .

DMG (p 16)
*Half-Orcs* are boors. They are rude, crude, crass, and generally obnoxious. Because most are cowardly they tend to be bullies and cruel to the weak, but they will quickly knuckle under to the stronger. This does not mean that all half-orcs are horrid, only most of them. . . . They will always seek to gain the upper hand and dominate those around them so as to be able to exercise their natural tendencies; half-orcs are greedy too.

MM (p 76)
Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general, but they particularly hate elves and will always attack them in preference to other creatures. They take slaves for work, food, and entertainment (torture, etc.) but not elves whom they kill immediately. . . .

As orcs will breed with anything, there are any number of unsavory mongrels with orcish blood, particularly orc-goblins, orc-hobgoblins, and orc-humans. Orcs cannot cross-breed with elves. Half-orcs tend to favor the orcish strain heavily, so such sorts are basically orcs although they can sometimes (10%) pass themselves off as true creatures of their other stock (goblins, hobgoblins, humans, etc.).

MM (p 68)
Primitive tribesmen are typically found in tropical jungles or on islands. . . . These men dwell in villages of grass, bamboo or mud huts. . . . There is a 50% chance that there will be 2-12 captives (food!) held in a pen.

DMG (p 192)
*Noble* encounters are with a nobleman and retainers 75% of the time and with a noblewoman 25% of the time. . . . 
Noblemen can easily be mistaken for important city officials or very rich merchants; noblewomen can likewise be mistaken for a courtesan or procuress.​
Are you asserting that it is important to FRPGing that the fantasy include cruel, fecund people who produce "mongrel" offspring just like them; that it include jungle and island "tribesmen" who take captives to eat them; that its noblewomen be easily mistaken for sex workers?

If not, what is your point?


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> To try and get some clarity, here are some passages from the AD&D rulebooks. Are you saying that removing this sort of thing from D&D would make it a "non-game"?
> 
> 
> PHB​
> ...



No additional clarity is needed. My position is made quite clear in the penultimate two paragraphs of my previous post. Trying to delegitimise these points by purposefully ignoring them and reaching for examples that run counter to what I stated shows a lack of good faith in serious discussion. Continue to make claims of my assertions to harvest likes or for your own entertainment all you want. I don’t see any further value in it. Good day sir/ madam/ however you prefer to be addressed.


----------



## Disgruntled Hobbit (Jul 2, 2021)

It's challenging as everyone brings their own viewpoints into the debate

Been trying to get into Black Dice Society (with mixed success/ something to watch while waiting for CR) and the last couple episodes have focused on debates between a self-hating lycanthrope and the party's infected lycanthrope as well as between a self-hating dhampire vampire hunter and the party's undead members and dhampire
Been framing the debate as self acceptance and a racial/ queer lens

But for me, it's hard not to see the people arguing at the party through the lens of assault 
Vampires have a theme of sexual predation to me

The players' arguments are right from their perspective and how they're viewing the monster metaphor 
But it's really coming off as wrong based on how I view the monster metaphor

Ditto evil races, with opposing philosophies and viewpoints
Cause evil races aren't real. We're all bringing our own biases
Seeing them in different ways


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Yes. When JRRT wants to evoke an evil "other", he draws upon readily-available racist tropes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, and while I am leery of drawing this discussion too far into the 'current events' swamp, I would just like to point out that this is very close cousin to a certain vociferous group of partisans in my own country and their complaints about the idea that racism could be 'embedded in the structure of society itself'. I certainly don't see any convincing reason to throw labels at anyone, like @transmission89, but when he/she asserts that JRRT did not actively draw certain parallels, and that his analogy between orcs and Mongols isn't diagnostic of a form of racist view, that feels like a very similar kind of logic. That is, that only OVERT PERSONAL statements of racial bias somehow 'count' as racism. I have news for people, that's not how it is experienced in life! People who may join an RPG and find out that the 'bad guys' are a humanoid race that was explicitly built to evoke their own people and associates negative traits with them, do not feel like it is "OK" simply because the association was made by someone who "wasn't really racist" and has simply been schlepped along for 3 generations of work since then. Not any more than a guy who gets pulled over by the police every week for no other reason than his skin color is really all that worried about the nuances of why each individual LEO is doing it. 

Sorry, again, not trying to go beyond talking about RPGs here. Just there's a certain segment of every group of people you interact with who are simply not grasping this basic truth, and then stuff like "JRRT didn't actually SAY he wanted to make people think Mongolians are bad people" pops up. Its missing the point, nor can anyone really say what JRRT actually thought, albeit perhaps not consciously. Unconscious bias is not 'better', and I think it is a real issue for RPGs.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I just read the essay Revisiting Race in Tolkien’s Legendarium: Constructing Cultures and Ideologies in an Imaginary World





pemerton said:


> I found it a bit disappointing, because it promised to tell us something meaningful about JRRT and race/racism, but what it actually did was catalogue his influences and ways those are expressed. All the conclusions are left as exercises for the reader; and at least in the case of this reader it didn't really change my thinking or shed significant new light.




I enjoyed the essay – it was interesting and informative. But it doesn't properly confront this issue, from Roger Echo-Hawk's blog post Tolkien's Squinteyed Orc-men:

When Tolkien's orcs / goblins made their debut in his earliest writings as monstrous soldiery of evil, they were not squint-eyed; there was no mention of interbreeding between orcs and humans. But between 1939 and 1942 Tolkien spliced new elements into his orcs / goblins. He now made a decision to reshape these fantasy monsters. He decided he would colorize them with distinct details drawn from the traditions of British racial typology.​
He addresses problems with previous scholarship in another post,  JRR Tolkien and Race. The most important explanation, in my opinion, is in his book _Tolkien in Pawneeland 2e_ (2016):

Tolkien's squint-eyed southerner [Bill Ferny's friend] was only briefly mentioned when he first appeared in 1939. That is probably when Tolkien first envisioned this new class of creatures, but it wasn't until this writing in 1942 that he turned his hand to sketching in more details of his half-orcs, and the portrayal is clearly drawn from traditional racial Asian typology. (pg 269)

At some point after writing the early drafts – perhaps after about mid-1942 – Tolkien edited his description of the "huge orc-chieftain" to make him more racial: "His broad flat face was swart, his eyes were like coals, and his tongue was red…" (pg 262)

In January 1942 Tolkien's interest in the Asian theater of World War Two became explicitly evident in notes he scribbled on the back of an examination sheet… Tolkien's doodled references to the Asian theater of World War Two came as he sat down once again to insert orcs into his tale, composing notes on the material that became "The Departure of Boromir"… Not long after this, Tolkien prepared "The Uruk-hai"… we encounter Orcs with "hideous faces"… a band of "long-armed crook-legged Orcs" from Mordor, "… swart, slant-eyed Orcs" from Isengard… These orcs refer to Rohirrim as "Whiteskins"… Tolkien had race on his mind; these horrible orcs make use of race… They don't just believe in race; they embody race. And now we see a full flowering of racialized orcs in all their Mongol-type degraded repulsive glory. (pgs 265-267)

Discussing his orcs as "folk made bad" in a letter written in 1944, Tolkien opined that "it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle, and that there are probably abnormally many of such creatures in Deutschland and Nippon…" (pg 269)​


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Are the conflict stories with 1-dimensional 'human' bad guys as interesting as the stories with some complexity and variety?  How are westerns if either all the native Americans or all the settlers are genocidal?  How interesting is a WWII story if all of the Germans (military and civilian) are the equivalent of Rudolph Hoess?  Insert any number of other real world conflicts present or past.
> 
> I think several of the other threads on "orcs" came to a fairly agreed upon conclusion that many of the difficulties (in avoiding the one-dimensional and avoiding othering) can be solved by having each humanoid species portrayed as having a range of views and morality and not simply as things that should be mowed down whether combatant or non-combatant, adult or child.
> 
> It feels like a lot of westerns, fantasy stories, etc... can do that without angsting about every single act of violence or death.



Right, and I agree. I would only say, additionally, that issues can be subtle, and it can be hard to know where one might have simply overlooked something because we've been exposed to some negative idea for so long it has vanished from conscious consideration. Nor do people all give the same factors equal weight. You might portray orcs as both technologically advanced in some respect (maybe they make really awesome weapons or something), and yet seeming more primitive in some other sense (governmental institutions perhaps). You might even portray each as being a range that overlaps with other races, etc. That might TO YOU AND ME seem pretty fair and reasonable, they're different but not worse. The orc tribe you are dealing with is 'tribalistic', but over the next mountain is an orc republic. Some player may still interpret this scenario as having a dimension of portraying a negative stereotype. Maybe that player is included in a stereotyped ethnic identity, and maybe they are simply more aware of, or from YOUR perspective "overly sensitive to" certain factors.

So, yes, I think giving the 'orcs' a more nuanced character does work, but it won't work perfectly, that's all.

Also, it inevitably does leave out a lot of the more 'black and white' sort of RP. A lot of people DO enjoy that. We could ask if that kind of play is INHERENTLY relying on some negative stereotypes. Its a tough question. Obviously if you want that kind of play maybe the only way to avoid them really is to make the bad guys 'neoghi' or something that is really super alien and thus further removed from comparisons with the real world.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 2, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Obviously if you want that kind of play maybe the only way to avoid them really is to make the bad guys 'neoghi' or something that is really super alien and thus further removed from comparisons with the real world.



Or make all evil individual rather than racial. But that would be getting very far from D&D as it has been up to now.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> I pick yours to reply to because I think it’s an accurate distillation of a lot of the counter views and also isnt just repeating points in a banal manner like I’ve not already critiqued them. (Yes, I get it, there were racially loaded terms used by people within that context, it doesn’t mean it’s representative of what they are.  wait witch doctor? wasn’t this the same poster arguing that Orcs were clear Asian analogues?) almost like there’s nothing more than these tenuous links to bring to the discussion.



People often 'sin' in ways that they may not even comprehend. A guy once lambasted me for using the word 'Oriental' in a geographical sense and was absolutely adamant that the word is utterly poison in every possible context and is an epithet, always. I still politely disagree, but to a degree it isn't our place to categorize and approve or disapprove of the reactions of other people. So, we may all use words in ways that bother someone else. We should try not to.


transmission89 said:


> Firstly, as it’s only a brief, tangential aside, when it comes to imagining orcs sounding like people from your home town, I don’t have to. As I’ve already stated, one of the few types of orcs that are actually explicitly based on a sub group of people are the games workshop orcs. And it’s pretty hilarious. And on a more serious note, as a grandson of the last generation of Nevi Wesh Romani, having had their culture destroyed, being forced into council homes after WW2 “for their own good” (and having watched a contemporary film about “these poor gypsies”) and having that sense lost to me as an opportunity, I can relate to some degree  to the pain aspect. Doesn’t mean that I agree with some of the ultimate conclusions drawn from this discussion.



Fair enough. I think that is amusing too (the orcs, obviously not the Romani).


transmission89 said:


> Secondly, let’s stop pretending and presenting that this argument is only older white guys and bigots keen to preserve this racist status quo vs peoples of colour and their younger white allies arguing for the inevitable tide of progress. It’s dismissive and reductive of an opposing view. I’ve gamed with and am friends with and have watched talks of enough peoples of various age, ethnicities and various sub groups that also disagree with these conclusions, that it’s not as binary as that (also before others pile on, this is not an appeal to the “I’m not racist, some of my best friends are…” so don’t bother).



Oh, there's no pretending anything on my part. I am PRETTY SURE I qualify as an 'older white guy' and I would make no bones about that. Put it this way, Dr King was marching around the south when I was a kid, though a bit young to really understand the whole thing at the time. I don't see this as generational, and I would not simplify it down to some group vs some other group. I've seen the complexity with my own eyes, though I freely admit I have never experienced racial prejudice against my own person. And you are correct, no group can be pigeonholed on any side of this.


transmission89 said:


> Thirdly, indeed you are right, there are parallels and evocations that can be drawn from stereotypes and imagery, this is how fiction works. Am I meant to be shocked at the revelation that western man from the early 20th century with a keen understanding and passion for historical cultures, who set out in his works to create an English based mythos (to fill the void that was created when the potential was stolen by Norman cultural subjugation) wrote from a early 20th century western perspective?



No, and let me be clear. My FIRST MEMORIES are of listening to my Mother read The Hobbit. I LEARNED TO READ when I was FOUR YEARS OLD so I could read it myself (and I did too, cover to cover believe it or not). The teacher threw me out in the hall at the age of 6 for hiding a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring behind the 'Spot and Jane' reader that the rest of the class was cumbersomely wading through. I must have read that series of books 10 times, at least, as well as a good fraction of all the other stuff that was published posthumously and EVERY other fantasy/folklore story that Tolkien wrote. I am a fan. I can still appreciate that there are real and significant racist connotations buried within his work. I agree that these are, judging by the totality of what we know of the man, probably not intended to convey a message of racial prejudice. But, as I said above, it is neither up to me to decide what is offensive to others, nor to dismiss the significance of these elements as a part of the author's legacy.


transmission89 said:


> So we can agree that Tolkien was not saying actual Asian people are Orcs? So can we stop making that claim citing that letter? Yes it was unacceptably crude, yes it’s an appeal to othering from a then early 20th century European perspective. The othering was the point.



The othering was the point, and it is an othering OF ACTUAL PEOPLE. So, yes, I believe that Tolkien did not (consciously at the very least) ascribe 'orc-like characteristics' to Asians. OTOH he did knowingly exploit those associations in order to convey that these traits were associated with orcs. So, I cannot hold him really blameless in that sense.


transmission89 said:


> An othering of a monstrous creature is, in and of itself, not a bad thing. Again, this has been done for time across all cultures’ mythos. A creature like us, our potential for the best or worst of humanity (regardless of ethnicity, all humanity) as well as unlike us, to measure ourselves against (to be looked up to, in the case of the elves, or to be feared in the case of Orcs). The “mistake” in Tolkien’s othering from a modern perspective was to utilise phenotypical characteristics to do so. But it’s almost like society progresses and changes, and in a globalised society, the idea of the other has changed, I’ll not condemn his works for it, again, context is king. But again, despite this mode of othering, an Orc is an Orc, not a stand in for any particular group and should not be used as such or claims made that it is representative of such.



And I'm not so much condemning HIS WORKS as I am pointing out that these elements do 'taint' other derived uses, such as D&D's use of orcs. As you pointed out, GW created a very different and, IMHO, more acceptable stereotype of orcs as 'football hoolies'. Even that might offend someone though! lol. Still, they obviously saw the issue and thought about it, which is clever.


transmission89 said:


> Now to D&D specifically and what to do with it. It circled back to my original point on genetic fallacy.  You’re right that culture is complicated, and there are many issues. D&D is game built root and stem on all these tropes, based on fiction and myth. That’s is raison detre  It seems not to represent specific cultures, but a whole group of “what’s cool” mashed together in a blender. For example, lots of various European cultures and folklore mashed together (which is why the critique of oriental adventures misses the point, it doesn’t seek to accurately detail a specific culture). These are as much a gross distortion and mash up of culture as any other. It’s not seeking to replicate any individual, it’s not looking to be representative in that aspect.



Again though, this is YOUR PERSPECTIVE. I'm not especially disagreeing with it. I don't particularly find OA offensive. OTOH if you go read a thread on it from a couple years ago on RPG.net you will find out that A VERY LARGE CONTINGENT OF PEOPLE do find it horribly offensive, bigoted, and utterly uacceptable, right down to the title of the book, which some of them equate to calling a book about African Adventures by as * Adventures where the epithet is truly unrepeatable (and should be). I found that to be a bit over the top myself, but it isn't my call to make, their offense cannot be seen as anything but genuine. If some European people want to be offended by some element of their folklore, for whatever reason, that is their prerogative as well. Just like it is the prerogative of certain mothers to be offended by the inclusion of the term 'devil' in the monster manual. I know we consider that later thing silly, but are you implying that their offense is merely a pretense? Maybe in some cases it is, but who am I to judge that??!!


transmission89 said:


> Trying to “fix” different aspects based on these tropes leads to a non game. If we are to determine that fiction and mythos it is problematic (because, regardless of cultural source, pretty much all sources have problematic elements regardless of where they are from in the world, that’s just the way humans have been regardless of ethnicity) then you are left with very little. And what is not a problem today , may become a problem tomorrow, you are left rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship (because you’ve removed these elements from the vessel). You yourself have identified this problem when you commented earlier about concerns with swapping out the orc is effectively a palette swap (my paraphrasing).



I am sorry, but this smacks of trying to say that perfection is impossible, that we cannot succeed 100% so the effort is worthless. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. If I reimagine orcs in a less problematic way, yes it may complicate the story telling task in some cases, or require that I invent some other 2-dimensional non-human monster to be a stock bad guy (but D&D has a huge repertoire there to choose from, is this so hard). No solution is perfect. I only live to be better tomorrow than today. I may not even succeed at that, but I am sure going to try it.


transmission89 said:


> The way to approach this should be in avoiding the genetic fallacy, we recognise the game for what it is, a collection of tropes to enjoy a fantasy romp in, and ignore what we perceive to be problematic origins of tropes as they have no basis or relevance in how those tropes are delayed in the game.
> 
> For example, D&D’s idea of race is based on a defunct Victorian model. It’s not advocating for retaining it, it’s just utilising within the context of legacy of an old game. It means nothing more beyond its meanings within the game itself.
> 
> We recognise the tropes of finding a lost temple in the jungle and robbing it of its treasures for what they are. But again, within the game, there is no advocating of this beyond what it means within the game itself.



This whole talk of 'genetic fallacy' is simply going to fail as an approach. There's no 'fallacy' here. WE CHOOSE how to make our games. D&D is not some object cast in stone. It wasn't carved by the hand of E. Gary Gygax in marble. It is ours, we are a living culture of people and we can pick and choose how to go forward and what to do with the things given to us by the past. I mean, you wouldn't argue that a statue of Jefferson Davis has to be left standing simply because someone in 1901 saw fit to erect it, do you?


transmission89 said:


> An Orc in the game. Let’s pretend that you know nothing about orcs. D&D is your first exposure to it. There is nothing within the writing of the game itself that makes allusions to certain ethnicities. Words like “savage” or “bestial” to describe them are quite apt and are not loaded words in and of themselves. Now of course, you’ve read, you have context. You know that these words have been applied to various ethnicities before. This is the effects of reader upon works in action (and again, no this isn’t an appeal to “no you’re the racist for pointing out”…so again don’t bother). There has to be recognition that that’s what you’re bringing to the game, to the reading. So it’s down to you to decide if you can put that aside and enjoy orcs for what they are, or if your understanding of context means that you’d prefer an alternative.



You are putting the blame for prejudice on the victim here. I can never accept this logic. It is fundamentally unjust.


transmission89 said:


> Finally, none of this, none of what I’ve said is an argument against progress, nor that we should say, “well, this is just a tangled, complicated mess so why bother”. I find calls of people advocating for these changes of the game that state, “well the world is changing, youll be left behind”, or accusations that I’m trying to keep an old, white dominated world insulting and arrogant, a sense that their argument is automatically right.
> 
> We can and will do better. Already, we are seeing much better human interpretations within gaming (see for example Paizo’s new Mwangi book and compare with older writing on the area) as well as better depictions of humans across the spectrum. I applaud this, I value this.
> 
> ...



Some of this confuses me a bit, you first talk about 'genetic fallacy' which sounds exactly like "the source we draw from is irrelevant" and then you talk about a 'mess', and that you aren't arguing against 'progress', but then you claim those who point out that you're sticking with a racially charged sort of depiction of things and might be left behind 'insulting'. Do you want to move forward or not? You are actually sending mixed messages. 

And you are fundamentally calling people's reactions, THEIR FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS, 'asinine', 'demeaning', 'insulting', and 'arrogant'. I'm guessing this is more likely to land you in Ernie Gygax territory than it is to land you in a good place. I don't think that you're incapable of change, and you seem to realize that there's a genuine reason for it, some of the time. Yet you, like a LOT of people, have not fully internalized that and completely understood it. Its hard. I believe Camus once said that "The world's problems will not be solved until each and every one of us takes complete personal responsibility for them." Now, maybe I'm butchering Camus, or maybe it was another writer, but I think the sentiment is apropos.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> It seems not to represent specific cultures, but a whole group of “what’s cool” mashed together in a blender. For example, lots of various European cultures and folklore mashed together (which is why the critique of oriental adventures misses the point, it doesn’t seek to accurately detail a specific culture). These are as much a gross distortion and mash up of culture as any other. It’s not seeking to replicate any individual, it’s not looking to be representative in that aspect.
> 
> Trying to “fix” different aspects based on these tropes leads to a non game. If we are to determine that fiction and mythos it is problematic (because, regardless of cultural source, pretty much all sources have problematic elements regardless of where they are from in the world, that’s just the way humans have been regardless of ethnicity) then you are left with very little.



It is plausible to say that relying on fairly inflexible tropes is a core part of fantasy as a genre, and that even fantasy that doesn't do this is subverting those generic expectations.  I would need to think more about that.  But classic fantasy and dnd come at western folklore from a broadly western perspective.  When they approach the 'fantasy' of other cultures, they are also coming at it from a western perspective.  This is basically the definition of orientalism, and it is important because it was and is key to reproducing colonial violence in the real world.  And, whatever analogies Tolkein did or did not put in his fiction, it says something that his fiction is so easily read as conservative parable.

One thing wotc could do is hire people from diverse cultural backgrounds as writers.  And when they do, respect their work without the need to edit back in fantasy racism!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> I hope I'm not being accused of pretending to be anything other than one of the "older white guys"! I'm upfront about being 50!



Well, if I could JUST make it to level 18 Wizard and cast 'Wish'... I'm hoping for nanites, but someone better get working on those pretty fast!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

Disgruntled Hobbit said:


> Ditto evil races, with opposing philosophies and viewpoints
> Cause evil races aren't real. We're all bringing our own biases
> Seeing them in different ways



Right, one half is OUR viewpoints, and the other half is everyone else's. That includes people who might find themselves identified with an evil race, etc.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> Or make all evil individual rather than racial. But that would be getting very far from D&D as it has been up to now.



Well, it works, but it gets further from the 'black and white' kind of play that I was addressing. Many people are happy to play in world of all shades of grey in a moral sense. Others don't want to be confronted with the problem of what to do with 'orc children' or wonder if their PCs are really just 'murder hoboes' (what do actual hoboes think of that one I wonder, lol).


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 2, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And you are fundamentally calling people's reactions, THEIR FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS, 'asinine', 'demeaning', 'insulting', and 'arrogant'. I'm guessing this is more likely to land you in Ernie Gygax territory than it is to land you in a good place. I don't think that you're incapable of change, and you seem to realize that there's a genuine reason for it, some of the time. Yet you, like a LOT of people, have not fully internalized that and completely understood it. Its hard. I believe Camus once said that "The world's problems will not be solved until each and every one of us takes complete personal responsibility for them." Now, maybe I'm butchering Camus, or maybe it was another writer, but I think the sentiment is apropos.



So this a point of order, rather than attempt to continue the debate as I think both sides are established. An attempt to cross or at least define the divide here.

This encapsulates the “arrogance” I was talking about. Not the opinion itself but in the way it’s worded here. You and yours on “your side of the debate” associate this and equate it with  the just struggle for proper equality. The struggle for equality, equity and general love is absolutely a cause I support and stand for as part of a minority myself (lgbt- I appreciate it’s not racially specific but I hope I am making my firm belief in The message and the cause clear).

what I find distasteful is this almost inbuilt assumption in the argument that this is purely factual and correct, the patronising (whether intentioned or not “ you’re not incapable of of change, you seem to realise..” etc).

The divide here for myself and many others others (though of course, I don’t speak for all) on “my side” of the argument is that we don’t see fictional races as part of the struggle. In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.

for example:

Orcs Aren’t People: Denouncing Racism in the D&D Community

No, Orcs Aren't Racist

And in particulate to those who use literature to build a case to critique, there’s a great book called how to read with a few poignant passage


"... one must not only be a _responsive_but also a __responsible__ listener. You are responsive to the extent that you follow what has been said and note the intention that prompts it. But you also have the responsibility of taking a position. When you take it, it is yours, not the author's. To regard anyone except yourself as responsible for your judgement is to be a slave, not a free man. It is from the fact that the liberal arts acquire their name."


"You must make your own assumptions explicit. You must know what your prejudices---that is, your prejudgments---are. Otherwise you are not likely to admit that your opponent may be equally entitled to different assumptions. *Good controversy should not be a quarrel about assumptions.* If an author, for example, explicitly asks you to take something for granted, the fact that the opposite can also be taken for granted should not prevent you from honouring his request. If your prejudices lie on the opposite side, and if you do not acknowledge them to be prejudices, you cannot give the author's case a fair hearing."

I hope that to you, I have at least made my objections clear, and made the divide clearer, whether or not you choose to agree with the position.I actually feel that on many things, our opinions differ very little

As I said, I’m not interested in continuing the debate, just an attempt to actually clarify it. As an aside, I did find a really interesting article from all this, especially building on notions of memetic legacy:

When Orcs were Real


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.



I'm not equating fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. I'm criticising others for doing so -- or, to be precise, associating the monstrous with real world peoples. I'm also criticising them for creating fictional worlds in which some of the ideas of racists are true.

When I criticise JRR Tolkien for giving his orcs the appearance of the "least lovely Mongol-types", I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are orcs. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

When I criticise WotC for giving their goblins and hobgoblins the cultural and perceived racial traits of East Asian peoples, I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are goblins or hobgoblins. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

Summary of these issues, from upthread.


----------



## Campbell (Jul 2, 2021)

Here's my overall stance on art, literature, and gaming. All artforms (of which fiction and games are examples) are fundamentally about reflecting on our human experiences. That we might not intend to say something more broad about our experiences or the outside world is really immaterial. Our art will reflect the way we see the world around us and often help to make sense of. This is actually accentuated in the case of fantasy because it lets us explore ideas that aren't grounded in our concrete physical reality. It often reflects our greatest hopes and our most terrible fears.

The art we make is important. It reflects on us. It says something about the world we live in, even when it is trying not to. An orc is never just an orc. It has a meaning beyond it's fictional existence. That's what makes fiction so powerful.


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 2, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> I'm not equating fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. I'm criticising others for doing so -- or, to be precise, associating the monstrous with real world peoples. I'm also criticising them for creating fictional worlds in which some of the ideas of racists are true.
> 
> When I criticise JRR Tolkien for giving his orcs the appearance of the "least lovely Mongol-types", I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are orcs. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.
> 
> ...



Ok, so we can establish that there is a strong common ground from both sides (ignoring the right wing ass hats who band wagon and distort a message as they are wont to do). Note that I’ll be referring to sides just for simplicity and clarity, not to foster adversity.

on your two points, it seems that where we differ is the ”value” or “relevance” on the aspects of these things. I dislike these two words as they sound cold and dismissive, but I can’t think of better right now, so I hope my intentions around it will be clear.

Your side, views the context and relevance of Tolkien’s description as to tying it indelibly to these perceptions and creating this cultural baggage, that he is explicitly associating the two? My side, disagrees with the language used, but takes it at face value, a comparative that is clumsy by modern standards but was meant as just that, no associations beyond that. That therefore there is nothing beyond that (hence the reference to guide to readings above).

Your side places value on the perceived notions of racial traits and draw the association with east Asian people’s due to certain visual cues and language semantic views? Where as my side again would argue that this is perception of reader, the reader association and just to take it at face value. An orc is just an orc. Please recognise that this isn’t a dismissive, “no you’re the racist“ and please it turn, don’t be dismissive of the counter view and take it as such. Its just, for my part at least, I value the quotes outlined in my post above. That reader understanding and interpretation is key. That I (and perhaps the others on ”my side” place less “relevance” on these visual and language cues and take them at the face value of the fantasy creature and not as a cue or indicator of a real world race or issue.

And I think that much of the argument around issues of “a western perspective on orientalism or some such on “my side” is again that notion of “relevance”. A sense of “so what?” (Not intended as a callous and cruel way). In that there is no intention or design of racial offence, it’s just magpieing cool stuff for a fantasy game, it’s not meant to be representative or respective of real cultures because it’s not seeking to accurately portray or represent them) And it being a western perspective is immaterial because again it’s fantasy, and something through a different lens would change it as such. Obviously, were you setting out to create an authentic environment, you would ensure that this accuracy was guaranteed with the appropriate viewpoints and such (this view doesn’t discount the benefits of having a more diverse perspective anyway). And indeed, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander here as watching for example anime, seeing western culture through a Japanese lens in fantasy “not America” is interesting and different.

So again, this is not a continuation of argument. I’m not seeking to persuade, it’s more a clarification of position. I would like to think that this would hopefully create some understanding on both sides. That actually, we agree on much of the issues.
I’m hoping that at least for future conversation, it creates an understanding. That “my side“ do hear and understand “your sides” concerns. That we are not curmudgeonly roadblocks on the path of progress, we just disagree on the “relevance” of associations made as it pertains to the real world and the concerns and struggles of the various movements of equality. I hope that ”your sides” part will at least acknowledge that. That the issues of fantasy races and real life ethnicities are not straight up fact, that these associations are opinion based and not all that argue on this are straight up racists or anti progressives. Except the alt right band wagoning tools. Screw those guys.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to *equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities.* And that is what I find asinine.



Outsider following the conversation: What I personally find asinine is that you keep arguing against this particular strawman as if it had any merit about what is actually being argued by critics and then try to gaslight people for having this argument. And as long as you repeat this, it's clear that you either don't understand what others are arguing on this matter or you do but are purposefully being deceptive about it.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> And I think that much of the argument around issues of “a western perspective on orientalism or some such on “my side” is again that notion of “relevance”. A sense of “so what?” (Not intended as a callous and cruel way). In that there is no intention or design of racial offence, it’s just magpieing cool stuff for a fantasy game, it’s not meant to be representative or respective of real cultures because it’s not seeking to accurately portray or represent them)



Conversely, I would say noticing and caring about racial stereotypes in the game and the racialization of monsters via descriptions and aesthetics doesn't prevent me from playing dnd and enjoying fantasy, lotr included.  That goes, in fact, for any such critique of culture (and incidentally, re: orientalism, Said is a great model for someone who both loved Western literature and saw all its flaws (though he probably though genre fiction was trash)).  It terms of my experience at the gaming table, sometimes I just want to say "omg this is so racist," and get on with playing without someone saying "stop being so sensitive."  Other times though, the fantasy magpieing does feel off, and I hope I can say to the people I'm playing with that I'm uncomfortable with it (and that might include discomfort for  magpieing as what it is, which is cultural appropriation).  

In terms of publishing rpg material, however, there you need to consider your readers--all your readers--and you open yourselves up to this kind of critique.  So, as the main ttrpg publisher and the publisher of dnd, I think wotc should a) think about if and how they appropriate non-Western aesthetics into their world or monster design and b) endeavor to create a play culture around the game that leads to inclusive tables, as much as they can.



transmission89 said:


> And it being a western perspective is immaterial because again it’s fantasy, and something through a different lens would change it as such.




Sure, it's fantasy, but I think perspectives of minorities and non-Western people can absolutely lead to new and interesting worlds and games.


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 2, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Conversely, I would say noticing and caring about racial stereotypes in the game and the racialization of monsters via descriptions and aesthetics doesn't prevent me from playing dnd and enjoying fantasy, lotr included.  That goes, in fact, for any such critique of culture (and incidentally, re: orientalism, Said is a great model for someone who both loved Western literature and saw all its flaws (though he probably though genre fiction was trash)).  It terms of my experience at the gaming table, sometimes I just want to say "omg this is so racist," and get on with playing without someone saying "stop being so sensitive."  Other times though, the fantasy magpieing does feel off, and I hope I can say to the people I'm playing with that I'm uncomfortable with it (and that might include discomfort for  magpieing as what it is, which is cultural appropriation).
> 
> In terms of publishing rpg material, however, there you need to consider your readers--all your readers--and you open yourselves up to this kind of critique.  So, as the main ttrpg publisher and the publisher of dnd, I think wotc should a) think about if and how they appropriate non-Western aesthetics into their world or monster design and b) endeavor to create a play culture around the game that leads to inclusive tables, as much as they can.
> 
> ...



I don’t disagree with anything you said here. I think the minor “differentiator” here is the level of “relevance” of that perception of cultural appropriation. But, I do believe that is subjective to the individual and group, and as I’ve always stated, a case of what works for you and your group at the table. I can absolutely respect that there are these differences in “relevance” (I do need a better word).  For me, D&D is that common baseline of tropes to be explored and customised as to taste at the tabletop.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 2, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> So this a point of order, rather than attempt to continue the debate as I think both sides are established. An attempt to cross or at least define the divide here.
> 
> This encapsulates the “arrogance” I was talking about. Not the opinion itself but in the way it’s worded here. You and yours on “your side of the debate” associate this and equate it with  the just struggle for proper equality. The struggle for equality, equity and general love is absolutely a cause I support and stand for as part of a minority myself (lgbt- I appreciate it’s not racially specific but I hope I am making my firm belief in The message and the cause clear).
> 
> what I find distasteful is this almost inbuilt assumption in the argument that this is purely factual and correct, the patronising (whether intentioned or not “ you’re not incapable of of change, you seem to realise..” etc).



Well, obviously we are having a relatively polite conversation. I am not actually trying to put us on different 'sides', because I expect we have pretty much the same goals and whatnot. Frankly, years ago, I probably reacted a bit like you are now, but I have come to see that I can go further and own the effects of whatever I do in the world, at the very least, completely and without reservations. Always hoping that I will also be met with a tolerant attitude as well.


transmission89 said:


> The divide here for myself and many others others (though of course, I don’t speak for all) on “my side” of the argument is that we don’t see fictional races as part of the struggle. In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.



I'm just saying. People have used fictional races, often, to stand in for and comment on other people. I think some examples beyond JRRT were presented earlier in the thread which were rather more explicit than orcs. So, the use of fiction (and fantasy in particular) in an ethnically charged way is not new. Also I don't think this has to do with a 'struggle'. It has to do with simply people wanting to be free of bad images of creatures that are clearly associated with traits their ethnicities or other identities are associated with. It pigeonholes them, and it implicitly denigrates them. Nobody needs to be going out of their way to do it on purpose. It is just that, say you sit down to play D&D with your buds and a monster that is a caricature of YOU shows up? Its a bad guy. Suppose this sort of pigeonholing is constant, you start to get pretty tired of it. I know this happened to people in my family, so I know how tiring it got. When it ALSO shows up in your D&D game? That is a real bummer. Intentionality isn't really germane, nor is some complex history. That's all.


transmission89 said:


> for example:
> 
> Orcs Aren’t People: Denouncing Racism in the D&D Community



Again, he is missing the point. When you are a BIPOC person, to use the category he chooses to address, you most certainly ARE aware that Orcs, as a D&D race, share a bunch of features which are also commonly attributed to BIPOC people! All the other stuff he says is simply irrelevant! There need not be some master plan or long history of explicit use of Orcs in D&D as such for racist purposes. The associations are preexisting and not something that has to be explicit within the game itself. Just like JRRT didn't have to explicitly draw the connections in his work, or in the letter cited earlier.


transmission89 said:


> No, Orcs Aren't Racist
> 
> And in particulate to those who use literature to build a case to critique, there’s a great book called how to read with a few poignant passage
> 
> ...



Sure, but again, when an author incorporates symbology that has been used for questionable purposes doesn't he have to expect what will come? If you put swastikas into your game and depicted them as insignia for some organization in that game, are you not saying something? If that group is glorified, and if it exhibits any characteristics that might associate it with the obviously evoked real-world group's ideology, don't you think that would have some causal connection to people actually responding in the predictable fashion as a result? I think the case for Orcs is clearly a bit less blatant, but surely you can see how "the reader is responsible" cannot possibly be some sort of absolute response. The writer is ALSO responsible! Communication is 2-way.


transmission89 said:


> "You must make your own assumptions explicit. You must know what your prejudices---that is, your prejudgments---are. Otherwise you are not likely to admit that your opponent may be equally entitled to different assumptions. *Good controversy should not be a quarrel about assumptions.* If an author, for example, explicitly asks you to take something for granted, the fact that the opposite can also be taken for granted should not prevent you from honouring his request. If your prejudices lie on the opposite side, and if you do not acknowledge them to be prejudices, you cannot give the author's case a fair hearing."



I don't think we're arguing about assumptions here. If you want to ask for license, that's fine you are entitled to do that IMHO. You should do so prudently and with good reason. Nor is he obliged not to tell you "I think your thing would be better if you didn't take this license." Nor are we really discussing PREJUDICES of the reader, we are discussing ways in which readers are not interested in seeing this portrayed which very often correspond with ways other people portray THEM. Portrayal is different from prejudice too, they are distinct. Again, nobody need be guilty of active prejudice to carry around and use its symbology. If you carry a sign, you should probably know what is written on it.


transmission89 said:


> I hope that to you, I have at least made my objections clear, and made the divide clearer, whether or not you choose to agree with the position.I actually feel that on many things, our opinions differ very little
> 
> As I said, I’m not interested in continuing the debate, just an attempt to actually clarify it. As an aside, I did find a really interesting article from all this, especially building on notions of memetic legacy:



Sure, we will leave it at I think you will find that your position is one that will be harder to defend over time. I suspect games are going to have to find ways to avoid offending a lot of people who have gotten very sick and tired of being on the receiving end, often for countless generations. It isn't really going to matter what conclusion you and I reach, we are small parts of the world.


transmission89 said:


> When Orcs were Real



This is a Euhemerism. So, I literally read a whole article the other day about how 19th Century Euhemerism is tied together with various racist ideologies, and even relating it to things like Tolkien, etc. Maybe it was linked here, my memory can be pretty crappy. Anyway, it also ties in with the whitewashing of ideology about Rome pretty cleanly. I think there's a sad truth that European intellectuals over the last few centuries have tainted a lot of our cultural heritage with racist and other ideological baggage that we're now going to have to deal with.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 3, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> issues can be subtle, and it can be hard to know where one might have simply overlooked something because we've been exposed to some negative idea for so long it has vanished from conscious consideration. Nor do people all give the same factors equal weight. You might portray orcs as both technologically advanced in some respect (maybe they make really awesome weapons or something), and yet seeming more primitive in some other sense (governmental institutions perhaps). You might even portray each as being a range that overlaps with other races, etc. That might TO YOU AND ME seem pretty fair and reasonable, they're different but not worse. The orc tribe you are dealing with is 'tribalistic', but over the next mountain is an orc republic. Some player may still interpret this scenario as having a dimension of portraying a negative stereotype. Maybe that player is included in a stereotyped ethnic identity, and maybe they are simply more aware of, or from YOUR perspective "overly sensitive to" certain factors.
> 
> So, yes, I think giving the 'orcs' a more nuanced character does work, but it won't work perfectly, that's all.
> 
> Also, it inevitably does leave out a lot of the more 'black and white' sort of RP. A lot of people DO enjoy that. We could ask if that kind of play is INHERENTLY relying on some negative stereotypes. Its a tough question. Obviously if you want that kind of play maybe the only way to avoid them really is to make the bad guys 'neoghi' or something that is really super alien and thus further removed from comparisons with the real world.





AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, it works, but it gets further from the 'black and white' kind of play that I was addressing. Many people are happy to play in world of all shades of grey in a moral sense. Others don't want to be confronted with the problem of what to do with 'orc children' or wonder if their PCs are really just 'murder hoboes' (what do actual hoboes think of that one I wonder, lol).





Malmuria said:


> It is plausible to say that relying on fairly inflexible tropes is a core part of fantasy as a genre, and that even fantasy that doesn't do this is subverting those generic expectations.  I would need to think more about that.  But classic fantasy and dnd come at western folklore from a broadly western perspective.  When they approach the 'fantasy' of other cultures, they are also coming at it from a western perspective.  This is basically the definition of orientalism, and it is important because it was and is key to reproducing colonial violence in the real world.  And, whatever analogies Tolkein did or did not put in his fiction, it says something that his fiction is so easily read as conservative parable.
> 
> One thing wotc could do is hire people from diverse cultural backgrounds as writers.  And when they do, respect their work without the need to edit back in fantasy racism!



So is it essential to FRPGing that conflicts consist in the threats to "civilisation" posed by nameless hordes of . . . . ? That the solution to the world's problems is the extermination of those hordes?

If so, maybe it's impossible to prise FRPGing of racialised tropes. That's not a conclusion that can be excluded a priori by merely wishing that it weren't so!

That said, I think there are other possibilities. REH's Conan stories are full of casual and sometimes vicious racism, but the basic sword-and-sorcery idea I think can be preserved without it. I think the Silmarillion shows us how we can approach romantic, heroic fantasy without the same degree of racialisation as we see in LotR; and even in LotR perhaps we can draw less on the "ill-favoured fellow" of Bree and more on the (already quoted upthread) sympathetic response Sam has to the battle between the Gondorian rangers and the soldiers marching north.

Martial violence can still easily be a part of the game - but the focus is more on "honourable" fighting between opponents who have been brought into opposition by an unhappy fate (think of the Iliad as perhaps the most famous example of this, and the First World War looked at through a de-historicised lens - which I think is a fitting lens for FRPGing - as providing a modern example), and on the consequences of that, than on righteous violence directed at extermination of the forces of evil. I don't think this has to be a poor fit even for fairly mainstream D&D play.

Upthread, or maybe in another recent similarly-themed thread, I posted that I take the view that aesthetic value can diverge from political value. (Not everyone agrees with this. Proponents of "socialist art" are obviously one such group of dissenters from my proposition, but I think many liberals dissent as well, and probably many "radical" as opposed to traditional conservatives also.) I am aware that what I have posted in the preceding two paragraphs rests upon my view. If someone thinks that we can't have a RPG of violence without engaging with genuine morality and politics of violence, than maybe FRPGing really is doomed. Again, that's not a conclusion we can rebut just by wishful thinking.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 3, 2021)

pemerton said:


> So is it essential to FRPGing that conflicts consist in the threats to "civilisation" posed by nameless hordes of . . . . ? That the solution to the world's problems is the extermination of those hordes?
> 
> If so, maybe it's impossible to prise FRPGing of racialised tropes. That's not a conclusion that can be excluded a priori by merely wishing that it weren't so!
> 
> ...



I was thinking more abstractly in terms of what "fantasy" does as a genre, that it is sort of powered by pulling, sometimes absentmindedly, from tropes, moods, and figures _as already established_ by mainstream culture.  Like, in a 'free kriegsspiel' sense, I could say, let's play Arthurian Fantasy and its probable that we (those discussing here) wouldn't even need more than a set of dice.  There's enough to draw from floating around in culture and in our heads that we could probably figure it out as we go.  But that also means that we reproduce without thinking the tropes that are baked into that genre (even if it inevitably becomes "Monty Python meets Westeros" to quote zero punctuation).

I'm thinking of why science fiction has been such a fertile genre for exploring themes of race and violence and colonization whereas fantasy has not.  There's something about the speculative character of that genre that allows for newness, even if it is just of perspective or looking askant of a contemporary issue.  Caveat : I am not a reader of much contemporary fantasy, so maybe this is happening or has been happening and I'm just unaware.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 3, 2021)

I don't read much genre fiction, so am probably not best-placed to respond to your post @Malmuria.

Fantasy serves different literary purposes. Eg in REH, it is a device for sidestepping engagement with historical minutiae. I suppose one could rewrite Beyond the Black River with the Picts as the agents, but would it be worthwhile?

EDIT: I reread this and thought it's a bit short!

What I mean is why write about colonialism by sidestepping engagement with historical minutiae via a "Hyborian Age"-type world?

Or if fantasy is being used to present a romanticised version of the world, a la JRRT, is that a good vehicle for political engagement?

Is there a genre of dystopian fantasy? (qv dystopian sc-fi)


----------



## Disgruntled Hobbit (Jul 3, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I'm thinking of why science fiction has been such a fertile genre for exploring themes of race and violence and colonization whereas fantasy has not.  There's something about the speculative character of that genre that allows for newness, even if it is just of perspective or looking askant of a contemporary issue.  Caveat : I am not a reader of much contemporary fantasy, so maybe this is happening or has been happening and I'm just unaware.



Interesting question
Science fiction often is about telling stories set in the future that are analogous to the real world, while fantasy doesn't
Not all sci-fi, but enough
Maybe science fiction is more about who we are and can become and fantasy is about who we were and got to be how we are?

Or maybe fantasy fiction is just that extra level of shallow, with fewer levels and is more escapist


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 3, 2021)

pemerton said:


> So is it essential to FRPGing that *conflicts consist in the threats to "civilisation" posed by nameless hordes of . . . . ?* That the solution to the world's problems is the extermination of those hordes?
> 
> If so, maybe it's impossible to prise FRPGing of racialised tropes. That's not a conclusion that can be excluded a priori by merely wishing that it weren't so!



Thing is, I don't even think that this comprises the bulk of fantasy literature out there, though it arguably applies to some big names (e.g., the Others & Wights in ASoIaF, the trollocs in Wheel of Time, etc.). But it's generally absent in Sword & Sorcery where the stakes of conflict are typically more personal and protagonist-focused.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 3, 2021)

Further to my post upthread about a theory of "little people" euhemerism – that European stories about fairies, dwarves, and other "little people" are based on a real, but now extinct, non-white race of small stature that once inhabited the continent – Bobby Derie's blog article  Conan and the Little People: Robert E. Howard and Lovecraft's Theory extensively covers Howard and HP Lovecraft's discussion of the topic.

Lovecraft first encountered it in the writing of Arthur Machen. But the version that influenced him the most was in Margaret Murray's _The Witch-Cult in Western Europe_ (1921). Lovecraft to Lillian D. Clark, Mar 1924:

In this book [Witch-Cult...] the problem of witchcraft superstition is attacked from an entirely new angle… an hypothesis almost exactly like the one used by Arthur Machen in fiction… i.e., that there has existed since prehistoric times, side by side with the dominant religion, a dark, secret, and terrible system of worship nocturnally practiced by the peasants and including the most horrible rites and incantations. This worship, Miss Murray believes, is handed down from the squat Mongoloid peoples who inhabited Europe before the coming of the Aryans​
Lovecraft and Howard both believed in the theory. Lovecraft to Elizabeth Toldridge, Mar 1929:

Prior to the Druids, & to the Aryan race which evolved them, Western Europe was undoubtedly inhabited by a squat Mongoloid race whose last living vestiges are the Lapps. This is the race which bequeathed the hideous witch-cult to posterity, & which lingers in popular folklore in the form of gnomes & kobolds, evil fairies & "little people."​
Howard to Lovecraft, Aug 1930: "I readily see the truth of your remarks, that a Mongoloid race must have been responsible for the myths of the Little People, and sincerely thank you for the information."

Both used it in their published work. Lovecraft, _Supernatural Horror in Literature_ (1927):

Much of the power of Western horror-lore was undoubtedly due to the hidden but often suspected presence of a hideous cult of nocturnal worshippers whose strange customs—descended from pre-Aryan and pre-agricultural times when a squat race of Mongoloids roved over Europe with their flocks and herds—were rooted in the most revolting fertility-rites of immemorial antiquity.​
Derie:

Robert E. Howard would go on to write more "Little People" stories, some of which sold and others which did not—"The Children of the Night" (WT Apr-May 1931), "The Black Stone" (WT Nov 1931), "The People of the Dark" (_Strange Tales_ Jun 1932), "Worms of the Earth" (WT Nov 1932), and "Valley of the Lost" (also as "The Secret of Lost Valley").​​In his fiction, while Howard focused on Machen, Lovecraft focused on Murray, referencing Murray or the witch-cult explicitly in "The Call of Cthulhu," "The Haunter of the Dark," "The Whisperer in Darkness," "The Dreams in the Witch House," and "The Trap" (with Henry S. Whitehead)... Some elements from _The Witch-Cult in Western Europe_, particularly the calendar-feast, find their way into _The Case of Charles Dexter Ward_ and "The Dunwich Horror"—the great homage to Arthur Machen's "The Great God Pan."​


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 4, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I was thinking more abstractly in terms of what "fantasy" does as a genre, that it is sort of powered by pulling, sometimes absentmindedly, from tropes, moods, and figures _as already established_ by mainstream culture.  Like, in a 'free kriegsspiel' sense, I could say, let's play Arthurian Fantasy and its probable that we (those discussing here) wouldn't even need more than a set of dice.  There's enough to draw from floating around in culture and in our heads that we could probably figure it out as we go.  But that also means that we reproduce without thinking the tropes that are baked into that genre (even if it inevitably becomes "Monty Python meets Westeros" to quote zero punctuation).
> 
> I'm thinking of why science fiction has been such a fertile genre for exploring themes of race and violence and colonization whereas fantasy has not.  There's something about the speculative character of that genre that allows for newness, even if it is just of perspective or looking askant of a contemporary issue.  Caveat : I am not a reader of much contemporary fantasy, so maybe this is happening or has been happening and I'm just unaware.



I think fantasy HAS confronted these themes, though the borderline between SF and Fantasy can be pretty hard to draw. 

Anyway, the core of a lot of imaginative fantasy is wish-fulfillment. That is ESPECIALLY true on RPGs, which obviously put YOU in the story and ask what do you want, and what would you do. Players want to be free of the ordinary constraints of life, and they want to be able to excel at doing things that are impossible for them to attempt, or at which they are not good in real life. There are obviously other agenda, but these two elements must figure prominently. 

Clearly one of the things we may wish to be free of, and enact freedom from, is our obligations to be tolerant, civil, open minded, etc. I'm not saying players normally want to be able to go around acting out prejudice or exploiting people or whatever. However they would not like to constantly think about carefully avoiding these situations, possibly even breaking a few taboos. So, if we are bringing sensitivity on these points into RPGs there will be some dissatisfaction and push back. That seems inevitable, and is observed to be present.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 4, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> (ignoring the right wing *** hats ...)




Please watch your language and don't call people names.


transmission89 said:


> Your side places value on the perceived notions of racial traits and draw the association with east Asian people’s due to certain visual cues and language semantic views? Where as my side again would argue that this is perception of reader




Then, "your side" is ignoring (willfully or otherwise) the writings of the author stating the intended association:

In a private letter, Tolkien describes orcs as:  _"squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."_

The connection is fully intended on Tolkien's part, not merely the reader's perception after the fact.



transmission89 said:


> And I think that much of the argument around issues of “a western perspective on orientalism or some such on “my side” is again that notion of “relevance”. A sense of “so what?” (Not intended as a callous and cruel way).




So, you speak of this as "not intended", as if this is some sort of absolution.

If someone is texting while driving, and they hit you with their car, the didn't _intend_ to hit you.  But your bones are still broken, and you are still bleeding.  And that person is still responsible for their actions, even if unintentional.  Harm is not linked to intent.

When driving a car, you're supposed to be mature and responsible enough to not get distracted.  When you are living in a nation and world of many cultures, you're supposed to also be mature and responsible in how you treat other people - you should be expected to pay attention to the effects fo your actions, and adjust them to not cause harm.




transmission89 said:


> That we are not curmudgeonly roadblocks on the path of progress, we just disagree on the “relevance” of associations made as it pertains to the real world and the concerns and struggles of the various movements of equality.




So, you aren't curmudgeonly, but you are willing to tell other folks, with different life experiences, what is relevant to their concerns and struggles?  The... presumption and condescension implied there does not sound like an improvement over being a curmudgeon.


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 4, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Please watch your language and don't call people names.
> 
> 
> Then, "your side" is ignoring (willfully or otherwise) the writings of the author stating the intended association:
> ...



My apologies, I missed the words alt and racist in that when using that language when typing so understood why it’s been received like that and not my intention (I was initially confused as to why you were asking me to be polite regarding alt right racists)

People keep bringing up that quote like I’ve not already quoted and critiqued it for my part so I shan’t repeat the points as the distinction is being missed and I’m not interested in continuing in circles.

The discussion around intention is not the same as a car at all. We are talking about actual, objectifiable harm with regards to a car crash.

I know what the response will be, suffice to say I disagree with that premise. Because who’s the arbiter of what qualifies? Well it’s the individual. It cannot be stated that it does objective harm because I know I have watched discussions by,  have gamed with and and am friends with enough people of all walks of life that also disagree with the assertions being made.

When I speak of not intended, I mean just that. And what is not intended to offend and be fine can change as society and values change and become not fine.

There are 7 billion people on the planet. Someone, somewhere will take umbridge with a piece of creative expression. On an individual level, you’ve got to decide who’s opinions are worth it to you (for example, some drag queens on Rupaul receiving comments on Twitter). I could think of numerous things that offend me and my sensibilities, does that make them harmful? For example, the new Vistanii in the New Ravenloft book. That was created with sensitivity readers, best intentions etc. As someone of Romany descent, I find the creative whitewashing and presentation offensive to me. But again, it’s subjective.
Note, that this is obviously different from creative works that set out to offend.

And with regards to telling people,  in fact, if you read properly what I wrote, you’ll see I said quite the opposite. That the “relevance” is subjective to the individual, and their group. And that as always, the table space is that place and I wouldn’t presume to dictate to other tables what is ok for their table.

What I was saying, is that the difference in opinion is not solely along specific minority lines and so shouldn’t presented as a fact. And this is the presumption and condescension I objected to. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT PEOPLE OF THOSE SPECIFIC MINORITIES, OR OTHERS WHO BELIEVE THAT  IT IS OFFENSIVE, WHO DO FEEL THIS WAY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FEEL THE WAY THEY FEEL, OR BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE CASE. I feel the need to capitalise this because clearly, a lot of what I have said has been missed etc. Over and over again I have stated, do what is right for your table.

This does not mean, that on the Internet, on a place specifically designed to discuss opinions, that I have to agree with your opinion or even think it’s a good idea with what is right at thetable, and vice versa.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 4, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> That the “relevance” is subjective to the individual, and their group.




Groups do not exist in happy complete isolation.  We buy the same books, engage with the same media, go to the same cons, and so on.

There is a point where, even when something doesn't feel relevant to you, you should not push back on it, because it is relevant to other people, and people matter.


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 4, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Groups do not exist in happy complete isolation.  We buy the same books, engage with the same media, go to the same cons, and so on.
> 
> There is a point where, even when something doesn't feel relevant to you, you should not push back on it, because it is relevant to other people, and people matter.



Except that’s not how society works and cannot work. Because that’s naively assuming that what is “relevant” (and bear in mind, as already stated, I’m using relevant here as an ersatz word, it is a diminishing one that I feel doesn’t accurately describe the concept I’m expressing) one group is inherently good and comes at no cost to any other groups and the other groups’ reason for pushing back is inherently bad (and I’m not talking specifically about this issue, as a generalism). And if an issue is relevant to one group but not to another, and changes are made that impact other groups, that then becomes an issue and relevant to them. Telling people that they shouldn’t push back against ideas is inherently undemocratic. Especially if both parties agree in basic principles but disagree in the idea of implementation. Of course people matter, Ive never argued differently.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 4, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Except that’s not how society works and cannot work. Because that’s naively assuming that what is “relevant” (and bear in mind, as already stated, I’m using relevant here as an ersatz word, it is a diminishing one that I feel doesn’t accurately describe the concept I’m expressing) one group is inherently good and comes at no cost to any other groups and the other groups’ reason for pushing back is inherently bad (and I’m not talking specifically about this issue, as a generalism). And if an issue is relevant to one group but not to another, and changes are made that impact other groups, that then becomes an issue and relevant to them. Telling people that they shouldn’t push back against ideas is inherently undemocratic. Especially if both parties agree in basic principles but disagree in the idea of implementation. Of course people matter, Ive never argued differently.



Well this is a bit abstract.  In terms of (say) getting rid of evil races and essentialism in the game, we can talk about implementation and the like.  In terms of the costs to a group, those costs have already been borne by people who have encountered stereotypes of their culture in media and a worldview that relies on colonialism and essentialism.  In the past, typically, you just kept silent about it because you couldn't do anything about it.  So yes, that's a _little_ bit different now. That being said, I don't think it's a zero-sum group A vs group B and only one side can win.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 5, 2021)

CONTENT WARNING: VERY RACIST CLAIMS, IN QUOTATION

This post is about the way features of D&D orcs and goblins — high fertility rates, dominant 'genetic' traits, and abundant population — correspond with racist ideas. These ideas may be found in the writings of  late-19th and early-20th century influential proponents of scientific racism — Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard — and in Yellow Peril fiction and other popular fears about "Asiatic hordes". There are also similarities, though not as strong, with the present day far right "White Genocide" or "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory.

*High Fertility Rates*

_AD&D 1e Players Handbook_ (1978): "Orcs are fecund and create many cross-breeds." _D&D 3.5e Monster Manual_ (2003): Goblins have "rapid reproduction." _D&D 4e Monster Manual_ (2008): "Goblins breed quickly."

_D&D 5e Monster Manual_ (2014):

Luthic, the orc goddess of fertility and wife of Gruumsh, demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation. The orcs' drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races.​
_D&D 5e Volo's Guide to Monsters _(2016): "Orcs breed prodigiously (and they aren't choosy about what they breed with, which is why such creatures as half-orcs and ogrillons are found in the world)."

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, _The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century_ (1899): "Generative power often stands in inverse relation to the nobility of the race." The "generative power" of "the negro" is superior to that of white people.

Lothrop Stoddard, _The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy_ (1920):

Treating the primary race-stocks as units, it would appear that whites tend to double in eighty years, yellows and browns in sixty years, blacks in forty years.​​The black man is, indeed, sharply differentiated from the other branches of mankind. His outstanding quality is superabundant animal vitality... To it... is due his extreme fecundity, the negro being the quickest of breeders.​
*Dominant 'Genetic' Traits*

_AD&D 1e Monster Manual_ (1977): "Half-orcs tend to favor the orcish strain heavily, so such sorts are basically orcs although they can sometimes (10%) pass themselves off as true creatures of their other stock (goblins, hobgoblins, humans, etc.)." _AD&D 1e PHB _: "Some one-tenth of orc-human mongrels are sufficiently non-orcish to pass for human." _AD&D 2e Monstrous Manual_ (1993): "Half-orcs tend to favor the orcish strain heavily and as such are basically orcs, although 10% of these offspring can pass as ugly humans." _D&D 5e MM_: "When an orc procreates with a non-orc humanoid of similar size and stature (such as a human or a dwarf), the resulting child is either an orc or a half-orc."

Chamberlain:

The predominance of his [the "negro"'s] qualities in the descendants [is]... greater than those of the whites.​​In Europe at the present day we… see the growing predominance of an alien race which… by animal force gradually overpowers the mentally superior race.​
Madison Grant, _The Passing of the Great Race_ (1916):

The result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting to the more ancient, generalized and lower type. The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.​
Stoddard: "In ethnic crossings, the negro strikingly displays his prepotency, for black blood, once entering a human stock, seems never really bred out again."

*Abundant Population*

_AD&D 2e MM_: Goblins "would be merely pests, if not for their great numbers." _D&D 3.5e MM_: Goblins have "great numbers." _D&D 5e MM_: "Individually weak, goblins gather in large—sometimes overwhelming—numbers." "Occasionally, a powerful war chief unites scattered orc tribes into a single rampaging horde."

MP Shiel, _The Yellow Danger_ (1898): "The Chinese host was to resemble a flight of locusts, covering the entire sky from horizon to horizon… Yen How's army would consist of the 400,000,000 which formed the population of China."

Jack London, _The Unparalleled Invasion_ (1910):

The real danger lay in the fecundity of her [China's] loins​​China's population must be seven hundred millions, eight hundred millions, nobody knew how many millions, but at any rate it would soon be a billion. There were two Chinese for every white-skinned human in the world… and the world trembled​
Federation on Chinese Exclusion, _Memorial to Congress_ (1901):

Civilization in Europe has been frequently attacked and imperiled by the barbaric hordes of Asia. If the little band of Greeks at Marathon had not beaten back ten times their number of Asiatic invaders, it is impossible to estimate the loss to civilization that would have ensued… Attila and his Asiatic hordes threatened central Europe when the Gauls made their successful stand against them… The free immigration of Chinese would be for all purposes an invasion by Asiatic barbarians.​
John Kuo Wei Tchen and Dylan Yeats, _Yellow Peril!_ (2014):

[During the Korean War (1950-1953)] newspapers across the nation ran headlines such as "Red Hordes Swarm South Korea!" as the Chinese pushed American troops back south. Popular press accounts claimed that the Chinese troops were mere cannon fodder, but their sheer numbers made them invincible.​
*The "White Genocide" Conspiracy Theory*

Bridge Initiative Team, _Factsheet: White Genocide Conspiracy Theory_ (2020):

Proponents of the white genocide conspiracy theory… claim that the "white race" is under threat due to falling birth rates among white women, the continued growth of "mixed race" marriages, and ongoing immigration of black and brown people into Europe and America. They allege that demographic change will result in white people becoming a minority in the United States in the near future​​Brenton Tarrant… attacked two mosques in Ōtautahi/Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand killing 51 Muslims. Tarrant explicitly referenced the white genocide conspiracy theory in his manifesto entitled: "The Great Replacement."​
The parallels here are not as close as they are with the proponents of scientific racism and fears of "Asiatic hordes". But the broader ideas of the threat of higher birth rates, being outnumbered, and being replaced are the same.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 5, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Well this is a bit abstract.



Agreed.

I've tried to make the matter concrete:


pemerton said:


> To try and get some clarity, here are some passages from the AD&D rulebooks. Are you saying that removing this sort of thing from D&D would make it a "non-game"?
> 
> <snip extracts>
> 
> ...





pemerton said:


> So is it essential to FRPGing that conflicts consist in the threats to "civilisation" posed by nameless hordes of . . . . ? That the solution to the world's problems is the extermination of those hordes?



And the reply I received was:



transmission89 said:


> No additional clarity is needed. My position is made quite clear in the penultimate two paragraphs of my previous post. Trying to delegitimise these points by purposefully ignoring them and reaching for examples that run counter to what I stated shows a lack of good faith in serious discussion. Continue to make claims of my assertions to harvest likes or for your own entertainment all you want. I don’t see any further value in it. Good day sir/ madam/ however you prefer to be addressed.



Those penultimate two paragraphs were:


transmission89 said:


> Finally, none of this, none of what I’ve said is an argument against progress, nor that we should say, “well, this is just a tangled, complicated mess so why bother”. I find calls of people advocating for these changes of the game that state, “well the world is changing, youll be left behind”, or accusations that I’m trying to keep an old, white dominated world insulting and arrogant, a sense that their argument is automatically right.
> 
> We can and will do better. Already, we are seeing much better human interpretations within gaming (see for example Paizo’s new Mwangi book and compare with older writing on the area) as well as better depictions of humans across the spectrum. I applaud this, I value this.



I don't see them as reducing the abstraction. There is a reference to an statement that is not attributed and that I don't belief anyone has made. There is a suggestion that some people think there argument is "automatically" right - I don't know what work the word _automatically_ is supposed to be doing, or what the difference is supposed to be from arguments that are right, but not automatically so.

As far as I can tell the assertion is that it's important to "do better" but that people who disagree with @transmission89 as to what this might consist in, and who make those assertions; or who document through close textual analysis the racialised aspects of the D&D/fantasy heritage; are insulting and arrogant.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 5, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> *Content Warning: Very racist claims, in quotation*
> 
> This post is about the way features of D&D orcs and goblins – high fertility rates, dominant 'genetic' traits, large population – replicate racist ideas. These ideas may be found in the writings of  late-19th and early-20th century influential race 'scientists' – Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard – and in Yellow Peril fiction and other popular fears about "Asiatic hordes". There are also similarities, though not as strong, with the present day far right "White Genocide" or "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory.
> 
> ...



You should write a book about this!


----------



## Aging Bard (Jul 5, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> *Content Warning: Very racist claims, in quotation*
> 
> This post is about the way features of D&D orcs and goblins – high fertility rates, dominant 'genetic' traits, large population – replicate racist ideas. These ideas may be found in the writings of  late-19th and early-20th century influential race 'scientists' – Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard – and in Yellow Peril fiction and other popular fears about "Asiatic hordes". There are also similarities, though not as strong, with the present day far right "White Genocide" or "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory.
> 
> ...



This is a very good summary and analysis, thanks for posting. One way of adjusting older problematic content is to assume these in-game commentaries are written by outsiders to the target group--usually humans, elves, and/or dwarves--and understand that they are biased and racist. I don't have a problem with racism and bias existing in-game, as long as we acknowledge out-game that these views are immoral. For example, in a medieval-like society, no one would have any real idea about "birth rates". It would all be projection and fear about "hoards of Others" designed to instill fear in those like "Us". Orcs might think exactly the same thing about humans (with good reason!), but we never hear _their_ views somehow.

Thus we discard what might have been the original intent of the writers and substitute a new intent that includes the perspective of the targeted race. This allows for a mix of bigoted and thoughtful NPCs in-game, again as long as this can be handled maturely and everyone is comfortable doing this. NPCs can hold the propaganda-laced views of the older writers and others can challenge those views. If people simply are not comfortable with this sort of fantasy, I would never subject them to it. It's just a game, after all.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 5, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> This is a very good summary and analysis, thanks for posting. One way of adjusting older problematic content is to assume these in-game commentaries are written by outsiders to the target group--usually humans, elves, and/or dwarves--and understand that they are biased and racist. I don't have a problem with racism and bias existing in-game, as long as we acknowledge out-game that these views are immoral. For example, in a medieval-like society, no one would have any real idea about "birth rates". It would all be projection and fear about "hoards of Others" designed to instill fear in those like "Us". Orcs might think exactly the same thing about humans (with good reason!), but we never hear _their_ views somehow.
> 
> Thus we discard what might have been the original intent of the writers and substitute a new intent that includes the perspective of the targeted race. This allows for a mix of bigoted and thoughtful NPCs in-game, again as long as this can be handled maturely and everyone is comfortable doing this. NPCs can hold the propaganda-laced views of the older writers and others can challenge those views. If people simply are not comfortable with this sort of fantasy, I would never subject them to it. It's just a game, after all.



I love the idea of monster books being written from an in-world perspective, since that's what monster books always were.  The advantage of that is that it does a lot of the world building for the dm.  This disadvantage is that it does a lot of world building for the dm, leaving other options or interpretations up to homebrew and reskinning.


----------



## Aging Bard (Jul 5, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I love the idea of monster books being written from an in-world perspective, since that's what monster books always were.  The advantage of that is that it does a lot of the world building for the dm.  This disadvantage is that it does a lot of world building for the dm, leaving other options or interpretations up to homebrew and reskinning.



Boy is this a good comment, both the benefits and the problems. Though the DM could and should solicit player input on reskinning where the DM has not yet made a firm call. Why not let players add to a world's lore?

ETA: I just realized that my perspective on this is influenced by the first RPG I ever played: not D&D, but Traveller, and Traveller incorporated the "unreliable narrator" theme from the start. Players had access to Library Data of the Third Imperium, but secret referee information often showed how this data was skewed or even outright lies.


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 5, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> *Content Warning: Very racist claims, in quotation*
> 
> This post is about the way features of D&D orcs and goblins – high fertility rates, dominant 'genetic' traits, and abundant population – replicate racist ideas. These ideas may be found in the writings of  late-19th and early-20th century influential race 'scientists' – Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard – and in Yellow Peril fiction and other popular fears about "Asiatic hordes". There are also similarities, though not as strong, with the present day far right "White Genocide" or "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory.
> 
> ...



These are a collection of truly appalling
quotes when applied to people, and are out dated racial views of people of different ethnicities. There’s no question that this view has no place in a modern world, and should not be applied to people.

But again, the link lies on the assumption that orcs and goblins are a stand in for people, that they are anything but a monstrous creature.  If words like “fecund”, “hordes” and concepts like “fast breeding being a threat” are to be struck because they have historically been deployed in an appalling manner against people, then you’re going to have a problem with many descriptions of the rabbit threat in Australia.

Looked through this lens, Mass Effect (a sci fi video game) is clearly a racist parable as the horde of reapers descend on the citadel, intent on wiping out good, progressive civilisation. The collectors clearly an embodiment of the trope of black men coming to steal your women away from you. (I don’t believe this is case, just pointing out that an over extension of literary analysis and trope exploration has the potential to limit fiction).

In game terms, Gary wanted a clearly defined evil race of humanoids to fill that same fictitious space as the Nazi (that players could could wantonly engage in combat with, and come out feeing heroic without moralistic issues of having killed many people).
In a tweet, Ed Greenwood stated:

“I talked with Gary Gygax about "baked-in evil" (orcs, drow, etc.) and (though admitting D&D was whitebread, middle-class, and Christian-rooted) he said he HAD to have evil-labelled races to fight (=kill gorily) or the game would have been banned in much of the USA at that time.”

Games stats wise, the individual goblin _is _weak. So how can we fictionally make it a threat to the dwarven kingdoms, the realms of Elves and men? Well, a goblin must therefore have numbers to present a threat. What are the implications of having large numbers?

Now if you choose to play Orcs as people, to have a D&D game where you play as a cornucopia of fantastical races and explore what it means to be human and what humanity is, you’re going to run into these issues, implications and associations. This is rich and fertile ground to be, and has been explored in western and global fantasy sci fi literature. But it is why, personally, I think that approach to the game as a game  is a mistake. But far be it from me to dictate how you play at the table or the stories you tell. The closer it is played straight to the original expression of the game (not necessarily in rules set, but fictional presentation) of the classic struggles of good peoples vs evil monsters and the occasional wicked man/ woman, the less chance you will have of these implications.

Or to clarify, let monsters be monsters and when we present fictional peoples, let that be respectful and not resort to sexist/racist tropes of those people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> These are a collection of truly appalling
> quotes when applied to people, and are out dated racial views of people of different ethnicities. There’s no question that this view has no place in a modern world, and should not be applied to people.
> *
> But again, the link lies on the assumption that orcs and goblins are a stand in for people, that they are anything but a monstrous creature.*



(Emphasis mine.)

No, it doesn’t.

The only assumption is that a certain number of people reading those words will either be familiar with or members of the RW groups vilified in the borrowed descriptions and that they will recognize those stereotypes’ use outside the gaming context.

_Which is exactly what has happened._

As gamers who are part of minority groups have entered the hobby in increasing numbers, they’ve read that kind of language and had to ask themselves if they’re _really_ welcome, or if they’re getting into in a hobby surrounded by people who wish them ill.  Fortunately, most of them have figured out that the latter is not the case.

(In my several decades in the hobby, I’ve met a few racist gamers, but they are far and away outnumbered by those who aren’t.)

AFAIK, nobody in this thread has accused any of the big names of actually being bigoted, merely that they have used language whose roots in bigotry is easily discoverable if one has the will to expend enough energy to have a single hand type some questions into a search engine.

(Or, you know, ask somebody.)


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 5, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Emphasis mine.)
> 
> No, it doesn’t.
> 
> ...



(Emphasis mine). Excellent, glad you agree with my point that it’s what we bring to it, the subjectivity, not an innate problem with an orc itself.

On a less glib note, of course, you’re right, there are bad actors in the hobby, just as there are bad actors in any community. Thankfully, the D&D community as a whole has always represented the most  progressive, welcoming values within the context of any time period’s wider society.

To answer your post and the constant language association posts, I can think of no better response than this, which was posted on Reddit on a similar discussion a year ago:

“
And what you're ignoring, is the reality that a similarity of form, or sharing of an intellectual ancestor is not criteria for apt comparison. There's two things wrong with the case as you've made it.

1.) The European cultural black mark of eugenics and race science (is not remotely unique to Europe, but that's a side conversation) does in fact share rhetorical structure with some facets of the way DnD has organized the players of it's world.

You must ask yourself though, is that a product of some shadowy specter of racism looming over the cultural products of the West to this day, or is a more apt description that: The particular techniques of organization and codification of patterns and traits into recognizable characters, and employing those as the fundamental structure for understanding the world a ubiquitous and effective technique for conveying information in a manner which is both readily extrapolated from its containing vessel and convenient for reflection of the context in which it is set?

I'm certainly inclined to believe the latter, and that the creations of characters and caricatures alike to embody ideas and perceptions about the world is something not in the least unique to race science, and stretching back across all societies in all stories, in fact it is precisely the fundamental substrate of storytelling to create parties within the stories which embody an idea, and it is stories, especially ones told in this manner, which form the bedrock of all human thought, understanding, wisdom, and culture.

Though not to downplay the contribution of race science in our perceptions on this manner. While absolutely bankrupt on both the moral and scientific fronts, it is absolutely stunning in the manner with which it equipped European culture with the tools to create as figments of fantasy entire peoples and thus by extensions, histories, lores, traditions, and cultures all their own. It was precisely this revolution of storytelling which cultivated the fertile soil for a retelling of the great European mythos into the vast and encompassing universe of Tolkein and Greyhawk alike even to distant fantasies like Star Trek.

You're certainly correct, that the structure of the Canon does in fact hearken back to the race scientists of the eugenics era. It does evoke much of the same tones, but you've failed at the level of analysis. It's not the Canon which sustains the skeletons of our past, from which we may excavate long entombed and dangerous ways of thinking. Instead, it was the race scientists who relied on precisely the same strategies of drama and narrative to pedal their swill to a population yet uninnoculated against the spectacular and revolutionary techniques which would eventually blossom into sweeping lores and worlds that compose Western storytelling today.

2.) The argument was [against the idea of orcs being “problematic” ] was never "it's just fantasy bro" the argument, is, and always should be, "the fantasy encodes a much richer message than your crude reduction" which it does.

Stories and myths are the great repositories of wisdom and lore across time. They teach, warn, deceive, and enrich all across the world every day, as they have from our earliest dawnings tens of thousands of years ago. In Harry Potter, Olivander describes the work of Voldemort as great, great but terrible.

I think is a disgraceful and baldfaced lie, or at the very least blunder of stupendous ignorance to read from a single story one potential untruth in the hands of a spinster and use that as a cudgel with which to beat down the value of any wisdom which may otherwise be extricated or refined. It is even more absurd and shameful, to dismiss an entire canon on the same premise, especially a Canon which has served as the fertile and nurturing bossum of so many great works cultural and personal, in the time it has existed.”

And again, I’m going to capitalise this because I don’t want it being missed:
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT D&D DOESNT BENEFIT FROM A WIDER PERSPECTIVE OF AUTHORS FROM ALL ETHNICITIES AND WALKS OF LIFE. A DIVERSE SET OF PEOPLES BRINGS A DIVERSE SET OF IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES THAT CAN ONLY ENRICH THE FANTASY GAME THAT WE KNOW AND LOVE.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> The argument was [against the idea of orcs being “problematic” ] was never "it's just fantasy bro" the argument, is, and always should be, "the fantasy encodes a much richer message than your crude reduction" which it does.
> 
> Stories and myths are the great repositories of wisdom and lore across time. They teach, warn, deceive, and enrich all across the world every day, as they have from our earliest dawnings tens of thousands of years ago. In Harry Potter, Olivander describes the work of Voldemort as great, great but terrible.
> 
> I think is a disgraceful and baldfaced lie, or at the very least blunder of stupendous ignorance to read from a single story one potential untruth in the hands of a spinster and use that as a cudgel with which to beat down the value of any wisdom which may otherwise be extricated or refined. It is even more absurd and shameful, to dismiss an entire canon on the same premise, especially a Canon which has served as the fertile and nurturing bossum of so many great works cultural and personal, in the time it has existed.”



Who are you directing this at?

Which poster(s) are you accusing of "crude reduction"? @Doug McCrae? Me? @Malmuria?

Who are you saying has "dismissed" an entire canon, or "beaten down the value of any wisdom which may otherwise be extricated or refined"?

To be honest, your posts read like rhetorical posturing, and attacks upon unidentified threats to <something important though you don't actually seem to say what>.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> (Emphasis mine).* Excellent, glad you agree with my point that it’s what we bring to it, the subjectivity, not an innate problem with an orc itself.*
> 
> On a less glib note, of course, you’re right, there are bad actors in the hobby, just as there are bad actors in any community. Thankfully, the D&D community as a whole has always represented the most  progressive, welcoming values within the context of any time period’s wider society.
> 
> ...



(Emphasis mine.)

1) As long as RW slurs and stereotypes are used as descriptive language for RPG foes, we *don’t *agree.  Remove that language, and we’re good.

2) I patently disagree, especially since it is demonstrable that use of RW slurs and stereotypes in fiction not actually meant to mirror the real world _is completely unnecessary.  _Many fiction writers- and more now than before- have found ways to avoid the honey trap of attempting to use language laden with negative baggage.  Put differently, if your fiction’s setting isn’t a period piece, there’s no reason to use bigoted language that has been used to describe blacks, Asians, Jews, etc.  It’s lazy writing, and insults a portion of your audience, even if that wasn’t your intent.

3) My answer is “Yes.  Yes it is.”


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 5, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (Emphasis mine.)
> 
> 1) As long as RW slurs and stereotypes are used as descriptive language for RPG foes, we *don’t *agree.  Remove that language, and we’re good.
> 
> ...



Indeed, many authors have, as another Redditor pointed out much like you have, for example, citing the fantastic works of authors such as Ursula LeGuin. The poster responded thusly (which, I agree with the general sentiments if not every specific, or the tone necessarily,but I shall quote it in full here for integrity of the post)


“To answer each of the questions, the first is, it says that we're playing with fire. That it has found something that is consist with very intimate parts of the human psyche, independent of it's capacity or proclivity to good or evil.

That's not how stories work and you know it, the characters involved are intentionally representative of a particular idea. That's just how it works, they convey ideas in form of social interactions between people. To elaborate further though, people do act in particular ways, cultural groups share many things, including- and most importantly- the manner in which they design and pursue (and therefore enforce) a hierarchy of value. There is something to be said for the analysis of how honor as a central value plays out on a societal scale, as contrasted to merchantile acquisition. Hence, why Klingons and Ferengai at large, are just as interesting as Hideyoshi and Carnegie are in particular.

I'll ignore the racial subtext of what I will assume is a botched attempt at making cultural distinctions, after all part of this discussion is about the degree to which race and culture overlap, and answer the challenge it offers. The simple answer, is you didn't read. I specifically said the value of making an entire people into a character, is so that the individuals which compose it, may be contrasted. Though, regarding your claims of undermine the concept of the "other" I regret to inform you, that it is both a fact of nature, and art. Thus is nature of contrast and symmetry.

And finally, this is where you really pull the ideological rabbit out of your analytical hat. "why would WotC choose a framework with a message with similar themes to racial supremecy?" Well I'm glad you asked.

The simplest answer is cause it works. It's an effective structure to communicate to people the details of a character which will be relevant to the drama by establishing the backdrop of a society against which they stand, or into which they blend. Both are novel.

A more nuanced answer, would also go through the trouble of axplaining that a story which does not have the benefit of defining the social game which it's characters will play, must rely strictly on their interactions as they appear in the social games we play. The unavailability of particular nuance in the practical reality of our lives make certain point unaproachable or uncommunicatable between peoples. Defining your own simplified world is convenient and occasionally mandatory for this purpose, when exploring niche or hypothetical questions.

But the actual language of your statement gives away just what's rotten in the state of Denmark, a framework doesn't have a message, actually. It's a toolkit for conveying, generalizing, specifying, adjusting, or comparing messages. What you meant, is why would they use a framework which was used by racial supremacists to convey their own vile message. That argument gets dangerously close to the Hitler owned a dog side of things, though more specifically you might say "Bricks were used to build the ovens in Auschwitz" and then declaring bricks a stepping stone to the fourth Reich. And you know fair point, but you're really doing a disservice to intellectual discourse if that's where you stop your analysis.

Continuing the analogy, you might object to something as bland and flexible in utility as a brick; I wouldn't object, because it's precisely my claim that that's how general and of utility this form of storytelling is, but I digress. Perhaps you could claim that guns were used to order people into trains and intimidate and control them, and fair point. If you wanted to claim that stories were something akin to ideological weapons, you might be really onto something rather articulate there. However, guns were also used to fight the Nazis, and step one of Hitler taking control was to strip weapons from the hands of anyone he didn't control.

So, if you really do insist on bemoaning the ideological dangers of potentially abusing powerful techniques for crafting grand narratives, I suggest you take a good hard look as precisely the pros and cons of solving that problem by any means other than leaving it alone, and allowing everyone go arm themselves adequately so as to be defended against the encroachments of bad actors and tyrants.

If you wish to lambast the WotC as being wittingly or unwittingly participatory in the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation, then so be it. But first, if ask you count just how many wars nuclear arms have stopped, and just how many they've started. You'll find the score heavily on one side.

And then from there, I would like you to speculate on the value of letting these things play out organically, and to grow detached and independent from their unpleasant roots, grow richer deeper ones, and become a pillar of our culture which holds it up against the rattlings of the world. Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish ripping these things up by their roots, and just how wide are you leaving the door open to unforseen and readily foreseen consequences alike”


----------



## pemerton (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> people do act in particular ways, cultural groups share many things, including- and most importantly- the manner in which they design and pursue (and therefore enforce) a hierarchy of value.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This is unbelievable.

So @Dannyalcatraz is "bemoaning". And is "lambasting" WotC for engaging in "the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation"? Where is he doing these things? Is this really all you can take away from his posts?

And are you really asserting that just as bricks are a ubiquitous building material, which we can't easily do without, so FRPGing can't do without specific "frameworks" of racialisation and racist tropes that has its the origins in 19th and early 20th century "race science" and its pulp adherents? What is your basis for such an assertion? And what is it adding to our fantasy worlds to have races that are "fecund" and threaten demographically-driven destruction of "civilisation"? (And do you really think this is a character presented as a people/culture? What character is this?)


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 5, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This is unbelievable.
> 
> So @Dannyalcatraz is "bemoaning". And is "lambasting" WotC for engaging in "the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation"? Where is he doing these things? Is this really all you can take away from his posts?
> 
> And are you really asserting that just as bricks are a ubiquitous building material, which we can't easily do without, so FRPGing can't do without specific "frameworks" of racialisation and racist tropes that has its the origins in 19th and early 20th century "race science" and its pulp adherents? What is your basis for such an assertion? And what is it adding to our fantasy worlds to have races that are "fecund" and threaten demographically-driven destruction of "civilisation"? (And do you really think this is a character presented as a people/culture? What character is this?)



You’ll find that remarkable number of your questions addressed to me as of late are easily answered by actually reading my posts in full, rather than reading selectively.

It will save you missing statements such as “this is a quote from another discussion”, “[whilst I don’t agree] with the tone or every specific point” etc.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 5, 2021)

@transmission89 If you quote a long block of text from someone else I think it's a good idea to use INDENT tags, or alternatively, in the case of a post from a message board such as reddit, QUOTE tags:


```
[indent]multiple paragraphs here[/indent]
or
[quote="some redditor"]multiple paragraphs here[/quote]
```


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 5, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> @transmission89 If you quote a long block of text from someone else I think it's a good idea to use INDENT tags, or alternatively, in the case of a post from a message board such as reddit, QUOTE tags:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



Cheers for the tip . Apologies for any confusion caused by not adhering to forum convention. A lot of what I write is in snatches of free time on mobile.


----------



## darkbard (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Indeed, many authors have, as another Redditor pointed out much like you have, for example, citing the fantastic works of authors such as Ursula LeGuin. The poster responded thusly (which, I agree with the general sentiments if not every specific, or the tone necessarily,but I shall quote it in full here for integrity of the post)



I find this a rather bizarre rhetorical move: to quote some unidentified poster from another social media community and declare you agree with the general sentiment but not specifics (or tone) but then failing to identify your points of disagreement. Why not post your own statements that make the points you wish to make 100% and in the way you wish to make them tonally?


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish ripping these things up by their roots, and just how wide are you leaving the door open to unforseen and readily foreseen consequences alike”



Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish by scaremongering that things should mostly stay as they are out of the veiled threat of unforeseen consequences?


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 5, 2021)

darkbard said:


> I find this a rather bizarre rhetorical move: to quote some unidentified poster from another social media community and declare you agree with the general sentiment but not specifics (or tone) but then failing to identify your points of disagreement. Why not post your own statements that make the points you wish to make 100% and in the way you wish to make them tonally?



A valid criticism. I’d respond:
To a great extent, I already have touched on those points across a number of posts in the thread. 
The quoted parts do express much of what I touched on in a more detailed and eloquent (within the context of that particular back and forth) way and to take the time to rewrite on mobile felt needlessly laborious and would still have a sense of trying to pass off other’s work as my own.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> It will save you missing statements such as “this is a quote from another discussion”, “[whilst I don’t agree] with the tone or every specific point” etc.



I didn't miss it. But you said *I agree with the general sentiments* which I reproduced in my quote of your post.

I will repeat what I posted upthread: I believe that most of your posts read like rhetorical posturing, and attacks upon unidentified threats to <something important though you don't actually seem to say what>. You refer to various views that you disagree with, but _don't attribute those views to any particular posters_, and then as in the post I'm quoting here deny holding the countervailing views that you quote with approval.

EDIT:


transmission89 said:


> The quoted parts do express much of what I touched on in a more detailed and eloquent (within the context of that particular back and forth) way and to take the time to rewrite on mobile felt needlessly laborious and would still have a sense of trying to pass off other’s work as my own.



So you _do_ agree. Except that you don't?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 5, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> CONTENT WARNING: VERY RACIST CLAIMS, IN QUOTATION
> 
> This post is about the way features of D&D orcs and goblins – high fertility rates, dominant 'genetic' traits, and abundant population – replicate racist ideas. These ideas may be found in the writings of  late-19th and early-20th century influential race 'scientists' – Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard – and in Yellow Peril fiction and other popular fears about "Asiatic hordes". There are also similarities, though not as strong, with the present day far right "White Genocide" or "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory.
> 
> ...



You've only touched on some elements here too:

Orcs are also violent, primitive, and stupid: AD&D 1e Monster Manual p76 ORC "INTELLIGENCE: Average (low)", evil "ALIGNMENT: Lawful evil" they will "always intimidate and dominate the weaker", they are 'tribal', they "hate the light", "Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general", their dress is also repulsive and "dirty and often a bit rusty." Essentially a panoply of negative social, cultural, and personal traits. 

Compare this with the views of racial minorities today in the US: Considered stupid and uneducated, assumed to be violent or potentially violent, seen as slovenly and living in dirty conditions, thought to form violent gangs as a habit, criminal, drug users, anti-establishment, etc. I can personally validate many of these stereotypes existing through direct experience of family members who encountered several of them on a daily basis, even from people who were supposedly 'not prejudiced'. You need only turn on the television to see the rest of the whole sordid story.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 5, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> This is a very good summary and analysis, thanks for posting. One way of adjusting older problematic content is to assume these in-game commentaries are written by outsiders to the target group--usually humans, elves, and/or dwarves--and understand that they are biased and racist. I don't have a problem with racism and bias existing in-game, as long as we acknowledge out-game that these views are immoral. For example, in a medieval-like society, no one would have any real idea about "birth rates". It would all be projection and fear about "hoards of Others" designed to instill fear in those like "Us". Orcs might think exactly the same thing about humans (with good reason!), but we never hear _their_ views somehow.
> 
> Thus we discard what might have been the original intent of the writers and substitute a new intent that includes the perspective of the targeted race. This allows for a mix of bigoted and thoughtful NPCs in-game, again as long as this can be handled maturely and everyone is comfortable doing this. NPCs can hold the propaganda-laced views of the older writers and others can challenge those views. If people simply are not comfortable with this sort of fantasy, I would never subject them to it. It's just a game, after all.



I like the idea too. It has been used in a considerable number of places in D&D, such as the 'Demonomicon of Igwilv' and whatnot. I think D&D has always written its MMs as being purely accurate (or at least proposed) information intended for the GM, but there's no reason that MUST be true.

As an aside: I am not so sure about racial prejudice in the Middle Ages. I'm certainly no expert, but Shakespeare wrote 'Otello' in the early 17th Century, and there was no connotation there of racial prejudice that I'm aware of. Otello is certainly ABOUT that, nor does it seem to factor into the story at all. Clearly 17th Century Londoners weren't expected to make the kinds of associations many modern audiences would! By that time Europeans had already been deeply enmeshed in the slave trade for at least 100 years. I'm sure that racial prejudices existed, certainly Europeans of the Middle Ages feared 'Huns' and then 'Mongols' (after the 13th Century). They were certainly hostile to practitioners of Al Islam, and we know the history of medieval suspicion of Jews as well. I suspect that these sorts of ideas were more localized and particularized. After all, medieval society was much less open and ideas circulated far less freely than they do today. People tended to be more concerned with whatever was down the road as opposed to what was 100's or 1000's of miles away.

The same might well be true in a fantasy world. There is no universal attitude towards Orcs. There may be considerable hostility and prejudice in one region, indifference in another, peaceful coexistence in a third, and outright interspecies warfare in yet another. The same could well be true of the so-called 'demi-human' races, which was always a classic element of D&D (IE dwarves and elves are not generally friendly, but they CAN band together to oppose their mutual enemies, and might even become relatively friendly in some times and places). You could certainly extrapolate this kind of mosaic of cultures and attitudes. I think it would also be cool to portray some cultures as fairly species-specific (maybe even having some biological basis) and others as being more multi-racial (I think a lot of D&D cities are depicted this way where there are dwarves in one quarter, elves in another, etc.).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> These are a collection of truly appalling
> quotes when applied to people, and are out dated racial views of people of different ethnicities. There’s no question that this view has no place in a modern world, and should not be applied to people.
> 
> But again, the link lies on the assumption that orcs and goblins are a stand in for people, that they are anything but a monstrous creature.  If words like “fecund”, “hordes” and concepts like “fast breeding being a threat” are to be struck because they have historically been deployed in an appalling manner against people, then you’re going to have a problem with many descriptions of the rabbit threat in Australia.
> ...



OK, let me explain it to you:

'Farah' is a highly skilled professional, ambitious, very good at her job, hard-working, etc. Every day she goes to work and encounters things like 'Sally' (a customer) who says "Oh, sweetie, will you go get the real [insert profession here], I need someone to help me." THIS IS EVERY DAY NORMAL RACISM. This is just what happens EVERY SINGLE DAY before lunch when you look a certain way. I'm not kidding, and this was not some backwards small town someplace, that's the way it is in every single town and city in the USA. Period, end of report. I can recall 'Darren' and 'Joseph' standing outside my window talking about how they deal with run-ins with the local police, going through how many times they each got pulled over for 'driving while black' THAT MONTH and the various crap they got put through and how to deal with it. Just shooting the breeze, trading tips of the trade so to speak. These are educated, adult, home-owning, law-abiding men in their 50's and 60's. Ones who, aside from their skin color and whatever, would easily pass for you or me, living in a mixed race area. 

I am not going to bother to delve deeply into what their opinions of orcs would be, or is. It should be obvious. Of course they see the parallels! Do you think they haven't read LotR? Or Conan? Or H. P. Lovecraft? I mean, did you not note 'Lovecraft Country'? Obviously these genres, and RPGs, are not any less appealing or foreign to them than to you or me. They can color between the lines. They DO see, know, and understand, the history of prejudice, probably far far better than you (or me either). 

And, I am pretty sure, I hope I am not too out of place by saying this, that they also 'get' that when you or I put orcs in our campaign world, we are not attempting to create a stand-in for people of color. These are perfectly intelligent people. However, they came from a day at the office on Friday when they got insulted 3 times, and then pulled over by a cop on the way home, for no discernible reason. OK. Now, how much more remnant racialized European stereotype mythology which was used for 500 years to stomp all over every other ethnic group, bar none, on the face of the Earth are they really going to want to put up with along with their D&D? Please tell me.

I don't think you comprehend the magnitude or impact of racial stereotypes in the world today. If it was nothing but D&D, I think we'd all do exactly as you seem to propose and laugh about it and just say "well, that's how people were in ancient times" and then maybe in play turn those tropes on their heads. Its a bit different in reality though, fantasy is supposed to be an escape from that kind of thing, not an exemplar of it. Maybe there ARE constructive ways to use it, but we are going to have to be really sophisticated in doing that. I concur with the people who have stated, in the game design world, that they feel more comfortable leaving various cultures to people who grew up in them, and to just entirely demolishing racial stereotypes entirely (which is probably neigh impossible, but...).


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 5, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OK, let me explain it to you:
> 
> 'Farah' is a highly skilled professional, ambitious, very good at her job, hard-working, etc. Every day she goes to work and encounters things like 'Sally' (a customer) who says "Oh, sweetie, will you go get the real [insert profession here], I need someone to help me." THIS IS EVERY DAY NORMAL RACISM. This is just what happens EVERY SINGLE DAY before lunch when you look a certain way. I'm not kidding, and this was not some backwards small town someplace, that's the way it is in every single town and city in the USA. Period, end of report. I can recall 'Darren' and 'Joseph' standing outside my window talking about how they deal with run-ins with the local police, going through how many times they each got pulled over for 'driving while black' THAT MONTH and the various crap they got put through and how to deal with it. Just shooting the breeze, trading tips of the trade so to speak. These are educated, adult, home-owning, law-abiding men in their 50's and 60's. Ones who, aside from their skin color and whatever, would easily pass for you or me, living in a mixed race area.
> 
> ...



Ok, let me explain this to you. I get all of that. I’m well aware of all and I deplore that, and  stand against that and stand with those who suffer from this Don’t for a second think otherwise. This is not the same as fictional monsters in D&D. So spare me the attempt to reach for moral superiority. This is my problem as the debate is being framed as a moralistic crusade, any one who is opposed to this opinion must be up holders of the social status quo. I stand against this argument _because _I believe in social progress and equality, I believe the constant linking of orcs as racist is problematic, the constant dismissiveness of western literature because of historical reasons that when explained reach dangerously close to the noble savage trope and is also a very US/Eurocentric POV . This also has implications for how terms and names are weaponised in modern politics in a manner that concerns me, but for obvious reasons, this is not the place to detail that.

You might disagree with my viewpoint on execution, that’s fine, but that’s not the same as saying that our goals are not the same.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2021)

> That's not how stories work and you know it, the characters involved are intentionally representative of a particular idea. That's just how it works, they convey ideas in form of social interactions between people. To elaborate further though, people do act in particular ways, cultural groups share many things, including- and most importantly- the manner in which they design and pursue (and therefore enforce) a hierarchy of value. There is something to be said for the analysis of how honor as a central value plays out on a societal scale, as contrasted to merchantile acquisition. Hence, why Klingons and Ferengai at large, are just as interesting as Hideyoshi and Carnegie are in particular.




A character can represent an idea without using words laden with negative stereotypes or slurs.  A passage from a book I studied in Bates Hoffer’s ”Biblical Themes in Literature” back in 1986-87 was about a little boy whom the writer artfully compared to Satan as conceived by innumerable prior writers covering hundreds of years of literature and dozens of cultures…_without using a single slur or any profanity._



> I'll ignore the racial subtext of what I will assume is a botched attempt at making cultural distinctions, after all part of this discussion is about the degree to which race and culture overlap, and answer the challenge it offers. The simple answer, is you didn't read. I specifically said the value of making an entire people into a character, is so that the individuals which compose it, may be contrasted. Though, regarding your claims of undermine the concept of the "other" I regret to inform you, that it is both a fact of nature, and art. Thus is nature of contrast and symmetry.




Of course “the other” is a fact of nature and art.  I would be lying if I said otherwise.  But so are dehumanization and demonization.

A saying that has been attributed to many cultures goes something like this: “The power to kill lies within a single word.”  A powerful and succinct admonition agains both of those evils.  Once you have convinced people that “the other” is not human (or demonic), it’s easy to start them killing in that belief.



> And finally, this is where you really pull the ideological rabbit out of your analytical hat. "why would WotC choose a framework with a message with similar themes to racial supremecy?" Well I'm glad you asked.




I _didn’t_ ask.  I don’t know where you got that…”quote”…but it wasn’t from  me.

But since I’m in the neighborhood…

There is nothing wrong with telling stories involving themes of racial supremacy.  Like a battery and its charge, there can be no drama without differences, and the greater the difference, the greater the charge (drama).

HOWEVER, unless you’re doing a period piece, you don’t need the language of real world racial supremacy to tell stories of fictional racial supremacy.  It’s simply unnecessary.  It is bad, lazy writing.  If you are trying to write in a professional capacity and find yourself relying on such a crutch, then you’re probably not well suited to the profession and should find employment elsewhere,



> The simplest answer is cause it works. It's an effective structure to communicate to people the details of a character which will be relevant to the drama by establishing the backdrop of a society against which they stand, or into which they blend. Both are novel.




“Because it works” is a TERRIBLE excuse for anything that hurts people.

It works because it’s a crutch.  At this point in time, it’s the literary equivalent of using the same prerecorded cowbell, 808 drums, DJ scratch and horn samples as 20,000 other, previous EDM tunes when you record a song, or using AutoTune on all your recorded lyrics.  It’s like using the Wilhelm scream every time someone gets hurt in a TV or movie.

If you can’t do better than that, you’re simply…_not a very good writer._



> But the actual language of your statement gives away just what's rotten in the state of Denmark, a framework doesn't have a message, actually. It's a toolkit for conveying, generalizing, specifying, adjusting, or comparing messages. What you meant, is why would they use a framework which was used by racial supremacists to convey their own vile message. That argument gets dangerously close to the Hitler owned a dog side of things, though more specifically you might say "Bricks were used to build the ovens in Auschwitz" and then declaring bricks a stepping stone to the fourth Reich. And you know fair point, but you're really doing a disservice to intellectual discourse if that's where you stop your analysis.
> 
> Continuing the analogy, you might object to something as bland and flexible in utility as a brick; I wouldn't object, because it's precisely my claim that that's how general and of utility this form of storytelling is, but I digress. Perhaps you could claim that guns were used to order people into trains and intimidate and control them, and fair point. If you wanted to claim that stories were something akin to ideological weapons, you might be really onto something rather articulate there. However, guns were also used to fight the Nazis, and step one of Hitler taking control was to strip weapons from the hands of anyone he didn't control.




With this analogy, you’ve played yourself.

The “bricks “ we’re *actually* discussing here are individual words, held together with “mortar” of punctuation and grammar, which can be used to build anything.

You’re defending the use of complete, prefabricated modular structures to be dropped into any old building.  Because it’s _easier.  _Not better.  Not even necessarily all that good.

We’re not asking for you to stop using bricks-  your analogy- because Hitler used them.  We’re asking you to stop putting Nazi-style gas chambers in your condos.  We’re asking you- and others like you- to draw up your own plans, because the plans you’re using are fundamentally flawed, and will crumble with time. You’re asking permission to continue using prefabricated houses in the middle of tornado alley.



> So, if you really do insist on bemoaning the ideological dangers of potentially abusing powerful techniques for crafting grand narratives, I suggest you take a good hard look as precisely the pros and cons of solving that problem by any means other than leaving it alone, and allowing everyone go arm themselves adequately so as to be defended against the encroachments of bad actors and tyrants.




If you insist on using the language of oppression, you become an oppressor.



> If you wish to lambast the WotC as being wittingly or unwittingly participatory in the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation, then so be it. But first, if ask you count just how many wars nuclear arms have stopped, and just how many they've started. You'll find the score heavily on one side.




That is some truly purple prose, there.

I’ll just note that most of the world’s nuclear powers are reducing their stockpiles, and- AFAIK- even the Soviets decided not to mass produce and deploy Tsar Bomba.



> And then from there, I would like you to speculate on the value of letting these things play out organically, and to grow detached and independent from their unpleasant roots, grow richer deeper ones, and become a pillar of our culture which holds it up against the rattlings of the world. Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish ripping these things up by their roots, and just how wide are you leaving the door open to unforseen and readily foreseen consequences alike”




If you eat of the fruit of the poisonous tree, you become poisoned.

Why plant oleander in your apple orchard if you don’t have to?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2021)

> I believe the constant linking of orcs as racist is problematic, the constant dismissiveness of western literature because of historical reasons that when explained reach dangerously close to the noble savage trope and is also a very US/Eurocentric POV .




This makes sense _if and only if _you believe using racist stereotypes and slurs are inherently necessary for Western literature to succeed.

Absolutely no person in this thread has said Western literature needs to be destroyed because of a few slurs and stereotypes.  They’re just saying, stop using those RW slurs and stereotypes in fiction that doesn’t need it.  The cancer is not the patient.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 5, 2021)

The following changes have been made to D&D without the need to "dismiss an entire canon", so I don't see why further changes should:

Class name "Fighter" instead of "Fighting Man" (1978).
Removal of sex-based ability score limits (1989).
Use of female pronouns as well as male (2000).
Removal of "mongrel" as a term for half-orcs (2000).
Introduction of non-white adventurers in the core rulebooks' art (2000), further increased in 2008.
Announcement about "culturally complex" orcs and drow, changes to the Vistani, and other issues relating to diversity (2020).
Removal of alignment from the monsters in Candlekeep Mysteries (2021).
Part of the 2020 WotC statement was very similar to what has been said in this thread:

Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in.​


----------



## Umbran (Jul 5, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> This is not the same as fictional monsters in D&D.




This sounds like it reduces to the previously debunked, "It is fictional, so it is not relevant to the real world."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> The following changes have been made to D&D without the need to "dismiss an entire canon", so I don't see why further changes should:
> 
> Class name "Fighter" instead of "Fighting Man" (1978).
> Removal of sex-based ability score limits (1989).
> ...



I know it’s been said before, but…damn, when will we see the book deal announcement?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 6, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Ok, let me explain this to you. I get all of that. I’m well aware of all and I deplore that, and  stand against that and stand with those who suffer from this Don’t for a second think otherwise. This is not the same as fictional monsters in D&D. So spare me the attempt to reach for moral superiority. This is my problem as the debate is being framed as a moralistic crusade, any one who is opposed to this opinion must be up holders of the social status quo.



Who are you saying has "framed [the debate] as a moralistic crusade"?

Are you able to explain what it would look like to criticise the use of racial stereotypes and racialised tropes in FRPGing that would _not_ be a "moralistic crusade"? Or is "moralistic crusade" just a label you reach for to criticise arguments by labelling them rather than engaging with them?

Also, who has said that you are an "upholder of the social status quo"? The person to whom you were replying - @AbdulAlhazred - explained, via some examples, what some of the effects are of the use in FPRGing of racial stereotypes and racialised tropes. He said nothing about your views. Do you think his examples are reasonable ones? What do _you_ think are the effects of the use in FPRGing of racial stereotypes and racialised tropes?



transmission89 said:


> I believe the constant linking of orcs as racist is problematic, the constant dismissiveness of western literature because of historical reasons that when explained reach dangerously close to the noble savage trope and is also a very US/Eurocentric POV .



Who in this thread is "reach[ing] dangerously close to the noble savage trope"? How are they doing that?

And who is being "constantly dismissive" of "western literature"? Who has dismissed any literature in this thread? Do regard it as "dismissive" of JRRT, or HPL, or REH, to do the sort of textual analysis and exegesis that (eg) @Doug McCrae has done in this thread? From where I'm standing that just looks like pretty standard literary criticism. Where is this alleged "dismissal" to be found?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 6, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> The following changes have been made to D&D without the need to "dismiss an entire canon", so I don't see why further changes should:
> 
> Class name "Fighter" instead of "Fighting Man" (1978).
> Removal of sex-based ability score limits (1989).
> ...



Gygax in his PHB and DMG uses feminine as well as masculine pronouns. The use of solely masculine pronouns comes later - I haven't checked all the later AD&D books, but OA and the 2nd ed corebooks use masculine pronouns. I don't know why this step was taken - I don't believe that the "him or her"/"his or her" that is found throughout Gygax's books has ever caused any readability issues.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2021)

pemerton said:


> And who is being "constantly dismissive" of "western literature"? Who has dismissed any literature in this thread? Do regard it as "dismissive" of JRRT, or HPL, or REH, to do the sort of textual analysis and exegesis that (eg) @Doug McCrae has done in this thread? From where I'm standing that just looks like pretty standard literary criticism. Where is this alleged "dismissal" to be found?




Gotta say, HPL is a big, fat racist who would probably be utterly appalled that I (a multiracial black dude) have read his complete works*, and the stuff other writers based on it.  But the fact of his well-documented racism doesn’t diminish the massive contribution he made to what we call genre fiction today.

So yeah, IDing racist tropes is totally fair game, IMHO.  The older I get, the more I find myself divorcing creators from their works because, let’s face it, humans are pretty shoddy critters.

But accepting their human nature doesn’t excuse their inclusion of their inner demons in their work.

* well, if I’m honest, he’d be appalled I could read _at all._


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 6, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Ok, let me explain this to you. I get all of that. I’m well aware of all and I deplore that, and  stand against that and stand with those who suffer from this Don’t for a second think otherwise. This is not the same as fictional monsters in D&D. So spare me the attempt to reach for moral superiority. This is my problem as the debate is being framed as a moralistic crusade, any one who is opposed to this opinion must be up holders of the social status quo. I stand against this argument _because _I believe in social progress and equality, I believe the constant linking of orcs as racist is problematic, the constant dismissiveness of western literature because of historical reasons that when explained reach dangerously close to the noble savage trope and is also a very US/Eurocentric POV . This also has implications for how terms and names are weaponised in modern politics in a manner that concerns me, but for obvious reasons, this is not the place to detail that.
> 
> You might disagree with my viewpoint on execution, that’s fine, but that’s not the same as saying that our goals are not the same.



As I've said, I'm not really in a position to, nor feel inclined to, throw any shots at anyone here, really. I'm just saying that, yes it may well be, probably is, true that orcs in D&D were never intended as any sort of racial stereotype. Yet, they do evoke one, and that alone is pretty problematic. I think you mentioned the Vistani. I know nothing of their 5e lore. 4e kind of deconstructed the whole 'cosmic Gypsie' thing, which I know some people were fairly approving of. OTOH the old school ones were very definitely a blatant stereotype, right? I mean, not all of it was negative, but even if it is just a really inaccurate caricature, it is still kind of a bummer, right? Now, clearly there is the difference from orcs and hobgoblins and such that these were based on one very specific group of real-world people. I think though it is a matter of degree more than of kind. If you are not happy with one, you probably shouldn't be totally OK with the other. That's my opinion anyway.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 6, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Gotta say, HPL is a big, fat racist who would probably be utterly appalled that I (a multiracial black dude) have read his complete works*, and the stuff other writers based on it.  But the fact of his well-documented racism doesn’t diminish the massive contribution he made to what we call genre fiction today.
> 
> So yeah, IDing racist tropes is totally fair game, IMHO.  The older I get, the more I find myself divorcing creators from their works because, let’s face it, humans are pretty shoddy critters.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I've had to wonder if my handle is really all that cool... I mean, as with every other aspect of HPL and race, "Abdul Alhazred" is a completely idiotic and not at all realistic Arabic name, just stupid gibberish really. Made up by someone who apparently didn't know enough about, or couldn't be bothered to, learn 2 words of correct Arabic (Abdul means pretty literally "Servant of God", 'Alhazred' is just gibberish). Typical Lovecraft unfortunately. As you say, we are all rather flawed!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 6, 2021)

CONTENT WARNING: VERY RACIST CLAIMS, IN QUOTATION

This post is about the correspondence between the alignment and mental abilities of the D&D "savage" humanoids and ideas about racial moral and intellectual inferiority. It uses the list on page 7 of the _D&D 5e Monster Manual _(2014) — bugbears, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, and orcs. In the _AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide_ (1979) (pg 40) all of these races (along with cavemen, which includes tribesmen) have witch doctors. AD&D 1e and D&D 5e will be considered.

John Arthur, _Race, Equality, and the Burdens of History_ (2007) describes the five major forms that "beliefs in racial inferiority can take." This post uses the first two: "Another race may be thought to be (1) intellectually inferior (naturally less able to understand complex problems or less artistically creative); (2) morally inferior (inherently less virtuous; less trustworthy, hard working, loyal)."

*AD&D 1e*


AlignmentIntelligenceBugbearChaotic evilLow to Average (low)GnollChaotic evilLow-averageGoblinLawful evilAverage (low)HobgoblinLawful evilAverageKoboldLawful evilAverage (low)Lizard ManNeutralLow (average)OrcLawful evilAverage (low)

Average means human intelligence: 8-10. Low is 5-7. (1e MM pg 6)

All but one of the "savage" humanoids are evil, and all but one are below average intelligence.

_AD&D 1e Monster Manual_ (1977): "Gnolls… dislike work" "All goblins are slave takers and fond of torture." "Kobolds hate most other life, delighting in killing and torture." "Orcs are cruel and hate living things… They take slaves for work, food, and entertainment (torture, etc.) but not elves whom they kill immediately."

*D&D 5e*

To measure both the ability to "understand complex problems" and artistic creativity all three mental ability scores are used – Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.


AlignmentINTWISCHATotal*BugbearChaotic evil8119-2GnollChaotic evil6107-7GoblinNeutral evil1088-4HobgoblinLawful evil10109-1KoboldLawful evil878-7LizardfolkNeutral7127-4OrcChaotic evil71110-2

*This column represents the total difference of INT + WIS + CHA from an assumed baseline of three 10s (30) — the ability scores of the Commoner NPC in Appendix B (5e MM pg 345).

All but one of the "savage" humanoids are evil, and all are intellectually inferior to the baseline when all three mental ability scores are taken into account. This post from an older thread argues that lizardfolk are misaligned as neutral and ought to be evil.

Several of the "savage" humanoids — bugbears, lizardfolk, and orcs — have Wisdom scores above the baseline. _D&D 5e PHB_: "Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition." (pg 178) This is not inconsistent with racist ideas. Arthur de Gobineau, _The Inequality of Human Races_ (1853): "[Black people's] senses, especially taste and smell, are developed to an extent unknown to the other two races."

_D&D 5e MM_: "Bugbears are born for battle and mayhem". They have a "love of carnage" "Even when paid, bugbears are at best unreliable allies." "No goodness or compassion resides in the heart of a gnoll. Like a demon, it lacks anything resembling a conscience, and can't be taught or coerced to put aside its destructive tendencies." "Goblins are… black-hearted, selfish… lazy and undisciplined… motivated by greed and malice." Orcs have a "lust for slaughter."

*Morally and Intellectually Inferior*

Josiah C Nott, _Two Lectures on the Connection Between the Biblical and Physical History of Man_ (1849):

The capacity of the crania of the Mongol, Indian, and Negro, and all dark-skinned races, is smaller than that of the pure white man. And this deficiency seems to be especially well-marked in those parts of the brain which have been assigned to the moral and intellectual faculties.​
Gobineau: "The negroid variety['s]… mental faculties are dull or even non-existent." Alfred R Wallace, _The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man_ (1864): "The intellectual and moral… qualities of the European are superior." William Benjamin Smith, _The Color Line_ (1905): "When we come to the profounder mental, moral, and social differences, we can find no other terms than greater and less to describe the relative endowments of the widely sundered races."

According to Robert Wald Sussman, _The Myth of Race_ (2014), the Pioneer Fund is "the major source of funding" for scientific racism today. Michael Levin, emeritus professor of philosophy at the City University of New York, has been one of its recipients. "Blacks just aren't as moral as whites, genetically, Levin argues. He holds that blacks have two unalterable characteristics: less intelligence and greater proneness to violence."

*Like a Demon*

Kay Wright Lewis, _A Curse Upon the Nation_ (2017): "Native people were "demons" and "beasts in the shape of men," and Europeans often refused to recognize them as fully human."

*Born for Battle and Mayhem, Love of Carnage, Lust for Slaughter, Destructive Tendencies*

Samuel George Morton, _An Inquiry Into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America_ (1844):

The [Indian's] love of war is so general, so characteristic, that it scarcely calls for a comment or an illustration. One nation is in almost perpetual hostility with another, tribe against tribe, man against man; and with this ruling passion are linked a merciless revenge and an unsparing destructiveness.​
*Dislike Work, Lazy, Selfish, Greedy*

Gobineau: "The yellow man has little physical energy, and is inclined to apathy… His whole desire is to live in the easiest and most comfortable way possible." Charles Wentworth Dilke, _Greater Britain_ (1868):

The apathy of the Cinghalese [Sri Lankans] is not surprising; but they are not merely lazy, they are a cowardly, effeminate, and revengeful race. They sleep and smoke, and smoke and sleep, rousing themselves only once in the day to snatch a bowl of curry and rice, or to fleece a white man.​


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2021)

CONTENT WARNING: GENOCIDAL RACISM, IN QUOTATION

This post examines whether some of the D&D 5e "savage" humanoids — bugbears, gnolls, kobolds, lizardfolk, and orcs — cannot be considered racist because they are more like animals than people.

In the _D&D 5e Monster Manual_ (2014) artwork the bugbear's snout resembles a bear's. "Hyenas were transformed into the first gnolls." Gnoll heads look like those of hyenas. Gnolls and kobolds have digitigrade legs, like dogs or hyenas. Kobolds are "egg-laying" and have tails. Kobolds and lizardfolk are "reptilian" and have heads resembling those of lizards. Orcs have "low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks."

The category of "humanoid" in D&D 5e includes the races "most suitable as player characters" — humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings — as well as the "savage" humanoids — bugbears, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, and orcs. All humanoids have "language and culture, few if any innate magical abilities (though most humanoids can learn spellcasting), and a bipedal form."

In addition, the "savage" humanoids that could be considered beast-like all use tools, such as weapons. Most wear clothing or armour, lizardfolk being the only exception. Most have religion. Most build or modify structures, even gnolls. All are social and live in communities. They have alignments rather than being unaligned as animals are in D&D 5e.

"Gnolls rarely build permanent structures or craft anything of lasting value." But this demonstrates that they occasionally do so. Gnoll leaders adorn their bodies with art, including "demonic sigils." This suggests they have a form of writing. Gnolls worship Yeenoghu. Kobolds possess "a cleverness for trap making and tunneling" and worship Kurtulmak. Lizardfolk live in "hut villages." They dance, tell stories, and "craft tools and ornamental jewelry." They have shamans and worship Semuanya. Orcs can interbreed with other humanoids, including humans, producing children. Gruumsh and Luthic are the orcish gods.

It can be concluded therefore that the beast-like features of bugbears, gnolls, kobolds, lizardfolk, and orcs are superficial. They are, in all important respects, people.

*The Racist Use of the Idea That People Are Like Animals*

Assigning the properties of animals to real world peoples has been, and continues to be, a significant element of racism as the following examples demonstrate. Robert Miles and Malcolm Brown, _Racism 2e_ (2003):

The African was attributed with a bestial character and there was much speculation about the origin and consequences of the supposed physical similarities between Africans and apes, both of which were 'discovered' by Europeans at the same time in a common geographical location. Some Europeans suggested that sexual intercourse occurred between Africans and apes… the African was less civilised, a barbarian, by virtue of supposedly looking more like a beast and behaving in ways that approximated to the behaviour of beasts.​
Robert Sussman, _The Myth of Race_ (2014): "Charles White (1728– 1813), an English physician… proposed that black Africans... were an intermediate form between true humans (white Europeans) and apes, with other races intermediate between these extremes." Orcish "low foreheads" and, in the artwork, disproportionately long arms correspond to this idea that black people resemble apes. Nathan G Alexander, _Race in a Godless World_ (2019):

Charles Bradlaugh… used the French physician Jules Cloquet's facial angle, measuring "an European, a Negro, an infant chimpanzee, a full grown chimpanzee, a male gorilla, and a Newfoundland dog" to show that the facial angle was highest for a European and gradually became lower as one moved down to the lower races and non-human animals... The arm of "the Negro" was longer than that of the European and was nearly indistinguishable, proportionally, from a gorilla's.​
Ben Kiernan, _Blood and Soil_ (2007):

The _Sydney Herald_ claimed in 1838 that Aborigines had "bestowed no labour upon the land—their ownership, their right, was nothing more than that of the Emu or the Kangaroo."​​Governor George Gipps... had 12 men tried for the Myall Creek massacre; they were acquitted. A juror called blacks "a set of monkies and the earlier they are exterminated from the face of the earth the better."​
David Roediger, _The Wages of Whiteness_ (1991): "It was an open question in the mind of nineteenth-century white Protestants whether these Celtic immigrants belonged to the white race. They were vilified, segregated, and castigated as _savage_, _simian_, and _bestial_." Sussman:

Ernst Haeckel (1834– 1919) was one of the most respected scientists of his time… He called for the halting of immigration of the "filthy" Jews and, claiming that since inferior races are "nearer to the mammals (apes and dogs) than to civilized Europeans, we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives."​
Karl Hannemann in _Bulletin of the German Association of National Socialist Physicians_ (June 1938): "Rats, bedbugs and fleas are also natural occurrences in the same way as Jews and Gypsies. All existence is a struggle; we must therefore gradually biologically eradicate all these vermin." Katie Hopkins in _The Sun_ (17th April 2015): "Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches."

EDIT: This section's argument isn't that all animal people are racist. It's that the use of animal features applied to real world people by racists demonstrates that animal people in fiction can be racist.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 8, 2021)

Doug, I honestly think you're going a bit overboard here.

THe use of animal-men in RPGs is (excepting the Orc, Troll, and Ent, both taken from Tolkien's casually racist view) Is seldom to disguise hate; it's to draw a culture that would be offensive if any existing phenotype were assigned to it.


----------



## Esau Cairn (Jul 8, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> It is personal (an attack, to be clear), you know it is, and the title is not antagonistic. Stop the passive aggressiveness.
> 
> Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. And I have a Master's degree. So what?
> 
> ...



You proved my point, if in no other manner, than personally attacking me and insisting I was wrong (and being passive aggressive) when all objective evidence would show that is not the case. But you're free to believe in--and to rationalize--all your prejudices.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Doug, I honestly think you're going a bit overboard here.
> 
> THe use of animal-men in RPGs is (excepting the Orc, Troll, and Ent, both taken from Tolkien's casually racist view) Is seldom to disguise hate; it's to draw a culture that would be offensive if any existing phenotype were assigned to it.



Well, like any other tool, it’s one that could be misused.  If you’re using an animorphic species as a stand in for a RW race that has been described with that species’ characteristics, odds are good you’re not playing nice.  

But if your racial/cultural stand-ins are removed from animalistic stereotypes, then you’re probably safe.  For instance, if your campaign’s Arabic analogues were based on brightly colored parrots- including their speech patterns and other mannerisms, it would be hard to say you were using racist dog whistles.

(And I’m pretty sure when I used Minotaurs for a Plains Indian culture, I wasn’t being racist.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 8, 2021)

My view, and I think this is similar to @Doug McCrae's view, is that what is at issue is _tropes and related ideas_.

Consider Lizardmen/Lizardfolk: they are (literally) presented as resembling certain animals; they are also presented as culturally closely resembling a stereotyped conception of "native" peoples: they live in "huts", they use "primitive" tools and weapons, they practice exo-cannibalism, etc.

One school of thought has it: we use Lizardfolk so we can enjoy those pulp tropes but not associate them with any actual human peoples.

Another school of thought, which I personally am closer to, has it: using Lizardfolk keeps alive these tropes which have no cogency or currency except as byproducts of the racist ideologies connected to European colonialism particularly in Africa and Asia. It's the tropes themselves that carry this baggage and hence keep the racist ideas alive.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2021)

The charge of cannibalism, in some form, might be perennial -- it was levelled at early Christians, at Jews in medieval Europe, and against those believed to be witches in the early modern period. But the form it appears in in D&D -- Edgar Rice Burroughs-style pulp cannibalism (or exo-cannibalism) -- derives, I think, from accusations made about non-white colonised peoples going back to Columbus. When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, the missionary-in-the-cannibal's-pot image was common in cartoons.

Ideas about racial, biological, inherited, unchangeable traits  -- such as the way orcs and half-orcs in 5e can never be free of evil no matter how hard they try -- are also modern I think.

Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.) (_PHB_)​​No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task. (_Volo's Guide to Monsters_)​


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> THe use of animal-men in RPGs is (excepting the Orc, Troll, and Ent, both taken from Tolkien's casually racist view) Is seldom to disguise hate; it's to draw a culture that would be offensive if any existing phenotype were assigned to it.



I don't think it's ever been a matter of hate, exactly. At what level Gygax was aware when he gave evil humanoids non-European properties in 1e -- shamans and witch doctors, "mongrel" for half-orcs, etc -- I'm not sure. The _AD&D 1e Monster Manual_ was written very quickly, under a lot of commercial pressure (according to Jon Peterson in _Playing at the World_) so it might be the product of 40 or so years' worth of absorption of pulp, such as Howard and Lovecraft, coming out unconsciously. The creators of 5e seem to have been deliberately going back to the roots of D&D in embracing pulp tropes -- in some cases going further than D&D ever had before -- and probably thought that, as @pemerton says, it was okay because they were applying them to monsters.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 8, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My view, and I think this is similar to @Doug McCrae's view, is that what is at issue is _tropes and related ideas_.
> 
> Consider Lizardmen/Lizardfolk: they are (literally) presented as resembling certain animals; they are also presented as culturally closely resembling a stereotyped conception of "native" peoples: they live in "huts", they use "primitive" tools and weapons, they practice exo-cannibalism, etc.
> 
> ...




When is something tripe and when is it a natural feeling story element?

It feels like human shaped animal monsters have a long history in film and pop culture and myth - creature from the black lagoon, yeti, hundreds of things from folklore collected in the PF bestiaries.

Do Tanuki and Vanara and Kappa and Minotaurs and Satyr, etc... need to be people in masks with no innate personality traits or differences in mental processing than real people?

Would a humanoid bower bird build a really really  fancy hut? Would a humanoid beaver?  If we have a lizard brained lizadish humanoid or would it live in a burrow or would some lizards build artificial structures if they had opposable thumbs? Would a humanoid coyote or wolf do things that looked like worshipping the moon?  Would a humanoid elephant venerate the dead?

Would a humanoid version of a territorial apex predator reasonably still want to be a territorial apex predator in competition with people?  If it was, would people not compete with them?   Could a slightly smarter gorilla species possibly be made more erudite than humans , and another play up the bestiality?  If the later, do we have to avoid competition between them and humans to avoid any awful tropes (I'm sure I can find some horrible racist pictures from not long ago to show they're still in use).  Should we just entirely avoid some species to humanoidize?

If we want to have some more advanced than humans in terms of technology or magic is that  problematic?  Can we have some be less?   Would more intelligent than dogs but less than human dog men not build artificial shelter when a cave wasn't around?  If it happens that some designs are the ones that are obviously more effective, would we need to avoid those just because some real groups of humans did/do use those?  If the base species is cannibalistic, does that need to be avoided in the more humanoid one to avoid problems?  Real otters use tools, would humanoid ones either need to use the full suite of human tools or none of them to avoid using only "primitive" ones?

Does the creature from the black lagoon need to have language and literature and  science and live in a house to avoid tropes?

Is it ok to just have the things the races do semi-logically follow from what the base species does? Is it ok to have a species that uses all body tattoos or feathered head garments or... as long as the patterns don't look Maori and they aren't used for an island dwelling sea exploring race obviously met as a stand in? Are feathered head coverings ok as long as it doesn't look like something used by a real tribe in the US for a fake species that lives in that ecosystem and doesn't use stereotypical things like totem poles or teepees? 

If there is a wizard-made rat people, is living in the sewers, being generally looked down on by people, and not being afforded the same opportunities as those on the surface an ok space to play in? Or can I not explore some of the things Glen Cook did with that in his Garrett series?

It feels like there's a big place out there that allows for humanoids that aren't just people in masks and that aren't just lazy tropes.  Is it just that doing so takes work and we'd have to recognize it will probably still inadvertantly hit something even if being careful? (And recognizing that many things from the past didn't care at all about trying or being careful).


----------



## Cadence (Jul 8, 2021)

Repeat...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 8, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Doug, I honestly think you're going a bit overboard here.
> 
> THe use of animal-men in RPGs is (excepting the Orc, Troll, and Ent, both taken from Tolkien's casually racist view) Is seldom to disguise hate; it's to draw a culture that would be offensive if any existing phenotype were assigned to it.



So, where is the canonically evil, primitive, lazy, sub-human race in D&D which evokes the racial characteristics of blonde haired blue eyed northwestern Europeans? I mean, if there's nothing to it, then why are their ALWAYS canonically tall blonde, light-skinned noble savages, or simply 'advanced civilized humans'. Sure, some percentage of them might then be evil NPCs, but overall? So we see, associated with traits assigned to 'inferior races of humans' in the 18th-20th Centuries are invariably evil sub-human humanoid species, CANONICALLY, in D&D. The only reason this doesn't leap out at people in this forum (those for whom it doesn't) is that they are used to it. They are completely inured to casual racist bigoted language and ideas to the point where they simply cannot even see them when they are right in front of their faces. Indeed, in my experience when they think them, act them, and propagate them!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 8, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My view, and I think this is similar to @Doug McCrae's view, is that what is at issue is _tropes and related ideas_.
> 
> Consider Lizardmen/Lizardfolk: they are (literally) presented as resembling certain animals; they are also presented as culturally closely resembling a stereotyped conception of "native" peoples: they live in "huts", they use "primitive" tools and weapons, they practice exo-cannibalism, etc.
> 
> ...



Exactly. If canonical D&D had evil blonde blue-eyed monsters, or monsters which evoked all the tropes derived from the colonial period of world history about Europeans, then I would be a bit less suspicious. Yet it really doesn't. I mean, lets imagine such a race. Lets just coopt Dragonborn! They are evil, colonial slave masters who eat babies, kidnap the women of other races for nefarious purposes, whatever all the various ideas are. I would say, were this race canonical to D&D and of equal weight to things like orcs or lizardmen, at least the game is impartially racist! Yet that is clearly not the case. I mean, I'm sure you can come up with an example of a setting that does something slightly like that, but it sure isn't the major theme in D&D like humanoids are! (and I mean that word in its AD&D sense, monstrous humanoids, not demi-humans).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2021)

I should add that my argument in the post upthread isn't that all animal people are racist. It's that the use of animal features applied to real world people by racists demonstrates that animal people in fiction can be racist. (I'll add this to my OP as an edit.)

Elsewhere in this thread I've made stronger arguments about what I think is racist in D&D, to do with correspondences with racist claims, and in some cases derivation from Tolkien, Howard, Lovecraft, and other cultural sources. Ultimately all of it comes from the (often unconscious and unexamined) absorption and reproduction of ideas in the wider culture.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 8, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> I don't think it's ever been a matter of hate, exactly. At what level Gygax was aware when he gave evil humanoids non-European properties in 1e -- shamans and witch doctors, "mongrel" for half-orcs, etc -- I'm not sure. The _AD&D 1e Monster Manual_ was written very quickly, under a lot of commercial pressure (according to Jon Peterson in _Playing at the World_) so it might be the product of 40 or so years' worth of absorption of pulp, such as Howard and Lovecraft, coming out unconsciously. The creators of 5e seem to have been deliberately going back to the roots of D&D in embracing pulp tropes -- in some cases going further than D&D ever had before -- and probably thought that, as @pemerton says, it was okay because they were applying them to monsters.



I doubt the concept ever crossed E. Gary Gygax's mind. I didn't know the guy and can't say what he personally believed, but nothing I ever heard about the guy indicated he was a hater of any sort, more the opposite really. He never confronted overt racism aimed at him, being a white man in suburban USA. So it simply never entered his mind as a possibility. 

I mean, even 20 years ago, I probably would not have actively thought of it myself. I grew up in the same sort of environment Gygax did. There were no 'colored people' of any sort whatsoever! A few servicemen brought back Korean or Japanese wives, that was about it, and those wives were very very quiet. My own family was pretty open about the existence of racism and we were taught about it. Still, it would have been completely foreign to my mind to think that an orc was an embodiment of a racist stereotype. So, I strongly suspect a 1970's EGG simply couldn't have even conceived that notion unless he'd had minorities to interact with in his work on D&D, and I very strongly doubt that was the case, certainly not at that early stage of TSR when it was him and a few friends and business associates. He might have met someone like M. A. R. Barker perhaps, but that would be about the size of it. Even Dr Barker wasn't exactly 'dark skinned' from what I know.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 8, 2021)

Cadence said:


> When is something tripe and when is it a natural feeling story element?
> 
> It feels like human shaped animal monsters have a long history in film and pop culture and myth - creature from the black lagoon, yeti, hundreds of things from folklore collected in the PF bestiaries.
> 
> ...



Well, lets imagine it as an orc. What would an orc race have to be in order to avoid being deeply problematic? I would say that first we should dump the word 'race', lets call it a 'species', it is not a human, it is another species. I would probably totally avoid the whole 'breeding with humans' thing entirely. If the issue ever comes up, then OK, maybe orcs and humans are in the same genus. Maybe they can create sterile offspring, or whatever. But why even go there? 

Orcs are not inherently evil. There may well be an orc civilization which has standards and culture which the PCs will not approve of. OK, fine, so do cultures on the real Earth (and yes we label them as inferior to us, our bad). I mean, we have plenty of fictional models already out there, like Klingons, which are certainly not an 'evil race' or particularly 'primitive' etc. In fact, I think Star Trek did a fairly decent job, right? (I'm sure there are points where it might be criticized, I really haven't studied the topic). I mean, there are other non-D&D versions of orcs too, some of which are probably more acceptable. 

Anyway, obviously they can't be INHERENTLY primitive, evil, stupid, aggressive, etc. That's really it. While this might create some problems for existing D&D settings and lore, it doesn't seem all that onerous to me. Now, creatures which are much less obviously humanoid, we can be less worried about. The example of 'parrots' is good, a bird people are much less evocative of humans, and as long as you avoid trying to carbon copy a human culture onto them, I am sure it should be fine. That leaves a LOT of design space open! Cat people, dog people, bird people, lizard people, snake people, insect people, etc. etc. etc. Just don't make the more anthro ones inherently negative AND associated with cultural traits we link to racist ideas.

It is all rather unfortunate. This would be a lot easier, except we're burdened with a nasty history. That's life.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Lets just coopt Dragonborn! They are evil, colonial slave masters who eat babies, kidnap the women of other races for nefarious purposes, whatever all the various ideas are. I would say, were this race canonical to D&D and of equal weight to things like orcs or lizardmen, at least the game is impartially racist!



D&D's closest analogue to that are probably the Drow, who owe a lot to Moorcock's Melniboneans, almost certainly intended by Moorcock as a metaphor for the British Empire. Ofc D&D takes that anti-imperialist message and turns it on its head by making its Melniboneans dark-skinned.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 8, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> D&D's closest analogue to that are probably the Drow, who owe a lot to Moorcock's Melniboneans, almost certainly intended by Moorcock as a metaphor for the British Empire. Ofc D&D takes that anti-imperialist message and turns it on its head by making its Melniboneans dark-skinned and matriarchal.



Right, again one of those Gygax "I never thought of that" kinds of things, I suspect. That is, he certainly was at least partly inspired by the 'trow' or 'drow' of Norse/Anglo Saxon myth, a black-skinned underground race of 'alfs' or 'dwarves', maybe also identical with 'svart alfar' (and maybe not). Later some artists and authors seem to have extrapolated this more in the direction of a negroid kind of look (I know one module has an illustration of a kinky haired drow woman, for example). 

I always figured the drow did take some inspiration from Moorcock, yes. They have the same sort of overly hedonistic, morally 'depraved' society, and a similar relationship with other races. I suspect the matriarchal part was either incorporated to fit with Lolth (who may have been invented first, who knows), and/or perhaps as simply an attempt to make them more different, culturally and socially, than 'normal people'. Of course, it certainly doesn't come across too well in terms of depicting a matriarchal social order in a good light! 

Drow Tales has a slightly different spin on all of this, though it is still an underground matriarchal society of basically evil dark-skinned 'elves'.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 8, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, lets imagine it as an orc. What would an orc race have to be in order to avoid being deeply problematic? I would say that first we should dump the word 'race', lets call it a 'species', it is not a human, it is another species.



Tolkien's and similar use of 'race of men' vs. 'race of elves' or whatnot, seems to certainly be outweighed by the negative uses of the word's other definitions before and since.  I'm tempted to suggest 'peoples' instead of 'races' for the humanoids, but then does that box out the centaurs and treants, for example.  Sure, 'species'.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would probably totally avoid the whole 'breeding with humans' thing entirely. If the issue ever comes up, then OK, maybe orcs and humans are in the same genus. Maybe they can create sterile offspring, or whatever. But why even go there?
> 
> Orcs are not inherently evil. There may well be an orc civilization which has standards and culture which the PCs will not approve of. OK, fine, so do cultures on the real Earth (and yes we label them as inferior to us, our bad). I mean, we have plenty of fictional models already out there, like Klingons, which are certainly not an 'evil race' or particularly 'primitive' etc. In fact, I think Star Trek did a fairly decent job, right? (I'm sure there are points where it might be criticized, I really haven't studied the topic). I mean, there are other non-D&D versions of orcs too, some of which are probably more acceptable.



I guess my question about Orcs and Elves and Klingons and Vulcans is, what's their purpose?

I don't know if I have words I want to put down for any of them but I think I can see a storytelling purpose for the humanoid animals (some flavors of lizardmen, kenku), the things from Faerie (some flavors of elves, some flavors of goblins), the things from the far realms and abberations (ilithid) and the undead (vampires and zombies), and the outsiders (angels and devils) that don't have to drift into problems.

But is the purpose of dwarves, halflings, and orcs (or Klingons and Vulcans) mostly to allow for a certain type of person to not be a human - often with a solid slop of some extreme stereotype thrown on?  That is, to essentially be another race of humans?   Does that work if the other race is "better" or doesn't overlap in too many ways at all - but fall flat if they are "lesser" or are portrayed as the other?   If they're the same, do they just allow for stories about interactions between human groups, without needing one of them to be human (is that why they're used in Star Trek so much)?  How important is that in a fantasy world? 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Anyway, obviously they can't be INHERENTLY primitive, evil, stupid, aggressive, etc. That's really it. While this might create some problems for existing D&D settings and lore, it doesn't seem all that onerous to me. Now, creatures which are much less obviously humanoid, we can be less worried about. The example of 'parrots' is good, a bird people are much less evocative of humans, and as long as you avoid trying to carbon copy a human culture onto them, I am sure it should be fine. That leaves a LOT of design space open! Cat people, dog people, bird people, lizard people, snake people, insect people, etc. etc. etc. Just don't make the more anthro ones inherently negative AND associated with cultural traits we link to racist ideas.
> 
> It is all rather unfortunate. This would be a lot easier, except we're burdened with a nasty history. That's life.



Oh for a time machine and the hope that we would actually be better than our ancestors were in those same situations.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 8, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> I should add that my argument in the post upthread isn't that all animal people are racist. It's that the use of animal features applied to real world people by racists demonstrates that animal people in fiction can be racist. (I'll add this to my OP as an edit.)
> 
> Elsewhere in this thread I've made stronger arguments about what I think is racist in D&D, to do with correspondences with racist claims, and in some cases derivation from Tolkien, Howard, Lovecraft, and other cultural sources. Ultimately all of it comes from the (often unconscious and unexamined) absorption and reproduction of ideas in the wider culture.



Yes.  And that social relationships within the implied or default dnd setting mimic colonialism, and I would say specifically nineteenth century settler colonialism.  That is, these racial descriptions in dnd, as a set of cultural documents, don't make sense without the context of Euro-American imperialism.

The question of what gets inadvertently reproduced even among people mindful of those tropes is an interesting one.  I'm assuming most of us run games in English, and many of us playing where we reside, which is to say, on stolen land.  Which is to say, the development of this particular language of talking about otherness is fairly recent, and permeates our contemporary existence.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2021)

CONTENT WARNING: VERY RACIST CLAIMS, IN QUOTATION

This post is about several different sorts of correspondences between "savage" humanoids in D&D 5e and racist ideas.

*Savage and Civilised Races*

Note the virtually identical terminology — D&D 5e's "civilized and savage" and "savage... races" compared with Gobineau's "savage races" and Darwin's "savage and civilised races."

_D&D 5e Monster Manua_l (2014):
"Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D world, both civilized and savage… far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

Arthur de Gobineau, _The Inequality of Races_ (1853):
"The savage races of to-day have always been savage, and we are right in concluding, by analogy, that they will continue to be so, until the day when they disappear."

Charles Darwin, _The Descent of Man_ (1871):
"The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilised races."

*Devil Worship*

The worship of evil gods, such as the orcish god Gruumsh, is very similar to devil worship.

_Monster Manual_:
"[Gnolls worship] the demon lord Yeenoghu."

Cotton Mather, _The Glorious Works of Christ in America_ (1702):
"These parts were then covered with nations of barbarous Indians and infidels… whose whole religion was the most explicit sort of devil-worship."

Charles Wentworth Dilke, _Greater Britain_ (1868):
"All Indian religion has the air of devil-worship, or worship of the destructive principle in some shape: the gods are drawn as grinning fiends, they are propitiated by infernal music, they are often worshipped with obscene and hideous rites."

William Benjamin Smith, _The Color Line_ (1905):
"These "avenues" of the far-sighted African are nothing but the blind alleys of Voodooism and devil worship."

*A Creed of Fear and Horror*

_Monster Manual_:
"Maglubiyet… is the greater god of goblinoids… he is worshiped not out of adoration but fear."

_Greater Britain_:
"We must not forget that Hindooism is a creed of fear and horror, not of love."

*Human Sacrifice*

_Monster Manual_:

Gnolls celebrate their victories by performing demonic rituals and making blood offerings to Yeenoghu.​​Prisoners… are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.​​When an orc slays an elf in Gruumsh's name and offers the corpse of its foe as a sacrifice to the god of slaughter, an aspect of the god might appear.​
John Lubbock, _The Origin of Civilisation_ (1870):

The lowest races have no religion; when what may perhaps be in a sense called religion first appears, it differs essentially from ours; nay, it is not only different, but in some respects even opposite... The deities are evil, not good... they generally require bloody, and often rejoice in human, sacrifices.​
Lothrop Stoddard, _The Rising Tide of Color_ (1920):
"The native religions were usually sanguinary, demanding a prodigality of human sacrifices. The killings ordained by negro wizards and witch-doctors sometimes attained unbelievable proportions."

HP Lovecraft, _The Call of Cthulhu_ (1928):

From a wide circle of ten scaffolds set up at regular intervals with the flame-girt monolith as a centre hung, head downward, the oddly marred bodies of the helpless squatters who had disappeared. It was inside this circle that the ring of worshippers jumped and roared...  there must have been nearly a hundred mongrel celebrants in the throng.​
Robert E Howard, _The Slithering Shadow_ (1933):

'A god must have his sacrifices. When I was a child in Stygia the people lived under the shadow of the priests. None ever knew when he or she would be seized and dragged to the altar…'​'Such is not the custom of my people,' Conan growled.​
*Cannibalism*

_Monster Manual_:

Gnolls are feral humanoids that attack settlements along the frontiers and borderlands of civilization without warning, slaughtering their victims and devouring their flesh.​​Lizard folk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts… Victims are... cooked and eaten by the tribe.​
Edgar Rice Burroughs, _Tarzan of the Apes_ (1912):
"And then began for the French officer the most terrifying experience which man can encounter upon earth—the reception of a white prisoner into a village of African cannibals."

Robert E Howard, _Shadows in Zamboula_ (1935):
"Cannibalism was more than a perverted appetite with the black men of Darfar; it was an integral element of their ghastly cult."

Patrick Brantlinger, _Taming Cannibals_ (2011):

The motif of the missionary as cannibal fare has been a staple of Western popular culture for centuries.​​Imaginary cannibals have been all too influential as a negative stereotype of non-Western Others and as an excuse for the extermination of those Others.​
*Non-morality*

_Monster Manual_:
"Lizardfolk have no notion of traditional morality, and they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien."

_The Color Line_:
"It is more correct to say of the Negro that he is non-moral than immoral."


----------



## willrali (Jul 8, 2021)

Yeah, as the years have gone by, I've come more and more to the view that there's simply no room for 'humanoids'. The problems just run too deep. The next game I run will be all humans, all the time. The enemies will either be humans or literal monsters of alien or demonic motivation that are impossible to play as characters.

I'm just tired of navigating the minefield of humanoid 'races' and all the baggage they bring.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 8, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Tolkien and similar use of 'race of men' vs. 'race of elves' or whatnot, seems to certainly be outweighed by the negative uses of the words other definitions before and since.  I'm tempted to suggest 'peoples' instead of 'races' for the humanoids, but then does that box out the centaurs and treants, for example.  Sure, 'species'.



Yeah, there was a whole thread on what name to use a few months back. Various suggestions were made, but IMHO species is the clearest, other ones seem like they don't really get you far enough from the baggage of 'race'. People, folk, kind, kin, nation, etc. are all mostly tolerably clear, though some of them have other connotations that might not always fit, like implying a level of unification of culture or politics that is not justified in every setting. Species does sound a bit 'sciency' I guess, but there's some virtue in that, you have clearly made a statement as to the biological distinctness of each group. I guess you may be opening up the possibility of the can of worms which would be some people's sense of where on the cladogram to put each one, and if some of those locations imply some superiority or something, but at least you make people take a few more dubious leaps before they get to "I'm better than him."


Cadence said:


> I guess my question about Orcs and Elves and Klingons and Vulcans is, what's there purpose?
> 
> I don't know if I have words I want to put down for any of them but I think I can see a storytelling purpose for the humanoid animals (some flavors of lizardmen, kenku), the things from Faerie (some flavors of elves, some flavors of goblins), the things from the far realms and abberations (ilithid) and the undead (vampires and zombies), and the outsiders (angels and devils) that don't have to drift into problems.



I'm with you there.


Cadence said:


> But is the purpose of dwarves, halflings, and orcs (or Klingons and Vulcans) mostly to allow for a certain type of person to not be a human - often with a solid slop of some extreme stereotype thrown on?  That is, to essentially be another race of humans?   Does that work if the other race is "better" or doesn't overlap in too many ways at all - but fall flat if they are "lesser" or are portrayed as the other?   If they're the same, do they just allow for stories about interactions between human groups, without needing one of them to be human (is that why they're used in Star Trek so much)?  How important is that in a fantasy world?



Yeah, I mean, this is a good question, do we need orcs at all? Obviously the simple answer is 'no'. I mean, we can get by without them. If orcs have to be depicted in as much of a 3-dimensional nuanced way as humans, at some point is it really necessary to have them as a different species? I do think Star Trek wrestled with that a bit, Vulcans seemed a lot like supermen at first, but Spock was always depicted as being both superhuman, and at the same time in some ways unable to do things that were pretty easy for humans. So that leaves us with the IDEA of aliens, which is a thing in Sci Fi. I mean, the very idea of a cosmopolitan galaxy filled with different species says something IN AND OF ITSELF. Likewise, in a world-building sense, humanoids/demi-humans does say something. Plus it has folkloric/mythological significance. So, I think there is a reason to have 'orcs', at least as a general concept. Now, maybe the game could do with just 'elves' and 'dwarves', so to speak, and not hostile humanoid races, but I think basically by saying every species must be depicted in a nuanced way, that is what you would get, nobody is really an 'orc', they are just a species, like us, but different. So I could see building a world where you have demi-humans, but no humanoid monsters. Or the only ones are things like giants or something, which could have their own special creation story and be really very different from 'people'.


Cadence said:


> Oh for a time machine and the hope that we would actually be better than our ancestors were in those same situations.



Yeah, we'd like to think we would, but my money is against it, even for myself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2021)

Hey, make orcs into the mortal descendants of literal and you have a fine rationale for an always evil non-nuanced species.

(IOW, what tieflings could have been.)

Of course, eventually, someone will want to play a Hellboy-inspired character and…


----------



## pemerton (Jul 9, 2021)

Cadence said:


> When is something tripe and when is it a natural feeling story element?



I think the notion of a "natural feeling story element" is challenging in this context. Because when we're talking about received tropes, naturalness can be a manifestation of that received character.



Cadence said:


> Does the creature from the black lagoon need to have language and literature and science and live in a house to avoid tropes?



Speaking just for my part, I get a bit tired of framings/settings that treat agrarian and urban social and economic forms as the norm for humans, so that other forms of human life get framed as "primitive" and threats.

There is a complexity or a compounding, here, that results from the fact that RPGing, as an activity, is undertaken by people living in urban, literate societies. Which means it's easy to project that as a norm - so part of the "strangeness" of a creature is its distance from, or contrast with, those social forms.

A further compounding factor is the heritage of JRRT - The Shire is presented as, at one and the same time, an agrarian pre-industrial paradise _and_ as having material plenty comparable to nineteenth or even twentieth century Britain. So familiar cultural elements - romanticised British villagers - are merged with a familiar material culture not in any sort of realistic fashion, but by authorial whim that reinforces the normative projection described in the previous paragraph.

One way to try and break down that normative projection can be to engage with a wide range of history and social science. Another, based on human experience rather than intellectual techniques, is to talk with someone who is an accomplished professional in a scientific field about her childhood eating with banana leaves and gourds (ie when her society had not undergone extensive processes of industrialisation and state formation, and hence - among other things - did not have a material culture that rested so heavily on factory production of crockery and cutlery). Breaking down that normative projection means breaking down the association between _humanity_ - in its full meaning - and a certain sort of material and intellectual culture and social and economic organisation.

In D&D, given its standard processes of play and associated mechanical systems, I think this is not just about Orcs vs humans. It's also, for instance, about rules for AC.

To somewhat echo @AbdulAlhazred, there's no reason to think this should be easy.



Cadence said:


> Is it ok to just have the things the races do semi-logically follow from what the base species does?



If we're talking about animalian people, we get proud lionfolk and group-centred dogfolk and sneaky, slithery ratfolk. Maybe also tail-chasing catfolk, though they mightn't be a good fit for typical D&D.

If we get to non-mammalian animals, or even more obscure mammals like echidnas or pangolins, it's more obscure how we would project their apparent emotional lives (do frogs even have emotional lives?) onto animal people. But I think this is pretty different from what @Doug McCrae is discussing. D&D lizardfolk aren't created by trying to imagine, in some sci-fi-ish way, what an intelligent lizard might be like - for a start, there's no particular reason to think that an intelligent, humanoid, egg-laying reptile would be a gregarious animal. They're a version of a pulp trope - you could take the entries for lizardfolk and "tribesmen", swap the names, and not have anything that is being said about either group of people change.



Cadence said:


> I guess my question about Orcs and Elves and Klingons and Vulcans is, what's their purpose?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But is the purpose of dwarves, halflings, and orcs (or Klingons and Vulcans) mostly to allow for a certain type of person to not be a human - often with a solid slop of some extreme stereotype thrown on?  That is, to essentially be another race of humans?



My knowledge of Star Trek isn't that great - bits and pieces of the original TV series and original movies. On that basis, it seems to me that the purpose of Vulcans is to serve a storytelling function, about the relationship between human intelligence and human morality. This is done by having Vulcans be hyper-intelligent but lacking in the sorts of emotions that underpin particularity and permissible self-regard (as opposed to strict impersonality) in human morality.

I created a Burning Wheel character a few weeks ago, for a new campaign. The character is a Dark Elf in JRRT's sense - mechanically, in BW, this is expressed by having the standard Elvish Grief trait turn into Spite. Like all BW Elves, Dark Elves can sing magical songs - one of these can allow other Elves to turn their Grief to Spite as they realise the futility of hope. In certain circumstances, a Dark Elf can turn Spite back to Grief - this requires (inter alia) being forgiven by a (non-Dark) Elf whom the Dark Elf has hurt in the course of play. A Dark Elf may also, in the right circumstances, turn his/her Spite into Hatred - a trait normally possessed only by Orcs.

So besides some cool images, the function of Elves and Orcs is to give a certain sort of mechanical expression to these emotional aspects of the human experience - Grief at the suffering of human due to their "fallen" nature; Spite (or, less evocatively, extreme realism/pessimism) at the futility of continuing to struggle for genuine achievement or redemption; Hatred as a response to all the horrible experiences the world throws at us. (Dwarves, in BW, have Greed as their Emotional Attribute.)

There are also material cultures associated with these different "stock" (the BW term for D&D's "race") - Dwarven armour, Elven cloaks, Dark Elves dark metal weapons that long to draw blood, jagged Orcish blades and Orcish wolf-riders - but at least in my view, these are not foregrounded in the same way in BW as in D&D, and hence the pulp-y and racialised tropes do not predominate.

Of course that's my view and experience. Others might differ.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think the notion of a "natural feeling story element" is challenging in this context. Because when we're talking about received tropes, naturalness can be a manifestation of that received character.
> 
> Speaking just for my part, I get a bit tired of framings/settings that treat agrarian and urban social and economic forms as the norm for humans, so that other forms of human life get framed as "primitive" and threats.
> 
> There is a complexity or a compounding, here, that results from the fact that RPGing, as an activity, is undertaken by people living in urban, literate societies. Which means it's easy to project that as a norm - so part of the "strangeness" of a creature is its distance from, or contrast with, those social forms.



Right, and here I think we all have to politely ask people with different cultural/social backgrounds to all give each other the same 'breathing room'. I think that sometimes is the gist of frustration with 'PC' ideas about gaming and race/culture. Not to absolve anyone of responsibility for how they depict things, but to be able to give and take. However, I do appreciate that our Western cultures have done a lot of 'giving' and not so much 'taking' in a sense, historically (or maybe we should call it taking instead of giving, either way).


pemerton said:


> In D&D, given its standard processes of play and associated mechanical systems, I think this is not just about Orcs vs humans. It's also, for instance, about rules for AC.



That is an interesting point which hadn't come up so far in any of this discussion. AC is an easy one to look at, you are 'better armored' the more metal you can drape on your body in D&D. I think many games follow a similar pattern. I don't think this is unrealistic necessarily, but clearly there are trade-offs, and different societies needn't be 'backwards' simply because they don't wear armor. Yet those characters would be harshly punished mechanically in a D&D game (certainly a classic D&D game, less so in 4e or 5e).


pemerton said:


> D&D lizardfolk aren't created by trying to imagine, in some sci-fi-ish way, what an intelligent lizard might be like - for a start, there's no particular reason to think that an intelligent, humanoid, egg-laying reptile would be a gregarious animal. They're a version of a pulp trope - you could take the entries for lizardfolk and "tribesmen", swap the names, and not have anything that is being said about either group of people change.



Right, Lizardmen (or nowadays folk) aren't about what an intelligent lizard race would be like. They are simply a recapitulation of old western tropes about 'primitive tribes', with the lizard part not carrying any significance at all except as an atmospheric detail.


pemerton said:


> My knowledge of Star Trek isn't that great - bits and pieces of the original TV series and original movies. On that basis, it seems to me that the purpose of Vulcans is to serve a storytelling function, about the relationship between human intelligence and human morality. This is done by having Vulcans be hyper-intelligent but lacking in the sorts of emotions that underpin particularity and permissible self-regard (as opposed to strict impersonality) in human morality.



I watched all the original series episodes a few months back. Spock is a pretty sophisticated character. For example when the 'space hippies' show up, he identifies closely with their philosophical stance and they respect him. He's controlled, and cool, in his outward appearance, but Vulcans are not depicted as emotionally challenged, more the opposite. Their instinctive nature is so strong that they were FORCED to become controlled, or else perish. The message as it relates to modern humanity is pretty transparent of course! The theme is extended to humans as well, with hints of a history in which civilization reached the very brink of annihilation before adopting more mature attitudes (and presumably the Vulcans helped, as they are said to have appeared at that time).

I mean, Star Trek has plenty of ludicrously stock trope aliens as well, though interestingly I think the original show was in some sense more enlightened in that regard than later series. The Klingons are bad guys, maybe even a bit evil by our standards (they threaten to torture Kirk and Spock once for example, and they systematically execute Organians who don't obey them). OTOH they keep to their agreements and seem to have their own cultural standards. The Romulans are the other race that shows up a few times. They are depicted as a militaristic society, but the individual characters are respectable and certainly don't seem to be depicted as 'inferior' or lacking in positive traits.


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 9, 2021)

So the gist of it is....
Because in the past some humans were falsely accused of being savage and evil, we cannot now have savage and evil make believe races in a roleplaying game.

First I will say that the past should never dictate what you can or cannot do today.  It's either inherently right or wrong.  

I'm not surprised that WoTC has gone the route they've gone.  If I still played D&D, I don't and never played 5e, I would just tell my players to ignore all that stupid stuff and pretty much go with the implied world setting of prior years.  

It's too bad.  I think WoTC is listening to their employees, west coast leftists, and think they represent most of America.  This is honestly a non-problem.  If in fact this is the next thing we need to do on the road to racial equality then no problem exists in America as it relates to racism.  Personally I don't think that is true and we should focus on real issues and not get sidetracked into stuff like this.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> If we're talking about animalian people, we get proud lionfolk and group-centred dogfolk and sneaky, slithery ratfolk. Maybe also tail-chasing catfolk, though they mightn't be a good fit for typical D&D.
> 
> If we get to non-mammalian animals, or even more obscure mammals like echidnas or pangolins, it's more obscure how we would project their apparent emotional lives (do frogs even have emotional lives?) onto animal people. But I think this is pretty different from what @Doug McCrae is discussing. D&D lizardfolk aren't created by trying to imagine, in some sci-fi-ish way, what an intelligent lizard might be like - for a start, there's no particular reason to think that an intelligent, humanoid, egg-laying reptile would be a gregarious animal. They're a version of a pulp trope - you could take the entries for lizardfolk and "tribesmen", swap the names, and not have anything that is being said about either group of people change.




Exactly.  That was what I was trying to allude to with my "some flavors of lizardmen".  I would be all in on a source book that took real life animals and humanoidized them with traits reflecting where they might end up.  Even the house cat


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 9, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> So the gist of it is....
> Because in the past some humans were falsely accused of being savage and evil, we cannot now have savage and evil make believe races in a roleplaying game.



Thanks for this post.  We were in danger of having a complex and nuanced discussion of race and otherness in fantasy and sci-fi world building, but you've brought it back to an overly simplistic caricature of an argument.  Well done.




Emerikol said:


> I'm not surprised that WoTC has gone the route they've gone.  If I still played D&D, I don't and never played 5e, I would just tell my players to ignore all that stupid stuff and pretty much go with the implied world setting of prior years.



To the extent that anyone mentioned wotc, it's to point out how their materials, especially 5e, are replete with racial stereotypes drawn from recent history


Emerikol said:


> It's too bad.  I think WoTC is listening to their employees, west coast leftists, and think they represent most of America.  This is honestly a non-problem.  If in fact this is the next thing we need to do on the road to racial equality then no problem exists in America as it relates to racism.



There are more places in the world than just America



Emerikol said:


> Personally I don't think that is true and we should focus on real issues and not get sidetracked into stuff like this.



So, I assume you do a lot of work in your local community supporting racial justice?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> I think WoTC is listening to... west coast leftists...



*Mod Note:*

And, if there wasn't anything else, that's what got you disinvited from this thread.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> To the extent that anyone mentioned wotc, it's to point out how their materials, especially 5e, are replete with racial stereotypes drawn from recent history



To be fair, I did mention their article, Diversity and Dungeons & Dragons, upthread. It was an important announcement imo and caused a huge amount of debate on ENWorld at the time.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 9, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> To be fair, I did mention their article, Diversity and Dungeons & Dragons, upthread. It was an important announcement imo and caused a huge amount of debate on ENWorld at the time.



Right. I think they are possibly still a little behind the curve on a few things, and the way they slipped with 5e in general (back a few years now, but still) has maybe put them a little on their back foot. Still, clearly the desire is there and they've been saying pretty much the right things.

Really I don't envy them all that much. You have a very hidebound community of D&D fans who seem rather unhappy with a lot of changes which smack of modernized approaches to RPGs. And at the same time you have a heritage game who's material is practically seething with potential to offend practically anyone who isn't 'anglo' if they are in the mood to be offended. Its kind of a rock and a hard place, and I'd work some fire into that analogy if I could... lol.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 9, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right. I think they are possibly still a little behind the curve on a few things, and the way they slipped with 5e in general (back a few years now, but still) has maybe put them a little on their back foot. Still, clearly the desire is there and they've been saying pretty much the right things.
> 
> Really I don't envy them all that much. You have a very hidebound community of D&D fans who seem rather unhappy with a lot of changes which smack of modernized approaches to RPGs. And at the same time you have a heritage game who's material is practically seething with potential to offend practically anyone who isn't 'anglo' if they are in the mood to be offended. Its kind of a rock and a hard place, and I'd work some fire into that analogy if I could... lol.



There was a little controversy recently because of the way they edited pocgamer's entry in Candlekeep mysteries.  Aside from cutting crucial chunks of the adventure, making it (according to reviews) sort of unplayable, they described a group of Grippli as "primitive" where the author didn't use that term.  From what I saw on Reddit and other places, in general the 5e community didn't think any of that was a big problem.  But to me, it indicates that the company is involving poc creators but only in a limited and token way.  And I want Kim Mohan (who edited that adventure) to explain, using his own words, why an author and some readers might not want him inserting that word in a description of a group of humanoid beings.  I'm not sure he could.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 9, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> There was a little controversy recently because of the way they edited pocgamer's entry in Candlekeep mysteries.  Aside from cutting crucial chunks of the adventure, making it (according to reviews) sort of unplayable, they described a group of Grippli as "primitive" where the author didn't use that term.  From what I saw on Reddit and other places, in general the 5e community didn't think any of that was a big problem.  But to me, it indicates that the company is involving poc creators but only in a limited and token way.  And I want Kim Mohan (who edited that adventure) to explain, using his own words, why an author and some readers might not want him inserting that word in a description of a group of humanoid beings.  I'm not sure he could.



So is 'primitive' a forbidden word now? Even though it only describes the level of technological development in relation to someone else?
And PoC creators are no guarantee for quality, so I am not sure what the cutting has to do with it.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 10, 2021)

Ixal said:


> So is 'primitive' now a forbidden word? Even though it only describes the level of technological development in relation to someone else?
> And PoC creators are no guarantee for quality, so I am not sure what the cutting has to do with it.



The idea of technological development, in which there are some more 'advanced' groups and some more 'backward' groups, with progress coming in a linear process, was a fundamental aspect of  european colonialism and its ideology.  It is what justified an imperialism that would conquer so as to "improve."  In the scenario, the PCs have to protect a group of "primitive" Grippli, and so have a relation to them to mimics colonial relationships. (I'm surprised that this response is coming up in this thread, because you can find extensive, concrete examples of these kind of parallels between dnd game material and real world colonialism, as well as long discussions of how and why it matters, upthread).

Nothing is "forbidden."  But the writer in question has an entire website considering the above dynamic, and so for an editor to introduce that element into his story without telling the creator is quite disrespectful (and the writer objected to its inclusion).  Pertinent to the topic of this thread, the writer also included Yuan-ti of different moral persuasions, and this was largely cut and reduced to the adventure being another "kill the evil humanoid monsters."

The question of editing relates to wotc's corporate dynamics, so I can't speak to that.  However, it seems that large portions of this adventure were cut without the author being made aware, even before he did press for them, and that other writers got more space for their adventures and were more clued-in to the process.  As a writer and a person of color, this kind of experience resonated with me, even if it is just a result of wotc's sloppy editing process.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 10, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> The idea of technological development, in which there are some more 'advanced' groups and some more 'backward' groups, with progress coming in a linear process, was a fundamental aspect of  european colonialism and its ideology.  It is what justified an imperialism that would conquer so as to "improve."  In the scenario, the PCs have to protect a group of "primitive" Grippli, and so have a relation to them to mimics colonial relationships. (I'm surprised that this response is coming up in this thread, because you can find extensive, concrete examples of these kind of parallels between dnd game material and real world colonialism, as well as long discussions of how and why it matters, upthread).
> 
> Nothing is "forbidden."  But the writer in question has an entire website considering the above dynamic, and so for an editor to introduce that element into his story without telling the creator is quite disrespectful (and the writer objected to its inclusion).  Pertinent to the topic of this thread, the writer also included Yuan-ti of different moral persuasions, and this was largely cut and reduced to the adventure being another "kill the evil humanoid monsters."
> 
> The question of editing relates to wotc's corporate dynamics, so I can't speak to that.  However, it seems that large portions of this adventure were cut without the author being made aware, even before he did press for them, and that other writers got more space for their adventures and were more clued-in to the process.  As a writer and a person of color, this kind of experience resonated with me, even if it is just a result of wotc's sloppy editing process.



Technological development might not be strictly linear, but many advances build up on each other, so it is quite valid to identify people who have not invented, discovered or are using many critical developments and thus their technological capabilities being rather low in comparison as primitive. That has nothing to do with colonial relations.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2021)

Ixal said:


> So is 'primitive' a forbidden word now? Even though it only describes the level of technological development in relation to someone else?
> And PoC creators are no guarantee for quality, so I am not sure what the cutting has to do with it.



Who decides what is 'primitive'? I mean, take some people who live by hunting and gathering. They have a toolkit, right? The technology which makes up that toolkit has been developed over a, literally, immeasurable length of time. Like, we cannot even say "technology started here." So is it more primitive than your average group of Americans living in Seattle? Most of our tech is maybe 100 years old, 200, 500, even the oldest of our technologies are what, 12,000 years old (going back to the first urban constructions). How can you call anything more primitive than something else? I mean, OK, maybe there are situations where you can, if some people are, say, refugees from a fallen civilization and they had to go reinvent stone axes from scratch. I don't think that's normally the case for any D&D cultures though. 

There are DEFINITELY better words to be used than 'primitive', it is simply inaccurate, and communicates the, probably erroneous, idea that the PCs tools and things are going to automatically be superior to those of a group of beings which has probably existed in their home environment for centuries, millennia, or possibly even much longer than that. 

OTOH there is no doubt that, say, 18th Century British had things like steel and guns that Native Americans lacked. However, I would note that the what those Native Americans made from that steel was versions of their own tools, which the English found to be quite handy (witness all the steel tomahawks they made)! Nor did Native Americans find firearms all that handy, except as a way to fight said English/Americans (or each other sometimes). So, it isn't clear that an objective evaluation would conclude that one group's tech was definitively superior to the others. When they came together, the result was some sort of fusion. 

Finally, I think it is fair to say that often one group has a superiority in terms of the operational means available to it. So Native Americans were not making steel, certainly not guns whereas in principle the British could potentially make tomahawks. However, making a stone tomahawk was still not a skill that British people had, any more than Native Americans were able to smelt iron. Either one could learn the other's skills, but Britain had operational means to do things like mass produce goods. Is this 'higher technology'? I mean, its kind of hard to say, that technology, in its most modern form, seems to be destroying the Earth. Maybe we were the ones who needed to learn something? Pity we didn't. 

The ultimate point is, these sorts of highly judgmental words and statements are very subjective, very context dependent, and generally close people's minds to ideas that they might actually want to let in. It seems like there might be better ways to phrase things.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2021)

CONTENT WARNING: VERY RACIST CLAIMS, IN QUOTATION

This post is about the way race determines morality in AD&D 1e (1977-1979) and D&D 5e (2014), and the correspondence with scientific racism.

*Racial Determinism in D&D*

In the _AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide_ (1979), morality seems to be determined by race. Subsequent publications, starting with Roger Moore's article _Half-orcs_ in _Dragon _#62 (1982), repudiated this until D&D 5e brought back racial determinism, and made it more explicit than it had ever been before. However in 2020, WotC radically changed direction again.

AD&D 1e DMG:

Half-Orcs are boors. They are rude, crude, crass, and generally obnoxious. Because most are cowardly they tend to be bullies and cruel to the weak, but they will quickly knuckle under to the stronger. This does not mean that all half-orcs are horrid, only most of them... They will always seek to gain the upper hand and dominate those around them so as to be able to exercise their natural tendencies; half-orcs are greedy too. They can, of course, favor their human parent more than their orcish one.​
This passage suggests that boorishness, rudeness, bullying and so forth are orcish "natural tendencies". When a half-orc does not have these personality traits it is because it favours its human parent.

Roger Moore, writing in _Dragon _#62, offered an environmental explanation for orcish evil: "Orcs are like this because of the influence of their deities… and because of their own past. Sages have uncovered much evidence showing that orcs developed in regions generally hostile to life; survival was difficult." By "influence of their deities", Moore meant religious instruction — "This attitude is reinforced in their religious ceremonies."

In _AD&D 1e Unearthed Arcana_ (1985), not only could PC drow and duergar be of any alignment, it was indicated that even for NPCs the listed alignment was only a tendency (emphasis mine):

Drow are _generally_ evil and chaotic in nature, though player characters are not required to be so.​​While the _majority_ of the members of this sub-race are of lawful evil alignment (with neutral tendencies), player characters who are gray dwarves may be of any alignment.​
The _AD&D 2e Complete Book of Humanoids_ (1993) took a similar approach to _Unearthed Arcana_ but expanded it to include a greater number of monstrous races.

More precision was provided by the _D&D 3e Monster Manual_ (2000) with the introduction of the alignment modifying categories Always, Usually, and Often. But even a monster listed as, for example, Always Chaotic Evil, such as a demon, had the possibility of redemption: "It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or one-in-a-million exceptions."

In D&D 5e the idea that alignment is unchangeable returned, and was made more explicit than it had been in AD&D 1e. _D&D 5e Player's Handbook_ (2014):

The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)​
_D&D 5e Volo's Guide to Monsters_ (2016):

No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task.​
In 2020 WotC radically changed its position with the announcement, Diversity and Dungeons & Dragons: "Orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples." In _Candlekeep Mysteries_ (2021), monster alignments were removed altogether.

*Scientific Racism*

Francisco Bethencourt, _Racisms _(2013):

The 1840s and 1850s presented a turning point in which scientific research on the variety of human beings became much more assertive, ideologically aggressive, and politically engaged. I call this new development scientific racialism, as it presented a scientific effort to justify and reify divisions as well as hierarchies of races, supposed to be innate, immutable, and perpetual.​
Josiah C Nott, _Types of Mankind_ (1854):

Whether an original diversity of races be admitted or not, the _permanence_ of existing physical types will not be questioned by any Archaeologist or Naturalist of the present day. Nor, by such competent arbitrators, can the consequent permanence of moral and intellectual peculiarities of types be denied.​​History affords no evidence that education, or any influence of civilization that may be brought to bear on races of inferior organization, can radically change their physical, nor, consequently, their moral, characters.​
Lothrop Stoddard, _The Rising Tide of Color_ (1920):

Each race-type, formed ages ago, and "set" by millenniums of isolation and inbreeding, is a stubbornly persistent entity. Each type possesses a special set of characters: not merely the physical characters visible to the naked eye, but moral, intellectual, and spiritual characters as well. All these characters are transmitted substantially unchanged from generation to generation.​
Robert Wald Sussman, _The Myth of Race_ (2014):

Glayde Whitney (1939– 2002)… was a geneticist at Florida State University… He claimed that just as "Pit Bulls raised by Cocker Spaniels grow up to be Pit Bulls," so "blacks will be blacks." No matter what their environmental circumstances, he believed, they display "evidence of maladjustment." No attempt to improve the cognitive skills or morals of African Americans would succeed.​


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2021)

On "primitive" and similar notions (eg "crude" used of material artefacts):

There is a long tradition of talking about material cultures in the social sciences. This tradition is hardly un-vexed! But at its best it manifests historical awareness.

Marshall Hodgson was a historian at U Chicago. His method of doing world history is broadly similar to Weber. In one of his essays (The Great Western Transmutation) he discusses (among other things) the Spanish conquest of Mexico. He compares the material technology of Spain, Turkey and China to the material culture of the Aztecs. The former three are broadly comparable; the latter he suggests is comparable to classical Sumer. This (in his view) is part of the explanation of how conquest was possible.

I'm a big fan of Hodgson and Weber, and use them in teaching. I think the technicalisation/rationalisation analysis of modernity is explanatorily powerful. Of course there are critics, some of whom I also use in teaching (eg Hobson's The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation). I get frustrated that (per Hobson) movable metal type was first invented in Korea and yet in schools it continues to be taught as a German invention.

Anyway, I think there is a big difference between nuanced analysis that tries to incorporate technological aspects of complex causal processes; and the use of "primitive" as a label in a game system, particularly if - in the posited world of the game - there is no explanation beyond an authorial fiat of "backwardsness" to explain _why_ there are differences in technology.

I think that last point is important though typically ignored. The main theme of Hodgson's essay that I mentioned above is that processes of gradual social diffusion maintained technological parity throughout the Eurasian and North African area for several thousand years; and that imperialism/colonialism in its modern form is one result of a social process that could in principle have taken place anywhere in that area (and almost commenced in 11th/12th century China), that happened to take place in western Europe, and that produces technological innovations at such a rate that (i) gradual processes of diffusion are no longer possible, while (ii) dramatic imbalances of power arise which lead to the actual processes of conquest and resulting diffusion that we have all experienced over the past several centuries.

A typical D&D world has (i) milennia of history, and (ii) no social process comparable to the emergence of modernity in Europe and its spread to the rest of the world, and yet (iii) ostensible technological contrasts between neighbouring peoples like (say) the Kingdom of Keoland in the World of Greyhawk (high mediaeval material culture) and the Lizardfolk of the Hool Marshes. Its a reversal of JRRT's Shire: Tolkien uses authorial fiat to give us a completely inexplicable combination of pre-modern social norms and trappings with industrial level material production; these D&D worlds use authorial fiat to give us completely inexplicable examples of "backwardsness" not because of a geographically-caused inability to participate in processes of diffusion of technological innovation, but because the author has decided that Lizardfolk (or Orcs, or Golbins, or . . .) are incapable of "development".

That's one basis of my dislike of the use of the notion of "primitive" peoples in FRPGing.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 10, 2021)

pemerton said:


> On "primitive" and similar notions (eg "crude" used of material artefacts):
> 
> There is a long tradition of talking about material cultures in the social sciences. This tradition is hardly un-vexed! But at its best it manifests historical awareness.
> 
> ...




Its a concept that people gloss over I guess because it is still so much a part of contemporary global culture, now with different names, for example in the field of development and the usage of "developed" and "developing" to describe societies.  .  Same thing with "industrialization," as if current economic transformations in, say, south china, will be exactly parallel to Britain during the nineteenth century.

Dnd communities are special because they will simultaneously port over this worldview into a high fantasy setting _and_ claim that it's just fictional and has no relationship to the real world.  And then tell you to stop talking about it.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Dnd communities are special because they will simultaneously port over this worldview into a high fantasy setting _and_ claim that it's just fictional and has no relationship to the real world.  And then tell you to stop talking about it.



They will also assert that verisimilitude is very important to them even though their authorially-stipulated social forms are utterly inexplicable on any social scientific basis!

EDITED to add: I've got no objection to authorial stipulation in lieu of realism. But then you have to own the meaning of the tropes and received ideas that inform your stipulations. That doesn't have to mean saying or writing nothing. But it does preclude just telling people not to talk about what you've written or said. No one has the privilege of being their own last word.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 10, 2021)

pemerton said:


> They will also assert that verisimilitude is very important to them even though their authorially-stipulated social forms are utterly inexplicable on any social scientific basis!
> 
> EDITED to add: I've got no objection to authorial stipulation in lieu of realism. But then you have to own the meaning of the tropes and received ideas that inform your stipulations. That doesn't have to mean saying or writing nothing. But it does preclude just telling people not to talk about what you've written or said. No one has the privilege of being their own last word.



Right?  People will say that their world is "medieval European fantasy" and in the next breath talk about its gold-based cash economy.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Right?  People will say that their world is "medieval European fantasy" and in the next breath talk about its gold-based cash economy.



Yeah, obviously gold is not terribly realistic. OTOH cash was quite a bit more prevalent than traditional ideas about 'Dark Age Europe' make room for. In fact historians of Medieval Europe will laugh you out of the room if you utter that phrase in their presence these days. Now, obviously 6th Century North Western Europe was not in general a place where cash was commonplace in everyday life, such as it is in D&D games, typically. OTOH even the 5th Century Saxon 'kings' issued coinage. It was mostly silver of course, though gold coins did exist in all periods and were minted from time-to-time. The Romans definitely minted them too.

Random people who play D&D obviously get a lot of historical ideas wrong, but we all do understand certain basics. Separate social roles/specialization, how communities can organize, etc. Anyway, the game needs to be playable, so cash economy, little racism against other demi-humans (strongly doubt that one would exist, lol), equality of the sexes, etc.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 10, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Who decides what is 'primitive'? I mean, take some people who live by hunting and gathering. They have a toolkit, right? The technology which makes up that toolkit has been developed over a, literally, immeasurable length of time. Like, we cannot even say "technology started here." So is it more primitive than your average group of Americans living in Seattle? Most of our tech is maybe 100 years old, 200, 500, even the oldest of our technologies are what, 12,000 years old (going back to the first urban constructions). How can you call anything more primitive than something else? I mean, OK, maybe there are situations where you can, if some people are, say, refugees from a fallen civilization and they had to go reinvent stone axes from scratch. I don't think that's normally the case for any D&D cultures though.
> 
> There are DEFINITELY better words to be used than 'primitive', it is simply inaccurate, and communicates the, probably erroneous, idea that the PCs tools and things are going to automatically be superior to those of a group of beings which has probably existed in their home environment for centuries, millennia, or possibly even much longer than that.
> 
> ...



Primitive is a very common and widely used word describing a vast technological difference or a lack of sophistication. And it is simply a fact that this sort of technological difference existed in history with "primitive" being the world to describe that.
Saying that "a toolkit has been developed over a, literally, immeasurable length of time." doesn't mean anything. Everyones toolkit has. Only that some tools are much more efficient, but require more knowledge and infrastructure to maintain so not everyone has access to them.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Primitive is a very common and widely used word describing a vast technological difference or a lack of sophistication.



I don't think it is very widely used in contemporary social science. At least I don't come across it all that often.

It occurs in older work eg Durkheim, but it's one of the things I have to encourage my students to disregard/overlook so that they can find what is of value in Durkheim despite its use.

Further, and as I posted upthread, _in the real world_ there are explanations for the diffusion or non-diffusion of various technologies. And those explanations don't depend upon theories of the "backwardsness" of particular peoples. Whereas in D&D that's exactly the explanation that is put forward.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 10, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't think it is very widely used in contemporary social science. At least I don't come across it all that often.
> 
> It occurs in older work eg Durkheim, but it's one of the things I have to encourage my students to disregard/overlook so that they can find what is of value in Durkheim despite its use.
> 
> Further, and as I posted upthread, _in the real world_ there are explanations for the diffusion or non-diffusion of various technologies. And those explanations don't depend upon theories of the "backwardsness" of particular peoples. Whereas in D&D that's exactly the explanation that is put forward.



It is also used in multiple other fields like mathematics or programming to (often, but not always) describe basic elements.

And while there might be reasons why technology progressed slower or differently in some parts of the world, the word primitive describes the current technological difference between two groups without touching history.
So, coming back to D&D, when a group of adventurers come from Cormyr from example and meet a group of Grippli who fashin all their tools out of wood, stone and bone and their buildings out of mud and do not know how to smelt metal, let alone create steel or might not even be aware of that concept, then they are quite objectively primitive for those adventurers.
The same way Cormyr would look primitive to someone from Ancient Netheril or to someone from a modern/scifi world.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2021)

Ixal said:


> And while there might be reasons why technology progressed slower or differently in some parts of the world, the word primitive describes the current technological difference between two groups without touching history.



It inevitably touches history.

In the actual world we live in, their are reasons - processes of social causation - which explain the diffusion of technologies.

In FRPGing, to posit (i) differences in technology, with (ii) no evident explanation of those differences, is implicitly (iii) to buy into the notion that there are reasons inherent in peoples that explain those differences. Which is the reproduction of racist tropes.



Ixal said:


> So, coming back to D&D, when a group of adventurers come from Cormyr from example and meet a group of Grippli who fashin all their tools out of wood, stone and bone and their buildings out of mud and do not know how to smelt metal, let alone create steel or might not even be aware of that concept, then they are quite objectively primitive for those adventurers.



Why has there not been the diffusion of technology from Cormyr to the Grippli?


----------



## Ixal (Jul 10, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Why has there not been the diffusion of technology from Cormyr to the Grippli?



Ask that to the designers of the FR.
Also, why has there not been a diffusion of technology from Europe, through Costal Africa, to Central/Interior Africa? Or from Europe to the Natives in North America? Or China/Japan to South East Asia? That technology is not adopted is hardly unheard of. A concrete example would be that Shaka Zulu refused to buy guns when it was offered to him as he thought short spears (impi) and shields are superior.

Even today groups and tribes remain who voluntarily live without technology or are even consciously left alone by the rest of the world and remain on a stone age technological level.
The word primitive describes the current situation, regardless of reason.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Primitive is a very common and widely used word describing a vast technological difference or a lack of sophistication. And it is simply a fact that this sort of technological difference existed in history with "primitive" being the world to describe that.
> Saying that "a toolkit has been developed over a, literally, immeasurable length of time." doesn't mean anything. Everyones toolkit has. Only that some tools are much more efficient, but require more knowledge and infrastructure to maintain so not everyone has access to them.



This is silly. It is like the delusional notion that some lifeforms are 'primitive'. Every single living thing we know of on Earth today descends from LUCA, they are all equally shaped by evolutionary pressures. Some happen to have occupied niches/environments in which the optimum solution was reached long ago. That does not make them 'more primitive'. 

In a similar way, when an Amazonian Native is living in the rain forest, they are accessing a toolkit just as sophisticated and INFINITELY more iterated on, as some European American living in the US. It is just different. Their society has not developed the same level of operational capabilities in the sense of being able to employ materials science to make a wide variety of things. Calling that 'primitive' is a pretty bad idea. Those people were able to exist in their environment successfully for many millennia. Ours will be destroyed by our 'sophisticated' methods in a couple more generations. Who is really the primitive here?

Other illustrations of the genuine silliness of this notion: It has been discovered that the traditional land management practices in the Sahel are FAR more effective than those which western agencies, with all their supposed scientific advancement, attempted to impose. The people engaging in these practices have a very sophisticated understanding of how manage their land, and employ ecological and biological concepts which were completely unknown and not understood by our supposedly 'more advanced' experts. Likewise, nomadic pastoralists, such as the Masai in Kenya, have an extremely sophisticated understanding and practice of range management. Western interests came in and tried to 'improve production', etc. and all they ended up doing was wrecking the range. Turns out 1000's of years of native technology, and that is what it is, technology and science, far outstripped the so called 'experts'. 

I agree, modern western civilization has any number of advantages and capabilities that traditional societies generally lack. The problem is, it cuts both ways, and when you label one as 'advanced' and one as 'primitive', you are simply mistaken. Nor do I think it is right to say that modern urban civilization has a toolkit which is just as ancient as anyone else's. Urbanization and industrialization are a true change of paradigm and rely largely on a new and novel set of tools. I mean, sure, Europe has in theory traditional medicinal, building, horticultural, etc. techniques that are ancient, but they are not the basis of most of our modern society.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2021)

pemerton said:


> It inevitably touches history.
> 
> In the actual world we live in, their are reasons - processes of social causation - which explain the diffusion of technologies.
> 
> ...



Again, I think I would look at it in a different light. The people in Cormyr have a toolkit which is adapted to their environment and lifeways. The Grippli equally have the same thing, the toolkit is simply different. It is certainly possible to ask why any given technical innovation hasn't diffused from one to the other, but there isn't a 'gradient' in any overall sense. And of course the situation is more complex, there are clearly interrelationships between technologies. So if manufacturing things, probably ceramics, using ovens and heat (charcoal presumably), is not a thing that can be accomplished in a swamp, then Grippli are not going to achieve iron. They simply will not get to smelting, it isn't an activity which can be undertaken in their environment. Some people from Cormyr could show them how to do it, but it won't matter. Likewise, the people of Cormyr are not going to learn how to make poison darts from certain types of swamp frogs. 

Again, maybe the steel weapons of the Cormyrians are more effective than the bone, stone, and wood ones of the Grippli. They are not 'more advanced', simply more effective.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 10, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> This is silly. It is like the delusional notion that some lifeforms are 'primitive'. Every single living thing we know of on Earth today descends from LUCA, they are all equally shaped by evolutionary pressures. Some happen to have occupied niches/environments in which the optimum solution was reached long ago. That does not make them 'more primitive'.
> 
> In a similar way, when an Amazonian Native is living in the rain forest, they are accessing a toolkit just as sophisticated and INFINITELY more iterated on, as some European American living in the US. It is just different. Their society has not developed the same level of operational capabilities in the sense of being able to employ materials science to make a wide variety of things. Calling that 'primitive' is a pretty bad idea. Those people were able to exist in their environment successfully for many millennia. Ours will be destroyed by our 'sophisticated' methods in a couple more generations. Who is really the primitive here?
> 
> ...



The only silly thing here is to argue that all toolkits are equal. They simply are not. A simple (primitive) toolkit for the Amazonas simply far behind the toolkit of developed nation. Just look at for example medicine, including treating diseases prevalent in the Amazonas. Even the "foreign but more advanced" toolkit would be better suited for living in the Amazonas as the one of the natives themselves, simply because it gives you more tools to alter the environment.

The reason why the traditional land management in the Sahel are more suited to the region is because they do not have the tools in their kit to implement all the suggestions. If they had access to equipment like the western world has then their traditional form of land management would be clearly inferior.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Again, I think I would look at it in a different light. The people in Cormyr have a toolkit which is adapted to their environment and lifeways. The Grippli equally have the same thing, the toolkit is simply different. It is certainly possible to ask why any given technical innovation hasn't diffused from one to the other, but there isn't a 'gradient' in any overall sense. And of course the situation is more complex, there are clearly interrelationships between technologies. So if manufacturing things, probably ceramics, using ovens and heat (charcoal presumably), is not a thing that can be accomplished in a swamp, then Grippli are not going to achieve iron. They simply will not get to smelting, it isn't an activity which can be undertaken in their environment. Some people from Cormyr could show them how to do it, but it won't matter. Likewise, the people of Cormyr are not going to learn how to make poison darts from certain types of swamp frogs.
> 
> Again, maybe the steel weapons of the Cormyrians are more effective than the bone, stone, and wood ones of the Grippli. They are not 'more advanced', simply more effective.



No. Iron and especially steel tools and weapons are more advanced than bone and stone weapons, not only because they are more effective but also they require much more knowledge to craft. The same way a laser edged tungsten steel blade would be more advanced than a hand forged steel sword.
The idea that everything is equal is simply not true.


----------



## Monadology (Jul 10, 2021)

The rejection of a sliding scale from 'primitive' to 'advanced' in the description of technology and culture does not imply and certainly is not equivalent to the claim that 'everything is equal.'

The whole point of AbdulAlhazred's evolutionary analogy as I understood it is that comparing these things on a scale is incoherent. The notion of 'equal' depends on the idea that we can compare things on some kind of scale. The whole point is that evaluation of the 'quality' of technology has to be contextual and fine-grained.

This allows room for the notion that there are technologies from the so-called 'developed' world that will, in fact, be contextually quite useful for those in the 'developing' world, so being able to point to modern medicine is not quite the counterexample you make it out to be. It's only a counterexample to the implausible position that all human cultures have exhaustively perfected and discovered the technologies useful in their context, which no one in this thread has suggested.

EDIT: I'd also like to pose the question: what useful work does a framework that approaches the analysis of technology primarily in terms of how 'primitive' or 'advanced' it is actually accomplish? What's the loss of abandoning a coarse-grained, linear scale in this case? Why is it important to defend it?


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 10, 2021)

The use of primitive culture has been used from the nineteenth century to the present day to justify colonial appropriations.  It is inherently judgmental and used to assert the intellectual superiority of the West (in which technological advancement was associated with the concept of "Civilization").  It treats contemporary people as if they were in the "stone age," and thus relics of a different era, minimizing their knowledges and world views. Until the mid 20th century (at best), the "primitivism" of groups was thought to be biologically determined.

There are *mountains* of research dedicated to tracing this history and its relation to European colonialism.  Something I said upthread, is that one can be aware of this intellectual history and still engage with creative art that makes use of it, dnd included.  But I will say that it is frustrating when you bring it up, either just to note it or deal with it in the game in some productive way, only for it to be immediately dismissed as a non-existent problem.

With regards to CM, for an author to try to write an adventure for mass audience that presents these issues in a way that is different than is typical, only for the editor to come back in and a) add language that the author considers problematic ("primitive") b) remove a faction of good-aligned humanoids and c) make the adventure all about killing the inherently evil-aligned humanoids must be extremely frustrating and feel very disrespectful (and incidentally it's bad design, since it seems to have turned an adventure with multiple paths and multiple factions into a linear combat fest).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2021)

CONTENT WARNING: VERY RACIST CLAIMS, IN QUOTATION

This post proposes a possible pathway whereby the ideas of scientific racists such as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard could have influenced the AD&D 1e orc and half-orc via very similar ideas expressed in 1949 in the letters pages of the magazine _Planet Stories_. As described upthread there is a remarkable correspondence between Grant and Stoddard's notions about black people having higher fertility rates and dominant genetic traits, and "fecund" orcs (AD&D 1e PHB) and 90% of half-orcs being "basically orcs" (AD&D 1e MM).

Gary Gygax, born in 1938, was an avid reader of 1950s science fiction and fantasy magazines. He read back issues going back to 1940:


			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> From 1950 through 1956 I read about every book and magazine of F & SF published in the US, and I bought used pulps so as to read back through the entire 1940 on era.



Source

Letters from Edwin Sigler expressing similar ideas to those of Grant and Stoddard were published in the 1948 Fall and 1949 Spring issues of _Planet Stories_. _Planet Stories_ 1949 Spring:

As to allowing intermarriages that is silly. The victim of such action could not inherit any vigor from the lower race because it isn't there and he couldn't inherit any good qualities from the other parent because only scum would wish to intermarry. Since the term here refers to Negro and white marriages mainly, the following would be the result. The poor child would be neither white or black. What strength he might have inherited from the white would be submerged in the slothfulness of the black...​​No, the law against mixing races serves to protect the possible child as well and has been observed as far back as recorded history runs. Even the ancient Jews practiced it...​​It is the law of heredity that the lower must always drag down the higher and a person is a fool that attempts to violate it.​
Sigler, in both letters, uses the racial slur "mongrel" to refer to people who are biracial. _Planet Stories_ 1948 Fall: "As far as these ancient civilizations are concerned you cannot prove anything by them because the races that built them are not the races that occupy those lands now. They are merely mongrel descendants of the builder races."

In JRR Tolkien's _The Lord of the Rings_ (1954-1955), orcs are often described as "swart" or "black". Orc-human hybrids are encountered several times. Their creation is a "black evil"  and the result of a "foul craft."

A huge orc-chieftain… leaped into the chamber... His broad flat face was swart, his eyes were like coals, and his tongue was red.​​Presently two orcs came into view. One was... of a small breed, black-skinned, with wide and snuffling nostrils.​​In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor.​​These creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun.​​Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!​
It seems quite possible that Gygax took Tolkien's orcs and half-orcs and, probably unconsciously, combined them with views openly expressed by Sigler or his like-minded contemporaries to create D&D half-orc "mongrels" that "favor the orcish strain heavily." (AD&D 1e MM) This post is not saying that Gygax agreed with Sigler.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 11, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Ask that to the designers of the FR.



I don't need to. I know! The designers drew in pulp tropes, which in turn reflect "scientific" racism. That's the point of (much of) this thread.



Ixal said:


> why has there not been a diffusion of technology from Europe, through Costal Africa, to Central/Interior Africa? Or from Europe to the Natives in North America? Or China/Japan to South East Asia?



There has been. I don't know how much time you've spent in central Africa, but if you go there you will find that people live in houses modelled on European designs, wear clothes that are European or North American in conception, use mobile phones that have been imported, etc. One effect of colonialism has been to generate this sort of rapid diffusion of technologies.

If you are suggesting that there was not diffusion of technology from China to other parts of Eurasia prior to the period of European domination of world affairs, then you are wrong. There obviously was.



Ixal said:


> That technology is not adopted is hardly unheard of. A concrete example would be that Shaka Zulu refused to buy guns when it was offered to him as he thought short spears (impi) and shields are superior.
> 
> Even today groups and tribes remain who voluntarily live without technology or are even consciously left alone by the rest of the world and remain on a stone age technological level.



Shaka Zulu is one actor in a brief period. The ANC used guns.

PNG has been colonised for around 100 years, and some parts of PNG have had "contact" for less than that. People in PNG wear t-shirts.

There are some Masai who are self-conscious about the maintenance of tradition (of course this is a comportment towards material and other culture that only becomes possible in the context of rapid social change). They use mobile phones.

How long have the Grippli existed in Cormyr? What are the social processes they are participating in? Obviously there is no in-fiction answer to this. But the answer to the question _why are they authored in that fashion_ is straightforward, as I already posted.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 11, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would look at it in a different light. The people in Cormyr have a toolkit which is adapted to their environment and lifeways. The Grippli equally have the same thing, the toolkit is simply different. It is certainly possible to ask why any given technical innovation hasn't diffused from one to the other, but there isn't a 'gradient' in any overall sense. And of course the situation is more complex, there are clearly interrelationships between technologies. So if manufacturing things, probably ceramics, using ovens and heat (charcoal presumably), is not a thing that can be accomplished in a swamp, then Grippli are not going to achieve iron.



I don't think I used the notion of _a gradient_. I did talk about _differences_. You own use of the verb _to achieve_ shows that there are some challenges in locutions here.

That said, Australia has no manufacturing capacity for mobile phones, nor any more for cars, yet both are pretty ubiquitous. The previous sentence is also true if "Kenya" is substituted for "Australia", except that Kenya has never had a manufacturing capacity for cars.

Notions of _core_ and _periphery_ can be useful for trying to get a handle on patterns of wealth and trade, some dynamics of diffusion, etc. (Such notions are also going to have to be tentative, given that the periphery (eg Mongolia, or Britain) can feed back into the core in surprising and dramatic ways.) It seems that any "realistic" treatment of the Grippli vis-a-vis Cormyr would have to accept that they are going to be on the periphery, in the same sort of way that (in Europe) Albania has been peripheral in a way that Austria has not been, or (in the US) South Dakota is peripheral in a way that California is not. We might except Grippli manufacturing capacity and trading significance to be less than found in the core of Cormyr. But we wouldn't expect "primitiveness" in the sense of - say - a resolute determination to not use those metal knives or axes that are available. Or as far as the waterproofing of houses is concerned, we wouldn't expect any significant difference in performance between the houses built by Grippli and the houses built in the nearest Cormyrean villages. Whereas we would probably expect fewer opera houses or grand cathedrals among the Grippli than in the Cormyrean capital.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> maybe the steel weapons of the Cormyrians are more effective than the bone, stone, and wood ones of the Grippli. They are not 'more advanced', simply more effective.





AbdulAlhazred said:


> modern western civilization has any number of advantages and capabilities that traditional societies generally lack. The problem is, it cuts both ways, and when you label one as 'advanced' and one as 'primitive', you are simply mistaken. Nor do I think it is right to say that modern urban civilization has a toolkit which is just as ancient as anyone else's. Urbanization and industrialization are a true change of paradigm and rely largely on a new and novel set of tools. I mean, sure, Europe has in theory traditional medicinal, building, horticultural, etc. techniques that are ancient, but they are not the basis of most of our modern society.



I don't think notions of "primitive" or "advanced" are terribly useful. But notions of causal dependence can be useful. You gave an example: smelting iron is causally dependent on access to certain resources. Perhaps a bit more intricately, having access to vast quantities of steel is dependent on having railways to cart ore and coal, which are in term dependent on having access to vast quantities of steel - this is (one example of) the self-sustaining causal process of industrialisation that can emerge only under pretty distinct conditions.

Which relates to your remarks about a "novel set of tools". This is, at its core, the rationalisation/technicalisation thesis found in (eg) Weber and Hodgson. In one sense, this social form is very durable - once it emerges, it appears that it absorbs/destroys all others that it comes into contact with. (One version of this idea is Weber's "iron cage"; another is Marx's idea of the power of liberal capitalism to dissolve all other relations of production.)  In another sense, though, there is no reason to think it is can last - Weber flagged as the limit the consumption of fossil fuels; it seems more likely now that the limit is the consumption of atmospheric capacity. In this way it is different from hunter-gatherer or pastoralist technologies which have shown themselves to be very durable on their own terms (I use that last qualification because they have also shown themselves highly liable to destruction/absoprtion by industrial modernity - see the opening sentences of this paragraph).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 11, 2021)

Ixal said:


> The reason why the traditional land management in the Sahel are more suited to the region is because they do not have the tools in their kit to implement all the suggestions. If they had access to equipment like the western world has then their traditional form of land management would be clearly inferior.



I don't think this is true. Or at least I doubt that you have any evidence for its truth.

I say the above because I remember a conversation I had a couple of years ago with a professor of agricultural science, who was talking about research he had done in Benin. This showed that the adoption of techniques recommended by the FAO supposedly to increase production were actually, over the medium-to-long term, reducing production because those techniques - by changing land and plant forms - were destabilising micro-climates that had generated necessary rainfall.

My guess is that my previous paragraph would be an example of the sort of thing @AbdulAlhazred had in mind in his post.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 11, 2021)

I honestly think far too many people are reading way to much into way too many elements of various fantasy settings. 

Also, things like "Since animal comparisons were used to demean ethnicities" is being used to falsely accuse anthropomorphic and/or uplift animals of being racist content about those ethnicities...  Overgeneralization. Looking for offense by misattribution of causality. Anthropomorphs in fantasy are usually not stand-ins for some historic group; they're usually there specifically to NOT be some other ethicity.

Just because Tolkien's Orcs are evil and deformed Mongols, that doesn't mean that those in other works, even those which draw heavily from Tolkien, are aware of Tolkien's inspiration/source, let alone share it. Fundamentally, the trope of orcs isn't related to Mongols anymore. It's outgrown the origin. It's become a species, not just a culture, outside of Tolkien's works and the games directly derived from them.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 11, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> The use of primitive culture has been used from the nineteenth century to the present day to justify colonial appropriations.  It is inherently judgmental and used to assert the intellectual superiority of the West (in which technological advancement was associated with the concept of "Civilization").  It treats contemporary people as if they were in the "stone age," and thus relics of a different era, minimizing their knowledges and world views. Until the mid 20th century (at best), the "primitivism" of groups was thought to be biologically determined.



It's that last sentence in particular that I think is important.

As I've tried to set out in a few recent posts in this thread, there are good theoretical frameworks available for thinking about processes of the diffusion of technology. These weren't available to the "scientific" racists - they emerge out of the sociology that is developed/invented in the second half of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century; which is to say that they emerge during the heyday of "scientific" racism.

Once we have these theories available, we can see that biological explanations are (i) silly and (ii) themselves the expression of the sorts of ideological processes that good sociology explains.

And we can also see that to the extent that FRPGing clings to these sorts of biological explanations - as it clearly does, per the discussions in this thread and especially @Doug McCrae's exegetical work - it is rejecting realism in favour of racist tropes.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 11, 2021)

Ixal said:


> The only silly thing here is to argue that all toolkits are equal. They simply are not. A simple (primitive) toolkit for the Amazonas simply far behind the toolkit of developed nation. Just look at for example medicine, including treating diseases prevalent in the Amazonas. Even the "foreign but more advanced" toolkit would be better suited for living in the Amazonas as the one of the natives themselves, simply because it gives you more tools to alter the environment.
> 
> The reason why the traditional land management in the Sahel are more suited to the region is because they do not have the tools in their kit to implement all the suggestions. If they had access to equipment like the western world has then their traditional form of land management would be clearly inferior.



No, they are superior BECAUSE THEY HAVE A TECHNOLOGY (knowledge, tools, and procedures) which the supposedly 'more advanced' western 'development experts' didn't have. Nor did they bother to even ask about it, because, like you, they ASSUMED they were 'more advanced' and had nothing to learn from the locals. They learned the hard way through FAILURE that they were wrong! 

Same with the Masai, British ranchers kicked them off a lot of the range, now the British have given up ranching because they cannot manage the range effectively, but the Masai are still there, and now they're reclaiming the rest of their land. I saw it, I was there. 

What you are displaying here is simply cultural chauvinism and an arrogant lack of appreciation for what you don't understand and automatically assume is inferior. This is largely because of an ideology which was developed in Europe in the 16th through 19th Century in order to justify exploiting other people, colonialism, slavery, etc. It is worth stepping away from and looking at objectively.


Ixal said:


> No. Iron and especially steel tools and weapons are more advanced than bone and stone weapons, not only because they are more effective but also they require much more knowledge to craft. The same way a laser edged tungsten steel blade would be more advanced than a hand forged steel sword.
> The idea that everything is equal is simply not true.



Steel can be a better material. If you had the choice of either or both, that would be nice. However, what is a steel blade going to do in the rainforest? Besides rust? You better bring something with you to sharpen it. See what I mean? Nor are we talking about 'equal', we're talking about more or less primitive. I have said a dozen times that primitive vs advanced and more or less effective are two different measures. It may be that you simply won't get the most effective item in every place. That doesn't mean the local culture is unsophisticated. It simply means that they operate under different constraints.


----------



## transmission89 (Jul 11, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I honestly think far too many people are reading way to much into way too many elements of various fantasy settings.
> 
> Also, things like "Since animal comparisons were used to demean ethnicities" is being used to falsely accuse anthropomorphic and/or uplift animals of being racist content about those ethnicities...  Overgeneralization. Looking for offense by misattribution of causality. Anthropomorphs in fantasy are usually not stand-ins for some historic group; they're usually there specifically to NOT be some other ethicity.
> 
> Just because Tolkien's Orcs are evil and deformed Mongols, that doesn't mean that those in other works, even those which draw heavily from Tolkien, are aware of Tolkien's inspiration/source, let alone share it. Fundamentally, the trope of orcs isn't related to Mongols anymore. It's outgrown the origin. It's become a species, not just a culture, outside of Tolkien's works and the games directly derived from them.



These are the logical continuations of the initial arguing points . If you accept the argument that Orcs have problems, this is the absurdity you open the door to. Then we have the “trope problems” of barbarians as a class (certainly far more problematic from a rw perspective than fantasy creatures as it actually has rw connotations of views of human cultures- yet strangely is never brought up) , sexist tropes of witches and hags, feudalism which defines people’s places in “the natural order” etc. And again, his Orcs are categorically not Mongols. It was a racially loaded physically descriptive simile. I already discussed this in post #53, so please, let’s not have that quote thrown up yet again…

And you’re right, even were the origins the most problematic that ever were, the use in game has outgrown them (the genetic fallacy) I was also talking about.
But alas, given the lengths that some have gone to draw these tenuous connections between an apparently ready well of racist literature, as well as descriptive othering (which has been used as a literary device for fantastical monsters before being applied by racists to different ethnic groups, to dehumanise them and make them seem like fantastical monsters *) you’ll reach the same conclusion I have that it’s akin to shouting in the wind with this dogma.  Though take comfort, as I have, in the fact it’s only really a small minority of posters (let alone playing population) that reach this far.

As for POC gamer’s work. Meh. He makes the case against himself in his two part complaint about feeling hard done by. He outlines in part 1 how wotc operates with outside writers, then complains how they do just that. His writing of his initial adventure was so far beyond the scope of what had been asked, and tried to bring in wide reaching lore changes to the forgotten realms with it. You bet that was going to be cut. I believe also the word primitive used in that adventure was only used to refer to the state of the structures in a Grippli faction hideaway camp (having fled from the problems detailed in the adventure) rather than to the grippli themselves (though I’m happy to be corrected on this as I’ve not looked too carefully at the adventure).

*people of colour have not been the sole recipients of this. The Roman view of Celts for example, or the Anglo Saxon view of Viking raiders upon their shores etc. Nor have people of colour been free of using this, Japanese views on Koreans and Chinese prior to WW2 etc. Pretty much all humanity has been awful to one another throughout history. Which is why monsters are great, so specific links to human groups are avoided in classic tales  of good vs evil, or, if you want to go the other way, challenging perceptions of what it means to be humans when we see aspects of all of us reflected back to us. They’re flexible like that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 11, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I honestly think far too many people are reading way to much into way too many elements of various fantasy settings.
> 
> Also, things like "Since animal comparisons were used to demean ethnicities" is being used to falsely accuse anthropomorphic and/or uplift animals of being racist content about those ethnicities...  Overgeneralization. Looking for offense by misattribution of causality. Anthropomorphs in fantasy are usually not stand-ins for some historic group; they're usually there specifically to NOT be some other ethicity.
> 
> Just because Tolkien's Orcs are evil and deformed Mongols, that doesn't mean that those in other works, even those which draw heavily from Tolkien, are aware of Tolkien's inspiration/source, let alone share it. Fundamentally, the trope of orcs isn't related to Mongols anymore. It's outgrown the origin. It's become a species, not just a culture, outside of Tolkien's works and the games directly derived from them.



Once someone has been made aware that images, terminology, etc. have their origins in bigotry, they can no longer claim clean hands if they continue to use them.  By doing so, you give the bigotry a life preserver.  Imagine if, for some reason, instead of using RW racist slurs in their descriptions of certain species, game designers lived by the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words“, and used slightly altered _images_ of Mammy, Sambo, Mandingo and The Black Brute in monster stat blocks.

Simply using the negative stereotypes in written form sans actual imagery is no less reprehensible, just easier to spin.

I have done this myself with various slurs that I learned because they were in common usage in my social circles, and I had no idea as to their nature.  Once I knew better, I stopped.  I excised those phrases and slurs from my speech and writing.

Honestly, it’s not a difficult thing to be _so minimally_ respectful of others.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 11, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Also, things like "Since animal comparisons were used to demean ethnicities" is being used to falsely accuse anthropomorphic and/or uplift animals of being racist content about those ethnicities...  Overgeneralization. Looking for offense by misattribution of causality. Anthropomorphs in fantasy are usually not stand-ins for some historic group; they're usually there specifically to NOT be some other ethicity.



I should stress that I'm not saying all use of beings with both human and animal features in fiction is racist. The purpose of the quotations from Katie Hopkins et al. in post #245 upthread was to demonstrate that such usage can be racist. It's part of a counter-argument to the potential objection that the use of animal people in fiction can't be racist because they are more like animals than people.

Post #32 upthread summarises my full argument and the posts linked from #32 develop it and provide evidence.


----------



## John Dallman (Jul 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> And we can also see that to the extent that FRPGing clings to these sorts of biological explanations - as it clearly does, per the discussions in this thread and especially @Doug McCrae's exegetical work - it is rejecting realism in favour of racist tropes.



Would you settle for "quite a lot of it does?" Because I, and several others who started FRPing early on, found a different kind of setting emerged from the wide variety of sapient species and non-sapient monsters that D&D presents, if you try to rationalise it at all. 

It's completely implausible that they all evolved in the same world. That can be tossed out to start with. So there needs to be a different explanation. Those fall into two families:

Creation: somebody deliberately created all these species. The best-developed version of this that I've seen has the primal inhabitants of the world creating species for particular tasks. Dwarves were created to make material things, elves to make art, trolls that can eat anything as garbage disposal units, and so on. Gnomes were a variety of dwarf that tasted nicer to the dragons who made these species; giants were for earthmoving or war and humans and orcs both seem to have been made as fast-breeding species suitable for war, by different factions that had slightly different ideas about ideal soldiers. Obviously, this kind of large idea influences just about everything in the setting, and makes it seem weird to present-day gamers. That's OK, because the chap who created it did so long before TSR published any settings, and was never interested in running those worlds. 

Refugees: by some means or other, groups of people have been able to travel between the many, many worlds of the multiverse. The setting of the game is a world where many different groups have arrived. They have influenced each other, of course, but all of them have wanted to maintain their own cultures. This is my preferred method, and it discards the concept of "intrinsically evil races" completely. Different species have different cultures, but they're all workable cultures, which allow for a functioning society. They may seem strange, crude, over-refined, violent, or over-repressive to different species, but they can all work, and adapt to having contact with other societies. I've seen a half-orc paladin played, and yes, he was a genuine paladin, although quite a few of the people he met didn't believe it at first. Again, this approach is completely incompatible with many published settings, and this is just fine with the people who run and play these homebrew settings.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't need to. I know! The designers drew in pulp tropes, which in turn reflect "scientific" racism. That's the point of (much of) this thread.
> 
> 
> There has been. I don't know how much time you've spent in central Africa, but if you go there you will find that people live in houses modelled on European designs, wear clothes that are European or North American in conception, use mobile phones that have been imported, etc. One effect of colonialism has been to generate this sort of rapid diffusion of technologies.
> ...



That was because through colonization technology was forced upon them.
I was talking about the time before colonialization. There has been contact and in many cases trade between the cultures for centuries, but technological diffusion didn't happen, or only very slowly.
The pulp tropes as you call them happened exactly that way in history as could the difference between Cormyt and Grippli.

Frankly I have no idea why you inject modern situations into the FR with a more or less medieval/renaissance technology base.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 11, 2021)

*I accept that Orcs as Tolkien envisioned them are an outgrowth of the*_* casual racism of his era*_. A casual racism his later years made him more aware of, and that he regretted the original correlation. I don't accept that reading about them has changed my worldview in any negative way towards any actual humans

Meanwhile, while I see no point in defending institutional racism, nor in defending past social constructs, but I also don't see deconstructing in a witch-hunt-like manner as a valuable discourse.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Once someone has been made aware that images, terminology, etc. have their origins in bigotry, they can no longer claim clean hands if they continue to use them.  By doing so, you give the bigotry a life preserver.



I also flatly reject such absolutist BS. 

That kind of thinking gives more power to the original racists than they deserve. It does far more harm to the search for genuine legal and social equality, too: It poisons the moderates against the progressives far more effectively than the far right can. The Far-Right is ugly; so are witch-hunts by either side.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 11, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> No, they are superior BECAUSE THEY HAVE A TECHNOLOGY (knowledge, tools, and procedures) which the supposedly 'more advanced' western 'development experts' didn't have. Nor did they bother to even ask about it, because, like you, they ASSUMED they were 'more advanced' and had nothing to learn from the locals. They learned the hard way through FAILURE that they were wrong!
> 
> Same with the Masai, British ranchers kicked them off a lot of the range, now the British have given up ranching because they cannot manage the range effectively, but the Masai are still there, and now they're reclaiming the rest of their land. I saw it, I was there.
> 
> ...



The western world had this knowledge in the past, but ditched it for something more effective.
But when you really think a steel blade is useless in the rainforest because it would rust away then I do not think that there is any point in discussing with you any further as you are dead set in your "everything is equal" thinking and are not willing to hear any counter arguments.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 11, 2021)

Grippli first appear in the _AD&D 1e Monster Manual II _(1983). The word "primitive" is not used in the entry.

They defend themselves with snares, nets, poisoned darts and bolts, and occasionally a sword or dagger.

A grippli lair is built on the ground and consists of mud and wood huts.​
The entry in the _AD&D 2e Monstrous Manual_ (1993) states that they "have a primitive culture."

I think one (but not the only) problem here is as others such as @Monadology and @pemerton have said. The word "primitive" is not being applied to one particular technology but to an entire culture.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 11, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I also flatly reject such absolutist BS.
> 
> That kind of thinking gives more power to the original racists than they deserve. It does far more harm to the search for genuine legal and social equality, too: It poisons the moderates against the progressives far more effectively than the far right can. The Far-Right is ugly; so are witch-hunts by either side.



Enlighten me then: how does one use the language of bigotry without perpetuating bigotry?

People in my subculture have been trying to “reclaim“ a certain word for decades now, and even among us, that word remains extremely controversial and divisive.  Complicating matters, people outside our subgroup continue to ask if & when they can use it, some genuinely baffled, others sea lioning or reveling in linguistic judo dog whistles.

Letting it die, remaining preserved in original texts and in scholarly discussion thereof seems to me the better option.

Why borrow trouble when you can find different, non-inflammatory language?  Is it because of a lack of vocabulary?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't think I used the notion of _a gradient_. I did talk about _differences_. You own use of the verb _to achieve_ shows that there are some challenges in locutions here.
> 
> That said, Australia has no manufacturing capacity for mobile phones, nor any more for cars, yet both are pretty ubiquitous. The previous sentence is also true if "Kenya" is substituted for "Australia", except that Kenya has never had a manufacturing capacity for cars.
> 
> Notions of _core_ and _periphery_ can be useful for trying to get a handle on patterns of wealth and trade, some dynamics of diffusion, etc. (Such notions are also going to have to be tentative, given that the periphery (eg Mongolia, or Britain) can feed back into the core in surprising and dramatic ways.) It seems that any "realistic" treatment of the Grippli vis-a-vis Cormyr would have to accept that they are going to be on the periphery, in the same sort of way that (in Europe) Albania has been peripheral in a way that Austria has not been, or (in the US) South Dakota is peripheral in a way that California is not. We might except Grippli manufacturing capacity and trading significance to be less than found in the core of Cormyr. But we wouldn't expect "primitiveness" in the sense of - say - a resolute determination to not use those metal knives or axes that are available. Or as far as the waterproofing of houses is concerned, we wouldn't expect any significant difference in performance between the houses built by Grippli and the houses built in the nearest Cormyrean villages. Whereas we would probably expect fewer opera houses or grand cathedrals among the Grippli than in the Cormyrean capital.



Right, so maybe overall we can use notions of trade and capital formation to explain/model the uneven distribution of 'means of production' in a geographic and cultural sense. I think this is an approach which has been used quite a bit in terms of trying to understand the reasons for greater productive capacity and the accumulation of technology in certain parts of the world. It can then be used to ask questions, like "Why has Sub-Saharan Africa not developed an industrialized civilization?" (at least prior to European colonialism). Trade seems to be one factor, certainly Europe, South Asia, and East Asia seem to have developed a large-scale trading system. Africa participated to an extent, but not so much, and was geographically more distant from the main trade routes. Geography (lack of harbors and navigable rivers) has also been sited. The whole idea of technological appropriateness, Europe and China have similar climates and geographic features, allowing their innovations to be more easily exchanged (IE domesticated animals, crops, architecture, etc.). Nobody can really say for certain which factors are the most significant.

However it is hard to invoke overall cultural or biological factors. We can't find biological factors, they don't seem to exist (they cannot actually be 100% ruled out, but their magnitude must be small). Cultural factors seem not too relevant, as various polities of sophistication on the same order as those in Eurasia have existed in Sub-Saharan Africa for millennia. Not only that, but there's no sign of some sort of cultural stasis there which would make some particular social/cultural institution so prevalent over all of history as to rule out progress. If we examine the detailed history of various regions of Africa, politics and society seem pretty similar in their basic structure to other areas. The most significant factor SEEMS to be that there was little incentive for exchange of ideas with Eurasia and capital moved to the areas with easier access to technology, eventually creating a disparity in means.


pemerton said:


> I don't think notions of "primitive" or "advanced" are terribly useful. But notions of causal dependence can be useful. You gave an example: smelting iron is causally dependent on access to certain resources. Perhaps a bit more intricately, having access to vast quantities of steel is dependent on having railways to cart ore and coal, which are in term dependent on having access to vast quantities of steel - this is (one example of) the self-sustaining causal process of industrialisation that can emerge only under pretty distinct conditions.



Right, I mean, science fiction has basically identified this process with ideas of a 'singularity' etc. That is basically the notion that there is a NON-LINEAR effect in which employment of capital in an area leads to greater effectiveness of more employment of capital in that area. One instrumentality piles on another. This also explains the current divide between the North/West and the South. It is vastly easier to invest $'s in the US markets and make a good return than to attempt to do so in somewhere in Africa or Latin America, generally. One would thus expect that diffusion will, at this point, probably never produce a homogeneous result, not unless the 'First World' runs into fundamental limits which change this effect. I'd note that we may well be seeing signs of that, but since the ramifications are global, it seems this alone will not do the trick. Perhaps if we get off our high horses and look at what other cultures actually have to offer in terms of social organization and ecological knowledge, that might help. I'm not sanguine.


pemerton said:


> Which relates to your remarks about a "novel set of tools". This is, at its core, the rationalisation/technicalisation thesis found in (eg) Weber and Hodgson. In one sense, this social form is very durable - once it emerges, it appears that it absorbs/destroys all others that it comes into contact with. (One version of this idea is Weber's "iron cage"; another is Marx's idea of the power of liberal capitalism to dissolve all other relations of production.)  In another sense, though, there is no reason to think it is can last - Weber flagged as the limit the consumption of fossil fuels; it seems more likely now that the limit is the consumption of atmospheric capacity. In this way it is different from hunter-gatherer or pastoralist technologies which have shown themselves to be very durable on their own terms (I use that last qualification because they have also shown themselves highly liable to destruction/absoprtion by industrial modernity - see the opening sentences of this paragraph).



In all fairness, h-g, pastoralist, and traditional agriculture have not necessarily produced sustainable results either. I cited 2 examples where local knowledge proved to be superior, but even that knowledge cannot guarantee long-term sustainability. Every system is vulnerable to certain kinds of weaknesses, has blind spots, runs into things beyond its control. I mean hunter-gatherer people once roamed a fertile northern Africa, but nothing they could have done would have prevent the Sahara from forming (largely a consequence of orbital dynamics). Nor were they probably keeping records detailed enough to even discern the problem's existence.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 11, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is true. Or at least I doubt that you have any evidence for its truth.
> 
> I say the above because I remember a conversation I had a couple of years ago with a professor of agricultural science, who was talking about research he had done in Benin. This showed that the adoption of techniques recommended by the FAO supposedly to increase production were actually, over the medium-to-long term, reducing production because those techniques - by changing land and plant forms - were destabilising micro-climates that had generated necessary rainfall.
> 
> My guess is that my previous paragraph would be an example of the sort of thing @AbdulAlhazred had in mind in his post.



Right, you can reference for example talk about 'building a green wall'. This notion isn't crazy, but the techniques attempted proved to be vastly inferior to, and even undermined, those of the local farmers, who were already well aware of how to mitigate desertification. I believe that there is at least some talk/research/action taking place to adopt some of those practices, and a greater understanding that local technology is actually pretty sophisticated in this regard.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 11, 2021)

Ixal said:


> The western world had this knowledge in the past, but ditched it for something more effective.
> But when you really think a steel blade is useless in the rainforest because it would rust away then I do not think that there is any point in discussing with you any further as you are dead set in your "everything is equal" thinking and are not willing to hear any counter arguments.



It is not that I think the steel blade is 'useless in the rain forest'. It is probably more useful than the ones made from local materials, up to a point. Again, what I am saying is that effectiveness and sophistication aren't the same thing. It takes at least as much skill, and probably a good bit of social organization, to create a stone tool crafting culture on a par with those seen today in remote areas, or in the late paleolithic. Look at the fine craftsmanship. Surely it took years, maybe decades, of instruction and practice to achieve. It also required long-distance trade for good raw materials in at least some cases. Is that 'more primitive' than building a blast furnance, etc.? I think it produces a somewhat less effective product, but there are, as discussed in later posts to yours between @pemerton and myself, some fairly good explanations for why capital formation and production has occurred in some areas and not others. 

This ties back to my point about biological evolution. In terms of culture/society, every one of them has evolved through the same time frame. it isn't clear to me why we would assume that one made 'more progress' than another, and is thus 'more advanced'. 

Nor do I think the western world has simply 'discarded' certain ideas. I mean, maybe they have discarded some, but a Medieval European farmer wouldn't have solved the Sahel's problems either. It relied on knowing how to use certain specific tree species and where, when, and how to plant them. This is clearly locally determined knowledge. It was ignored simply because westerners held local knowledge in contempt. It is just as silly to imagine modern hunter-gatherers coming to England and telling the people there how to knap flint and ignoring their ability to smelt iron and make steel.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 12, 2021)

Ixal said:


> That was because through colonization technology was forced upon them.
> I was talking about the time before colonialization. There has been contact and in many cases trade between the cultures for centuries, but technological diffusion didn't happen, or only very slowly.
> The pulp tropes as you call them happened exactly that way in history as could the difference between Cormyt and Grippli.
> 
> Frankly I have no idea why you inject modern situations into the FR with a more or less medieval/renaissance technology base.



Technological diffusion prior to modernity tends to happen at a sufficiently slow rate that (at least typically) new technologies are able to be incorporated without immediate social disruption.

Of course there may be tremendous social change - the process of incorporation of the stirrup and resultant mounted warfare in agragrian Europe took hundreds of years and saw the emergence of the feudal social order.

How long have Grippli lived in contact with Cormyr? What processes of diffusion are taking place? I am extremely confident that the canon materials provide no answer to this second question, and rather that they simply stipulate the "primitiveness" of Grippli. (As per @Doug McCrae's post #310.)


----------



## Ixal (Jul 12, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Technological diffusion prior to modernity tends to happen at a sufficiently slow rate that (at least typically) new technologies are able to be incorporated without immediate social disruption.
> 
> Of course there may be tremendous social change - the process of incorporation of the stirrup and resultant mounted warfare in agragrian Europe took hundreds of years and saw the emergence of the feudal social order.
> 
> How long have Grippli lived in contact with Cormyr? What processes of diffusion are taking place? I am extremely confident that the canon materials provide no answer to this second question, and rather that they simply stipulate the "primitiveness" of Grippli. (As per @Doug McCrae's post #310.)



Why is that important to the current situation that the technology level of the Grippli being primitive compared to the place the adventurers come from?
You now seem to be grasping straws because you do not want this situation to be plausible, even though there are ample examples in history where similar situations happened. An in D&D/FR progress is extremly slow for everyone anyway. In the current situation in the adventure the technology the Grippli use is primitive compared to the PCs, its as simple as that. This is a description of the current situation and has nothing to do with racism.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> It is not that I think the steel blade is 'useless in the rain forest'. It is probably more useful than the ones made from local materials, up to a point. Again, what I am saying is that effectiveness and sophistication aren't the same thing. It takes at least as much skill, and probably a good bit of social organization, to create a stone tool crafting culture on a par with those seen today in remote areas, or in the late paleolithic. Look at the fine craftsmanship. Surely it took years, maybe decades, of instruction and practice to achieve. It also required long-distance trade for good raw materials in at least some cases. Is that 'more primitive' than building a blast furnance, etc.? I think it produces a somewhat less effective product, but there are, as discussed in later posts to yours between @pemerton and myself, some fairly good explanations for why capital formation and production has occurred in some areas and not others.
> 
> This ties back to my point about biological evolution. In terms of culture/society, every one of them has evolved through the same time frame. it isn't clear to me why we would assume that one made 'more progress' than another, and is thus 'more advanced'.
> 
> Nor do I think the western world has simply 'discarded' certain ideas. I mean, maybe they have discarded some, but a Medieval European farmer wouldn't have solved the Sahel's problems either. It relied on knowing how to use certain specific tree species and where, when, and how to plant them. This is clearly locally determined knowledge. It was ignored simply because westerners held local knowledge in contempt. It is just as silly to imagine modern hunter-gatherers coming to England and telling the people there how to knap flint and ignoring their ability to smelt iron and make steel.




Do you even know what kind of knowledge and resources are required to make a blast furnance? Yes, making a stone tool, even a really well made one, is primitive compared to that.

And your idea of capital is a modern concept which has no use in this example as there was no market economy where "money is king". Besides, Africa was very wealthy thanks to the slave trade and gold mines so the basis of your theory is wrong to begin with.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 12, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Why is that important to the current situation that the technology level of the Grippli being primitive compared to the place the adventurers come from?
> You now seem to be grasping straws because you do not want this situation to be plausible, even though there are ample examples in history where similar situations happened.



What historical examples are you referring to?

What can you tell us about (say) the technological differences between western Ireland and Kent 800 years ago? And is the social and geographic relationship between Cormyr and the Grippli comparable to that between mediaeval England and mediaeval Ireland?


----------



## Ixal (Jul 12, 2021)

pemerton said:


> What historical examples are you referring to?
> 
> What can you tell us about (say) the technological differences between western Ireland and Kent 800 years ago? And is the social and geographic relationship between Cormyr and the Grippli comparable to that between mediaeval England and mediaeval Ireland?



I have mentioned the Zulu before. Guns are not the only thing they did not adopt from Europeans. And this is just one example in Africa. Generally the technology from Europe did not spread there all that fast, or at all the further you go inland, despite centuries of contact with the islamic community and later European traders.

North American tribes also did not adopt much technology from the Central American empires despite long contacts and later from Europeans with some exceptions like guns and horses. But for example smelting got reintroduced very late (19th century).


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 12, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Ask that to the designers of the FR.
> Also, why has there not been a diffusion of technology from Europe, through Costal Africa, to Central/Interior Africa? Or from Europe to the Natives in North America? Or China/Japan to South East Asia? That technology is not adopted is hardly unheard of. A concrete example would be that Shaka Zulu refused to buy guns when it was offered to him as he thought short spears (impi) and shields are superior.



You are talking about not an instance, but one singular individual who argued against the adoption of firearms, and not because they wanted to stay "primitive," but because they would have to entirely change their tactics.  By the mid-late 20th century, firearms were much more common among the Zulu and the Zulu were very much interested in defending themselves against Boer settler incursions.  This example is still instructive, however, as the firearms that were traded to the Zulu (in exchange for mining labor)  were obsolete and difficult to maintain compared to the firearms their colonizing opponents were using.  So you are correct, there was a difference in technology which granted the Boers and the British an advantage, at least in their task of efficient killing.

But what was the historical _context_ of this technological difference?  As the above indicates, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in South Africa were periods of rapacious and genocidal settler colonialism and appropriation, especially after the discovery of diamond deposits.  It was also, not coincidentally, when the notion that Africans were more "primitive," and in fact, incapable by themselves of "advancement" along European lines was taken as common sense (that was taken as a universal goal of "civilization").  The conception of the Civilized/Advanced and the Savage/Primitive suffused all of these interactions with the Zulu.  Versions of these concepts were developed and advanced by leading scientists of the day, and they were ubiquitous in European and American popular culture (including, in many cases, the pulp fiction that inspired dnd (see Haggard and others)).  "Primitive" was the logic of "In Darkest Africa," and gave rise to the notion that "Civilizing" Africa was a European duty and birthright.

Famously, Joseph Chamberlain:



> You cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs; you cannot destroy the practices of barbarism, of slavery, of superstition, which for centuries have desolated the interior of Africa, without the use of force; but if you will fairly contrast the gain to humanity with the price which we are bound to pay for it, I think you may well rejoice in the result of such expeditions as those which have recently been conducted with such signal success—(cheers)—in Nyassaland, Ashanti, Benin, and Nupe—expeditions which may have, and indeed have, cost valuable lives, but as to which we may rest assured that for one life lost a hundred will be gained, and the cause of civilisation and the prosperity of the people will in the long run be eminently advanced. (Cheers.)




The level of violence (between European colonizers as well) is what led to the creation of the modern concentration camp, as a type of wartime space and technology.  South Africa, as is well known, retained the racial categories of the nineteenth century into most of the twentieth through the totalitarian and oppressive system of Apartheid.

I appreciate that you'd like to filter out all of this history in order to retain use of a word in your fantasy wargame (even though it is ironic that you choose perhaps the least felicitous historical example for this purpose).  And that, you don't care if all of that history, encoded as always in language, matters to a POC writer and POC readers, because you want to defend an established white editor who works for a large corporation in inserting that word without asking the writer or considering its implications (and in a product attempting to highlight the company's willingness to hire a diverse set of writers).    In fact, not only do you not care, you seem offended that anyone else would care, thus your comments in this thread.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 12, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> You are talking about not an instance, but one singular individual who argued against the adoption of firearms, and not because they wanted to stay "primitive," but because they would have to entirely change their tactics.  By the mid-late 20th century, firearms were much more common among the Zulu and the Zulu were very much interested in defending themselves against Boer settler incursions.  This example is still instructive, however, as the firearms that were traded to the Zulu (in exchange for mining labor)  were obsolete and difficult to maintain compared to the firearms their colonizing opponents were using.  So you are correct, there was a difference in technology which granted the Boers and the British an advantage, at least in their task of efficient killing.
> 
> But what was the historical _context_ of this technological difference?  As the above indicates, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in South Africa were periods of rapacious and genocidal settler colonialism and appropriation, especially after the discovery of diamond deposits.  It was also, not coincidentally, when the notion that Africans were more "primitive," and in fact, incapable by themselves of "advancement" along European lines was taken as common sense (that was taken as a universal goal of "civilization").  The conception of the Civilized/Advanced and the Savage/Primitive suffused all of these interactions with the Zulu.  Versions of these concepts were developed and advanced by leading scientists of the day, and they were ubiquitous in European and American popular culture (including, in many cases, the pulp fiction that inspired dnd (see Haggard and others)).  "Primitive" was the logic of "In Darkest Africa," and gave rise to the notion that "Civilizing" Africa was a European duty and birthright.
> 
> ...



You forget that in monarchies the word of one man shapes nations. Napoleon could not wrap his head around the concept of steam driven ships which destroyed any chance of breaking British naval superiority. And Shaka Zulu rejected guns, resulting in the military stagnation of the Zulu and ensured that no effort was spend in acquiring or even manufacturing their own guns which resulted in them having very few and inferior guns in the Anglo-Zulu war. (Don't forget that the Zulu existed for way longer than when Shaka lived. Plenty of time to adopt some technology from Europeans and Arabs).

Was this difference used as pretext to justify colonialization? Yes. But that difference existed and was no invention by the Europeans.  There were numerous instances where people with a vast difference in technology met and also many instances where technological diffusion was very slow or not existing for various reasons, the same way there were instances of rapid adoption of technology.

And being offended lies squarely with those people who complain that, in order to better describe a situation where there is a huge technological gap between two groups, the word primitive which fits perfectly to the actual situation. That you bring race into it also makes me wonder how objective you are.

By the way, when talking about editors, you know that they often do much larger changes without asking, right? Right here on Enworld a editor changed a "Worlds of Design" articles headline and intro so much that it had a completely different meaning and was very confusing to read without informing the author at all.








						Worlds of Design: When Nations Expand
					

When considering how nations expand beyond their borders in your fantasy campaign, there are several options to choose from.   Picture courtesy of Pixabay. Trading Colonies We can go back to very ancient times, when the Assyrians had a trading colony in Hittite territory, far from the heartland...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Monadology (Jul 12, 2021)

Ixal said:


> And being offended lies squarely with those people who complain that, in order to better describe a situation where there is a huge technological gap between two groups, the word primitive which fits perfectly to the actual situation.




The notion that the word 'primitive' would fit any actual situation 'perfectly' is an absurd position to take. Do you really think anything is that simple? There are very general words we use despite the inaccuracies that come along with their generality: for example, it seems reasonable and useful to characterize Southern California as 'hot,' but no one would suggest that 'hot' is a perfect descriptor of Southern California. It does get cold at times during the winter, and there are temperate spots like San Diego. But the label is useful because peak and average temperatures are valuable to emphasize for a number of different purposes.

The primitive/advanced distinction is an unsophisticated, general distinction. If there is some reason to use it, it's not because it is an especially precise conceptual tool. There must be a valuable purpose for reducing actual historical nuance to generalities. I asked earlier in this thread: what is that valuable purpose? Why is it important to say 'The British won the Anglo-Zulu war because the Zulu were primitive' rather than 'The British won the Anglo-Zulu war in part because British firearms provided a significant tactical advantage over traditional Zulu weaponry?'  The latter is an explanation that can be productively expanded on and discussed. I don't see how the former provides any meaningful insight, since 'primitive' and 'ineffective in war' are not obviously correlated in any robust way. Just look at the effectiveness of booby traps during the Vietnam war: they would surely count as 'primitive' if we are going to be using the primitive/advanced distinction.

As has been pointed out in numerous places in this thread (most recently by pemerton), the distinction certainly had its uses to the British and other colonizers: to rationalize the classification of other cultures as lesser and justify colonization, imperialism and all the horrors that came along with those. Clearly you think it has some other kind of use, one totally divorced from these kinds of uses. So, again, what's the point of keeping it around? 



Ixal said:


> That you bring race into it also makes me wonder how objective you are.




On what grounds is considering the objective historical record of the origins of the contemporary primitive/advanced distinction in evaluating it non-objective? No one is 'bringing race into it.' Race has _been_ in it, for literally centuries. Reams of posts in this thread have provided evidence of this.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 12, 2021)

Ixal said:


> That you bring race into it also makes me wonder how objective you are.



Gaslight much?


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 12, 2021)

For context if you haven't seen it, here's the author's description of the changes



> The Grippli were presented as having had patron deity return and bring them back up to speed with the gift of literacy in their ancient language; they had art, nothing was primitive; I used the terms simple and utilitarian, and the domed mud brick village was filled with colours and decorations. Their village was a mix of new made buildings and impossibly ancient buildings and edifices that had withstood the test of time.





> Colonialist language and imagery around the Grippli was inserted as well, moving them from being simple and utilitarian with obvious culture and technology to being “primitives” who “primitively decorate” their thatched huts with crab bits.
> 
> Essentially, where you could see the welds and joins before, you could now see the chop marks and bolts. The story was reduced to a simple rescue mission against unmotivated baddies with confusing parts where bits of the original plot flashed up as absent. This was especially notable in that there was no plotline or reason for anything the Yuan-ti were doing; the conflict between the good and evil Yuan-ti was left completely unexplained until a tidbit at the end of the adventure that, without the cut content, made little sense.




The mud brick structures is the only technological element mentioned; everything else has to do with their art and culture.  Granted, in 2e, Grippli are (problematically) described as having "primitive culture."  Further, the editor took out the villains motivations and reduced them to evil-for-evil sake.  Reviews of the book remark on how this is incoherent.

In so far as the word _primitive_ is related to technology (in real world usage), it refers specifically to an "earlier stage of development." In English, it comes into that usage only in the 18th century and most typically as a way for the British to describe indigenous people across the world (previously it just referred to something foundational).   That is, it does not simply describe differences between the effectiveness of different technologies for particular tasks, but includes a universalist view of the "progression" of technology in human societies, and it obtained that specific usage in English only when the British needed a vocabulary to talk about the colonies and native peoples.  Like I said, mountains of research on this relationship already exist.

Even if one takes a reductive view of technological development as universal and progressivist, and even if one disassociates it from its *recent* and *pervasive *colonial usage, it has little use for describing a magical fantasy world like the forgotten realms.  If anything, the fantasy of FR is a time that is more inherently cyclical than progressive, and as with much fantasy, there are implications that the past was a magical golden age compared to the present.

btw, thinking of Ernie Gygax's interview comments followed by his claim that 'everyone is welcome at his table.'  That kind of statement becomes really empty, including from wotc, when otherwise marginalized people are told that they are 'bringing race/gender/sexuality/disability' into it  and should just stop being so offended by things.  It reminds me of the good advice in the original post in this thread:



Aging Bard said:


> And so we come to Evil races. Old cis-white dudes (which includes me!) need to be very clear that these are not racist or misogynist proxies, and it is NOT unreasonable to suppose this. Goodwill is not the default, it must be earned. That may be disappointing for those wanting to see good in most, but it is the truth that not everyone is good.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 12, 2021)

It's rather terrible how strongly stigmatised certain terms associated with... low-tech, non-city-based (?) societies are. I feel it is actually really difficult to describe such things sometimes, at least in casual narrative manner. Like yeah, I agree that 'primitive' sounds kinda iffy, and 'savage' is right out. Even 'tribal' has somewhat negative connotations. And this is of course due centuries of colonialist perspective portraying such societies as inferior or outright bad. We barely have language to describe such things in a neutral manner. 

My current setting is rather low-tech and many societies are rather small and do not have terribly complicated social structures. Basically from stone age hunter-gatherers to early bronze age settled cultures, so I've been thinking about this a bit.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 13, 2021)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It's rather terrible how strongly stigmatised certain terms associated with... low-tech, non-city-based (?) societies are. I feel it is actually really difficult to describe such things sometimes, at least in casual narrative manner. Like yeah, I agree that 'primitive' sounds kinda iffy, and 'savage' is right out. Even 'tribal' has somewhat negative connotations. And this is of course due centuries of colonialist perspective portraying such societies as inferior or outright bad. We barely have language to describe such things in a neutral manner.
> 
> My current setting is rather low-tech and many societies are rather small and do not have terribly complicated social structures. Basically from stone age hunter-gatherers to early bronze age settled cultures, so I've been thinking about this a bit.



In terms of world building, what counts as progress for some is a complete disaster for others


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

Ixal said:


> I have mentioned the Zulu before. Guns are not the only thing they did not adopt from Europeans. And this is just one example in Africa. Generally the technology from Europe did not spread there all that fast, or at all the further you go inland, despite centuries of contact with the islamic community and later European traders.



Have you been to Africa? If you have, you will have noticed that t-shirts, running shoes, mobile phones, cars, and guns are all ubiquitous. That rate of technological change has been one of the highest ever in human history! So Africa hardly serves as an example of non-diffusion.

If we are talking about the pre-modern period, I invite you to compare the design of housing in (say) Fez with that in (say) Stonetown, Zanzibar. The diffusion (via the cultural influence of Islam) of housing technologies is obvious to even a non-expert.

I'll ask again, in the FR how long have the Grippli lived geographically adjacently to Cormyr? And what is the posited explanation for the lack of technological diffusion?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

Crimson Longinus said:


> My current setting is rather low-tech and many societies are rather small and do not have terribly complicated social structures. Basically from stone age hunter-gatherers to early bronze age settled cultures, so I've been thinking about this a bit.



Living in small societies that do not use metallurgy is a pretty typical way for humans to live, and in that sense is not out of place in a FRPG.

However, if you are imagining some societies that are agrarian, use metal, etc it seems - to me, at least - worth thinking about why, in your fiction, there is not diffusion of some of that. For instance, your non-agrarian peoples may prefer living as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists; but is there a reason they don't trade for metal tools?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

Here is a discussion of processes of diffusion of technologies and attendant aspects of culture - its from Hodgson, The Great Western Transmutation (pp 44 and 46-47 of Rethinking World History):



Spoiler









(I'm pretty confident that the word "cited" in the fifth line of the third paragraph is a typo for "citied".)

This is obviously not the last word on such social processes. My reason for posting it is to show what serious social explanation looks like. It doesn't appeal to notions of "primitiveness" or "progress". It tries to identify what it is about a particular social or economic situation that makes it stable, or unstable, and why such social arrangements might tend to be taken up in other societies (thereby perhaps eliminating the differences between societies).

I wouldn't expect RPG designers to attempt this degree of sophistication in their writing of fiction - the only fantasy author I know of who has tried anything like that is JRRT, and in his case only in respect of languages, not material cultures or relations of production and other social relations beyond those revealed in language-use. RPG designers will rely on a repertoire of available tropes for social life, just as they do for other things (eg dragons, giant spiders, spell casters, etc).

Insofar as some tropes rest upon, or bring with them, presuppositions about various sorts of human beings (eg those which present certain peoples as "primitive" _just because_) then RPG designers should probably handle them with care.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Have you been to Africa? If you have, you will have noticed that t-shirts, running shoes, mobile phones, cars, and guns are all ubiquitous. That rate of technological change has been one of the highest ever in human history! So Africa hardly serves as an example of non-diffusion.
> 
> If we are talking about the pre-modern period, I invite you to compare the design of housing in (say) Fez with that in (say) Stonetown, Zanzibar. The diffusion (via the cultural influence of Islam) of housing technologies is obvious to even a non-expert.
> 
> I'll ask again, in the FR how long have the Grippli lived geographically adjacently to Cormyr? And what is the posited explanation for the lack of technological diffusion?



Again you are talking about post-colonial Africa while I talk about pre-colonial sub-saharan Africa, specifically the 15th to 18th century and especially when you go further inland. As I have mentioned before already....
And you remember that I also brought up other examples like pre- and post-contact North America?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Again you are talking about post-colonial Africa while I talk about pre-colonial sub-saharan Africa, specifically the 15th to 18th century and especially when you go further inland. As I have mentioned before already....
> And you remember that I also brought up other examples like pre- and post-contact North America?



Pre-colonial sub-Saharan Africa has a high degree of diffusion of technology. The houses in Zanzibar weren't built by European colonists!

I believe that post-colonial North America exhibits a high degree of technological diffusion - I would have thought the use of horses is one example. I don't know what pre-colonial example(s) you have in mind.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 13, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Again you are talking about post-colonial Africa while *I talk about pre-colonial sub-saharan Africa, *specifically the 15th to 18th century and especially when you go further inland. As I have mentioned before already....



So was he:


pemerton said:


> *If we are talking about the pre-modern period, *I invite you to compare the design of housing in (say) Fez with that in (say) Stonetown, Zanzibar. The diffusion (via the cultural influence of Islam) of housing technologies is obvious to even a non-expert.



Although Islamic traders had trade routes through the desert, the Sahara was nevertheless a HUGE barrier for trade and cultural diffusion. This was true even in the times of the Roman Empire or the window of time when the entire Mediterranean was mostly Christian. Europe was mostly uninterested in sea trade with Subsaharan Africa (apart from goods like ivory and gold) until basically the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople put the nail in the coffin for old trade routes and Europeans sought to bypass Muslim nations. 

Also, keep in mind that East Africa was not so much focused on trade with Europe, but, rather, with routes along the Indian Ocean, obviously including Arabia, India, and China. And these sea trade relations between East Africa and China were occurring well before Europe began the "Age of Discovery," with East and Central Africa primarily interested in rare Asian trade goods like cotton, silk, and porcelain.

Zanzibar, which Pemerton mentions, was vital hub for trade for East and Central Africa, and it attests to an infusion of East African, Arabic, Persian, and Indian traditions. And Zanzibar was essentially the "middle man" for trade between Central/East Coastal Africa and the Arab, Indian, and Persian merchants. This cultural infusion also included religion, writing, and architecture. Some of the people in this area are descendants of even Chinese and Indian merchants from before the time of European colonizers. 



Ixal said:


> And you remember that I also brought up other examples like pre- and post-contact North America?



Part of the problem is that our knowledge of pre-Columbian indigenous peoples and their trade is incredibly limited. There is a lot of guesswork we have to deduce from the diffusion of Maize and other crops from Mesoamerica to the rest of the Americas or even trade goods like turquoise. Or even the lack of pack animals or limited amount of sea trade.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 13, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> So was he:
> 
> Although Islamic traders had trade routes through the desert, the Sahara was nevertheless a HUGE barrier for trade and cultural diffusion. This was true even in the times of the Roman Empire or the window of time when the entire Mediterranean was mostly Christian. Europe was mostly uninterested in sea trade with Subsaharan Africa (apart from goods like ivory and gold) until basically the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople put the nail in the coffin for old trade routes and Europeans sought to bypass Muslim nations.
> 
> ...



Zanzibar was basically colonized by Muslims and many parts of Africa had trade deals with the Muslim world, especially among the east cost but also Mali (even though a lot of trade was slaves). Mali was also a big site of learning.
But how much of the technology did spread from the Islamic world to the rest of Africa which were not colonized? Not much. Here you have the same situation like in post-Columbian North America. Settlers with a higher technology base and natives with a lower technology base living next to each other for centuries, yet the technological transfer was rather limited for various reasons.
The same applies to the European contact in the west. There was some transfer between Europe and the slave trading kingdoms on the coast, but must exchanges were luxury goods which did not really transfer much technology. But from the coastal kingdoms not much spread to the interior of Africa.

The same happened in North America. The natives adopted horses and guns, for example. But metallurgy? Writing? The North American tribes actually lost the ability of metallurgy at some point before the contact with Europe as they switched back from copper to stone for various reasons. It was only in the 19th century that some tribes relearned how to smelt and work copper from Mexican settlers.
So over centuries of contact there was hardly much technological transfer. Some specific items, but the Native Americans did not simply adopt European technology over time, meaning that even after a long tome of contact the technological disparity remained.

As for Pre-Columbian times, Central and South American goods goods like maccaw feathers and cocoa were found among the, I think, Pueblo so there defiantly was trade between them and the Mexican powers. There are also some very similar stories between those peoples. So there must at least have been indirect contact and trade between them similar to the Silk Road. The coastal trade certainly was not all that limited.

So with all those historical examples of slow to nonexistant technological diffusion and the general slow development in RPG worlds, why exactly would it be implausible and a "colonial trope" for the Grippli the have a much lower technology base than other countries, even though they had contact with them?


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 13, 2021)

Ixal said:


> So with all those historical examples of slow to nonexistant technological diffusion and the general slow development in RPG worlds, why exactly would it be implausible and a "colonial trope" for the Grippli the have a much lower technology base than other countries, even though they had contact with them?



Primarily because it fits in with bigger picture patterns and language of colonialism in the game and its history in perpetuating these colonial tropes. That's the bottom-line of your gish gallop. This is less an argument about plausibility and more about the presence and propogation of negative colonial tropes.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 13, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Primarily because it fits in with bigger picture patterns and language of colonialism in the game and its history in perpetuating these colonial tropes. That's the bottom-line of your gish gallop. This is less an argument about plausibility and more about the presence and propogation of negative colonial tropes.



If something is true, or in this case historic and plausible, it is not a trope.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 13, 2021)

Ixal said:


> If something is true, or in this case historic and plausible, it is not a trope.



Is it historic or plausible for African Americans to like fried chicken or watermelon? Can that not still be harmful stereotypes and tropes perpetuated by white supremacism and racist ideology? Sorry, but historical plausibility does not negate harmful stereotypes or tropes.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jul 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Living in small societies that do not use metallurgy is a pretty typical way for humans to live, and in that sense is not out of place in a FRPG.
> 
> However, if you are imagining some societies that are agrarian, use metal, etc it seems - to me, at least - worth thinking about why, in your fiction, there is not diffusion of some of that. For instance, your non-agrarian peoples may prefer living as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists; but is there a reason they don't trade for metal tools?



They do trade for metal tools, or at least the ones who live near cultures with metallurgy do. But that still makes that sort of stuff kind of expensive luxury items for them. Also the world is rather 'points of light' in a sense that there is (probably unreasonably) a lot of uninhabited land where freaky prehistoric megafauna and fantasy monsters roam and societies are somewhat isolated. But it is pretty pulpy and probably not particularly realistic.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 13, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Do you even know what kind of knowledge and resources are required to make a blast furnance? Yes, making a stone tool, even a really well made one, is primitive compared to that.



Why, yes I do actually! Do you want to discuss Bessemer Process furnaces, or Open Hearth? Or maybe even modern thermoelectric ones? LOL. Don't assume the people you are discussing with are ignorant or simpletons. I do hold a degree in the physical sciences, and I've worked as an aerospace engineer. No big expert on blast furnaces, but I can explain to you the equations of state, change in free energy, enthalpy, and electrochemistry involved in reducing ore to metal. I've some experience in the quality, management, and information and logistics areas of running a factory. 

But honestly, yes, these are complex processes. Still, an early 19th Century blast furnace was far less complex. And if we look at logistics, the difference between Aurignacian flint knappers and 19th Century steel barons has a lot more to do with scale than anything else. The flint was acquired through long-distance trade in many areas, various specialized workers apparently carried out different parts of the tool-making process, etc. 

You have to be careful to consider all the different dimensions here. If you asked some manufacturing firm to turn out flint knives for you today they would laugh. Its virtually impossible. No living person even has a very good idea of how to do it, certainly not at the skill level displayed in 35k YA Europe.


Ixal said:


> And your idea of capital is a modern concept which has no use in this example as there was no market economy where "money is king". Besides, Africa was very wealthy thanks to the slave trade and gold mines so the basis of your theory is wrong to begin with.



No, you have a very limited view of capital. I suggest you should read some basic economics texts. You might want to give Marx a read as well, his definitions of value and capital are some of the most sophisticated. Suffice it to say that when I refer to capital I am referring to the means by which the productive capacity of society is directed, and the ways in which productive capacity is self-amplifying and how it can be mobilized in different directions. The factors involved are complex and not always apparent. Capital and cash are not the same thing at all.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 13, 2021)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It's rather terrible how strongly stigmatised certain terms associated with... low-tech, non-city-based (?) societies are. I feel it is actually really difficult to describe such things sometimes, at least in casual narrative manner. Like yeah, I agree that 'primitive' sounds kinda iffy, and 'savage' is right out. Even 'tribal' has somewhat negative connotations. And this is of course due centuries of colonialist perspective portraying such societies as inferior or outright bad. We barely have language to describe such things in a neutral manner.
> 
> My current setting is rather low-tech and many societies are rather small and do not have terribly complicated social structures. Basically from stone age hunter-gatherers to early bronze age settled cultures, so I've been thinking about this a bit.



You know what worked? Traveller has a scale. Tech level 0 is stone tools, up to 6 being roughly mid-20th Century Europe, and 9 being the beginnings of interstellar FTL flight. I guess you could say that the numbering system is a sort of implicit 'ordering', but no place in the material do I recall an active description of one tech level being superior or inferior to another. There's tons of description of specific equipment and its characteristics at different tech levels. I cannot swear the word 'primitive' never appears, but overall it seemed like a very objective and utilitarian view of technology. Indeed, PCs would very often opt for 'lower tech' solutions to problems simply because they were available, cheap, expedient, or simply perfectly adequate to the task at hand. 

Admittedly, not a ton of action happens in that game at TL5 (around 1900) and below, its a science fiction game. So maybe Marc Miller simply dodged the bullet on that one by not really addressing it much. Still, I think it might teach us a bit about technology and culture (I also don't remember any disparaging statements about forms of culture, political organization, etc. though again I haven't really read through the books in a few years) and how to view them.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 13, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You know what worked? Traveller has a scale. Tech level 0 is stone tools, up to 6 being roughly mid-20th Century Europe, and 9 being the beginnings of interstellar FTL flight. I guess you could say that the numbering system is a sort of implicit 'ordering', but no place in the material do I recall an active description of one tech level being superior or inferior to another. There's tons of description of specific equipment and its characteristics at different tech levels. I cannot swear the word 'primitive' never appears, but overall it seemed like a very objective and utilitarian view of technology. Indeed, PCs would very often opt for 'lower tech' solutions to problems simply because they were available, cheap, expedient, or simply perfectly adequate to the task at hand.
> 
> Admittedly, not a ton of action happens in that game at TL5 (around 1900) and below, its a science fiction game. So maybe Marc Miller simply dodged the bullet on that one by not really addressing it much. Still, I think it might teach us a bit about technology and culture (I also don't remember any disparaging statements about forms of culture, political organization, etc. though again I haven't really read through the books in a few years) and how to view them.





The traveller SRD at least has 
TL 0-3 = Primitive
TL 4-6 = Industrial
TL 7-9 = Pre-Stellar
TL 10-11 = Early Stellar
etc...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 13, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Again you are talking about post-colonial Africa while I talk about pre-colonial sub-saharan Africa, specifically the 15th to 18th century and especially when you go further inland. As I have mentioned before already....
> And you remember that I also brought up other examples like pre- and post-contact North America?



One of the things you have to appreciate about change is that it can be non-linear. So, for 100's of millennia humans wandered around the world chipping stones, hunting, and gathering. During this ENTIRE TIME there was cultural change, undoubtedly, but the effectiveness of the instrumentalities of society didn't change much. An early modern human from 250,000 YA and one from 40,000 YA probably had fairly similar kit. It undoubtedly got somewhat refined and adapted to a wider range of environments, but progress was slow, almost non-existent. 

At some point, people began to grow food. Nobody is entirely sure when this happened, certainly it became a prevalent practice some 12,000 YA in the Fertile Crescent (headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in eastern Anatolia most likely). It isn't clear exactly how long the transition period was, but at some point some people reached a critical threshold and in that region society rapidly transformed. Now, rapid might mean it took 20,000 years to go from "I planted a seed, look something grew that I can eat, this is a good idea." to Katal Huyuk. This is part of the point being made by Hodgson in @pemerton's quotation. 

So, this is an uneven process. It is probably analogous to a phase transition in physics. Nothing seems to change as water gets colder and colder, but at some point one location, due to some variation in local state, begins to freeze. Once the change starts, it can proceed quite rapidly, the new ordering of molecules spreads throughout the system. This phase change may start in multiple locations too, and the resulting ice might have boundaries between crystals, each organized in a different orientation. Likewise agriculture happened in one or a few specific locations and then spread. 

When you compare cultural change or diffusion during a period when the 'state' of society didn't change much, vs a situation where such rapid change did happen, you are talking about two different processes which happen at different timescales. Not only that, but if society A is in the new and more rapidly changing state, then obviously society B, which is still in the old state, hardly changes at all by comparison. So Sumer leaped to an urbanized state, but Europe remained in the old state for another several thousand years until agriculture was established there, and its own internal rate of progress was still stone age, which by comparison is basically no change at all on the timescales in question.

Likewise with sub-saharan Africa. Its technology was probably not that much different from Medieval Europe. They had iron, cities, roads, public works, etc. (at least in some areas), state structures, etc. Meanwhile Europe, by 1600 had started a rapid transformation. So we see that it changed radically from 1600 to 1800, but Africa changed maybe as much as Europe did from 1000 to 1200, which is not a heck of a lot in overall terms. There need not be much other explanation. Diffusion takes centuries, so when you say agriculture diffused to Europe, yes, over 2000 years or more. It might take 500 or 1000 more years for Africa to achieve what Europe has now by diffusion alone. But at our accelerated rate of change, we will be (perhaps, if you are optimistic) vastly more advanced still, and one would assume that the gap would only ever grow, and not shrink. This isn't an indictment of one society vs another, it is just the nature of non-linear change, aka phase changes.

Another thing to consider in terms of 'advancement' is that you only have, or are considering, one yardstick and one possible sequence by which 'progress' might happen. We don't know how many possible pathways there are which could lead to similar phase changes in society. Not all of them may be technological, or it may be possible to base them on entirely different aspects of technology. However, once one society stumbles upon a scenario in which they achieve non-linear phase changing transformation, then if that change involves an increase in means, improved instrumentality, it is likely to abort progress on all other paths. Thus it is easy to imagine that European civilization was 'superior' or 'more advanced' in some fashion, but it is equally likely that, given time, any society might have emerged into a new form of some kind and entered into a non-linear rate of change scenario. We just don't know, and will perhaps never know. 

So, here's an alternate way of looking at 'progress'. Imagine it is a lot like a maze. Each society wanders through the maze, and once in a while one reaches a location where they can find a brushhog. From that point on, the maze is no obstacle to them, they go on in whatever direction circumstances dictate at a much more rapid rate, and pretty soon the whole maze is nothing but pathways leading wherever they were going. Any other solutions to the maze that might have existed are now moot.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 13, 2021)

Cadence said:


> The traveller SRD at least has
> TL 0-3 = Primitive
> TL 4-6 = Industrial
> TL 7-9 = Pre-Stellar
> ...



Yeah, I just don't remember a lot of judgmental logic or wordings in the original game. I mean, it was written in the mid 70's, there's bound to be some dubious terminology in there someplace.

And I think you could validly consider whether its one simple single-axis linear scale is a very good model too. Even back in the day it was noted that it only really modeled the Imperium. Of course, that was the only milieu the game envisaged really. It rated the 3rd Imperium at TL15 and the Zhodani Consulate at TL14, but the Zhodani also have psionics, which aren't even factored into the scale. Beyond that their system cannot model something like, say, a society based purely on biotech. Yet sci-fi is rife with speculation about just such possibilities. That was always one of Traveller's shortcomings.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

@AbdulAlhazred's post about rates of social change and diffusion of technologies makes it basically unnecessary for me to post anything on that topic.

When I was Googling to see if I could find a copy of Hodgson's essay online (I couldn't - hence my pasting above from a raw scan) I found a review published by a younger historian who had known him, and who (I gather from the review) works primarily on Africa - the review was published in The International Journal of African Historical Studies (v 27(2), 1994). One criticism that the review makes is of Hodgson's failure to incorporate Africa fully into his conception of world-history.

Whether that criticism is sound or not is for historians to judge (and I'm not one); but it's clear that this particular reviewer _did not_ think that including Africa would change the basic logic of Hodgson's analysis of social power, diffusion of technology, and explanation of European domination in the modern era. I think one can also readily infer from the review that the reviewer would _not_ find the notion of "primitivness" at all illuminating as an analytic tool for studying African history.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 13, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> One of the things you have to appreciate about change is that it can be non-linear. So, for 100's of millennia humans wandered around the world chipping stones, hunting, and gathering. During this ENTIRE TIME there was cultural change, undoubtedly, but the effectiveness of the instrumentalities of society didn't change much. An early modern human from 250,000 YA and one from 40,000 YA probably had fairly similar kit. It undoubtedly got somewhat refined and adapted to a wider range of environments, but progress was slow, almost non-existent.
> 
> At some point, people began to grow food. Nobody is entirely sure when this happened, certainly it became a prevalent practice some 12,000 YA in the Fertile Crescent (headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in eastern Anatolia most likely). It isn't clear exactly how long the transition period was, but at some point some people reached a critical threshold and in that region society rapidly transformed. Now, rapid might mean it took 20,000 years to go from "I planted a seed, look something grew that I can eat, this is a good idea." to Katal Huyuk. This is part of the point being made by Hodgson in @pemerton's quotation.
> 
> ...



And what exactly has that to do with using the word primitive to describe a snapshot in time where "one group of people have not found the brushhog yet while everyone else has"? That is just the state of things at that point in time.


----------



## Monadology (Jul 13, 2021)

Does anyone actually use 'primitive' that way? When the Grippli are being characterized as 'primitive', it seems implausible that the author is just telling the reader that they haven't found a metaphorical brush hog yet. If you are proposing this new sense of 'primitive' be adopted, you should be objecting to the fact that the Grippli are characterized as primitive but the Cormyr are not. Cormyr doesn't seem like it has found a brush hog either.

On a non-pluralist understanding of brush hogs (e.g. something like industrialization is the only kind) it's even less plausible that the primitive/advanced distinction maps onto a binary cut-off. That would make all pre-industrial societies equally primitive, and I hardly think that's how the term gets used. EDIT: Also, we may as well just use the more direct descript or 'pre-industrial' in this case.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 13, 2021)

Monadology said:


> Does anyone actually use 'primitive' that way?



Yes?
For example just look at the Traveller tech scale posted above.


----------



## Monadology (Jul 13, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Yes?
> For example just look at the Traveller tech scale posted above.



'Anyone' here is not referring to literally anyone, it's referring to whether it is generally used that way by a plurality of people in some significant context. Especially relevant is whether it is used that way when cultures are described as 'primitive' in D&D books, a usage that you have been defending.

If you are only trying to defend the use of primitive in Traveller's tech-scale, well, OK. The conversation has shifted to something much narrower. In any case, my point that 'pre-industrial' is just a more direct descriptor is directly relevant to Traveller's tech scale. Using 'primitive,' (a word with a lot of loaded connotations) over a word that is much more to the point and lacks those connotations seems an easy choice. Just use the latter.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 13, 2021)

Monadology said:


> 'Anyone' here is not referring to literally anyone, it's referring to whether it is generally used that way by a plurality of people in some significant context. Especially relevant is whether it is used that way when cultures are described as 'primitive' in D&D books, a usage that you have been defending.
> 
> If you are only trying to defend the use of primitive in Traveller's tech-scale, well, OK. The conversation has shifted to something much narrower. In any case, my point that 'pre-industrial' is just a more direct descriptor is directly relevant to Traveller's tech scale. Using 'primitive,' (a word with a lot of loaded connotations) over a word that is much more to the point and lacks those connotations seems an easy choice. Just use the latter.



You can of course look up dictonaries.
For example what comes up on google:

_adjective_

relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.

relating to or denoting a preliterate, non-industrial society or culture characterized by simple social and economic organization.​"primitive people​
[...]


_noun_
noun: *primitive*; plural noun: *primitives*

1.
a person belonging to a preliterate, non-industrial society.
"reports of travellers and missionaries described contemporary primitives"

Google uses Oxford I think, but you can get similar results from Cambridge or Marrian-Webster. Primitive is used to described technological development.


----------



## Monadology (Jul 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> You can of course look up dictonaries.
> For example what comes up on google:
> 
> _adjective_
> ...



'Preliterate, pre-industrial' =/= pre-industrial. You could actually read the definitions you've posted. What does preliterate mean? Well:

preliterate​[ pree-lit-er-it ]

adjective Anthropology.
lacking a written language; nonliterate
occurring before the development or use of writing.

There are lots of literate, pre-industrial cultures. Hence why Renaissance Europe is never described as primitive. No one uses 'primitive' to just mean 'pre-industrial.'


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> And what exactly has that to do with using the word primitive to describe a snapshot in time where "one group of people have not found the brushhog yet while everyone else has"? That is just the state of things at that point in time.



My point was that if one society is 99.9% of the way to industrialization, it will still look like what you choose to label as 'primitive' compared to one which crossed over that line, even a mere century earlier, which is nothing in the timescale of pre-industrial change, but is an eon to an industrial society. That is on top of the "no single path" aspect, in which you simply cannot put everyone on a line and say one is behind or ahead of the other.

I mean, AT NO TIME, have the Chinese EVER considered themselves 'behind' Europe or the West generally. Yet, even today, that charge is leveled against them, and they were practically universally reviled and labeled as a sort of human plague only 100 years ago. Yet they have one of the most advanced cultures on Earth, and have had for THREE THOUSAND YEARS continuously! So, at one time, from about 1700 to the mid 20th Century, China was in a politically disunified state, and Europe briefly surpassed them in arms manufacturing, which allowed the colonial powers to militarily dominate China. 

How does that fit in your model of 'advanced' and 'primitive'? Europe called the Chinese 'primitive', yet had nothing like their ceramics industry, or numerous other industries, not to even mention that China was still far ahead in finance, and actually pretty close to Europe's equal in manufacturing for most of those 350 years. These labels were simply invented so that Europeans could pretend that their exploitation of the world had some good will motive. We really don't need to perpetuate those lies, do we?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Monadology said:


> In any case, my point that 'pre-industrial' is just a more direct descriptor is directly relevant to Traveller's tech scale. Using 'primitive,' (a word with a lot of loaded connotations) over a word that is much more to the point and lacks those connotations seems an easy choice. Just use the latter.



This is something I've had to grapple with in teaching.

I prefer _non-industrial_ to _pre-industrial_ because the latter tends to import a notion of trajectory - whereas I think it is an open theoretical question whether such a trajectory exists (obviously Hegel and Marx, among others, thinks it does; but not all social theorists or world historians agree), and so prefer a terminology that does not seem to presuppose an answer to that question.

That said, I do use _pre-modern_. I spend about half-an-hour in class explaining the pitfalls of modern/modernity as a term of art and explaining why, nevertheless, I find myself unable to dispense with it.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> My point was that if one society is 99.9% of the way to industrialization, it will still look like what you choose to label as 'primitive' compared to one which crossed over that line, even a mere century earlier, which is nothing in the timescale of pre-industrial change, but is an eon to an industrial society.



Agreed.

This discussion of rates of change and diffusion also relates to my question about the Grippli and Cormyr - what is the timeframe in relation to which I am expected to imagine there has been no significant technological diffusion. And also why I asked about a comparison to twelfth-century Kent and western Ireland.

If Cormyr resembles twelfth-century Kent, but the Grippli who live nearby resemble much of Australia in the same period, what is the reason why? As far as I can tell there's no in-fiction explanation, just an authorial stipulation that the Grippli are primitive.

That is reinforced by the fact that, in D&D, all the ways in which we would find mediaeval Kent "primitive" - be that in public and personal health, or the amount of material goods around, or the quality of a lot of manufacturing - are glossed over in depictions of Cormyr; while the descriptions of the Grippli doubld down on the ways in which they are "primitive".

It's not a presentation of a seriously considered social reality. It's just the reproduction of pulp tropes.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, AT NO TIME, have the Chinese EVER considered themselves 'behind' Europe or the West generally. Yet, even today, that charge is leveled against them, and they were practically universally reviled and labeled as a sort of human plague only 100 years ago. Yet they have one of the most advanced cultures on Earth, and have had for THREE THOUSAND YEARS continuously! So, at one time, from about 1700 to the mid 20th Century, China was in a politically disunified state, and Europe briefly surpassed them in arms manufacturing, which allowed the colonial powers to militarily dominate China.
> 
> How does that fit in your model of 'advanced' and 'primitive'? Europe called the Chinese 'primitive', yet had nothing like their ceramics industry, or numerous other industries, not to even mention that China was still far ahead in finance, and actually pretty close to Europe's equal in manufacturing for most of those 350 years.



This is why I hardly find it surprsing that, after a short (ie approximately two century) blip, China is returning to its status as a centre of world production. The same is true for India.

Here's another salient quote from Hodgson (same essay, p 46):

At least till very recently, there was a tendency among Europeans (including, of course, Americans) to take this remarkable fact [of European power] for granted. . . . Such Europeans have wondered why in recent years, after many centuries (so they suppose) of static quiescence, the various "backward" peoples now are stirring. They have overlooked the wonder of how it could be that, for what is in fact a rather brief period of little more than one century, Europeans could have held so unique a position in the world. [Fn: The notion of the "millennial torpor" of "the East" remains so widespread partly because of touristic misimpressions but also because it has been subsumed in the approach of two sorts of scholars: the Westernists, who downgrade all alien societies, and the area students, who suppose all pre-Moderns were overwhelmed by tradition.] The real question, from the standpoint of the world at large, is just that: what gave the Europeans such overwhelming power for a time?​


----------



## Monadology (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> This is something I've had to grapple with in teaching.
> 
> I prefer _non-industrial_ to _pre-industrial_ because the latter tends to import a notion of trajectory - whereas I think it is an open theoretical question whether such a trajectory exists (obviously Hegel and Marx, among others, thinks it does; but not all social theorists or world historians agree), and so prefer a terminology that does not seem to presuppose an answer to that question.
> 
> That said, I do use _pre-modern_. I spend about half-an-hour in class explaining the pitfalls of modern/modernity as a term of art and explaining why, nevertheless, I find myself unable to dispense with it.




I was being sloppy with the prefix and hadn't noticed the nuance you identify here. I definitely have no attachment to the 'pre' prefix! Thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Monadology said:


> I was being sloppy with the prefix and hadn't noticed the nuance you identify here. I definitely have no attachment to the 'pre' prefix! Thanks for pointing this out.



No worries. The whole issue of terminology is very challenging. The use of _modernity/pre-modernity_ - which is something I do, and you can see it also in the Hodgson quote not far upthread - also builds in some presuppositions.

It may turn out, in due course, that the impression I have of things which underpins my use of _modernity _was mistaken. Perhaps it will go the way of _phlogiston_. But at the moment it's what I have.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 14, 2021)

Monadology said:


> There are lots of literate, pre-industrial cultures. Hence why Renaissance Europe is never described as primitive. No one uses 'primitive' to just mean 'pre-industrial.'



Hence why I did not equate those two term. That came from you. Although I disagree that Europe is never described as primitive, especially when we are talking about the development of technology at certain points in time in history.
And when talking about the Grippli the label pre-industrial is entirely useless as everyone in D&D is. But primitive on the other hand still gives you a usable distinction between the technology of the Grippli and other groups in the world.

You seem to have lost the focus on what we are talking about and now just want to argue for arguments sake.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Hence why I did not equate those two term. That came from you. Although I disagree that Europe is never described as primitive, especially when we are talking about the development of technology at certain points in time in history.
> And when talking about the Grippli the label pre-industrial is entirely useless as everyone in D&D is. But primitive on the other hand still gives you a usable distinction between the technology of the Grippli and other groups in the world.
> 
> *You seem to have lost the focus on what we are talking about and now just want to argue for arguments sake.*



I believe the shoe is on the other foot.

_Why are the Grippli presented as "primitive"? _That's exactly what the thread is about - understanding the implications of the use of certain tropes in the fiction of FRPGing.

A post which asserts that (i) Grippli are properly described as "primitive" because (ii) they use less sophisticated or elaborate technology than their neighbours isn't engaging with the thread topic. It isn't addressing the question of _why_ (i) or (ii) or both are part of the fiction, nor _what_ the implications of that are.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I believe the shoe is on the other foot.
> 
> _Why are the Grippli presented as "primitive"? _That's exactly what the thread is about -* understanding the implications of the use of certain tropes in the fiction of FRPGing.*
> 
> A post which asserts that (i) Grippli are properly described as "primitive" because (ii) they use less sophisticated or elaborate technology than their neighbours isn't engaging with the thread topic. It isn't addressing the question of _why_ (i) or (ii) or both are part of the fiction, nor _what_ the implications of that are.



No, this is you projecting other issues you seem to be invested in onto this discussion and adventure writing in general.
The word primitive can and is used to denote technological development as shown. So the entire question comes down to if the development of the Grippli in the adventure fits with what's usually described as primitive.

Your entire crusade about technological diffusion is already moving the goalpost, especially as you are unwilling to accept that historically situations of groups with big technological differences meeting and living next of each other without or with slow technological transfer existed.
So this Grippli situation matches real world historical situations in a RPG loosely modelled after historical cultures.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> You can of course look up dictonaries.
> For example what comes up on google:
> 
> _adjective_
> ...



The OED lists several usages.  Prior to the late 18th century, "primitive" only referred to something foundational, as opposed to "derivative." e.g. the primitive church.  It only comes to denote contemporaries living in an 'early stage in time' in the late 18th century and only in the context of British encounters with native peoples.  That is, to the extent that word refers to difference in technology in human societies, it is intrinsically tied to the colonial encounter, and the belief among Europeans that traveling in space meant a kind of traveling back in time, as Johannes Fabian puts it.   If the word has a more generic usage separate from its origin in the colonial encounter, as evinced by your preferred usage, that is a *later* development, one that develops past or forgets its originary usage. 

Through the nineteenth and early-mid twentieth centuries, the word was inseparable from a derogatory usage, one emanating from a mindset of European superiority in all things.  This extended to the arts, where it was assumed that the material culture of Africa was crude and rudimentary compared to Europe, which caused no small amount of confusion when colonialists discovered, for example, Benin bronze sculptures, which european scholars had to assume actually came from ancient greece due to their existing prejudices (cf Annie Coombes' _Reinventing Africa_).  As I indicated previously, the adventure refers less to the technology of the Grippli, and more to their "primitive decorations," ie their art and culture.  

Your level of defensiveness around this topic, as if a fantasy adventure could not possibly involve and invoke colonial relationships, is simply absurd.  Especially as it was the explicit intention of the author to upend these kind of relationships, only for them to be reinserted via a white, established editor.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> No, this is you projecting other issues you seem to be invested in onto this discussion and adventure writing in general.
> The word primitive can and is used to denote technological development as shown. So the entire question comes down to if the development of the Grippli in the adventure fits with what's usually described as primitive.



The word is used in the adventure to describe the way that the Grippli _decorate_ their homes: "they're modest affairs, primitively decorated with giant crab claws."  It's a judgmental usage, and further this language was the result of a complete rewrite by the editor.  The author described the art of the Grippli as meaningful and important, just different from what the PC adventures might be familiar with.

And btw, this issue come up because THE AUTHOR OF THE ADVENTURE WAS OFFENDED BY THE USAGE OF THE WORD.  It didn't correspond with how he wanted the Grippli described, let alone described using language evolving colonialism.  This was, further, only one change among others that reduced the humanoid npcs to either helpless victims (the Grippli) or evil-for-evil's-sake villains (the Yuan ti).  THE AUTHOR OF THE ADVENTURE WANTS FUTURE PRINTS OF THE BOOK TO NOT INCLUDE HIS NAME BECAUSE HE IS EMBARRASSED BY THESE CHANGES.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 14, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> The word is used in the adventure to describe the way that the Grippli _decorate_ their homes: "they're modest affairs, primitively decorated with giant crab claws."  It's a judgmental usage, and further this language was the result of a complete rewrite by the editor.  The author described the art of the Grippli as meaningful and important, just different from what the PC adventures might be familiar with.
> 
> And btw, this issue come up because THE AUTHOR OF THE ADVENTURE WAS OFFENDED BY THE USAGE OF THE WORD.  It didn't correspond with how he wanted the Grippli described, let alone described using language evolving colonialism.  This was, further, only one change among others that reduced the humanoid npcs to either helpless victims (the Grippli) or evil-for-evil's-sake villains (the Yuan ti).  THE AUTHOR OF THE ADVENTURE WANTS FUTURE PRINTS OF THE BOOK TO NOT INCLUDE HIS NAME BECAUSE HE IS EMBARRASSED BY THESE CHANGES.



Then you might want to check the dictionary again.
_of or denoting a simple, naive style of art that deliberately rejects sophisticated artistic techniques._

So again, the world primitive fits with how the word is used as a neutral description of the art style.
That the editor changed something, that happens. See the example I have posted here from Enworld where the edits completely changed the meaning of an article and were neither discussed with the author nor was he even informed about them. The change to primitive could simply have happened to give players a clearer image of how their art looks like as "meaningful and important, but different" is very nondescriptive.
That the author does not want his name added to the work is his right but its not evidence for anything.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> No, this is you projecting other issues you seem to be invested in onto this discussion and adventure writing in general.



I've got nothing to add to @Malmuria on this topic.



Ixal said:


> Your entire crusade about technological diffusion is already moving the goalpost, especially as you are unwilling to accept that historically situations of groups with big technological differences meeting and living next of each other without or with slow technological transfer existed.



You still haven't told me what the history is of the Grippli in relation to Cormyr. How long have they been neighbours? Why, in the fiction, has technology not diffused?


----------



## Ixal (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> You still haven't told me what the history is of the Grippli in relation to Cormyr. How long have they been neighbours? Why, in the fiction, has technology not diffused?



For the same reasons why it often did not in the real world. Pick one.
The word primitive describes the current situation, not the reasons which resulted in said situation.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 14, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, AT NO TIME, have the Chinese EVER considered themselves 'behind' Europe or the West generally. Yet, even today, that charge is leveled against them, and they were practically universally reviled and labeled as a sort of human plague only 100 years ago. Yet they have one of the most advanced cultures on Earth, and have had for THREE THOUSAND YEARS continuously! So, at one time, from about 1700 to the mid 20th Century, China was in a politically disunified state, and Europe briefly surpassed them in arms manufacturing, which allowed the colonial powers to militarily dominate China.
> 
> How does that fit in your model of 'advanced' and 'primitive'? Europe called the Chinese 'primitive', yet had nothing like their ceramics industry, or numerous other industries, not to even mention that China was still far ahead in finance, and actually pretty close to Europe's equal in manufacturing for most of those 350 years. These labels were simply invented so that Europeans could pretend that their exploitation of the world had some good will motive. We really don't need to perpetuate those lies, do we?



I think that this is where Western perspectives use a selection of other pejorative terms to describe non-Western nations: e.g., Byzantine, decadent, despotic, oppressive, etc. 



pemerton said:


> You still haven't told me what the history is of the Grippli in relation to Cormyr. How long have they been neighbours? Why, in the fiction, has technology not diffused?



I think that there is also the issue of "essentialism" when it comes to Grippli. It's not just that they are described as "primitive" when living near Cormyr, but, rather, that they are commonly depicted as "primitive" regardless of geography, history, or circumstances. They are stuck in their primitive depictions as if their primitiveness is somehow an essential quality to their species.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I think that there is also the issue of "essentialism" when it comes to Grippli. It's not just that they are described as "primitive" when living near Cormyr, but, rather, that they are commonly depicted as "primitive" regardless of geography, history, or circumstances. They are stuck in their primitive depictions as if their primitiveness is somehow an essential quality to their species.



Well this is entirely my point. And is borne out by @Ixal's post just upthread of yours. There's no attempt, in the fiction, to consider any actual social/historical processes which might explain the distribution of, and differences in, technologies.

Instead we have an authorial stipulation that Grippli are "primitive" _just because_. It's racist tropes through-and-through.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Well this is entirely my point. And is borne out by @Ixal's post just upthread of yours. There's no attempt, in the fiction, to consider any actual social/historical processes which might explain the distribution of, and differences in, technologies.
> 
> Instead we have an authorial stipulation that Grippli are "primitive" _just because_. It's racist tropes through-and-through.




Thank you very much for all of your posting on this.

I think what might help me personally is having a list of adjectives and short phrases that would be ok to describe the following in terms of mental and technological states.

(Grippy 1) - Imagine a "frog humanoidish" species that might be thought of as picturing a frog who's been magically crossed with a chimpanzee (although they might just have evolved or whatnot).   So they're social like many types of frogs, better at burrowing than the small tree frogs if that's helpful, have hands to build shelters with if that works better, and have tool using ability like a chimpanzee might since they have opposable thumbs and somewhat more relevantly evolved brains.   [Not a PC available species]

(Grippy 2) Imagine a "frog humanoidish" species that's essentially like halflings with lots of tree frog characteristics.  Unlike the halflings who unobtrusively shelter with many communities of demi-humans in the bad times (war with orcs or goblins?  go shelter with the dwarves or humans if they find our shire), the extra level of non-humanness has made this hard for the Grippy 2 and so many groups of them over the ages have sheltered by finding less and less hospitable and hidden areas.  Historically this has made it harder for them to build some kinds of infrastructure (large farms, large mills, large smelters, etc...) and to have much less trade with other species, and so they might not share the same armor and weapons tech that is the default for many of the other humanoid races.  There are some populations of Grippy 2 that have found acceptance near other species and they will typically have the standard suite of default demi-human magic and tech available (in addition to specialized items that work just for them).   [May or may not be a PC available species].


----------



## Ixal (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Well this is entirely my point. And is borne out by @Ixal's post just upthread of yours. There's no attempt, in the fiction, to consider any actual social/historical processes which might explain the distribution of, and differences in, technologies.
> 
> Instead we have an authorial stipulation that Grippli are "primitive" _just because_. It's racist tropes through-and-through.



Yeah, it looks like you are now(?) just arguing for arguments sake. Do you really expect adventures to provide a detailed historic justification for the current state found in said adventure? A treatise about the socio-economical circumstances which made a specific tribe of goblins live in the same cave structure as a beholder?

No you don't, because it is not relevant for the adventure which describes the current snapshot in time the adventurers are confronted with. Only now you suddenly want this requirement because you failed to argue that "primitive" is an inherently racist word used to degrade entire societies instead of just describing the state of technological development (or artistic style).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Cadence said:


> I think what might help me personally is having a list of adjectives and short phrases that would be ok to describe the following in terms of mental and technological states.



What I would focus on is _what is going on with your fiction? _What's it for? As in, what's its point?

Eg if your fiction posits an essentially human people who live adjacent to, and in contact with, pseudo-High Mediaeval France but have technology comparable to Australia at the same period, what is going on? What are you trying to achieve or communicate?

Describing these people as _primitive _seems to reinforce the sort of essentialist idea that @Aldarc described upthread. I just don't see what it adds.

Eg if you want to say that a particular language is not normally written down, I think maybe you just say that. Again, though, the question might be _why_? What are we meant to take away from this fiction? I can imagine a culture that, for some reason - in the context of a FRPG, perhaps reinforced by supernatural imperatives - rejects the written word. But then we are not talking about "primitives" - we're talking about traditions or taboos.

And of course the Cormyr-type peoples probably have traditions or taboos too - presenting them as normatively typical, while presenting the non-literate culture as "primitive" or deviant, seems like a way to reinforce racialised ideas.

I don't know if this is quite the answer you were looking for, but I hope it is a contribution to the conversation.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 14, 2021)

"Some folks think word A is used to other, has a bunch of negative irl uses, and argue it has a lot more connotations than intended when trying to describe what I think it does.  I'd rather defend the right to not pay attention to how others interpret things than pick another word or use something more precise."


----------



## Cadence (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> What I would focus on is _what is going on with your fiction? _What's it for? As in, what's its point?
> 
> Eg if your fiction posits an essentially human people who live adjacent to, and in contact with, pseudo-High Mediaeval France but have technology comparable to Australia at the same period, what is going on? What are you trying to achieve or communicate?
> 
> ...




Right. I was hoping for free labor in coming up with some good words for examples like those to.

How are chimpanzees described compared to humans or monkeys in terms of intelligence?

Are non-metal working, oral (not written) traditions, local material/non-milled construction, wildlife inspired designs, and bartering economy all the kind of thing you'd recommend for my Gripy2 example?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 14, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> The conception of the Civilized/Advanced and the Savage/Primitive suffused all of these interactions with the Zulu.  Versions of these concepts were developed and advanced by leading scientists of the day, and they were ubiquitous in European and American popular culture (including, in many cases, the pulp fiction that inspired dnd (see Haggard and others)).  "Primitive" was the logic of "In Darkest Africa," and gave rise to the notion that "Civilizing" Africa was a European duty and birthright.





Malmuria said:


> This extended to the arts, where it was assumed that the material culture of Africa was crude and rudimentary compared to Europe, which caused no small amount of confusion when colonialists discovered, for example, Benin bronze sculptures, which european scholars had to assume actually came from ancient greece due to their existing prejudices (cf Annie Coombes' _Reinventing Africa_).




You're right, I think, that H Rider Haggard is really important here. There's a throughline from the idea that Great Zimbabwe wasn't built by black people, its popularisation by Haggard in _King Solomon’s Mines_ (1885), to the Lost World genre, particularly Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan (and possibly also Tolkien), and from there to the Sueloise ruins in Greyhawk (and many similar D&D adventure locations built by lost races).

Daniel Tangri, _Popular Fiction and the Zimbabwe Controversy_ (1990):

Haggard believed that the local Bantu were too primitive to have produced anything monumental, and opted in favor of Mediterranean colonists.​​This message was simple; Phoenicia had once been a great imperial power in southern Africa, much in the same way as Britain was in the nineteenth century. Britain, then, was legally and morally entitled to colonize the region, as it was the successor of Phoenicia.​
This topic deserves a much more detailed treatment than I've given it in this short post.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 14, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> the idea that Great Zimbabwe wasn't built by black people



A similar myth developed about the 5000+ year old burial mounds built in the vicinity of the Great Lakes, Ohio River valley, and Mississippi River valley.

Patrick Brantlinger, _Dark Vanishings_ (2003):

The discovery of Indian burial mounds led to the idea that North America had once supported a nascent civilization, perhaps equivalent to those of Mexico and Peru. This quasi-civilization had, however, declined and fallen, as had those of the Incas and Mexicans. Because they did not construct mounds, existing Indians, it was often claimed, were either the degenerate offspring of the mound builders or an altogether different race. According to the second possibility, the Indians were the barbarian destroyers of the perhaps white race that had constructed the mounds.​​President Andrew Jackson contended that the government was only doing to the Indians what they had done to the earlier, mysterious, quite possibly white race of mound builders.​
President Andrew Jackson, second annual message to Congress (1830):
"In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes."

Richard Slotkin, _Gunfighter Nation_ (1992):
"These speculations [about the mounds and other North American ruins] harmonized with the "lost race" fantasies produced in the same period by Burroughs, and earlier by writers like H. Rider Haggard."


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Then you might want to check the dictionary again.
> _of or denoting a simple, naive style of art that deliberately rejects sophisticated artistic techniques._



Yes, it was used to contrast the "sophisticated" style of 19th c. French painters with the "naive" style of people of color.  It is completely dismissive of non (elite) European culture (at least until it was time for European modernists to appropriate primitivist aesthetics).


Ixal said:


> So again, the world primitive fits with how the word is used as a neutral description of the art style.





Ixal said:


> The change to primitive could simply have happened to give players a clearer image of how their art looks like as "meaningful and important, but different" is very nondescriptive.
> That the author does not want his name added to the work is his right but its not evidence for anything.



That was not his wording, but my gloss on what he was trying to communicate, per his blog post.  His actual wording will probably never be available because wotc owns the copyright.  




Ixal said:


> Yeah, it looks like you are now(?) just arguing for arguments sake. Do you really expect adventures to provide a detailed historic justification for the current state found in said adventure? A treatise about the socio-economical circumstances which made a specific tribe of goblins live in the same cave structure as a beholder?
> 
> No you don't, because it is not relevant for the adventure which describes the current snapshot in time the adventurers are confronted with. Only now you suddenly want this requirement because you failed to argue that "primitive" is an inherently racist word used to degrade entire societies instead of just describing the state of technological development (or artistic style).



When all of this went down I went through a did a word count on several of the adventures in the book.  This particular adventure is one of the shortest, coming in at 6000 ish words.  Other adventures are 8-10k words.  The problem that the author had with the editing is not just the inclusion of this word, but the fact that they cut out a lot of necessary context that made the lore of the adventure richer.  

Btw, if wotc had a decent editing process they would have caught this particular problem (use of the word primitive) before the adventure was published.  Contemporary editors have to consider how a text will be interpreted by a variety of readers.  Even small indie ttrpg designers hire sensitivity readers.

In terms of arguing for argument sake, if you take a step back this thread is a bunch of people trying to think through issues of race and colonialism in fantasy gaming in a nuanced and informed way.  And then there is one person--you--who is telling everyone else their extremely well researched positions are mere fabrications.  What is your investment in this discussion?  Why is it not possible for you to accept that people who are not you might interpret a text differently?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Agreed.
> 
> This discussion of rates of change and diffusion also relates to my question about the Grippli and Cormyr - what is the timeframe in relation to which I am expected to imagine there has been no significant technological diffusion. And also why I asked about a comparison to twelfth-century Kent and western Ireland.
> 
> ...



It is certainly one of the most profound questions one might ask about the history of the last 500 years or so. My personal opinion is that many areas of world have been at pretty similar points in their overall development all along. Certainly Eurasia. I would expect a lot of the reason IS cultural diffusion, any really significant advance in technology, society, politics, finance, etc. spread west or east within a few centuries at most. T'ang China had things like letters of credit, paper money, printing, etc. in the 9th and 10th Centuries. All of those things reached Europe by the 12th Century in some form. Likewise 11th Century Song China had gunpowder and blast furnaces, and these showed up in Europe too within 3-5 centuries. 

So, really what we see is that probably there was just some fairly minor variance in terms of exactly when each region might trip past the phase change to a post-agrarian state. The question then simply becomes analysis of the specific historical details of the period from around 1200 to 1600 when this transition was beginning. You may advance many hypotheses of course. China famously was more centralized, and its rulers had greater influence. They chose to quash certain advances, such as exploration and colonization, etc. but there are other pretty good possible reasons as well. None of them involve supposed 'primitiveness' or 'inferiority' in any practical sense. At least not any serious theories.

The rise of 21st Century China, like 20th Century Japan, should really be no surprise to intelligent people. I guess Nixon certainly figured it out...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Then you might want to check the dictionary again.
> _of or denoting a simple, naive style of art that deliberately rejects sophisticated artistic techniques._
> 
> So again, the world primitive fits with how the word is used as a neutral description of the art style.
> ...



Nonsense. This usage of 'primitive', actually 'primitiv*ism*' is a very specific art historical term denoting a specific artistic style. Now, obviously people have used it to denote the artwork of non-western/non-industrial peoples working in a traditional style, but this use is *highly controversial and usually denigrated, and considered offensive!* Even Wikipedia notes this in the article which comes up when you search for 'primitive art', in the first sentence. The point being, there are vastly better terms to use, and serious editors in this day and age working in, for example the RPG industry, probably should be getting clued on that real soon now, like years ago.

Anyway, this kind of usage of the term 'primitive art' is not really descriptive of anything at all. Much of what would fall under that definition is extremely fine art and craftwork of a sophistication and quality that is the equal of anything produced anywhere on Earth at any time period. It tells us nothing except the prejudices of the word's user in that context. This is why the author objects to strongly, and I am 100% on his side. Kim Mohan seems like a decent guy, but he goofed up on that one. I don't know if he's just old and out of touch, or simply had a bad editorial day, but I'm guessing it won't happen again!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I think that this is where Western perspectives use a selection of other pejorative terms to describe non-Western nations: e.g., Byzantine, decadent, despotic, oppressive, etc.
> 
> 
> I think that there is also the issue of "essentialism" when it comes to Grippli. It's not just that they are described as "primitive" when living near Cormyr, but, rather, that they are commonly depicted as "primitive" regardless of geography, history, or circumstances. They are stuck in their primitive depictions as if their primitiveness is somehow an essential quality to their species.



I think there's a sort of weird speciesism too. I'm not sure where exactly it comes from, but I've seen it a few times. For example, we played a 5e campaign in the faux Egyptian setting that is popular (whatever its called, I forget). There are civilized gnolls, catfolk, and IIRC a few other races. When I suggested it might be interesting to play a 'frog folk' it was immediately determined that, unlike catfolk, they would have to be somehow primitives. All these races could live together in the city, but I guess frogs are 'lower life forms' and 'must be primitive'. 

I would opine that this seeming default attitude can be easily traced to associations created in the process of erecting the edifice of colonial cultural hegemony and domination we have been discussing. I don't think Grippli particularly represent some specific social group, or that they are a stand-in for any particular race or people real world history. It is just that these ideas of 'primitiveness' and a 'hierarchy of being' have been so strongly ingrained that people cannot even see it in their own basic default assumptions. This is really what the whole point of what 'CRT' is.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2021)

Cadence said:


> Right. I was hoping for free labor in coming up with some good words for examples like those to.
> 
> How are chimpanzees described compared to humans or monkeys in terms of intelligence?
> 
> Are non-metal working, oral (not written) traditions, local material/non-milled construction, wildlife inspired designs, and bartering economy all the kind of thing you'd recommend for my Gripy2 example?



I wasn't sure there was especially a LOT to distinguish them. I mean, obviously they are slightly different 'spins' on Grippli, but I would think any 'anthro' animal people are going to sort of look like 'a chimp crossed with an...' anyway. You could describe the 'elaborate' burrow systems of the underground living variant, and a tree-living variant can fairly obviously build interesting tree homes of some sort. I'd note that making them similar in various particulars to human habitations is a bit anthropocentric, but it may simply be a practical necessity, and if they are already 'anthro' animal people anyway it is kind of water under the bridge! Still, it might be interesting for tree frog people to travel on the undersides of gripping poles that run between platforms or something, and perhaps they build them at various angles, since they can walk anywhere and don't need horizontal surfaces, etc. 

I was also thinking about more biomechanics WRT any sort of non-human race and how its tools are formed. We create ours largely to suit the particular range of motion and styles of grip humans have. Other intelligent creatures might favor somewhat different designs, like knives with handles at right angles to the blade, or other sorts of handles and grips, etc. Other common objects might well vary a good bit from human tools and utensils also.

While it is hard to really develop a conception of a really non-human mentality, some sci-fi authors have made a decent go of it. You might imagine how that would arise and what it would be like (I remember Larry Niven stating that Puppeteers for example are highly aggressive, being herd living grazing animals in origin and reacting to possible threats in a specific and not-very-human way.).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It is certainly one of the most profound questions one might ask about the history of the last 500 years or so. My personal opinion is that many areas of world have been at pretty similar points in their overall development all along. Certainly Eurasia. I would expect a lot of the reason IS cultural diffusion, any really significant advance in technology, society, politics, finance, etc. spread west or east within a few centuries at most. T'ang China had things like letters of credit, paper money, printing, etc. in the 9th and 10th Centuries. All of those things reached Europe by the 12th Century in some form. Likewise 11th Century Song China had gunpowder and blast furnaces, and these showed up in Europe too within 3-5 centuries.
> 
> So, really what we see is that probably there was just some fairly minor variance in terms of exactly when each region might trip past the phase change to a post-agrarian state. The question then simply becomes analysis of the specific historical details of the period from around 1200 to 1600 when this transition was beginning.



Yes. This is the focus of the Hodgson essay I've cited upthread.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Yes. This is the focus of the Hodgson essay I've cited upthread.



Well, obviously great minds think alike...


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 17, 2021)

Cadence said:


> The traveller SRD at least has
> TL 0-3 = Primitive
> TL 4-6 = Industrial
> TL 7-9 = Pre-Stellar
> ...



And that's an error I may go fix. The proper 0-3 is "PreIndustrial" (excepting mayby in the travesty which is Mongoose's efforts.

0-3 are also more firmly labeled with anthropological/archaological labels. (MT ref's page 23? PDF page 25)
0 PreInd (Primitive) Stone Age
1 PreInd (Bronze, Iron) Middle Ages
2 PreInd (Printing Press) Circa 1600
3 PreInd (Basic Science) Circa 1800
4 Industrial (Int. Combustion) Circa 1900
5 Industrial (Mass Production) Circa 1930
6 Pre-Stellar (Nuclear Power) Circa 1950
7 Pre-Stellar (Mini Electronics) Circa 1970
8 Prestellar (Superconductors) Circa 1990
9 Early Stellar (Fusion) Circa 2010
A Early Stellar (Jump Drive) circa 2100
B Average Stellar (Large Starships)
C Average Stellar (Sophisticated Robots) 
D Average Stellar (Holo Data) 
E High Stellar (anti-grav ciities)
F High Stellar (Anagathics)
G High Stellar (Global terraforming)


----------



## Carlsen Chris (Jul 17, 2021)

Lots of white privilege going on here.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 17, 2021)

Carlsen Chris said:


> Lots of white privilege going on here.



Not a terribly useful comment... care to explain?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 17, 2021)

Carlsen Chris said:


> Lots of white privilege going on here.





aramis erak said:


> Not a terribly useful comment... care to explain?



How about let’s not and move on.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 18, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> And that's an error I may go fix. The proper 0-3 is "PreIndustrial" (excepting mayby in the travesty which is Mongoose's efforts.



I misread that SRD as Wiki... I cannot fix the SRD. I can suggest ignoring that part of the SRD and using better lables.
Note that that labeling all of 0-3 as "Primitive" is a Mongoosism, one of many things that make me rather derisively minded toward the game and the company.
I CT, MT, TNE, and on, TL0 is bone and stone ages all together. A definition of primitive being still potentially technological, just not of need at a civilization (= living in permanent settlements full time) supporting level.

"Primitive" in Traveller other than the mongoose edition means no metal tools. It makes no judgement about civilized (living in permanent settlements) vs Nomadic vs migratory (I've heard the term para-civilized and semi-nomadic; it's migrating from one permanent site to another in a stead rotation;

Let's list the materials allowed for MegaTraveller TL0...
Stone, bone, antler, mud/clay, brick, wood, sap, grasses, leaves (esp palm leaves and pine needles, also long cactus spines), shells (bivalves, snails), teeth (esp. sharks and rodents), fire, tar seeps, 

Stone tools can be of several kinds... 
simple hammer & anvil (been used by monkeys)
Simple single break scrapers - can be done with most rock types. Enables converting grasses, leaves, and bark to fibers. Can be used to sharpen wood into spears (I've done this.)
Flaked tools - shaped core - mostly scrapers/hand-axes
Flaked tools - useful shards - hand knives
Flaked tools - complex shaped shards

Bone tools: 
Simple hammers from longbones.
Simple saws from carnasial teeth of predators
Awls, adzes, and scrapers from rodent teeth
With stone tools, you can make bone needles, bone brushes, bone spearpoints, bone knives/spatulas, maces (look up walrus baculum, known in Western Alaska as an Usik, Oosiq, or Oosik. Used as a fishbat and also used to be used for seal harvesting).


Things learned from experimental archaeology:

It's possible to make bone spear tips and (low quality) scrapers and awls  without use of stone. Bone on bone can be used to make the needed fractures.
It's possible to make mudbrick without stone tools or even bone ones, but the digging is easier with wood, antler, or bone tools than by hand alone.
Bone knives can be used to harvest bark fibers, and for cutting cooked meats and scraping fat off hides.
sap can be turned into a usable glue in skulls by putting the sap inside the skull, and using a fire pit to heat it. It can be even converted to a tarry glue that way.
Tar can be used from natural seeps or mildly processed in the same way as pitch.
Shark teeth washed ashore or from caught sharks can be used to work wood almost as well as stone flake tools. They also can be used as arrowheads and (when set in grooves in a wood handle) as serrated swords.
Woven grasses, either whole  or stripped down to raw fiber, can be used to make durable goods. Long pine needles can, as well. 
Human hair can be used as a binding material for bone, tooth, stone, wood, pine needle, or even animal fiber. 
certain wild animals have useful hair, as well in addition to the shorter fur. Horses especially, but also certain others. Those that are long enough to tie two bundles of needles together or to lash down a spearhead, reinforced with pitch, tar, or other glues.
splitting sinew doesn't require a lot of force, just a sharp edge. 
Bone can have a surprisingly sharp edge
Baskets can be used to cook over a fire. (Thank you to the Hopi for showing this to anthropologists in the 80's or 90's...)

On a late medieval level... say, Spanish America? South American Civilizations were not quite good enough to stop conquistadores 1:1, but enough to hold their own  with their 100:1 ratio... until smallpox and other Eurpean diseases killed well more than half. The sharktooth swords and similar obsidian and stone edged swords were in fact pretty effective... but no defense against diseases. The locals were still at a stone age tech level, most without even the wheel as a simple tool... but they were not far behind Eurpeans in standard of living, nor in personal combat capabilities. Bone over rigid leather is almost as good as bronze over leather. 


Primitives who are not warring have no need to match the neighbors. They provide a sufficient disincentive for cautious colonialism; only in desperation or xenophobia are they worth dealing with until they become a problem. 

the term itself may be laden, but what it represents isn't a huge difference in force multipler; the most important element is the armor, not the weapons. Antler picks are quite capable of denting steel armor sufficiently to do significant injury.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2021)

One of the things people forget is that blunt weapons (of any sufficiently hard material) can deliver dangerous injuries, even through armor of more advanced materials.  The reason is that blunt weapons don’t just crush flesh and bone, but can also wound via hydrostatic shock- energy transmitted though the body beca of the non-compressibility of water.  A blow that doesn’t crush may nonetheless cause a concussion, deaden a limb or disrupt the function of an organ.

IOW, a stone-headed club may be a more serious threat to a metal-armored warrior than a piercing or slashing weapon of similarly low tech level.


----------



## Ace (Jul 18, 2021)

The problem with   D&D alignments is that Evil doesn't always mean raving monster. Its means selfish, power hungry, cruel. Unp;leasant traits 

  Treating every encounter as they were mindless killers is not bad gaming at least for me. Its just boring.

Sure Evil  can Eeeyargh Bloodfeast demon of a thousand slaughters or  a causal killer Nine Eyes  Raken (CE) , it can a self absorbed necromancer with no regard for the sanctity of life and death caring only his experiments or it can be a selfish Mountebank based Gordon Gecko (NE) It can be a dreadful orc enforcer or a charming slaver who believes the weak must serve the strong (LE) 

Thus whole Ancestries being one alignment or nearly all of them (remember Drizzt was almost a novelty)  is fine if you play sentient thinking  as such. 

And note a lot of people aren't playing D&D for nuance, just fun so always evil orcs will be fine with many players


----------



## Ace (Jul 18, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I think there are competing philosophies behind world building.  Personally, I view a game world's primary purpose as being a place where PCs can have interesting adventures.  There are a whole swath of things I never think about because it doesn't lead to interesting adventures.  Do I really care what that this kingdom's primary export is wheat or how their economy really works?  Only if it has an impact on the adventure.  But other people love creating a living breathing world that seems real filling it with details that may or may not someday become relevant to game play.  Very often those worlds are more fun to read.  Probably more fun to make too.



I've noticed broadly that very few players care much about the world . There are exceptions , lore hounds, long term players in long running games  that sort of thing. Mostly D&D is "Point me in the direction of the adventure." 

I've used a super generic world, described places as "Not Venice" "Not German" and the players are like "Cool." and often start adding on.

On similar grounds its why I think the "always evil" debate in D&D is more an academic debate that spilled onto the gaming table rather than anything intrinsic to the hobby.  Its cognitive dissonance between the stuff learned in  college, politics  among a few people meeting the more freebooting, reaving fantasy vagabondage that most D&D is about and that most people care about.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 18, 2021)

Ace said:


> I think the "always evil" debate in D&D is more an academic debate that spilled onto the gaming table rather than anything intrinsic to the hobby.  Its cognitive dissonance between the stuff learned in  college, politics  among a few people meeting the more freebooting, reaving fantasy vagabondage that most D&D is about and that most people care about.



I think there is ample evidence, both from history and from current events, that concern for racism, and the propagation of racist tropes and racialised ways of thinking via cultural artefacts, is not a purely academic concern.

In fact I would go so far as to say that only someone living in an ivory tower could think so.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 18, 2021)

Ace said:


> On similar grounds its why I think the "always evil" debate in D&D is more an academic debate that spilled onto the gaming table rather than anything intrinsic to the hobby.



The chart below is from _Dungeons & Dragons Book I Men & Magic_ (1974). It shows that orcs (and some other monsters, such as ogres and minotaurs), could be either Chaotic or Neutral in the original game. Chaos in 1974 D&D was synonymous with evil.






Post #280 from upthread covers the history of "always evil" monsters in D&D. It provides evidence that orcs were always evil in the _AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide_ (1979), stopped being inherently evil in Roger Moore's article _Half-orcs_ in _Dragon #62_ (1982), became inherently evil again in D&D 5e (2014), and stopped being inherently evil for a second time with WotC's announcement Diversity and Dungeons & Dragons in 2020.

Therefore it can be concluded that orcs have been always evil for nine years out of the 47 years D&D has been in existence.


----------



## Cadence (Jul 18, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I wasn't sure there was especially a LOT to distinguish them. I mean, obviously they are slightly different 'spins' on Grippli, but I would think any 'anthro' animal people are going to sort of look like 'a chimp crossed with an...' anyway. You could describe the 'elaborate' burrow systems of the underground living variant, and a tree-living variant can fairly obviously build interesting tree homes of some sort. I'd note that making them similar in various particulars to human habitations is a bit anthropocentric, but it may simply be a practical necessity, and if they are already 'anthro' animal people anyway it is kind of water under the bridge! Still, it might be interesting for tree frog people to travel on the undersides of gripping poles that run between platforms or something, and perhaps they build them at various angles, since they can walk anywhere and don't need horizontal surfaces, etc.




I might have buried it under too much other stuff. One of the big differences I was going for is that the former were chimpanzee equivalent intellect and niche filling and the later were human equivalent intellect and niche filling.

Are there any adjectives to describe those different levels of mental capability besides just relating them to different species (human, chimp, etc...).

For the later group, most of them live in very isolated places and so haven't been exposed to the full tech/magic suite that is the default in the PhB (but are probably really good at surviving in the out of way place they found and some variants of bard and druid).  It feels like "isolated" and then a paragraph description of their tech in contrast to the default PhB tech is a good way to describe this, and nothing is really added by primitive. ("The city trained explorers that manage to survive their treks in the Grippy homeland often only did so because they realized they were just as out of their depth in the Grippy lands as a Grippy would be on their first visit to the city... and decided to approach the native experts as they would any other needed experts. The explorers that looked down on the Grippy as primitive often didn't survive the diseases and treacherous landscape long enough to regret it.")


----------



## MGibster (Jul 18, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I think that this is where Western perspectives use a selection of other pejorative terms to describe non-Western nations: e.g., Byzantine, decadent, despotic, oppressive, etc.



Byzantine is used to describe a situation, often bureaucratic, that is overly complicated, tedious, and difficult to understand.  I don't think I've ever heard someone use byzantine to describe another nation unless they were literally speaking about Byzantium.  In my professional life, I've described certain administrative processes of the federal government as byzantine.  As far as decadent is concerned I've typically heard it used in one of two ways:  To describe a confection, typically chocolate, as part of an advertising campaign.  And by Soviet pundits and historians who referred to the United States as decadent.  And as far as despot goes, we've referred to plenty of western leaders as despots including Napoleon and Frederick II of Prussia.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 18, 2021)

Ace said:


> I've noticed broadly that very few players care much about the world . There are exceptions , lore hounds, long term players in long running games that sort of thing. Mostly D&D is "Point me in the direction of the adventure."



Largely this has been my experience as well.  Aside from running _Star Wars_, I cannot remember the last time I participated in a game where all the players were well acquainted with the setting.  Which works out fairly well most of the time because the expected behavior of PCs in one D&D setting is typically the same across the board.  It's caused some problems when switching over to other games with different settings and assumptions.  



Ace said:


> I've used a super generic world, described places as "Not Venice" "Not German" and the players are like "Cool." and often start adding on.



Same here.  In my dwarf campaign I described them as coming from not-Bavaria.  I think I called it Beerfelden because they had a lot of wheat and barley growing on the surface.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 18, 2021)

MGibster said:


> Byzantine is used to describe a situation, often bureaucratic, that is overly complicated, tedious, and difficult to understand.  I don't think I've ever heard someone use byzantine to describe another nation unless they were literally speaking about Byzantium.  In my professional life, I've described certain administrative processes of the federal government as byzantine.  As far as decadent is concerned I've typically heard it used in one of two ways:  To describe a confection, typically chocolate, as part of an advertising campaign.  And by Soviet pundits and historians who referred to the United States as decadent.  And as far as despot goes, we've referred to plenty of western leaders as despots including Napoleon and Frederick II of Prussia.



All of those terms were in play in the way Western Europe, particularly in the early twentieth century, described the late Ottoman empire and to an extent, Russia and Asian societies.  It's was a modification of a 'progressivist' notion of history that attempted to account for the much longer and deeper history of non-Western 'civilizations,' so as to justify Western superiority.  Decadence, as in 'decadent art,' was also notably used by reactionaries to criticize the cosmopolitan aspects of Western culture in a search for a highly nationalistic identity that was thought to be more 'pure' (with all of the well known and terrible implications that attend to that concept).


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 18, 2021)

Ace said:


> On similar grounds its why I think the "always evil" debate in D&D is more an academic debate that spilled onto the gaming table rather than anything intrinsic to the hobby.  Its cognitive dissonance between the stuff learned in  college, politics  among a few people meeting the more freebooting, reaving fantasy vagabondage that most D&D is about and that most people care about.



Really?  I feel like some version of it come up quite often in gameplay when you have players who are interested in different tactics. One person enjoys the combat, while another might want to negotiate, and to do so need more information about the motivations of the monsters (are they inherently evil?  Or is the story more complicated?).  It also comes up, especially in older editions, when characters like Paladins or Druids had specific positions around when violence was justified, often tied to their class abilities and alignment.  Hence the copious debates around orc babies and the like.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 18, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> All of those terms were in play in the way Western Europe, particularly in the early twentieth century, described the late Ottoman empire and to an extent, Russia and Asian societies. It's was a modification of a 'progressivist' notion of history that attempted to account for the much longer and deeper history of non-Western 'civilizations,' so as to justify Western superiority. Decadence, as in 'decadent art,' was also notably used by reactionaries to criticize the cosmopolitan aspects of Western culture in a search for a highly nationalistic identity that was thought to be more 'pure' (with all of the well known and terrible implications that attend to that concept).




I think the important thing is that we're living in the 21st century not the early 20th.  I'm not going to worry about referring to a fictional kingdom as decadent just because reactionaries used it to describe art or the Orient decades before I was born.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 18, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> It also comes up, especially in older editions, when characters like Paladins or Druids had specific positions around when violence was justified, often tied to their class abilities and alignment. Hence the copious debates around orc babies and the like.



I don't think I ever witnessed any debate over what to do about orc babies and the like during game play back in the dark ages of the 80s and 90s.  i.e.  I've certainly never run into a Paladin in a game who thought it was perfectly acceptable to slaughter non-combatants of any kind or a DM who punished a good player for failing to do so.  Like many debates over alignment, many of them were hypothetical and typically didn't have a significant impact during game play.  This is one of those raging debates I've seen online that I rarely hear anyone talk about in person.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 18, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I think the important thing is that we're living in the 21st century not the early 20th.  I'm not going to worry about referring to a fictional kingdom as decadent just because reactionaries used it to describe art or the Orient decades before I was born.



Sure.  Words carry a density of meaning that can be and is often glossed over in everyday usage.  Further, words  of course expand, contract, and change in meaning all the time.  I don't think a term like "Villain," for example, still has any class connotation in contemporary English even though it is there in its etymology; other, similar words, like "churlish" or "boor" still do to some degree, but wouldn't be offensive along those lines without a more explicit context.

If I was editing an rpg supplement, and the author had written an East Asia analogue and described it "decadent," I would raise a note of concern, and if they had a South Africa analogue and described it as "primitive" I would...well, that might be more a circle it in red with exclamation marks type situation.  It's all about being sensitive to the context, situation, and tropes of your writing, and the perspectives of your readers/players.  If one of your players came to you with concerns about the language you were using, I would hope that anyone would take those concerns seriously rather than dismissing them.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 18, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I misread that SRD as Wiki... I cannot fix the SRD. I can suggest ignoring that part of the SRD and using better lables.
> Note that that labeling all of 0-3 as "Primitive" is a Mongoosism, one of many things that make me rather derisively minded toward the game and the company.
> I CT, MT, TNE, and on, TL0 is bone and stone ages all together. A definition of primitive being still potentially technological, just not of need at a civilization (= living in permanent settlements full time) supporting level.
> 
> ...



I looked at my copy of The Traveller Book, printed in 1982 by GDW, which was an update of the original 3BB 'Classic' edition, and pretty much identical in most respects. It lists only TL 0 as 'primitive', pretty much the same as you do. I'm going to guess, without digging out the original 3BBs, that this is how it was worded there.

Mongoose Traveller is, overall, pretty faithful to the original, and is a pretty well-written game on the whole. I think you're bashing it unnecessarily. Obviously any rewrite of the rulebook is going to make a few changes or even just mistakes. On the whole I think it is one of the best efforts out there.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 18, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One of the things people forget is that blunt weapons (of any sufficiently hard material) can deliver dangerous injuries, even through armor of more advanced materials.  The reason is that blunt weapons don’t just crush flesh and bone, but can also wound via hydrostatic shock- energy transmitted though the body beca of the non-compressibility of water.  A blow that doesn’t crush may nonetheless cause a concussion, deaden a limb or disrupt the function of an organ.
> 
> IOW, a stone-headed club may be a more serious threat to a metal-armored warrior than a piercing or slashing weapon of similarly low tech level.



Honestly, I would consider a good 2 pound club to be a VERY effective weapon. Easy to wield, effective in most situations, and very easy to produce. I have a very nice Masai Rungu that is well balanced and small enough to carry around unobtrusively too. I obviously never hit anyone with it, but it would surely stun an unarmored person, and it is much lighter than the heavier sort of clubs you would use against serious armored opponents. 

Swords were really more of a prestige item than anything else. The Romans needed a weapon that could be wielded in close quarters, and I suppose the longer reach for a given weight might be a reason they were preferred by a lot of mounted people, but a good club is as dangerous as anything out there.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 18, 2021)

Ace said:


> I've noticed broadly that very few players care much about the world . There are exceptions , lore hounds, long term players in long running games  that sort of thing. Mostly D&D is "Point me in the direction of the adventure."
> 
> I've used a super generic world, described places as "Not Venice" "Not German" and the players are like "Cool." and often start adding on.
> 
> On similar grounds its why I think the "always evil" debate in D&D is more an academic debate that spilled onto the gaming table rather than anything intrinsic to the hobby.  Its cognitive dissonance between the stuff learned in  college, politics  among a few people meeting the more freebooting, reaving fantasy vagabondage that most D&D is about and that most people care about.



I've played since almost the earliest days of D&D. The debate existed even BEFORE D&D (I cite Moorcock, who is the grandparent of D&D alignment for sure). The debates about exactly what 'chaotic' and 'lawful' meant and what then did it mean to be 'good' or 'evil' is what LEAD to 2-axis alignment in the first place! All D&D needed was 2 sides, the 'friendlies' and the 'hostiles', which law<->chaos already provided, the rest was spawned PURELY by players debating about it!

So, no, this is not simply an academic question that some 'egg heads' pooped on the D&D table with and made into an issue. It is implicit, with all its warts and bumps and debates about light-hearted "kill all evil!" black and white play vs more nuanced shades-of-grey, which pretty quickly led to the whole full-on debate (like by 1976 at most). 

The problem is, simplistic ideas of alignment, even 2-axis alignment with 'true neutral' as an option (the full 9 bin grid) doesn't cut it outside of some very simple adventures. What is the alignment of the baron who runs the Keep on the Borderlands? He's greedy, sly and dishonest when it can make him a gold piece, but totally fierce in his determination to defend the Keep and wipe out any threat to it (albeit at no cost to himself if possible). Is he good? Evil? Lawful? Chaotic? You cannot answer that, nobody can. Yet mechanically it could be important in a D&D game, because alignment mechanics are baked in. So, outside of 'loot the dungeon' the whole bugbear had to be wrestled and some sort of consensus reached at the table so you can at least play.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 18, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> The chart below is from _Dungeons & Dragons Book I Men & Magic_ (1974). It shows that orcs (and some other monsters, such as ogres and minotaurs), could be either Chaotic or Neutral in the original game. Chaos in 1974 D&D was synonymous with evil.
> 
> View attachment 140762
> 
> ...



4e? Alignment is rather less important/emphasized in 4e, but I don't think anything hints at humanoids who are other than evil. That is orcs have CE for their alignment, I think goblins in general are listed as LE. Lizardfolk are neutral, as always. Anyway, orcs themselves are described in the 4e MM pretty much the way they were in the 1e MM, though the description is a bit briefer and thus misses a few tropes. Still, orcs are "savage, bloodthirsty marauders" and "can be coerced or bullied into serving any dark overlord or wicket monster powerful enough to command their obedience." Suffice it to say 4e has nothing GOOD to say about orcs, at least at this stage.

There was, IIRC, an article about playing orcs, and they had a PC stat block in the back of the MM, though I don't think they got the kind of writeup that some other humanoid races did (IE gnolls). half-orcs do avoid the stigma of being an inferior result of cross-breeding, at least explicitly (in PHB2 where they appear). The MM orc picture also depicts them as distinctly dark-skinned and attired in a rather crude fashion. They appear to be ugly, dirty, and violent! The lore section says more of the same negative stuff, lazy, grasping, preferring to take rather than build, bloodthirsty, cannibals, etc. 

So, no kudos on 4e there, and I think you'd have to count that edition as 'evil orcs', though some later materials are a bit more nuanced. Still, Monster Vault presents them in the same terms as MM1 did 5 years earlier, and their picture if anything, doubles down on the 'dark-skinned' aspect.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Sure.  Words carry a density of meaning that can be and is often glossed over in everyday usage.  Further, words  of course expand, contract, and change in meaning all the time.  I don't think a term like "Villain," for example, still has any class connotation in contemporary English even though it is there in its etymology; other, similar words, like "churlish" or "boor" still do to some degree, but wouldn't be offensive along those lines without a more explicit context.
> 
> If I was editing an rpg supplement, and the author had written an East Asia analogue and described it "decadent," I would raise a note of concern, and if they had a South Africa analogue and described it as "primitive" I would...well, that might be more a circle it in red with exclamation marks type situation.  It's all about being sensitive to the context, situation, and tropes of your writing, and the perspectives of your readers/players.  If one of your players came to you with concerns about the language you were using, I would hope that anyone would take those concerns seriously rather than dismissing them.



My feeling on things like 'primitive' and 'decadent' is they are simply lazy writing anyway. The golden rule in writing that I was always taught (and I admit I've little hard practical experience outside tech writing, so just my opinion) is that you SHOW don't TELL. 

So if you want to depict a society in a way that might fit with usual understandings of the trope 'primitive', you should instead describe the actual condition of things. Describe the architecture as small single-room homes of mud and sticks grouped into hamlets of 4 or 5 houses each, or something like that. Likewise with other aspects.

As to whether or not that is acceptable or appropriate, that's a harder question. I think any such depiction should probably be sophisticated enough to convey the idea that said society has a long history, much local knowledge, or whatever is appropriate, and avoid the trap of simply depicting it as ignorant, backwards, etc. without positive qualities. I'd also hope to explain something about its nature and why it might be as it is, though I know that's a complex topic!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 19, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 4e? Alignment is rather less important/emphasized in 4e, but I don't think anything hints at humanoids who are other than evil.



In the _D&D 4e Monster Manual_ (2008) "a monster's alignment is not rigid, and exceptions can exist to the general rule" (pg 7) so I'd say it rejects the idea of "always evil." Orcish behaviour in 4e may be due to environment and upbringing, as it is in Roger Moore's article in _Dragon_ #62 (1982).

As far as I'm aware, AD&D 1e and D&D 5e are exceptional in making orcish evil racial, inherent, inherited, and biological. Orcish personality traits are "natural tendencies" (pg 16) in the AD&D 1e DMG. The D&D 5e PHB uses very similar phrasing — "inborn tendencies", "innate tendencies." (pg 122) In 5e this is true of all the races that were created by evil deities, presumably similar to the listing of "savage and brutal" humanoids on pg 7 of the MM.


----------



## Ace (Jul 19, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think there is ample evidence, both from history and from current events, that concern for racism, and the propagation of racist tropes and racialised ways of thinking via cultural artefacts, is not a purely academic concern.
> 
> In fact I would go so far as to say that only someone living in an ivory tower could think so.




I don't live anywhere near an ivory tower but a mixed ethnicity and gender  working/middle class area, Also have a mixed ethnic and gender gaming group as well . All of my adult gaming have been with mixed ethnicity, gender  and/or cultural  groups . That included gay people as well .So no Ivory Tower here.

Its probably more class related , almost no one I game with has a college degree or works in any field that requires one so they have a different set of priorities whatever ethnic group they belong too.  The few college educated exceptions, one a first nations person   was educated decades ago in an entirely different educational  system.

This isn't meant to negate real life concerns over racism mind in any way but I'm discussing fantasy racism and gaming world racism not real issues here.

Also the worry about racism against  non existent species is new. No one in the past cared  racism against orcs  because orcs do not exist and don't represent any real group. Killing orcs babies was just gamer angels on heads of pins stuff.

 A concern about portrayal about racism  real groups  could come up  and its valid  even in the day though  WOD gypsies was thought trash but a high openness even among even very Conservative gamers meant it really wasn't an issue that I remember. You were a gamer or not a gamer.

 Maybe I have been lucky but I've never gamed with overtly racist people of any race . Doesn't mean they aren't out there but even very Right Wing gamers tend to rate high in openness so its unlikely to be a threat to the hobby . FWIW I'd kick racist gamers   for being obnoxious or leave. I am there to game  period.

Interestingly  have seen very occasional concern about evil spirits and demonic names   from spiritually inclined gamers and about playing evil from religious ones but this was rare .


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 19, 2021)

Ace said:


> Also the worry about racism against  non existent species is new.



It's a more widespread concern than it used to be, but it's not new.

S MacPherson, letter in _White Dwarf_ #73 (1986) (emphasis mine):

It has often struck me that, being nearly all based on the well-worn cliches of pulp fiction, 'pulp drawing, and 'pulp cinema', role-playing games tend to reflect a great number of backward and outmoded ideas. Not only is the role of women reduced to that of a deceitful whore or helpless innocent, but there is also an obsession with the idea of supermen, the idea of uncontrolled but legitimate violence, with the idea of defenceless and inferior people or races, and with the idea of an evil, all-pervading external threat to (Western) civilisation.​​The cover of your last issue (WD70) illustrates several of these points very nicely: there is the blond, masculine hero; there is the passive, but deceitful, temptress; and there is *the evil, enemy 'green' race against whom our white, blond hero is fighting*.​


----------



## MGibster (Jul 19, 2021)

For those interested, this is the cover from White Dwarf #70 which was published in 1985 which the author in @Doug McCrae's example is writing about.  Other than the woman, I don't find anything objectionable (or particularly remarkable) to the cover in question.  But Doug's right, some people have had concerns for a while.


----------



## Ace (Jul 19, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> It's a more widespread concern than it used to be, but it's not new.
> 
> S MacPherson, letter in _White Dwarf_ #73 (1986) (emphasis mine):
> 
> It has often struck me that, being nearly all based on the well-worn cliches of pulp fiction, 'pulp drawing, and 'pulp cinema', role-playing games tend to reflect a great number of backward and outmoded ideas. Not only is the role of women reduced to that of a deceitful whore or helpless innocent, but there is also an obsession with the idea of supermen, the idea of uncontrolled but legitimate violence, with the idea of defenceless and inferior people or races, and with the idea of an evil, all-pervading external threat to (Western) civilisation.​​The cover of your last issue (WD70) illustrates several of these points very nicely: there is the blond, masculine hero; there is the passive, but deceitful, temptress; and there is *the evil, enemy 'green' race against whom our white, blond hero is fighting*.​



That was interesting. Thanks. Learn something new everyday.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 19, 2021)

I don’t know if I actually gamed with a real racist, but I definitely game did with one guy who was standoffish for the entire 3 years I was in that group.  Don’t know that we ever shook hands.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 19, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don’t know if I actually gamed with a real racist, but I definitely game did with one guy who was standoffish for the entire 3 years I was in that group. Don’t know that we ever shook hands.



I've been gaming with the same people for about ten years and I don't think we've ever shook hands.   But I do think it's weird that someone you gamed with for so long would be standoffish towards you.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 19, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I looked at my copy of The Traveller Book, printed in 1982 by GDW, which was an update of the original 3BB 'Classic' edition, and pretty much identical in most respects. It lists only TL 0 as 'primitive', pretty much the same as you do. I'm going to guess, without digging out the original 3BBs, that this is how it was worded there.



I've just looked at my 1977 edition of Book 3. It doesn't have any generic labels for Tech Levels, and hence doesn't describe TL 0 as "primitive" nor as anything else.

The word "primitive" does get used, though. In the vehicles list, for air vehicles there is a reference to "primitive types such as hot-air balloons or gliders" and also to a "primitive biplane". And there is also an entry labelled "primitive transportation" which says that

On worlds with low technology levels (0 through 3) the local means of transportation will tend to depend on beasts of burden, animal drawn carts, and watercraft such as galleys and sailing ships.​
A quick review of the 1981 version of Book 3 has it the same.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 19, 2021)

Re these concerns: I remember reading this sort of criticism of JRRT at least back in 1987 (I can't remember who the author was; it was a book that was analysing either children's literature or fantasy literature but I can't remember that point of detail either).

I remember writing a letter to Marvel Comics expressing objection to (what I thought was) a racist episode maybe in the very late 80s or early 90s (around the time of the Heku trilogy, though that wasn't what I was writing about - Google tells me that the Heku trilogy was 1988, and more Googling makes me think it might have been episode 218, from May 1989).

They didn't publish my letter.


----------



## Ace (Jul 19, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don’t know if I actually gamed with a real racist, but I definitely game did with one guy who was standoffish for the entire 3 years I was in that group.  Don’t know that we ever shook hands.



Not everyone likes everyone. It may be he  just doesn't like you, not your race.  I also gamed with a guy who would not eat with the group so gamers can have odd habits.

FWIW I had two people married into the same family , to sisters in fact who would not game together as they got on each others nerves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 19, 2021)

Ace said:


> Not everyone likes everyone. It may be he  just doesn't like you, not your race.  I also gamed with a guy who would not eat with the group so gamers can have odd habits.
> 
> FWIW I had two people married into the same family , to sisters in fact who would not game together as they got on each others nerves.



It’s possible, but the negative vibes started hour one day one.


----------



## Ace (Jul 19, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s possible, but the negative vibes started hour one day one.



Ugh. I'm sorry you had to put up with that. You don't have to be friends with people you game with or even like them but basic courtesy is not optional. Advice to others, not gaming is better than bad gaming or gaming with jerks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 19, 2021)

Ace said:


> Ugh. I'm sorry you had to put up with that. You don't have to be friends with people you game with or even like them but basic courtesy is not optional. Advice to others, not gaming is better than bad gaming or gaming with jerks.



Fortunately, the rest of the group was freaking awesome!  No joke, they really caused me to up my role-playing game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> In the _D&D 4e Monster Manual_ (2008) "a monster's alignment is not rigid, and exceptions can exist to the general rule" (pg 7) so I'd say it rejects the idea of "always evil." Orcish behaviour in 4e may be due to environment and upbringing, as it is in Roger Moore's article in _Dragon_ #62 (1982).
> 
> As far as I'm aware, AD&D 1e and D&D 5e are exceptional in making orcish evil racial, inherent, inherited, and biological. Orcish personality traits are "natural tendencies" (pg 16) in the AD&D 1e DMG. The D&D 5e PHB uses very similar phrasing — "inborn tendencies", "innate tendencies." (pg 122) In 5e this is true of all the races that were created by evil deities, presumably similar to the listing of "savage and brutal" humanoids on pg 7 of the MM.



Well, read the entry, it has NOTHING positive, at all, to say about Orcs in 4e! They are described in exactly the same language. Alignment overall may be treated a bit more loosely in some places, but the overall architecture of the 4e cosmology is one in which 'law vs chaos' and 'good vs evil' (they often don't make much distinction, and given that CG is not even an alignment possibility anymore, just being called 'good' know definitely confabulates the two) is a VERY strong theme! The architecture of the Universe itself is Elemental Chaos vs Astral Sea (a realm of placid order and thought more than anything). Beyond that, the Abyss, and Chaotic Evil, the Orcish alignment, are literally an infection rotting the whole structure. 

So, yeah, obviously you could play orcs as a more nuanced race with a variety of viewpoints and perhaps spin their 'classic' portrayal as a product of a specific culture. I don't think anything in 4e really encourages that sort of thing.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don’t know if I actually gamed with a real racist, but I definitely game did with one guy who was standoffish for the entire 3 years I was in that group.  Don’t know that we ever shook hands.



There was a group that I gamed with a few times that was EXTREMELY misogynistic. I don't recall racism per-se, but there were several 'toxic' individuals there who really were over the top. Their GM (the brother of one of the ring leader) was actually a really good guy, though. My best friend loved gaming with him and eventually he ended up marrying a woman that was part of our group, though not one of my regular players. The rest of that crowd never did change their tune. AFAIK they're still up to the same tricks as before, though I have not heard anything of them in years.

That was Vermont, which is VERY VERY white, so it may well be they were racist as well, but it never seemed to come up explicitly in my limited contact with them. I will say, other than that, even when I was gaming in an area where there was a lot of racial tensions, I didn't run into gamers who were particularly overtly prejudiced.

But that's just the thing, it isn't really the overt in your face sort of stuff that is the main issue, is it?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I've just looked at my 1977 edition of Book 3. It doesn't have any generic labels for Tech Levels, and hence doesn't describe TL 0 as "primitive" nor as anything else.
> 
> The word "primitive" does get used, though. In the vehicles list, for air vehicles there is a reference to "primitive types such as hot-air balloons or gliders" and also to a "primitive biplane". And there is also an entry labelled "primitive transportation" which says that
> 
> ...



I would think that the use of 'primitive' in that sense is pretty close to its 'classic' definition. A 'primitive' biplane is simply an aircraft of the most basic and original sort. Clearly there is an implication of a more limited technical capability at those tech levels, but Traveller never really associates that with 'race'. In fact the game is extremely vague about culture in general! While it is certainly likely to come up in respect of events in a campaign, potentially, there's no mention of anything like human racial groupings or anything like that, so nothing to link it to there.

Same with alien species, they are depicted as fairly nuanced and complex, with their character being more defined as 'dog people', 'cat people', 'bug people', etc. and even that seems more like 'here is now the Imperium sees them'. They aren't especially depicted as 'primitive' or 'advanced' in most cases, and those races which are less technically advanced have other unique characteristics. 

I don't know Marc Miller at all, but mostly his game seems quite divorced from these sorts of issues. Maybe it is more chance than design, he's the only one who can say, and he seems to be a pretty quiet guy.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 19, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> That was Vermont, which is VERY VERY white, so it may well be they were racist as well, but it never seemed to come up explicitly in my limited contact with them. I will say, other than that, even when I was gaming in an area where there was a lot of racial tensions, I didn't run into gamers who were particularly overtly prejudiced.



So because they were "very" white they are likely racist even though you never noticed anything...

You realize that this sentence is the most racist thing uttered in this entire discussion?
Its quite sad that the people who see racism everywhere even where no one exists are blind to their own racist statements.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2021)

Ixal said:


> So because they were "very" white they are likely racist even though you never noticed anything...
> 
> You realize that this sentence is the most racist thing uttered in this entire discussion?
> Its quite sad that the people who see racism everywhere even where no one exists are blind to their own racist statements.



No, no. What I'm saying is that VERMONT is very white. It is, look it up, I lived there for more than 30 years. I was married to a colored person part of that time. It isn't especially filled with overtly racist people, either. More the opposite. All I was saying by noting the fact is that you wouldn't KNOW, because you don't run into people there in a context where they are exhibiting their bigotry, if they have it. The context is pretty close to always a bunch of white people getting together. It isn't like we sit around talking about them other folks when we're all together in a room, right?

Anyway, what I quickly discovered, is that there is plenty of institutional/systematic prejudice there, like the rest of the US. It just takes the form of people treating POCs like space aliens or assuming they are all idiotic children, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 19, 2021)

Not saying you’re wrong, but with that, we’ve probably gone as far into RW issues as we should, agreed?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 19, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would think that the use of 'primitive' in that sense is pretty close to its 'classic' definition. A 'primitive' biplane is simply an aircraft of the most basic and original sort. Clearly there is an implication of a more limited technical capability at those tech levels, but Traveller never really associates that with 'race'. In fact the game is extremely vague about culture in general! While it is certainly likely to come up in respect of events in a campaign, potentially, there's no mention of anything like human racial groupings or anything like that, so nothing to link it to there.



Book 1 (1977 edition) includes the following on page 8:

*A NOTE ON GENDER AND RACE*
Nowhere in these rules is a specific requirement established that any character (player or non-player) be of a specific gender or race. Any character is potentially of any race or of either sex.​
Looking back at this, it reads like a deliberate if implicit repudiation of the AD&D obsession with both - though it predates the 1978 PHB. I believe there were pre-PHB treatments of sex in the D&D corpus - with stuff about STR limits and CHA minimums and the like - so maybe that is what was being implicitly referenced?


----------



## Panfilo (Jul 19, 2021)

Circling back to the OP's theme, I think the other side of the coin from [viewing non-European-coded cultures as inferior and/or evil] is [viewing western/colonial points of view as superior/good]. The 5E alignment system, aside from being pretty juvenile from an ethical philosophy standpoint generally, states that "*Lawful good* (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

Underline mine. Needless to say, what a society expects of its constituents can be reframed as horrendously evil with some change in perspective. Knights didn't follow chivalry and conquistadors were not at all Christ-like, but even if they _did_ follow the explicit morays of their cultures, they still would have been rather evil by modern standards.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Yeah, it looks like you are now(?) just arguing for arguments sake. Do you really expect adventures to provide a detailed historic justification for the current state found in said adventure? A treatise about the socio-economical circumstances which made a specific tribe of goblins live in the same cave structure as a beholder?
> 
> No you don't, because it is not relevant for the adventure which describes the current snapshot in time the adventurers are confronted with. Only now you suddenly want this requirement because you failed to argue that "primitive" is an inherently racist word used to degrade entire societies instead of just describing the state of technological development (or artistic style).



Sorry, I'm still trying to catch up on this thread, and I've been reading the Grippli example for a while and you are really, really missing the point.

It's not that this group of Grippli are described as primitive.  After all, that might very well be true, as you say.  It's just a snapshot of a particular place and time.  That's not the issue.

The issue is that Grippli are ALWAYS described as primitive.  And, the Northern European stand ins - in this case Cormyr, are NEVER primitive.  Heck, all one has to do is look up and down the Sword Coast description.  Every single PHB race is never described as primitive.  They build fantastic cities like Waterdeep and Neverwinter.  They are ALWAYS the top of the heap.  And the swamp dwelling frog men?  The humanoids?  ALWAYS primitive.  Never primitive because of where they live or because of history, but always primitive because of what they are.

I mean, good grief - this is a community that has traded with CANDLEKEEP, the largest repository of knowledge in Faerun, for a long time.  The Grippli village is TWO DAYS from Baldur's Gate.  It's in the Cloakwood.  It's not some isolated area where these people would never come into contact with outsiders.  They regularly trade with other people.

This would be like expecting people from Cardiff to be "Primitive".  Or, to put it in a North American perspective.  People in London, Ontario should be primitive because they're a couple of hundred kilometers from Toronto.  Heck, it's not even that far.  We're talking about 60, 70 miles from Baldur's Gate.

Reference for distances:  Forgotten Realms (Faerun, Sword Coast) Interactive Map

So, again, explain to me why on earth these people would be even slightly less advanced than anyone else?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Jul 19, 2021)

Hussar said:


> /snip
> It's not that this group of Grippli are described as primitive.
> /snip



Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the main issue was describing their culture as primitive (i.e. "they *primitively *decorated their walls with giant crab arms"), as it's a judgmental statement on their artform as inferior or "more primitive" than other means of decorating. 

And that's where I see the main issue. The argument over whether or not technology of certain cultures is "more primitive/advanced than others" is neither here nor there and is a red herring, as that's not what the word "primitive" was being used to describe in the relevant context. Primitive was being used to judge their culture, and that's what makes it especially problematic. Who gave anyone the right to judge any other culture's artform, especially on whether or not it was "primitive"?!?! 

That's the real issue with what was printed, IMO. Cultural judgement of another culture (and no, it doesn't matter if the race isn't real, because there are other cultures in the real world that do/have decorated in similar manners, and it is not right of anyone to judge that art form).


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2021)

Panfilo said:


> Circling back to the OP's theme, I think the other side of the coin from [viewing non-European-coded cultures as inferior and/or evil] is [viewing western/colonial points of view as superior/good]. The 5E alignment system, aside from being pretty juvenile from an ethical philosophy standpoint generally, states that "*Lawful good* (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."
> 
> Underline mine. Needless to say, what a society expects of its constituents can be reframed as horrendously evil with some change in perspective. Knights didn't follow chivalry and conquistadors were not at all Christ-like, but even if they _did_ follow the explicit morays of their cultures, they still would have been rather evil by modern standards.



To be fair, alignment has always been based on modern conceptions of morality.  And a fairly absolutist approach as well.  Once you start goign down that road of, "Well, it's good _by the standards of that community_" it is practically impossible for alignment to be used as any sort of measurement. As you say, there are all sorts of real world examples where the community would have judged particular actions as "good" that, by our perspective, are pretty horrifying.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the main issue was describing their culture as primitive (i.e. "they *primitively *decorated their walls with giant crab arms"), as it's a judgmental statement on their artform as inferior or "more primitive" than other means of decorating.
> 
> And that's where I see the main issue. The argument over whether or not technology of certain cultures is "more primitive/advanced than others" is neither here nor there and is a red herring, as that's not what the word "primitive" was being used to describe in the relevant context. Primitive was being used to judge their culture, and that's what makes it especially problematic. Who gave anyone the right to judge any other culture's artform, especially on whether or not it was "primitive"?!?!
> 
> That's the real issue with what was printed, IMO. Cultural judgement of another culture (and no, it doesn't matter if the race isn't real, because there are other cultures in the real world that do/have decorated in similar manners, and it is not right of anyone to judge that art form).



Fair enough.  I wasn't really commenting on this specific use of the word.  I was more pointing to the fact that primitive will only be used in a D&D context to describe certain groups, irregardless of any other considerations.  Wood elves, despite not really mining or using metals, not really building anything, and living a hunter/gatherer existence as per the description in the PHB, are never, ever described as "primitive" for example.  Not to bring up the whole Halfling issue here, but, why are halflings never described as primitive?  Small, tribal groups of agrarian farmers that don't mine for metals, don't build roads or large works, are actually quite famous for never living in cities, and never building nation states, are also 100% modern, never described as being technologically or culturally backward.  

It's not really that hard to see why.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 20, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Book 1 (1977 edition) includes the following on page 8:
> 
> *A NOTE ON GENDER AND RACE*​Nowhere in these rules is a specific requirement established that any character (player or non-player) be of a specific gender or race. Any character is potentially of any race or of either sex.​
> Looking back at this, it reads like a deliberate if implicit repudiation of the AD&D obsession with both - though it predates the 1978 PHB. I believe there were pre-PHB treatments of sex in the D&D corpus - with stuff about STR limits and CHA minimums and the like - so maybe that is what was being implicitly referenced?



Maybe. I don't recall anything OFFICIAL about gender-based limits, but it may well have been common practice. I honestly cannot recall it ever came up in any of our games, though after the release of 1e we all just rolled our eyes and ignored that rule. Honestly, most players were boys anyway, and so were most PCs.

So, Marc may simply be a little more conscious of these factors than most of us were back then. Good for him! Honestly, I know nothing of the guy.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 20, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the main issue was describing their culture as primitive (i.e. "they *primitively *decorated their walls with giant crab arms"), as it's a judgmental statement on their artform as inferior or "more primitive" than other means of decorating.
> 
> And that's where I see the main issue. The argument over whether or not technology of certain cultures is "more primitive/advanced than others" is neither here nor there and is a red herring, as that's not what the word "primitive" was being used to describe in the relevant context. Primitive was being used to judge their culture, and that's what makes it especially problematic. Who gave anyone the right to judge any other culture's artform, especially on whether or not it was "primitive"?!?!
> 
> That's the real issue with what was printed, IMO. Cultural judgement of another culture (and no, it doesn't matter if the race isn't real, because there are other cultures in the real world that do/have decorated in similar manners, and it is not right of anyone to judge that art form).



Art is not only culture but also technique and dependent on tools and those two can be primitive. Or do you think that cavemen choose to do mono coloured paintings on the wall of caves because of their culture and not because they did not have access to more paint, canvases and brushes?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Art is not only culture but also technique and dependent on tools and those two can be primitive. Or do you think that cavemen choose to do mono coloured paintings on the wall of caves because of their culture and not because they did not have access to more paint, canvases and brushes?



Fair enough.  But, paleothic or neolithic humans had limited access to newer technologies.  After all, those cave paintings were the cutting edge of art of the time.

But, you've still failed to explain how a group of people, who trade with the greatest repository of knowledge in the land, and who live less than a day from a major city (by boat), lack tools or technologies.  Sure, I can understand some remote island culture who have never made contact with other people might lack technologies, or a group of people surrounded by a honking big impassable desert might not have access.  But, can you explain why a group of people who have regular contact, to the point where when they stop delivering fish, it's actually something of a problem for Candlekeep, and have traded for years, lack advancements.

Bonus points if you can explain why it is ONLY tribal peoples in the game that are "primitive".


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Art is not only culture but also technique and dependent on tools and those two can be primitive. Or do you think that cavemen choose to do mono coloured paintings on the wall of caves because of their culture and not because they did not have access to more paint, canvases and brushes?



I would also point you to the Lascaux caves if you think that "cavemen" painted in mono colors.  I've seen the recreations, not the originals unfortunately, and I'm going to tell you that even color blind me could tell there were more than two colors.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> I would also point you to the Lascaux caves if you think that "cavemen" painted in mono colors.  I've seen the recreations, not the originals unfortunately, and I'm going to tell you that even color blind me could tell there were more than two colors.



It's about like all the people nowadays who think that these ancient statues, monuments, and architecture in the ancient world (e.g., Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.) were as colorless and undecorated as the way we found them.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Fair enough.  But, paleothic or neolithic humans had limited access to newer technologies.  After all, those cave paintings were the cutting edge of art of the time.
> 
> But, you've still failed to explain how a group of people, who trade with the greatest repository of knowledge in the land, and who live less than a day from a major city (by boat), lack tools or technologies.  Sure, I can understand some remote island culture who have never made contact with other people might lack technologies, or a group of people surrounded by a honking big impassable desert might not have access.  But, can you explain why a group of people who have regular contact, to the point where when they stop delivering fish, it's actually something of a problem for Candlekeep, and have traded for years, lack advancements.
> 
> Bonus points if you can explain why it is ONLY tribal peoples in the game that are "primitive".



For the same reasons all the real world cultures (mostly tribals, go figue. Might have something to do with other government forms requires a higher level or organisation and infrastructure...) did not adapt the technologies of their neighbours...
Pick one you like.

But we are talking in circles now.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

Ixal said:


> For the same reasons all the real world cultures (mostly tribals, go figue. Might have something to do with other government forms requires a higher level or organisation and infrastructure...) did not adapt the technologies of their neighbours...
> Pick one you like.
> 
> But we are talking in circles now.



That's a non-answer.  Cultures that were less technologically advanced than other cultures quickly catch up after contact is made between the cultures.  So, again, can you please explain why a group of people living less than a day from a major metropolitan city like Baldur's Gate are "primitive"?  Can you give me an example from the real world where a group of people living within 50 miles of a major urban city remained primitive?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> It's about like all the people nowadays who think that these ancient statues, monuments, and architecture in the ancient world (e.g., Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.) were as colorless and undecorated as the way we found them.



Heh, I've seen the pictures of Roman art with the color restored.  I know I'm not supposed to say this, but, man, they are ugly.    It's just weird looking to see those beautiful alibaster busts and whatnot with really, really strong colors all over them.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> That's a non-answer.  Cultures that were less technologically advanced than other cultures quickly catch up after contact is made between the cultures.  So, again, can you please explain why a group of people living less than a day from a major metropolitan city like Baldur's Gate are "primitive"?  Can you give me an example from the real world where a group of people living within 50 miles of a major urban city remained primitive?



No, they often did not.
North American tribes did not pick up much both from Central American kingdoms and from European settlers. As did central African societies from the Islam and Christian influenced coastal regions. Chinese technology also did not spread all that far into SE Asia.
China and Japan also had uprisings when adopting European ideas.

And then there are also people like the Amish.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

Ixal said:


> No, they often did not.
> North American tribes did not pick up much both from Central American kingdoms and from European settlers. As did central African societies from the Islam and Christian influenced coastal regions. Chinese technology also did not spread all that far into SE Asia.
> China and Japan also had uprisings when adopting European ideas.
> 
> And then there are also people like the Amish.



What are you talking about?

North American First Nations peoples adopted horses, metal tools, housing, and within a century, the vast majority of native peoples in North America (at least the ones that weren't wiped out) lived in relatively equal footing with European settlers.  Central America kingdoms?  Holy crap, how far do you think pre-horse peoples traveled?  I mean, I know they found Meso-American trade goods in Canada.  

Now, Chinese technology?  Are you kidding me?  That spread everywhere.  The Japanese and Koreans both had all sorts of technologies from the Chinese.  Art, entire writing system, tea, medicine, never minding entire philosophies like Confucianism.  I've BEEN to the temples in Thailand and Japan and Viet Nam.  How much more technology would you like them to borrow?  Good grief, there were Chinese trade missions in Viet Nam in the 5th century onwards.    Malasia has had Chinese influences since about the 5th century.  Sri Lanka as well.  Where in South East Asia are you referring to?  

No one said that adopting new technologies is simple.  It's not.  But, this is a really, really narrow interpretation of history.

Oh, and tell me again how the Amish are "primitive"?  You mean, they don't know about electricity?  They have no concept of higher technology?  I mean, good grief, I grew up in Mennonite country.  Walk into a Mennonite dairy barn sometime and tell me how "primitive" they are.  The Amish CHOOSE not to use technology.  They are in no way primitive.

And, STILL you are avoiding answering the question.  How do a people who live within a day's boat ride of a major technological center that they trade with on a regular basis and have done so for generations, remain "primitive"?


----------



## Ixal (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> North American First Nations peoples adopted horses, metal tools, housing, and within a century, the vast majority of native peoples in North America (at least the ones that weren't wiped out) lived in relatively equal footing with European settlers.  Central America kingdoms?  Holy crap, how far do you think pre-horse peoples traveled?  I mean, I know they found Meso-American trade goods in Canada.
> 
> ...



_Sigh_ Do I really have to explain everything?

North American tribes used iron tools and weapon when given to them, but they did not adopt smithing/smelting for centuries (even though they had this knowledge in the past and lost it).
And yes, Central America (Inca, Mayan). Some North American tribes traded with them, so there is no reason why technology would not spread, similar to the silk road (which includes things like writing).
And how much Chinese technology spread to, for example, the Philippines? Or much of the spice islands?

The Amish know about modern technology, but they choose not to use them which can also be a reason why technology is not adopted. And for a non Amish their farming and transportation technology is indeed primitive.

So here are several examples of technology not spreading from history. From not realizing how useful it is (Zulu with guns), to cultural aversion against foreign influence (China after the Opiuim wars), to their way of life not allowing to utilize some technology (nomadic societies can't mine for metals effectively, making smelting hard to impossible) or a concious choice not to use technology for religious or other reasons (Amish) or not adopting technology because trading for the few things they need is easier (North America and Africa).
Pick any one reason for the Grippli you like.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> you've still failed to explain how a group of people, who trade with the greatest repository of knowledge in the land, and who live less than a day from a major city (by boat), lack tools or technologies.



Thanks for pressing this point. I'd asked about it upthread but didn't know enough about the FR material to follow through on my suspicions about what the imagined set-up is.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

Ixal said:


> _Sigh_ Do I really have to explain everything?



Yes, you do.


Ixal said:


> North American tribes used iron tools and weapon when given to them, but they did not adopt smithing/smelting for centuries (even though they had this knowledge in the past and lost it).
> And yes, Central America (Inca, Mayan). Some North American tribes traded with them, so there is no reason why technology would not spread, similar to the silk road (which includes things like writing).



Unfortunately, your example doesn't really work here.  North American tribes didn't live fifty miles from the Inca empire.  Those people that DID live 50 miles from the Inca empire were not particularly technolgically different.



Ixal said:


> And how much Chinese technology spread to, for example, the Philippines? Or much of the spice islands?




TONS.  Good grief. And, note, the Phillipines are hardly FIFTY MILES from China.


Ixal said:


> The Amish know about modern technology, but they choose not to use them which can also be a reason why technology is not adopted. And for a non Amish their farming and transportation technology is indeed primitive.




So, now our Grippli are primitive because of religious reasons?  That's certainly a novel interpretation.



Ixal said:


> So here are several examples of technology not spreading from history. From not realizing how useful it is (Zulu with guns), to cultural aversion against foreign influence (China after the Opiuim wars), to their way of life not allowing to utilize some technology (nomadic societies can't mine for metals effectively, making smelting hard to impossible) or a concious choice not to use technology for religious or other reasons (Amish) or not adopting technology because trading for the few things they need is easier (North America and Africa).
> Pick any one reason for the Grippli you like.



Absolutely NONE of the reasons you list apply to the Grippli who live FIFTY MILES from a major technological center. 

Want to actually answer the question?


----------



## Ixal (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Want to actually answer the question?



I have, you just keep childishly screaming "THAT DOESN'T COUNT, WHAAAA!!!!" while also conveniently not mentioning my "way of life does not allow for this technology" answer.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

Ixal said:


> I have, you just keep childishly screaming "THAT DOESN'T COUNT, WHAAAA!!!!" while also conveniently not mentioning my "way of life does not allow for this technology" answer.



Well, it's rather hard to take you seriously when you point the the Phillipines and claim there is no influence from China.  China traded heavily with the Phillipines for centuries.  Even a cursory knowledge of history would know this.

What "way of life" does not allow the Grippli a given technology?  Or, rather, what about Grippli, living within easy travel distance and trading for many, many years with Candlekeep, would you say would prevent them from having technology equivalent to any other fishing village?  Ok, sure, I wouldn't expect this particular group to be expert miners, for example.  But, again, I wouldn't expect any fishing community to be expert miners.  

But, now, lacking a given technology does not make you "primitive".  To be primitive means you don't have the ability to even understand that technology.  A neolithic hunter gatherer could not even begin to understand what a computer is or how it works.  It's just too far removed.  An Amish person knows exactly what a computer is, and even roughly how it works, even if he or she couldn't operate it.  Which, frankly, isn't too far off a lot of non-Amish people.  

But, we're specifically talking about Grippli here as presented in the module.  They have steel.  The docks are described as being build with lumber planks.  They have a HINGED breakwater.  Their trading post is freaking dressed stone!  The Pond Mother's home is made of mud-brick.  That's NOT primitive at all.  Note, there are metal and glassware listed as traded items in the house descriptions.  So, your entire argument about "not allowing technology" doesn't actually hold much water.  

Finally, I'd point out that disagreeing with you is hardly "childish screaming".  It does not help your point if you're going to start making this personal.  I would ask, politely, if you would refrain from doing so in the future.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Heh, I've seen the pictures of Roman art with the color restored.  I know I'm not supposed to say this, but, man, they are ugly.    It's just weird looking to see those beautiful alibaster busts and whatnot with really, really strong colors all over them.
> 
> View attachment 140908



Don't worry, you're not at all alone in this sentiment.

I have somewhere a book about art history written in the late 19th century, I'll see if I can dig it out later. It's written very much from the perspective that art can be objectively rated in quality, and classical sculpture was seen as since sort of pinnacle of aesthetic form.

The author, however, was struggling to deal with the, then recent, realisation that classical sculpture had originally been painted in what to his eyes, was garish colour. The white, alabaster aesthetic was that of the Renaissance, not the ancient world. How to reconcile with the worshipful view of classical culture?

The rather weak attempt he falls back on is to ascribe it to light. While in the climate of Northern Europe things obviously look better in pure white, the light in the southern Mediterranean is quite different, so the colour there probably works better than it would in the British Museum!


----------



## Ixal (Jul 20, 2021)

1. The discussion was about technology, not influence. Yes Philippines traded with China, probably also delivered tribute. So what technology from China spread to the Philippines?
And again, what about the examples from North America and Africa?

2. Lacking advanced technology is exactly what makes your technology primitive. Just a few post ago people finally understood that technology can be rated as primitive, but now you are back to make it a cultural issue and "unable to understand technology", something no one ever said and is also not part of any definition of primitive I have seen

No, disagreeing with me is not childish. What is childish is that you are arguing against strawmans against things no one said and are so unable to admit that you are wrong that you ignore everything posted that you can't twist around to mean something else.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2021)

Ixal said:


> 1. The discussion was about technology, not influence. Yes Philippines traded with China, probably also delivered tribute. So what technology from China spread to the Philippines?



PDF Article: "A History of Science and Technology in the Philippines" 

I look forward to your inevitable moving of the goal posts.



Ixal said:


> And again, what about the examples from North America and Africa?



What about the examples that were already given to you that you ignored?


----------



## MGibster (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> The issue is that Grippli are ALWAYS described as primitive. And, the Northern European stand ins - in this case Cormyr, are NEVER primitive. Heck, all one has to do is look up and down the Sword Coast description.



And when I see something like this I think to myself, "What's the issue?"  It doesn't particularly bother me that the Grippli aren't as advanced technologically speaking as their neighbors.  Like many other aspects of D&D, when you think too much about it you realize how silly it all is.  It's not realistic but then it doesn't need to be realistic.  



Hussar said:


> Bonus points if you can explain why it is ONLY tribal peoples in the game that are "primitive".



For the Grippli, I imagine it's because they're living in the stone age and possess no real industry.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

MGibster said:


> And when I see something like this I think to myself, "What's the issue?"  It doesn't particularly bother me that the Grippli aren't as advanced technologically speaking as their neighbors.  Like many other aspects of D&D, when you think too much about it you realize how silly it all is.  It's not realistic but then it doesn't need to be realistic.
> 
> 
> For the Grippli, I imagine it's because they're living in the stone age and possess no real industry.



But, that's not true.

They have docks made of planks.  That means they are put together with nails, most likely.  It's pretty hard to build with planks without nails.  Tight fighting and water tight.  Their trade mission is made of dressed stone - again, not possible with stone age technology.  Or, at least, extremely unlikely.  They have traded for glass ware and metal pots.  Not unusual for a fishing village.  Heck, you could look at pretty much any European fishing villages of the time and you'd find the same thing.  It's not like a small village will automatically have a glassblower and a blacksmith. 

And note, while @Ixal has made great points to point to tribal groups being "primitive", nowhere in the entire adventure, including in the description of grippli, are they described as "tribal".  They're a thriving coastal village that has built a fishing industry out of harvesting giant crabs for trade with their wealthy neighbours.  Same as any other people.  How can you claim that they possess no real industry when they built a massive fish factory?  What did they build that with?  Big stone pillars in the sea that they have used for centuries. 

So, again, explain to me how a non-tribal people, living a day's journey from Baldur's Gate, who regularly trade with outsiders, who build with stone, planks, using nails and hinges,   Again, their homes are brick, not simply grass or wood huts.  These are not a primitive people by any measure.  Poor, maybe.  That's to be expected of an isolated fishing village.  But primitive?  Stone age?  Heck, they USE metal weapons - what do you think those tridents are made of?  Their arrowheads are steel, not bone or stone. 

Nothing in the description in the adventure even suggests that these are a primitive people.  Heck, replace Grippli with... oh, I dunno... halflings.  Same style homes, everything is pretty much unchanged.  Would anyone then describe anything as "primitive"?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2021)

Ixal said:


> /snip
> 
> 2. Lacking advanced technology is exactly what makes your technology primitive. Just a few post ago people finally understood that technology can be rated as primitive, but now you are back to make it a cultural issue and "unable to understand technology", something no one ever said and is also not part of any definition of primitive I have seen
> /snip



Ok, let's work with this a bit.

How advanced?

Is Japan primitive because it doesn't use cheques?  Is it primitive since it's home computer use is very close to zero?  How primitive compared to who, exactly?  Is it that only those with the bleeding edge of technology that aren't primitive?  But, then, how do you call one group primitive and another not primitive when it's very likely that one group is more advanced in one area but less advanced in another.  You mentioned China and the Opium Wars.  You do realize that at the time, China produced the best porcelain in the world.  No one else was even close.  There's a reason that England imported massive quantities of Chinese porcelain for centuries.  Does that mean that England was primitive?

Heck, on the topic of China, on the Tea Horse Road, China would trade tea with Tibet for horses bred in Tibet.  Did so for centuries.  Tibetan horses were considered the best work horses to be had.  Does that make China primitive?  But, at that point in time, China was light years ahead technologically than Europe.  So, Europe was always primitive until about the 17th Century when European technology, imported from other areas began to widely spread and be used?

You do see why your definition doesn't work here right?  Being primitive is not simply "oh, that's a bit old fashioned".  Being primitive has pretty strong denotative and connotative meanings.  There's a very, very good reason why the writer of The Book of Cylinders didn't use it.  And didn't use the word tribal either.  Why do you believe that grippli are tribal?


----------



## MGibster (Jul 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> They have docks made of planks. That means they are put together with nails, most likely. It's pretty hard to build with planks without nails. Tight fighting and water tight. Their trade mission is made of dressed stone - again, not possible with stone age technology. Or, at least, extremely unlikely. They have traded for glass ware and metal pots. Not unusual for a fishing village. Heck, you could look at pretty much any European fishing villages of the time and you'd find the same thing. It's not like a small village will automatically have a glassblower and a blacksmith.



You know what?  You make a good argument.  I'm going to have to agree with you that they're not primitive by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2021)

Hussar said:


> we're specifically talking about Grippli here as presented in the module.  They have steel.  The docks are described as being build with lumber planks.  They have a HINGED breakwater.  Their trading post is freaking dressed stone!  The Pond Mother's home is made of mud-brick.  That's NOT primitive at all.  Note, there are metal and glassware listed as traded items in the house descriptions.



I didn't know these things about the module. To me this reinforces the impression that the description of them as "primitive" is pure authorial stipulation in order to establish the sort of aesthetic that is being analysed and (largely) criticised in this thread.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> PDF Article: "A History of Science and Technology in the Philippines"



One interesting point in that article is the discussion of ironworking in the Philippines being displaced by imported goods. The relationship between trade, production and technological diffusion is a very interesting one.

Australia used to make cars but doesn't anymore, for reasons that might be compared (at an appropriate level of abstraction) to iron in the pre-colonial Philippines. I don't think that entails that Australia is "primitive".


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2021)

Now, just to jump to the other side of the fence for a second.  I do think that in this specific case, the criticisms are overblown.

There are 2 things described as primitive: makeshift shelters that the grippli have constructed after being forced from their homes, which, really, isn't too objectionable.  The second is a description of their decoration of their homes - using giant crab shells to decorate their homes is described as primitive.  That one is totally unnecessary.  That's the use that people are largely objecting to.  

I mean, good grief, my father is from Nova Scotia.  If decorating stuff with shells is primitive, then Eastern Canada is practically stone age.  Seriously, if you had a Giant Crab farm, and you had been raising Giant Crabs - crabs with SIX FOOT shells - wouldn't you incorporate that into your architecture?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2021)

pemerton said:


> One interesting point in that article is the discussion of ironworking in the Philippines being displaced by imported goods. The relationship between trade, production and technological diffusion is a very interesting one.
> 
> Australia used to make cars but doesn't anymore, for reasons that might be compared (at an appropriate level of abstraction) to iron in the pre-colonial Philippines. I don't think that entails that Australia is "primitive".



Naw, you're primitive because everything in your country is either poisonous or venomous.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 21, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's work with this a bit.
> 
> How advanced?
> 
> ...



As I said before, what is primitive is relative to the technology of the observer.
For example, the type of agriculture the Amish engage in would be considered now, but 500 years ago (roughly what Cormyr and the sword cost is modeled after) it would have been state of the art.
And a theoretical alien species which is 1000+ years ahead of us would consider everything on earth primitive.

Why do I think the Grippli are tribal? Because others said so and complained loudly that only tribal societies are ever called primitive.

The PDF is indeed interesting, especially the part about the uneven technological development on the Philippines, something that according to some should not be possible.

(BTW: By the time of the opium wars Germany had displaced China as the "king of porcelain" production, at least in quality.)


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 21, 2021)

Ixal said:


> The PDF is indeed interesting, especially the part about the uneven technological development on the Philippines, something that according to some should not be possible.



The idea of "uneven technological development" generally presupposes an outdated Euro-American sense of lineral cultural advacement and hierarchies of civilization.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2021)

Well, y'know, that's fair.  Grippli are not described as tribal, so, we DO have an example of a non-tribal people's art described as primitive.  

Granted, I'm still kinda waiting to hear your explaination for how a group that trades regularly with a highly advanced group that lives a day away and has traded with that group for centuries, is primitive and why their art would be described thus.  Again, we're talking about someone from London describing somone from Cardiff as "primitive".  I mean, they are less than a hundred miles from Baldur's Gate.  They have dressed stone buildings, use lumber for their docks and have steel weapons.  What, exactly, is primitive about them?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> The idea of "uneven technological development" generally presupposes an outdated Euro-American sense of lineral cultural advacement and hierarchies of civilization.



Yeah, I wondered about that.  I had thought that the notion of linear development had largely been left by the wayside.  Some cultures will be as advanced, or even more advance, while still being less advanced in other areas.  I mean, the Aztecs had glassware that was equal to anything in Europe, for example.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 22, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don’t know if I actually gamed with a real racist, but I definitely game did with one guy who was standoffish for the entire 3 years I was in that group.  Don’t know that we ever shook hands.



I  avoid  shaking hands. Not because of ethnicity... but because, in general, I hate doing so. The only time I do so is at church or job interviews.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 22, 2021)

Hussar said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> North American First Nations peoples adopted horses, metal tools, housing, and within a century, the vast majority of native peoples in North America (at least the ones that weren't wiped out) lived in relatively equal footing with European settlers.



That's not correct. Most of the Native populations who haven't assimilated live in conditions that would get their kids taken away off-reservation. Somewhere around half of the Dineh on the reservation lack water, as of this year.  

Most of the Yupiq and Inupiaq live in housing that, except  for the cold adaptations, is otherwise pretty poor. Giving up Village Life means better housing, better nutrition, and better health care... just give up who you were born as and your parents' culture... Barrow still has honeybucket service, rather than central sewer, tho' central sewer is going in. And only in this 21st century did they finally remove the law banning indoor plumbing. (It stopped being enforced in the 1970's.)

Everything I've seen says the Canadian Inuit are only slightly better off than the Alaska Eskimo (Yupiq, Inupiaq). Other First Nations groups also apparently have substandard housing in their cultural traditional locations.

Again, in Canada, if they assimilate, they gain better access to needs.

And in both the US and Canada, indigenous populations are often still below age/education peers in pay and living conditions. Even assimilated individuals.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 22, 2021)

Sorry, @aramis erak I most certainly wasn't trying to imply differently.  But, the reasons for the poor housing and deplorable living conditions aren't because First Nations people in Canada are primitive.  It's because of many, many reasons that because of board rules I won't talk about, they are forced into poverty and those living conditions.

There's a difference between primitive and poor and victims of horrendous practices for the past several hundred years.

((Sorry, but, if you've been watching the Canadian news, this is a REALLY touchy subject right now.))


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Jul 22, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> That's not correct. Most of the Native populations who haven't assimilated live in conditions that would get their kids taken away off-reservation. Somewhere around half of the Dineh on the reservation lack water, as of this year.
> 
> Most of the Yupiq and Inupiaq live in housing that, except  for the cold adaptations, is otherwise pretty poor. Giving up Village Life means better housing, better nutrition, and better health care... just give up who you were born as and your parents' culture... Barrow still has honeybucket service, rather than central sewer, tho' central sewer is going in. And only in this 21st century did they finally remove the law banning indoor plumbing. (It stopped being enforced in the 1970's.)
> 
> ...



Your incorrect assumption here is that all of that is because of the Native populations, and not because of the colonizers' and their descendants' centuries of racial oppression in attempt to get rid of the native populations. I mean, have you not heard about all of this?!?! The Boarding Schools were an attempt to commit cultural genocide against the Native peoples, kids were often taken off reservations and forced into adoption for the same reason, and the rest of their struggles (financially, occupationally, etc) are largely because of that.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2021)

Comparing processes of technological diffusion in the "modern" period to earlier periods is fraught. Not to say that it can't be done, but doing it well requires close attention to the social processes involved.

Here's Hodgson again (same essay, pp 70-71):

Within the Afro-Eurasian historical complex, the overall rise in the level of social power that had everywhere taken pace (sic) was cumulatively very marked. In the sixteenth century, the Spanish, the Ottoman, the Indian, or the Chinese empires could, any of them, have easily crushed the ancient Sumerians at their strongest - as one of them did crush the Aztecs, who were on a comparable level. But the rise was very gradual. In any given era, each society . . . had to reckon with the others essentially as equals, whatever temporary superiority one of them might gain. . . . This was because over the millennia any really basic new developments had been gradually adopted everywhere within the space of four or five centuries - or even more rapidly in such a case as gunpowder weapons.

But it was part of the transmutational character of the new transformation [ie modernity] that it broke down the very historical presuppositions in terms of which such gradual diffusion had maintained parity among Afro-Eurasian citied societies. In the new pace of historical change, when decades sufficed to produce what centuries had produced before, a lag of four or five centuries was no longer safe. The old gradual diffusion and adjustment was no longer possible. Very shortly - at the latest by the end of the seventeenth century - all non-Western peoples were faced with the problem of coping as outsiders with the new order of civilized life as it was emerging in the Occident. Unless, by the oddest of chances, they happened to have started a comparable transmutation of their own at precisely the same moment as the Occident, there was no time for them to follow their own independent developments, however promising. Yet, still moving, culturally, at an agrarianate pace, the could also not simply adopt the Western development for themselves year by year as it proceeded (which would have been required for such adoption to be effective). Those untransmutated agrarianate-level societies that did not share the Western cultural presuppositions had perforce to continue developing in their own traditions at their own pace, adopting from alien traditions only what could be assimilated on that basis. Hence the Wester Transmutation, once it got well under way, could neither be paralleled independently nor be borrowed wholesale. Yet it could not in most cases, be escaped. The millennial parity of social power broke down, with results that were disastrous almost everywhere.​
And the analysis doesn't get any _more_ straightforward once one factors in deliberate processes of colonisation, which  have deliberately set out to disrupt, in various ways, processes of borrowing, diffusion and accommodation.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 22, 2021)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Your incorrect assumption here is that all of that is because of the Native populations, and not because of the colonizers' and their descendants' centuries of racial oppression in attempt to get rid of the native populations. I mean, have you not heard about all of this?!?! The Boarding Schools were an attempt to commit cultural genocide against the Native peoples, kids were often taken off reservations and forced into adoption for the same reason, and the rest of their struggles (financially, occupationally, etc) are largely because of that.



I made no such claim. 
Nice strawman.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 22, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, @aramis erak I most certainly wasn't trying to imply differently.  But, the reasons for the poor housing and deplorable living conditions aren't because First Nations people in Canada are primitive.  It's because of many, many reasons that because of board rules I won't talk about, they are forced into poverty and those living conditions.
> 
> There's a difference between primitive and poor and victims of horrendous practices for the past several hundred years.
> 
> ((Sorry, but, if you've been watching the Canadian news, this is a REALLY touchy subject right now.))



No argument. But it was presented in a manner that was, fundamentally, deeply flawed, since at no point since contact have they been technological equals except by integration and assimilation. I'm also aware of the situation in Canada; locally in Oregon it's also an issue, and at least as of 6-7 years ago, even more so in Alaska. The Dineh are pulling together documentaries to show the plight of their people.

Did they benefit from improvement in tech? To a large percentage, yes. But never to equality. Never enough to be considered equal. Never enough to be a real threat, either. 

And did it harm their culture? yes.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 23, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> No argument. But it was presented in a manner that was, fundamentally, deeply flawed, since at no point since contact have they been technological equals except by integration and assimilation. I'm also aware of the situation in Canada; locally in Oregon it's also an issue, and at least as of 6-7 years ago, even more so in Alaska. The Dineh are pulling together documentaries to show the plight of their people.
> 
> Did they benefit from improvement in tech? To a large percentage, yes. But never to equality. Never enough to be considered equal. Never enough to be a real threat, either.
> 
> And did it harm their culture? yes.



Again, this is a REALLY sensitive subject, so, I'm very much on tenterhooks right now and if I misspeak, please take it in the sense that I'm an idiot, not that I'm trying to pick a fight.

In the context of this thread though, we're talking about a division between "primitive" and "modern".  Two groups need not be equal for both to be considered "modern".  By primitive, aren't we describing a situation where a group is so far back that they cannot even understand modern ideas and technology?  We might call the people who painted the Lescaux Caves primitive, because, well, they couldn't even conceptualize oil based paints, let alone make them or use them.  However, someone who paints NOW in ochre, for example, isn't primitive.  They are simply choosing a different tool.

The Amish were brought up.  The Amish aren't primitive by any measure.  The technology they are using might not be modern, but, it's still light years ahead of any paleo or neolithic peoples.  They use iron and steel.  Heck, Amish people are considerably more technologically advanced than any Renaissance European and we would never describe them as primitive.

One has to be careful to not combine economic and social issues with a lack of development.  

A shark is not a primitive life form.  A modern shark is every bit as evolved as you or I.  Just because  a shark hasn't changed in thousands of years does not make it primitive.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 24, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Again, this is a REALLY sensitive subject, so, I'm very much on tenterhooks right now and if I misspeak, please take it in the sense that I'm an idiot, not that I'm trying to pick a fight.



I'd not even suggest Idiocy, that it's against the rules notwithstanding.

Just a comparison that set off a hotbutton issue for me, because it does rub those sociocultural and historical "raw nerve" areas. 

But it reminds me...
At what level of separation is it OK to define biological lack of abilities? Different species within the same genus? Different genii within the same subfamily? Different subfamilies within the same family? Different families within the same suborder? Different families within the same order? (etc.)

We do, at present, know that within the same subfamily (Homininae) are 3 tribes and 4 ot 5 living species... 1 or 2 species of tribe gorillini (_Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei)_, 2 of  Paninini (_Pan pan, Pan bonobo_), 1 of tribe Hominini (_Homo Sapiens_), 3 known species in the Family Hominidae not within the subfamily Homininae (Tribe Ponginae, _Pongo pygmaeus, Pongo abelii , and Pongo tapanuliensis_; the old _Pongo pongo_ is deprecated since sequencing the DNA) with a slim chance of one or two more species in the family, possibly a new Pongidae (Yeti as described) or Homo (an insular form diminutive, similar to the Indonesian (_Homo floresiensis_) and Philippine (_Homo luzonensis_) hobbitiforms. Both such cryptids have 18th C or later  reports. 

So, at what point do we make the distinction between "acceptable" to  have instinctual behaviors _H. sapiens_ would find inherently evil and not?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 24, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> Oddly, he said the purpose of not only keeping alignment but applying it to an entire race in the game was for roleplay, which I don't understand at all.



I think it's not an uncommon attitude among old-school creators because back when they were playing/running RPGs in the 1980s or w/e, they saw alignment as a tool to cause players to roleplay PCs, whereas without alignment, PCs always just did what was the most optimal thing for the PC to do (as the player saw it).

You can see examples of this in Kevin Siembieda's writing about running Rifts, for example. There's a giant Rifts DM book (I forget the name) which includes a lengthy description of him running a game. It's amusing that he thought this was a good thing to include, because it doesn't paint him in a terribly flattering light, as he's basically bossing players around and telling them that their PCs have to act in certain ways because of their alignment.

But anyway, that's why - because in Ye Olde Dayes, a lot of groups didn't have much of a conception of the "role-playing" part of role-playing games, and some DMs saw alignment and similar structures as the only way to get them to do it.

Re: entire races it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 27, 2021)

I've never had a problem with evil races. They're evil, and that's that. Why are they evil? Who knows? I can't explain why people in RL do terrible things.

I think the 'why' of it is completely over-rated. Were the Mongols evil when they swept across Asia? How about Saxon troops serving Bonaparte? Norsemen raiding the British Isles?

I find it sufficient to say 'these people view you as prey, and will kill and eat you given the opportunity'. Or enslave, or perhaps just rob and kill for the more enlightened ones. If a player wants more, well, there's a handy hook upon which to hang a plot.

Oddly enough, I've never have a player inquire to the 'why' of it too deeply.


----------



## Monadology (Jul 27, 2021)

> I've never had a problem with evil races. They're evil, and that's that. Why are they evil? Who knows? I can't explain why people in RL do terrible things.
> 
> I think the 'why' of it is completely over-rated. Were the Mongols evil when they swept across Asia? How about Saxon troops serving Bonaparte? Norsemen raiding the British Isles?




Those are cultures, not races. A culture is by its nature temporary and the evils of various cultures are not plausibly biologically determined. You are comparing apples to oranges. The existence of cultural evil is not the same thing as the existence of innately evil races.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 27, 2021)

Monadology said:


> Those are cultures, not races. A culture is by its nature temporary and the evils of various cultures are not plausibly biologically determined. You are comparing apples to oranges. The existence of cultural evil is not the same thing as the existence of innately evil races.




Fair point.

But as I said, I've found it sufficient to say 'these particular people* view you as prey, and will kill and eat you given the opportunity'. Or enslave, or perhaps just rob and kill for the more enlightened ones. If a player wants more, well, there's a handy hook upon which to hang a plot.

Oddly enough, I've never have a player inquire to the 'why' of it too deeply.

My point was, if a given group is inclined to kill trespassers or travelers on sight, do their core motivations really need definition? 


* = Orcs, Drow, bandits, races and/or cultures in the setting etc.


----------



## Monadology (Jul 27, 2021)

Jd Smith1 said:


> My point was, if a given group is inclined to kill trespassers or travelers on sight, do their core motivations really need definition?




Yes. See the entire extended discussion in this thread about the risks of reproducing harmful conceptions of 'race,' stereotypes, etc... 

Besides, the question is moot: their motivations are already defined. Orcs are literally characterized as innately evil in core books, as documented in this thread. That sort of characterization is what is under discussion.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 27, 2021)

Monadology said:


> Yes. See the entire extended discussion in this thread about the risks of reproducing harmful conceptions of 'race,' stereotypes, etc...
> 
> Besides, the question is moot: their motivations are already defined. Orcs are literally characterized as innately evil in core books, as documented in this thread. That sort of characterization is what is under discussion.



My point is that I don't see a risk of reproducing harmful concepts. I only game with adults, and their opinions are already formed.

Its a group of friends around a table. How perilous can it be?

EDIT: I should probably note, before drama ensues, that I'm not white. My players (at the moment) are. This probably has a great deal to do with my estimate of how perilous this sort of gaming would be.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 27, 2021)

I've often wondered why the whole "Well, my table doesn't have this problem, so this problem must not exist" thing plays such a strong role in people's arguments.  It really doesn't matter what your or my table thinks or does.  That's not the point.  We're talking about the larger presentation, not narrowly focusing on those five or six people who, because they are longtime friends, never talk about these issues.  The whole issue in the first place is because people didn't ask questions back in the day.  They just accepted these things as "the way things are".  

Which is the entire problem in a nutshell.  If this garbage was sorted out forty years ago, when it was first presented, then we wouldn't be having these conversations.  That a given group isn't having these conversations and isn't asking these questions, really doesn't prove anything.  Some people ARE asking these questions.  And the answers are revealed to be pretty damning.  

Has anyone's answer to, "Why are orcs being described using language pulled straight from incredibly racist sources?" ever been one that in any way justifies this use?  I've seen, "Oh, well, that's just your interpretation, I don't see it" style answers.  I've seen, "Well, it's not a problem at my table" style answers, and I've seen tons of Thermian Argument style answers which try to justify these decisions through in-game fiction.  

But never once have I seen anyone try to even suggest that using 19th century pseudo-scientific race language is a good thing that adds anything positive to the game.  Since it adds nothing positive to the game, and it actively harms people who want to enjoy the game, why on earth would we keep it?


----------



## Monadology (Jul 28, 2021)

Jd Smith1 said:


> My point is that I don't see a risk of reproducing harmful concepts. I only game with adults, and their opinions are already formed.
> 
> Its a group of friends around a table. How perilous can it be?
> 
> EDIT: I should probably note, before drama ensues, that I'm not white. My players (at the moment) are. This probably has a great deal to do with my estimate of how perilous this sort of gaming would be.




Hussar has already touched on this, but I want to emphasize that the concerns about impact are not constrained to the level of individual tables. Though there can be table-level impacts, it's also very much a question of the larger scale social impact of these tropes continuing to be embedded in the hobby. 

Also, this is a hobby that is not just enjoyed by adults. Even on the assumption that adults' biases and outlook (conscious and unconscious) are more or less set in stone and won't be impacted either way by the presence of these tropes, there are certainly plenty of teenagers and even pre-teens that play D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2021)

I remember years ago, back in my uni age days (so, FAR too many years ago, ) playing with a DM who depicted his orcs as First Nations (well back then, that wasn't the term we would use) people defending themselves from the colonial forces.  It was a real eye opener and not something I'd ever even considered before.  Just wasn't part of anything I'd read in fantasy or any of the D&D books or anything.  I was playing a paladin in the game and it became are fascinating game of how I could reconcile this character who was created using the more or less bog standard tropes of the game with this very on target depiction.  It's a game that ended far too early and it's something that I've always remembered.

It really did open my eyes, all the way back then, and this would have been in the early ish 90's, to just how ingrained the racism of the game really is.  Once you've seen it, it's practically impossible not to see it throughout so much of the game.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> My feeling on things like 'primitive' and 'decadent' is they are simply lazy writing anyway. The golden rule in writing that I was always taught (and I admit I've little hard practical experience outside tech writing, so just my opinion) is that you SHOW don't TELL.
> 
> So if you want to depict a society in a way that might fit with usual understandings of the trope 'primitive', you should instead describe the actual condition of things. Describe the architecture as small single-room homes of mud and sticks grouped into hamlets of 4 or 5 houses each, or something like that. Likewise with other aspects.



Which is fine if page space and-or word count allow room for such expansion, and you're intended readership can be counted on to read through it; but brevity is a virtue and sometimes you need to boil all that description down to just one word so you can get on with whatever else you're trying to say.

And eventually, those single cover-it-all words inevitably end up becoming tropes.  So be it.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Which is fine if page space and-or word count allow room for such expansion, and you're intended readership can be counted on to read through it; but brevity is a virtue and sometimes you need to boil all that description down to just one word so you can get on with whatever else you're trying to say.
> 
> And eventually, those single cover-it-all words inevitably end up becoming tropes.  So be it.



Would anyone use this argument to defend the use of the single-word, trope-ish "slut" as a descriptor in a contemporary RPG text?


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2021)

Panfilo said:


> Circling back to the OP's theme, I think the other side of the coin from [viewing non-European-coded cultures as inferior and/or evil] is [viewing western/colonial points of view as superior/good]. The 5E alignment system, aside from being pretty juvenile from an ethical philosophy standpoint generally, states that "*Lawful good* (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."



And the question then becomes, as expected by *which* society?  The 21st-century real-world society that includes the players at the table, or the society in the game world in which the characters are operating and-or living?

Personally, I lean heavily toward the in-game society being the determinant and - for the most part - try to avoid overlaying too much modern-day thinking on to it.  This leads to arguments whenever a player tries, for example, to insert the modern legal system into the game - unless it's being done as a joke in which case full steam ahead! 


Panfilo said:


> Underline mine. Needless to say, what a society expects of its constituents can be reframed as horrendously evil with some change in perspective. Knights didn't follow chivalry and conquistadors were not at all Christ-like, but even if they _did_ follow the explicit morays of their cultures, they still would have been rather evil by modern standards.



Indeed, which is why for game purposes I'd rather use the contemporary standards - or a vague facsimile, anyway - where I can.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2021)

The problem with trying to use "in game society" being the determinant is that the "in game society" is likely very much a modern society anyway.  Unless you have no problems with that player's paladin killing an inn keeper for failing to be properly deferential.  Most games are not based on anything even approximating medieval laws.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Would anyone use this argument to defend the use of the single-word, trope-ish "slut" as a descriptor in a contemporary RPG text?



Highly unlikely, in that - in the sad event one needs such - in this case there's far too many other single words that say-imply-mean exactly the same thing.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 28, 2021)

Monadology said:


> Hussar has already touched on this, but I want to emphasize that the concerns about impact are not constrained to the level of individual tables. Though there can be table-level impacts, it's also very much a question of the larger scale social impact of these tropes continuing to be embedded in the hobby.



You mean the tropes that have been present in the hobby since the 1970s? 

Anyway, I put in my two cents. I'm done.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> The problem with trying to use "in game society" being the determinant is that the "in game society" is likely very much a modern society anyway.  Unless you have no problems with that player's paladin killing an inn keeper for failing to be properly deferential.



If that's how that society rolls then so be it - off with 'is 'ead.  That said, it's more likely a noble than a Paladin would do this, as a Pally still has to answer to her code of honour which is likely to include words to the effect of the weak are to be protected rather than slain.


Hussar said:


> Most games are not based on anything even approximating medieval laws.



True; in that many settings are trying to incorporate and-or quasi-replicate elements of many real-world eras, ranging from ancient Egypt through to the Renaissance, and so the laws and-or morals are likely to vary quite widely from place to place.

That said, it's very highly likely that the one type of law that won't be encountered is the tentacled horror known as the 21st-century western legal system.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Highly unlikely, in that - in the sad event one needs such - in this case there's far too many other single words that say-imply-mean exactly the same thing.



But, can't the same be said for pretty much any English language word?  If you want to use primitive without the connotative ickyness, you could use something like "The huts are roughly decorated with giant crab shells".  

Or, better yet, "The huts are decorated with giant crab shells" and leave the descriptor off entirely.  As was mentioned, in the module, describing the refugee huts as primitive isn't terribly problematic since it's obviously not a comment on a culture - it's simply that the makeshift homes are not very sturdy.  However, when you're looking at their regular homes and use the term "Primitive", you start getting problems.  I mean, good grief, a house in a fishing community being decorated with shells?  How is that primitive at all?  You see that NOW in homes that are very much anything but "primitive".


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> If that's how that society rolls then so be it - off with 'is 'ead.  That said, it's more likely a noble than a Paladin would do this, as a Pally still has to answer to her code of honour which is likely to include words to the effect of the weak are to be protected rather than slain.
> 
> True; in that many settings are trying to incorporate and-or quasi-replicate elements of many real-world eras, ranging from ancient Egypt through to the Renaissance, and so the laws and-or morals are likely to vary quite widely from place to place.
> 
> That said, it's very highly likely that the one type of law that won't be encountered is the tentacled horror known as the 21st-century western legal system.



If you think the 21st century western legal system is a "tentacled horror" you haven't looked into historical legal systems too much.  Vikings were far, far more likely to sue you than beat you over the head with an axe.  The body of law and what was legal and illegal back in the day is both horrifying and hillarious at the same time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> If you think the 21st century western legal system is a "tentacled horror" you haven't looked into historical legal systems too much.  Vikings were far, far more likely to sue you than beat you over the head with an axe.  The body of law and what was legal and illegal back in the day is both horrifying and hillarious at the same time.



“From the fury of the Norsemen’s legal team, oh Lord, deliver us!”


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> The problem with trying to use "in game society" being the determinant is that the "in game society" is likely very much a modern society anyway.  Unless you have no problems with that player's paladin killing an inn keeper for failing to be properly deferential.  Most games are not based on anything even approximating medieval laws.



Well, and any argument for why such a society was structured in any given way by its author is our old friend the Thermian Argument.

I doubt most people can even imagine medieval laws, let alone play by them. I'm no legal scholar, but I bet I could tell you 10 things about law in the 11th Century that pretty much everyone in this thread would be astounded by. Here's one, authorities in this time period divided up the peasantry (which is 97% of society, literally) into 'tens'. If one misbehaved, all of them were guilty. There was no notion that this was unfair or unjust in any sense whatsoever. The general conception was that everyone was assigned (presumably by God, though I'm sure 'fate' or whatever would do equally well) to their specific 'place', and if one stepped out, then the others must be lacking too. So if someone ran off, their friends would simply be beaten until they returned, or everyone they knew was gone.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I doubt most people can even imagine medieval laws, let alone play by them. I'm no legal scholar, but I bet I could tell you 10 things about law in the 11th Century that pretty much everyone in this thread would be astounded by. Here's one, authorities in this time period divided up the peasantry (which is 97% of society, literally) into 'tens'. If one misbehaved, all of them were guilty.



A further thing, which I think is underappreciated in a lot of FRPG world-building, is what is encompassed by _authorities_. I think it can be hard, for those who haven't experienced it or really intellectually engaged with it, to imagine the radical difference between the reach and the capacity of (say) the contemporary American state and the reach of (say) an 11th century central European noble.

One reason for structuring liability in group terms is simply that anything more fine-grained was not technically feasible.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 28, 2021)

Jd Smith1 said:


> My point is that I don't see a risk of reproducing harmful concepts.* I only game with adults, and their opinions are already formed.*



This is utter nonsense! It proposes and connects the idea that adult opinions somehow don't or can't change or be affected. And it is so easily disproven by adults of all ages getting roped into conspiracy theory nonsense and more.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2021)

I wonder how many players would accept an npc noble walking up and demanding they hand over their holy avenger simply because they aren’t nobles and don’t deserve to carry such a fine weapon. 

And then being told that they are breaking the law if they refuse. 

Hell I had players that totally lost their poop when told there is no self defence laws in Waterdeep. You kill someone, you are guilty of murder no matter what. Their argument was that no society would ever have such a law.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> I had players that totally lost their poop when told there is no self defence laws in Waterdeep. You kill someone, you are guilty of murder no matter what. Their argument was that no society would ever have such a law.



In fairness, that's a strange situation. Is there a historical precdent?


----------



## Ixal (Jul 28, 2021)

In many places there wouldn't be many, if any, codified laws, instead it depending entirely on what the ruling noble decides.
In the case of self defence it would depend on status (and money). If a noble killed a peasant it was obviously self defence. If it was the other way around it was murder. If it was between peasants it was whatever the noble decides it was.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2021)

According to the Code Legal for Waterdeep, Murder comes in two forms:  Murdering a citizen without justification: penalty death or hard labor (plus some other stuff and; Murdering a citizen with justification:  Exile up to 5 years or hard labor up to 3 years or damages up to 1000 gp paid to victims next of kin.  

Note, it does specify citizens there.

As far as historical precendent?  Well, in Edo Japan, simply being of Samurai status was enough to remove any charges of murder against someone of lower status.  You simply couldn't be accused of murdering someone.  And, obviously, anyone killing someone of higher status would automatically be guilty of murder and put to death, regardless of circumstance.  So, while not a direct analogue, it does kinda fit.

One could also look at situations where you have slavery, for example too.  An owner who kills a slave isn't guilty of anything.  A slave who kills an owner is guilty of murder, regardless of situation.

Note, self defense laws vary a lot between countries even in modern times.  What counts as self-defense in some parts of America would be second degree murder in Canada, for example.  ((Sorry, this is treading REALLY close to politics, so, I don't want to elaborate more))

I will admit, however, to not being any sort of legal historian, so, I really don't know.  I'm just spitballing.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> According to the Code Legal for Waterdeep, Murder comes in two forms:  Murdering a citizen without justification: penalty death or hard labor (plus some other stuff and; Murdering a citizen with justification:  Exile up to 5 years or hard labor up to 3 years or damages up to 1000 gp paid to victims next of kin.
> 
> Note, it does specify citizens there.
> 
> ...



I think status rules (Edo Japan, slavery) are a bit different - they remove what might otherwise have been justifications for killing.

But the Waterdeep code as you present it does seem to have a self-defence rule. I think the most natural reading of that is that justified killing (of which self-defence would be an example) nevertheless triggers a strict liability weregild, with exile or hard labour as consequences for an inability to pay the debt.

To me it does seem a little improbable as a rule, and to be mostly an invention intended to serve a metagame purpose of dissuading players from the use of violence in the course of play.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2021)

Ixal said:


> In many places there wouldn't be many, if any, codified laws, instead it depending entirely on what the ruling noble decides.



Which places do you have in mind?


----------



## Dragonsbane (Jul 28, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> The problem comes in all other situations. I simply cannot trust when a player I do not know well wants to act out rape, racism, misogyny, or the like as anything but wish fulfillment. They may really be just role playing, but that requires trust, and trust takes time. To be frank, I do not think RPGs are the appropriate arena to act out wish fulfillment.



I have a strange table I guess, but the people I play with I have known for years. Here are our two rules regarding all this.

*OOC Comments*: Show everyone respect - no rudeness, racial / gender / sexual orientation comments, political or religious discussions. To keep the game fun and flowing for everyone, out-of-character political correctness is a must. This applies to everything OOC. Players must be able to “play well with others”.

*IC Comments*: IC comments are a different story from OOC, of course. IC just about anything goes. This might include touching upon IC topics such as racism, violence, torture, rape, child kidnapping, genocide, homophobia, incest, or anything else one might find in an episode of Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Dexter, or similar program or novel. This is not a “safe space” game and therefore it might not be the game for you. 

Curse of Strhad was a great example. I really played up the face a commoner had his child in a sack and was trading this child for dreampies from the hag. No one was offended, we all knew it was just IC stuff like a horror movie.

Interestingly, although one or two of those topics might come up once in an entire mutli-month campaign, no one ever "fulfilled" any of these abhorrent, but real topics.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 28, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Which places do you have in mind?



Mainly Central Europe.
In general the local lord ruled on issues brought to him (or had a servant do so in his name) and was not bound by any codified laws except maybe the bible.
And there was a sharp divide between nobility and the common folk basically everywhere (Japan has already been mentioned) which affected how law was spoken (and I specifically did use the word trial as most people didn't get one). Nobles were right, free men when they were respected or useful (=rich or influential) and serfs were at the bottom. And in any legal case between people of different classes the their statues determined guilt, not evidence.
Or the lord wouldn't bother and let god decide with a trial by ordeal. If the accused survived he obviously was innocent.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Which places do you have in mind?



Well, early Rome would be a prime example.  It was centuries after the founding of Rome before they actually codified laws and wrote them down.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Well, early Rome would be a prime example.  It was centuries after the founding of Rome before they actually codified laws and wrote them down.



But I don't think that, before the Twelve Tables, it was "anything goes". I mean, the Twelve Tables were meant to be a recording of what was already established law, not a new act of law-making.

Based on my own reading - eg about the issuing of town charters in the areas in the east of Central Europe that were being conquered by German rulers in the High Middle Ages - I'm not really persuaded by @Ixal's example in that respsect either.

It's one thing to say that a noble had the power to dispense justice on his/her territory. It's a further thing to say that s/he did so without regard to what the customary law of the territory might require. And it's yet a further thing to say that there was no law other than "ruler's will".


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2021)

Yeah, I'd say, from my very, very limited understanding, that most of Europe was pretty codified when it came to laws by the time of the Fall of Rome and afterwards.  I mean, you have a thousand (ish) years of Roman rule, it's going to leave a bit of a habit of codified law.    As I said, you were far, far more likely to be sued by a viking than pillaged.  

Now, the actual codified laws?  Yeah, some of them were right out to lunch by modern standards.  Like totally bat poop crazy.    But, they did have laws.

Note, I totally agree that the laws of Waterdeep are player facing with a very thin veneer of in game justification.  I just thought it was very funny that my players went right around the twist about it.  "Hey guys, we're playing an urban campaign where there are guards all over the place and the city is (largely) a pretty lawful (as in law abiding, not the alignment) place.  How about we _don_'t play murder hobos this time?"

"WHAT??!?!?!  Are you freaking kidding me?  This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!! How dare you limit my actions like this!?!?!?!"

Why yes, I am rather happy with my new group.  Why do you ask?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> If that's how that society rolls then so be it - off with 'is 'ead.  That said, it's more likely a noble than a Paladin would do this, as a Pally still has to answer to her code of honour which is likely to include words to the effect of the weak are to be protected rather than slain.
> 
> True; in that many settings are trying to incorporate and-or quasi-replicate elements of many real-world eras, ranging from ancient Egypt through to the Renaissance, and so the laws and-or morals are likely to vary quite widely from place to place.
> 
> That said, it's very highly likely that the one type of law that won't be encountered is the tentacled horror known as the 21st-century western legal system.



Yeah, you have a point about what people think they 'know' about past societies. Its all a jumble! They hear about something that might perhaps have been true in 16th Century England and they extrapolate it to all of Europe over a time period of 1200 years. Well, mostly we don't know different, lol. I mean the range of social systems, traditions, laws, attitudes, etc. is obviously huge when you start covering something as broad as 'Medieval Europe' senso lato. I seem to remember the SCA defines it as "everything from 476 AD to 1588 AD" (the 'fall of Rome' to the Spanish Armada). Well, and then D&D, though mostly drawing from Europe, does draw from many other sources, too.

It is worth noting that prejudices have also evolved a lot over time. While Romans were certainly stuck on the superiority of their own civilization, they had nothing like the kinds of racial prejudices we find today. Not to say they were 'better', but very different. Likewise any other time period you care to name, and these things would vary widely over periods of a few centuries or less (as witness modern Europe/North America).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> But, can't the same be said for pretty much any English language word?  If you want to use primitive without the connotative ickyness, you could use something like "The huts are roughly decorated with giant crab shells".
> 
> Or, better yet, "The huts are decorated with giant crab shells" and leave the descriptor off entirely.  As was mentioned, in the module, describing the refugee huts as primitive isn't terribly problematic since it's obviously not a comment on a culture - it's simply that the makeshift homes are not very sturdy.  However, when you're looking at their regular homes and use the term "Primitive", you start getting problems.  I mean, good grief, a house in a fishing community being decorated with shells?  How is that primitive at all?  You see that NOW in homes that are very much anything but "primitive".



I still say it is better to show and not to tell. Describe the huts of the refugees as 'built from unstable piles of sticks and stones', 'look hurriedly constructed', etc. or better yet describe some people trying to repair one that has collapsed. The decorations could be 'left over crab shells' or something. By describing what is objectively physically present you draw the picture but leave out the judgment, and you can use a more subtle brush to paint a more nuanced picture. Not only are the people struggling to repair their hut living in 'primitive' conditions, they are suffering for it too! Their plight is apparent, they are humanized. 

And I don't buy the statement made up thread that its too much word count. Quality wins. In the end it is usually less wordy to describe things as they are, since you would need to do that anyway in some other way (IE you want to know if the huts are structurally unsound, now you can use that). It also helps to focus attention on what matters.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2021)

pemerton said:


> A further thing, which I think is underappreciated in a lot of FRPG world-building, is what is encompassed by _authorities_. I think it can be hard, for those who haven't experienced it or really intellectually engaged with it, to imagine the radical difference between the reach and the capacity of (say) the contemporary American state and the reach of (say) an 11th century central European noble.
> 
> One reason for structuring liability in group terms is simply that anything more fine-grained was not technically feasible.



A very good point! The REACH of the authorities was exceedingly limited as well. Outside of areas directly controlled it was quite tenuous. Even in the 15th and 16th Century in England the roads were frequented by many notorious bandits, for example. This was Elizabethan England, imagine England in the 9th Century! And 'Local Authority' was just a code word for 'the guy with a sword that nobody else wants to argue with'. Throughout most of the Medieval period large percentages of land in Europe were also 'wasteland', just forests, wetlands, etc. that was very lightly inhabited, if at all, and often completely outside the remit of any authority. In earlier periods these areas were the RULE, not the exception.

And there was a bit of an almost 'Points of Light' going on in those earlier periods. People stuck with that 'guy with the sword' and gave him their land, called him 'sir', etc. because the other option was to stand around and watch all your stuff burn in the next Viking raid.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Which places do you have in mind?



Yeah, I was going to say... Where do people think the English Common Law which we live under today (in the US at least) came from? Courts, which were literally the lords acting as judges, were bound by tradition. This wasn't really, AFAICT, so much a matter of high-mindedness as it was that even the 'guy with the sword you don't want to mess with' NEEDS the cooperation and loyalty of the subjects, he can't watch his own back all the time. So he has to construct some sort of legitimacy, and ruling consistently, and agreeing to be bound by traditional consistent rulings, is a pretty quick way to get there. Also without predictable rules you cannot have things like trade. Lords would rather raise taxes and get luxuries from trade than rule with absolute arbitrariness over mud pits.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Mainly Central Europe.
> In general the local lord ruled on issues brought to him (or had a servant do so in his name) and was not bound by any codified laws except maybe the bible.
> And there was a sharp divide between nobility and the common folk basically everywhere (Japan has already been mentioned) which affected how law was spoken (and I specifically did use the word trial as most people didn't get one). Nobles were right, free men when they were respected or useful (=rich or influential) and serfs were at the bottom. And in any legal case between people of different classes the their statues determined guilt, not evidence.
> Or the lord wouldn't bother and let god decide with a trial by ordeal. If the accused survived he obviously was innocent.



Right, but all of this is highly situational and certainly only applied in specific places and times, or at least there was a lot more nuance to it.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> A very good point! The REACH of the authorities was exceedingly limited as well. Outside of areas directly controlled it was quite tenuous. Even in the 15th and 16th Century in England the roads were frequented by many notorious bandits, for example.



I wasn't referring only to geographic reach, but to penetration into society. Whether one thinks it's good or bad - a matter we don't need to get into! - there's no doubting that the capacity of the contemporary US state to engage with its citizens and residents as individuals - eg via the tax return - is a remarkable technical achievement. It also depends upon the reduction in social power of non-state "intermediating" groupings, which - where they are strong - increase the opacity of society vis-a-vis the state.

If the worlds of D&D are quasi- or pseudo-mediaeval, it's as "unrealistic" to posit modern governmental capacities as it would be to posit, say, steam railways and machine-woven t-shirts.


----------



## Ixal (Jul 28, 2021)

pemerton said:


> A further thing, which I think is underappreciated in a lot of FRPG world-building, is what is encompassed by _authorities_. I think it can be hard, for those who haven't experienced it or really intellectually engaged with it, to imagine the radical difference between the reach and the capacity of (say) the contemporary American state and the reach of (say) an 11th century central European noble.
> 
> One reason for structuring liability in group terms is simply that anything more fine-grained was not technically feasible.



This is one major point which differentiates historic/fantasy settings and modern/futuristic ones. And it is very easy to spot modern settings written by people who are used to fantasy settings as they have no idea how to deal with the increased reach and power of the state (yes, I mean you Starfinder).

Another thing to remember, not everywhere was the nobility in charge. On land held by clergy for example the rules of law were different (and often more fair with actual trials beyond the nobles gut feeling).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2021)

Ixal said:


> This is one major point which differentiates historic/fantasy settings and modern/futuristic ones. And it is very easy to spot modern settings written by people who are used to fantasy settings as they have no idea how to deal with the increased reach and power of the state (yes, I mean you Starfinder).
> 
> Another thing to remember, not everywhere was the nobility in charge. On land held by clergy for example the rules of law were different (and often more fair with actual trials beyond the nobles gut feeling).



Well, for many centuries, Friesland basically outlawed nobility entirely! I mean, you could BE a 'noble', technically, but it had effectively no bearing on your legal status. Every adult man was adjudged free (I don't know if there were institutions like indenture or debt prison or whatever). 

It is interesting to study the history of this region as a contrast with the rest of Medieval Europe. Notably Frisia was eventually overrun by late Medieval lords, partly due to infighting and a slow breakdown of social equality and institutions which supported it. By the end of the 15th Century their egalitarian system largely ceased to exist, but for 800 years they formed a completely different and unique social/political system.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 28, 2021)

Hussar said:


> I remember years ago, back in my uni age days (so, FAR too many years ago, ) playing with a DM who depicted his orcs as First Nations (well back then, that wasn't the term we would use) people defending themselves from the colonial forces. It was a real eye opener and not something I'd ever even considered before. Just wasn't part of anything I'd read in fantasy or any of the D&D books or anything. I was playing a paladin in the game and it became are fascinating game of how I could reconcile this character who was created using the more or less bog standard tropes of the game with this very on target depiction. It's a game that ended far too early and it's something that I've always remembered.
> 
> It really did open my eyes, all the way back then, and this would have been in the early ish 90's, to just how ingrained the racism of the game really is. Once you've seen it, it's practically impossible not to see it throughout so much of the game.




That’s similar to the treatment of dwarves in Daniel Collerton's "Irilian" series in _White Dwarf _#42-47. _White Dwarf _#43 (1983):

The Irilians' views of demihumans are stereotyped and are generally the worst possible… dwarves [are] 'money-grubbing and miserly'. Perhaps because both the money-lender/bankers in Irilian are dwarves, they are especially disliked; occupying much the same position as Jews did in Medieval Europe, tolerated (barely) most of the time and otherwise persecuted.​
I think Collerton gets it spot on here. He wasn't the first to make a connection between dwarves and Jews – Tolkien and others also did so. But unlike Tolkien, Collerton's dwarves are not innately greedy, rather it's a false stereotype imposed upon them.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Jul 30, 2021)

I had a personal liking for the orcs in Warcraft 1 and 2. Not because they were an "evil race" (which is debatable), but because they were fantasy conquistadors and their culture had more depth than typical depictions of orcs. They had multiple religious schools of thought (e.g. necrolytes vs warlocks), internal politics and schisms, a multitude of clans with different subcultures, they made alliances with persecuted minorities on Azeroth like the goblins and trolls, etc. I was disappointed when WC3 retconned them to peaceful Native American stereotypes that were corrupted by those nasty demons and therefore weren't responsible for their many war crimes. (Before you mention it, my enjoyment is permanently ruined by #blizzardgate.)


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 31, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> This was Elizabethan England, imagine England in the 9th Century! And 'Local Authority' was just a code word for 'the guy with a sword that nobody else wants to argue with'. Throughout most of the Medieval period large percentages of land in Europe were also 'wasteland', just forests, wetlands, etc. that was very lightly inhabited, if at all, and often completely outside the remit of any authority. In earlier periods these areas were the RULE, not the exception..



I think one thing a lot of people forget when discussing the power of medieval nobles is that the Lords were as terrified of the peasantry as the peasantry were of the nobles.
There were a whole series of peasant revolts occuring usually due to unfair taxes.

Prior to the 10th century laws were about folk rights - enforced by the clan/tribe/village/(guild) - and Privilege granted by Nobility. The Church also had its role in enforcing rules on the Parish.      
Things were small scale, the peasants relied on the Lord for protection and the Lord was reliant on the peasantry for labour and supply of goods, a noble knew that his own wealth and survival often depended on keeping the common folk happy too


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> I think one thing a lot of people forget when discussing the power of medieval nobles is that the Lords were as terrified of the peasantry as the peasantry were of the nobles.
> There were a whole series of peasant revolts occuring usually due to unfair taxes.
> 
> Prior to the 10th century laws were about folk rights - enforced by the clan/tribe/village/(guild) - and Privilege granted by Nobility. The Church also had its role in enforcing rules on the Parish.
> Things were small scale, the peasants relied on the Lord for protection and the Lord was reliant on the peasantry for labour and supply of goods, a noble knew that his own wealth and survival often depended on keeping the common folk happy too



Yeah, my impression was always that it was rather less unequal than one might imagine. I mean, yes, the lord was technically in charge of many things, 'owned' an estate, etc. but he couldn't really kick people around too much. The whole thing was relied on by the community, many people ate at that table, etc. 

Anyway, you really have to remember that 97% figure. That's medieval agriculture, in general, 97 of 100 people must be agricultural workers to make it function. So all the soldiers, knights, etc. etc. etc. the whole nobility, was just a small fraction of the other 3%, because it also included many townspeople, craftspeople, tradesmen, etc. The upper classes didn't matter at all to normal folks, because they basically didn't exist.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Jul 31, 2021)

I don’t want to bring in politics, but I’d like to note that people’s approach to the “evil races” debate depends on their existing biases.

One group thinks that fictional species can be coded with traits reminiscent of real world ethnic stereotypes/caricatures, whether intentionally or subconsciously, and that this can _potentially_ become offensive. 
One group thinks that it’s categorically impossible for fantasy to be racist because it’s fantasy, even if a fictional species is heavily coded in way that should be impossible to ignore. Anyone who sees this coding is therefore a racist. (E.g. the _Terra Formars_ comic codes Martian cockroach people with numerous stereotypes of black people, such as spiral hair, athleticism, holding guns sideways, wearing bling, phallic symbols, rape symbolism, etc along with having a couple named Eva and Adolf, depicting an engineered perfect human as a Nazi Aryan stereotype stud, tons of seemingly extreme right-wing social commentary… but fans insist that this doesn’t exist.)
One group is prone to overreaching and seeing coding even where there is none, neither intentionally or subconsciously planted by the creator. This reinforces the beliefs of group #2. (E.g. someone wrote an article arguing that the aliens and predators from the movie franchises of the same name are anti-black caricatures.)
One group thinks that it’s impossible for a fictional species to have evolved in such a way that peaceful coexistence with humans is impossible, and that any depiction of such is inherently racist towards real minorities. This reinforces the beliefs of group #2. (E.g. that notoriously controversial Extra Credits video.)
One group just doesn’t want to think too hard about their elf-games and categorically rejects any attempt to insert what they perceive as “political correctness.” 
One group thinks that any kind of coding is inherently offensive. (E.g. someone wrote an article arguing that dwarves being coded as Scottish Jews is inherently offensive even though dwarves are normally characterized as heroes and even as an unfairly persecuted minority.)
Etc
I have seen _all_ of these positions argued at some point and I can provide receipts. There are nonsensical leaps of logic in most of these positions. It makes discussions very frustrating.

Like, there’s basically only two takes on HPL’s fish people: they’re either irredeemably evil monsters that must be exterminated to protect our pure human bloodlines (and our women!), or they’re a persecuted minority who looks weird but are otherwise normal people. There’s no nuance here, and in neither case do they feel like aliens.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> Like, there’s basically only two takes on HPL’s fish people: they’re either irredeemably evil monsters that must be exterminated to protect our pure human bloodlines (and our women!), or they’re a persecuted minority who looks weird but are otherwise normal people. There’s no nuance here, and in neither case do they feel like aliens.



It is not so much about HPL's Fish People (Deep Ones) and how society is depicted as reacting to them AS SUCH. It is the fact that HPL presented ideas of 'degeneracy', 'primitiveness', and 'racial admixture' which were undeniably and clearly drawn directly from, and intended to evoke and be complemented by, the same ideas being applied to human ethnicities by the foremost authorities of his day. The proof of this is of course undeniable and exists prolifically in his own writing and letters.

So, when he talks about the moral degeneracy and even physical and possibly intellectual degeneracy of Deep One/Human hybrids, he is undeniably and literally referencing ideas which he sees as validated 'scientifically' WRT actual living people in the real world. This cannot be seen as 'OK', and if your argument is that a reaction to it is the fault of people who are 'overly sensitive' to having these depictions recapitulated in their gaming, then all I can say is we disagree.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Jul 31, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It is not so much about HPL's Fish People (Deep Ones) and how society is depicted as reacting to them AS SUCH. It is the fact that HPL presented ideas of 'degeneracy', 'primitiveness', and 'racial admixture' which were undeniably and clearly drawn directly from, and intended to evoke and be complemented by, the same ideas being applied to human ethnicities by the foremost authorities of his day. The proof of this is of course undeniable and exists prolifically in his own writing and letters.
> 
> So, when he talks about the moral degeneracy and even physical and possibly intellectual degeneracy of Deep One/Human hybrids, he is undeniably and literally referencing ideas which he sees as validated 'scientifically' WRT actual living people in the real world. This cannot be seen as 'OK', and if your argument is that a reaction to it is the fault of people who are 'overly sensitive' to having these depictions recapitulated in their gaming, then all I can say is we disagree.



I agree that they’re a racist allegory. I cannot understand the minds of people who claim otherwise. The people in group #2 that I mentioned. They believe that HPL’s fish story cannot have racist themes because the fish people are fictional. When challenged, they’ll point to sources that confirm their confirmation bias. “See? This Israeli critic says that Innsmouth isn’t racist!”

The short story “The Doom that Came to Innsmouth” is emblematic of this kind of thinking. It has the same racist themes as TSoI except updated for the post-Civil Rights era. It’s even more disgusting than its inspiration, because at least in TSoI the story was told by unreliable narrators and you can contrive a non-racist interpretation of the events, but TDtCtI has no such ambiguity and the author seems painfully lacking in self-awareness.

But I don’t agree (aesthetically speaking) with going in the other direction and writing the fishies as a persecuted minority like “The Litany of Earth” does. Even a charitable analysis of the original Innsmouth story can’t whitewash (pun not intended) that the fish people acted like colonizers and are in telepathic thrall to an alien squid dragon thing that is known for driving humans who overhear its thoughts insane. 

I recommend Leila Hahn’s analysis, since it is the single most detailed and least biased analysis I could find: Let's Read: everything Howard Phillips Lovecraft ever wrote Books

There’s also this comparison by a Greyirish: “The Doom That Came to Innsmouth” (1999) by Brian McNaughton & “The Litany of Earth” (2014) by Ruthanna Emrys

I agree with Greyirish that these stories fail to actually explore the alien natures of the mermen, instead using them purely as either racist allegories or anti-racist allegories. I prefer horror stories over dark fantasy, and I prefer horror that doesn’t rely on racism. So far the only Innsmouth fanfic (because they’re all ultimately fanfics, even if you can legally sell them) that I enjoyed was the adventure game _Call of the Sea_, as it didn’t rely on racism and didn’t depict the fishies as a persecuted minority either.

I suppose my tastes are idiosyncratic, but my taste is my taste.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Jul 31, 2021)

Did the thread mention these articles yet?








						No, Orcs Aren't Racist
					

Why cultural critics keep arguing about the wrong things.




					www.psychologytoday.com
				











						Orcs Aren’t People: Denouncing Racism in the D&D Community
					

Orcs are monsters, not people. Only through de-normalizing the flawed perspective that orcs are supposed to be a racial caricature can we reverse the damage that this rhetoric has caused to the com…




					dmsworkshop.com


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 31, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> Did the thread mention these articles yet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The thread, particularly through @Doug McCrae 's contributions, have gone a lot further in its analysis of various races in dnd than these articles, which are one dimensional and overly defensive.  They are indicative of the categorical rejection of the conversation that you refer to earlier.  That is, it's hard to even start a conversation on tropes and characterization in dnd and other fantasy stories because it quickly becomes a debate as to whether that conversation should even exist by people who come in just to call the discussion, as the author of that first article says, part of a  "new woke wave of moral outrage and policing," and to say "but as far as D&D goes, let’s try to tune out society’s moral entrepreneurs as best we can and get back to gaming."  Said by a guy who looks like this


----------



## VelvetViolet (Jul 31, 2021)

This is why I prefer _13th Age_’s take on orcs. They pop out of chasms in the ground as adults holding weapons and don’t reproduce, so all the “other” symbolism is absent. I don’t understand why 5e couldn’t have taken a similar approach. They retconned the ecologies of tons of other monsters.

I’m honestly astonished that we even need to explain that invoking classic “other” symbolism is something that we just don’t do in modern society. I’ve seriously explained this to certain people, and they can’t grasp why you shouldn’t invoke “other” symbolism. They think it’s perfectly okay. This attitude is present worldwide, even among gamers from colonized countries. I like to think that I’m a rational person most of the time. But hearing that rebuttal from those specific people makes me seriously wonder which side is right, or whether there even is a right side. Saying anyone who disagrees has “internalized colonialism” feels suspiciously like confirmation bias to me.


----------



## Malmuria (Jul 31, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> This is why I prefer _13th Age_’s take on orcs. They pop out of chasms in the ground as adults holding weapons and don’t reproduce, so all the “other” symbolism is absent. I don’t understand why 5e couldn’t have taken a similar approach. They retconned the ecologies of tons of other monsters.
> 
> I’m honestly astonished that we even need to explain that invoking classic “other” symbolism is something that we just don’t do in modern society. I’ve seriously explained this to certain people, and they can’t grasp why you shouldn’t invoke “other” symbolism. They think it’s perfectly okay. This attitude is present worldwide, even among gamers from colonized countries. I like to think that I’m a rational person most of the time. But hearing that rebuttal from those specific people makes me seriously wonder which side is right, or whether there even is a right side. Saying anyone who disagrees has “internalized colonialism” feels suspiciously like confirmation bias to me.



I have relatives in India who will use terms like "backward" to, for example, talk about rural communities.  Similarly, some people look to the west as representative of what it means to be "modern."  It speaks to the way recently-developed (relatively speaking) frameworks for understanding human societies spread through cultural contact that is uneven (that is, that involves a distinct power dynamic).  In that context, "internalized colonialism" doesn't mean that people are somehow mind controlled but speaks to a set of ideas and ideologies that form a "common sense"  for any given group.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Jul 31, 2021)

Malmuria said:


> I have relatives in India who will use terms like "backward" to, for example, talk about rural communities.  Similarly, some people look to the west as representative of what it means to be "modern."  It speaks to the way recently-developed (relatively speaking) frameworks for understanding human societies spread through cultural contact that is uneven (that is, that involves a distinct power dynamic).  In that context, "internalized colonialism" doesn't mean that people are somehow mind controlled but speaks to a set of ideas and ideologies that form a "common sense"  for any given group.



I’ve been trying to interrogate these beliefs and it’s been an exercise in insanity. The people I talked to categorically don’t believe in the concepts of coding or othering… or internalized racism, or pretty much any kind of racism that is more subtle than the KKK or Nazis. The kinds of people who constantly espouse “you think orcs are black people? You’re the real racist!”

While I do think sometimes anti-racism can veer into tilting at windmills that gives the opposition ammunition (which is true of any belief system), this absolute denialism of more subtle forms of racism isn’t a rational response either.

Being even vaguely aware of how utterly pervasive racism and sexism and other -isms are is a curse, because I’ve noticed that a lot of normies are going to think I’m tilting at windmills or attacking them for wrong think.

I also keep seeing stupid stuff on both sides that makes me constantly question what the right answer is and my personal beliefs are constantly pinballing because I can never be sure whether I’m tilting at windmills or not.

I just wish human beings would stop having different opinions. It’s exhausting.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> I agree that they’re a racist allegory. I cannot understand the minds of people who claim otherwise. The people in group #2 that I mentioned. They believe that HPL’s fish story cannot have racist themes because the fish people are fictional. When challenged, they’ll point to sources that confirm their confirmation bias. “See? This Israeli critic says that Innsmouth isn’t racist!”
> 
> The short story “The Doom that Came to Innsmouth” is emblematic of this kind of thinking. It has the same racist themes as TSoI except updated for the post-Civil Rights era. It’s even more disgusting than its inspiration, because at least in TSoI the story was told by unreliable narrators and you can contrive a non-racist interpretation of the events, but TDtCtI has no such ambiguity and the author seems painfully lacking in self-awareness.
> 
> But I don’t agree (aesthetically speaking) with going in the other direction and writing the fishies as a persecuted minority like “The Litany of Earth” does. Even a charitable analysis of the original Innsmouth story can’t whitewash (pun not intended) that the fish people acted like colonizers and are in telepathic thrall to an alien squid dragon thing that is known for driving humans who overhear its thoughts insane.



I think it would be perfectly acceptable to write a story in which the Deep Ones have a complex, albeit extremely alien, culture. Its fine that they are malevolent in their outlook towards humans, or at least look at us as somewhat of a "sub-Deep One-race." In fact you could definitely PLAY WITH THAT, drawing an analogy between them and historical colonizers and racists IRL (it need not be explicit either). You could then approach the hybrids as a group which suffers bias from both sides (and again there could be interesting parallels here with real history). Now, what the hybrids attitudes towards humans is, etc. could go a few ways, but I would expect there are redeeming features and potentially sympathetic characters there.


BoxCrayonTales said:


> I recommend Leila Hahn’s analysis, since it is the single most detailed and least biased analysis I could find: Let's Read: everything Howard Phillips Lovecraft ever wrote Books
> 
> There’s also this comparison by a Greyirish: “The Doom That Came to Innsmouth” (1999) by Brian McNaughton & “The Litany of Earth” (2014) by Ruthanna Emrys



Well, I have not read that LR, but I HAVE read (in case my handle leaves much doubt) everything ever written by HPL which is still extant, including the published letters and other material, as well as everything written by the people whom he corresponded with (again subject to it having been in print any time since the mid 20th Century at least). That would include REH, Clark Ashton Smith, etc. I've read, I believe, the vast majority of what HPL ghost wrote, though it is actually hard to know the full scope of that for sure. 

I have not read McNaughton nor Emrys AFAIK, though I have read quite a few modern Cthulhu story type collections, so its possible I just don't remember them.


BoxCrayonTales said:


> I agree with Greyirish that these stories fail to actually explore the alien natures of the mermen, instead using them purely as either racist allegories or anti-racist allegories. I prefer horror stories over dark fantasy, and I prefer horror that doesn’t rely on racism. So far the only Innsmouth fanfic (because they’re all ultimately fanfics, even if you can legally sell them) that I enjoyed was the adventure game _Call of the Sea_, as it didn’t rely on racism and didn’t depict the fishies as a persecuted minority either.
> 
> I suppose my tastes are idiosyncratic, but my taste is my taste.



I am really not saying that you cannot have a Deep One or Hybrid in a game without confronting everything racist that might be taken for. I would just say that you would want to signal that such tropes are not to be relied upon as the basis of all the facts in play. I'm no genius on what everyone out there is going to find acceptable. I just think when you decide to use HPL-based material at all, you have to reckon with the fact that he was an amazingly, appallingly racist person, and it taints all his work. Honestly, one option would be to simply not bring Mythos material into it at all. HPL doesn't have a lock on Cosmic Horror.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Jul 31, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Its fine that they are malevolent in their outlook towards humans, or at least look at us as somewhat of a "sub-Deep One-race."



Hahn speculates that they were engineered as an experiment by the starfish heads because they’re subject to similar hypnotic conditioning as shoggoths are. “Oh look at those poor hominids that can’t breathe water, communicate telepathically, or live indefinitely. Let’s create a hominid that can and release it to breed with the rest. They might make good slaves, and if not we can always dispose of them.” Then there was a lot of Murphy’s Law.

Hahn’s analysis is quite frankly the most creative take I’ve ever seen, and it’s especially interesting because it’s based purely on a critical reading of the original texts. It’s also way less odious than the standard uncritically racist take on the mermen that the Chaosium-defined expanded universe runs with.


----------



## John Dallman (Aug 1, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> Hahn speculates that they were engineered as an experiment by the starfish heads because they’re subject to similar hypnotic conditioning as shoggoths are. “Oh look at those poor hominids that can’t breathe water, communicate telepathically, or live indefinitely. Let’s create a hominid that can and release it to breed with the rest. They might make good slaves, and if not we can always dispose of them.” Then there was a lot of Murphy’s Law.



That _is_ interesting. 

I found in play that the Chaosium scenario Beyond the Mountains of Madness gets a lot more interesting, and more survivable, if the characters, having learned the Elder Things' written language, start talking to them. Elder Things are very weird, but they are material creatures with recognisable needs and desires, so negotiation is conceivably possible. 

For a modern take on the Deep Ones, see Charles Stross' novel The Jennifer Morgue.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Aug 1, 2021)

John Dallman said:


> so negotiation is conceivably possible.



Are you aiming for horror or non-horror?


----------



## nevin (Aug 1, 2021)

Aging Bard said:


> This is a delicate topic. I very much want commentary to course correct me where necessary. Thank you in advance.
> 
> In a recent video, long time RPG creator Jim Ward (Metamorphosis Alpha, Gamma World) protested against the de-emphasis of alignment and elimination of absolutely Evil races like orcs in 5e, while praising its accessibility to new players.
> 
> ...



just like in real life you have to set boundaries.  with people you don't know it's always better to just lay it out at the beginning and if they don't like it they can play somewhere else.   In my experience most players don't want to play evil characters unless they have some serious issues to work out or have an overblown case of narcissism and want to make everyone else's life suck.   After years of trying it I will only let someone play an evil character if I'm sure they aren't going to actively turn on the party because "they are playing thier alignment".  That's not fun for anyone except that jerk. 

That being said I've had a player play an evil character to the end of a campaign arc and no other party member ever knew they were evil.  it was amazing and gave me all kinds of depth in the backstory of my campaign.  But thats' one attempt in 30 years that actually worked out where the party had fun with it.


----------



## John Dallman (Aug 2, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> Are you aiming for horror or non-horror?



I was willing to take either course. If the characters did a good job of adapting to the Elder Things and negotiating with them, the adventure could turn into science fiction, and that's what happened in play. If they did a bad job, horror could re-assert itself. It was a case of "play it to see what happens."

There is a significant science fiction element in Lovecraft's work, which tends to get neglected.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Aug 2, 2021)

John Dallman said:


> I was willing to take either course. If the characters did a good job of adapting to the Elder Things and negotiating with them, the adventure could turn into science fiction, and that's what happened in play. If they did a bad job, horror could re-assert itself. It was a case of "play it to see what happens."
> 
> There is a significant science fiction element in Lovecraft's work, which tends to get neglected.



Okay. I’m only interested in HPL mythos for the scifi horror. If I just want scifi, then I have a plethora of alternatives.


----------



## aramis erak (Aug 3, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Note, self defense laws vary a lot between countries even in modern times.  What counts as self-defense in some parts of America would be second degree murder in Canada, for example.  ((Sorry, this is treading REALLY close to politics, so, I don't want to elaborate more))



There are different varieties of self-defense laws by state in the US.
In some states, lethal force may be used to protect mere property, as well as prevent harm to person; in others, one has an obligation to flee if possible, and any force is only justified if one cannot escape nor otherwise prevent harm.

That Waterdeep has a no self defense law is not at all a verisimilitude issue for me. It's not terribly sane.... but many laws aren't. Or at least, many that had a sensibility at one point no longer do. 
And some (like no donkeys in your bathtub, from a northwestern Alaska town) have some story behind them.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2021)

John Dallman said:


> That _is_ interesting.
> 
> I found in play that the Chaosium scenario Beyond the Mountains of Madness gets a lot more interesting, and more survivable, if the characters, having learned the Elder Things' written language, start talking to them. Elder Things are very weird, but they are material creatures with recognisable needs and desires, so negotiation is conceivably possible.
> 
> For a modern take on the Deep Ones, see Charles Stross' novel The Jennifer Morgue.



Yeah, Stross' Deep Ones are a bit less 'out there' in the sense that you can NEGOTIATE with them. OTOH they are still completely incomprehensible, frighteningly powerful, and probably haven't destroyed us simply because we're just not important, like at all really. 

As for the 'Elder Things', there wasn't much talking to them in any HPL Mythos stuff, but they never seemed like a super malign race either, just weird and out there. In fact, few of the RACES actually are 'monstrous'. The Deep Ones were really the main targets of that meme. Great Race of Yith, they're cool. Beetle creatures from the far future, no problem. Fungi from Yuggoth, eh, kinda trippy, but as long as you make it clear you aren't interested in being containerized...

It is the Great Old Ones themselves which seem malign, or at the very least extremely toxic, to us.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Aug 4, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, Stross' Deep Ones are a bit less 'out there' in the sense that you can NEGOTIATE with them. OTOH they are still completely incomprehensible, frighteningly powerful, and probably haven't destroyed us simply because we're just not important, like at all really.
> 
> As for the 'Elder Things', there wasn't much talking to them in any HPL Mythos stuff, but they never seemed like a super malign race either, just weird and out there. In fact, few of the RACES actually are 'monstrous'. The Deep Ones were really the main targets of that meme. Great Race of Yith, they're cool. Beetle creatures from the far future, no problem. Fungi from Yuggoth, eh, kinda trippy, but as long as you make it clear you aren't interested in being containerized...
> 
> It is the Great Old Ones themselves which seem malign, or at the very least extremely toxic, to us.



I prefer Hahn’s analyses over the Chaosium-influenced fanon


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> I prefer Hahn’s analyses over the Chaosium-influenced fanon



Stross seems to have hit a pretty good result. His work in the Mythos is extremely well-received. I mean, it helps that he is like about a 1000x better writer than HPL... lol (and I say this as a fan of HPL's work).


----------



## VelvetViolet (Aug 4, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Stross seems to have hit a pretty good result. His work in the Mythos is extremely well-received. I mean, it helps that he is like about a 1000x better writer than HPL... lol (and I say this as a fan of HPL's work).



It’s more that whole “the fishies are vastly superior to humans” comes across as self-deluding propaganda even in the the original story if you read it with even a slightly critical eye.

The US military destroys Innsmouth and Devil’s Reef, but fish granny claims in a dream that it isn’t important and they’re really superior to those silly land dwellers. This despite the fact that they previously attacked Innsmouth and killed half the population when Obed Marsh was imprisoned, just because they stopped receiving sacrifices. Sounds to me like they realized they can’t win against the US military but are too much sore losers to admit it. 

This “taking the stories at face value even when the facts don’t add up” is endemic to HPL fanfic. IMO Hahn’s critical analyses are the single most original take on HPL’s stories since HPL wrote them.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 4, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> It’s more that whole “the fishies are vastly superior to humans” comes across as self-deluding propaganda even in the the original story if you read it with even a slightly critical eye.
> 
> The US military destroys Innsmouth and Devil’s Reef, but fish granny claims in a dream that it isn’t important and they’re really superior to those silly land dwellers. This despite the fact that they previously attacked Innsmouth and killed half the population when Obed Marsh was imprisoned, just because they stopped receiving sacrifices. Sounds to me like they realized they can’t win against the US military but are too much sore losers to admit it.
> 
> This “taking the stories at face value even when the facts don’t add up” is endemic to HPL fanfic. IMO Hahn’s critical analyses are the single most original take on HPL’s stories since HPL wrote them.



Well, a vast amount of the Mythos "doesn't add up" of course. HPL wanted to write about secret hidden stuff, not an all-out war of annihilation between Deep Ones and humans. Also I think he would say that Stross' Deep Ones, with their more pragmatic and fundamentally utilitarian view of humanity are less mysterious in some fashion. That is, the HPL Deep Ones REALLY DON'T CARE, maybe they cannot take on the US Military in a way that achieves their objectives, but we cannot even fathom what those are, and their actions make no sense to us at all.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Aug 4, 2021)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, a vast amount of the Mythos "doesn't add up" of course. HPL wanted to write about secret hidden stuff, not an all-out war of annihilation between Deep Ones and humans. Also I think he would say that Stross' Deep Ones, with their more pragmatic and fundamentally utilitarian view of humanity are less mysterious in some fashion. That is, the HPL Deep Ones REALLY DON'T CARE, maybe they cannot take on the US Military in a way that achieves their objectives, but we cannot even fathom what those are, and their actions make no sense to us at all.



I understand that modern stories like _The Sick Land_ love to wallow in surrealist incomprehensibility, but a lot of the HPL stories are largely explainable. Largely. Like, we know what the mermen want because they explain it to the human characters: give them sacrifices, marry them, convert to their religion, etc and they'll give immortality and gold jewelry in return. We don't get much detail, but what little we do see appears pretty comprehensible.

The whole "you can't understand it" thing seems to be more a part of what fans _think _HPL's work is more than what it is _actually _is. (I recall that several Lovecraft scholars have complained about Chaosium messing up fandom's perception of the mythos, but I don't recall much of what they said.) There's this fascinating online article on how to write a Lovecraftian monster, and most of HPL's stories actually break the rules it sets (whereas a military scifi story like _Knights of Sidonia_ follows far more).

That's the entire reason that Hahn was able to write such detailed analyses in the first place. One story that Hahn notably went full Derrida on was "The Whisperer in the Darkness." Although HPL's tone says one thing, the actual events of the story say something completely different. The fungus crabs come across as (by HPL standards) incredibly moral and restrained beings, but also as incompetent morons more appropriate for slapstick comedy.

Let that sink in for a moment. When I said Hahn was the most original take on HPL since HPL, I meant it. Hahn was so _somethinged _with the story that no analysis was made of the fungus crabs, even tho xenology posts were a regular part of the Let's Read.


----------



## le Redoutable (Aug 4, 2021)

I have not read the 27 pages of this topic,
still I can tell you something which is worth:
there is no such thing as Evil;
there is place for Cruelty, Betrayal etc
but those who inherit the bad mood ( french le mauvais rôle )
let others have ( le bon rôle ) ;
if noone would take the bad mood their opponents could never act like Paladins
( si vous arrivez à comprendre my translation you are genius lol )


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Aug 4, 2021)

le Redoutable said:


> I have not read the 27 pages of this topic,
> still I can tell you something which is worth:
> there is no such thing as Evil;
> there is place for Cruelty, Betrayal etc
> ...



Je suis un génie!  

However, I don't think a story necessarily needs explicit bad guys, albeit it is harder to construct a conflict that way. But the most interesting conflicts are usually those in which both sides actually have a legit point.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Aug 4, 2021)

Crimson Longinus said:


> However, I don't think a story necessarily needs explicit bad guys, albeit it is harder to construct a conflict that way. But the most interesting conflicts are usually those in which both sides actually have a legit point.



Exactly this! 

My campaigns tend to work similarly to the MCU, in theme (comedy, epic stakes, and large, diverse casts), and a specific criticism that I've seen of MCU movies dozens of times is the "this movie's villain is just evil for the purpose of being evil, and thus isn't a compelling villain". The most popular MCU villains (Infinity War Thanos, Killmonger, Loki, etc) have motivations/identities other than "I'm evil and here to be the guy that the heroes fight against". 

Sometimes those villains are perfectly fine, especially for party members that just want to cut through armies of enemies without having to do any critical thinking about whether or not it's a good thing to kill them, but *the more memorable and compelling villains are the ones that have a point*. The ones that have motivations that we can relate to and understand (revenge/retribution, survival, justice, the willingness to do what others won't, jealousy, etc) are often better and more epic villains than those that have more obscure/alien motivations (destroying the world(s) just 'cause, power/wealth/title, bloodlust).


----------



## VelvetViolet (Aug 5, 2021)

I think that's subjective. Morally complex villains were pretty rare up until the mid 20th century and now it's a bandwagon that writers are criticized for not jumping on. Less than admirable _heroes_, on the other hand, go back to Gilgamesh. (As in, the story itself criticizes his actions, not in the sense that the ancients were less morally enlightened than secular humanists.)


----------



## Hussar (Aug 6, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> I think that's subjective. Morally complex villains were pretty rare up until the mid 20th century and now it's a bandwagon that writers are criticized for not jumping on. Less than admirable _heroes_, on the other hand, go back to Gilgamesh. (As in, the story itself criticizes his actions, not in the sense that the ancients were less morally enlightened than secular humanists.)



I'm not sure you can claim that to be honest.  Shakespeare has morally complex villains - Hamlet is a good example, Lear.  Goethe's Faust is pretty complex.  Arthurian stories feature all sorts of moral complexity.

The main thing to remember when we start talking about stories, is that the novel form doesn't really explode until the 20th century and has done nothing but continue to explode as an art form.  Just looking at fantasy genre stories, there have been more original fantasy novels published in the past 20 years than in the past century.  And that number just keeps climbing.

So, it does make sense that with such a crowded form, nuance becomes far more important in order to distinguish one work from another.  Simple black hats vs white hats is a really limited palate to draw from.  Particularly when you're trying to make your story stand out from a much, MUCH larger pack.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Aug 6, 2021)

BoxCrayonTales said:


> I think that's subjective. Morally complex villains were pretty rare up until the mid 20th century and now it's a bandwagon that writers are criticized for not jumping on. Less than admirable _heroes_, on the other hand, go back to Gilgamesh. (As in, the story itself criticizes his actions, not in the sense that the ancients were less morally enlightened than secular humanists.)



That's because being a "Hero" didn't originally refer to moral character, but rather physical and martial prowess. Paris and Achilles are in a sense heroic villains, or villainous heroes. Hector, more virtuous.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 6, 2021)

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure you can claim that to be honest.  Shakespeare has morally complex villains - Hamlet is a good example, Lear.  Goethe's Faust is pretty complex.  Arthurian stories feature all sorts of moral complexity.
> 
> The main thing to remember when we start talking about stories, is that the novel form doesn't really explode until the 20th century and has done nothing but continue to explode as an art form.  Just looking at fantasy genre stories, there have been more original fantasy novels published in the past 20 years than in the past century.  And that number just keeps climbing.
> 
> So, it does make sense that with such a crowded form, nuance becomes far more important in order to distinguish one work from another.  Simple black hats vs white hats is a really limited palate to draw from.  Particularly when you're trying to make your story stand out from a much, MUCH larger pack.



Careful, most people today are utterly unaware of the sheer scope and size of the 'pulp' and associated categories of fiction in the last 19th and early 20th Centuries. They could easily swamp the entirety of modern fantasy and sci-fi and not even burp. There were INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS who had output in the 100's of millions of words. Yet most of it was basically low grade formula trash with cardboard cut-out characters and stock material. 

For whatever reason, these authors saw no need to produce a better grade of material, and apparently the publishers were perfectly happy selling 1 cent 'dreadfulls' to kids and aspired to little else. It wasn't until the 20's and Hugo Gernsback and Amazing Stories that there was SOME improvement. That was mostly caused by the fact that paper and distribution costs increased, so the available page space shrank, and with higher cover prices you got a bit more demanding audience. Even so, most of what was in the 20's pulps is pretty bad stuff. 

So, I would attribute any improvement, such as it may be, more to an audience that is more discerning and well-educated and the fact that even mass-market paperbacks are not really dirt cheap at $12 and up! Even so, there's plenty of schlock out there, though IMHO it seems to cluster more in the serial military-sci-fi sub-genre than anywhere else...


----------

