# On the matter of half-orcs



## Kzach (Feb 6, 2009)

I just don't get why WotC are being so squeemish about half-orc origins. Ok, so an orc raped a human woman. Horrible, we get that. But the majority of D&D players are adults, not pre-schoolers. We can deal. Seriously.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 6, 2009)

Times change, mores change...


----------



## vagabundo (Feb 6, 2009)

Kzach said:


> I just don't get why WotC are being so squeemish about half-orc origins. Ok, so an orc raped a human woman. Horrible, we get that. But the majority of D&D players are adults, not pre-schoolers. We can deal. Seriously.




Not compatible with a lot of games - like mine - and not all games are run by adults.

I've never liked half-orcs for this very reason.


----------



## fissionessence (Feb 6, 2009)

Instead hobgoblins 'bred' humans and orcs together. So . . . how's that better? Seems like basically the same thing, although I guess it frees up every PC half-orc from having to be the child of rape. Still . . .

~


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 6, 2009)

So now half-orcs that are a product of rape are the exception, and not the rule.  I can get behind that.  In my opinion, it just colored the entire race needlessly.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 6, 2009)

Rape is a special case.

It's a fairly wide spread source of trauma and it's more difficult than most to talk about or deal with socially.

I'm very careful dealing with rape as a subject in class, and though I have a lot more control over my gaming group than I do my students I still apreciate the effort to deal with the subject with increasing discretion.

Plus, the new story is cooler.

A shared group trauma in the distant past is still fairly gritty but leaves a lot more room open to develop individual character backgrounds.

I mean, if nothing else, the child of rape origin story for Half-Orcs was a lot more specific than any other race's background story.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 6, 2009)

Half orcs are pretty obviously derived from the man-orcs of Saruman.

I've always considered them to be a manufactured race which breeds true (after all, in a world where owlbears and halfdragon-anythings is possible, creating a race which was halfway between man and orc seems trivial).

Eberron had an interesting take on the issue, where the shadow marches had a population of men and orcs who get along just fine and sometime decide to make babies together because of love (just like with half-elves). This is another fine way to handle the situation.

Indeed, the whole idea of rape being behind a whole race seems the most ridiculous concept imaginable, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Midnight Dawns (Feb 6, 2009)

*Why was it always rape?*

You know i never really thought much about the rape aspect. I always thought of orcs as "barbarians" and as such there being a certain amount of interaction between orc tribes and human tribes. Besides there are reasons for coupling between the two races. For example, political (if you really need an example the Orc king has it inthe prologue) and choosing a mate based on strength or athe ability to provide. The concept fo rape rarely seemed to cross my path in play or while reading. Half-elfs on the other hand...


----------



## delericho (Feb 6, 2009)

fissionessence said:


> Instead hobgoblins 'bred' humans and orcs together. So . . . how's that better?




Yeah, isn't that still rape? I presume the hobgoblins didn't actually give them a choice...

Surely, if they want half-orcs in the game, but don't want to deal with a difficulty origin story for the race, the best way to do it is to simply not talk about the origin of the race? "Half-orcs are an intelligent race found throughout the lands of both men and orcs. They number both men and orcs in their ancestry."


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 6, 2009)

yeah, I've never had a problem with he "rape" background, I never considered 1/2 Orc populations to be that large anyways...

but, I prefer the route of a race that's bred true for a long time, producing a "high orc" breed.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 6, 2009)

Forget half-orcs... you should see the new genesis of trolls .


----------



## Spatula (Feb 6, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Half orcs are pretty obviously derived from the man-orcs of Saruman.
> 
> I've always considered them to be a manufactured race which breeds true (after all, in a world where owlbears and halfdragon-anythings is possible, creating a race which was halfway between man and orc seems trivial).
> 
> ...



Yep.  The rape background in 1e always seemed like a strange addon, given the Tolkien roots of the race.  And it's not only rather silly (_every_ half-orc is a product of rape?), it's also inappropriate for a game in a world where a staggering percentage of women are sexually abused.  In a game group with no women, that may not be an issue, but the game aspires to appeal to a wider audience than that.

In Eberron, half-orcs are also their own people, so maybe they're the product of an orc and a human pairing, but it's more likely that you'd just have two half-orc parents.  That doesn't square very well with the stock CE orcs in 4e, though.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 6, 2009)

I think having rape be the exception rather than the rule is okay.  For my part, I'm going to make half-orcs be the result of the experiment of some demon prince in ages past.  Seeing the destructive tendencies of orcs and the corrupting qualities of humans, the demon prince sought to rarefy both by breeding the races and infusing the product with demonic influence.  The result was too good - while they were a race of cunning, powerful, and ruthless warriors, many also retained enough of their essential humanity and orcish tenacity to make them question their servitude.  The demon prince was overthrown in a bygone age by a faction of his rebellious forces, and the half-orcs have lived more or less free ever since.

Basically, I'm thinking of making them like the Night People from Blue Rose.  I like this origin story because it make half-orcs a demon-themed race, like how tielfing are the devil-themed race.


----------



## Alas (Feb 6, 2009)

I like the multiple-choice origin options for half-orcs for two reasons:

I had something similar set up for tieflings in my previous Eberron campaign
In my personal experience, character origin only matters if the player invokes it, and racial origin only matters if the DM invokes it.
Really, I never had a problem with rationalizing half-orcs. When I was younger I was too naive to give it much thought, and as an adult I have complete faith (if that's the right word) in the willingness of the fictional human male to schtup any fictional thing.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 6, 2009)

I find the argument that D&D needs more rape to be completely baffling and a little nauseating.

-O


----------



## OchreJelly (Feb 6, 2009)

I think their stance on the new origins is well tempered.  Giving multiple options of the origin leaves open the question on what the true origin is.  They are wise to not make rape the default option since they are designing it for the broadest player base.  

If a player wants that as his background he has that option (with any race for that matter), but not having it hardwired into the race is a good thing.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Feb 6, 2009)

obryn said:


> i find the argument that d&d needs more rape to be completely baffling and a little nauseating.
> 
> -o




f.a.t.a.l. Ftw!


----------



## Henry (Feb 6, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Ok, so an orc raped a human woman. Horrible, we get that.




What makes you think it worked that way? Those female orcs are pretty strong, and after a hard day of raiding...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 6, 2009)

From RCFG Preview #1 (2008):

Half-orcs are the product of human and orcish bloodlines. This may be because one parent is a human and the other an orc, or because one or both parents are half-orcs. The orcish bloodline tends not to appear after even a few generations, so half-orcs seldom appear as a surprise. Although most firstgeneration half-orcs are the product of orcish raids on human lands, some (especially among later generation half-orcs) are products of more loving relationships. Some orcish tribes follow human leaders; these often intermingle with orcs.​
RC


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 6, 2009)

Given the human propencity to be attracted to all kinds of bizarre and unusal people/activities, I don't know why half-orcs can't come from consensual behaivior. I know why rape was originally used as on origin, but given what you can find on the internet these days I think people are becoming more accustomed to alternate lifestyles and activities such that consensual Human/Orc mating wouldn't be that surprising.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 6, 2009)

Henry said:


> What makes you think it worked that way? Those female orcs are pretty strong, and after a hard day of raiding...




Well, Henry, when a daddy human and a mommy orc.... Only if daddy human isn't aroused by mommy orc, it probably isn't going to work. 

I guess if there were some cultural reason why female orcs wanted to be bearing half-orc children they could mate with human slaves.

As for Tolkien, what on Erda did you all think happened in Saruman's breeding pits?  I was utterly gobsmacked when I saw Peter Jackson's "orc cyst" thingummy.   Tolkien was too discrete to detail most of the atrocities committed by orcs, but I never doubted what that was indicating forced orc-human interbreeding.


----------



## delericho (Feb 6, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Yep.  The rape background in 1e always seemed like a strange addon, given the Tolkien roots of the race.  And it's not only rather silly (_every_ half-orc is a product of rape?), it's also inappropriate for a game in a world where a staggering percentage of women are sexually abused.




It's also not in the books. I just checked the 1st Edition Players Handbook and Monster Manual, and also the 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual (no half-orcs in the 2nd Ed PHB), and there's nothing about rape at all. The books state that orcs will crossbreed with just about anything (except elves, with whom they cannot), but does not mention how this would come about.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 6, 2009)

S'mon said:


> As for Tolkien, what on Erda did you all think happened in Saruman's breeding pits?  I was utterly gobsmacked when I saw Peter Jackson's "orc cyst" thingummy.   Tolkien was too discrete to detail most of the atrocities committed by orcs, but I never doubted what that was indicating forced orc-human interbreeding.




   Some of the last writings by the Professor on the origin of the Orcs and their kind go into some of the difficulties and horrors associated with the project:

  [quote="Morgoth's Ring", J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 418-419]
It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents could be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long aftewards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile.[/quote]

  The problem, IMO, is that D&D has orcs without the background Tolkien gave them--Tolkien's Orcs are monsters in the literal sense, Elves (or possibly Men or hominid beasts) warped in body and mind by the dark arts of Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, and others who have rebelled against Eru and His Music. D&D orcs are typically on the same order of being and nature as any other sapient race, and thus not necessarily driven towards evil in the same way that Morgoth warped the Orkor.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 6, 2009)

delericho said:


> It's also not in the books. I just checked the 1st Edition Players Handbook and Monster Manual, and also the 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual (no half-orcs in the 2nd Ed PHB), and there's nothing about rape at all. The books state that orcs will crossbreed with just about anything (except elves, with whom they cannot), but does not mention how this would come about.



Hm, and yet I definitely remember that subtext being present back in the 80's.  I wonder where the idea came from, then.


----------



## delericho (Feb 6, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Hm, and yet I definitely remember that subtext being present back in the 80's.  I wonder where the idea came from, then.




It's probably from the fan community (and quite possibly Dragon).

And, to be honest, it is the most likely explanation for a (small) half-orc population. Human history makes for some pretty grim reading in places (particularly where the sacking of cities is concerned), and when you throw in a race that's actively Evil (and not merely of any alignment as are humans), things are likely to be worse.

So, WotC are probably correct in their assertion that half-orcs "imply a disturbing backstory". Perhaps that really is enough to justify pulling them from the game... although I really doubt this 'new' backstory will actually change anything.

(Besides: probably the most iconic half-*elf* in D&D fiction is Tanis Half-elven from Dragonlance, who is a product of rape... and that's a stated, not implied, backstory.)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Feb 6, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Given the human propencity to be attracted to all kinds of bizarre and unusal people/activities, I don't know why half-orcs can't come from consensual behaivior. I know why rape was originally used as on origin, but given what you can find on the internet these days I think people are becoming more accustomed to alternate lifestyles and activities such that consensual Human/Orc mating wouldn't be that surprising.




There are might be large communities of people doing that online, but as a percentage of the population, they're probably vanishingly small.

Without the ability to read minds, I can't tell if people I've gamed with are like that, but if they are, they're too embarrassed to say so.

On another note, why would orcs rape humans? Humans probably look ugly to orcs.


----------



## 13garth13 (Feb 7, 2009)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> On another note, why would orcs rape humans? Humans probably look ugly to orcs.




'Cause rape tends to be a crime of inflicting violence against another person in order to build a feeling of psychological dominance (horribly stripping someone of their dignity is a fairly dominating act)....I will grant that (no research btw, just gut instinct, so YMMV) profoundly unattractive people are statistically less likely to be raped than those considered "desirable" by a perpetrator, but prison rapes, rapes of elderly women etc. bear witness to the fact that an act of non-consensual sex is really only *the vehicle* by which the violence is inflicted in order to inflate the rapist's ego/sense of control.

But this is a fairly uncomfortable topic for many (and I was a youth worker in an inner city region for too long to be blase about the topic) and if this post skirts dangerously close to Grandma's rule, then I will delete whatever the mods feel is inappropriate.

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 7, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I find the argument that D&D needs more rape to be completely baffling and a little nauseating.



Maybe Kzach is a big George RR Martin fan?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 7, 2009)

I think I'm more disturbed by the tendency to believe that half-orcs can only come about via rape (and the tendency  to believe that half-elves NEVER are).

If you can have half-anythings, any justification you use for one can be applied to all of them.


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2009)

So, I've read the PHB2 will have gnomes, half-orcs, devas, and goliaths. Has the fifth race been disclosed yet? 

The reason is, I'm wondering if we'll orcs as a PHB race at some point. Orcs have already been given a civilized facet in Forgotten (Many-Arrows). I'm thinking there's an attempt to nudge orcs into a more player-friendly area, so all those WoW gamers can get their horde on.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 7, 2009)

Part of the problem with making half anything a race.


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 7, 2009)

Come here, my snuggly green cutie-pie!


----------



## Spatula (Feb 7, 2009)

Felon said:


> So, I've read the PHB2 will have gnomes, half-orcs, devas, and goliaths. Has the fifth race been disclosed yet?



Shifter, isn't it?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Feb 7, 2009)

Felon said:


> So, I've read the PHB2



Did WotC ship early to Tasmania again?


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2009)

Read the whole sentence Tarion, right up to the period.


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Shifter, isn't it?



Is it? I don't have a DDI subscription.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 7, 2009)

Felon said:


> Is it? I don't have a DDI subscription.




It is.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> The problem, IMO, is that D&D has orcs without the background Tolkien gave them--Tolkien's Orcs are monsters in the literal sense, Elves (or possibly Men or hominid beasts) warped in body and mind by the dark arts of Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, and others who have rebelled against Eru and His Music. D&D orcs are typically on the same order of being and nature as any other sapient race, and thus not necessarily driven towards evil in the same way that Morgoth warped the Orkor.




I typically treat orcs as hideous man-swine crossbreeds created by dark forces to bring ruin on the world.  Aligned races work best with Good & Evil progenitor deities.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> On another note, why would orcs rape humans? Humans probably look ugly to orcs.




Like Runequest broo, they'll rape anything; or at least anything humanoid (broo aren't that fussy).  Most of the offspring are basically orcs, per 1e MM, around 10% favour the human (etc) side; hence half-orcs.

The D&D humanoids are not separate species in the modern scientific sense, they're more like magically created sub-species.  We know from the paleontology that there were human-neanderthal cross-breeding, and probably human-archaic homo sapiens crossbreeding elsewhere too.

As in the real world, it's quite possible for a group to find another group fits closely to its own standards of beauty.  Beauty is not defined racially, it seems to be more about stuff like waist-hip ratios, body fat %, glossy hair, shoulder width and other universal stuff that make an 'attractive male' or 'attractive female', whatever the race.  West African men and east-Asian women are often considered physically attractive by members of other races because they're genetically predisposed to fit closest to these universal standards.

In D&D humans traditionally find elves particularly attractive; likewise orcs may find humans attractive, possibly moreso than fellow orcs.


----------



## arscott (Feb 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Given the human propencity to be attracted to all kinds of bizarre and unusal people/activities, I don't know why half-orcs can't come from consensual behaivior. I know why rape was originally used as on origin, but given what you can find on the internet these days I think people are becoming more accustomed to alternate lifestyles and activities such that consensual Human/Orc mating wouldn't be that surprising.



This.  I'm fine with WotC being squeamish about rape, but do they really need to be that squeamish about a guy or gal with an Orc fetish?

I also feel like all of these "ew that's gross" reactions work in the opposite direction for half elves.  Why would an elf ever stoop so low?


----------



## arscott (Feb 7, 2009)

S'mon I don't think those standards of beauty are as universal as you suppose.

It would probably be more accurate to say that West African* men and east-asian women are considered physically attracive by our present-day western standards.

*And that's without going into detail on the horrible history of forced breeding programs in the real world.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2009)

arscott said:


> It would probably be more accurate to say that West African* men and east-asian women are considered physically attracive by our present-day western standards.




No - I'm talking about universal criteria.

There _are_ also culture-specific criteria, and particular cultures' normative standards of beauty vary somewhat over time - eg the amount of body fat considered desirable will vary depending on whether there is a scarcity or surplus of food.  

Plus there are some consistent variables such as skin tone.  Eg in warm climes where people are dark skinned, very light skin is often taken as a sign of sickness*.  There is a fairly consistent universal preference for relatively lighter skin (& often hair) tones in women and darker in men, though.


*Black female doctor in south London hospital, looking at my newly born son:

"Your baby is too pale!  We need to run a blood test!"

Me:
"I'm from Northern Ireland!  We all look like that!"


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 7, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Hm, and yet I definitely remember that subtext being present back in the 80's. I wonder where the idea came from, then.



You didn't dream it up.  At the least it was used in a number of published characters.

I remember coming across a D&D character card (I honestly forget what product it was from, one of my friends gave me some cards with D&D characters on them) that used the child-of-rape backstory for a half orc character.  I was pretty young, and I remember it being a bit jarring.  I understood what rape was, and that orcs were monsters.  Monster rape wasn't really something I was fully equipped to deal with.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 7, 2009)

Behold....
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMz_OT-GNfc"]The Hidden Origin of Half-Orcs[/ame]


----------



## avin (Feb 7, 2009)

On my first campaign orcs weren't so ugly, just bigger gray dudes, so half orcs would be common.

Wanna trow half orcs in? Just make orcs look a bit more attractive and there we go.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 7, 2009)

In 3E both in Eberron and FR the backgrounds intented for PC half-orcs were not rape-related. The half-orcs of shadow marches and thesk were a product of tolerance, and in the shadow marches actually a celebrated development. Heck when I try to think of a half-race character that was the product of rape, the first person who comes to mind is Tannis.


----------



## Pseudonym (Feb 7, 2009)

Henry said:


> What makes you think it worked that way? Those female orcs are pretty strong, and after a hard day of raiding...




That was pretty much the origin of a Half-Ogre character I had in 3E.


----------



## Vael (Feb 7, 2009)

I wonder, could you do the Half-Orcs like Eberron shifters? Shifters are sometimes considered half-lycanthropes, but there was a mention of a different origin, that Lycanthropes are diseased and twisted shifters.

Maybe Orcs are a twisted evil version of Half-Orcs. The main problem is you'd have to rename them ...


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> It is.



Too bad. I'd love to see them a big whack at the PCization of orcs.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 7, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> (and the tendency to believe that half-elves NEVER are).



Where do you feel such sentiment is expressed? Yes, i think most folks will think _more_ half orcs are spawned in such a manner over half elves. But that is because Orcs are made to raid and pillage. Also, elves having low fertility rates seems to be a common perception, where as orcs officially [1E] are very fecund. So even if elves raided and raped just as much as orcs, there would still be fewer rape spawned half elves. I generally also assume most attempts of humans to rape elves end with a human run trough with an elfin sword.



arscott said:


> This. I'm fine with WotC being squeamish about rape, but do they really need to be that squeamish about a guy or gal with an Orc fetish?



Because it's pretty obvious to me what the likely situation is for a half breed of a race made to raid and pillage.


----------



## boolean (Feb 8, 2009)

A lot of the background depends on whether Orcs are supposed to be Monsters or just Funny Looking People.

If Orcs are Monsters then, among other things, it's OK to kill them on sight and take their stuff, just because they're Orcs. However, Orcs-as-Monsters pretty much rules out consensual relationship produced Half-Orcs.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 8, 2009)

boolean said:


> A lot of the background depends on whether Orcs are supposed to be Monsters or just Funny Looking People.
> 
> If Orcs are Monsters then, among other things, it's OK to kill them on sight and take their stuff, just because they're Orcs. However, Orcs-as-Monsters pretty much rules out consensual relationship produced Half-Orcs.



And let's be honest here---Orcs in in 4e (and 3e, actually) are essentially "Ape/Wolves with swords". 

Elves are *much* closer to humans than the proto-simian orcs we are are presented with.

edit: Thus I find it eminently more reasonable for an elf to deign to mate with a human than a human to decide to mate with a talking babboon.


----------



## arscott (Feb 8, 2009)

4e orcs are Proto-simian?

4e Orcs are buff hairy dudes with monstrous faces.  Looking back through the various pictures, orcs seem to have become more humanlike with each edition.


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 8, 2009)

Wormwood said:


> Thus I find it eminently more reasonable for an elf to *deign* to mate with a human than a human to decide to mate with a talking babboon.




That's why no one likes elves.  "Deigning" to mate with someone.  Like a bunch of pointy-eared time wasters with no constitution are going to be great in the sack.  Psh.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2009)

I find the inconsistency jarring. So orc-human rape is too disturbing, but it's okay to suck out someone's soul and store it in a cursed sword? Sorry, I don't buy that.

I do accept that rape is a touchy subject, and it's probably fair not to state or imply it in the core book, as you don't know who will buy it. But sooner or later, when you start adding in half-orcs and other odds and ends in the D&D backstory, I think you just need to lay it out there. 

The way orcs are presented, I see only three logical possibilties

1. Humans and orcs are not interfertile.
2. Not have orcs.
3. Make orcs dependent on detecting estrus in order to become sexually aroused.

Because I can't see orcs, as written, having a human-like sexuality and not raping things. According to the 3e MM, more than a fourth of their race would qualify as psychopaths in human terms.


----------



## Green Knight (Feb 8, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I find the inconsistency jarring. So orc-human rape is too disturbing, but it's okay to suck out someone's soul and store it in a cursed sword? Sorry, I don't buy that.




You don't see the difference between rape, which occurs to real people on a regular basis all the time, and getting your soul sucked into a cursed sword, which has never occured to anyone who's ever lived in the history of the universe?


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2009)

Green Knight said:


> You don't see the difference between rape, which occurs to real people on a regular basis all the time, and getting your soul sucked into a cursed sword, which has never occured to anyone who's ever lived in the history of the universe?




Obviously, I do see a difference. Many differences. What is the distinction in particular you want to talk about? If you want to talk about just unreality, well, I don't know anyone who's been raped by an orc, either.


----------



## Wik (Feb 8, 2009)

S'mon said:


> No - I'm talking about universal criteria.
> 
> There _are_ also culture-specific criteria, and particular cultures' normative standards of beauty vary somewhat over time - eg the amount of body fat considered desirable will vary depending on whether there is a scarcity or surplus of food.
> 
> ...




Hate to correct you... actually, who am I kidding?  I love to correct people!  Anyways:

For starters, regarding body fat:  you're more or less right. But it works in a weird way.  If there's a food shortage, people like larger women.  This can be seen in many African Countries, where it is a very good thing to be a fat woman.  We also see it throughout European history.  There are a few contradictions (The Chinese have usually loved tiny women, but then, they were a pretty well-fed empire for the most part), but that's the general way things work. The reason is because a large woman was seen to be well-fed, and therefore, wealthy (or at least higher in the social hierarchy).

 Our corn-fed culture, however, has made it pretty easy to become fat.  In fact, it's a sign of wealth to be thin these days (you can afford to eat healthier foods, you have enough money that you can afford to waste time at the gym, etc) - so it's no surprise that thinness is a sign of attraction.

Skin tone, however, is where you're off.  Your example of warm climes is off - the africans of historical times often thought of the whites as "beautiful" race, and the south americans (pre contact) envisioned many of their gods as being pygmy-like in nature (this made the landing of conquistadores a bit easier for them, unfortunately).  We even see this drive for lighter skin in mainstream america, but considering some of the unfortunate events in Black AMerican history, it's unfortunately easy to understand why.

Throughout history, skin tone and sexual preference have followed the same pattern as the preference of fat;  i.e., people desire that which reflects social status.  Historically in Europe (and much of the world), that meant lighter skin, because it meant that the individual did not have to work outside - they could afford to have someone else do it for them.  This is why there was a love for the fair-haired maiden (and this applied throughout most of the world, from China to Sub-saharan africa, to South America, for the same general reasons).  Nowadays, with artificial lighting and many indoor jobs, it's pretty easy to be pale as hell (god knows I am).  And, as a result, we see a "tan" as being prefereable, and for the same reasons as our ancestors envied the pale - the person can afford to avoid work.  They can spend time out in the sun, tanning.  Or sitting in a tanning bed, sucking up carcinomas.  

These rules, by the way, usually apply more to women than men.  While there are definite sexual codes that men follow, they follow more general patterns related to the culture in general (in effect, a physical trait that would reflect improved social status or power in a specific culture - athelticism being a pretty common sign of male beauty).  

(An interesting side effect of beauty among women that is almost universal is that there is a preference towards traits that cripple or hinder a woman - tiny feet in pre 20th century china is an obvious example.  But this exists in many cultures - neck elongation in southeast asia springs to mind.  Even in our modern, relatively egalitarian society is it seen - high heels, breast enlargement, long fingernails... all are examples of this sort of "Crippling" beauty).  

So, really, the "universal criteria" of beauty works only like this:  If it's a sign of social status in a culture, it's beauty.  If it's among women, a big sign of "beauty" is that which restricts her access to the world of men.  That's pretty much the only "universal" of beauty.

(I'm an anthropology major, and I never can resist the opportunity to geek out when it comes to culture!)

***

Another point someone mentioned, a bit more on topic here, is that they would presume that the seriously "unattractive" were less likely to be raped.  The fact is, that is entirely not true.  Rapes happen accross the board, regardless of wealth, ethnicity, or anything else like that.  It is, as has been mentioned, an assertion of power.  

Rather sickeningly, 1 in 6 american women have been the victims or near-victims of rape of some kind or another, or so some estimates claim.  Think of that.  One in _Six_.  Were I marketing a game for general release, I would not make rape - or anything that implied rape - a part of the game.  Especially if I were trying to attract a wider female audience.  

For what it's worth, half-orcs in one of my worlds were made by a forced breeding program... but it worked a little bit beyond "rape".  In effect, orc doxies were sold into slavery by their barbarian tribes to a roman-like empire, being sold in exchange for weapons.  In this, they brought honour to their tribes - in fact, it was an honour for these women to be "sold" (as only the best orc women were sold).  Orc women fought for the "privilege", not only for this familial honour, but because the life of an orc woman in "rome" was comparitively easy.

The very best of the human (or, rarely, half-orc) legionnaires could earn a nice fat paycheque if they spent the night in the bed of one of these orc doxies (who were grouped together in fairly luxurious compounds), and earned even more money if this union produced a child.  The orc doxie was likewise rewarded.  These half-orcs were then taken and raised in academies made specifically for war.  They trained from a very young age in tactics, combat, and brotherhood, and half-orc units were elite units attached to individual armies.  

(As a result, half-orcs in my campaign world were actually usually lawful neutral, though they could become chaotic if they got cut up bad in a fight)


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 8, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> That's why no one likes elves.  "Deigning" to mate with someone.  Like a bunch of pointy-eared time wasters with no constitution are going to be great in the sack.  Psh.




Wrong edition. Elves have plenty of constitution now


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2009)

Wik said:


> Hate to correct you... actually, who am I kidding?  I love to correct people!  Anyways:




I don't think you've corrected me, as I don't think you said anything contrary to what I said.  On skin tone, light skin tone is often preferred - especially in women as it indicates youth; it may also indicate higher status.  But very very pale skin (as you see up here in northern Europe - some north Germans, Poles, some Celts), of the sort you would never normally see in eg India or sub-Saharan Africa, is often considered unattractive in low latitudes as it is taken to indicate sickness.  It's a kind of reverse uncanny valley effect, where you can have too much of a good thing.  That goes for fatness & thinness also.

My hospital experience, for instance - my son is part Finnish and a few % black, both through his mother; his skin tone was actually noticeably darker than that of a typical new-born Northern Irish baby.  Yet to the Afro-Caribbean doctor in south London it was pale enough for her to think there was something wrong with him - white native Londoners are usually mostly Saxon rather than Celt, and have a somewhat darker tone than the Irish and Scots.


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Wrong edition. Elves have plenty of constitution now




Yeah, but it's hard to forget the classics.  The new racial bonuses don't allow for blatant stereotyping, by gum.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Feb 8, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think I'm more disturbed by the tendency to believe that half-orcs can only come about via rape (and the tendency  to believe that half-elves NEVER are).




The famous Tanis, IIRC, was the son of an elven princess and a human who raped her.

It's just easier to see a romantic relationship between an elf and a human.



			
				Arscott said:
			
		

> Why would an elf ever stoop so low?




Progeny.

While many/most elves might be disgusted by the idea of mating with a human, if doing so is far more likely to result in offspring than elf/elf mating, some elves might go for that. (Of course, this implies that none of these elves fell in love with humans, which could be the case, depending on the setting.)


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2009)

arscott said:


> I also feel like all of these "ew that's gross" reactions work in the opposite direction for half elves.  Why would an elf ever stoop so low?




Maybe Mialee realized she didn't have a date for prom night. 

Getting back to the original line of discussion... it bothered me when they banished half-orcs from AD&D because it did seem squeamish. But I didn't see D&D as being intentionally marketed toward children. And for the young people who were interested in it, I didn't think it should be edited out, any more than a teenager should be protected from studying Vitenam or reading Camus's The Stranger. 

But D&D 4e is clearly intended for a mainstream audience. You can't simply point at the source material and say, "Look, this kind of stuff happened in Conan and Dragonlance, and heck, the Arthurian stories, all the time," and be safe. D&D 4e is intended to sell at Borders so I think it makes sense to produce something palatable. So no half-orcs in the core book. But by the same token, I find it difficult to imagine avoiding the topic altogether. As I pointed out above, human-orc interbreeding is possible, then you are going to have half-orcs who came about as a result of rape. Because orcs are usually evil, in fact, they are often psychopathic marauders. I don't think you can sustain the PG-rated version of D&D through too many expansions before it starts to wear thin.

So yes, some young people do play D&D. And yes, you have to keep a wide audience in mind. But in a game with swords-and-sorcery roots, you have to leave some room for discussing some adult topics. D&D may be "just for fun" but it's an imaginative game and if you aren't willing to take some things somewhat seriously, there is not much point. 

I wouldn't use this scenario to sell D&D on a big marketing display in Border's, but let's imagine one of the modules features a character who has lost fingers as a result of racketeering. In real life, organized crime and the use of mutilation as a fear tactic is real, does affect many people, and may trigger emotional responses from some gamers. But I wouldn't take that as a reason to say that nowhere should D&D mention the chopping off of hands by gansters. 

Ditto any scenario that mentions slavery. 

You could make a really long list of potentially explosive topics, and if you removed them all, you would be left with something with less moral scope than the animated D&D cartoon. But I think it's perfectly legitimate to market your core products with the idea of making them palatable to a wide audience and respectful of some real world issues. 

So maybe the core rulebook shouldn't have half-orcs, or prices for slaves, or mentions of mutilation tactics, or a sample adventure involving Rosemary's baby, etc. But trying to write around the rape issue entirely is trying too hard. It's just too hard to imagine orcs marauding a village and not engaging in a variety of vile acts, ranging from rape to man-eating to torture to desecration and all the rest. They are, after all, evil.


----------



## SHARK (Feb 8, 2009)

Greetings!

Well, I'm not quite sure why whatever minimally-flavoured race text supplied in the PHB is seemingly regarded as so authoritative in regards to the origins, culture, and society of any particular race open to player characters and NPC's alike.

Don't most DM's tweak and fit such races into their own campaigns with their own particular history, culture, religion, and so on?

In my own campaigns, Half-Orcs are easily explained;

(1) Throughout history, various human barbarian tribes have mated with and intermixed with tribes of Orcs, thus producing half-orc offspring. Obviously, some half-orcs are born to the human barbarian tribes, and some are born to the orc tribes.

(2) Gradually, over time, various groups of half-orcs gathered together and united different individuals and small family-groups of other half-orcs, as well as some full humans and full orcs and developed their own small tribes of half-orcs. In some regions, small frontier settlements of villages and such communities of half-orcs have been formed. In all such cases, occasional new membership of humans and orcs have added new bloodlines to the various half-orc tribes or small frontier communities. Eventually, the pure-blood infusions of orc or human contributions mix with more generations of half-orcs, thus helping to strengthen and perpetuate the half-orc communities.

(3) Various units of Orc mercenaries have been used in wars throughout the lands, allowing for additional contact and intermixing with neighboring humans.

(4) Some human kingdoms have made orc tribes defeated in battle into slaves. Over time, the orc slaves breed with, entertain, or otherwise intermix with humans, leading to more half-orcs.

(5) Small communities of half-orcs within various human villages, towns, or cities often willingly interbreed with other humans, orcs, and half-orcs--all are welcome. From such customs, more half-orcs develop and grow in number.

Thus, there are many ways that humans and orcs interbreed, and half-orcs increase in number and develop throughout the campaign.

Rape wasn't even mentioned, nor does it need to be.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## arscott (Feb 9, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> But trying to write around the rape issue entirely is trying too hard. It's just too hard to imagine orcs marauding a village and not engaging in a variety of vile acts, ranging from rape to man-eating to torture to desecration and all the rest. They are, after all, evil.



Most people can imagine rape-free orcs just fine, Pawsplay.  You seem to be the exception.

The problem with rape isn't just that it's a horrible act that still happens today.  It's also an act that is, to some extent, trivialized.  Especially in those areas of society in which men are an overwhelming majority (such as, say, the D&D table).

When your D&D badguys engage in cannibalism and slavery, then cannibalism and slavery get trivialized.  That's not really a problem, because neither of those things is present in our society--it's okay that we don't take them seriously.

Rape, though, still takes place.  It's something that ought to be taken seriously, and when it shows up in a D&D game, it never is.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 9, 2009)

arscott said:


> Most people can imagine rape-free orcs just fine, Pawsplay.  You seem to be the exception.
> 
> The problem with rape isn't just that it's a horrible act that still happens today.  It's also an act that is, to some extent, trivialized.  Especially in those areas of society in which men are an overwhelming majority (such as, say, the D&D table).
> 
> ...




Truth be told, slavery still takes place as well.

I for one do not worry about such things being trivialized in my gametable, partly because my players are mature enough to weave them in our story.

Still, I do believe that when people think about the origins of half-orcs, unless there is a specific setting reason for them, most will think of them as the product of rape. Partly it is because we know orcs as creatures who raid and pillage but I think part is also because our culturally ingrained obscession with beauty makes the thought of  willing intercourse with something that looks like an orc seem unlikely.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 9, 2009)

arscott said:


> When your D&D badguys engage in cannibalism and slavery, then cannibalism and slavery get trivialized.  That's not really a problem, because neither of those things is present in our society--it's okay that we don't take them seriously.




There are plenty of people only six generations out of slavery, so I assure you it's a topic to take seriously. Aside from the historical question, slavery is still practiced in every part of the world, including the USA. One typical situation involves allowing a young woman to pay you to help her illegally enter the US on the pretext of finding employment; then you steal her documents and force her into prostitution or domestic slavery. 

As for cannibalism... China experienced a famine rather recently. By some accounts, cannibalism happened fairly frequently. Several changes of regime 
in China have also been marked by violence, including cannibalism. Meanwhile, many places in Africa are in a state of nearly continuous warfare, which has bred warlords of the vilest character, including self-admitted cannibals. 

I could go on, but it's problem enough to observe that mugging, grave-robbing, the acquisition of dangerous weaponizable secrets, and religious strife are ongoing issues in the world that should, ideally, be handled with some level of respect and tact.



> Rape, though, still takes place.  It's something that ought to be taken seriously, and when it shows up in a D&D game, it never is.




Rape certainly does place. I don't think that its appearance in a D&D game "trivializes" it. In fact, one of the hardest things about such events is the culture of shame that surrounds it. To this day, it is easier to admit to being the victim of life-threatening violence than to rape. I think it's a good policy to simply state that if it does appear in a D&D game, it should not be trivialized. 

D&D is obviously not a treatise on social justice, but at the same time, I find the proposition that D&D somehow should and must be suitable for the Saturday matinee to be insulting. Have you read or watched _Sin City_? A guy eats somebody's arm while it's still attached. That's pretty messed up. And yet Sin City is arguable "light" entertainment. But I don't think being entertainment means something has to be entirely mindless or that it has to suspend the moral awareness of the people being entertained. It's about something.

Just like Charlie Brown deals with issues of rejection and self-worth and self-actualization, D&D deals with violence and glory and evil and all that.


----------



## ki11erDM (Feb 9, 2009)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> I think having rape be the exception rather than the rule is okay.




The fact that someone had to make this statement about my hobby is good enough reason to make the change in story.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 9, 2009)

These discussions always make me cringe, particularly during the parts where people try to rationally explain how, if its ok to roleplay about murder and slavery and stuffing someone's soul into a sword, then it should be ok to roleplay about rape.

My wife just finished watching an episode of Monk. Its a comedy detective show where a neurotic, obsessive compulsive detective solves murders. Its funny, or at least reasonably so. The murders are often quirky, the detective twice as quirky, you get the idea. Its got a bit of an emotional yo-yo effect going on, in that its a comedy about murder, but its decent. I... can't really imagine a tv show about rape that worked that way. You know, with a wacky rapist, an unsympathetic victim, and a light hearted attitude. Just don't think it would work.

Its a cultural taboo. Sure. Its not going to be 100% defensible. Objectively, killing someone is a lot worse than rape. I agree. And we joke about that all the time. But, well, welcome to western civilization. Chances are you're going to be staying a while, so you might want to familiarize yourself with some of the cultural mores you'll be encountering during your visit. One is that rape is kind of one of those things you don't joke about in polite company (4chan = not polite company). We have other taboos, just in case you were wondering. We don't like it if you pay your daughter for sex, no matter how fancy of a libertarian defense you construct for consensual, non-procreational incest and prostitution. We hate it if you do naughty things with animals, even though killing them and eating them is probably less pleasant for the, I dunno, wombat or whatever, and we'll mostly let you do that.

Its just how we roll around here.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> (...) its a comedy about murder, but its decent. I... can't really imagine a tv show about rape that worked that way. You know, with a wacky rapist, an unsympathetic victim, and a light hearted attitude.



 I suspect you could say the same thing about torture: it'd be hard to write a lighthearted comedy about wacky torturers. Murder gets a bit of a pass since the victim is no longer around to elicit sympathy.

Anyway, yeah: I'm in favor of low-rape settings. Preferably even rape-free.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 9, 2009)

ki11erDM said:


> The fact that someone had to make this statement about my hobby is good enough reason to make the change in story.



haha I sometimes amaze myself with the stupidity of my own comments.


----------



## SHARK (Feb 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> These discussions always make me cringe, particularly during the parts where people try to rationally explain how, if its ok to roleplay about murder and slavery and stuffing someone's soul into a sword, then it should be ok to roleplay about rape.
> 
> My wife just finished watching an episode of Monk. Its a comedy detective show where a neurotic, obsessive compulsive detective solves murders. Its funny, or at least reasonably so. The murders are often quirky, the detective twice as quirky, you get the idea. Its got a bit of an emotional yo-yo effect going on, in that its a comedy about murder, but its decent. I... can't really imagine a tv show about rape that worked that way. You know, with a wacky rapist, an unsympathetic victim, and a light hearted attitude. Just don't think it would work.
> 
> ...




Greetings!

In general, I entirely agree. Excellent post!

However--help me out here. I guess I am not quite getting what the bruhaha is with people that *insist* that rape in the game be...*roleplayed*?--or are opponents of such vociferously opposed to even *mentioning* rape, or having rape included in the game as a story element?

For example...in some of my campaigns, the players may learn or encounter such things as any of the following, fairly commonly;

(1) "Yes, the desperate farmers explain to you that the dark, black-cloaked raiders killed the town militia, burned and raped most of the town in a savage fury, before riding off into the countryside, taking many young captives with them."

(2) "Yes, Julius, your young sister cries on your shoulder, embracing you fully. She explains to you that the Black Knight that had imprisoned her in his Black Tower for the last six months routinely tortured her, and raped her. She is worried that she may now be pregnant, as well. She is distraught, and terrified that the Black Knight will come and get her again! She looks to you desperately...you will avenge her sacred honour, will you not? Your sister is also worried about what she will do with the child she carries...what will people think? How will your family react? She looks to you for answers, and help, Julius."

(3) The young knight Narbus looks at all of you grimly. He swallows some ale slowly, and stands before the great fire, before he explains to you what happened at the temple. He explains in hard tones and deep wrath that the Orcs of Sauron swept into the courtyard, and proceeded to slaughter the priests and guards of the temple. Most of the beautiful priestesses that have helped you in these long years past were savagely raped, and many of them were also brutally tortured and killed. Perhaps two dozen of them were taken alive as slaves by the Orcs of Sauron, as they finished sacking the temple, before they rode off back to their mountain fortress.

I hope that makes sense. I typically reference rape, torture, and all manner of atrocities through roleplaying and so on, as simply part of the harsh, brutal and savage world that the campaign is set in. In 30 years of gaming, I have never had anyone respond negatively to it in any way whatsoever, and in fact, all such elements have caused the players to respond maturely, heroically, and thoroughly in-character.

I guess I'm not quite understanding what exactly is being argued here though, and what precisely is so bad--or what it is these various proponents of rape want to include? 

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Nivenus (Feb 9, 2009)

I don't think that anybody denies that rape is a horrible, horrible crime. However, I think something has to be said that we, as a society choose to ignore it rather than deal with it like adults. I can't help but think that if we were more open in discussions of rape that we'd see a lot less of it. Sure, there's that idea of sensationization and trivialization but I'm not talking about using rape for shock value. I'm talking about using it in the same way that social commentaries of the past have used race-motivated lynch murders or genocide. Putting a human face on it.

Does this mean it needs to show up in D&D? No, not at all. In fact, I'd shy away from it most of the time if not always, unless you're sure everyone can act sensibly about it. The same goes for torture or similar crimes. But ruling it out entirely seems silly and overly protective, I think.

Actually, what irks me the most about this new policy on half-orcs is _not_ making rape a smaller case. Like others, I'm fine with it being the minority origin for half-orcs rather than the most common one. What irks me is that the new origin seems to indicate that humans and orcs would, by no means, ever feel the need to breed for reasons not emphasized by violence. However, it seems WotC has taken note of this and have made the origins pretty vague, with multiple interpretations.


----------



## Wik (Feb 9, 2009)

You know, it's not a subject I want to see in a game.  It is something that disgusts me, and it's something I've had to deal with "objectively" in more than a few anthropology/history classes.  It is not something I like to see, hear about, or discuss.  But I can do it if I must - and I think we should all be aware of it, at least.

That being said, I don't want to see it in a game.  I don't mind seeing it alluded to, if you're running a dark game like the Shark.  But the second the "R bomb" is dropped, I am taken out of the game, and reminded of the real world too much.  I don't like it, even if it's "realistic".

I'd much rather mention that the evil riders came through the town, and that afterwards, many of the townswomen were crying.  And that, nine months later, the midwives were kept busy.  That, to me, is much better than saying "Yeah, and the evil riders raped the women."  There's a difference in tone there, for me.

So, rape is a no-no in my game, but it can be alluded to, so long as no one actually says "Rape".  It's a silly rule, but it works for my personal comfort level.

***

As a side story, I remember playing with a GM who started off well, before his game fizzled into one of the worst campaigns I've ever been in.  During the rough turning point, he ran an encounter I personally hated (worst encounter I've ever been in).

The gist of it was, three human bandits and a dwarf were raping a human villager.  Our characters were to rush into the fray, and help the poor woman.  

What really bothered me was the light-hearted way the GM was describing the scene, especially concerning the dwarf who had to decide whether to "finish up" or charge us while pulling up his pants (har har, really funny).  The bandits were bungling idiots, and the woman was pretty much ignored by the GM.  

The whole thing made my skin crawl, and I decided I didn't want to participate in this encounter.  I got up, got a drink, and told my brother to play my character while I was gone - figuring this was a pretty good sign.  Unfortunately, they paused play until I got back, twenty minutes later.  

the woman's barn caught fire, and I had my character in the barn, rescuing chickens and whatnot, while the bandits were busy fighting the rest of the group, simply because as a player, this wasn't something I wanted to deal with.  The GM didn't catch on to my discomfort, and kept on snickering at his portrayal of these bandits.  

At the same time, my fellow players weren't engrossed in the scene, but none of them were really bothered.  My brother ignored the rape part of things, and treated it as a combat encounter.  A friend of mine just sort of leapt into the fight, and actually laughed at the "pulling up the pants" part of things.  

So, maybe the rest of the group was cool with it.  But I wasn't.  I wound up mentioning it in a roundabout way to the GM, after the session.  

The moral of the story:  I don't like seeing rape in my games.  And if I do see it, I don't participate.  Because it is the antithesis of fun for me.  

(as a sidenote, I feel the same way about elongated torture scenes, though I have a bit more leeway here.  I don't mind describing the basics of torture, but I cut things short).


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 9, 2009)

Wik, that's a good point about rape in the context of a game. But I'm not sure how that relates to half-orc origins. You wouldn't have to use the "R" word even once, no matter what option you went with. 3e doesn't.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2009)

arscott said:


> When your D&D badguys engage in cannibalism and slavery, then cannibalism and slavery get trivialized.  That's not really a problem, because neither of those things is present in our society--it's okay that we don't take them seriously.




Maybe not in _your _society.  Here in London...

Seriously, I'm not happy with the idea that murder (which takes place in both our societies) is fine to portray in-game, but rape isn't.  More people have been raped than have had a relative murdered, but in neither case is it a reason to eliminate it from fictional reality.  Two cousins of mine drowned when a ship (the Herald of Free Enterprise ferry) sank.  It means I got pretty uncomfortable watching _Titanic_ in the cinema.  Doesn't mean I'm going to say there should be no ship sinkings in any RPGs anywhere.  Obviously it's a good idea for a player group to be sensitive to the concerns of the players in that particular group; but that's no basis for determing the content of an entire game.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 9, 2009)

Nivenus said:


> But ruling it out entirely seems silly and overly protective, I think.



Who's saying that a character can't be the product of rape?



Nivenus said:


> Actually, what irks me the most about this new policy on half-orcs is _not_ making rape a smaller case. Like others, I'm fine with it being the minority origin for half-orcs rather than the most common one. What irks me is that the new origin seems to indicate that humans and orcs would, by no means, ever feel the need to breed for reasons not emphasized by violence.



Any character of any race could be the result of a rape.  I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the PHB as a possible background, though.  Strangely, no one was up in arms over that omission...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 9, 2009)

The fun thing about dying is that it's rather difficult to have horrifying trauma caused by it due to _being dead._

You're killed once, and them bam, it's over.  You settling things with whatever afterlife you get, and there you go, eternal <whatever>.  All and all, not that bad of a deal.  Oh sure, _dying_, that sucks.  But once the dying is over, you get to kick back and relax.

..._Not_ so much with rape and torture.  I guess my issue with rape and tortue is that you can have a perfectly evil character without relying on those two, and frankly, both seem to be buttons that are pressed just for the sake of pressing them.  "How bad is my villain?  He's so bad he _rapes_ people!"  You don't even really need to comment on midwives being busy or whatever.  "The gang of evil bandits stormed through, murdered many, and stole everything of value" is pretty bad as it is.  I mean, if you _want _to impress their dastardliness, have the PCs talk to some people who had a husband or brother killed.  Yes, it's horrible, but the dead guys _are dead_.  It's not like there's a moustache twisting countest to make the most _eeeeeeeeevil_ villain you can.

That's the issue when you bring rape and torture into it - suddenly, the dastardly deed doesn't end with the villains or bad guys or whatever going down.  Suddenly you've got a person who's now a victim _for their entire life_.  You can have a game that's not immature or childish, without being _mature_ or _adult_, both of which are, ironically, often interchangable with immature and childish.  In the end, I've found that, 99 times out of 100, bringing in rape  - unless it's one _very_ specific case that's meant to be a highly dramatic moment in game - just makes everything fall apart.  The players get uncomfortable, the DM typically looks rather _slimy_, and it doesn't exactly do great things for the reputation of tabletop gaming.

It's just..._unneccisary_.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 9, 2009)

As others have said, you can't really laugh about RAPE unlike even murder or slavery.

I'm black and my friends and I have joked about slavery and similarly, we've joked about murder. I just can't see anyway to joke about rape....


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> As others have said, you can't really laugh about RAPE unlike even murder or slavery.
> 
> I'm black and my friends and I have joked about slavery and similarly, we've joked about murder. I just can't see anyway to joke about rape....




While this is commendable, it's hardly universal.

Edit:  Eg there's a homosexual rape scene in _Pulp Fiction_ that's played for laughs.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 9, 2009)

S'mon said:


> While this is commendable, it's hardly universal.
> 
> Edit: Eg there's a homosexual rape scene in _Pulp Fiction_ that's played for laughs.




True, but it is much easier to joke about murder and torture around the game table than rape.

I mean, how many times have you been "killed"? There have been many a thread detailing, "what's your best/funniest death" and similarly, many a people will joke about the after-effects of torture ("hey Stumpy/one-eye" etc)

Have you EVER seen a post detailing, "how my character got raped?". I'm with ProfessorCirno on this one....


----------



## arscott (Feb 9, 2009)

S'mon said:


> While this is commendable, it's hardly universal.
> 
> Edit:  Eg there's a homosexual rape scene in _Pulp Fiction_ that's played for laughs.



This homosexual didn't find that scene funny in the slightest.

And if a master filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino can't pull it off particularly well, how well do you think the average GM will do?

In theory, rape should be an appropriate subject for an R-rated D&D game.  In practice though, it simply doesn't work.  I've been in, and heard stories of, many D&D sessions that featured rape in some form or another.  _Every single one of them went badly._  Either the players end up feeling queasy about the portrayal or they react in an inappropriately juvenile manner (usually some of each at the table).

I'm sure that a group of players somewhere are capable of dealing with rape in ways that don't devolve into queasiness and immaturity.  But such cases are rare enough that rape _should not be preserved as a major story element of a player race._


----------



## Runestar (Feb 9, 2009)

5 pages and no one has mentioned how the half-dragon template can be applied to just about anything? Even plants, swarms and oozes? How's that for a mental picture?


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 9, 2009)

arscott said:


> This homosexual didn't find that scene funny in the slightest.
> 
> And if a master filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino can't pull it off particularly well, how well do you think the average GM will do?
> 
> ...




I'll agree on that fully. The game in general should be designed with the average gamer as a target audience as long as it is flexible enough to satisfy a decent number of gaming styles (it obviously cannot manage them all). The average D&D group cannot handle certain "Adult" issues any more than the average adult can, and the average adult cannot handle the issue of rape.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 9, 2009)

Runestar said:


> 5 pages and no one has mentioned how the half-dragon template can be applied to just about anything? Even plants, swarms and oozes? How's that for a mental picture?




"Ooze your daddy?"


----------



## Stoat (Feb 9, 2009)

Runestar said:


> 5 pages and no one has mentioned how the half-dragon template can be applied to just about anything? Even plants, swarms and oozes? How's that for a mental picture?




I've never considered "half-dragon" to be the result of sexual reproduction.  I've always assumed that half-draconic creatures/things are either (a) the result of magical phlebotinium, frex, creatures living near a dragon simply absorb some of its aura and spontaneously mutate or (b) the template is just a mechanical way to represent an interesting monster that may or may not have any connection to dragons on a flavor level.

Re: Half-Orcs.  I wish they'd just ditched 'em and made Orc a PC race.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Wrong edition. Elves have plenty of constitution now




Fortunately there are 3 other editions so one does not have to follow that rule.


----------



## Drowbane (Feb 9, 2009)

*Halforcbane?*

I still don't understand why/how half orcs made a come back for 3e.  I didn't like them in 1e, and they didn't see the light of day in any 2e I was apart of.

For the past 8yrs if someone came to me with a 1/2 orc they wanted to play I encouraged them to play an Orc (or other non-LA or low LA race) instead. 

Over the years I used both the Tolkein and Warcraft styles of Orcs (Evil Monster full of hate and the Noble Savage), but never had reason to bring in a 1/2 orc (N)PC.  I cringe whenever I see them in modules (I just describe them as Orcs or brutish humans if running).

I don't like 1/2 elves either (the last cool one was Tanis ).

edit: eventually my Homebrew will have "Halfbreed" as a Flaw or Feat.  1/2 Orcs and 1/2 Elves are more obscure in my games than... Gnomes.  Gnomes may be extinct, but they left thier twisted mark on the world.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 9, 2009)

Aeolius said:


> "Ooze your daddy?"





That is gross on so many levels.

As for the origins issue.  I have no problem with the 1/2 orc origin story initially being done by rape, but it really never comes up until someone asks.

After that plenty of 1/2 orcs have met mated and made half orc offspring.  I would never run a rape scene in my game as I don't like them in movies, but hearing it as a background does not evoke any emotional response, in me at least.

However, WOTC should not condone it as a background.  it is OK to learn of awful things cultures have done in the high school classroom, but that does not mean that it should extend into the world of hobby gaming.


----------



## usdmw (Feb 9, 2009)

I teach a course in creative writing, and I find the idea that adults cannot or should not deal with the most unpleasant aspects of human evil to be deeply patronizing. D&D is a game, but it is a game that represents a SORT of reality, if not reality itself. A reality without abuse or violence is not the sort of reality I can find particularly realistic.

I'm curious what some of you might say about the White Wolf Vampire game. In it every character has been at some time physically overwhelmed and violated. The character has to deal with that violation, not for a lifetime, but for eternity. Many of those characters visit that violation on others. Some characters glory in their vampiric condition, while others loathe it and despise their sire. The Embrace is clearly a rape-proxy that serves as a central theme for a very successful rpg.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> As others have said, you can't really laugh about RAPE unlike even murder or slavery.
> 
> I'm black and my friends and I have joked about slavery and similarly, we've joked about murder. I just can't see anyway to joke about rape....




Just because this keeps coming up, reluctant as I am to address this subject, rape-for-laughs appears in Discworld, Yellowbeard, The World According to Garp, Tomcats, Revenge of the Nerds, and Young Frankenstein, and probably many others. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, I'm just saying, tvtropes.org has had a lot of ongoing discussion about Rape As Comedy. South Park and Family Guy, of course, reference rape all the time. Link to a whole article on the subject:

Rape As Comedy - Television Tropes & Idioms

Hopefuly we are now done with that talking point.

I think usmdw makes a good point. I'll argue further that vampires in RPGs have an overtone of rape, with infection (a blood-born illness such as, say, AIDS), and implications of incest. 

I feel it's dishonest to draw a big HERE BE DRAGONS on the map and refuse to acknowledge the logical outcome of human-orc interfertility along with the existence of half-orcs. Logically, sometimes, somewhere, it must have occured. Probably not often enough or consistently enough to be produce a new "race," but surely it has happened. The thing is, most of the other backstories I can imagine, apart from the scenario of human-orc border towns, have unsavory elements as well. I don't think it's overreaching for an RPG to be mature enough to state or imply, "Some half-orcs are the result of consensual relationships, and others aren't."  I think it's fine, too, if most half-orcs are the descendents of half-orcs, but you have to identify where they come from, and it's just hard to accept that all the original half-orcs were the result of loving, culture-crossing relationships. If you want to make them the product of magic and make them very much a separate race, that's an option, too.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 9, 2009)

usdmw said:


> I teach a course in creative writing, and I find the idea that adults cannot or should not deal with the most unpleasant aspects of human evil to be deeply patronizing. D&D is a game, but it is a game that represents a SORT of reality, if not reality itself. A reality without abuse or violence is not the sort of reality I can find particularly realistic.



I think there's a lot to be said for making a sharp distinction between the assumed setting, and individual tables.

I agree that some game tables can handle mature topics.  A table full of adults can hopefully treat difficult subjects well.

I disagree that WotC should expect _all _game tables to handle mature topics.  That's not patronizing  - that's just courteous.

-O


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 9, 2009)

S'mon said:


> While this is commendable, it's hardly universal.
> 
> Edit:  Eg there's a homosexual rape scene in _Pulp Fiction_ that's played for laughs.




BRING OUT THE GIMP! 



arscott said:


> This homosexual didn't find that scene funny in the slightest.
> 
> And if a master filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino can't pull it off particularly well, how well do you think the average GM will do?
> 
> ...




My best friend and his boyfriend both find it hilareous, so it's probably not decided by sexual orientation. 

But overall I agree that such subjects are best left out as "default setting" at least. It might work for a minority of groups, but only in that.


----------



## usdmw (Feb 9, 2009)

I can understand WHY wotc might wish to sanitize parts of the game for a younger crowd. What I don't understand is why players should feel enobled that such a measure has been enacted. D&D has always been a game for adults, playable by children. If it has now become a game for children, playable by adults, then that's quite different. AD&D 2e had many comparable changes (elimination of the assassin and half-orcs, renaming of demons), and those changes were largely demonized.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 9, 2009)

I don't think anyone is trying to be patronizing.  I'm not claiming that it's impossible to have a good game with the subject of rape in it.  I just personally haven't seen much of it that didn't wreck a game, and I don't understand the _neccesity_.

Again, the wonderful thing about dying is that, once it happens, _it's over.  _Nobody dies _twice_.  Have you worked in a woman's shelter or with rape victims?  Protip: _It's not over once it's "over."_  That's why people are squeemish about it, not because they're patronizing or because they're childish, and not because they want to have a moral high ground, or claim "OH BUT IT'S JUST A GAME" (I mean seriously have you seen my other posts?).  It's because they feel there's a line that shouldn't be crossed for their entertainment.  Some people do find comedy in rape.  That doesn't mean _everyone_ does.  Personally, I find little to no comedy in "LOL WOMEN" jokes, but I see them constantly.  It doesn't mean I need to suck it up and stop being childish about it, it means I know who won't be playing in my games, and who's games I won't be playing in.

I dunno what else I can say; for some people, rape, quite frankly, is indeed more horrible then murdering things and taking their stuff, and it's past the line of what's acceptable in their games, especially if it's just shrugged off as no big deal.  Yes, I think that using it as nothing more then a device to show how eeeeeeeeeevil a villain can be is shrugging it off as no big deal - you can do that just fine with many other things.  If I had a character who wanted to rape someone in game, I'd have a rather serious talk with them as to _why_ they would ("BECAUSE I'M EVIL" isn't an acceptable answer, nor is "Because I want to challenge the norm!").  If a rape would occur in game due to the story, I'd be severely put off if it was treated lightly.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 9, 2009)

usdmw said:


> I can understand WHY wotc might wish to sanitize parts of the game for a younger crowd. What I don't understand is why players should feel enobled that such a measure has been enacted. D&D has always been a game for adults, playable by children. If it has now become a game for children, playable by adults, then that's quite different. AD&D 2e had many comparable changes (elimination of the assassin and half-orcs, renaming of demons), and those changes were largely demonized.



So your argument is that, because it's mostly an adult game, it should be okay to have a race that's born out of a kind of violence that's very personal for a whole lot of people, including many potential players?  And that newer settings, because they don't embrace the "orc rapists" origin of half-orcs, are somehow now just for kids?

Sorry, I still don't get it.  Then again, I haven't understood from the beginning why D&D should _ever _need more rape.

-O


----------



## Nivenus (Feb 9, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Any character of any race could be the result of a rape.  I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the PHB as a possible background, though.  Strangely, no one was up in arms over that omission...




I [i[think[/i] (though I could be wrong) that you misinterpreted me. I didn't mean that I'm disgruntled by the lack of rape as an origin for half-orcs (or half-elves) but rather that I'm disgruntled that the developers that that, in order for half-orcs to exist, they had to come up with some magical origin that doesn't exist for half-elves.

I.e., the idea that a human and orc couldn't get along just fine on their own.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2009)

This thread has inspired me to include communities of true-breeding man-orcs IMC, probably descended from a mad wizard's experiments or a dark lord messing with forced breeding programs.  Hurray.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 9, 2009)

Nivenus said:


> I [i[think[/i] (though I could be wrong) that you misinterpreted me. I didn't mean that I'm disgruntled by the lack of rape as an origin for half-orcs (or half-elves) but rather that I'm disgruntled that the developers that that, in order for half-orcs to exist, they had to come up with some magical origin that doesn't exist for half-elves.
> 
> I.e., the idea that a human and orc couldn't get along just fine on their own.



Ah, I see, and I agree with you.  And it's not just half races.  A dwarf, a human, an anything could have a "rape" background.  But that's not in the PHB for those races, nor does it need to be there.  For any race.

Though obviously not all of the developers feel that there has to be extenuating circumstances for half-orcs to exist.  Eberron has its half-orcs, and it seems of the four designers working on the race in 4e, it was just Rich Baker and Chris Sims that had an issue with a more natural origin (according to the design & development article).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 9, 2009)

I think the big problem with half-orcs isn't the "They sometimes come from rape" but that it was implied in most settings that they _only_ came from rape.  That was the difference between how people saw half-elves and half-orcs; half-elves _could_ be rape babies, half-orcs were _supposed to be_.


----------



## Wik (Feb 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Wik, that's a good point about rape in the context of a game. But I'm not sure how that relates to half-orc origins. You wouldn't have to use the "R" word even once, no matter what option you went with. 3e doesn't.




It really doesn't.  I'm just trying to explain my own position on the issue, and why I can understand why wotc would want to avoid it.  

Personally, if they'd rather go with the Eberron approach (two cultures interbred) or the "Ancient Curse" Approach, I'd be fine with that - other GMs can just retcon it back to the old way, and everyone's happy.


----------



## usdmw (Feb 10, 2009)

This will be my last post on this matter.

It is clear that to some people rape is such an emotionally-charged issue that they can not, will not, tolerate its presence in their game reality, even in subtext. This is perhaps because rape has more resonance to them than murder or other acts of violence, for whatever reason. For them, this change makes the game more palatable. Good for them.

I consider myself a pretty sensitive person, and I game with several women currently, and have gamed with dozens over the years. Not once has anyone, man or women, ever seemed even slightly uncomfortable with the origins of half-orcs in D&D, the rapacious natures of Broos in runequest, the violent overtones of the vampiric Embrace, the brutality of slavery in Hyboria, the blasphemy of Call of Cthulhu, or any other fantasy evil. I suppose it could happen, but those reactions wouldn't be limited to the game. They would be provoked by endless elements of popular fiction, television and film. If it happened, I would apologize for offending, offer to ignore such themes, and move on.

While the influences of D&D have increased over time, the game's origin is based on pulp fantasy: Howard, Lieber, etc. Those sources often dealt with sexuality, brutality, and violence. Let's not forget Arthurian traditions, which have several instances of rape. I think one might find one or two examples in the real world as well.

The game includes (or included prior to 4e; I'm not familiar with 4e) spells that bend the target's will, making them little more than slaves, potions that produce artificial feelings of romance (and presumably lust), magical helms that make their wearer virtually irresistible, and evil creatures that can possess the bodies of their victims.

While I don't care about the origins of half-orcs, or centaurs, or half-dragons, or ogrillions, or any of the other fantasy creatures in the D&D reality, the suggestion that rape doesn't exist in a world of evil creatures, coercive magic, and dark cults seems simply bizarre to me.


----------



## SHARK (Feb 10, 2009)

usdmw said:


> This will be my last post on this matter.
> 
> It is clear that to some people rape is such an emotionally-charged issue that they can not, will not, tolerate its presence in their game reality, even in subtext. This is perhaps because rape has more resonance to them than murder or other acts of violence, for whatever reason. For them, this change makes the game more palatable. Good for them.
> 
> ...




Greetings!

Excellent post, my friend. I entirely agree. Your own experience matches my own. 

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Feb 10, 2009)

Runestar said:


> 5 pages and no one has mentioned how the half-dragon template can be applied to just about anything? Even plants, swarms and oozes? How's that for a mental picture?




The biological impossibility makes it rather difficult to think about whether the ooze can give consent.



			
				Usdmw said:
			
		

> The Embrace is clearly a rape-proxy that serves as a central theme for a very successful rpg.




Is it? Clearly?

I've had English teachers tell me weird things like, so-and-so character saying this-and-that about putting a pizza in the oven meant he wanted to go back into his mother's womb. Maybe my lack of creativity is a mental defense? Or maybe not everyone interprets it that way.

In V:tM IIRC the victim of being bitten experiences pleasure, delirium or something along those lines, but I've never had a Storyteller go into _any_ detail about that. (And I suppose that goes double if both the attacker and victim were male.) I literally never thought about that until just now.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 10, 2009)

A couple of thoughts.

(1)  Some of you should really avoid Ovid's _Metamorphoses_.  I'm reading it currently, and, like much classical Greek literature, there's a lot in there that would make a lot of folks uncomfortable.

(2)  Some folks find the inclusion of demons and devils to be as problematic as the implied backstory to half-orcs may be to others.  This reminds me rather much of 2e's name-changing-to-protect-the-innocent.  However you might feel about that.


RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> A couple of thoughts.
> 
> (1)  Some of you should really avoid Ovid's _Metamorphoses_.  I'm reading it currently, and, like much classical Greek literature, there's a lot in there that would make a lot of folks uncomfortable.
> 
> ...




I should point out that rape doesn't make me _uncomfortable_, merely that I've rarely seen it included _well_ in a game.  I don't mind a setting having rape in it.  The problem is when you have an *entire race* of rape babies, or that rape seems to be the _default_ for some things or places.  In the end, I merely have to question the neccesity of it.  I think it comes down to a simply disagreement on wether or not rape is as charged of a subject for some as it is for others.

Also, chalk me up as someone who perfered baatzu and tanari over devils and demons.  It's not because I DISLIKE "Demon" and "devil," I just find it more creative and open to better interpretation.

Oh, and while it may have ONCE been rape-esque in literature, I don't think (at least in oWoD) that being embraced by a vampire is that similar to rape.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 11, 2009)

I'll just come out and admit it: I have a problem with half-orcs. And it is entirely connected to the rape issue. I'm suprised that most people really have no problem imagining humans consensually having sex with orcs. I am very good at suspending disbelief, but a human wanting to have sex with an orc? Not for thousands of dollars would I have sex with an orc.

I understand that yes, our cozy civilized culture has certain images we limited ourselves to in the spectrum of sexual desirability. But I grew up in a _very diverse _part of New Jersey. I don't *have any close friends* who are not black and also have not been in an interaccial dating situation. My girlfriend of 2 years in high school was Korean, and I've dated more than one black woman in my teenage years.







But* THAT* is where I draw the line in the sand. Sex with a dragonborn, even, sure. A big lizard, sure. I can actually imagine consensual sex with a gorilla before sex with a feral, wild, evil orc. I understand that not all orcs are evil, yes, but in core? In the Points of Light philosophy, most people are scared commoners and farmers who live on isolated farms. Their exposure to orcs is fairy tales that make you want to soil yourself at the *sight* of an orc. Even then, sure there are the occassional once-in-a-blue-moon consensual incedent.

Maybe it's that I wasn't around for earlier editions. Maybe it's just me, really. Maybe it's just that I find no _need _for half-orcs as a core, playable race. I mean, _orc_ is a monster race, isn't it? What vital niche do they fill? We don't have half-dwarves, which I find *much* more feasible.

But for me, it's the one thing in all D&D core I'm just not comfortable with. Because the images above, when you add sex, puts rape in my head. Even in just the slightest. *They're orcs!* Sure, _some_ societies accept orcs. Certain entire campaign settings do. But it's... just a little bit of a stretch for me.

_*ORCS!*_

I don't know where I was going with this. It's just so weird reading this thread. There aren't more people who feel this way?​


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 11, 2009)

usdmw said:


> I teach a course in creative writing, and I find the idea that adults cannot or should not deal with the most unpleasant aspects of human evil to be deeply patronizing. D&D is a game, but it is a game that represents a SORT of reality, if not reality itself. A reality without abuse or violence is not the sort of reality I can find particularly realistic.




I teach writing courses as well, and I have to say that I have a divergent opinion.  That might be because I also work at shelter for victims of domestic violence, but I don't think its fair to require someone who has already dealt with an issue of trauma in a real way to then deal with it in a fictional way. To enjoy, in some sense or another, a recreation of their trauma.  

As a social exercise it's flippant, callous, and an abuse of power.  And I would willingly sacrifice verisimilitude - were that necessary - in order to avoid such issues in the classroom.

DnD is similarly less a work of fiction than a social activity.  Certainly, rape can be treated very well in such a context, but including a race that has its origins in rape is neither necessary to such a treatment not particularly tasteful.  It opens up the issue of social abuse by hardcoding the trauma into a game choice put forward by the publisher.  

It's not a cut and dry situation.  If WotC chooses to include rape as a character origin then that's an artistic decsion that must be justified.  If WotC chooses to eschew such tactics than that's a moral decision to be commended.



> I'm curious what some of you might say about the White Wolf Vampire game. In it every character has been at some time physically overwhelmed and violated. The character has to deal with that violation, not for a lifetime, but for eternity. Many of those characters visit that violation on others. Some characters glory in their vampiric condition, while others loathe it and despise their sire. The Embrace is clearly a rape-proxy that serves as a central theme for a very successful rpg.




I'm far from convinced that the Embrace is a rape-proxy.  In the context of the game and vampire lore in general it would be far more accurate and fair to call it a sex proxy.  There is the possibility of violation inherent in the act, but it's certainly not necessarilly rape.  Certainy, it isn't treated as rape in the game or the lore.

That said, in the Lunar Exalted source book by that same company - at least in the first edition of the game - the subject of rape as an origin story for a character and a common practice by a character's culture is brought up.  It's also dealt with with an extended sidebar discussion of the ethics and considerations of bringing rape into a RPG environment.

So I would argue that White Wolf is very aware of the ethical and social weight behind the subject and its unique qualities in a game that is otherwise dedicated to violence.


----------



## arscott (Feb 11, 2009)

usdmw said:


> I can understand WHY wotc might wish to sanitize parts of the game for a younger crowd. What I don't understand is why players should feel enobled that such a measure has been enacted. D&D has always been a game for adults, playable by children. If it has now become a game for children, playable by adults, then that's quite different. AD&D 2e had many comparable changes (elimination of the assassin and half-orcs, renaming of demons), and those changes were largely demonized.




The Dark Knight didn't have any rape in it.  Does that make it a kid's movie?  Does the lack of rape make Saving Private Ryan suitable for youngsters?

D&D can still be a game for adults without in any way referencing rape.  And in every instance of rape in a D&D game I've ever seen or heard about, it made the game more juvenile, not less.  If it were just me saying this, then I'd assume my anecdotal evidence was a statistical fluke and just forget about it.  But it's clear from this thread that other people have the same problem.

In short, I don't object to Rape in D&D because it's exposing children to adult material.  I object to it because it tends to make adults act like children.


----------



## SHARK (Feb 11, 2009)

arscott said:


> The Dark Knight didn't have any rape in it.  Does that make it a kid's movie?  Does the lack of rape make Saving Private Ryan suitable for youngsters?
> 
> *D&D can still be a game for adults without in any way referencing rape.  And in every instance of rape in a D&D game I've ever seen or heard about, it made the game more juvenile, not less.*  If it were just me saying this, then I'd assume my anecdotal evidence was a statistical fluke and just forget about it.  But it's clear from this thread that other people have the same problem.
> 
> *In short, I don't object to Rape in D&D because it's exposing children to adult material.  I object to it because it tends to make adults act like children*.




Greetings!

Ok. (Emphasis is mine). I asked this question earlier--upthread--where I gave examples of how rape is referenced rather *frequently* in my campaigns. Your commentary here is a good enough prod to my questions, though. Perhaps I am not understanding precisely many of the tangents of argument in this thread. Perhaps you, Arscott, can help explain to me what is being argued, what I am arguing--and then whatever my misunderstanding seems to be. In light of my earlier post, how does my common inclusion of rape in the game make it "more juvenile, not less"? Additionally, how does my frequent inclusion of rape in the campaign "make adults act like children"?

DR. STRANGEMONKEY:

How would my frequent inclusion of rape in my campaigns serve as me making the trauma of rape into a "recreation"?

Thanks, my friends, for you commentary and input. I hope that my argument for including rape on a rather frequent basis is clearly understood. My campaigns are quite mature, very medieval, with of course lots of magic involved. The world the campaign is set in is a violent, brutal world of terrifying monsters and hordes of barbaric, savage humanoids--not to mention the vast hordes of dark, unwashed humanity that have been seduced by evil and darkness, and fully embraced the dark whisperings of evil--rape, slavery, murder, brutal torture, and the grinding despair and oppression of millions of human beings is an ongoing, daily reality for many in the campaign world. And the player characters are involved in dealing with these topics and aspects of reality on a frequent basis. It's something of an exaggeration, of course, but players in my campaign could almost easily ask, "Who isn't being seduced, enslaved, raped, brutally tortured, murdered, or otherwise somehow crushed by the evil boot of despair and oppression?"



Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 11, 2009)

I think it's important to state that there are differences between "dark" and "mature."  Having a lot of violence, death, oppression, rape, etc. certainly makes a game more _dark_, but I think it's a very different thing from mature. You can have a mature game that isn't neccisarily as dark as the one you're talking about.  Sadly, my view on what makes something mature (difficult moral decisions, shades of grey) has become very different from what most mainstream media sees as mature (lots of pointless nudity, objectification of women, needlessly gratuitous violence, and other things that I ironically see as being far more _immature_ then "mature").


----------



## Kzach (Feb 12, 2009)

Who said orc chicks aren't hot?

I'd hit it...


----------



## evilteddybear83 (Feb 12, 2009)

*never thought of the origins of half-orcs and never really cared.*

The first character i played was a half-orc and i verver thought of the origins and i realise that i never cared. So some orcs raped some human woemn, Vikings did the same thing across northern europe during the dark ages. and they're not the only ones...


----------



## SHARK (Feb 13, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Who said orc chicks aren't hot?
> 
> I'd hit it...




Greetings!

*Dayum*

Where'd that picture come from? I mean...who painted it, what book or edition or interpretation did that come from?

Most Orcs I've seen throughout the years have been usually tusked, beastial, dirty and monstrous-looking.

Certainly, they haven't been muscular, buffed, kick-ass *hottie* warrior women with sensual, attractive features rivalling a human's or elf's, though with smooth, green skin.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## arscott (Feb 13, 2009)

That's Garona, of WarCraft fame.  IIRC someone at Blizzard made that model for WarCraft III when they needed some cheesecake for a magazine cover (though the character doesn't actually appear in that game--she's from WC1).

It should be noted that Garona is a _half-orc_.  (Though what the other half is isn't especially clear--Garona's Origin story is even more subject to interpretation than the 4e half orc's)


----------



## Mallus (Feb 13, 2009)

There is a difference between what is appropriate for individual campaigns (ie, just about anything) and appropriate for a core rule book (ie, probably not rape as an integral part of a playable race's background).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 13, 2009)

Mallus said:


> There is a difference between what is appropriate for individual campaigns (ie, just about anything) and appropriate for a core rule book (ie, probably not rape as an integral part of a playable race's background).




I remember some folks saying something similar about tieflings, but I can't recall your agreeing with them then......?


RC


----------



## Mallus (Feb 13, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I remember some folks saying something similar about tieflings, but I can't recall your agreeing with them then......?



Right. Because I believe tieflings (or cambions, or Melniboneans, or whatever you call them) _are_ appropriate for a core book. It's an entirely different situation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 13, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Right. Because I believe tieflings (or cambions, or Melniboneans, or whatever you call them) _are_ appropriate for a core book. It's an entirely different situation.




Hrrmmm.

The only difference, AFAICT, is that you like one thing, and you don't like another.  Half-demons are ultimately no more likely to be the product of a loving relationship than half-orcs.  If you propose that half-demons have been around long enough to be a race unto themselves, you can say the same thing about half-orcs, and neither changes a whit about the origin of the species.

If there is any rational argument for the banning of half-orcs that doesn't apply equally (or even more strongly) to tieflings, I have never seen it.  Saying "It's an entirely different situation" doesn't make it so.  Indeed, I am very curious as to what difference you think there is?  I have to assume that you don't think that infernal beings that personify evil are more capable of loving relationships than primitive mortal humanoids are?


RC


----------



## billd91 (Feb 13, 2009)

Drowbane said:


> I still don't understand why/how half orcs made a come back for 3e.  I didn't like them in 1e, and they didn't see the light of day in any 2e I was apart of.




Because 3e was something of a return to 1e sensibilities, including "Back to the Dungeon" slogans, but with updated mechanics.

I always liked half-orcs. There's something fun about playing a character with a brutish side and/or reputation getting about in civilized society.


----------



## arscott (Feb 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If there is any rational argument for the banning of half-orcs that doesn't apply equally (or even more strongly) to tieflings, I have never seen it.  Saying "It's an entirely different situation" doesn't make it so.  Indeed, I am very curious as to what difference you think there is?  I have to assume that you don't think that infernal beings that personify evil are more capable of loving relationships than primitive mortal humanoids are?



As long as they're a product of a _consensual_ relationship, I don't really care if it's a loving one.

And I don't think anyone on this thread is actually arguing against Half-Orcs as a playable race.  We're arguing against the explicit or implicit inclusion of rape in the half-orc origin story.

And let's not pretend that WotC left half-orcs out of the PHB because of the rape issue--While that may have been a factor, it almost certainly had more to do with the fact that half-orcs stepped on the conceptual toes of their two big new races--the Dragonborn and the Tiefling.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 14, 2009)

arscott said:


> As long as they're a product of a _consensual_ relationship, I don't really care if it's a loving one.




Demons, of course, being famous for their use of "safe words" and requirement of consent..........

Sorry, but picking at word choice doesn't change that the explicit or implicit inclusion of rape in the tiefling origin story is at least as strong as in the half-orc origin story.

Just tieflings happen to be "cool" right now.



> And let's not pretend that WotC left half-orcs out of the PHB because of the rape issue--While that may have been a factor, it almost certainly had more to do with the fact that half-orcs stepped on the conceptual toes of their two big new races--the Dragonborn and the Tiefling.




I'm not sure that either qualifies as "new", but certainly half-orcs step on the conceptual toes of tieflings......they share a watered down version of the tiefling origin story!  


RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 14, 2009)

Eh?  Maybe my memory isn't that great, but to my understanding, most tieflings came from couplings with erinyes and succubi.  It didn't really have rape implied.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 14, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Eh?  Maybe my memory isn't that great, but to my understanding, most tieflings came from couplings with erinyes and succubi.  It didn't really have rape implied.




Except that such couplings are usually via charms and suggestions and other forms of manipulation rather than actual consent...

I notice that WotC sanitized the hell out of the tieflings for 4e.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 14, 2009)

Cused Double Postings.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 14, 2009)

SHARK said:


> Greetings!
> 
> 
> DR. STRANGEMONKEY:
> ...




Well there are a couple of mitigating responses here.

The first is that there is a difference between referencing rape as an event that occurs in the world and referencing rape as a critical component of your character.  If you reference rape as an evil to be avoided than that's distinct from referencing rape as a critical and foundational element to a character type.  

The second is that you and what you do in your campaign aren't as important as WotC and what WotC does in its core rule books.  The ethical implications are distinct.  And that's not just a question of scope.

It's part of what I was trying to draw out in establishing the difference between an artist and a teacher.  The relationship between rhetor and audience in those cases is very different.  The artist is inviting the audience into his rhetoric.  The teacher is giving students the means to further performance on the part of the students.  The teacher has a greater obligation to make her material available to a wider range of audience members with a larger number of constraints.

You in your campaign are more equivalent to the artist.  You don't have to have any players who have any traumatic associations with rape.  If you do your ethical responsibility to those players falls more under the aegis of hospitality than it would under mentoring, guidance, or public good.

That said...


> Thanks, my friends, for you commentary and input. I hope that my argument for including rape on a rather frequent basis is clearly understood.




Poor choice of words here, but I understand what you're arguing.



> My campaigns are quite mature, very medieval, with of course lots of magic involved. The world the campaign is set in is a violent, brutal world of terrifying monsters and hordes of barbaric, savage humanoids--not to mention the vast hordes of dark, unwashed humanity that have been seduced by evil and darkness, and fully embraced the dark whisperings of evil--rape, slavery, murder, brutal torture, and the grinding despair and oppression of millions of human beings is an ongoing, daily reality for many in the campaign world. And the player characters are involved in dealing with these topics and aspects of reality on a frequent basis. It's something of an exaggeration, of course, but players in my campaign could almost easily ask, "Who isn't being seduced, enslaved, raped, brutally tortured, murdered, or otherwise somehow crushed by the evil boot of despair and oppression?"




Right, but see here you are turning the trauma of rape into recreation.  Not just rape but many other evils and, indeed, evil itself.   Your not starting with a Tolkien-esque initial setting of innocence and embattled nobility contrasted against the possibility of trauma, terror, and oppression.  Rather you are starting with a setting that characterizes existence as one of brutalization and aggression, and you are exalting this depiction by calling mature or even medieval in order to heighten the sense that this depiction of social character is made in service to verisimilitude.

And verisimilitude is a pleasure.  It helps your recreation achieve its aims.  And recreation is clearly your aim as you are selling it here.  I've seen your posts in other places and I know you also have an analytical, political, and even ethical bent to your campaigns, but talking about the issue of rape here in this post you finish off the paragraph with a lol emoticon.

Now, certainly, there are ways to use even the grimmest of topics for recreation and pleasure and have it not simply be ethically excusable but also be ethically bold and courageous.   Nonetheless, here you are using rape and brutality as a means to establish a better form of recreation, and from the best of cases to the worst that's problematic.  

And given the degree to which such a tactic is ethically difficult but not ethically dubious I can certainly say that on the face of things it's not horrible for you to use rape as a reference point in your campaign.  It might still be awful or wicked, but that would be because of how you used it in the game not from how you included it in the world.  And even there it's potentially controversial.  There's plenty of criticism surrounding rape in art or recreation out there and not of all it is going to come down on the side of even this moderate a position.

Given that, though, and WotC's audience and the fact that WotC is more analagous to the teacher providing means than to the artist providing experience doesn't WotC deserve some credit for taking a higher clearer path from the outset?

I mean I don't want WotC to say "No Grimdark for you! Only puppies and sunshine for everyone!" but I do want WotC to say, "Listen, we want people to do what's right and fun for them, but we also know that we have to take this and its implications for our audience seriously and with consideration."


----------



## CelticMutt (Feb 14, 2009)

arscott said:


> That's Garona, of WarCraft fame.  IIRC someone at Blizzard made that model for WarCraft III when they needed some cheesecake for a magazine cover (though the character doesn't actually appear in that game--she's from WC1).
> 
> It should be noted that Garona is a _half-orc_.  (Though what the other half is isn't especially clear--Garona's Origin story is even more subject to interpretation than the 4e half orc's)



Actually, she's recently been confirmed through the WoW comic (which is Blizzard canon) to be Half-Draenei.  And has a son, presumedly by a human.  Talk about a mutt.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Right. Because I believe tieflings (or cambions, or Melniboneans, or whatever you call them) _are_ appropriate for a core book. It's an entirely different situation.




Correct. Demons are unquestionably evil, and hence you can be absolutely certain any offspring of them and a mortal creature is the result of something vile. Even if they were created through magical means, it would entail combining a mortal creature with demonic essence. But assuredly, they tend to be the product of rape, deception, possession, curses, mind control, and in some cases, ritualistic torture. In the 4e backstory, tieflings are merely the product of what their ancestors decided to do to their own children by giving them in over in pacts to fiends in an unspecified fashion.


----------



## arscott (Feb 14, 2009)

CelticMutt said:


> Actually, she's recently been confirmed through the WoW comic (which is Blizzard canon) to be Half-Draenei.  And has a son, presumedly by a human.  Talk about a mutt.




Well, It's been pretty strongly implied that she was half-draenei since WC2's timeline retcon that made it impossible for her to be half-human.  But since draenei went from looking like humans to looking like this, that explanation's becoming increasingly nonsensical for someone who looks as human as she does.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 14, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Correct. Demons are unquestionably evil, and hence you can be absolutely certain any offspring of them and a mortal creature is the result of something vile. Even if they were created through magical means, it would entail combining a mortal creature with demonic essence. But assuredly, they tend to be the product of rape, deception, possession, curses, mind control, and in some cases, ritualistic torture. In the 4e backstory, tieflings are merely the product of what their ancestors decided to do to their own children by giving them in over in pacts to fiends in an unspecified fashion.




I'd like to put in my two cents on the whole tiefling demon-touched association to the rape argument.

First off, tieflings are products of their ancestors' pact with infernal powers. Now, I haven't delved _deeply_ into Bael Turrath lore, but I'm pretty sure they don't mention rape once. I think concensual relations with devils is _entirely_ reasonable for a group of ancient nobility who _sought infernal power_. Even such, I am not very well read in this section of the lore, but an important thing to note is that while you can make this association, Wizards does not. The core rules imply that the ancestors made whatever pacts they did out of greed lust, and that there was a _magical_ taint (bodies warped by _magic_, not genetic interspecies offspring). My mind doesn't really go from there to rape.

But even so, lets say they did. Lets say there was a whole lot of charms and domination going on. What's important is that it's about imagery, and while I'm not trying to say that kind of rape is _better_ or_ worse_ than another, I will go out on a limb enough to say that one certainly stands out and offends the senses more. If I hear that a person is a tiefling because their wealthy father fell into the charms of a succubus and impregnated her, only to realize it cost him his soul, I'll think "Wow, that's kinda screwed. Good story". If I hear that my person is a half orc because a tribe came to town, burned down the barns, raised the crops, killed the animals and children and raped the women, a _very real part of me goes_ "Wow, that's a visceral and unneccessary bit of lore that I _don't want_ in my core game world". 

I understand other groups find it to be fine. For that, there is nothing wrong. But for me, it is not, and it's completely where  draw the line in the sand. It would offend my sensibilities if Wizards included rape as part of the core, not because I expect them to go easy on me, not because I want them to censor their material, but for all of the same reasons that have been explored already in this thread. Why? Because domination and charms _do not_ cross the line for me. Does that mean I condone date rape? Absolutely not. But it's a magical, fantastical kind of element that doesn't make me squeem for the same reason that killing 1000 orcs doesn't make me squeem like killing 1000 innocent villagers.


----------



## Wik (Feb 14, 2009)

Yeah, the assumption for Tieflings _in all editions_ wasn't that they were the immediate byproduct of a human/devil relationship, but the end result of a relationship a few generations down the line.

In their original appearance (Planescape), there were a huge number of devils and demons, and the origin of Tieflings wasn't really delved into (only that they were human and... "something else").  It was often assumed that most Tieflings had a Succubus or an Erinyes somewhere in their past, or a more human-like devil.  

Later, when the planar influence wasn't so obvious and Tieflings were still present, this got a bit weird.  And I think that's where the rape origin story began for these poor guys.

But nowadays, WotC got it right.  Tieflings are humans who have been corrupted due to infernal origins in their backstory.  Sort of like how it was done in Dawnforge, six or seven years ago.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2009)

JackSmithIV said:


> First off, tieflings are products of their ancestors' pact with infernal powers. Now, I haven't delved _deeply_ into Bael Turrath lore, but I'm pretty sure they don't mention rape once.




So, in other words, the same as half-orcs in the 1e and 3e books.



Wik said:


> Yeah, the assumption for Tieflings _in all editions_ wasn't that they were the immediate byproduct of a human/devil relationship, but the end result of a relationship a few generations down the line.




So rape a few generations back is okay, but rape now is not?  

Sorry, but I still don't buy defending tieflings while attacking half-orcs on the basis of their origins.  Way too much double standard going on.

RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> So rape a few generations back is okay, but rape now is not?
> 
> Sorry, but I still don't buy defending tieflings while attacking half-orcs on the basis of their origins.  Way too much double standard going on.
> 
> RC




You didn't quote the rest of his statement.  I'm sorry, but I don't think tieflings of previous editions were the eventual product of rape, be it immidiate or a few generations back.

Half Orcs stated that they were typically the product of rape.  Tieflings stated that they had demonic or devilish ancestry, typically because of a shapechanger, erinyes, or succubus along the line.  If you can't see the difference between a supernaturally attractive person getting dirty and someone being raped, I'm not sure what else to say.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Half Orcs stated that they were typically the product of rape.




Where, exactly?

AFAICT, half-orcs are described as the product of human and orc ancestry, and nothing else, in any official D&D or AD&D book.



> Tieflings stated that they had demonic or devilish ancestry, typically because of a shapechanger, erinyes, or succubus along the line.




So, when Uther Pendragon changes his shape in _Excaliber_ to sleep with Ygraine, pretending to be her husband, it isn't rape?  I would say that it is.  I would say that it is as much an offense as rape by violence.  Perhaps more, as it causes the victim to be a willing participant in her own violation.

Likewise the use of drugs, charm spells, or supernatural domination.

If you can't see that this is "someone being raped", I'm not sure what else to say either.


RC


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 15, 2009)

In the 1e Monster Manual, half-orcs were described as being half orc and half human, goblin, or hobgoblin. Of course most players chose half-human, as they would integrate more readily into society. Perhaps if someone has an issue with a half-human monster, then a monster crossbreed would suffice?


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 15, 2009)

JackSmithIV said:


> I'd like to put in my two cents on the whole tiefling demon-touched association to the rape argument.
> 
> First off, tieflings are products of their ancestors' pact with infernal powers. Now, I haven't delved _deeply_ into Bael Turrath lore, but I'm pretty sure they don't mention rape once. I think concensual relations with devils is _entirely_ reasonable for a group of ancient nobility who _sought infernal power_. Even such, I am not very well read in this section of the lore, but an important thing to note is that while you can make this association, Wizards does not. The core rules imply that the ancestors made whatever pacts they did out of greed lust, and that there was a _magical_ taint (bodies warped by _magic_, not genetic interspecies offspring). My mind doesn't really go from there to rape.




I also did not mention rape. As I was trying to say above, it's clear that the tiefling's ancestors decided to give them over, and all future generations, to the influence of fiendish creatures.



> But even so, lets say they did. Lets say there was a whole lot of charms and domination going on. What's important is that it's about imagery, and while I'm not trying to say that kind of rape is _better_ or_ worse_ than another, I will go out on a limb enough to say that one certainly stands out and offends the senses more. If I hear that a person is a tiefling because their wealthy father fell into the charms of a succubus and impregnated her, only to realize it cost him his soul, I'll think "Wow, that's kinda screwed. Good story". If I hear that my person is a half orc because a tribe came to town, burned down the barns, raised the crops, killed the animals and children and raped the women, a _very real part of me goes_ "Wow, that's a visceral and unneccessary bit of lore that I _don't want_ in my core game world".




I hope you recognize that is because your personal preference, not because one kind of sexual assault necessarily rates higher in offensiveness than the other.



> I understand other groups find it to be fine. For that, there is nothing wrong. But for me, it is not, and it's completely where  draw the line in the sand. It would offend my sensibilities if Wizards included rape as part of the core, not because I expect them to go easy on me, not because I want them to censor their material, but for all of the same reasons that have been explored already in this thread. Why? Because domination and charms _do not_ cross the line for me. Does that mean I condone date rape? Absolutely not. But it's a magical, fantastical kind of element that doesn't make me squeem for the same reason that killing 1000 orcs doesn't make me squeem like killing 1000 innocent villagers.




Perhaps it has something to do with the relative significance, in your perspective, of forcible rape versus drug or date rape. Obviously, I am not in a position to judge why one bothers you and the other does not, but then, you are not in a better position to judge others with the opposite or a different viewpoint.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Half-demons are ultimately no more likely to be the product of a loving relationship than half-orcs.



I think I need to make my point more clearly (and not for the first time, I'm afraid).

I don't think rape should be mentioned explicitly in any of the racial descriptions in the PHB (or DMG/MM for that matter). Not for half-orcs or tieflings or anything else. There is no benefit to be had invoking rape in the official rules.

If an individual DM decides that rape is implied in a racial backstory, they're free to include that detail in their campaigns, or free not to use that at all.

If a DM decides that a race doesn't belong in the game itself, because they feel that rape is an implied in their backstory, that's kinda silly, because they're objecting to their interpretation of said race, which exists not on the page but in their own heads.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2009)

No argument there.  

The "X is good, but Y is bad because Y has backstory Z, which X also has" position is silly.

There are all kinds of other reasons to like or dislike X or Y, which are based on taste, and are not necessarily silly.  Nor, if you find backstory Z to be a problem, is it silly to therefore dislike the inclusion of both X and Y.

IMHO, of course.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## arscott (Feb 17, 2009)

But Raven, Who's arguing that half-orcs are bad?  I'm only saying that "It's bad that half-orcs have rape strongly implied in their backstory".  And however you personally think of them, tieflings simply don't have that same kind of backstory implication--certainly not in 4e where tieflings aren't literally fiend-progeny, and even in earlier editions where they are generally understood to be products of depraved but consentual relationships.

WotC feels that the rape implication in half-orcs is strong enough that it justifies heavy-handed wierdness like gruumsh-eye mutants and favored of kord, and over the course of this thread I'm disagreeing with them less and less, no matter how much I personally prefer the Eberron solution.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2009)

And I am saying that the "strong implication" in the half-orc backstory is largely a product of your expectations, as is the lack of "strong implication" in the tiefling backstory.  The level of implication in backstory, in any D&D or AD&D book, is the same.  You, not the books, are colouring it differently.

EDIT:  For example, how many D&D adventures have you seen where orcs have a human leader?  I know that I have seen quite a few.  That suggests orcs and humans can have consensual relationships right there, to me at least.  1e orcs were Lawful Evil -- they had rules in an ordered society.  Again, this suggests that their relationships might require consent.  

Likewise, you _might_ successfully argue that devils require consent (although said consent is very likely to be gained by trickery, esp. in 4e, where the succubus is a devil, and thus arguably still rape [not a lawyer, but I wouldn't advise trying "I tricked her into giving consent" as a defense]), but the demon/devil backstory throughout mythology, fantasy fiction, and legend leans at least as heavily toward rape as a normative with infernal powers as does the half-orc backstory in LotR.  _Consensual_ intercourse with infernal powers, at least in mythology, implies a loss of the soul -- as in the Middle Age's Witches' Sabbat -- in effect, something that some folks might consider far, far worse than rape.  


RC


----------

