Quote from: jhkim;480880The original poster in that thread said that learning D&D as a child guided his understanding of real-world races.  He said that he had been confronted by arguments claiming that the existence of smart black people disproved the idea that blacks were mentally less capable overall.  However, he found that D&D helped him understand how that argument was flawed, by the idea of a bell-curve distribution for attributes and modifiers to it.

I didn't read the thread, but I'll address your characterization of it.  If he was being "confronted by arguments claiming that the existence of smart black people disproved the idea that blacks were mentally less capable overall", then that suggests that he was already forwarding the argument "that blacks were mentally less capable overall" and was encountering people who were arguing against him, suggesting that his racist attitudes already existed and he was in search for a justification to keep them.  The problem here is not that D&D led him to racist thoughts or helped him figure out that the argument being used to refute his racism was bogus but that he was already thinking like a racist and the argument was bogus in the first place.  It's not that hard to blow away the argument that blacks (or other racial or ethnic groups) are mentally less capable overall because a racist believes their poor performance on things like IQ tests is caused by some inherent mental deficiency.

Quote from: jhkim;480880Now, he is correct that that particular argument for racial equality is flawed - but his overall view that real-world races have differences similar to D&D races is false.

Then the solution is to explain why it's false, clearly and effectively, not to declare things like IQ tests and D&D inherently evil because they can be used by racists to make racist arguments.  If you try to conceal things from people and prohibit certain lines of inquiry and discussion, even with the most noble of intentions, they are going to wonder what you are trying to hide from them.  If their use of such things is wrong, then explain why it's wrong.  If can't effectively refute racist arguments on the basis of their flaws, then I think you've got a much bigger problem on your hands.

Quote from: jhkim;480880His association that real-world races differ similarly to D&D races is a misapplication - but I can easily see how it could happen in a young child who isn't taught better.  For better or worse, I learned a lot of things from RPGs as a child.  Much of my interest in physics (which I eventually got a PhD in) came from early play with Traveller - which has some excellent and correct science in it.  On the other hand, I also got some stuff wrong that I learned through RPGs - like what medieval armor & weapons were like and how they worked.

As a child, did you ever see the monsters in D&D as analogous to real world human races and did someone have to tell you that you shouldn't?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;480969But were the mice evil?

Would me being a good person, if I had killed the mice, be dependent on that answer?

The groundhogs, on the other hand, are totally evil.

Quote from: Benoist;480847You are completely misreading what's been said. Mr. Gray's point was that the setup, the structure of D&D itself is layered with a "kind of privileged, colonial, expansionist, genocidal viewpoint" that he is grown mature enough, "at that stage of his life", to no longer ignore, unlike those who (1) play on these themes willingly, or (2) ignore those themes altogether because they don't know any better.

This is this particular point that is raising outrage. And rightfully so.

The part where you are right is that the likes of me think racists are indeed mis-using the structure and themes of D&D to project their agendas onto them, and that these agenda are not part of the game itself.

well put.

Quote from: John Morrow;480975Would me being a good person, if I had killed the mice, be dependent on that answer?

Yes, I think it would. Of course, if you think the mice were evil, I'd want to know how they got categorized as such. But if they weren't evil, and letting them live while cleaning up your yard was just as effective at stopping the infestation, then I don't think it would be good to kill them.

Edit

Quote from: Vmerc@;480993Have we found out what the "darker side of our hobby" is yet?

Yes - certain 'Indie" or 'storygames', These are often referred to as Swine Games by the guy who runs this forum.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Sigmund;480916Still going strong I see. I will be reading on, but I feel like I've contributed all I can, plus some, to this and so I will most likely not be posting more unless asked a question or I feel I have something new to add.

Great post skofflox, although I don't see the same racist colonial stuff in AD&D orcs, unless you mean it's the orcs being racists/colonial.

yup on both counts...

Quote from: jhkimNow, he is correct that that particular argument for racial equality is flawed - but his overall view that real-world races have differences similar to D&D races is false.

Quote from: John Morrow;480974Then the solution is to explain why it's false, clearly and effectively, not to declare things like IQ tests and D&D inherently evil because they can be used by racists to make racist arguments.  If you try to conceal things from people and prohibit certain lines of inquiry and discussion, even with the most noble of intentions, they are going to wonder what you are trying to hide from them.

This would makes some sense if I stated I was trying to prohibit certain lines of inquiry or conceal things from people.  But...  I'm not.  The problem here is that your assumption that

(1) any hint of racism means => (2) inherently evil means => (3) must be prohibited and/or concealed

My attitude is that there is bad stuff in many things I like - including racism, sexism, and other prejudice.  I love H.P. Lovecraft, and I love Robert E. Howard.  They are both great writers, and I am willing to admit that they were extremely racist - and this racism was a part of their stories.  I can like their writing while still acknowledging the racism in it.  Some people act as if it is shocking and slanderous to accuse someone of being racist in the 1930s or 1940s, which I find just bizarre.  Racism was completely standard at the time, and many good, decent people who hated both the Nazis and the KKK still held openly racist views.  

I feel like many people feel like they can't admit to enjoying anything with even the faintest hint of racism (or presumably any other prejudice), which seems like an extreme stretch to me.  

Quote from: John Morrow;480974As a child, did you ever see the monsters in D&D as analogous to real world human races and did someone have to tell you that you shouldn't?

I'm not sure.  I don't remember my early D&D play clearly.  It's not like I automatically rejected racism as a child.  The standard elementary schoolyard chant in my area (1970s small-town New York) was "A fight!  A fight!  A nigger and a white!   is the nigger and is the white!"  At the time, I didn't think it remarkable at all.  It wasn't until much later that I remembered it and recognized it as racist.  Also, I vaguely remember a discussion with a friend whom I played D&D with about blacks swimming in the local pool.  He was opposed - I was non-committal.

Quote from: Vmerc@;480993Have we found out what the "darker side of our hobby" is yet?

Catpiss Men?

Quote from: John Morrow;480967But what a lot of people seem to be saying is that they find the whole idea so disgusting that they don't want to accept any context in which doing so would make logical utilitarian sense, to the point where people have said that any GM that puts their players in that situation is a sadist.

You may be bringing in arguments put forward in other threads or boards because I don't recall anyone making such claims here. However since you brought it up, I would think that any GM who puts his players in this position is if not a sadist, someone who enjoys pushing the buttons of his players in the most extreme of manner just to get an emotional rise. I see this in some story games and I have very little affection for this technique or those who do use it. It's also a bit of a cheat if you ask me. I would argue killing irredeamabely evil babies provides an emotional safety net as opposed to killing babies in order to further a utilitarian "good" like those done in the thought experiements in the article you keep refering to.

Edit: And it's not as if GMs over the years have not put forward (again refering to the article) Kantian/Utilitarian moral conflicts, the best kinds of dramantic moments IMO arise from them but personally I'm not persuaded by the utilitarian arguments put forward by those who advocate this kind of play....not that most GMs who use evil races need to because as I said killing evil babies etc is not part of their games.

Quote(As an aside, after years of seeing threads where people ask how to create real horror in role-playing games, I think putting the players into a situation where they have to kill mothers and babies or else they'll have an even more horrific situation on their hands might just do the trick for a lot of groups.)

I disagree I have managed very well to create moments of pure horror without resorting to something like this. I don't think horror means disgust or self loathing.....although I do concede that if you want to elicit an extreme response this would do it for some groups.

QuoteA reluctance to identify evil and squash it brutally, if necessary, is one of those areas where I think people can get too sentimental.

And here again we get back to how one views evil, irredeemable or not. Like I said how we deal with evil is important to some folks and this is reflected in our games. It's also a question of how we define heroism.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John Morrow;480967I don't think it's a unique reaction, either.  My group reacted that way to the reality of it.  And an emotion by which moral outrage is conveyed in the human mind is disgust, which is why people tend to feel disgust toward people who advance a moral position they don't agree world.  But what a lot of people seem to be saying is that they find the whole idea so disgusting that they don't want to accept any context in which doing so would make logical utilitarian sense, to the point where people have said that any GM that puts their players in that situation is a sadist.

(As an aside, after years of seeing threads where people ask how to create real horror in role-playing games, I think putting the players into a situation where they have to kill mothers and babies or else they'll have an even more horrific situation on their hands might just do the trick for a lot of groups.)

The article I keep referencing about how moral decisions are made argues that moral decisions are made by the brain comparing how it morally feels about an act versus the strength of the rational argument in favor of the act and the strongest urge wins.  The people who humanize monsters and think of them like people are likely to have strong feelings of disgust at the thought of exterminating them when they are helpless, no matter how strong the utilitarian argument might be in favor of doing so might be, and may even see analogies between hatred and violence directed at those monsters and human victims of such hatred and violence.  The people who don't humanize the monsters and think of them more like animals or robots are likely to experience little to no disgust at the thought of exterminating them while they are helpless, especially when there is a strong utilitarian argument in favor of killing them.  

But before you argue in favor of empathy always winning out over utility, consider that people in the modern Western world are largely insulated from having to kill for any reason and thus have the luxury of favoring empathy over utility.  Earlier in this thread, you made an argument against killing even a dangerous dog.  Do you eat meat?  Do you wear leather?  Many, if not most, people in the modern Western world would likely experience a lot of disgust if they had to slaughter their own cow to eat a hamburger or slaughter their own cow to make a pair of leather shoes, yet have no problem eating meat or wearing leather because they never have to see a cow get killed to make the hamburger or leather.  On several television shows, I've watched people cry over chickens killed to make dinner, not only on reality shows like Survivor but a show about a family living in rural Africa, because they treated the chickens like pets.  And if you have a problem with the idea of killing helpless dogs, you should never take a serious look at what goes on in most animal shelters or around the world (on the other hand, if you want a good cry, read this -- even if it takes liberties with the truth, it reflects the reality in many shelters).

Of course what people see in the other direction (and this is the point I make about psychopaths) is that if one has no emotional connect to real people, then one can justify all sorts of atrocities against people that should cause moral outrage.  The trick is balancing the emotional distance of a moral problem such that one neither becomes falsely sentimental or unjustly heartless.  One can certainly err on the side of being heartless, but can also err on the side of being too sentimental.  A reluctance to identify evil and squash it brutally, if necessary, is one of those areas where I think people can get too sentimental.

What I personally think of whenever I think of the orc baby scenario is that a few years ago, my back yard was infested with field mice.  There were so many that they were leaving trails through the grass and were getting into the house.  Knowing that it was part of the problem, I decided to dig out an old pile of cut grass from the previous owner.  In doing so, I uncovered a mouse nest.  I noticed a mother mouse frantically grabbing her young to carry them off to safety.  Rather than dispatching the mice quickly with the shovel, which I think was the logical thing to do and was more or less what an exterminator or traps or poison would have done for me, I let the mother mouse carry her babies away because I felt sorry for her.  Was that the right thing to do and a good thing to do or was I simply letting false sentimentality and an overactive anthropomorphization of vermin get the best of me?  And would I have cared if an exterminator did it for me instead of me having to do it myself?

So while I understand the reluctance and even disgust people have expressed over the idea of slaughtering helpless monsters and can even understand why people see parallels to real world racism and colonialism in it, I think that when it persists even when the GM states as objective fact that the monsters are inherently evil and there is no good that can come out of sparing them that it's the same sort of false sentimentality that made me squeamish about killing some mice and even reluctant to kill bugs (when possible, I catch them and put them outside).  And as such, I think a warrior charged with fighting evil could not be so squeamish about the grim necessity of killing evil.  Further, there are a variety of reasons why a role-player who is not so sensitive or squeamish, not so emotionally involved in the idea of all sentient creatures being just like people, or simply not even all that emotionally invested in the monsters and game at all would have no problem slaughtering monsters without pause, with it having nothing to do with repressed racism or any analogy with real world racism or violent atrocities at all.

Something that interests me though is that justifible genocide is no where in the source material. Gandalf doesn't set out to eradicate all goblins and orcs, galahad doesn't kill folks hither and yon. In the source material the good folks always offer mercy above violence always allow room for redemption . So what is really inspiring this mode of play? It seems to be a totally gamist thing. We kill them to get gold and experience then we look to justify it when someone claims its racist.....
Take a specific. A party find a guy they detect evil he is evil. But he explains that he is trying to change do they kill him? Answer no not until he commits an evil act. Why can't he just be put down like an orc? That to me carries the taint of racism you see.
Now io would avoid it quite the opposite I'll hi-light it in game. I will have npcs saying just burn them out they are only orcs if we don't do it now they will just breed. And the same guy will claim the human deserves a change it's not like he is orcish scum. I will see how far the PCs will follow that logical course.

Conclusion: If you fudge rolls, you're basically a racist.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;480992Yes, I think it would. Of course, if you think the mice were evil, I'd want to know how they got categorized as such. But if they weren't evil, and letting them live while cleaning up your yard was just as effective at stopping the infestation, then I don't think it would be good to kill them.

So one cannot be truly good and eat meat or wear leather because other options exist, or is it OK to enjoy the fruits of the unnecessary killing of animals so long as you outsource the actual killing to someone out of sight?  A good person can't work as a mouse exterminator or at an animal shelter putting excess cats and dogs to sleep?

Quote from: jhkim;480997I feel like many people feel like they can't admit to enjoying anything with even the faintest hint of racism (or presumably any other prejudice), which seems like an extreme stretch to me.

And I don't think that's the argument, either.  I think the problem is with the idea that they are essentially engaging in racism if they go along with slaughtering sentient monsters (and perhaps their offspring) without sufficient angst and acknowledgement that doing so is racist.  I can see where people find the parallels impossible to ignore but I can also see why others see no parallels at all, and a lot of it boils down to whether they think of the monsters as people or not.  As Kyle pointed out in another thread, PETA refers to the slaughter of chickens as "The Chicken Holocaust".  Do you think that anyone who enjoys a Chicken McNugget at McDonalds should be admitting the hints of genocide in what they are doing?  I think that's the sort of thing that's going on here.  People see a parallel with a moral issue that they feel strongly about and can't accept that others simply don't.

Quote from: jhkim;480997I'm not sure.  I don't remember my early D&D play clearly.  It's not like I automatically rejected racism as a child.

That wasn't the question.  The question was whether you saw D&D as supporting racist ideas or added racist ideas that weren't there.

Quote from: jibbajibba;481036Something that interests me though is that justifible genocide is no where in the source material.

It depends on what you consider the "source material".  You can certainly find it in science fiction and fantasy (e.g., Doctor Who has been flirting with it since it restarted, not only with respect to the Time Lords and Daleks but with others, and the Torchwood episode with the Cyberwoman certain touched upon all of the inherent evilness and sentience buttons that are being talked about here).  It comes up in a lot of alien invasion movies, including Independence Day.  I'm sure that better-read people than me can give examples in fantasy literature.  

Quote from: jibbajibba;481036So what is really inspiring this mode of play? It seems to be a totally gamist thing. We kill them to get gold and experience then we look to justify it when someone claims its racist.....

For me, it's about a desire to be able to blow up the Death Star without having to worry about how many innocent contractors and janitors my character killed in the process. And one can see the effect the obligatory angst that people have over shooting a defenseless bad guy in George Lucas' insistence in editing Star Wars so that Han Solo does not shoot first because Lucan believes he would be evil if he shot a thug on cold blood by surprise.  To a point, such discussions can add depth to a game but they can also paralyze it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;481036Take a specific. A party find a guy they detect evil he is evil. But he explains that he is trying to change do they kill him? Answer no not until he commits an evil act. Why can't he just be put down like an orc? That to me carries the taint of racism you see.

In my D&D game, there were humans that you could put down like monsters and monsters that you couldn't simply put down because they were redeemable and there would be clues in their auras about who was who when a Detect Evil was done.  So at least in my game, that wasn't it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;481036Now io would avoid it quite the opposite I'll hi-light it in game. I will have npcs saying just burn them out they are only orcs if we don't do it now they will just breed. And the same guy will claim the human deserves a change it's not like he is orcish scum. I will see how far the PCs will follow that logical course.

Well, I think you are left having to reconcile how to deal with monstrous humanoids that are depicted as primarily Evil in the game.  That games like D&D are filled with mostly or always Evil humanoids with hit points and combat stats and have thick chapters on combat and precious little on social work and redemption, there is an expectation that the way to solve problems like evil monsters is through violence.