Quote from: two_fishes;481495I think the same thing goes for other D&D tropes. It's often been pointed out that the implied story in D&D, of taming and civilizing a wilderness taps into American tropes of taming and colonising the West.  You can enjoy playing it without examining the real-world parallels and the implications of those parallels, and it's fun. But if you do examine the parallels, the association to colonisation is easy to make, and that brings in a lot of other really ugly associations that go along with real-world colonisation, the foremost being genocide. If you bring those associations back into the game, it makes th presence of orcs, as a race to be exterminated, pretty distasteful. Once you've made that association, it's hard to unmake, and you're probably going to want ways to remove or mitigate the association between orcs and colonised natives and make them into metaphors of another kind. John associates them with psychopaths and vermin, but I'm not sure this really fixes the problem. It's possible he also intentionally structures his game-world so that it doesn't implicitly parallel real-world colonialism.

The humans weren't particularly expansive in my game, so I don't really see a colonialism metaphor, and it's not uncommon for orcs to be depicted as invaders rather than indigenous aboriginals being wiped out by invading hoards of humans.

But if you want a metaphor for European expansion into the Americas, I would say that the Spaniards attacking the Aztecs would be closer.  While you can certainly question the greed for gold on the part of the Spaniards, the neighbors of the Aztecs helped them because the Aztecs were quite brutal and nasty and, frankly, I think the world is a better place not having pyramids coated in human blood just like I think the world is a better place without Nazi death camps or Khmer Rouge killing fields.

Quote from: David R;481502I think a Good character can make such a case only if you define evil as irredeemable.

And that's exactly what I did with certain creatures.  I get your point about heroic and non-heroic and agree with it to at least some degree.  But my concern was what Good characters were permitted to do more than whether what they are permitted to do is heroic or not.

Quote from: John Morrow;481501It happened very much on screen, which is why it was grim.  The players infiltrated the goblin den with stealth to rescue some captives.  There, they dealt with a goblin guard who made a deal to betray his fellows and give the party information if the Paladin would promise to spare his life, which they did.  On the way out, they wound up engaging the males in the den.  I don't remember if they were spotted or decided to engage on their own after witnessing the goblins brutalizing each other.  After the males were killed in battle, the females, who were essentially trapped down a tunnel, drove their children into the party in an attempt to escape, and then the stronger females drove out the weaker females, and so on.  The carnage and how brutal it was was quite clear to all involved because the combat was played out.  When they finally went back to that part of the den, they caught the two strongest females who were hiding.  If I remember correctly, they begged for their lives and tried to make deals but were still killed.  I think that wasn't very controversial, not only because they were irredeemably Evil but out of disgust over what they'd done to survive that long (sacrificing the lives of their own children, sisters, and so on).

Ah, I see what you mean. The depiction of evil does seem to me over the top and grand guignol-ish. It's not something which I or the people I game would find interesting but I understand better where you are coming from.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John Morrow;481503The humans weren't particularly expansive in my game, so I don't really see a colonialism metaphor, and it's not uncommon for orcs to be depicted as invaders rather than indigenous aboriginals being wiped out by invading hoards of humans.

That makes sense. It also seems clear that you use evil monsters as a tool to explore the ramifications of a utilitarian definition of good and its demands on good people, right? That also seems like an effective way to disassociate orcs from parallels to real-world peoples.

QuoteBut if you want a metaphor for European expansion into the Americas, I would say that the Spaniards attacking the Aztecs would be closer.  While you can certainly question the greed for gold on the part of the Spaniards, the neighbors of the Aztecs helped them because the Aztecs were quite brutal and nasty and, frankly, I think the world is a better place not having pyramids coated in human blood just like I think the world is a better place without Nazi death camps or Khmer Rouge killing fields.

Do you think that the Spanish conquest of the Americas is a more likely influence on D&D tropes than the US colonisation of the West? Given Gary Gygax's time and place, I find this unlikely.

/

Quote from: two_fishes;481507Do you think that the Spanish conquest of the Americas is a more likely influence on D&D tropes than the US colonisation of the West? Given Gary Gygax's time and place, I find this unlikely.

/

If I had to draw any kind of parallel it wouldn't be between orcs and native americans, it would be between orcs and nomadic invaders in Europe and the Mediterranean. I can see orcs and other such monsters filling the roll of the mountain and hill invaders against settled peoples. But even with that historical association, it need not involve any kind of racial connotation. You are really talking about ways of life and roles.

John, reading my reply to your example of play, I come off sounding condescending not to mention a right twit. I hope you understand that was not my intention. I have one last question.

Quote from: John Morrow;481504But my concern was what Good characters were permitted to do more than whether what they are permitted to do is heroic or not.

Do you think this is more easily achieved without the inclusion of irredeemabley evil races?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;481500I understand the greeks looked down on non-greeks, I just am not sure how I see you can make the jump from that to "satyrs are a product of that tendancy". It certainly could be, but it seems like it is in there with a number of equally plausible theories.

well I see two sides to the question/comparison. On the one hand is the question of whether centaurs and satyrs were initially inspired by Greek views of non-Greeks. To that, who knows? On the other hand there's the tendency of many Greek writers to attribute to non-Greeks the same character traits as were commonly attributed to satyrs and centaurs and to infer from that that the Greeks saw non-Greeks as more bestial and less-than-human. That inference may then give a little more credence to the  theory of the origin of those creatures.

QuoteI guess I just don't see this myself.

Oh well.

Quote from: two_fishes;481511well I see two sides to the question/comparison. On the one hand is the question of whether centaurs and satyrs were initially inspired by Greek views of non-Greeks. To that, who knows? On the other hand there's the tendency of many Greek writers to attribute to non-Greeks the same character traits as were commonly attributed to satyrs and centaurs and to infer from that that the Greeks saw non-Greeks as more bestial and less-than-human. That inference may then give a little more credence to the  theory of the origin of those creatures.

Oh well.

I don't see how it does. They could just as easily been drawing on established myths to make that comparison, without those myths originating from greek racism. The germans were able to compare rats to jews without the concept of rat originating from initial contact between germans and jews.

There was a similar thread on RPG.net in which the middle-class white folks got really upset because the RPG hobby is built upon racism.  It ended after some poster named Ace was permabanned for statements such as the following:

QuoteWhite men did build the nation, did most of the important work and laid the foundations of most everything we use today, they built most of the foundations of modern world in fact .

QuoteHeck with a few exceptions, taking economic migrants or refugees is plum stupid. Doing that puts those folks before your own poor and is a recipe for disaster and social unrest.

QuoteLook at the world around you and look at patents and inventions and designs and all that . Until recently almost all of it was done by White Men. The rest of the world is contributing in more recent years but its still true. Modernity was designed built largely by White Men and while other groups participated if they had not, it would not have mattered a huge deal.

QuoteAs for issues of Whites being treated better, well they are not all racism based, granted some is but some is derived from facts.

Fed stats via Wikiepdia from 1974-2004

Black committed 50% of murders and made up about 13% of the population and Whites committed about 45% of homicides and make up about 3/4 . This means Black people committed nearly 6x as many homicides per capita.

QuoteNervousness about the other is natural for many people, probably cannot be educated away in scale in most cases and when diversity is pushed it leads to a weaker society.And yes it applies across racial lines.

Pat Buchanan trolls RPG.net now.

Quote from: B.T.;481545There was a similar thread on RPG.net in which the middle-class white folks got really upset because the RPG hobby is built upon racism.  It ended after some poster named Ace was permabanned for statements such as the following:

I was the one who reported Ace in that thread, actually.

BTB, who are the "middle class white folks"? The only one who identified themselves as white and middle class in that  thread was SomethingElse, Rpg.net's hardcore self-hating version of jhkim.

Quote from: TristramEvans;481555The only one who identified themselves as white and middle class in that  thread was SomethingElse, Rpg.net's hardcore self-hating version of jhkim.

I disagree, jhkim is a flake of the Highest Order, but he is a plebian when compared to the nuttiness that is Something Else. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose jhkim to have on a forum any day of the week.

Quote from: David R;481509John, reading my reply to your example of play, I come off sounding condescending not to mention a right twit. I hope you understand that was not my intention.

I took it as an honest statement of your play preference.  

Quote from: David R;481509Do you think this is more easily achieved without the inclusion of irredeemabley evil races?

The objective was to permit Good characters to slay at least some classes of Evil opponents without pause so that Paladins would spend more time delivering righteous smack-downs than being a social worker trying to redeem the souls of the fallen.  I think that's easier with irredeemable Evil, because once evil characters can achieve redemption, I think Good characters have an obligation to provide the opportunity for it.  It can make it very difficult to maintain a tone of butt-kicking combat when the characters are obliged to humanely care for every bad guy who falls but does not die in combat or who surrenders and for the offspring and/or widow of every bad guy killed by the PCs.  

By the way, an example I thought of that I think captures what I was looking for was Ripley, at the end of Aliens, threatening and ultimately killing baby Aliens in their nest and pretty much doing her best to annihilate the species.  Do you think that was not good and/or not heroic?

(ADDED: I noticed, after posting this, that TristramEvans brought up Ripley and the Aliens earlier in this thread.)

Quote from: B.T.;481545There was a similar thread on RPG.net in which the middle-class white folks got really upset because the RPG hobby is built upon racism.  It ended after some poster named Ace was permabanned for statements such as the following:

Are there genuine racists online?  Absolutely.  Are there some disgruntled white people who buy into parts of the racist argument but are not necessarily full-blown racists?  Absolutely.  Does that mean that racism is running rampant among middle-class white folks?  Of course not.  One poster does not a majority make.  And, frankly, the narrative that anyone who doesn't acknowledge being a racist is, in fact, a racist, not only convinces a lot of people that charges of racism are bogus but it makes the racists look more reasonable and sane.  Please don't do that.  It's not improving race relations and it's not reducing racism.

More grist for the mill from the KORPG blog here:

Racism in D&D – it’s time to stop the madness

Quote from: KORPG BlogBefore we get started, the racism I’m referring to in D&D isn’t the racism of the real world. The racism I’m discussing is the apparent need to create rules to make the fantasy races in D&D interesting choices for players. So if you’re looking for the other kind, you’ve come to the wrong place. – KO

[...]

But something remained that should have headed down memory lane with the sexism; namely the racism. But racial choice should have no impact on character concept, capability or choice but should lead to interesting decisions in the game. As a result, race should go the way of gender in our game design.

From a bit of a historical perspective, looking back at AD&D, I’ve recently begin to realize that the inclusion of Racial Bonuses and Racial Limitations was the worst sort of uninteresting decision imposition the game could have ever included. In my own time as a player, I’ve witnessed these concepts lead to such behind-the-scenes questions such as…

• What’s the difference between a party of dwarven Fighters and a party of human Fighters? Devoid of any other information, or in an all dwarven environment, not a single thing.
• Why do dwarves have a -2 penalty to their initial charisma? What, I can’t have an awesomely charismatic short person? Also, I can’t have a savant Half-Orc?
• Why can’t you have a hale elf (elves initially receive a -2 penalty to constitution) if they live so long? Does that make any sense?
• Why can’t halflings ever be Magic-users? Aren’t they related to other fae creatures somewhat? At least as much as humans? Am I the only one who ever watched the movie Willow?
• Who, in their right mind would ever choose to play a human when a half-elf gains the benefits of both an elf and a human combined? Nobody, that’s who.

… which ultimately led to discussions like why elves, who spend little time underground, have infravision but not far-sight like those in Tolkein if that’s where the concept of them as race originated. Or how many generations removed of elven heritage a character had to be before those elven bonuses went away? Or what happens if a half orc mates with a half elf? Does the character get some benefit and drawback from both “races” even though they’re parentage technically are hybrid races themselves…

Man the logic a player can bring to the table when they smell a bonus and a means of arguing away the penalty.

Basically, the solution being presented here is to eliminate all mechanical racial differences in the game so that the choice of race doesn't matter mechanically.

You know, the general stereotype is that roleplayers are an intelligent, if socially awkward, bunch of nerds. Yet so often I seem to encounter people who don't seem to realize that the word "race" as its used in real life and in fantasy RPG "races" are not the same thing.

I blame Star Trek.