Quote from: Kyle Aaron;478071Remember that in the USA, Latin Americans are considered "non-white." Even pasty-faced red-headed Jews are borderline.

So when a US citizen is talking about racial issues, they're using definitions that make the civilised world scratch its head.

Things have gotten quite a bit better than they used to be here (even better than as near back as the 80s when we had some serious problems with hate groups). But I always did find it odd that latino is treated as a separate group but arab, greek, etc all fall under white (at least in most of the forms I fill out here for employment and medical purposes). Just for clarity, Jewish also falls under white as well. I believe for the 2010 census they changed it so latino is no longer treated as a race.

Back in the 40s it was different. I just inherited some of my grandfather's old boxing licenses. He was an italian boxer in the 30s/40s and it had an entry for "complexion" (I assume for when the boxers fought in places like the south but I could be wrong). My grandfather was listed as medium.

Some of this stuff also comes from the way we assimilate in the US. Usually by the third generation people are pretty well assimilated, but (at least here on the east coast) people still consider their ethnic heritage important. My mom is third generation Italian and she still identifies as Italian and still does the feast of the seven fishes for Christmas Eve. I grew up in a Jewish area and they are very aware of their cultural and religious heritage (and they keep it alive). And Boston is famous for its Irish pride. You have people whose families have been here since the potato famine who still call themselves Irish. So some of these distinctions are not simply imposed on people but can also come from the fact that these groups still see themselves as different.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;478086And then you're just a cafeteria christian - picking and choosing the segments of your book you will kill people for and refuse to discuss rationally and ignoring the rest or waving it off as a metaphor.

Aren't we all? I don't see a lot of adulterers getting stoned to death in Christian countries. I mean, it's in the Bible, right? :rolleyes:

Quote from: FrankTrollman;478086Which is probably the core of the complaint with the attempts to justify genocide against Orcs. If you can't consistently define your absolute good and evil, you don't have an absolute good or an absolute evil. And then you're just a cafeteria christian - picking and choosing the segments of your book you will kill people for and refuse to discuss rationally and ignoring the rest or waving it off as a metaphor. A metaphor for... something... mumble...

I am looking at the 3E definition of good and evil at the moment and I would say if offers a clear but simple definition of good and evil. It is all the general kind of principles you find most people agree are good things: altruism, respect for life, concern for the diginity of sentient life. Evil is described as being someone who debases or destroys innocent life. Implies hurting, oppressing, killing. It also suggests killing without qualms is evil or killing out of mere convenience.

I think they leave out specific instances of good and evil precisely because they know people will bring their own morals to the table.

The issue D&D alignment has never really clarified (and where I think it runs into problems) is when it is deemed okay to kill. Is it okay to kill orcs for existing because they are an evil race or do they need to pose an actual threat for it to be okay.

In most groups I've played with, walking into an orc camp for no reason and slaughtering them wouldn't be regarded as a good act by the players at the table. Killing orcs in war or self defense would be justifiable. But just seeking them out to kill them, wouldn't be. That said, I don't think any of the people I play with would take issue with a campaign based on killing and looting orc lairs.

QuoteYou can't derive what you should do in a specific instance from the existence of absolute good until you can explain what absolute good actually is. And since no one can actually do that, absolute morality isn't a justification for anything. It's just an excuse to yell at people who disagree with you.

-Frank

In fictional D&D world they do a pretty good job in my opinion of saying what absolute good is. In real life I think you can make a very strong case for what is good and what is evil (and it doesn't require a religious foundation to do so). If you can't do this, then that would make things like genocide as morally neutral as buying a loaf of bread (and I think no one here would reach that conclusion). And I don't think anyone here would regard passing judgment on people who commit genocide as just "yelling at people who disagree with you". It would also mean that during the civil rights movement Martin Luther King was just using his model of absolute morality to "yell at people who disagreed with him". To me this is just doesn't hold water.

Quote from: The Butcher;478089Aren't we all? I don't see a lot of adulterers getting stoned to death in Christian countries. I mean, it's in the Bible, right? :rolleyes:

And the reason is simple. Most christians aren't literalists anymore. The religion has evolved and our interaction with the text has developed alongside other advancements. That doesn't mean Christianity lacks a coherent moral framework. It just doesn't rely soley on a literal interpretation of the bible to construct that framework.

Quote from: The Butcher;478089Aren't we all? I don't see a lot of adulterers getting stoned to death in Christian countries. I mean, it's in the Bible, right? :rolleyes:

funny how a fair few would gladly stone gays though .....

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478088T You have people whose families have been here since the potato famine who still call themselves Irish. So some of these distinctions are not simply imposed on people but can also come from the fact that these groups still see themselves as different.

Awhile ago in the US, Indian (south Asian - Hindus, Sikhs etc) groups successfully lobbied to have their 'race' be reclassified from 'Caucasian' to 'Asian'.  This was to make Indian-owned businesses, of which there are many, eligible for government set-asides targetted at 'disadvantaged minorities'.  Ironic since both Indians and east-Asians in the US have higher per capita incomes than do whites.  Meanwhile Arabs, of course, are still 'white', so no minority preferences in government contracts.  And the black-owned  businesses for whom the disciminatory preferences were originally invented now have to compete for the government boondoggles with rivals whose owners' ancestors have often been successful businessmen for thousands of years.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478092And the reason is simple. Most christians aren't literalists anymore. The religion has evolved and our interaction with the text has developed alongside other advancements. That doesn't mean Christianity lacks a coherent moral framework. It just doesn't rely soley on a literal interpretation of the bible to construct that framework.

Eh, Jesus explictly said DON'T STONE THE ADULTERERS.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: S'mon;478104Eh, Jesus explictly said DON'T STONE THE ADULTERERS.  :rolleyes:

That is a good point. And I think most people extrapolate from Jesus words throughout the New Testament that many of the older laws had been effectively overturned or "clarified". My basic point is that for the most part most modern day christians (with some exceptions in the US) don't take the text so literally these days. Especially when the text conflicts with modern day assumptions about morality. So it is possible to be a Christian who doesn't view homosexuality as a sin, and not be a "cafeteria christian" because you understand the bible was a product of its own time.

Quote from: S'mon;478103Awhile ago in the US, Indian (south Asian - Hindus, Sikhs etc) groups successfully lobbied to have their 'race' be reclassified from 'Caucasian' to 'Asian'.  .

I think most americans still don't view Indians as Asian. My understanding is this is the case in places like UK and Australia, but here it was a big surpise to me when I heard someone refer to Indians as asians (I guess because I tend to think of asians as being from places like Vietnam, China and Korea).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478108I think most americans still don't view Indians as Asian. My understanding is this is the case in places like UK and Australia, but here it was a big surpise to me when I heard someone refer to Indians as asians (I guess because I tend to think of asians as being from places like Vietnam, China and Korea).

Could that be cos American's have fuck all idea about Geography

Oddly in the UK you would not refer to Chinese Koreans or Japanese as Asians as here Asian is used to refer to South Asians (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), and Oriental is used to refer to Chinese etc.

Of course Edward Said woudl refer you back to the Middle east being The orient in the Western Midset (well if he was still alive)

What the OP describes is basically a pure hack and slash game. I don't know about old published adventures or what have you, as I started playing in 3x, where the MM didn't define how many women in a group of orcs, and nobody used published adventures anyway. So what I've seen of these indiscriminate slaughter games is like what I've seen in videogames. There just plain aren't kids there, and everyone is an enemy combatant who fights to the death.

For my own games, I like intelligent and low-powered monsters to be playable (again, started with 3x, so all monstrous humanoids had player stats). Culturally ingrained (or circumstantially motivated) evil and an active military is all I need to make orcs "bad guys." And I need no special excuse for some orcs to be heroes, antiheroes, or whatever because individuals are individuals. If the players aren't dicks, the whole "women and children" thing doesn't have to be a problem. And as others have noted, this also broadens the possible solutions for problems involving orcs.

When I need unmitigated evil, I have demons, devils, mind flayers, undead, and too many others to count. Ghouls are my personal favorite, as they can be used from low levels in large numbers, and the cannibalism/contagion thing can be used to freak people out a little.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478110Could that be cos American's have fuck all idea about Geography

I am not going to defend american knowledge of geography. Our skill level there has been pretty well documented as poor (and when I did a little student teaching in college I was astounded by how little the students knew about geography--and these were history students).

But I don't think this comes from our understanding of geography. It comes from how americans view race. We don't look at race in geographical terms but in terms of appearance and skin color. So I think when an American thinks asian, he pictures someone who is Chinese or Japanese but not someone who is Indian.

QuoteOddly in the UK you would not refer to Chinese Koreans or Japanese as Asians as here Asian is used to refer to South Asians (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), and Oriental is used to refer to Chinese etc.

I didn't realize that. Here Oriental is pretty much regarded as a slur when used to describe people. My understanding is Asian americans object to the term because its opposite, occidental, isn't applied to non-asians. Sometimes you hear oldtimers use it. But mostly when an american says asian he is thinking the far east.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478108I think most americans still don't view Indians as Asian. My understanding is this is the case in places like UK and Australia, but here it was a big surpise to me when I heard someone refer to Indians as asians (I guess because I tend to think of asians as being from places like Vietnam, China and Korea).

Traditionally in the UK 'Asian' means you're from the subcontinent; Chinese aren't Asian they're 'Oriental', which doesn't have any derogatory connotation.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478112I am not going to defend american knowledge of geography. Our skill level there has been pretty well documented as poor (and when I did a little student teaching in college I was astounded by how little the students knew about geography--and these were history students).

Friendly American Girl, 1997:
"Where are you from?"

Me:
"Britain."

Friendly American Girl:
"You speak English so well.... Do they speak English there?"

Me:
"Mostly."

Quote from: S'mon;478113Traditionally in the UK 'Asian' means you're from the subcontinent; Chinese aren't Asian they're 'Oriental', which doesn't have any derogatory connotation.

Here oriental has become a word most people avoid. It isn't like using the N word but people definitely bristle if you use it to refer to a person. When I was kid I think it was still pretty much okay to use. But somewhere (maybe the late 80s or early 90s), it became something asian people (at least those born in the US) took issue with. I have some asian american friends and I know if I used the word oriental around them, they would view it as a slur. My wife is from Thailand though and she wouldn't really care (but she was tought British English not American English in school).