TheRPGSite

From the Killing in the name of Advancement thread on EnWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?635046-Killing-In-The-Name-Of-Advancement/page6&p=7405726&posted=1#post7405726), which in itself has some whopper statements even in the opening post, we get this lovely sentiment from Shidaku;

"I hate to suggest that there may indeed be forms of badwrongfun, but I raise some serious eyebrows and some of the ways people talk about games of "kill the orc". I find it strange that people can "have fun" in games that are about little more than killing as many other humanoids (of the wrong color of course) as possible. The fact that many fantasy races stem from stereotypes, exaggerations or mockeries of real people makes me raise eyebrows even further. Whether these people realize it or not, they are "having fun" essentially killing real people who are wearing a funny rubber mask, a rubber mask, I might add, placed on that real person by someone with a decidedly poor or warped view of those real people."

The thread raises the larger questions about the ethics of just killing evil things rather than trying to stop humanoids in non-murderous ways.

Thoughts on that theme in RPGs?

(https://i.imgur.com/BGgEYvd.jpg)

I've noticed a number of front page posts over there that are basically trolling. As the year long gap in my posting here suggests, I haven't been paying attention to online rpg forums for a while. Is this a recent trend?

Quote from: Mistwell;1036132Thoughts on that theme in RPGs?

That this is nothing new. That the ethical considerations of designated bad-guy races does not line up well with real-world ethics. That the very concept of "always evil" creatures that somehow have enough agency to be responsible for their actions from a moral perspective is a paradox that invites people to spin their philosophical wheels on it indefinitely. That the person who posted it probably doesn't take this seriously either, and is just looking to shake a hornets nest ('real people' being a pretty good tell, to my eyes). And of course the overall thought that it's a game, and it has as much meaning as you assign it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1036136That the very concept of "always evil" creatures that somehow have enough agency to be responsible for their actions from a moral perspective is a paradox that invites people to spin their philosophical wheels on it indefinitely.

I recall the convolutions that J.R.R. Tolkien went through over the nature and origin of orcs. I don't think he ever did come up with a satisfactory solution and was still tinkering with different ideas right up to the time of his death.

But then, we all know that JRRT was a racist murderer.:rolleyes:

My counterpoints are
a) things trying to kill you or you trying to kill things is a stressful form of learning. Experience points represent that. If you don't like the specific then just use a milestone award. Which amounts to the same things but in a neutral way. "Hey were are alive!" "Yay that is a fucking milestone for sure."

b) In the United States what foremost on many people minds as THE example is the contact between Europeans and native Americans. This is not a typical situation. In most cases there a long dragged out history between two neighboring cultures that are either peaceful or hostile because of "reasons". Gen A of the Mandars  decided some of the cattle of the Yodans was better off in their pasture. During the raid some Yodans were killed. Years laters Gen B of the Yodans want revenge for personal and economic loss so launches a raid against the Mandars. And that it just one specific interactions. When you add in trade, friendship, aniomosity, war, love and all the myriad forms of human interaction there are many paths where two cultures can wind up hating and despising one another.

c) As for orcs specifically one could treat like a human style cultural clash. Or add in some supernatural elements to explain why orcs are what they are. I opted for the latter for my Majestic Wilderlands. All non-human races except for the elves are humans mutated by the demons thousands of years ago. The orcs are particularly tragic example as they were altered so their aggression levels were shift to extreme human norms. Combined with the other altered trait meant that orcs as a culture are pretty much unable to co-exist with neighboring culture. Although individual orcs can be exceptions.

I think orcs should try being less evil if they don't want to be killed.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036145I think orcs should try being less evil if they don't want to be killed.

Nobody forced them into the Army of Evil. I saw the fuckers at the sign up line.

Quote from: estar;1036143My counterpoints are
b) b) In the United States what foremost on many people minds as THE example is the contact between Europeans and native Americans. This is not a typical situation. In most cases there a long dragged out history between two neighboring cultures that are either peaceful or hostile because of "reasons". Gen A of the Mandars decided some of the cattle of the Yodans was better off in their pasture. During the raid some Yodans were killed. Years laters Gen B of the Yodans want revenge for personal and economic loss so launches a raid against the Mandars. And that it just one specific interactions. When you add in trade, friendship, aniomosity, war, love and all the myriad forms of human interaction there are many paths where two cultures can wind up hating and despising one another.

Everything in bold sounds about like how it went down between Europeans/Americans and the Northern tribes. Spanish conquests were different, but still hardly atypical, having as much in common with Alexander's or Xerxes' conquests as they may have with anything else.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036147Everything in bold sounds about like how it went down between Europeans/Americans and the Northern tribes. Spanish conquests were different, but still hardly atypical, having as much in common with Alexander's or Xerxes' conquests as they may have with anything else.

What was atypical was the suddenness of contact.

Quote from: Mistwell;1036132From the Killing in the name of Advancement thread on EnWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?635046-Killing-In-The-Name-Of-Advancement/page6&p=7405726&posted=1#post7405726), which in itself has some whopper statements even in the opening post, we get this lovely sentiment from Shidaku;

"I hate to suggest that there may indeed be forms of badwrongfun, but I raise some serious eyebrows and some of the ways people talk about games of "kill the orc". I find it strange that people can "have fun" in games that are about little more than killing as many other humanoids (of the wrong color of course) as possible. The fact that many fantasy races stem from stereotypes, exaggerations or mockeries of real people makes me raise eyebrows even further. Whether these people realize it or not, they are "having fun" essentially killing real people who are wearing a funny rubber mask, a rubber mask, I might add, placed on that real person by someone with a decidedly poor or warped view of those real people."

The thread raises the larger questions about the ethics of just killing evil things rather than trying to stop humanoids in non-murderous ways.

Thoughts on that theme in RPGs?

That guy sounds insufferable and needs to get over himself. Tonight is my game name and my players are going to be killing lots of orcs. This Saturday is my daughter's game and she and her girlfriends are going to be killing orcs. But we actually play games and just don't talk about them on forums.

I think it's a positive thing that violent games get people exposed to violence in a participatory way, which eventually leads to us engaging violence instead of repressing or avoiding it. I think it's useful in various subtle automatic ways, even if it's just catharsis, but also when games get us to reflect a bit about what we're enjoying, and how power dynamics work, whose lives we consider precious and whose we don't, when we give or expect mercy, and other things.

And, yes, evil creatures invented for the purpose of having something morally unambiguous to kill, is ultimately one of those things that bears reflection.

Of course it's by no means a unique issue to games, but I think games engage us more powerfully because they put us actively in situations.

I find it pretty painful sometimes watching "monster hunter" TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Supernatural where there are monsters for hyper-casual killing who kill unnamed human characters all the time, but also there are other monsters (sometimes of the same species as the casually-killed ones) who are presented as good sympathetic people, and that's occasionally made a moral question, but then there are often sudden cases of evil humans or accidentally-killed humans or major sympathetic characters in danger and then suddenly there's supposedly a huge clear moral issue about killing humans, and/or breaking the law... sigh.

I think it's just another game preference setting, but one that most people don't tend to look at or consider terribly closely. Massacre the evil orcs isn't bad wrong fun in my book, but just a low setting on the "how much are we thinking about morality?" slider setting for a game.

Quote from: Mistwell;1036132From the Killing in the name of Advancement thread on EnWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?635046-Killing-In-The-Name-Of-Advancement/page6&p=7405726&posted=1#post7405726), which in itself has some whopper statements even in the opening post, we get this lovely sentiment from Shidaku;

"I hate to suggest that there may indeed be forms of badwrongfun, but I raise some serious eyebrows and some of the ways people talk about games of "kill the orc". I find it strange that people can "have fun" in games that are about little more than killing as many other humanoids (of the wrong color of course) as possible. The fact that many fantasy races stem from stereotypes, exaggerations or mockeries of real people makes me raise eyebrows even further. Whether these people realize it or not, they are "having fun" essentially killing real people who are wearing a funny rubber mask, a rubber mask, I might add, placed on that real person by someone with a decidedly poor or warped view of those real people."

The thread raises the larger questions about the ethics of just killing evil things rather than trying to stop humanoids in non-murderous ways.

Thoughts on that theme in RPGs?

There are Games and there is Reality. Know the difference.

Gosh, is it "Bullshit O'Clock" again?

This subject was not interesting 40 years ago.  It has not improved with age.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1036135I've noticed a number of front page posts over there that are basically trolling. As the year long gap in my posting here suggests, I haven't been paying attention to online rpg forums for a while. Is this a recent trend?

That Christopher Helton is quite a piece of work.

He follows up now with, "One of the biggest problems in today's society is that too many people believe that all preferences are equal. They're not.

Imagine if we took orcs out of the picture and replaced them with some IRL culture. Yes, it's still fantasy pretend I'll give you that, but it starts to beg the question of "Who would find a game centered around the idea that this IRL culture needs to be killed to be fun?" If we can ask that question, then we can ask the same question of "If we put a rubber mask on these guys, is killing them for fun now okay?""

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036133(https://i.imgur.com/BGgEYvd.jpg)

this is the best

Whiner contrives a reason to whine, no matter how silly. Business as usual on the web.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036145I think orcs should try being less evil if they don't want to be killed.

This is a really solid point.

Quote from: S'mon;1036163That Christopher Helton is quite a piece of work.

We have worked together before, I've gamed with him in Las Vegas. He's a good chap who means well, but I feel like he's dove a little too deep end of the leftist (fanatic) pool. He got super pissed at me when I tried to post a rebuttal to one of his social media posts on ENWorld. I suggested that maybe we shouldn't punish the accused before we have all the facts. In good "Witch Burning" fashion, he thought I was a dick for suggesting such a thing and the thread was ABRUPTLY closed. Too bad, I would have liked to have that debate.

We already had this thread.  (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35052-Anybody-up-for-discussing-whether-killing-goblin-children-is-evil-(AGAIN))It resulted in some awesome maggot-goblins, among other things.

Quote from: Mistwell;1036132From the Killing in the name of Advancement thread on EnWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?635046-Killing-In-The-Name-Of-Advancement/page6&p=7405726&posted=1#post7405726), which in itself has some whopper statements even in the opening post, we get this lovely sentiment from Shidaku;

I would like to kill Shidaku and take his stuff. But he's probably broke and living on unemployment benefits, and would have nothing to steal except his tentacle porn.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1036136That this is nothing new. That the ethical considerations of designated bad-guy races does not line up well with real-world ethics. That the very concept of "always evil" creatures that somehow have enough agency to be responsible for their actions from a moral perspective is a paradox that invites people to spin their philosophical wheels on it indefinitely. That the person who posted it probably doesn't take this seriously either, and is just looking to shake a hornets nest ('real people' being a pretty good tell, to my eyes). And of course the overall thought that it's a game, and it has as much meaning as you assign it.

Funfact.

Orcs in O and BX D&D were never allways evil. Moreso because there was no "evil" alignment. In OD&D they could also be neutral as per rules listing. And in BX they just tended to the bad behavior.

This screed of "killing orcs is racist!" has been around a few years now and it was as retarded then as it is now.

Orcs are goblins (see e.g. the Hobbit). Goblins are evil-doing spirits that people used to believe in. Tolkien just chose to make such spirits more in the flesh so to speak. I don't see the problem here.

Even if they were people, I actually don't see the problem, because we're talking, you know, games. Games have gotten more and more popular, while people have gotten less violent. Perhaps partially because of the games, and various other forms of (often violent) entertainment.

OK enough with the italics for today.

So I guess he wouldn't care much for Recon?

Anyhow, I probably tell it every time this comes up, but as a kid my mom wouldn't let us play cops and robbers or war but cowboys and Indians was okay.  Again, racially motivated genocide was fine but heroically defending your country or the legitimate enforcement of the law weren't :D

Tried to read through that thread but I had stop, I was getting strain from all the eye rolling it was inducing.

Seems to me someone can't (or won't) separate their politics from their game of elf mans.

The way to combat this is to point out that orcs are essentially Neanderthals and thus white people, therefore according to SJWs, it's okay to kill them, as white people are the only evil in this world.

I find it strange that people can "have fun" in games that are about little more than killing as many other humanoids (of the wrong color of course) as possible.

Really? I don't: people have fun in a lot of ways that I wouldn't enjoy, so I don't do those things. I don't see the appeal of Overwatch so I don't play it. I have friends that play all sorts of games I don't enjoy (and watch movies I don't like and probably read books I  don't like), but there's some overlap so we just play those games together.

The fact that many fantasy races stem from stereotypes, exaggerations or mockeries of real people makes me raise eyebrows even further.

Wait, what? What are goblins a stereotype, exaggeration, or mockery of? I did a lot of research on goblins (and plenty of other monsters) for my own RPG and I don't recall anything like that. Same for orcs and kobolds, so I'm just going to call bullshit on his claim of "many fantasy races" (though it's possible he believes that and for some reason thinks that's how most if not all gamers think).

Whether these people realize it or not, they are "having fun" essentially killing real people who are wearing a funny rubber mask, a rubber mask, I might add, placed on that real person by someone with a decidedly poor or warped view of those real people."

Yeah fuck context or intention: you're racist if some random guy on the internet says so, whether or not you're actually racist. Orcs aren't orcs, they're black people or whatever, even if you were actually just thinking of them as imaginary fantasy monsters in an imaginary game where people don't really die and you aren't actually casting spells (you know, like a normal person playing a game).

Sounds like shidaku is the one with the "warped view".

Also my players aren't racist: they'll kill anything that tries to kill them.

Shidaku's statement made me laugh:). Partially because I used to think the same (I also happen to know a guy who is racist, and explicitly makes the non-human races into human races analogues - so I have proof that some people are doing it exactly as he suspects).

Then I removed orcs and only made the attacking hordes just as white as the characters (or just as Asian as the characters, for wuxia games).
There was no difference in the violence levels, over years of time...
So I concluded that I can be calm about the people I play with.

However, the OP of the ENWorld thread really made me laugh with that statement;).

QuoteI think that I would have less of a problem with the systems that build advancement upon violence and killing, if there were more of an exploration of how these acts can impact the psychology of the characters, rather than just giving them an additional to hit bonus. If you've been in a fight in real life, you know that even when you win a fight your mind still works you over. Violence is not fun.

First, I like exploring how violence changes the characters. FFS, why do you think I fucking LOVE Unknown Armies:D?
OTOH, I've been in a fight a couple months ago. My conscience only objected to one thing.
"You didn't drop the opponent with the first shot. Why the hell don't you train more?"
So yeah, I felt guilty, and might change because of that. But that's angst that wouldn't probably count for the OP:p!

Quote from: JeremyR;1036208orcs are essentially Neanderthals

I was recently wondering whether anyone else was noticing that;)!
(Not commenting on the rest of your post, that I cut away. But this is pretty spot-on, IMO!)

Quote from: AsenRG;1036213I also happen to know a guy who is racist, and explicitly makes the non-human races into human races analogues

Are you saying that it's wrong I make my orcs have German names and speak in a really bad German accent? I mean, Lawful Evil and all...

"Gott im himmel, zese Rohrim fight like zer madmen!" I learned all my German from WWII Commando comics as a kid.

Elves are French, of course. Ooh la la.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036147Everything in bold sounds about like how it went down between Europeans/Americans and the Northern tribes. Spanish conquests were different, but still hardly atypical, having as much in common with Alexander's or Xerxes' conquests as they may have with anything else.

Except that Alexander and Xerxes weren't aided by a massive die-off of their opposition, caused by disease which ran well ahead of their armies.

I'll make a fantasy setting where all the fantasy ancestries are pacifist vegetarians who resolve cultural disputes through a UN Olympics of Arts and Crafts and Sex Orgies. Whoever is voted by committee as the most pleasing wins the titular title 'greater share of granola' -- on expectation that they are gratious enough to redistribute it back as the virtuous beings they are. The system's resolution mechanics will be based on construction paper crafts and slash fan fiction purple prose. :)

Who wants to Patreon my Kickstarter on the Tindr/Grindr webs? :p

Quote from: Kiero;1036219Except that Alexander and Xerxes weren't aided by a massive die-off of their opposition, caused by disease which ran well ahead of their armies.

Half a million Persian soldiers died of an unspecified plague during the invasion of Greece, and we know of a variety of diseases endemic to central Asia that may have been killing people off when Alexander invaded. We don't have a lot of records of Achaemenid Persia, though. But Arab conquests were certainly aided by the Plague of Justinian, and the bubonic plague gave the Mongols a leg up. The Spanish Empire was hardly the first to be aided by fortuitous weakening of the people they conquered (whether by disease or warfare)...this is the norm, not the exception, in history.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036229Half a million Persian soldiers died of an unspecified plague during the invasion of Greece, and we know of a variety of diseases endemic to central Asia that may have been killing people off when Alexander invaded. We don't have a lot of records of Achaemenid Persia, though. But Arab conquests were certainly aided by the Plague of Justinian, and the bubonic plague gave the Mongols a leg up. The Spanish Empire was hardly the first to be aided by fortuitous weakening of the people they conquered (whether by disease or warfare)...this is the norm, not the exception, in history.

True, but there's a subtle distinction between disease weakening armies, and wiping out native populations. The death rate in the Americas has been estimated at 90-95% of the native population. That's post-apocalyptic, where in Europe/Asia plagues were rarely so deadly.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1036161Gosh, is it "Bullshit O'Clock" again?

This subject was not interesting 40 years ago.  It has not improved with age.

Well, half the respondents here seem to have bitten right at that lure, swallowed hook line and sinker and are nibbling up the line like they are desperate to swallow the whole line, rod, and fisherman as well, so it is apparently still attractive.

Quote from: Omega;1036186Orcs in O and BX D&D were never allways evil. Moreso because there was no "evil" alignment. In OD&D they could also be neutral as per rules listing. And in BX they just tended to the bad behavior.

Yes, alignment as in team good v team bad, and y'know, being 'alignment' not 'genuine (proscriptive) moral attribute.'

Quote from: Dimitrios;1036135I've noticed a number of front page posts over there that are basically trolling. As the year long gap in my posting here suggests, I haven't been paying attention to online rpg forums for a while. Is this a recent trend?

Talien's posts are probably the worst in this respect but, frankly, ever since Morrus decided to dog whistle for "inclusiveness" the place has taken on a bit of a stench - changing the colour scheme to include purple will, of course, signify the end.

But Talien's posts are remarkable for deceptive headlines, a complete lack of understanding of the topic ("my ignorance is just as important as your expertise!"), and for dog whistling to his fellow travellers on the lunatic left. Of course, he generates traffic so Morrus keeps providing this self-described "communicator" with an online soapbox.

Quote from: Kiero;1036237True, but there's a subtle distinction between disease weakening armies, and wiping out native populations.

Athenian plague. Bubonic plague. Plague of Justinian. It's completely irrelevant to the comparison, though, so I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.

We also know so little about about epidemics prior to about the 3rd century AD that insisting we know they weren't a factor in conquests of 600 BC to 300 BC seems awfully pretentious.

I propose a rule:

First person to say orcs1 represent black people2 is a racist.

1. drow, Klingons, Kree, Ferengi, etcetera
2. Native Americans, Asians, Muslims, Jews etcetera

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036252Athenian plague. Bubonic plague. Plague of Justinian. It's completely irrelevant to the comparison, though, so I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.

We also know so little about about epidemics prior to about the 3rd century AD that insisting we know they weren't a factor in conquests of 600 BC to 300 BC seems awfully pretentious.

The Athenian plague only affected one city. The bubonic plague (which includes the Plague of Justinian, it was just another wave of the same thing) wiped out about a third of the population. Not over 90%.

Losing a third of your population is damaging (and can spark revolutions and major societal change), but is survivable. Losing 90%+ is crippling, that's civilisation-collapse level of loss, which is what was experienced by the civilisations in the Americas.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1036243Well, half the respondents here seem to have bitten right at that lure, swallowed hook line and sinker and are nibbling up the line like they are desperate to swallow the whole line, rod, and fisherman as well, so it is apparently still attractive.

People still argue on the internet about Star Wars versus Star Trek.  *shrug*

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036281People still argue on the internet about Star Wars versus Star Trek.  *shrug*

You should see the look on their faces when you tell them you haven't seen the latest movies nor have any intention of watching them. :D

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036281People still argue on the internet about Star Wars versus Star Trek.  *shrug*

Star Wars fans are allowed to be wrong.

Quote from: Kiero;1036279The Athenian plague only affected one city. The bubonic plague (which includes the Plague of Justinian, it was just another wave of the same thing) wiped out about a third of the population. Not over 90%.

 Losing 90%+ is crippling, that's civilisation-collapse level of loss, which is what was experienced by the civilisations in the Americas.

None of this is relevant to the point of comparison. Obsessing over a point of dissimilarity when somebody compares two things that have a point of similarity doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

Quote from: Mistwell;1036132From the Killing in the name of Advancement thread on EnWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?635046-Killing-In-The-Name-Of-Advancement/page6&p=7405726&posted=1#post7405726), which in itself has some whopper statements even in the opening post, we get this lovely sentiment from Shidaku;

"I hate to suggest that there may indeed be forms of badwrongfun, but I raise some serious eyebrows and some of the ways people talk about games of "kill the orc". I find it strange that people can "have fun" in games that are about little more than killing as many other humanoids (of the wrong color of course) as possible. The fact that many fantasy races stem from stereotypes, exaggerations or mockeries of real people makes me raise eyebrows even further. Whether these people realize it or not, they are "having fun" essentially killing real people who are wearing a funny rubber mask, a rubber mask, I might add, placed on that real person by someone with a decidedly poor or warped view of those real people."

The thread raises the larger questions about the ethics of just killing evil things rather than trying to stop humanoids in non-murderous ways.

Thoughts on that theme in RPGs?

Probably right.

If all you do in a game is kill a certain type of creature, then your PC is probably racist, as the PC discriminates against that creature, acts differently around that creature and probably ticks all the racist boxes, when racism is broadened to inlcude different creatures. Even if you have a religious or social duty to so it, that would still count.

It probably doesn't make the player racist but the PC, sure.

Now, the question perhaps shouldn't be "Does this make the PC racist?" but "Does it matter?" If I play a racist, is that particularly wrong? If an actor plays a racist character, is the actor wrong? To me, it is the same thing. Now, if I played a racist PC in every game I played, then I would have a problem as a player/person, but playing the occasional racist is not an issue, in the same way that playing a mass murderer, thief, hooligan or whatever is a problem.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036229Half a million Persian soldiers died of an unspecified plague during the invasion of Greece, and we know of a variety of diseases endemic to central Asia that may have been killing people off when Alexander invaded.

That's what happens when you piss off Apollo, the same thing happened in the seige of Troy.

Rangers are so racist in 1E AD&D that they get damage bonuses for their racism.

Dwarves are ALL racist. Every last one. Hence their combat bonuses.

Hang on. Is it racist to call an entire race racist?

Is this just silly?

Shall we just play Scrabble or is that ableist and non-inclusive to the dyslexics?

Quote from: Kiero;1036279The Athenian plague only affected one city. The bubonic plague (which includes the Plague of Justinian, it was just another wave of the same thing) wiped out about a third of the population. Not over 90%.

Losing a third of your population is damaging (and can spark revolutions and major societal change), but is survivable. Losing 90%+ is crippling, that's civilisation-collapse level of loss, which is what was experienced by the civilisations in the Americas.

Well the Aztecs would have ripped the hearts out of all those people at some point anyway, dying of smallpox was a far less horrific way to go, IMO.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036288None of this is relevant to the point of comparison. Obsessing over a point of dissimilarity when somebody compares two things that have a point of similarity doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

They weren't the same, which is what you purported. They weren't anything like the same, Alexander and Xerxes weren't kicking around the ruins of already-devastated civilisations, their opponents were still vital and very much in the fight.

The "point of similarity" as you call it are so distant from each other as to be a point of dissimilarity. The Spanish rolled over the Americas with ease because most of the people they might have fought were already dead. Alexander and Xerxes didn't have that luxury.

This is the population of central Mexico:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Acuna-Soto_EID-v8n4p360_Fig1.png)

Sharp fall, which it never really recovers from.

This is the population of the "Greek" part of Europe:

(https://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/graphs/gallagher_population_article/fig-3.jpg)

The Athenian plague doesn't even feature (probably too difficult to estimate on that scale), the Justinian plague causes a dip, the next round of bubonic plague another sharp fall, but every time the numbers recover and overshoot where they were.

Quote from: soltakss;1036294Probably right.

If all you do in a game is kill a certain type of creature, then your PC is probably racist, as the PC discriminates against that creature, acts differently around that creature and probably ticks all the racist boxes, when racism is broadened to inlcude different creatures. Even if you have a religious or social duty to so it, that would still count.

It probably doesn't make the player racist but the PC, sure.

Now, the question perhaps shouldn't be "Does this make the PC racist?" but "Does it matter?" If I play a racist, is that particularly wrong? If an actor plays a racist character, is the actor wrong? To me, it is the same thing. Now, if I played a racist PC in every game I played, then I would have a problem as a player/person, but playing the occasional racist is not an issue, in the same way that playing a mass murderer, thief, hooligan or whatever is a problem.

That's utterly laughable. Let's say my PC (and his whole party) lives in a city that is being deluged by orcs. The orc tribes have come together and united in a devoted effort to lay my city, my home, to waste. It's essentially a siege going on for years where the only enemies are orcs, so that's all I'm fighting. That makes my character a racist? Fighting for his (and the city's) survival makes him a racist? That's completely nonsensical. Would my character build up a hatred for orcs and hate them forever? Possibly, but with good reason. Did he start out that way? Not at all.

All of this overthinking and over analyzing over a FICTIONAL GAME and trying to compare it to or make it assimilate current social politics and trends is an utter waste of time and totally irrelevant. SJWs need to find something else to do or keep their nonsense to themselves. Nobody cares about your little crusade to make everyone think like you.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036281People still argue on the internet about Star Wars versus Star Trek.  *shrug*

And that's fine. I just think we should recognize that that is what this is. Everyone's sudden focus on SJW-ism or whatnot did not create this, it has been around since the beginning of the game. And I don't know the Enworld commentor, nor whether they truly believe what they say, but their actions are identical to a (likes-to-hit-hornets-nests-with-sticks style) troll who would laugh their asses off if they knew their post could cause catalepsy on not one, but two message boards.

Quote from: Krimson;1036285You should see the look on their faces when you tell them you haven't seen the latest movies nor have any intention of watching them. :D

The Orville is better than either of them in their modern incarnations anyway. :D

Quote from: Chris24601;1036324The Orville is better than either of them in their modern incarnations anyway. :D

I agree, not even joking.

All my D&D characters hate D&D elves because I hate D&D elves. I'm ok with orcs though. Some of my best friends ate in a half-orc restaurant once.

Quote from: Chris24601;1036324The Orville is better than either of them in their modern incarnations anyway. :D

I have no intention of watching that either. :D

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036346I agree, not even joking.

I think I like Orville better than STNG seasons 1 & 2! STNG season 3 was great though (Yesterday's Enterprise made me a Trek fan). :)

Quote from: JeremyR;1036208The way to combat this is to point out that orcs are essentially Neanderthals and thus white people, therefore according to SJWs, it's okay to kill them, as white people are the only evil in this world.

Orcs are cockney brits.

Quote from: S'mon;1036349I think I like Orville better than STNG seasons 1 & 2! STNG season 3 was great though (Yesterday's Enterprise made me a Trek fan). :)

STNG season one was bad enough that I essentially stopped watching Star Trek. No STNG, I lost it when they remade "The Changeling" yet again for the first episode, no DS(, a little Voyager, no movies after ST IV.  The new Trek movies are kind of fun. They are actually more like TOS than I think most people care to admit.

As for killing Orcs being racist, only if killing Chimpanzees in our world is racist. Orcs are an entirely different species (in my D&D worlds not even on the same family tree as humans).

Everyone who ever played any fantasy game is a racist!

So what? Who cares?

Don't argue with these fucks. Mock them without mercy.

Quote from: Krimson;1036285You should see the look on their faces when you tell them you haven't seen the latest movies nor have any intention of watching them. :D

That would be me. I saw the first NewTrek and the first NewWars. Thought Trek was horrible and Wars was at least ok. But zero interest in seeing more and glad I passed on the followup movies.

Quote from: soltakss;1036294Probably right.

If all you do in a game is kill a certain type of creature, then your PC is probably racist, as the PC discriminates against that creature, acts differently around that creature and probably ticks all the racist boxes, when racism is broadened to inlcude different creatures. Even if you have a religious or social duty to so it, that would still count.

If said race is constantly trying to wipe you off the map then sorry No. That is not being racist. That is defending yourself.

Quote from: Chris24601;1036324The Orville is better than either of them in their modern incarnations anyway. :D

They don't make Star Trek anymore.

Quote from: Omega;1036361That would be me. I saw the first NewTrek and the first NewWars. Thought Trek was horrible and Wars was at least ok. But zero interest in seeing more and glad I passed on the followup movies.

I may watch The Last Jedi when it comes out on Netflix. Maybe. There might be a few ounces of rum involved. That certainly helped me through Batman vs Superman. In fact I'm pretty sure rum was the reason I decided to watch it in the first place. :D

Quote from: Ulairi;1036364They don't make Star Trek anymore.

I am quite liking both Orville and Discovery.

The Expanse still is better that both however. Though it's not Star Trek :)

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036296Rangers are so racist in 1E AD&D that they get damage bonuses for their racism.

Dwarves are ALL racist. Every last one. Hence their combat bonuses.

Hang on. Is it racist to call an entire race racist?

Is this just silly?

What's silly is your definition of racist (and I know you're joking, but still, have to challenge it to reduce the chances that some jackass quotes you in his PhD paper.).

To be a racist, you have to have the belief of racial superiority which informs your negative actions towards a group.
Otherwise, negative actions towards a group is just bigotry, the problem with humans is, we're hardwired to be bigots, it's in our  tribal, primate nature.  The other problem with bigotry, is that as a word it has no punch, so SJW's have been redefining racism to include the other so that you can be labeled a racist for showing bigotry, and people picture you in an SS Uniform or KKK sheet.

So to look at your examples again:
Rangers are out there in the wilds, on the edge, defending their people against a never-ending tide of humanoids.  They've developed skills that make them great at killing humanoids.  Are they prejudiced against humanoids, hating them?  When taken under the context of their early appearances in D&D, Rangers had to be Good, so...maybe, maybe not.

Dwarves get combat bonuses, you could argue for the same reason, that's what they fight against.  If you pull from Tolkien sources, Dwarves certainly appear to be bigoted, if you pull from Warhammer sources, they certainly appear to be racist.

Elves of any type are really the racist ones, they believe they are better than anybody. :D

You say that but if you only knew what hobbits say behind our backs.

It's all "bigger" this and "bigger" that.

:eek:

Quote from: Chris24601;1036324The Expanse is better than either of them in their modern incarnations anyway. :D

Fixed your typo..... :D

Quote from: Mistwell;1036382I am quite liking both Orville and Discovery.

The Expanse still is better that both however. Though it's not Star Trek :)

Although years have passed, finally Mistwell and I agree on something again.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036274I propose a rule:

First person to say orcs1 represent black people2 is a racist.

1. drow, Klingons, Kree, Ferengi, etcetera
2. Native Americans, Asians, Muslims, Jews etcetera

Muslims and Jewish people are not a race...

You win a prize if you can spell ethnoreligious.

Quote from: jeff37923;1036391Fixed your typo..... :D

Agreed, The Expanse beats every sci-fi show to date.

Quote from: Graewulf;1036317That's utterly laughable. Let's say my PC (and his whole party) lives in a city that is being deluged by orcs. The orc tribes have come together and united in a devoted effort to lay my city, my home, to waste. It's essentially a siege going on for years where the only enemies are orcs, so that's all I'm fighting. That makes my character a racist? Fighting for his (and the city's) survival makes him a racist? That's completely nonsensical. Would my character build up a hatred for orcs and hate them forever? Possibly, but with good reason. Did he start out that way? Not at all.

In that scenario, the PC is fighting for their life and fighting a local danger. In this case, no, the PC is not racist. However, if the orcs go home and the PC spends the rest of their life hunting down and killing orcs, out of revenge, then that crosses the line into racism/speciesm.

What if my PC is a NE Assassin that just enjoys torturing orcs to death for kicks rather than a grudge or prejudice? Is that still racist or is that okay?

Take your time answering cos I'm just going to get some dice and roll this bad boy up.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036417What if my PC is a NE Assassin that just enjoys torturing orcs to death for kicks rather than a grudge or prejudice? Is that still racist or is that okay?

Take your time answering cos I'm just going to get some dice and roll this bad boy up.

My current character in my brother's campaign is a NE Githyanki Assassin. I got a bug up my butt to show that an evil character could be played in a group without the usual "stupid evil" tropes and using it as an excuse to be an asshole player.
I modeled the character heavily on Garak from Deep Space 9, and the concept of the outcast badguy who has to get along with the good guys because he need allies to help survive.

Quote from: Omega;1036361That would be me. I saw the first NewTrek and the first NewWars. Thought Trek was horrible and Wars was at least ok. But zero interest in seeing more and glad I passed on the followup movies.

I passed on all the SW movies after the first 6 (no matter how you number them), and have watched maybe one Trek movies and some series. No plans on continuing:).

Quote from: CRKrueger;1036383So to look at your examples again:
Rangers are out there in the wilds, on the edge, defending their people against a never-ending tide of humanoids.  They've developed skills that make them great at killing humanoids.  Are they prejudiced against humanoids, hating them?  When taken under the context of their early appearances in D&D, Rangers had to be Good, so...maybe, maybe not.

Last I remember from the rules, Rangers were good at killing stuff they've practiced hunting. There were also rules on what can be chosen to be Favoured Enemy, and studying them was called as a requisite to choosing a new type of Favoured Enemy.

QuoteDwarves get combat bonuses, you could argue for the same reason, that's what they fight against.  If you pull from Tolkien sources, Dwarves certainly appear to be bigoted, if you pull from Warhammer sources, they certainly appear to be racist.

I remember the phrase "ancestral combat techniques" from the rules explanation. Since when is that racist;)?

QuoteElves of any type are really the racist ones, they believe they are better than anybody. :D

No argument there:D!

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036417What if my PC is a NE Assassin that just enjoys torturing orcs to death for kicks rather than a grudge or prejudice? Is that still racist or is that okay?

Take your time answering cos I'm just going to get some dice and roll this bad boy up.

Just Orcs? Yep, racist.

Does it other kinds of creature? Not racist.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036417What if my PC is a NE Assassin that just enjoys torturing orcs to death for kicks rather than a grudge or prejudice? Is that still racist or is that okay?

Take your time answering cos I'm just going to get some dice and roll this bad boy up.

Sociopathy is always 'OK', as long as it's not racist.

Quote from: AsenRG;1036439I passed on all the SW movies after the first 6 (no matter how you number them), and have watched maybe one Trek movies and some series. No plans on continuing:).

As long as the one Star Trek movie was The Wrath of Khan, there's little to be gained from the rest IMO. (Some people claim later seasons of the Clone Wars are worthwhile, but I'm still scarred from my failed attempts to enjoy the first few episodes.)

Quote from: jeff37923;1036393Although years have passed, finally Mistwell and I agree on something again.

LOL too true. I figure we agree around once a year or so.  Well, more like we agree pretty often, I just tend to respond less often when I agree. Because "What Jeff Said" seems kinda silly sometimes.

Quote from: soltakss;1036415In that scenario, the PC is fighting for their life and fighting a local danger. In this case, no, the PC is not racist. However, if the orcs go home and the PC spends the rest of their life hunting down and killing orcs, out of revenge, then that crosses the line into racism/speciesm.

Ok, it crosses the line. So? Who cares? What difference does it make? It's happening in a FICTIONAL GAME. Are SJWs going to start a social network shit storm that "So-and-so's character in an RPG is a racist!"? LOL :rolleyes:

Quote from: Graewulf;1036476Ok, it crosses the line. So? Who cares? What difference does it make? It's happening in a FICTIONAL GAME. Are SJWs going to start a social network shit storm that "So-and-so's character in an RPG is a racist!"? LOL :rolleyes:

I dunno, no one I interact with suggests I'm a murderer for killing fantasy orcs. And I've never met anyone who qualifies as the "SJWs" who keep getting described here. The contingent that brings up politics to interfere with my gaming is mainly on this site*, and is the anti-"SJW" chorus.

* Well, I have avoided some sites due their dense & heavy moderation, social "correctness", and disallowance of griping about playstyles I can't stand. Well, on one site I did get a moderator warning (and censoring) recently for making a "political statement" by stating that the Galactic Empire in Star Wars was fascist. :rolleyes: WTF...

In my first reply to this thread, I think I showed that I take the idea of morality in games rather seriously and find the idea of looking at the thought patterns in games interesting... but I would never try to ban violent games or games with mindless massacre. And of course it would just be stupid-wrong to say someone who does is a "racist murderer".

Needlessly slaughtering prisoners or backstabbing your mercenaries so you don't have to pay them or wanting to play a vampire game where you farm blood slaves gets distasteful to me in games (or players) that take themselves seriously and expect people to treat the people who do it as sympathetic. But that's more of a continuity and authenticity issue to me than anything else, and not political at all.

Quote from: Skarg;1036463As long as the one Star Trek movie was The Wrath of Khan, there's little to be gained from the rest IMO. (Some people claim later seasons of the Clone Wars are worthwhile, but I'm still scarred from my failed attempts to enjoy the first few episodes.)

Try Star Wars Rebels.

Quote from: Graewulf;1036476Ok, it crosses the line. So? Who cares? What difference does it make? It's happening in a FICTIONAL GAME. Are SJWs going to start a social network shit storm that "So-and-so's character in an RPG is a racist!"? LOL :rolleyes:

Personally, as I mentioned before, I don't mind that a PC is racist. If all my PCs were racist, then, yes, that would be a concern, same way that if all my PCs were rapist-murderers.

I know someone who is completely anti-racist at all levels, but he played a racist PC. Well, his interpretation of the cultural background and cult was that the PC was probably racist, so he played it that way. He didn't like it particularly, but carried on as it seemed to fit.

Quote from: Skarg;1036463As long as the one Star Trek movie was The Wrath of Khan, there's little to be gained from the rest IMO. (Some people claim later seasons of the Clone Wars are worthwhile, but I'm still scarred from my failed attempts to enjoy the first few episodes.)

This is a wrong opinion. Star Trek VI is the best Trek movie.

Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1036507Try Star Wars Rebels.

Ok thanks, I'll give it a look.

Quote from: Ulairi;1036533This is a wrong opinion. Star Trek VI is the best Trek movie.

I feel your pain. Oh wait, that's V.

Quote from: soltakss;1036523Personally, as I mentioned before, I don't mind that a PC is racist. If all my PCs were racist, then, yes, that would be a concern, same way that if all my PCs were rapist-murderers.

I know someone who is completely anti-racist at all levels, but he played a racist PC. Well, his interpretation of the cultural background and cult was that the PC was probably racist, so he played it that way. He didn't like it particularly, but carried on as it seemed to fit.

My point is why do current social trends, social science, and politics have to be labeled, quantified, and assimilated into and/or with regard to a fictional game? It doesn't. I've played RPGs for 35 years and I can't recall a single instance where anyone's character was ever called a racist because of racial hatreds that were part of their race/culture in the game, so why is it becoming a big deal now? It shouldn't be.

Quote from: soltakss;1036449Just Orcs? Yep, racist.

Does it other kinds of creature? Not racist.

OTOH, if you're not an Orc, you probably prefer the anti-Orc racist to the nihilistic sadist torturer:). If you had to pick between the two, I mean. Obviously anyone sane and not power-hungry would rather stay away from anyone who would torture any life form capable of feeling pain...
(I'm fine with the "torture" of clay golems, yes).

Also, isn't torturing Orcs specieist, not racist?

And frankly, I'm fine with players of racist characters, until and unless I start suspecting that it's a trait they share OOC.

Quote from: Skarg;1036463As long as the one Star Trek movie was The Wrath of Khan, there's little to be gained from the rest IMO. (Some people claim later seasons of the Clone Wars are worthwhile, but I'm still scarred from my failed attempts to enjoy the first few episodes.)

I don't remember the title/number. Let's just say I wasn't as impressed as I was with the Dune movies.
The Dune movies that I think are a poor rendition of the depth of the novels, mind you;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1036542And frankly, I'm fine with players of racist characters, until and unless I start suspecting that it's a trait they share OOC.

So... it would bother you if the player is "racist" towards a fictional people? I've had players that despise elves (sometimes expressed in their characters, often not), and it just never mattered to me.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1036545So... it would bother you if the player is "racist" towards a fictional people? I've had players that despise elves (sometimes expressed in their characters, often not), and it just never mattered to me.

And t doesn't matter to him either.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1036545So... it would bother you if the player is "racist" towards a fictional people? I've had players that despise elves (sometimes expressed in their characters, often not), and it just never mattered to me.

I never said "towards a fictional people":).
The character can be racist towards orcs and goblins, or in the case of elves, towards all non-elves. The player can be racist, period, and use orcs and goblins as stand-by terms for real world people.
This is a mistaken approach, but it is not limited to SJWs, believe me.

All the racist players I've had loved elves and/or lizardmen, BTW;). And I've heard real life racists referring to certain minorities as "orcs", even though they weren't into RPGs to the best of my knowledge.

Quote from: AsenRG;1036566I never said "towards a fictional people":).
The character can be racist towards orcs and goblins, or in the case of elves, towards all non-elves. The player can be racist, period, and use orcs and goblins as stand-by terms for real world people.
This is a mistaken approach, but it is not limited to SJWs, believe me.

All the racist players I've had loved elves and/or lizardmen, BTW;). And I've heard real life racists referring to certain minorities as "orcs", even though they weren't into RPGs to the best of my knowledge.

I've lost track of if they thread is about racist players or racist characters. I have no problem with the latter. For game set in violent, more primitive and visceral times, hatred and contempt for other species, for other nationalities and ethnic backgrounds would be par for the course. Its doesn't mean the players are advocating those things or share them.  These are role playing games with some components taken from Acting and writing, a person playing out a role is not supporting that role.

AsenRG, I don't think you're suggesting anything against this, your post just brought these thoughts to mind.

A racist player (particularly one the brings their issues to the table/online venus) is another kettle. But, IMO, its up to the people involved to make their choice if they want to share their free time with that person. I wouldn't, barring some odd circumstances but its not my call to make for them.

I've also "orcs" used a racial slur but not by anyone not involved in gaming though. I don't think there is any intentional* message behind the nature of orcs or other non humans but it would be somewhat obtuse to ignore that a line can be drawn and ignore or decry that or that it can can give a negative impression to some especially those looking in from the outside or non Caucasian gamers.

I've only had a couple of non white players look askance and their issues where settled when they got more information. But the impression is possible, even if unintentional. If it comes up, I think its best address frankly sand directly by the people involved.

*Dogwhistles, innuendo and implication are real and it serves to really muddy the waters when assholes have co-opted role playing for their racist fantasies or racial preaching. I've seen it more in sci-fi/modern setting than fantasy but I have less personal experience. And its been individual games, not the industry as a whole or professional writers. Every occupation has assholes, '-isms' are prevalent enough that there's going to be some overlap in just about anything.

I hate Kender. I do not allow them in my games. If someone wants to play a halfling they have to sign a pledge to NOT be "Kender-like" or ish. Or ever anything Kender. Ever

On a serious note, I had a chap a few weeks ago, whilst we were making plans to form a new group who abruptly stated "Just for full disclosure I'm black". I laughed. I was honestly perplexed that something like this had to be stated. So he regales me a story of someone he met online, then talked to over the phone, and when they met the dude was shocked he was black. And expressed his shock uncomfortably for an uncomfortable amount of time with some inference that "had he known" they wouldn't be playing together.

It was disheartening, but I get the other side of the argument. I don't equate fantasy with reality. I think you can pretend to be a terrible person and still be a great person IRL. But I also get the frustration and demoralizing nature of actual racism and how having racism in a game could bring up those feelings. For me, it's about understanding my players and trying to make a fun environment. If everyone is game, and on the same page, we can focus on the make-believe and leave real-life out of it. If even for a few hours.

Quote from: Kiero;1036300They weren't the same, which is what you purported. They weren't anything like the same, Alexander and Xerxes weren't kicking around the ruins of already-devastated civilisations, their opponents were still vital and very much in the fight.

The "point of similarity" as you call it are so distant from each other as to be a point of dissimilarity. The Spanish rolled over the Americas with ease because most of the people they might have fought were already dead. Alexander and Xerxes didn't have that luxury.

This is the population of central Mexico:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Acuna-Soto_EID-v8n4p360_Fig1.png)

Sharp fall, which it never really recovers from.

This is the population of the "Greek" part of Europe:

(https://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/graphs/gallagher_population_article/fig-3.jpg)

The Athenian plague doesn't even feature (probably too difficult to estimate on that scale), the Justinian plague causes a dip, the next round of bubonic plague another sharp fall, but every time the numbers recover and overshoot where they were.

Proof that no matter what you say online some nerd will come by and out-nerd you. :p

Quote from: Kiero;1036300They weren't the same, which is what you purported. They weren't anything like the same, Alexander and Xerxes weren't kicking around the ruins of already-devastated civilisations, their opponents were still vital and very much in the fight.

The point of similarity was showing up on the doorstep of a very different civilization with little to no prior knowledge of its existence, more or less announcing (through a translator) you're now in charge, then mercilessly killing everyone who resists...which you missed because you're so incredibly impressed with yourself for knowing about smallpox. Alexander did this multiple times on his march to the Indus (there were lots of tribes between Persepolis and India that Alexander knew nothing of until he killed them down to the last man, woman, and child), and it seems the Persians did a bit of that as well. I'm sure some other empires did that as well, but I mentioned those two because they came immediately to mind for anyone who knows something other than the most boring online talking point in history that suddenly turned everyone into an expert on world military history ever since Cracked mentioned it.

So when you jumped in with "Except SMALLPOX," that was a nonsequiter. You sleepily half-read the conversation, and when somebody mentioned something you think you have VERY IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE about, you jumped in to blather about things everybody knows that weren't germane to the discussion, and demand people be impressed.

(Alexander's Macedonian phalangists also had a great deal in common with Spanish pikemen, both in tactics and motives.)

Quotethe Justinian plague causes a dip

Nobody would call a 25% population loss a mere "dip." But it's also irrelevant. The Arabs had known about the Greeks long before they conquered North Africa and the Levant. Because disease's role in conquest wasn't the point of comparison.

So it doesn't count as racism if the orcs die mostly from a plague we gave them?

"Hey DM, if my cleric casts cause disease just once, and it's communicable and infects and kills several million others, that won't trigger an alignment change, right?"

So long as I still get to butcher orcs horribly, I'm happy. Anything else is communism.

First of all, even though Tolkien said they ware a race and D&D insisted on doing the same, Orcs are not a different race, they are a different species and Tolkien's Orcs are a tragic people who have no chance for redemption and attack other hominids relentlessly. How anyone could avoid killing them and survive is a tough question.

I haven't had Orcs in my campaigns since I switched over from D&D in the mid-eighties but Goblins and Hobgoblins could be thought of the same way. Other GMs who run my rules do treat them as irredeemably evil and the game rules don't prevent that. I treat their evil as cultural and some individuals and even whole tribes are exceptions to their general nastiness. Just the other session, my players encountered a Goblin in a human town, a student of the Mage that they were consulting. They  have fought many Hobgoblins and Goblins and seen the results of a Goblin raid. However, they didn't attack him. He was clearly not a tribal raider.

it would not have been impossible for one of the characters to hate Goblins, given what they experienced and witnessed but none of them hated them enough to do anything about it under the circumstances.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036593The point of similarity was showing up on the doorstep of a very different civilization with little to no prior knowledge of its existence, more or less announcing (through a translator) you're now in charge, then mercilessly killing everyone who resists...which you missed because you're so incredibly impressed with yourself for knowing about smallpox. Alexander did this multiple times on his march to the Indus (there were lots of tribes between Persepolis and India that Alexander knew nothing of until he killed them down to the last man, woman, and child), and it seems the Persians did a bit of that as well. I'm sure some other empires did that as well, but I mentioned those two because they came immediately to mind for anyone who knows something other than the most boring online talking point in history that suddenly turned everyone into an expert on world military history ever since Cracked mentioned it.

So when you jumped in with "Except SMALLPOX," that was a nonsequiter. You sleepily half-read the conversation, and when somebody mentioned something you think you have VERY IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE about, you jumped in to blather about things everybody knows that weren't germane to the discussion, and demand people be impressed.

(Alexander's Macedonian phalangists also had a great deal in common with Spanish pikemen, both in tactics and motives.)

That's a meaningless "point of similarity", you've just described most empires expanding everywhere. The significant difference was the impact of disease, the fact that in the Americas 90-95% of the population died. Not merely a quarter to a third.

Considering this is apparently the "most boring online talking point in history", you certainly seem to have a lot of say, to keep trying to backpedal from the sweeping over-generalisation you made.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036593Nobody would call a 25% population loss a mere "dip." But it's also irrelevant. The Arabs had known about the Greeks long before they conquered North Africa and the Levant. Because disease's role in conquest wasn't the point of comparison.

It's a dip compared to an overwhelming majority of the population.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036432an evil character could be played in a group without the usual "stupid evil" tropes

Agreed, absolutely. OTOH, evil as "broody Goth but otherwise Neutral" misses the point entirely. IMHO, with or without alignment, a character whose player describes as "evil" should be a fundamentally bad person. Not a bit edgy or selfish. A proper see-you-next-Tuesday in action and word. Depending on your variety of evil (CE, NE, LE) he/she may indulge in betrayal, slavery, torture, diabolism, and should not show the slightest regard for innocent people.

btw I was not serious about rolling up that assassin character. I was being facetious.

Quote from: soltakss;1036449Just Orcs? Yep, racist.

Does it other kinds of creature? Not racist.

Oh, well in that case he better get his shiggles from torturing and killing all sorts of humanoids, otherwise he may not just be a sadistic psycopath but a racist sadistic psycopath.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1036452Sociopathy is always 'OK', as long as it's not racist.

;):D

This is an interesting conundrum. Until now, I as a GM have generally ruled that it was not the prejudice per se, but rather what the PC would do about their prejudice that would determine their whether that character was good or evil.

For example, a LG dwarf who warns "never trust an elf" (e.g. Gimli) and who may learn to trust elves once/if the elves prove his prejudices wrong, is still allowed to be good. Conversely, Jon Irenicus' hatred of elves (self-hating elf) had no limits and led him to commit murder, toture and attempt genocide. So, yeah NE as described.

However, if we assume prejudice is evil  and not just a character flaw, then, since the PHB specifically allows for the playing of evil PCs, a player choosing to play a character whose alignment is LE,NE,or CE has license to be racist, sexist or intolerant in whatever way he/she chooses. In that case the player can go ahead and play a LE cleric of the Goddess Hestia  and campaign against gay marraige and adoption by gay couples while being perfectly consistent with the SJWs point of view.

I personally support gay marraige IRL but were I to be told by the GM that prejudice was by definition evil, I would be curious as to their reaction should somebody play the character mentioned above.

For a sly player, the oppotunities are endless: one of the big disadvantages of playing an evil character is that you are required to do evil things and that can earn you a bad reputation and/or bring you into conflict with society's authority. Under the interpretation that "prejudice means evil," a player who would like to play a Blackguard for the kewl powers but would rather not lead armies of orcs and undead, may conveniently play the character as a neutral knight provided that he "just can't stand redheads".

Hilarious.

Oh, and another point of similarity I had in mind is the Spanish, Persians, and Macedonians (and now we can throw the Arabs and Turks in as well) had an idea of their conquests being a divinely appointed mission. Roman, British, and French conquests didn't have nearly the religious dimension. Alexander arguably less so at first, but by the time he took over Persepolis, he was really cottoning to the idea of himself as god-king and was starting to issue edicts in a divine voice the way Persian kings from Xerxes to Darius III did.

There are obvious dissimilarities (and no, the key dissimilarity between Spanish Catholicism and whatever you want to call Alexander's religion is not smallpox), but that's an interesting dimension to pick up.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036615Agreed, absolutely. OTOH, evil as "broody Goth but otherwise Neutral" misses the point entirely. IMHO, with or without alignment, a character whose player describes as "evil" should be a fundamentally bad person. Not a bit edgy or selfish. A proper see-you-next-Tuesday in action and word. Depending on your variety of evil (CE, NE, LE) he/she may indulge in betrayal, slavery, torture, diabolism, and should not show the slightest regard for innocent people.

Sure. But is a character who is willing to kill, enslave, torture, etc, but simply never "gets around to it" evil?

Quotebtw I was not serious about rolling up that assassin character. I was being facetious.

I know. I just took the opportunity to talk about my character concept. :)

QuoteThis is an interesting conundrum. Until now, I as a GM have generally ruled that it was not the prejudice per se, but rather what the PC would do about their prejudice that would determine their whether that character was good or evil.

However, if we assume prejudice is evil  and not just a character flaw, then, since the PHB specifically allows for the playing of evil PCs, a player choosing to play a character whose alignment is LE,NE,or CE has license to be racist, sexist or intolerant in whatever way he/she chooses. In that case the player can go ahead and play a LE cleric of the Goddess Hestia  and campaign against gay marraige and adoption by gay couples while being perfectly consistent with the SJWs point of view.

I'm also running a solo campaign for my brother when he's not DMing. I've come up with a religious sect, set in Greyhawk, that believes the gods are all demons manipulating the masses, and that sorcerous magic, and clerical magic of other religions are evil.
It's not that this faction is "evil" so much as prejudiced. Does this justify their actions? That's the kind of scenarios I'm setting this up for.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1036599So it doesn't count as racism if the orcs die mostly from a plague we gave them?

"Hey DM, if my cleric casts cause disease just once, and it's communicable and infects and kills several million others, that won't trigger an alignment change, right?"

So long as I still get to butcher orcs horribly, I'm happy. Anything else is communism.

It depends on whether your cleric knows about the Magical Contagion Theory of Disease or if Fantasy Louis Pasteur hasn't been born yet.

I can think of a number of ways to turn this argument on its head.

Why not play a campaign where the party really are murderous hobos who butcher innocent orcs? Since we are racist murderers, we might as well own up to it. Better yet, replace the orcs with humans of every race and creed. We might as well be indiscriminate about who we slaughter since it gives us more targets.

Why not play a campaign where the party are good orcs heroically seeking revenge against the evil humans for the slaughter of their tribe by butchering every human village in their path? Sure, it does not actually fix anything but it sure is cathartic, right?

Why not introduce leonorks, from Children of the Planes by Tangent Games, as the good orcs? We already have drow as the evil elves.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036624Oh, and another point of similarity I had in mind is the Spanish, Persians, and Macedonians (and now we can throw the Arabs and Turks in as well) had an idea of their conquests being a divinely appointed mission. Roman, British, and French conquests didn't have nearly the religious dimension. Alexander arguably less so at first, but by the time he took over Persepolis, he was really cottoning to the idea of himself as god-king and was starting to issue edicts in a divine voice the way Persian kings from Xerxes to Darius III did.

There are obvious dissimilarities (and no, the key dissimilarity between Spanish Catholicism and whatever you want to call Alexander's religion is not smallpox), but that's an interesting dimension to pick up.

Alexander's "religion" didn't even survive him. None of his immediate successors (with the possible exception of the Greek Eumenes - who had a thing of pretending the dead king was present when ordering his Makedonian officers around) made any play of it. The only "mission" any of them claimed was either being the rightful heir to the king, or else protectors of the rightful king(s). They were all about the power and the spoils. The latter was especially important for keeping the veterans on-side (who carted most of theirs around with them in their baggage).

His whole dream of a grand fusion of Makedonian and Persian peoples shrivelled to nothing when he died as well. Even the goal of universal empire, of holding everything he'd won by the spear, disappeared with Demetrios a generation later. Never mind that the supposed empire Alexander built was paper-thin. He won some battles and left the tedious business of actually managing conquered territories to someone else so he could move on to the next exciting thing. Half the time he restored a native satrap to run things, who just carried on as though he'd never whirled through with his armies, once things settled down. For many ordinary people, they'd have noticed almost no change whatsoever, only the people at the very top of society changed.

Alexander's conquests weren't even like the Persian ones, never mind being nothing like the Spanish.

And again, Alexander didn't have the way helpfully prepared for him by disease wiping out most of the population.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1036599So it doesn't count as racism if the orcs die mostly from a plague we gave them?

If it wasn't done intentionally? Then no. Racism requires mens rea.

Also those stories about giving the native Americans small pox infested blankets? It's a myth (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext).

I must have missed the D&D modules:

SJW1 The Log Cabin On The Borderlands
SJW2 Against The Cult Of The Aztecs
SJW3 The Lost Caverns Of The Inca

I'm not sure why any of this is relevant to killing orcs.

Quote from: Mistwell;1036688If it wasn't done intentionally? Then no. Racism requires mens rea.

Also those stories about giving the native Americans small pox infested blankets? It's a myth (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext).

Well your source takes apart a specific lie by lying liar Ward Churchill of the US Army giving smallpox blankets to the natives in 1836/37 (he gets the date of the epidemic wrong too), but also says

First, Churchill addresses the Lord Amherst affair of 1763, in which there is compelling evidence that British colonial forces distributed smallpox-infested goods to Indians in New England.

So apparently it did happen at least once.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036635Sure. But is a character who is willing to kill, enslave, torture, etc, but simply never "gets around to it" evil?

In the same way that a Paladin is willing to protect, rescue and donate but simply never "gets around to it" is good.:D

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036635I know. I just took the opportunity to talk about my character concept. :)

It does sound fun and an intelligent take on the alignment.:cool:

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036635I'm also running a solo campaign for my brother when he's not DMing. I've come up with a religious sect, set in Greyhawk, that believes the gods are all demons manipulating the masses, and that sorcerous magic, and clerical magic of other religions are evil.
It's not that this faction is "evil" so much as prejudiced. Does this justify their actions? That's the kind of scenarios I'm setting this up for.

Now THAT I would love to play in. :cool: The concept I would want to play would be a monk dedicated to the eradication of magic and false divinities. To counter their infernal and sorcerous powers, he works by stealth, deception and assasination. Kinda like the Mongoose game  with RQ rules called Deus Vult.:cool:

Your brother's a lucky guy.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036643I can think of a number of ways to turn this argument on its head.

Why not play a campaign where the party really are murderous hobos who butcher innocent orcs? Since we are racist murderers, we might as well own up to it. Better yet, replace the orcs with humans of every race and creed. We might as well be indiscriminate about who we slaughter since it gives us more targets.

Why not play a campaign where the party are good orcs heroically seeking revenge against the evil humans for the slaughter of their tribe by butchering every human village in their path? Sure, it does not actually fix anything but it sure is cathartic, right?

Why not introduce leonorks, from Children of the Planes by Tangent Games, as the good orcs? We already have drow as the evil elves.

It seems a similar idea has popped up on the other SJW thread.:cool:

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38858-The-Insipid-Racism-of-D-amp-D-SJWs/page42

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036635But is a character who is willing to kill, enslave, torture, etc, but simply never "gets around to it" evil?

Chaotic Slacker.

Quote from: Kiero;1036645And again, Alexander didn't have the way helpfully prepared for him by disease wiping out most of the population.

OTOH, the end of Alexander's conquests had a lot to do with disease:D!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036635Sure. But is a character who is willing to kill, enslave, torture, etc, but simply never "gets around to it" evil?

A lot of my characters have gotten around to it:).
A lot of my characters have also gotten around to serving, protecting and saving people.
Sometimes those are the same characters. Because people are more complicated than paladins would like them to be:p!

Quote from: CarlD.;1036570I've lost track of if they thread is about racist players or racist characters. I have no problem with the latter. For game set in violent, more primitive and visceral times, hatred and contempt for other species, for other nationalities and ethnic backgrounds would be par for the course. Its doesn't mean the players are advocating those things or share them. These are role playing games with some components taken from Acting and writing, a person playing out a role is not supporting that role.

Agreed on all accounts! I'm just saying that when a player keeps playing only these, it's time to make some OOC inquiries.
I've played anything from abusive pimps, assasins, slavers and corrupt generals to superheroes and paladins (who just didn't get powers for it). If we count the NPCs I've played as a GM, it gets worse.
I'm not a single of these things;).

QuoteAsenRG, I don't think you're suggesting anything against this, your post just brought these thoughts to mind.

I'm glad to provide food for thought while I'm still here;).

QuoteA racist player (particularly one the brings their issues to the table/online venus) is another kettle. But, IMO, its up to the people involved to make their choice if they want to share their free time with that person. I wouldn't, barring some odd circumstances but its not my call to make for them.

We didn't want to, either. Well, one of them was trying to hide it, and wasn't talking politics...so I let him play to the end of the campaign, several sessions later. He knew not to reapply for the next session:).
Of course, at least one of the guys who got booted for racism is a GM as well, and published a book where the elves were racist bastards... so I doubt he has stopped playing.

QuoteI've also "orcs" used a racial slur but not by anyone not involved in gaming though.

AFAIK not involved in gaming. In many cases, I simply don't have information.

QuoteI don't think there is any intentional* message behind the nature of orcs or other non humans but it would be somewhat obtuse to ignore that a line can be drawn and ignore or decry that or that it can can give a negative impression to some especially those looking in from the outside or non Caucasian gamers.

I've only had a couple of non white players look askance and their issues where settled when they got more information. But the impression is possible, even if unintentional. If it comes up, I think its best address frankly sand directly by the people involved.

*Dogwhistles, innuendo and implication are real and it serves to really muddy the waters when assholes have co-opted role playing for their racist fantasies or racial preaching. I've seen it more in sci-fi/modern setting than fantasy but I have less personal experience. And its been individual games, not the industry as a whole or professional writers. Every occupation has assholes, '-isms' are prevalent enough that there's going to be some overlap in just about anything.

Agreed on this account as well. Except I've never had people questioning my orcs.
Of course, I usually use humans-only settings. When I reworked Aragos in the setting of Erisa (Legends of Steel) to be like Spain during the Reconquista, I mentioned it explicitly. The players were fine with the Sikkar being more inspired by moros, and less by Native Americans, as in the "default" setting;).

On a more serious note, the SJW garbage has a tiny kernel of truth. If you will allow me to reference discredited psychology, orcs are more accurately described as shadow archetypes than a metaphor for non-white people. (Although they could easily stand-in for any race depending on who is telling the story.) They represent everything we hate and fear about ourselves as a species, but secretly desire and admire.

That is why orcs are generally depicted as war-like, tribal, misogynistic, etc, but are also fetishized at different times as excessively masculine, rugged survivors, amazonian, idiot savants, etc.

You will notice drow get a similar treatment. While officially evil, it is clear that most gamers have the hots for drow.

Killing orcs and drow is carthartic because it allows us to delude ourselves as being morally upright, up until we open our orc and drow drawn porn stash.

SJWs only see the surface and think malicious racism, rather than the much more complicated and disturbing truth of the matter.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036776On a more serious note, the SJW garbage has a tiny kernel of truth. If you will allow me to reference discredited psychology, orcs are more accurately described as shadow archetypes than a metaphor for non-white people. (Although they could easily stand-in for any race depending on who is telling the story.) They represent everything we hate and fear about ourselves as a species, but secretly desire and admire.

Let me just say that I see a reason why this psychology is discredited;).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036776SJWs only see the surface and think malicious racism, rather than the much more complicated and disturbing truth of the matter.

SJWs think every ethnic conflict in all of human history is one group going "HURRRRR I DONT LIKE THE WAY YOU LOOK I KILL YOU NOW DURRRRRR" and picking up arms against a peaceful people who did nothing at all.

Quote from: AsenRG;1036771Agreed on all accounts! I'm just saying that when a player keeps playing only these, it's time to make some OOC inquiries.
I've played anything from abusive pimps, assasins, slavers and corrupt generals to superheroes and paladins (who just didn't get powers for it). If we count the NPCs I've played as a GM, it gets worse.
I'm not a single of these things;).

I can see that ringing some alarm bells,yes. I've gotten to the same point but it was over other issues than racism. It would have be pretty egregious and/or making other players uncomfortable. I admit its a "know it when I see it" definition which isn't satisfactory for many.

QuoteAFAIK not involved in gaming. In many cases, I simply don't have information.

Got it, I was just comparing experiences.

QuoteAgreed on this account as well. Except I've never had people questioning my orcs.
Of course, I usually use humans-only settings. When I reworked Aragos in the setting of Erisa (Legends of Steel) to be like Spain during the Reconquista, I mentioned it explicitly. The players were fine with the Sikkar being more inspired by moros, and less by Native Americans, as in the "default" setting;).

Would you say that you encounter more tensions along these lines in fantasy/history/pesudo historical settings or modern/future settings?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036145I think orcs should try being less evil if they don't want to be killed.

Sort of like beligerents resisting the cops of today. Cause and effect, go figure.

Not really, no.

I don't know what's worse: the affected hand-wringing over a non-existent race in a niche hobby or the doubling-down by the other side.

For God's sake, orcs do not resemble any ethnicity in the real world. Neither are they analogous to one, either.

If anybody chooses to make them resemble a particular ethnicity or decides to draw an analogy, then that is up to them and has nothing to do with anybody else.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036804I don't know what's worse: the affected hand-wringing over a non-existent race in a niche hobby or the doubling-down by the other side.

I would say that 'what's wors[t]' is the online fretting that somehow this is a big deal that suddenly needs to be addressed, when in fact this is just a minor little bit of philosophical wheel spinning that has been happening since the hobby started, and that gaming tables out in the real world are in fact continuing to play without this being a big concern just as they always have.

Depicting the hobby as something intrinsically racist is something that I feel should be opposed not only for the sake of the people who play it but also because it undermines the struggle agaisnt genuine racism.

IOW it's not only a false accusation but also a cry of wolf.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036804For God's sake, orcs do not resemble any ethnicity in the real world. Neither are they analogous to one, either.

If there's an argument to be made about Tolkein's orcs, it would be a discussion of classism, not racism. They're clearly more analogous to the urban poor than to a specific ethnicity.

Indeed in Warhammer and in Peter Jackson's films, they were given working class cockney accents.

As a person born into a British working class family, I see nothing analogous, nor do I wish to encourage any such analogy.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1036790SJWs think every ethnic conflict in all of human history is one group going "HURRRRR I DONT LIKE THE WAY YOU LOOK I KILL YOU NOW DURRRRRR" and picking up arms against a peaceful people who did nothing at all.

Funny how I've never met these SJWs that the anti-SJW chorus seems to be plagued with, and how the anti-SJW chorus seem to complain and demonize SJWs rather like you say they demonize others... only the anti-SJW chorus is the side I actually experience making lots of noise on gaming forums (though again, I tend to not even read forums that are too annoyingly moderated, and I don't like any WotC games so I don't read their forums either - I take it you folks are referring to actual people on other game forums?).

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036804Not really, no.

I don't know what's worse: the affected hand-wringing over a non-existent race in a niche hobby or the doubling-down by the other side.

For God's sake, orcs do not resemble any ethnicity in the real world. Neither are they analogous to one, either.

If anybody chooses to make them resemble a particular ethnicity or decides to draw an analogy, then that is up to them and has nothing to do with anybody else.

Orcs have never intentionally been modeled after a particular ethnicity (except in the Warcraft movie, where the studio made an intentional decision for all orcs to be played by black actors, and all other characters by white actors), but they do often resemble stereotypes of certain groups.

For example, orcs are often depicted using stereotypes about tribal groups in both positive and negative ways. The negative portrayal typical of D&D resembles the worst propaganda used to justify the genocide of indigenous people such as the American First Nations or Australian Aboriginals. The positive portrayal typical of Warcraft falls the other direction into the noble savage stereotype. While I doubt the resemblance is intentional, it can come across as insensitive to actual tribal peoples across the world. This is a problem inherent to all fictional cultures that are loosely modeled after stereotypes of real cultures, if care is not taken to depict the fictitious culture as having actual depth.

That was actually a big problem with Game of Thrones that took me right out of the story. The Dothraki, who are human (played by a rag-tag bunch of actors of various skin colors), are portrayed in a way that is completely at odds with any society that has existed in history on Earth and generally resembles the orcs of D&D. The Dothraki believe agriculture and construction is satanic, they always have sex in public, murder is common and normalized, women are treated as chattel, they destroy everything in their path, have no sense of tactics or warcraft, etc. They are not remotely believable as a culture.

In Tolkien's own fiction, the orcs (and their human allies) seemed to have been inspired by his own experiences with the nazis and the ottoman turks. Tolkien himself recognized this and could never accept the idea that anyone (including orcs) was beyond redemption due to his Catholic beliefs.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036809Depicting the hobby as something intrinsically racist is something that I feel should be opposed not only for the sake of the people who play it but also because it undermines the struggle agaisnt genuine racism.

IOW it's not only a false accusation but also a cry of wolf.

The hobby is intrinsically violent, since the typical party is a band of murderous hobos. That can be said of most media, actually. Almost all humanoids, the typical target of murderous hobos, are guys in makeup or fursuits wearing tribal getup. The barbarian character class, depending on the player's preferences, is some variety of scotsman, viking, native american or other tribal/clannish ethnic group in history or present time. The rogue/thief/assassin/whatever class has the whole shtick of literally being a lifetime criminal. Women are constantly fetishized in the artwork, such as boob plate or scantily clothing.

I can understand complaints about how the art design and writing are somewhat exclusionist (drow being cursed with black skin, a la the "curse of Ham" historically used to denigrate black people, then being excessively fetishized by gamers as a weird matriarchal BDSM mafia), rely on lazy stereotypes (humanoids being depicted in faux tribal getup as shorthand for EEEVIL!), and are inherently focused around anti-social activities like violence and looting, but the game is not intentionally promoting racist attitudes. I would argue that it promotes racial harmony, if very clumsily, since the typical party consists of characters of different races who fulfill different vital roles.

Really, I think we should just be honest that the game is a vehicle for our fantasies and that our fantasies are really twisted. Let's cut to the heart: as human beings, we want to kill other human beings. That is nothing to be ashamed of and we should own up to it. D&D is a game where you kill other people in order to loot their corpses and advance yourself, except that you dress it up as heroic and moral by painting them as evil orcs who deserved it because you are a scared little baby who cannot accept the truth that you love violence for its own sake.

Discard your pretensions and delusions of morality! Play evil campaigns as the default. I guarantee that a campaign where the party are literally murderous hobos who butcher villages with impunity will be vastly more entertaining and cathartic than those lame goody-two-shoes campaigns where paladins mow down orcs with impunity. Orcs are just humans in makeup, so why equivocate?

But seriously, the hobby could stand to become more inclusionist. Rather than doing something silly like depicting women wearing practical armor, we should depict men in equally impractical outfits that do more to emphasize their crotch and ass than actually protect anything. It is fantasy after all, so we might as well go the whole hog with regards to diverging from reality.

This PSA brought to you by the warriors of Khorne. Blood for the blood god! Skulls for the skull throne! Milk for the corn flakes! Black crusade when?!

Quote from: Kiero;1036814If there's an argument to be made about Tolkein's orcs, it would be a discussion of classism, not racism. They're clearly more analogous to the urban poor than to a specific ethnicity.

Revisionist Tolkien fanfiction like Morlindale, The Last Ringbearer, The Black Book of Arda, and Bright got a lot of mileage out of this.

Quote from: Skarg;1036822Funny how I've never met these SJWs.

Adam Koebel and Jeremy Crawford

Quote from: Skarg;1036822Funny how I've never met these SJWs that the anti-SJW chorus seems to be plagued with, and how the anti-SJW chorus seem to complain and demonize SJWs rather like you say they demonize others... only the anti-SJW chorus is the side I actually experience making lots of noise on gaming forums (though again, I tend to not even read forums that are too annoyingly moderated, and I don't like any WotC games so I don't read their forums either - I take it you folks are referring to actual people on other game forums?).

Take a look at the board-game side of the hobby. SJWs had Five Tribes change its components (https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/40219/five-tribes-revised-slaves-are-out-fakirs) because they dared have slaves (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1225866/days-wonder-responds-slave-controversy) as a component of the game. They exist and they have material impact on gaming.

I don't know about you folks, but I don't like being falsely accused of participating in an intrinsically racist hobby.

In fact, on reflection, I think I would like to tell everybody who makes such an defamatory accusation to fuck off, keep fucking off until they get to a wall saying "no fucking off beyond this point", then climb the wall and fuck off some more.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036824Adam Koebel and Jeremy Crawford

Yeah I don't know who they are. Googling... oh Adam is the fellow people were complaining about on one of these threads for being annoying in a video... LOL he's a "Twitch Star" and I don't know what Twitch is, an he co-made Dungeon World, which from what I've heard about it and the core system PbtA, uses a playstyle I can see being interesting to me as an experiment but one I don't want to use, so I've avoided those games too.

Let's see Jeremy Crawford... is a WotC D&D rules designer, and I've read enough about 4e and 5e to know I don't want to play those and find their popularity annoying and avoid them.

I guess I just know how to mostly pick my games and players to avoid things that annoy me. But I gather there is much annoyance to be had out there.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036826I don't know about you folks, but I don't like being falsely accused of participating in an intrinsically racist hobby.

In fact, on reflection, I think I would like to tell everybody who makes such an defamatory accusation to fuck off, keep fucking off until they get to a wall saying "no fucking off beyond this point", then climb the wall and fuck off some more.

Very much agreed and seconded.

Quote from: Skarg;1036827I guess I just know how to mostly pick my games and players to avoid things that annoy me. But I gather there is much annoyance to be had out there.

The first is co-author of Dungeon World and the second is co-author of Blue Rose. and Lead Rules Designer for Wizards of the Coast.

There is no reason why you should be interested in those games, but they are clearly major titles.

 I suppose you might not even have been interested in this thread.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1036825Take a look at the board-game side of the hobby. SJWs had Five Tribes change its components (https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/40219/five-tribes-revised-slaves-are-out-fakirs) because they dared have slaves (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1225866/days-wonder-responds-slave-controversy) as a component of the game. They exist and they have material impact on gaming.

That's an interesting example, and I think the cry to remove Slave cards seems somewhat backwards to me, as it actually seems to me to generally better to include ugly historical things in games than to cover them up. I don't really agree with the desire of some parents to or players to cover up or avoid subjects they're uncomfortable with. In that example, of course, it's a cutesy card game with cartoon-style art and gameplay so abstract that they could just rename Slaves to Fakirs and not change the mechanics at all. And, the decision seems to be about wanting to maintain a [politically-incorrect-ugliness-overly-avoidant parent] "family friendly" brand.

But, yeah. I have heard some other examples some of you have mentioned in past threads about WotC or Paizo (companies whose games I avoid anyway for non-political reasons) altering D&D/Pathfinder/etc in some ways to bow to complaints or fit in with more modern cultural inclusiveness or whatever, which I can see being annoying and worthy of grumbling about. I wouldn't like annoying subject-nerfing or modernizing of games I like, either. I haven't seen that in the games I like though.

And, if the complaints were sober and game-related (instead of mainly weird rants about SJW types I never meet by people who have different definitions of other terms and go rambling off for pages into political themes that just make me think they're nuts), I'd probably be much more inclined to agree. The recent threads here though seem to be mainly displaying examples (of themselves) that there ARE annoying bigoted buffoons in the RPG crowd.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036817Indeed in Warhammer and in Peter Jackson's films, they were given working class cockney accents.

As a person born into a British working class family, I see nothing analogous, nor do I wish to encourage any such analogy.

The analogy is clearly there in the Tolkien original. The orcs' and trolls' dialog is full of working class English mannerisms. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to encourage it, but it exists. I agree that orcs aren't a specific ethnicity - but they have a specific social class.

Quote from: jhkim;1036836The analogy is clearly there in the Tolkien original. The orcs' and trolls' dialog is full of working class English mannerisms. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to encourage it, but it exists. I agree that orcs aren't a specific ethnicity - but they have a specific social class.

Woah there. Orcs have a specific social class? I'd agree that Tolkien and GW used English mannerisms as a shorthand, but orcs weren't a part of the societies that the characters were.

Quote from: Skarg;1036827Yeah I don't know who they are. Googling... oh Adam is the fellow people were complaining about on one of these threads for being annoying in a video... LOL he's a "Twitch Star" and I don't know what Twitch is, an he co-made Dungeon World, which from what I've heard about it and the core system PbtA, uses a playstyle I can see being interesting to me as an experiment but one I don't want to use, so I've avoided those games too.

Let's see Jeremy Crawford... is a WotC D&D rules designer, and I've read enough about 4e and 5e to know I don't want to play those and find their popularity annoying and avoid them.

I guess I just know how to mostly pick my games and players to avoid things that annoy me. But I gather there is much annoyance to be had out there.

It's very, very odd for someone who holds their complete and total ignorance of the hobby at large outside of the 4 games they play as a point of pride to then turn around and claim that elements of the hobby they purposely remain ignorant of don't exist. :rolleyes:

It's even odder when the element they are claiming doesn't exist is linked to in the very first post.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036837Woah there. Orcs have a specific social class? I'd agree that Tolkien and GW used English mannerisms as a shorthand, but orcs weren't a part of the societies that the characters were.

No, they're analogous to a specific social class in our society (of the time), not that they are the lowest order of the elf/dwarf/human/hobbit societies depicted.

Or if you prefer a shorthand, Tolkein was a snob.

Quote from: jhkim;1036836The analogy is clearly there in the Tolkien original. The orcs' and trolls' dialog is full of working class English mannerisms. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to encourage it, but it exists. I agree that orcs aren't a specific ethnicity - but they have a specific social class.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1036837Woah there. Orcs have a specific social class? I'd agree that Tolkien and GW used English mannerisms as a shorthand, but orcs weren't a part of the societies that the characters were.

Hobbits are essentially the idealized pastoral, agricultural Englishmen, Elves and Dunedain are the legendary historical Englishmen who helped create England, nobles and royals.  Sauron and Saruman represent the forces of industry and war and orcs are the working class, slaves to the meatgrinder of progress.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1036842Hobbits are essentially the idealized pastoral, agricultural Englishmen, Elves and Dunedain are the legendary historical Englishmen who helped create England, nobles and royals.  Sauron and Saruman represent the forces of industry and war and orcs are the working class, slaves to the meatgrinder of progress.

Yeah, that's roughly what I meant. Thanks.

Quote from: jhkim;1036845Yeah, that's roughly what I meant. Thanks.

Ok. I didn't think you meant the other thing, but wanted to make sure.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1036802Sort of like beligerents resisting the cops of today. Cause and effect, go figure.

No and go fuck yourself, grover.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036826I don't know about you folks, but I don't like being falsely accused of participating in an intrinsically racist hobby.

In fact, on reflection, I think I would like to tell everybody who makes such an defamatory accusation to fuck off, keep fucking off until they get to a wall saying "no fucking off beyond this point", then climb the wall and fuck off some more.

Agreed and QFT.

Quote from: CarlD.;1036797I can see that ringing some alarm bells,yes. I've gotten to the same point but it was over other issues than racism. It would have be pretty egregious and/or making other players uncomfortable. I admit its a "know it when I see it" definition which isn't satisfactory for many.

Agreed on all accounts. Though I've had false alarm bells, too.

QuoteGot it, I was just comparing experiences.

OK.

QuoteWould you say that you encounter more tensions along these lines in fantasy/history/pesudo historical settings or modern/future settings?

Fantasy, but that's possibly a red herring. That is, much as I like historical, modern and future settings, the majority of my gaming has been in fantasy settings.
It was certainly easier to detect in a future setting. Which is to say, the gal who didn't like 80% of the NPCs in the setting because of their skin (races varying from mixed to all the non-white) was kinda easier to spot than the guy who considered his elves' policies about avoiding miscegenation as "the ideal of how the white race should behave".

Quote from: CRKrueger;1036842Hobbits are essentially the idealized pastoral, agricultural Englishmen, Elves and Dunedain are the legendary historical Englishmen who helped create England, nobles and royals.  Sauron and Saruman represent the forces of industry and war and orcs are the working class, slaves to the meatgrinder of progress.

Makes sense, indeed.
And explains why I actually like playing half-orcs:p!

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036826I don't know about you folks, but I don't like being falsely accused of participating in an intrinsically racist hobby.

In fact, on reflection, I think I would like to tell everybody who makes such an defamatory accusation to fuck off, keep fucking off until they get to a wall saying "no fucking off beyond this point", then climb the wall and fuck off some more.

Lately, I've been tempted to agree with this approach:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1036840It's very, very odd for someone who holds their complete and total ignorance of the hobby at large outside of the 4 games they play as a point of pride to then turn around and claim that elements of the hobby they purposely remain ignorant of don't exist. :rolleyes:

It's even odder when the element they are claiming doesn't exist is linked to in the very first post.

I don't think I claimed an element didn't exist. And I'm not completely and totally ignorant of the hobby at large, at all, just because I don't know or care about certain game designers of the current edition of D&D or Made-Annoying-by-the-Apocalypse, both styles I know PLENTY about to know that I don't want to play them!

My confusion I think is mainly because of all the hyperbolic rants and use of political terms to mean very different things and ridiculous rambling off-topic arguments by people with diametrically opposed viewpoints and on and on.

The fact is that you're not really doing anything interesting if a busybody isn't whining and crying about how you're a bad person for doing it.

fearsomepirate is banned?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036826I don't know about you folks, but I don't like being falsely accused of participating in an intrinsically racist hobby.

In fact, on reflection, I think I would like to tell everybody who makes such an defamatory accusation to fuck off, keep fucking off until they get to a wall saying "no fucking off beyond this point", then climb the wall and fuck off some more.

Agreed.  I refuse to be bullied.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1036917fearsomepirate is banned?

He kept posting in another thread after being told to stop. The whole thread turned into a huge mess that resulted in multiple bannings, but FP was given multiple warnings and either somehow missed them all or chose to ignore them. Ulairi came right out and demanded Pundit drop the ban hammer on his head, but with FP it was a little more weird. I don't know if he was just oblivious or stupid, but it seems unlikely he somehow missed all the warnings.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036826I don't know about you folks, but I don't like being falsely accused of participating in an intrinsically racist hobby.

I'm not concerned. In the 80s, we were all Satanists. Now we're all racists. So what?  

We won last time by mocking the enemy. These SJW fucks are way easier to mock and far more sensitive to it.

In reality, gaming's actual reputation is earned table by table in kitchens, living rooms and dens across the world.

Quote from: Kiero;1036410Agreed, The Expanse beats every sci-fi show to date.

I love it. But half way through season 2 and I still don't know what the hell is going on. It beats nuBSG out by miles.

Quote from: Brand55;1036925He kept posting in another thread after being told to stop. The whole thread turned into a huge mess that resulted in multiple bannings, but FP was given multiple warnings and either somehow missed them all or chose to ignore them. Ulairi came right out and demanded Pundit drop the ban hammer on his head, but with FP it was a little more weird. I don't know if he was just oblivious or stupid, but it seems unlikely he somehow missed all the warnings.

Multiple bannings on a site that proclaims that free speech is its watchword?  Must have been some thread.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1036978Multiple bannings on a site that proclaims that free speech is its watchword?  Must have been some thread.

It got trashed. Not everybody that was off-topic was trashing it, but one or two were out to wreck it.

Check out the thread, its a firestorm. RPGPundit did not want the thread derailed and many of us were doing what we do, so Pundit told everyone to cut it out, stay on topic and dropped repeated warnings to specific people. For whatever reason, Pundy really wants RPG Industry Politics on the main page and he wants everyone to stick to the topic inside that thread.

To Pundy's credit, he made it clear than bannings for derailing the thread would happen "regardless if you were to the Left of Mao or the Right of Buchanan", so the bannings are clearly not politically motivated. Especially clear after he nuked Ulairi and FP. Voros threw down recently, even posting Bon Jovi's "Blaze of Glory" as his finale.

I don't agree with the bannings whatsoever, but I don't pay the rent here.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1036929I'm not concerned. In the 80s, we were all Satanists. Now we're all racists. So what?  

We won last time by mocking the enemy. These SJW fucks are way easier to mock and far more sensitive to it.

In reality, gaming's actual reputation is earned table by table in kitchens, living rooms and dens across the world.

While the SJWs miss the forest for the leaves, even a racist clock is right twice a day.

The D&D world is an incredibly warped and twisted one where it is socially acceptable to engage in mass murder simply because the targets are "evil." Not evil in the sense of real world morality, but aligned with evil as defined by the game and this is usually inherent to their bloodline. Most of these targets tend to be dressed in stereotypical tribal getup and are often led by "shamans" and "chieftains," because that style and that terminology is seen as a short hand for "barbarism." The only positive example I can recall off the top of my head is in the barbarian character class, and then only because it is available to PCs and the game assumes PCs are good.

Similar criticism could be level at a lot of mass media. Western cultures tend to glorify violence.

Why do we even need orcs? Why not kill humans? Or demons?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1036982Check out the thread, its a firestorm.

It's worth reading, if only to answer for oneself the question for yourself of whether Pundy should in fact start a TTRPG variant of gamergate (based on his ability to/not to keep his cool when facing opposition).

I don't agree with Pundy's behavior at all, but I said my piece and left.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037034The D&D world is an incredibly warped and twisted one where it is socially acceptable to engage in mass murder simply because the targets are "evil." Not evil in the sense of real world morality, but aligned with evil as defined by the game and this is usually inherent to their bloodline. Most of these targets tend to be dressed in stereotypical tribal getup and are often led by "shamans" and "chieftains," because that style and that terminology is seen as a short hand for "barbarism." The only positive example I can recall off the top of my head is in the barbarian character class, and then only because it is available to PCs and the game assumes PCs are good.

Yes. The entire thing is the creation of designated enemies (the entire point) and it breaks down under intense scrutiny. And people have been making the mistake of doing so for 40+ years.

QuoteWhy do we even need orcs? Why not kill humans? Or demons?

The reason we need orcs is so that our PCs aren't killing humans. Again, the point. As to demons, what does turning the orc into a demon do to improve the situation? Make them more clearly designated-evil?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1037035The reason we need orcs is so that our PCs aren't killing humans. Again, the point. As to demons, what does turning the orc into a demon do to improve the situation? Make them more clearly designated-evil?

You can't really get more other/alien than beings that don't even come from the same plane of existence as we do.

Quote from: Kiero;1037043You can't really get more other/alien than beings that don't even come from the same plane of existence as we do.

Sure, but it just changes them from having a sign over their head saying 'designated villain,' into a sign over their head saying, "~~~***Designated Villain***~~~." It literally doesn't change the actual moral calculus, nor the ridiculousness of applying moral calculus to the situation.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037034Why do we even need orcs? Why not kill humans? Or demons?

I'm good with killing whatever the DM throws my way, so long as it has treasure.

In tonight's game...

AD&D1e game, session #6

OPEN GAME TABLE - every Wednesday 7-10pm at GoodGames Melbourne

"The only apes I know of are those of Allirog and his cursed wicker towers. Their evil has spread to every city. Two or three years ago it was just another ape cult, now... they're everywhere. It is said that they are deceivers... they murder people in the night... I know nothing. "
"Wicker towers?"
"The Wicker Tower... of the Ape!"

Oook, oook.

Well I generally don't fuck when I use goblins and orcs when playing Beyond the Wall.

I have night goblins (cruelty incarnate) murder the village children in their beds for kicks and shiggles and the worg riding orcs (bloodlust incarnate) impale the local shepherd and burn/devour the flock while the bugbear (harbingers of death and disease) throws a diseased animal upstream from their river, poisoning the village water supply.

If any of the PCs get too philosophical about killing orcs and goblins, more innocent people get brutally tortured and murdered.

Motivations of the PCs: save the village, get revenge, use whatever they find to see the village through the winter and keep the young widow fed.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037034While the SJWs miss the forest for the leaves, even a racist clock is right twice a day.

The D&D world is an incredibly warped and twisted one where it is socially acceptable to engage in mass murder simply because the targets are "evil." Not evil in the sense of real world morality, but aligned with evil as defined by the game and this is usually inherent to their bloodline. Most of these targets tend to be dressed in stereotypical tribal getup and are often led by "shamans" and "chieftains," because that style and that terminology is seen as a short hand for "barbarism." The only positive example I can recall off the top of my head is in the barbarian character class, and then only because it is available to PCs and the game assumes PCs are good.

Similar criticism could be level at a lot of mass media. Western cultures tend to glorify violence.

Why do we even need orcs? Why not kill humans? Or demons?

It's not like this happens in a vaccum. I'm sure someone could dredge up a counterexample from one of the old modules, but orcs are usually up to something bad, not just walking around with a nametag that says "Chaotic Evil".

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1037035Yes. The entire thing is the creation of designated enemies (the entire point) and it breaks down under intense scrutiny. And people have been making the mistake of doing so for 40+ years.

If that standard is a "mistake," then what is correct?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1037035The reason we need orcs is so that our PCs aren't killing humans. Again, the point.

Why shouldn't the PCs kill humans? Don't humans have the capacity for evil?

What about wild animals like the chimera or the hydra?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037076It's not like this happens in a vaccum. I'm sure someone could dredge up a counterexample from one of the old modules, but orcs are usually up to something bad, not just walking around with a nametag that says "Chaotic Evil".

Then why not use humans? Why do we need a race that is more or less born evil?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037085Why shouldn't the PCs kill humans? Don't humans have the capacity for evil?

What about wild animals like the chimera or the hydra?

Because they're not people. That's fundamentally what it's all about. There's a reason virtually every legal system on the planet deals with crimes against people differently to crimes against non-humans, because personhood is more important than mere existence. It also jibes with some basic psychological mechanics about in-groups and out-groups.

I can kill insects on reflex, with no calculation or decisionmaking involved, if they're in my space in a way that annoys or threatens me, they die. I feel no remorse and don't even think about it afterwards. Were that a person, my natural reluctance to harm another human being (something the majority of people have, and have to overcome in order to do that) would kick in.

We humans are very good at killing things which are not human, and often have little regret afterwards. However, while we also have a capacity to kill other humans, that is not without overcoming restraint and feeling remorse and regret afterwards (again for normal people).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037085Then why not use humans? Why do we need a race that is more or less born evil?

Not everyone goes with the "born evil" angle.
And how would killing humans who aren't "born evil" make it any better?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037087Not everyone goes with the "born evil" angle.
And how would killing humans who aren't "born evil" make it any better?

#BornThisWay
#WhoIsGMLadyGaGa?

Some of us play the game as a treasure hunt.  You're down in the dungeon looking for treasure when the inhabitants take exception to this and attack.  Self defense is a right.

Sometimes the current inhabitant is a giant spider whose web you disturbed.  Sometimes it's a group of humanoids of some type that don't like strangers.

Considering the number of us who play neutral characters and hired orcs and goblins as troops, and negotiated with chimerae, and ogres, and other "monsters" -- well, if the default game is "kill everything that moves," you're playing a different game.

KATM goes back before computer games, by the way, though computer games did help spread it because it's easier to program.

I also call it "vending machine gaming."  NPCs are all vending machines; you insert alcohol to get a plot coupon, or you insert gold to get adventuring gear, or you insert swords to get XP.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037034... Why do we even need orcs? Why not kill humans? Or demons?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1037035... The reason we need orcs is so that our PCs aren't killing humans. Again, the point. As to demons, what does turning the orc into a demon do to improve the situation? Make them more clearly designated-evil?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037085Why shouldn't the PCs kill humans? Don't humans have the capacity for evil?
...
Then why not use humans? Why do we need a race that is more or less born evil?

Wait... WHAT?

How many D&D players have a problem killing humans, provided the humans somehow warrant being fought?

In TFT, orcs and goblins are just other humanoid races like humans and elves. Orcs are nasty and violent and hated by elves and dwarves so they are often opponents, but human opponents are the most common type of opponent, and PCs regularly kill human opponents. My GURPS Fantasy Folk etc books are buried ATM, but it seems to me GURPS orcs are just other races, not Evil demons or corrupted minions of Sauron, and again, humans tend to be the main opponents and get killed left, right and center.

Do D&D players actually tend to have moral qualms about killing humans, or is it just that orcs are a no-brained by comparison along with anything of the Evil alignment (including humans)?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037085If that standard is a "mistake," then what is correct?

Not scrutinize the convention too hard.

QuoteWhy shouldn't the PCs kill humans? Don't humans have the capacity for evil?

What about wild animals like the chimera or the hydra?

Then why not use humans? Why do we need a race that is more or less born evil?

Quote from: Skarg;1037096Wait... WHAT?

How many D&D players have a problem killing humans, provided the humans somehow warrant being fought?

I think you both have the concept reversed. No one (to my knowledge) has ever suggested that you can't use animals or monsters on one end or humans you've established as evil on the other. The question is whether you get to instead (if you want) use a pre-defined 'villain' type race that you can kind of assume is up to no good and thus if you see some coming down the road you don't have to establish that they are in fact bad guys. The whole thing is basically allowing you to have hydras that use swords.

QuoteDo D&D players actually tend to have moral qualms about killing humans, or is it just that orcs are a no-brained by comparison along with anything of the Evil alignment (including humans)?

That's the basic concept, yes. Mind you I'm just explaining it. I tend to prefer the 'everyone is morally grey, including the PCs' approach vaguely like what Gronan described, and I've already established that I think this whole debate is just a cyclic type of philosophical navel-gazing that shows up on forums every random increment.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037085Then why not use humans? Why do we need a race that is more or less born evil?

Because people like to spice it up and to have a variety of enemies different than humans in there D&D games. It's that simple, really. Killing the same enemy for the 10th time.. sound boring to me, especially in such a *cough* "limited" game like D&D.

It's the same reason why we have dozens of monster manuals published in the past and more than 1000+ different monsters.

From a game play perspective, consider the "mental shorthand" aspects of deciphering what is going on based on nothing but GM verbal descriptions and adjudication.  I'm talking about game handling, not questions of psychology, as relevant as those might be.  You've got roughly these categories of things as possibilities:

A. "People" - might be good, might be bad, probably often somewhere in the mushy middle.  You need some information before you go after them, or even if you go after them, unless they attack you on sight, or at least dress up or carry a banner in a way that you can identify as an unambiguous enemy.

B. "Critters" - of various temperaments and tendencies, that don't necessarily have what we would call a "People" society, probably don't use tools, may not have much in the way of language, etc.  Mostly, prudence is your guide.

C. "Hazards" - might be biological, but there is not interaction beyond touch it and it burns, corrodes, etc., e.g. green slime.

D. "Anti-people" - have a society, use tools, use language, but for whatever reason are at a state of permanent war with "People".  Or at least there are no rules for a "truce" beyond staying out of each others' way.  

E. "Myth Critters" - often smart, speaking, sometimes even tool users, but notably different in physiology compared to "humanoids".  All the rules for "People" and "Anti-People" can apply here, except it's more complicated and situational, and their attitudes and motivations are often radically different, sometimes even bleeding into ...

F. "Alien Critters" - have their own kind of intelligence higher functions, but languages often incomprehensible, and tools often arcane.  From the perspective of trying to understand them, combine all of the worst traits of the previous categories.

There is no particular reason why you must have "Anti-People" in a setting or in a game.  Everything they do can be handled by one or more of the other categories blended with setting information.  That is, if People X always attack, and are easily identified by dress and regions, and have nasty tendencies Y and Z, and don't really get along with anyone, then they can serve the same purpose.   However, you'll note that the first three categories are fairly straight-forward.  Whereas the last two tend to complicate the game.  "Anti-People" is a category that simplifies game functions to make up for the complication of the last two.  

Also, as with all such things in a list of monsters, there are far more provided than you need.  If you don't want any "Anti-People," no one is making your GM use them.  They can easily be swapped for something else, especially if you know what they represent.  Or if you don't want easily identified "kill on sight" humanoid creatures, then you'd need to adjust the source material anyway.  If it is your own game, then of course you can use what you want.  

TL;DR version:  It's a thoughtless complaint, on par with, "Why does the Monster Manual have all these things in it that I'll never use?"

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036826Why do we even need orcs? Why not kill humans? Or demons?

Why is this an 'All or Nothing' argument?  In my games, my players assault humans, orcs, giants, goblins, dragons and demons, should the need arise, mostly in self-defense.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037123Why is this an 'All or Nothing' argument?  

Because some people want to play the game and some would rather wax poetical about the philosophical underpinnings of that same game but not actually play it.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036826I don't know about you folks, but I don't like being falsely accused of participating in an intrinsically racist hobby.

In fact, on reflection, I think I would like to tell everybody who makes such an defamatory accusation to fuck off, keep fucking off until they get to a wall saying "no fucking off beyond this point", then climb the wall and fuck off some more.

I'm going to have to re-quote this for posterity and agreement.

Quote from: jeff37923;1037129Because some people want to play the game and some would rather wax poetical about the philosophical underpinnings of that same game but not actually play it.

True, and speaking of, I gotta go run an AL session.

Happy Gaming, folks.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037034Western cultures tend to glorify violence.

As opposed to which other culture? :p

Quote from: S'mon;1037138As opposed to which other culture? :p

Quite.

If you engage in deep moral scrutiny of human entertainments, you are going to find most (if not all) entertainment is full of naughty bits.

We're a fucked up species. No wonder the orcs hate us.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037034The D&D world is an incredibly warped and twisted one where it is socially acceptable to engage in mass murder simply because the targets are "evil."

That would be the most realistic part of D&D. Throughout history, it was always social acceptable to mass murder the enemies of your tribe / nation / gang because your leaders made it clear the enemies were evil and deserved destruction.

Quote from: Skarg;1037096Do D&D players actually tend to have moral qualms about killing humans, or is it just that orcs are a no-brained by comparison along with anything of the Evil alignment (including humans)?

It's not a complete binary - but yes, in my experience, players sometimes have moral qualms about killing humans - and more often so than they have qualms about killing orcs or other monstrous races. It's not that they won't kill humans, but they have a higher threshold to do so. Notably, they'll sometimes kill orcs just for being in the way, but if humans are in the way, they will more often try to negotiate first.

Quote from: jhkim;1037185It's not a complete binary - but yes, in my experience, players sometimes have moral qualms about killing humans - and more often so than they have qualms about killing orcs or other monstrous races. It's not that they won't kill humans, but they have a higher threshold to do so. Notably, they'll sometimes kill orcs just for being in the way, but if humans are in the way, they will more often try to negotiate first.

That's, in my book, an argument for ONLY using humans;).

This depends on which Orc we are talking about and more importantly, the quality of the bacon you get from Porcs.

Krimson's post got me thinking...what if orcs were delicious?

What if orcs were THE source of bacon in your campaign?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037394Krimson's post got me thinking...what if orcs were delicious?

What if orcs were THE source of bacon in your campaign?

Well we know pigs are as smart as dogs, and eat them and feed them to our pets anyway. :D

What about stormtroopers?

If orcs are racist stand-ins, then what are stormtroopers supposed to be? Idealized representations of the white patriarchy?

Quote from: jeff37923;1037402What about stormtroopers?

If orcs are racist stand-ins, then what are stormtroopers supposed to be? Idealized representations of the white patriarchy?

That one is easy. They are space Nazis. I mean the word Stormtrooper even comes from Stoßtruppen.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037123Why is this an 'All or Nothing' argument?  In my games, my players assault humans, orcs, giants, goblins, dragons and demons, should the need arise, mostly in self-defense.

Why did you attribute me with this quote?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2457[/ATTACH]

U think you mean this guy

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38878-If-you-have-fun-killing-orcs-in-your-game-you-re-a-racist-murderer/page15&p=1037034#post1037034

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037111From a game play perspective, consider the "mental shorthand" aspects of deciphering what is going on based on nothing but GM verbal descriptions and adjudication.  I'm talking about game handling, not questions of psychology, as relevant as those might be.  You've got roughly these categories of things as possibilities:

A. "People" - might be good, might be bad, probably often somewhere in the mushy middle.  You need some information before you go after them, or even if you go after them, unless they attack you on sight, or at least dress up or carry a banner in a way that you can identify as an unambiguous enemy.

B. "Critters" - of various temperaments and tendencies, that don't necessarily have what we would call a "People" society, probably don't use tools, may not have much in the way of language, etc.  Mostly, prudence is your guide.

C. "Hazards" - might be biological, but there is not interaction beyond touch it and it burns, corrodes, etc., e.g. green slime.

D. "Anti-people" - have a society, use tools, use language, but for whatever reason are at a state of permanent war with "People".  Or at least there are no rules for a "truce" beyond staying out of each others' way.  

E. "Myth Critters" - often smart, speaking, sometimes even tool users, but notably different in physiology compared to "humanoids".  All the rules for "People" and "Anti-People" can apply here, except it's more complicated and situational, and their attitudes and motivations are often radically different, sometimes even bleeding into ...

F. "Alien Critters" - have their own kind of intelligence higher functions, but languages often incomprehensible, and tools often arcane.  From the perspective of trying to understand them, combine all of the worst traits of the previous categories.

That's a great taxonomy. I tried to fill it out with the standard monster types:

A. "People"

Fey Type
Giant Type (e.g. stone and storm)
Humanoid Type (e.g. elves)

B. "Critters"

Animal Type
Vermin Type

C. "Hazards"

Ooze Type
Plant Type

D. "Anti-people"  

Giant Type (e.g. the rest)
Humanoid Type (e.g. orcs)
Monstrous Humanoid Type

E. "Myth Critters"

Construct Type*
Dragon Type
Magical Beast Type

F. "Alien Critters"

Aberration Type
Elemental Type
Outsider Type
Undead Type


Some thoughts:

Constructs: Not sure where to put these.
Giants: The Stone and Storm giants seem like People (they can do good or evil, and you judge them accordingly) while the rest (Hill, Fire, etc.) seem like "big orcs" and you kill them or they kill you.
Humanoids: Both elves and orcs are humanoids, but it's clear they fall distinictly into People and Anti-people. I suppose someone's created a "People Orc" but that's not baseline.
Undead: I was tempted to split them between "smart" and "mindless" with the latter in the Hazard category. Not sure.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1037102The whole thing is basically allowing you to have hydras that use swords.

Sword hydras? SWORD HYDRAS!!!

Best thing to come out of this thread!

I picture a mechanical contruct that has 4 legs and 5 arms each swinging a long sword. The large version has 5 arms swinging great swords.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037418Sword hydras? SWORD HYDRAS!!!

Best thing to come out of this thread!

I picture a mechanical contruct that has 4 legs and 5 arms each swinging a long sword. The large version has 5 arms swinging great swords.

Maybe it kinda works like that internet image from years ago with the hamster that has a knife taped to it, except instead of a hamster it's a hydra head, and instead of a knife it's swords, maybe tied down with a pink ribbon with a pretty bow. Alternately Tinker Gnomes could use Gnomish Duct Tape to tape a steak knife that once belonged to a Titan to a Giant Space Hamster. Yes, I would actually do this. Possibly both in the same encounter.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1036919Agreed.  I refuse to be bullied.

Same. And thats effectively what some of these SJWs are doing.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1037055Sure, but it just changes them from having a sign over their head saying 'designated villain,' into a sign over their head saying, "~~~***Designated Villain***~~~." It literally doesn't change the actual moral calculus, nor the ridiculousness of applying moral calculus to the situation.

And if the demons or devils are red or black skillned or even purple with green polka-dots someone would claim that these were racist representations of real races.

You litterally can never satisfy against these loons.

Quote from: Omega;1037450Same. And thats effectively what some of these SJWs are doing.

My god, I'm bullied and I didn't know it! Those words on a forum I don't read have oppressed me!

I think we can be a bit more level-headed and resilient than a SJW. I know that's setting the bar pretty high, but...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1037459My god, I'm bullied and I didn't know it! Those words on a forum I don't read have oppressed me!

I think we can be a bit more level-headed and resilient than a SJW. I know that's setting the bar pretty high, but...

Trying to force guilt onto another person because of trying to be the 'moral authority' is bullying.  And if you think it just happens you're a child, you don't live in the real world.  It happens and is happening all the time, at all ages.

Quote from: Aglondir;1037412Constructs: Not sure where to put these.
Giants: The Stone and Storm giants seem like People (they can do good or evil, and you judge them accordingly) while the rest (Hill, Fire, etc.) seem like "big orcs" and you kill them or they kill you.
Humanoids: Both elves and orcs are humanoids, but it's clear they fall distinictly into People and Anti-people. I suppose someone's created a "People Orc" but that's not baseline.
Undead: I was tempted to split them between "smart" and "mindless" with the latter in the Hazard category. Not sure.

According to the roughly standard perspective, constructs would often be "alien".  Though if you identified their creator and the creator has gone to some trouble to make the construct fit in, they could be the same type as the creator.  

However, a big part of my point is that these categories are descriptive, not prescriptive.  They are about how the creature is used in the game.  Just in the descriptions of how people have used orcs in the spin off topic, I think we've got example of them being used in all six categories!  

Complaining about orcs being racist is not only stupid, but a stupid waste of time.  If the complainer doesn't like them, what are they going to do about it?  Cut them out or change them into something else.  OK, change them into what, and why is he doing that instead of just cutting them out?  Knowing the purpose they serve in his current setting, he can make a smart decision on how to change them or remove them if they don't fit.  If the real complaint is that other people are doing things in their game he doesn't like, then let's cut to the chase so we can tell that moron to sod off, and quit blathering about something he doesn't understand at all. :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037394Krimson's post got me thinking...what if orcs were delicious?

What if orcs were THE source of bacon in your campaign?

Adventurers would be in the Butcher's Guild. That would be about it;).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1037459My god, I'm bullied and I didn't know it! Those words on a forum I don't read have oppressed me!

I think we can be a bit more level-headed and resilient than a SJW. I know that's setting the bar pretty high, but...

:D

Wouldn't it be nice if we could kill all the monsters?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037483According to the roughly standard perspective, constructs would often be "alien".  Though if you identified their creator and the creator has gone to some trouble to make the construct fit in, they could be the same type as the creator.  

However, a big part of my point is that these categories are descriptive, not prescriptive.  They are about how the creature is used in the game.  Just in the descriptions of how people have used orcs in the spin off topic, I think we've got example of them being used in all six categories!  

Complaining about orcs being racist is not only stupid, but a stupid waste of time.  If the complainer doesn't like them, what are they going to do about it?  Cut them out or change them into something else.  OK, change them into what, and why is he doing that instead of just cutting them out?  Knowing the purpose they serve in his current setting, he can make a smart decision on how to change them or remove them if they don't fit.  If the real complaint is that other people are doing things in their game he doesn't like, then let's cut to the chase so we can tell that moron to sod off, and quit blathering about something he doesn't understand at all. :D

Yeah, that totally makes sense.

I played Warcraft 3 and had no problem butchering armies of orcs, but then again Warcraft 3 portrayed the orcs as good guys.

I never understood why we need orcs, though. If orcs are just funny-looking humans, then why not use green-skinned humans? If orcs are some demon god's slaves, why not use evil humans like the Dothraki? The Great Stallion is obviously a demon lord.

Quote from: David Johansen;1037526Wouldn't it be nice if we could kill all the monsters?

Do humans qualify? Like green-skinned humans or Dothraki?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037418Sword hydras? SWORD HYDRAS!!!

Best thing to come out of this thread!

I picture a mechanical contruct that has 4 legs and 5 arms each swinging a long sword. The large version has 5 arms swinging great swords.

Ever seen the Golden Voyage of Sinbad? It has a statue of a six-armed goddess with a scimitar in each arm that comes to life. Wonderful stuff.

In TFT & pre-DF GURPS, orcs aren't anti-person, but orcs are nasty, and Dwarves and Elves are (almost) anti-Orc. In TFT, there mostly aren't really anti-person humanoids by race, only by individual, or monsters, and even those tend to have a perspective rather than an "it's evil".

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037483... However, a big part of my point is that these categories are descriptive, not prescriptive.  They are about how the creature is used in the game.  Just in the descriptions of how people have used orcs in the spin off topic, I think we've got example of them being used in all six categories!

Yes, though it's still valid to notice that often fantasy races are used to relate to intelligent humanoids by race, where race determines their personality, ability levels, good/evil/morality, and often whether PCs get a license/encouragement to kill anyone in that entire race or not.

i.e. Humanoid fantasy races with different abilities and morality are at some level a fantasy world where something like human racist thinking is objectively accurate - there really are races which are stronger or smarter or mostly good or evil and it's objectively Good to kill the Evil ones.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037483Complaining about orcs being racist is not only stupid, but a stupid waste of time.  If the complainer doesn't like them, what are they going to do about it?  Cut them out or change them into something else.  OK, change them into what, and why is he doing that instead of just cutting them out?  Knowing the purpose they serve in his current setting, he can make a smart decision on how to change them or remove them if they don't fit.  If the real complaint is that other people are doing things in their game he doesn't like, then let's cut to the chase so we can tell that moron to sod off, and quit blathering about something he doesn't understand at all. :D

It seems to me what's stupid is going beyond acknowledging that it is a pattern of thinking that has some parallels to historical racism, bigotry, and genocidal behavior, and that it's a way to try to make it not be an issue to have clearly-identifiable evil hordes to do battle with. Noticing it and choosing whether that's what you want to do or not is one thing, which seems to me not stupid or necessarily a waste of time. But going beyond that to say something like the thread title, seems to me hyperbolic exaggeration and wrong. When it's used to say a game or players are racists because they kill orcs, that's wrong and obnoxious.

Yes, a game or story about evil orcs who are ok to kill because they're orcs is racist... against evil orc races, which don't exist, and are game things which also don't exist, and it's ok to play games about genocidal violence, even if the victims are humans - it's a game and doesn't make you a murderer any more than James Earl Jones is Darth Vader or Thulsa Doom.

Seems to me that's an easy and appropriate level of response - if I'm a racist murderer for playing a dwarf who kills orcs, then do you think we should condemn every actor who ever played a murderer or a Nazi?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1037528... I never understood why we need orcs, though. If orcs are just funny-looking humans, then why not use green-skinned humans? If orcs are some demon god's slaves, why not use evil humans like the Dothraki? The Great Stallion is obviously a demon lord.

Do humans qualify? Like green-skinned humans or Dothraki?

Humans can be used the same way. Cowboys & indians. Dothraki seem a pretty thoughtfully-done case, as they're human, have a consistent culture, are often shown from a sympathetic perspective, yet also are often very violent and ruthless and severe, and are seen as horrible monsters by some other humans. But they're clearly humans who behave the way they do because they're following their cultural perspective - there's nothing racial about it, and it's not clear they deserve to be killed for being Dothraki.

I think it's a good and interesting question to ask oneself when setting up a game world - do you want or need orcs, and why exactly? Often I think one reason is to provide something you can do deadly battle with in large quantities without (or with less) moral questions. Which doesn't need an apology, but I think it's worthwhile to be aware of and make a conscious choice about.

Quote from: soltakss;1037549Ever seen the Golden Voyage of Sinbad? It has a statue of a six-armed goddess with a scimitar in each arm that comes to life. Wonderful stuff.

Yeah, I love those films and that's a great part. Made my skin crawl the first time I saw it.

Sword Hydra to me suggests a hydra with reptilian arms coming out of the sides of the necks, wielding swords. I'm already imagining that massacring PC parties in GURPS...

Quote from: soltakss;1037549Ever seen the Golden Voyage of Sinbad? It has a statue of a six-armed goddess with a scimitar in each arm that comes to life. Wonderful stuff.

Heck yeah!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2465[/ATTACH]

SJW: We want D&D to be more inclusive!
POC: Great!  
SJW: BTW, orcs are black people!
POC: Uh...
SJW: And most every campaign involves killing orcs. Or goblins, who are Mexicans.
POC: Uh...
SJW: But we fixed it because elves are transgender now. That's why the black elves hate them.
POC: [flees the freakshow]

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037480Trying to force guilt onto another person because of trying to be the 'moral authority' is bullying.

It's an attempt at coercion, but "bullying" is too emotionally and politically charged a term. Yes, the SJWs are trying to use social shaming to silence critics and demand ideological obedience, but "bullying" feels like giving them too much credit. But I get what you are saying and the SJWs need massive forceful pushback.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1037459My god, I'm bullied and I didn't know it! Those words on a forum I don't read have oppressed me!

Command your koalas to sally forth the fainting couch!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1037459I think we can be a bit more level-headed and resilient than a SJW. I know that's setting the bar pretty high, but...

I don't think Brady was referencing "bullying" as in "we're victims, oh noes", but as in "fuck those fucking fuck heads" who are attempting to be bullies.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037582It's an attempt at coercion, but "bullying" is too emotionally and politically charged a term. Yes, the SJWs are trying to use social shaming to silence critics and demand ideological obedience, but "bullying" feels like giving them too much credit. But I get what you are saying and the SJWs need massive forceful pushback.

I don't think Brady was referencing "bullying" as in "we're victims, oh noes", but as in "fuck those fucking fuck heads" who are attempting to be bullies.

Great points. It's a kind of passive aggressive bullying. (but has gone full aggressive in some situations as they encounter pushback)

Quote from: Skarg;1037562I think it's a good and interesting question to ask oneself when setting up a game world - do you want or need orcs, and why exactly? Often I think one reason is to provide something you can do deadly battle with in large quantities without (or with less) moral questions. Which doesn't need an apology, but I think it's worthwhile to be aware of and make a conscious choice about.

I think we are mostly on the same page.  One of the reasons that I think complaining about it is stupid, is similar to the Twain quote:  "Everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037582It's an attempt at coercion, but "bullying" is too emotionally and politically charged a term. Yes, the SJWs are trying to use social shaming to silence critics and demand ideological obedience, but "bullying" feels like giving them too much credit. But I get what you are saying and the SJWs need massive forceful pushback.

Coercion is bullying, it's as you say, just not as emotionally charged as the B word.  But then, I don't mince words.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037582I don't think Brady was referencing "bullying" as in "we're victims, oh noes", but as in "fuck those fucking fuck heads" who are attempting to be bullies.

Pretty much, guilting, coercion, same thing.  I play my elf-games my way, don't like it?  What Spinachcat said.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037609I think we are mostly on the same page.  One of the reasons that I think complaining about it is stupid, is similar to the Twain quote:  "Everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." :D

Yep.

Though some people who aren't just trying to get attention for their articles can and do do something about fantasy race dissatisfaction. For example, one friend/GM in the 1980's complained "many players want to play Elves just because [in most systems] Elves are just like 'humans plus' [various powers/bonuses]" (not a racism complaint BTW, but a "this is dumb/boring/uninteresting" complaint) so he had them not exist in his campaigns, and/or ran human-only game settings.

Quote from: Skarg;1037733For example, one friend/GM in the 1980's complained "many players want to play Elves just because [in most systems] Elves are just like 'humans plus' [various powers/bonuses]" (not a racism complaint BTW, but a "this is dumb/boring/uninteresting" complaint) so he had them not exist in his campaigns, and/or ran human-only game settings.

And yet when the subject of level limits for elves in D&D comes up, most people screech like anime schoolgirls...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037582SJW: We want D&D to be more inclusive!
POC: Great!  
SJW: BTW, orcs are black people!
POC: Uh...
SJW: And most every campaign involves killing orcs. Or goblins, who are Mexicans.
POC: Uh...
SJW: But we fixed it because elves are transgender now. That's why the black elves hate them.
POC: [flees the freakshow]

Way to spoil the premise of my Blue Rose campaign. :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1037742And yet when the subject of level limits for elves in D&D comes up, most people screech like anime schoolgirls...

Try suggesting play in a low magic or historical game. :D

Quote from: Skarg;1037733For example, one friend/GM in the 1980's complained "many players want to play Elves just because [in most systems] Elves are just like 'humans plus' [various powers/bonuses]" (not a racism complaint BTW, but a "this is dumb/boring/uninteresting" complaint) so he had them not exist in his campaigns, and/or ran human-only game settings.

He might have been projecting.  I know a girl I used to game with who only played Elves because, in her words, they were pretty and she's not.  The bonuses they got were just gravy half the time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1037742And yet when the subject of level limits for elves in D&D comes up, most people screech like anime schoolgirls...

That's how you identified power gamers back in the day.  Real Gamers played Humans!  (That's a joke, they played Dwarves.)

As DM I got rid of all level limits simply because I had this mental block unable to reconcile the idea of a long lived race somehow got capped sooner than a human.  And in AD&D 2e, most races had class limits anyway, Dwarves couldn't be Magic-Users, or Rangers, if I remember correctly, that was punishment enough in my mind.

YMWV.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037754As DM I got rid of all level limits simply because I had this mental block unable to reconcile the idea of a long lived race somehow got capped sooner than a human.  And in AD&D 2e, most races had class limits anyway, Dwarves couldn't be Magic-Users, or Rangers, if I remember correctly, that was punishment enough in my mind.

YMWV.

My group pretty much ignored this, though only a handful of characters ever got above level 15. The main DM didn't give out XP for kills or treasure. None of us handed it out for treasure. You would just level when he thought it was a good time to do so. I had a lot of characters that never got above level 12 and it was fine. So ignoring the level limits for races was moot because it didn't really matter. Sure you didn't level fast but sometimes the loot more than made up for it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037754As DM I got rid of all level limits simply because I had this mental block unable to reconcile the idea of a long lived race somehow got capped sooner than a human.

What astounds me is that NOBODY, EVER, in 46 years has ever asked, in game, "Why do elves that live for a thousand years stop leveling up?"  Because if they had they would discover that, despite the fact that everybody knows Elves live for millenia, none of the Elves or Dwarves they meet are much older than 150 or so.  And yes, the Elves and Dwarves will say that they live much longer.  But they won't say more.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1037768What astounds me is that NOBODY, EVER, in 46 years has ever asked, in game, "Why do elves that live for a thousand years stop leveling up?"  Because if they had they would discover that, despite the fact that everybody knows Elves live for millenia, none of the Elves or Dwarves they meet are much older than 150 or so.  And yes, the Elves and Dwarves will say that they live much longer.  But they won't say more.

My Edition is 2e, so the elves there 'lived' to 1400/1500 years, but at about 400, or was it 700?  I forget, anyway, once they hit that age, they go to 'Evermeet'.  Dwarves lived to 2-350 (Again, I think, it's been a while) so I had NPC's with Class levels at around those ages.  Because no one told me not to.  So I simply assumed that for some silly reason, when you meet an old elf, they somehow stopped learning.  Thing is, never sat well with me, so I ignored level limits.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037771My Edition is 2e, so the elves there 'lived' to 1400/1500 years, but at about 400, or was it 700?  I forget, anyway, once they hit that age, they go to 'Evermeet'.  Dwarves lived to 2-350 (Again, I think, it's been a while) so I had NPC's with Class levels at around those ages.  Because no one told me not to.  So I simply assumed that for some silly reason, when you meet an old elf, they somehow stopped learning.  Thing is, never sat well with me, so I ignored level limits.

I compromised and said that after the demihuman level limits, they take double xp to level up. And elves that live for hundreds of years hit a kind of plateau, where leveling gets harder because there's not much left to learn. If you assume that only a small percentage of people are adventurers with a class, and only a small percentage of them get to be high level, then it rarely becomes an issue.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1037768What astounds me is that NOBODY, EVER, in 46 years has ever asked, in game, "Why do elves that live for a thousand years stop leveling up?"  Because if they had they would discover that, despite the fact that everybody knows Elves live for millenia, none of the Elves or Dwarves they meet are much older than 150 or so.  And yes, the Elves and Dwarves will say that they live much longer.  But they won't say more.

I did.
The answer was that it's been houseruled away;).

And BTW, I've run both low-magic and historical campaigns, so what is your point, Krimson?

Elves and dwarves don't live past 150 because adventurers come along. They're killed once we run out of orcs. Your level limit is my sword.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037582SJW: We want D&D to be more inclusive!
POC: Great!  
SJW: BTW, orcs are black people!
POC: Uh...
SJW: And most every campaign involves killing orcs. Or goblins, who are Mexicans.
POC: Uh...
SJW: But we fixed it because elves are transgender now. That's why the black elves hate them.
POC: [flees the freakshow]

This would be funny if not for that fact that it accurately describes Pathfinder. They literally think adding a few transgender characters here and there somehow makes up for the bizarre fantasy racism prevalent elsewhere.

The "evil elves are black" thing is definitely something I think could be changed. Like, IDK, elves were originally black and the evil ones were cursed with white skin?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037577Heck yeah!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2465[/ATTACH]

Gotta love Harryhausen.  Looking at that picture, those are obviously Scimitars of Speed. :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037771My Edition is 2e, so the elves there 'lived' to 1400/1500 years, but at about 400, or was it 700?  I forget, anyway, once they hit that age, they go to 'Evermeet'.  Dwarves lived to 2-350 (Again, I think, it's been a while) so I had NPC's with Class levels at around those ages.  Because no one told me not to.  So I simply assumed that for some silly reason, when you meet an old elf, they somehow stopped learning.  Thing is, never sat well with me, so I ignored level limits.

Player: Can I play a [Flavor] Elf?

GM: Yes. If you wear pointy ears the skin color of [Flavor] Elves, so we know and remember you're roleplaying a [Flavor] elf and not just in it for the infravision.

Player: Um... Do they have level caps?

GM: No.

Player: Oh great! Do they have an experience modifier?

GM: They level up in proportion to the point where they "go to 'Evermeet'".

Player: I have trouble subtracting one small number from another. What does that mean?

GM: They don't use experience points. They just steadily go up in level.

Player: Oh... Hey, less math, right?

GM: Yep. For [Flavor] Elves, that comes out to about +1 level every 75 years of gameworld time. Then at about age 700 they "go to 'Evermeet'" and become happy NPCs in a place no PC ever goes.

Quote from: Skarg;1037938Player: Can I play a [Flavor] Elf?

GM: Yes. If you wear pointy ears the skin color of [Flavor] Elves, so we know and remember you're roleplaying a [Flavor] elf and not just in it for the infravision.

Player: Um... Do they have level caps?

GM: No.

Player: Oh great! Do they have an experience modifier?

GM: They level up in proportion to the point where they "go to 'Evermeet'".

Player: I have trouble subtracting one small number from another. What does that mean?

GM: They don't use experience points. They just steadily go up in level.

Player: Oh... Hey, less math, right?

GM: Yep. For [Flavor] Elves, that comes out to about +1 level every 75 years of gameworld time. Then at about age 700 they "go to 'Evermeet'" and become happy NPCs in a place no PC ever goes.

Player: Where is this Evermeet?

GM: It's a tavern in Specularum. Nice place. Great wine and strangely popular with Alphatian expatriates.

I seem to recall some people wanting to play elves because they were cool Tolkien guys or whatnot, and some because (and my starting point was BECMI) they were the only option for a fighter-wizard (various gazetteers and such later made that obsolete, I think). I think by the time we switched to AD&D, we were burned out on Tolkien, and again it was 'which do you want, option to multiclass or option to dual class?' I don't recall anyone ever choosing them just for the infravision.

I'm sure the elven level limits worked just fine in oD&D in original-style play. Especially if you stay within the first ten levels or so, such that starting out as an elf and playing it up to the level limit, and then starting over with a human give the guy next to you who started with and stuck with a human character will always be several levels ahead.

I don't feel they ever got it right in any of the further iterations (or changes in likely levels played). Most of our BECMI campaigns fizzled in the 8-12 range anyways (and even when they didn't the game became much more about what your army looked like or what items you had than what level you were), same with 2e and the range for elves in that edition. Maybe 1e it worked better, although I'm sure that depends on whether one uses UA or not. Regardless, it always seemed like 'no penalty now and during the levels you would actually be playing. And then the (level-based) advancement is completely cut off, at which point it is a penalty on a character you're unlikely to be playing anymore (although that's not a hard fact by any stretch).'

So again, I think it's a case of D&D drifting from first principles, but I didn't find it the best solution for the game at the time.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1037946I'm sure the elven level limits worked just fine in oD&D in original-style play. Especially if you stay within the first ten levels or so, such that starting out as an elf and playing it up to the level limit, and then starting over with a human give the guy next to you who started with and stuck with a human character will always be several levels ahead.

Don't forget, we all had multiple characters as well.  None of this "band of heroes welded together at the hip."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1037960Don't forget, we all had multiple characters as well.  None of this "band of heroes welded together at the hip."

This is something that rarely is discussed that is an artifact of that era. Whether it was intentional or not (you'd know before I would) - it was exactly accurate for my group in the late 70's as well. We all had folders full of characters of various levels that we'd pull out for the "adventure".  To what degree these characters knew one another was dependent on what previous adventures those particular characters went on before. Otherwise you worked it out in game.

And we killed all the orcs and goblins with little reservation. Because.

My OD&D games have max 10th level and are humanocentric. As elves and dwarves live freaking forever, the vast majority of elves and dwarves you meet are 10th level and they're scary badasses with often crazy magical goodies as gear. Of course, just because they live a long time doesn't mean they're able to procreate that whole time...thus their numbers are few.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037772I compromised and said that after the demihuman level limits, they take double xp to level up. And elves that live for hundreds of years hit a kind of plateau, where leveling gets harder because there's not much left to learn. If you assume that only a small percentage of people are adventurers with a class, and only a small percentage of them get to be high level, then it rarely becomes an issue.

As a side note on level limits, what I always thought was funny was the unlimited level in thief. We would often joke about the presence of centuries-old umpteenth-level elven thieves as a secret presence everywhere in the world.  ("Didn't there used to be a bar on this side of town?"   "Yeah - the elven thieves must have stolen it!") :D

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1037778Elves and dwarves don't live past 150 because adventurers come along. They're killed once we run out of orcs. Your level limit is my sword.

Probably the best thing I have heard in a long time!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823The Dothraki, who are human (played by a rag-tag bunch of actors of various skin colors), are portrayed in a way that is completely at odds with any society that has existed in history on Earth and generally resembles the orcs of D&D. The Dothraki believe agriculture and construction is satanic, they always have sex in public, murder is common and normalized, women are treated as chattel, they destroy everything in their path, have no sense of tactics or warcraft, etc.

So, like San Franciscans?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823... This is a problem inherent to all fictional cultures that are loosely modeled after stereotypes of real cultures, if care is not taken to depict the fictitious culture as having actual depth.

Yes. It also makes them not particularly interesting or human during play. Somewhat helpful for providing lots of quick foes you can kill, which I'd say is often the role wanted by the designer/GM and is at least part of why it happens.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823That was actually a big problem with Game of Thrones that took me right out of the story. The Dothraki, who are human (played by a rag-tag bunch of actors of various skin colors), are portrayed in a way that is completely at odds with any society that has existed in history on Earth and generally resembles the orcs of D&D. The Dothraki believe agriculture and construction is satanic, they always have sex in public, murder is common and normalized, women are treated as chattel, they destroy everything in their path, have no sense of tactics or warcraft, etc. They are not remotely believable as a culture.

Interesting. I didn't find the Dothraki particularly believable, but I didn't find them that bad, either. I didn't think of them as orcs, but I don't play D&D or Warcraft. I didn't notice the Dothraki always having sex in public? Their attitude towards women didn't seem all that worse than some historical agricultural civilized cultures (or even some modern people). "Satanic" seems a Christiany misnomer. Certainly there have been historical violent nomadic people who don't do agriculture or permanent construction, and loot the same. Murder is common and normalized? Particularly moreso than in historical human cultures?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823... The hobby is intrinsically violent, since the typical party is a band of murderous hobos. That can be said of most media, actually. Almost all humanoids, the typical target of murderous hobos, are guys in makeup or fursuits wearing tribal getup. The barbarian character class, depending on the player's preferences, is some variety of scotsman, viking, native american or other tribal/clannish ethnic group in history or present time. ...

I think many people have an inner nomad warrior chafing at modern settled law/social-bound biases, and fantasy RPGs tend to offer a bit of cathartic outlet.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823... (drow being cursed with black skin, a la the "curse of Ham" historically used to denigrate black people, then being excessively fetishized by gamers as a weird matriarchal BDSM mafia)

Yeah, well I started avoiding D&D long before I heard of Drow, but Drow have always seemed especially preposterous teenage boy fantasy pandering to me.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823... but the game is not intentionally promoting racist attitudes. I would argue that it promotes racial harmony, if very clumsily, since the typical party consists of characters of different races who fulfill different vital roles.

I mostly agree.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823Really, I think we should just be honest that the game is a vehicle for our fantasies and that our fantasies are really twisted. Let's cut to the heart: as human beings, we want to kill other human beings. That is nothing to be ashamed of and we should own up to it.

Yes! (Though different people have different fantasies that aren't always compatible...)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823...D&D is a game where you kill other people in order to loot their corpses and advance yourself, except that you dress it up as heroic and moral by painting them as evil orcs who deserved it because you are a scared little baby who cannot accept the truth that you love violence for its own sake.

Discard your pretensions and delusions of morality! Play evil campaigns as the default. I guarantee that a campaign where the party are literally murderous hobos who butcher villages with impunity will be vastly more entertaining and cathartic than those lame goody-two-shoes campaigns where paladins mow down orcs with impunity. Orcs are just humans in makeup, so why equivocate?

Well not all games are D&D or have alignments or even orcs. Many of my games (especially as a teenager) involved PCs who didn't identify as Evil but did kill and loot other people without regard to race.

Typically the games I and my friends have run have featured one form or another of supporting PCs being adult warriors with some license to choose whom to fight, and a variety of potential opponents with varying degrees of dislikability and power level, and choosing what to do in the situations that come up. Often there are hateful people in positions of lawful authority, but as a warrior you can see if you can deal with them violently, and that's socially and often legally acceptable... if you win.

The grey line of who the PCs (and their NPC allies) will kill starts to come up, particularly when some PCs would suggest or do things such as betray or kill hirelings or not-particularly-dislikable people, or conduct night attacks/slaughters on other adventurer camps in the wilderness.

And then there was the campaign I briefly ran that was created to satisfy the desire of players for a game where they could loot people in a futuristic setting, and one PC's goal was to run people down with an air car.

I find that for me at some point a line comes up of what I want to run for players. The comedic anti-hero vigilante air car game was ok for variety to scratch a player itch but I started hating the PCs. Similar with games where players want to play officially evil/terrible characters such as murderous vampires. Some characters are so awful to me that I don't want to GM for them.

Quote from: Skarg;1038594Interesting. I didn't find the Dothraki particularly believable, but I didn't find them that bad, either. I didn't think of them as orcs, but I don't play D&D or Warcraft.

I spent years reading articles about them. G.R.R. Martin's world building is terrible as a rule, but the Dothraki are probably the most obvious example. They are a bunch of caricatures based on stereotypes of barbarians and nomadic horsemen.

Quote from: Skarg;1038594I didn't notice the Dothraki always having sex in public?

Rutting like animals under the stars in front of everyone (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dothraki#Marriage.2C_sexual_relations.2C_and_childbirth) is stated as part of their culture several times in the books. A taboo against public sex (https://psmag.com/social-justice/human-cultures-unlike-many-mammalian-species-evolved-value-sexual-privacy-68104) is present in every real culture known to exist.

Quote from: Skarg;1038594Their attitude towards women didn't seem all that worse than some historical agricultural civilized cultures (or even some modern people).

The Dothraki pimp their own wives and consider women deformed (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dothraki#Marriage.2C_sexual_relations.2C_and_childbirth). Human males in every real culture are hardwired to desire sexual exclusivity to ensure that they are not cuckolded, with one of the exceedingly rare exceptions being environmentally-pressured fraternal polyandry  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry)(where brothers marry the same woman). Furthermore, pre-agricultural cultures did not display sexism (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists) on that level if at all (and the Dothraki do not practice agriculture). The Hun, Mongol and Sioux the Dothraki were explicitly "inspired by" according to Martin were known for having female warriors like Khutulun  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khutulun)and Tashenamani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Robe_Woman).

Quote from: Skarg;1038594"Satanic" seems a Christiany misnomer. Certainly there have been historical violent nomadic people who don't do agriculture or permanent construction, and loot the same.

No, the Dothraki literally believe that agriculture and civilization are evil (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Mengo) for desecrating the "earth mother." That is militant anarcho-primitivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) and no pre-modern culture has ever believed in anything like that.

Quote from: Skarg;1038594Murder is common and normalized? Particularly moreso than in historical human cultures?

At one point it is stated that a wedding reception without several murders (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dothraki#Marriage.2C_sexual_relations.2C_and_childbirth) is considered a dull affair. Even the vikings (https://www.ranker.com/list/viking-wedding-traditions-and-rituals/lyra-radford), whose berserkers were known to take drugs before battle, were not that violent.

Their economy  (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dothraki#Economy)makes no sense, as they supposedly cannot comprehend buying and selling. The concept of buying and selling (whether bartering or currency) is so simple than even monkeys understand it (https://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/). Martin cannot even keep himself consistent as right afterward the Dothraki are shown to run a protection racket.

To say nothing of their (lack of) tactics (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dothraki#Military). The Dothraki somehow sack cities despite wearing no armor, having no siege weapons, and are never mentioned to employ any tactics. Every realistic analysis of their invasion of Westeros results in them getting their asses handed to them (https://www.theodysseyonline.com/daenerys-would-get-massacred-in-westeros). It is a pretty common conclusion on the Alternate History forums that a battle between any real nomadic horsemen culture versus the Dothraki would result in the latter being slaughtered like defenseless sheep.

Basically, the Dothraki do not make any sense as human beings. Every single aspect of their culture violates basic human psychology and they are literally stupider than monkeys. They are just caricatures for Dany, the main character of that story thread, to contrast against.

Drow are ancient Norse Svartelfs D&D-ized.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038605Drow are ancient Norse Svartelfs D&D-ized.

Svartálfar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svart%C3%A1lfar) also known as myrkálfar. "Both the svartálfar and Svartálfaheimr are primarily attested in the Prose Edda, written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson." They are also dwarves. :D

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1038603Basically, the Dothraki do not make any sense as human beings. Every single aspect of their culture violates basic human psychology and they are literally stupider than monkeys. They are just caricatures for Dany, the main character of that story thread, to contrast against.

Well, is this the face of a scholar? No, it's just some guy who was too lazy to research the Wars of the Roses properly. He shouldn't be writing books, he should be DMing an AD&D1e open game table, where lazy plagiarism, cliches and silliness are welcomed. And I speak as such a DM.

(https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/epa_russia_literature_george_r-r_93099981.jpg)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1038624Well, is this the face of a scholar? No, it's just some guy who was too lazy to research the Wars of the Roses properly. He shouldn't be writing books, he should be DMing an AD&D1e open game table, where lazy plagiarism, cliches and silliness are welcomed. And I speak as such a DM.

(https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/epa_russia_literature_george_r-r_93099981.jpg)

DMing AD&D doesn't give you a net worth of $65 Million. :D

Quote from: Krimson;1038625DMing AD&D doesn't give you a net worth of $65 Million. :D

This is true. But I don't think he'll get to enjoy it for long. If he just wanted to sit around talking shit and eating lots of junk food while getting obese, then DMing is just what he needed to do.

You can't be properly racist if you don't have the slurs to go with it!

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/6na3hi/i_compiled_a_list_of_racial_slurs_for_you_to_use/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/6na3hi/i_compiled_a_list_of_racial_slurs_for_you_to_use/)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1038626This is true. But I don't think he'll get to enjoy it for long. If he just wanted to sit around talking shit and eating lots of junk food while getting obese, then DMing is just what he needed to do.

Wow. Jealous much?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1038603I spent years reading articles about them. G.R.R. Martin's world building is terrible as a rule, but the Dothraki are probably the most obvious example. They are a bunch of caricatures based on stereotypes of barbarians and nomadic horsemen. ...

Wow, well I'll defer somewhat to your superior time investment in thinking about how implausible they are!

I was willing to cut Martin a little bit of slack as with the rest of his world which seems to be only aiming for slightly more credibility than a typical RPG fantasy world... it is after all a different (yet remarkably Earth-derivative) planet, with a bizarrely variable seasonal system, impossible populations & logistics unless the people and plants and admitted to be rather non-human (or probably even if they are) and at least in the TV show and art, ridiculously tall vertical constructions, dragons that grow from eggs to enormous in a few years, etc.

It still does better than most fantasy RPG & film settings I've seen at being somewhat self-consistent.

Quote from: Krimson;1038622Svartálfar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svart%C3%A1lfar) also known as myrkálfar. "Both the svartálfar and Svartálfaheimr are primarily attested in the Prose Edda, written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson." They are also dwarves. :D

Dwarf, Drow, who can tell them apart? ;)

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038648Wow. Jealous much?

No. Why? Does a less than glowing review of something popular indicate jealousy? Or does it indicate the person's actual opinion?

Quote from: Skarg;1038653Dwarf, Drow, who can tell them apart? ;)

They all look the same to me.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1038603Basically, the Dothraki do not make any sense as human beings. Every single aspect of their culture violates basic human psychology and they are literally stupider than monkeys. They are just caricatures for Dany, the main character of that story thread, to contrast against.

They don't make any sense militarily either. They are light cavalry who rely on hair-on-fire charges. Martin gave them bows but neither he nor the show-runners ever have them engage in fire-and-maneuver. They are infuckingsane and should have been wiped out in their first serious fight. And good riddance.

Quote from: Krimson;1038694They all look the same to me.

Demihumans, pfft. Go figure.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1038660No. Why? Does a less than glowing review of something popular indicate jealousy? Or does it indicate the person's actual opinion?

If it is a review you were aiming for, then I suggest you  play the ball and not the man: His weight and diet, as you imagine it, have nothing to do with his literary works.

For example. an appreciation of Handel's Water Music should not be based on the fact that the compser was a bit chubby and snuck off to guzzle port in his room instead of sharing it with dinner guests.

Nor should an obituary of the neurophysicist and writer of the best-seller The Thorn Birds read like this:

QuoteCOLLEEN McCullough, Australia's best selling author, was a charmer. Plain of feature, and certainly overweight, she was, nevertheless, a woman of wit and warmth.

Unless you are a writing for The Australian and wish to piss off the rest of the literary world.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/the-thorn-birds-author-colleen-mccullough-dies-on-norfolk-island/news-story/4df21f435226642fcf481cce11700c89?nk=bc5f2f4580008915d085cf23f7d47f10

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1036823That was actually a big problem with Game of Thrones that took me right out of the story. The Dothraki, who are human (played by a rag-tag bunch of actors of various skin colors), are portrayed in a way that is completely at odds with any society that has existed in history on Earth and generally resembles the orcs of D&D. The Dothraki believe agriculture and construction is satanic, they always have sex in public, murder is common and normalized, women are treated as chattel, they destroy everything in their path, have no sense of tactics or warcraft, etc. They are not remotely believable as a culture.

Bullshit, man. They're just "fantasy Mongols", though admittedly, not exactly well-presented:).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1038603Their economy  (https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dothraki#Economy)makes no sense, as they supposedly cannot comprehend buying and selling. The concept of buying and selling (whether bartering or currency) is so simple than even monkeys understand it (https://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/). Martin cannot even keep himself consistent as right afterward the Dothraki are shown to run a protection racket.

And that's just funny. There are real cultures that consider trading to be beneath them, so exchange is made by gift-giving, which is explicitly mentioned about the Dothraki in the books.

But then you also wrote this.

QuoteDiscard your pretensions and delusions of morality! Play evil campaigns as the default. I guarantee that a campaign where the party are literally murderous hobos who butcher villages with impunity will be vastly more entertaining and cathartic than those lame goody-two-shoes campaigns where paladins mow down orcs with impunity. Orcs are just humans in makeup, so why equivocate?

So I can safely conclude you're just trolling;).

Quote from: Krimson;1038622Svartálfar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svart%C3%A1lfar) also known as myrkálfar. "Both the svartálfar and Svartálfaheimr are primarily attested in the Prose Edda, written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson." They are also dwarves. :D

Reading real mythology is so enlightening. I am surprised that so many authors mutilate it into something silly.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1038624Well, is this the face of a scholar? No, it's just some guy who was too lazy to research the Wars of the Roses properly. He shouldn't be writing books, he should be DMing an AD&D1e open game table, where lazy plagiarism, cliches and silliness are welcomed. And I speak as such a DM.

Yea verily.

Quote from: Skarg;1038653Wow, well I'll defer somewhat to your superior time investment in thinking about how implausible they are!

I was willing to cut Martin a little bit of slack as with the rest of his world which seems to be only aiming for slightly more credibility than a typical RPG fantasy world... it is after all a different (yet remarkably Earth-derivative) planet, with a bizarrely variable seasonal system, impossible populations & logistics unless the people and plants and admitted to be rather non-human (or probably even if they are) and at least in the TV show and art, ridiculously tall vertical constructions, dragons that grow from eggs to enormous in a few years, etc.

It still does better than most fantasy RPG & film settings I've seen at being somewhat self-consistent.

I do not have a problem with that. I do take issue when people praise Martin for being realistic when his work is anything but. It is grimdark fiction, a genre which is defined by focusing excessively on anthropogenic suffering.

Quote from: AsenRG;1038807Bullshit, man. They're just "fantasy Mongols", though admittedly, not exactly well-presented:).

That's putting it mildly. Every fanfic I have read which focused on them either rewrote them extensively or used them as target practice.

Quote from: AsenRG;1038807And that's just funny. There are real cultures that consider trading to be beneath them, so exchange is made by gift-giving, which is explicitly mentioned about the Dothraki in the books.

Please provide citations because I would be very interested in knowing of these cultures and the historical reasons behind their customs.

The gift giving is never mentioned after the first book, since it was a contrived excuse to maintain Dany's narrative at that time. I find it one of the weakest and most boring parts of the story, and I would have preferred something where... and this is just of the top of my head... Drogo married her specifically for her claim to the throne because he wants to conquer Westeros and then send its armies to conquer Essos or something.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1038952Please provide citations because I would be very interested in knowing of these cultures and the historical reasons behind their customs.

Here you go; Gift Economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy).

Quote from: AsenRG;1038807Bullshit, man. They're just "fantasy Mongols", though admittedly, not exactly well-presented:).

Horribly presented. If the Mongols had been anything like them there would have been no Mongol Empire.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1038963Horribly presented. If the Mongols had been anything like them there would have been no Mongol Empire.

I think Mongols are hard because the average fantasy reader audience knows that they are vaguely cool horse-archer nomad 'barbarians' that kicked the 'civilized' world's butt and during the era of Genghis Khan conquered the largest area of land ever achieved... but not really how or why (other than maybe 'they were just that badass'). I'm not going to defend Martin's work--other than to reverse it and say that if GRRM's work had been anything like real history there would have been no GRRM (rich famous author). I will say that he played into his audience expectations very well (so, awful all the way to the bank/crazy like a fox/etc.).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1038969I think Mongols are hard because the average fantasy reader audience knows that they are vaguely cool horse-archer nomad 'barbarians' that kicked the 'civilized' world's butt and during the era of Genghis Khan conquered the largest area of land ever achieved... but not really how or why (other than maybe 'they were just that badass'). I'm not going to defend Martin's work--other than to reverse it and say that if GRRM's work had been anything like real history there would have been no GRRM (rich famous author). I will say that he played into his audience expectations very well (so, awful all the way to the bank/crazy like a fox/etc.).

Exactly. My theory is that if you get 10 experts on various subjects you can destroy any fictional story.

Quote from: Chris24601;1038958Here you go; Gift Economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy).

Yep. The first time we had cultures with gift economies in our RPGs was when some of my friends in the early 1990s started running semi-historical ancient Celtic campaigns. I thought it was pretty interesting how readily the players (in our groups, anyway) took on the idea with enthusiasm, as well as wealth measured mainly in livestock, and also having feasts and sacrifices that an accountant might tend to assess as throwing away wealth. But the players quickly understood that it's a great way to gain allies for when you may need them at some point in the future, and to gain reputation, and to have peace instead of excessive cattle-raiding and casualties, and that sometimes you just have more than you need, and the best use of spare goats or cattle can be to give them to someone who currently doesn't have enough, so you gain them as a friend instead of having them come take your excess animals in the night (and possibly ending up killing your night watch).

Quote from: Chris24601;1038958Here you go; Gift Economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy).

Okay, that article only proves my point. Real gift economies occur in small communities where everyone can remember everyone else, not hordes of tens of thousands where people regularly killed each other for trivial reasons.

I still think my "Khal Drogo, Conqueror of Worlds" idea is better than the story we got.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1038973Exactly. My theory is that if you get 10 experts on various subjects you can destroy any fictional story.

Case in point, spacebattles delivered this epic smack down (https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/how-asoiaf-is-unrealistic.429506/).

Back to the topic of orcs, I read a story about Amazonian orcs which took time to explain the rationale behind their culture. They considered orc men to be brutish and stupid, so they reinforced their numbers by raiding human villages and indoctrinating the captured. This was used as a framing device for femdom orc/human erotica.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038806If it is a review you were aiming for, then I suggest you  play the ball and not the man: His weight and diet, as you imagine it, have nothing to do with his literary works.

Yes, they do. Because at his current rate of progress, and his size, he's going to die before he actually finishes his current literary work.

I suggested that the quality of his writing and world-building was more on the level of a good DM than a good writer. And his lifestyle habits are likewise more those of a stereotypical D&D player than a writer, who should be drinking and smoking more.

Since both his writing and his lifestyle more closely resemble that of a DM than a writer, this is what he should be doing. And yes, I'm judging him. I know we're not meant to do that these days, but that's just who I am.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1038998Case in point, spacebattles delivered this epic smack down (https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/how-asoiaf-is-unrealistic.429506/).

Holy crap! I haven't been this mezmerized by an internet thread since the days of Star Destroyers versus the Enterprise!

Great smackdown!

And this guy said the same as me:

"It's why I ultimately prefer LOTR and Tolkient to GRRM. GRRM's world may be more open, but it just doesn't feel alive. Rather it feels like a generic fantasy setting for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign, with the same amount of lackluster effort put into it."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1039089Great smackdown!

And this guy said the same as me:

"It's why I ultimately prefer LOTR and Tolkient to GRRM. GRRM's world may be more open, but it just doesn't feel alive. Rather it feels like a generic fantasy setting for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign, with the same amount of lackluster effort put into it."

Personally I'm not a fan of either, because the wrote/write in the same manner, especially in LoTR's latter books.  The King Returns is mostly a travelogue with some character moments, whereas Game of Thrones is more about the politics than the actual characters, neither of them have any real 'life' to them.

Personal opinion.

Eh, you look at Greyhawk, Realms, Golarion - these settings are much more detailed and don't have the gaping holes that Westeros does.

Westeros doesn't seem like world created for a RPG campaign, it seems exactly what it is, a world created for a series of novels, where a lot of details simply don't matter so they don't get nailed down and things are specifically not defined so that the author won't get backed into any corners and can let the story go where it needs to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1039111Eh, you look at Greyhawk, Realms, Golarion - these settings are much more detailed and don't have the gaping holes that Westeros does.

Middle-Earth feels the same to me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1039111Westeros doesn't seem like world created for a RPG campaign, it seems exactly what it is, a world created for a series of novels, where a lot of details simply don't matter so they don't get nailed down and things are specifically not defined so that the author won't get backed into any corners and can let the story go where it needs to.

And personally I need more depth to the world.

GRRM's world is a weird hybrid.  
It doesn't have enough internal consistency or detail to be a good RPG world, which makes it seem more like a literary world.
It doesn't have enough originality to be a good literary world, which makes it seem more like an RPG world.

Frustrating, but I do like the novels.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1038952That's putting it mildly. Every fanfic I have read which focused on them either rewrote them extensively or used them as target practice.

Fanfics in general aren't my measure of originality or good research. YMMV.

QuoteThe gift giving is never mentioned after the first book, since it was a contrived excuse to maintain Dany's narrative at that time. I find it one of the weakest and most boring parts of the story, and I would have preferred something where... and this is just of the top of my head... Drogo married her specifically for her claim to the throne because he wants to conquer Westeros and then send its armies to conquer Essos or something.

...why would he bother with an excuse:D? And I'm asking seriously.

Quote from: Chris24601;1038958Here you go; Gift Economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy).

Thank you:). I'm too lazy to google that...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1038998Okay, that article only proves my point. Real gift economies occur in small communities where everyone can remember everyone else, not hordes of tens of thousands where people regularly killed each other for trivial reasons.

Which hordes are fractured in tribes.
And no, gift giving as a rule often persists long after that stage. See: rules for gift-giving (and taking) in contemporary Asian societies.

QuoteI still think my "Khal Drogo, Conqueror of Worlds" idea is better than the story we got.

Of course you'd think that;).

QuoteBack to the topic of orcs, I read a story about Amazonian orcs which took time to explain the rationale behind their culture. They considered orc men to be brutish and stupid, so they reinforced their numbers by raiding human villages and indoctrinating the captured. This was used as a framing device for femdom orc/human erotica.

To everyone his fetishes:p!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1039119GRRM's world is a weird hybrid.  
It doesn't have enough internal consistency or detail to be a good RPG world, which makes it seem more like a literary world.
It doesn't have enough originality to be a good literary world, which makes it seem more like an RPG world.

Frustrating, but I do like the novels.

If you liked them, why do you care;)?

Quote from: AsenRG;1039142If you liked them, why do you care;)?

Because, of course, I looked at running a Westeros campaign, at which point the holes in the tapestry started becoming more apparent.

Martin is well-versed in history - certainly better than most modern fantasy authors. You can see the real-world analogues to most of his settings, cultures, and even the political incidents and dynastic intrigues. He's said that for many years he read far more history than fantasy, which is a good sign for a fantasy author, many of whom are engaged in a tiredly iterative imitation of genre fiction. His world-building is fine. The cultures he presents are rooted in history, but dialed up to 11. Which is an effective literary technique. If you're going to riff on the mongols, then you'll do well to exaggerate their most strange, fearsome, and brutal characteristics - that's the whole point of drama, especially fantastic drama.

And Martin isn't even that far off the mark when it comes to the Dothraki. The people of the Asiatic steppes had some pretty bizarre customs, acted as fearsomely as their reputation, and were a genuinely polyglot culture. When I was listening to Dan Carlin's Wrath of the Khans podcasts on the subject, I often chuckled at how much Martin cribbed from history. Of course, their military tactics as depicted in the TV shows are absurd. I guess the show-runners don't think lethal volleys of arrows are dramatic enough on the screen. Can't fault Martin for that, though, as I don't recall any battle scenes in the books where Dothraki tactics are described.

But yeah, Martin's world is often more lurid, brutal, and weird than reality. Welcome to the fantasy genre. If you want your setting to be firmly grounded in mundane reality, then read historical fantasy. Guy Gavriel Kay is a good place to start. And I much prefer Martin's 'lurid history dialed up to 11' approach to the sanitized, anachronistic, milqtoast pap offered by writers like Sanderson, Rothfuss, etc.

As for not presenting enough detail in his worldbuilding, the kind of exhaustive and explicit details a lot of modern fantasy writers include in their work is the opposite of drama. It's grist for the autism-spectrum nerds who don't really grok human drama and instead want to bury their heads in elaborate artifice. The kind who obsesses over magic systems. When I see the words 'magic system' in the review of a fantasy novel, I run far away. That kind of crap, beloved by hacks like Brandon Sanderson, is for readers who want their fantasy fiction modeled after RPGs because human drama is too unsettling for them if it isn't shackled to an inert system that engages the math-brain. An author only needs to include enough background material to support the scenes in the story. Anything else is pointless wankery.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1039111Eh, you look at Greyhawk, Realms, Golarion - these settings are much more detailed and don't have the gaping holes that Westeros does.

Westeros doesn't seem like world created for a RPG campaign, it seems exactly what it is, a world created for a series of novels, where a lot of details simply don't matter so they don't get nailed down and things are specifically not defined so that the author won't get backed into any corners and can let the story go where it needs to.

    Sounds like Krynn. :)

Quote from: Haffrung;1039161As for not presenting enough detail in his worldbuilding, the kind of exhaustive and explicit details a lot of modern fantasy writers include in their work is the opposite of drama. It's grist for the autism-spectrum nerds who don't really grok human drama and instead want to bury their heads in elaborate artifice. The kind who obsesses over magic systems. When I see the words 'magic system' in the review of a fantasy novel, I run far away. That kind of crap, beloved by hacks like Brandon Sanderson, is for readers who want their fantasy fiction modeled after RPGs because human drama is too unsettling for them if it isn't shackled to an inert system that engages the math-brain. An author only needs to include enough background material to support the scenes in the story. Anything else is pointless wankery.

I agree as to the point about the details in his novels, which is why it surprises me that people say he writes like he's creating a gaming world.  It seems to me he's definitely not writing that way.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1039067Holy crap! I haven't been this mezmerized by an internet thread since the days of Star Destroyers versus the Enterprise!

I've never watched nor read Titties and Dragons but this was definitely an entertaining read.

Quote from: Krimson;1039176I've never watched nor read Titties and Dragons but this was definitely an entertaining read.

"Tits and Lizards" was the name of a fantasy fanzine back in the 80s.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039213"Tits and Lizards" was the name of a fantasy fanzine back in the 80s.

NOW I remember what turned me off of 4e. Dragon boobs.

Quote from: Haffrung;1039161Martin is well-versed in history - certainly better than most modern fantasy authors. You can see the real-world analogues to most of his settings, cultures, and even the political incidents and dynastic intrigues. He's said that for many years he read far more history than fantasy, which is a good sign for a fantasy author, many of whom are engaged in a tiredly iterative imitation of genre fiction. His world-building is fine. The cultures he presents are rooted in history, but dialed up to 11. Which is an effective literary technique. If you're going to riff on the mongols, then you'll do well to exaggerate their most strange, fearsome, and brutal characteristics - that's the whole point of drama, especially fantastic drama.

And Martin isn't even that far off the mark when it comes to the Dothraki. The people of the Asiatic steppes had some pretty bizarre customs, acted as fearsomely as their reputation, and were a genuinely polyglot culture. When I was listening to Dan Carlin's Wrath of the Khans podcasts on the subject, I often chuckled at how much Martin cribbed from history. Of course, their military tactics as depicted in the TV shows are absurd. I guess the show-runners don't think lethal volleys of arrows are dramatic enough on the screen. Can't fault Martin for that, though, as I don't recall any battle scenes in the books where Dothraki tactics are described.

But yeah, Martin's world is often more lurid, brutal, and weird than reality. Welcome to the fantasy genre. If you want your setting to be firmly grounded in mundane reality, then read historical fantasy. Guy Gavriel Kay is a good place to start. And I much prefer Martin's 'lurid history dialed up to 11' approach to the sanitized, anachronistic, milqtoast pap offered by writers like Sanderson, Rothfuss, etc.

As for not presenting enough detail in his worldbuilding, the kind of exhaustive and explicit details a lot of modern fantasy writers include in their work is the opposite of drama. It's grist for the autism-spectrum nerds who don't really grok human drama and instead want to bury their heads in elaborate artifice. The kind who obsesses over magic systems. When I see the words 'magic system' in the review of a fantasy novel, I run far away. That kind of crap, beloved by hacks like Brandon Sanderson, is for readers who want their fantasy fiction modeled after RPGs because human drama is too unsettling for them if it isn't shackled to an inert system that engages the math-brain. An author only needs to include enough background material to support the scenes in the story. Anything else is pointless wankery.

That's actually very well-put:)!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1039167I agree as to the point about the details in his novels, which is why it surprises me that people say he writes like he's creating a gaming world.  It seems to me he's definitely not writing that way.

Well, perceptions differ, Green One. It sure seems so to me. I agree it might seem different to you, though, because YMMV is still a valid statement, even if the "mileage" is "what you get out of reading a novel";).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039213"Tits and Lizards" was the name of a fantasy fanzine back in the 80s.

WHY???

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039357WHY???

There were already magazines named Heavy Metal and Epic Illustrated. :D

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1039165Sounds like Krynn. :)

Aside from a few early goofs that got swept under the rug. Krynn has been fairly consistent when written by the original authors.

Its when you get to the stories penned by others that things can, and do, fall apart a little, or sometimes alot.

Quote from: Omega;1039360Aside from a few early goofs that got swept under the rug. Krynn has been fairly consistent when written by the original authors.

Its when you get to the stories penned by others that things can, and do, fall apart a little, or sometimes alot.

I was referring more to ' the world as backdrop for one story.' And I'm an old veteran of DL continuity debates; I've had my ideas canonized and then de-canonized by Tracy Hickman himself.

In a general sense the Dothraki exist because of Drogo as a character. They don't fit into the rest of the "War of the Roses" analogy that is Game of Thrones, because they were added to allow for a character like Drogo.
And that didn't happen because of wanting to replicate history, it happened because Martin wanted to create three traditional hero characters in the first book, in fact, three characters that are blatant copies (twisted copies, mind you) of the three most iconic fantasy heroes: Aragorn, Elric and Conan. Which he does with Ned Stark, Viserys and Drogo.

And the reason he created them was to have all three killed off in the first part of his story. It was his little touch of Deconstructionism, both to suggest that his book would be "different" from the standard fantasy epic, and possibly to suggest in typical lefty fashion that there was something fundamentally "problematic" about those standard fantasy heroes.