Greetings!
Well, well! The excellent Alexander Macris provides thoughtful, powerful, and insightful commentary and analysis on "Why RPG"s Should Have Evil Races!"
The video program is relatively brief, while simply being excellent in every regard. Macris also provides numerous quips of humour throughout the program.
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Will watch it later as I generally like Macris' takes on things, but even without watching, I wholeheartedly agree. That's part of the fun of gaming. Slaughtering irredeemably evil creatures in the name of good. Or simply to take their ill-gotten gains. Or both. There are enough grey areas in real life. I want my fantasy to be an epic showdown between good and evil, not some discourse on whether "broken orcish society" is to blame for their wayward souls. Things like good stormtroopers and Drizz'zt Du'orden ruined entire villain groups.
Absolutely! Humans at the very least.
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
Greetings!
Well, well! The excellent Alexander Macris provides thoughtful, powerful, and insightful commentary and analysis on "Why RPG"s Should Have Evil Races!"
Alex is about 45 years late to the party. Is he new to RPGs?
It's funny, but I don't use innately evil races in my game. I do however use innately hostile and aggressive races and monsters. I have individually evil NPCs that take the form of humans sometimes and fantastic creatures other times but aren't necessarily hostile or aggressive. I believe this creates a more complex and nuanced game. I don't do this for woke point, I just think it's a fun way to run a setting.
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmEFXSjEpcY
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns
should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Most fantasy settings have demons and undead so there's always going to be evil monsters to slaughter. Good old "Chaotic Evil" never fail to provide perfect antagonists.
Meh, I don't particularly care either way as long as it's interesting and it fits the setting. I tend to prefer more nuanced races that aren't innately evil per se, but more like a nuisance or brutal savages that are more likely to be antagonistic than cooperative. But innately evil works as well for a fantasy world. I'm not gonna cry that orcs are depicted as inherently evil corrupted mutations of humanity (or elves) in some worlds and have no problem playing them like that.
On the topic of Humans vs Neanderthals, I'm not sure how strong the evidence is that they tried to wipe out each other through violence. A lot of the stuff I've read or heard about the topic before seems inconclusive, and human neanderthal inter breeding tends to come up more often. But IDK, maybe it was a combination of both. And I'm more inclined to believe that it was, which is also how I tend to present those types of races, rather being pure evil, unless we're talking about magical races or creatures like demons.
Maybe relevant: a discussion of why cults make good antagonists, by providing PCs something clearly Evil to kill while being small enough for a band of 3-6 people to reasonably take on. https://udan-adan.blogspot.com/2017/10/cults-cultists-and-d.html
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmEFXSjEpcY
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
"Conan doesn't have evil races"? The serpent men?
How is it Atheist to fight demons and demon created things?
7th Sea is woke bullshit, not sure about Ars Magica but if it's true it doesn't have inherently evil "races" it probably is too.
Denying that evil exists is not only woke but Atheistic.
It's an interesting little talk. I've heard elsewhere the theory that goblins, orcs, even fairies are ancestral memories of pre-human hominids. Some people will tell you that's why fairies fear iron, that metallurgy was what allowed primitive humans to triumph over their hominid rivals. Is it true? No idea. I think it's equally likely that iron age people saw old bronze age ruins in the countryside and invented people to fill them.
Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to state categorically that fantasy races represent neanderthals, etc. I doubt that's what Tolkien had in mind.
The "coexistence is impossible" justification for "evil" races reminds me a bit of Goblin Slayer, which seems to be taking that approach. It works, but as others have pointed out, it starts to break down the more advanced the races involved become. It also kind of removes the good and evil from the question. The xenomorph isn't strictly speaking evil; it's just an animal following it's biological imperatives. If you make orcs the same, then killing them might be necessary, but it's not morally any different from killing giant rats or whatever.
Personally, I don't make much use of "evil because evil" races. I prefer "normal" races that have been somehow corrupted. That's more engaging to me, and it neatly sidesteps awkward questions like "how can an entirely evil race build a functional society or raise children?" If I need something to be just pure evil from the moment of it's creation, I'm more likely to use demons or some other metaphysical being.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:07:14 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
"Conan doesn't have evil races"? The serpent men?
Serpent men don't appear in any of Howard's Conan stories. You can argue that they're technically in the universe because of Kull stories, which is possible -- but the point is -- one doesn't need serpent-men (or any other non-human race) in a Conan game. At least in R.E. Howard, Conan overwhelmingly fought other humans. It's common in many Sword & Sorcery stories that there aren't a bunch of humanoid races like elves and dwarves and orcs, just humans.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:07:14 PM
Denying that evil exists is not only woke but Atheistic.
No one is denying that evil exists. One doesn't need innately evil races for there to be evil. Human beings can and do commit evil acts.
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 07:57:29 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:07:14 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
"Conan doesn't have evil races"? The serpent men?
Serpent men don't appear in any of Howard's Conan stories. You can argue that they're technically in the universe because of Kull stories, which is possible -- but the point is -- one doesn't need serpent-men (or any other non-human race) in a Conan game. At least in R.E. Howard, Conan overwhelmingly fought other humans. It's common in many Sword & Sorcery stories that there aren't a bunch of humanoid races like elves and dwarves and orcs, just humans.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:07:14 PM
Denying that evil exists is not only woke but Atheistic.
No one is denying that evil exists. One doesn't need innately evil races for there to be evil. Human beings can and do commit evil acts.
The Iron Shadows in the Moon IS REH Conan, so you're back to square one.
I'm explaining to you the saying evil exists ISN'T atheistic.
You THINK you don't need inherently evil races, probably because you're very close to woke if you're not one.
You can rationalize it as you like but it's because you feel it's raicismist.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, anything with AI as characters, etc
If you want your aliens to be simplistic then good-evil is a nice axis. If you want your aliens to be more nuanced and complex so that your game has more depth, then good-evil is a shitty axis
And again, Starship Troopers the movie was simplistic while Starship Troopers the book was complex. Also, if you think that Doctor Who is deep, then you are fucked in the head.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 08:11:36 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 07:57:29 PM
Serpent men don't appear in any of Howard's Conan stories. You can argue that they're technically in the universe because of Kull stories, which is possible -- but the point is -- one doesn't need serpent-men (or any other non-human race) in a Conan game. At least in R.E. Howard, Conan overwhelmingly fought other humans. It's common in many Sword & Sorcery stories that there aren't a bunch of humanoid races like elves and dwarves and orcs, just humans.
The Iron Shadows in the Moon IS REH Conan, so you're back to square one.
I'm explaining to you the saying evil exists ISN'T atheistic.
You THINK you don't need inherently evil races, probably because you're very close to woke if you're not one.
You can rationalize it as you like but it's because you feel it's raicismist.
To be clear - I have inherently evil races in many of my campaigns. I'm about to do a test run of my Middle Earth game this week, which has evil races (orcs and trolls). My previous two D&D campaigns also had evil races. One was a post-fantasy-apocalypse game with standard D&D evil races (goblins, drow, etc.). In my Temple of the Elements campaign, it was about establishing the rule of good against the evil races - which were humans, elves, and dwarves. I regularly run Call of Cthulhu, which has plenty of horrific races about.
What I don't do is say that every game *has* to have evil races or it's badwrongfun that needs to be moralized at.
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 08:32:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, anything with AI as characters, etc
If you want your aliens to be simplistic then good-evil is a nice axis. If you want your aliens to be more nuanced and complex so that your game has more depth, then good-evil is a shitty axis
And again, Starship Troopers the movie was simplistic while Starship Troopers the book was complex. Also, if you think that Doctor Who is deep, then you are fucked in the head.
I basically agree. Fantasy likes making good and evil distinctions feel more permanent than they really have any business being; a sentient creature can make their own decisions and that means not being evil when the majority of your kin are. Sci-Fi does tend to go the other way a bit too far, though, with most races being cosmetic choices of what funny alien forehead the makeup department will apply today rather than a cultural critique.
I think the core here is that if you want a black and white moral universe, most enemies should really be below sentience rather than belonging to an evil race.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 08:11:36 PM
You THINK you don't need inherently evil races, probably because you're very close to woke if you're not one.
You literally don't need inherently evil races, full stop. Even for a classic good vs evil world. Star Wars is largely about fighting an evil Empire made up of non-inherently evil humans who choose to be evil with the same end result. Most stories about good vs evil are about good humans vs evil humans. And most bad creatures in sci-fi, like Xenomorphs in Aliens, are just inherently antagonistic rather than truly evil.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 24, 2023, 09:46:49 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 08:32:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, anything with AI as characters, etc
If you want your aliens to be simplistic then good-evil is a nice axis. If you want your aliens to be more nuanced and complex so that your game has more depth, then good-evil is a shitty axis
And again, Starship Troopers the movie was simplistic while Starship Troopers the book was complex. Also, if you think that Doctor Who is deep, then you are fucked in the head.
I basically agree. Fantasy likes making good and evil distinctions feel more permanent than they really have any business being; a sentient creature can make their own decisions and that means not being evil when the majority of your kin are. Sci-Fi does tend to go the other way a bit too far, though, with most races being cosmetic choices of what funny alien forehead the makeup department will apply today rather than a cultural critique.
I think the core here is that if you want a black and white moral universe, most enemies should really be below sentience rather than belonging to an evil race.
Hmmm, I wonder. Fantasy has gods, angel, demons, devils, and other divine or infernal beings. Having some sentient races act as moral absolutes is fine. Although that sentience allows them to choose as well, to act against the stereotype. Again, it would depend on how much depth and nuance you want your games to be. You can do a lot with that nuance.
Then again, it's a game. Sometimes you just want to kill orcs or shoot stormtroopers because they are bad guys. Sometimes you want that evil leader out to destroy the human race on Earth is because his own world is doomed and he needs to find a home for his people (Abelt Desslar of Gamalas in Space Battleship Yamato).
Ultimately it's up to you. Best to keep your options open.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 08:11:36 PM
You THINK you don't need inherently evil races, probably because you're very close to woke if you're not one.
WOW........
The woke are the monster under your bed, aren't they?
Geeky is the poster child for the first rule of the fanatic...
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/f0/d5/10/f0d5106aa20be69f444be6bd45488a0b.jpg)
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmEFXSjEpcY
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Of course *you* disagree, Jhkim. I *knew* it would be a cold day in Hell before you agreed with Macris. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 24, 2023, 09:46:49 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 08:32:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, anything with AI as characters, etc
If you want your aliens to be simplistic then good-evil is a nice axis. If you want your aliens to be more nuanced and complex so that your game has more depth, then good-evil is a shitty axis
And again, Starship Troopers the movie was simplistic while Starship Troopers the book was complex. Also, if you think that Doctor Who is deep, then you are fucked in the head.
I basically agree. Fantasy likes making good and evil distinctions feel more permanent than they really have any business being; a sentient creature can make their own decisions and that means not being evil when the majority of your kin are. Sci-Fi does tend to go the other way a bit too far, though, with most races being cosmetic choices of what funny alien forehead the makeup department will apply today rather than a cultural critique.
I think the core here is that if you want a black and white moral universe, most enemies should really be below sentience rather than belonging to an evil race.
Hmmm, I wonder. Fantasy has gods, angel, demons, devils, and other divine or infernal beings. Having some sentient races act as moral absolutes is fine. Although that sentience allows them to choose as well, to act against the stereotype. Again, it would depend on how much depth and nuance you want your games to be. You can do a lot with that nuance.
Then again, it's a game. Sometimes you just want to kill orcs or shoot stormtroopers because they are bad guys. Sometimes you want that evil leader out to destroy the human race on Earth is because his own world is doomed and he needs to find a home for his people (Abelt Desslar of Gamalas in Space Battleship Yamato).
Ultimately it's up to you. Best to keep your options open.
So you think that wanting to genocide the whole human race (for whatever reason) doesn't make you inherently evil?
ALL of the genocidal maniacs we've had also thought they had a good reason and were the good guys.
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 08:32:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, anything with AI as characters, etc
If you want your aliens to be simplistic then good-evil is a nice axis. If you want your aliens to be more nuanced and complex so that your game has more depth, then good-evil is a shitty axis
And again, Starship Troopers the movie was simplistic while Starship Troopers the book was complex. Also, if you think that Doctor Who is deep, then you are fucked in the head.
Nice goalpost moving.
And since you have NO arguments then you try and start a fight over something NOT directed at you...
Say hi to Vision Storm in the ignore list.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 02:18:56 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 24, 2023, 09:46:49 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 08:32:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, anything with AI as characters, etc
If you want your aliens to be simplistic then good-evil is a nice axis. If you want your aliens to be more nuanced and complex so that your game has more depth, then good-evil is a shitty axis
And again, Starship Troopers the movie was simplistic while Starship Troopers the book was complex. Also, if you think that Doctor Who is deep, then you are fucked in the head.
I basically agree. Fantasy likes making good and evil distinctions feel more permanent than they really have any business being; a sentient creature can make their own decisions and that means not being evil when the majority of your kin are. Sci-Fi does tend to go the other way a bit too far, though, with most races being cosmetic choices of what funny alien forehead the makeup department will apply today rather than a cultural critique.
I think the core here is that if you want a black and white moral universe, most enemies should really be below sentience rather than belonging to an evil race.
Hmmm, I wonder. Fantasy has gods, angel, demons, devils, and other divine or infernal beings. Having some sentient races act as moral absolutes is fine. Although that sentience allows them to choose as well, to act against the stereotype. Again, it would depend on how much depth and nuance you want your games to be. You can do a lot with that nuance.
Then again, it's a game. Sometimes you just want to kill orcs or shoot stormtroopers because they are bad guys. Sometimes you want that evil leader out to destroy the human race on Earth is because his own world is doomed and he needs to find a home for his people (Abelt Desslar of Gamalas in Space Battleship Yamato).
Ultimately it's up to you. Best to keep your options open.
So you think that wanting to genocide the whole human race (for whatever reason) doesn't make you inherently evil?
ALL of the genocidal maniacs we've had also thought they had a good reason and were the good guys.
Evil to whom? Humans? Sure. The people of Gamalas? No, not really. Except that is nuanced characterization, which looks like it is beyond you.
Genocidal maniacs, huh? Are you talking about the Real World or are you talking about a fictional universe?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 02:23:51 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 08:32:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, anything with AI as characters, etc
If you want your aliens to be simplistic then good-evil is a nice axis. If you want your aliens to be more nuanced and complex so that your game has more depth, then good-evil is a shitty axis
And again, Starship Troopers the movie was simplistic while Starship Troopers the book was complex. Also, if you think that Doctor Who is deep, then you are fucked in the head.
Nice goalpost moving.
And since you have NO arguments then you try and start a fight over something NOT directed at you...
Say hi to Vision Storm in the ignore list.
Since you cannot handle a rebuttal to your own poorly formed argument, you claim that I have none and place me on Ignore because of Goalpost Moving. The hint here was that I was making a list of science fiction shows which have nuanced and complex alien races in them whose actions can be both good and evil depending on the viewpoint and the motivation for the action while you made a list of science fiction shows which focus on monsters to defeat.
So the mighty GeekyBugle goes running off with his fingers in his ears yelling LaLaLaLaLaLaLa!! so that you cannot hear a counter argument.
Notice that I have NOT put you on Ignore. Coward.
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 25, 2023, 02:42:15 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 02:18:56 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 24, 2023, 09:46:49 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 08:32:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2023, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
Starship Troopers, Lifeforce, Alien the 8th passenger, the Daleks, whatever Sil from Species is, say hi.
Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars, anything with AI as characters, etc
If you want your aliens to be simplistic then good-evil is a nice axis. If you want your aliens to be more nuanced and complex so that your game has more depth, then good-evil is a shitty axis
And again, Starship Troopers the movie was simplistic while Starship Troopers the book was complex. Also, if you think that Doctor Who is deep, then you are fucked in the head.
I basically agree. Fantasy likes making good and evil distinctions feel more permanent than they really have any business being; a sentient creature can make their own decisions and that means not being evil when the majority of your kin are. Sci-Fi does tend to go the other way a bit too far, though, with most races being cosmetic choices of what funny alien forehead the makeup department will apply today rather than a cultural critique.
I think the core here is that if you want a black and white moral universe, most enemies should really be below sentience rather than belonging to an evil race.
Hmmm, I wonder. Fantasy has gods, angel, demons, devils, and other divine or infernal beings. Having some sentient races act as moral absolutes is fine. Although that sentience allows them to choose as well, to act against the stereotype. Again, it would depend on how much depth and nuance you want your games to be. You can do a lot with that nuance.
Then again, it's a game. Sometimes you just want to kill orcs or shoot stormtroopers because they are bad guys. Sometimes you want that evil leader out to destroy the human race on Earth is because his own world is doomed and he needs to find a home for his people (Abelt Desslar of Gamalas in Space Battleship Yamato).
Ultimately it's up to you. Best to keep your options open.
So you think that wanting to genocide the whole human race (for whatever reason) doesn't make you inherently evil?
ALL of the genocidal maniacs we've had also thought they had a good reason and were the good guys.
Evil to whom? Humans? Sure. The people of Gamalas? No, not really. Except that is nuanced characterization, which looks like it is beyond you.
Genocidal maniacs, huh? Are you talking about the Real World or are you talking about a fictional universe?
Welcome to the new and improved Geeky, now even more oblivious. Who literally initiates an argument with you by nitpicking your first post, misses your point and uncharitably interprets what you say, then accuses you of starting a fight, engaging in some random fallacy that doesn't really apply and of not having an argument, when all he has are empty declarations, which aren't really arguments, and bad examples, which don't really prove shit. Then proceeds to block you while declaring victory. Totally not like a SJW.
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmEFXSjEpcY
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
Greetings!
Well, well! The excellent Alexander Macris provides thoughtful, powerful, and insightful commentary and analysis on "Why RPG"s Should Have Evil Races!"
The video program is relatively brief, while simply being excellent in every regard. Macris also provides numerous quips of humour throughout the program.
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Great video Shark. Macris of course gets it right. The woke crybabies don't see it that way because pick a reason: they can't tell the difference between a game and reality or they hate humanity.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmEFXSjEpcY
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
Yeah, but "evil races" here means "inherently evil", like in the case of demons, not "potentially evil and psychotic (likely in the worst of circumstances), but also potentially good or indifferent", as is the case with humans. And not all games need to include inherently evil races for there to be something to do. Just potentially evil or at least antagonistic will do.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
Woke isn't a race but an ideology.
Every woke was part of the human race.
Therefore those woke monsters hiding under your bed and grabbing your tootsies at night are actually human and therefore irredeemable evil because you have said so.
(Bender voice) Hey, baby. Wanna kill all humans?(/Bender voice)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
I think we're miscommunicating. Exploderwizard suggested a different definition of "evil race". Let's call these two things:
1)
Possibly Evil Races - This includes humans. Humans can be nazis, but they can also be paladins. Plenty of other fantasy races fall into this category - dwarves, elves, etc.
2)
Innately Evil Races - These are races that cannot be anything but evil from birth. So it is morally OK to kill innately-evil babies.
Exploderwizard tried to say that "evil races" meant #1, so campaigns did need "evil races". However, I clarified that wasn't what Macris was talking about in his video.
I do think one can have a fun fantasy campaign with humans as the only race - or with various non-human races, but none of them innately evil. One can also have a fun fantasy campaign with innately-evil race(s).
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 25, 2023, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
Greetings!
Well, well! The excellent Alexander Macris provides thoughtful, powerful, and insightful commentary and analysis on "Why RPG"s Should Have Evil Races!"
The video program is relatively brief, while simply being excellent in every regard. Macris also provides numerous quips of humour throughout the program.
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Great video Shark. Macris of course gets it right. The woke crybabies don't see it that way because pick a reason: they can't tell the difference between a game and reality or they hate humanity.
Hey there, Rytrasmi! Yes, I agree. Macris brings up the author of some book about Neanderthals being incompatible with our own species of human--and while certainly interbreeding occured--it was a fanatical, desperate struggle for survival against a species of humanoid that was larger, faster, and stronger than ourselves. He then offers that it is precisely this desperate, genocidal struggle amongst different competing species of humans that is the worldwide basis for Orcs, Goblins, Ogres, and so on that threatened our own survival constantly. This pervasive struggle for survival is thus seen in virtually every culture, worldwide. That is fascinating, and I must admit that yes, I have heard the analysis of others scientists and authors that dare to stand against a more normative position that our relationships with competing prehistoric species was not all sugar and rainbows, but rather, an epic struggle for survival.
It reminds me of the older mainstream "Consensus" that Chimps are sweet and nice--when after a landmark study by Jane Goodall--yes, THE JANE GOODALL--where she recorded tribes of Chimps in Africa attacking other tribes of Chimps--why? So that the larger, stronger Chimp tribe could seize and rape the foreign Chimp females, and also gain the bannana resources that existed in the foreign Chimp tribe's land. The larger, stronger Chimp tribe invaded their weaker neighbors, where all the foreign males of every age were killed. The females were raped and enslaved into the dominant tribe--and the dominant tribe also gained all those extra Bannana plants.
Mainstream hippy scientists and anthropologists squirmed and REEE'd--but the evidence was irrefutable. For my Anthropology class I researched this, and thus demonstrated that war, rape, and conquest was a natural part of the human condition--with roots seen even within our Chimp cousins.
CHIMPS kill, rape, and conquer their neighbors for the same reasons that Humans do--because we want mre land, more women, and more Bannanas. And, well, we don't like many of our neighbors, so they get enslaved, or killed and eaten.
You see this dynamic throughout Human history, everywhere. It is only within the last century that our eager lust for conquest and genocide has been *slightly* tempered and reduced. Smug academics like to sniff about how "Enlightened" we are--Democracies don't go to war, blah, blah, blah. However, despite their squeeling and smug pontificating--it is human nature to love war and conquest. Our current headlines are also vivd examples of human conflict around the world--from Afica, the Middle East, the Caucusus, and Ukraine, just to point out the more prominent conflicts.
So, back to the main thrust--I am not surprised early human species slaughtered and conquered each other at all--and with a pervasive zeal.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on September 25, 2023, 08:26:13 PM
Hey there, Rytrasmi! Yes, I agree. Macris brings up the author of some book about Neanderthals being incompatible with our own species of human--and while certainly interbreeding occured--it was a fanatical, desperate struggle for survival against a species of humanoid that was larger, faster, and stronger than ourselves.
...
Quote from: SHARK on September 25, 2023, 08:26:13 PM
So, back to the main thrust--I am not surprised early human species slaughtered and conquered each other at all--and with a pervasive zeal.
As far as I can tell, all of this just supports my contention that one can have a fun RPG full of conflict with only humans, and there is no need for orcs or other innately-evil races.
I think Macris is slightly off target here (though the core thrust of his argument is sound).
RPG campaigns need antagonists.
If everyone you cross paths with is just 'misunderstood' or 'not really evil'... what's the point of fighting? Now, granted, if you wanted to run some kind of strange social-fu game, I guess this would work. Kinda. I suppose it's an interesting idea.
But that's not what we're after. So we need antagonists. People we can fight and not have to worry about 'but what about their point of view?'. Because they're the bad guys. Doesn't matter if they're undead, monstrous races, aliens, or whatever.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 25, 2023, 09:38:44 PM
I think Macris is slightly off target here (though the core thrust of his argument is sound).
RPG campaigns need antagonists.
If everyone you cross paths with is just 'misunderstood' or 'not really evil'... what's the point of fighting? Now, granted, if you wanted to run some kind of strange social-fu game, I guess this would work. Kinda. I suppose it's an interesting idea.
But that's not what we're after. So we need antagonists. People we can fight and not have to worry about 'but what about their point of view?'. Because they're the bad guys. Doesn't matter if they're undead, monstrous races, aliens, or whatever.
Yeah, that's pretty much what he is arguing. But, as you know, whenever someone makes a declarative statement, the usual suspects suddenly become smooth-brained and can't see anything but "Absolutes bad!"
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 09:08:14 PMAs far as I can tell, all of this just supports my contention that one can have a fun RPG full of conflict with only humans, and there is no need for orcs or other innately-evil races.
I wouldn't say that inherently evil races are needed for a fun RPG, but adding them creates more variety. There are stories you can only tell if their is the threat from an inherently evil enemy. It's the classic Dalek trope where normal enemies need to put aside their differences to face an existential threat. So adding an inherently evil enemy type, even if that threat is far from the main focus of the campaign world, adds potential stories that the game world wouldn't have otherwise.
This is one of the big differences between worlds created for books or TV and worlds created for RPGs. Worlds created for RPGs need a wider variety of threats than normal entertainment worlds because the time spent inside an RPG world is orders of magnitude longer than time spent in most entertainment IPs.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
Gotta love a guy who's always accusing people of launching StRaWmEn and loses his shit anytime he thinks someone even remotely misrepresented him somehow go out of his way to ignore context and twist something someone said.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 25, 2023, 09:38:44 PM
I think Macris is slightly off target here (though the core thrust of his argument is sound).
RPG campaigns need antagonists.
If everyone you cross paths with is just 'misunderstood' or 'not really evil'... what's the point of fighting? Now, granted, if you wanted to run some kind of strange social-fu game, I guess this would work. Kinda. I suppose it's an interesting idea.
But that's not what we're after. So we need antagonists. People we can fight and not have to worry about 'but what about their point of view?'. Because they're the bad guys. Doesn't matter if they're undead, monstrous races, aliens, or whatever.
Yeah, that's pretty much what he is arguing. But, as you know, whenever someone makes a declarative statement, the usual suspects suddenly become smooth-brained and can't see anything but "Absolutes bad!"
I wonder who these people are, since even jhkim said he's OK with innately evil races in his elfgames, and no one's actually said that absolutes are bad. The only harsh arguments going on have been against Geeky's sTrAwMeN. But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
Gotta love a guy who's always accusing people of launching StRaWmEn and loses his shit anytime he thinks someone even remotely misrepresented him somehow go out of his way to ignore context and twist something someone said.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 25, 2023, 09:38:44 PM
I think Macris is slightly off target here (though the core thrust of his argument is sound).
RPG campaigns need antagonists.
If everyone you cross paths with is just 'misunderstood' or 'not really evil'... what's the point of fighting? Now, granted, if you wanted to run some kind of strange social-fu game, I guess this would work. Kinda. I suppose it's an interesting idea.
But that's not what we're after. So we need antagonists. People we can fight and not have to worry about 'but what about their point of view?'. Because they're the bad guys. Doesn't matter if they're undead, monstrous races, aliens, or whatever.
Yeah, that's pretty much what he is arguing. But, as you know, whenever someone makes a declarative statement, the usual suspects suddenly become smooth-brained and can't see anything but "Absolutes bad!"
I wonder who these people are, since even jhkim said he's OK with innately evil races in his elfgames, and no one's actually said that absolutes are bad. The only harsh arguments going on have been against Geeky's sTrAwMeN. But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
Who said this?
QuoteAnd not all games need to include inherently evil races for there to be something to do. Just potentially evil or at least antagonistic will do.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
In order to lie to or about you, I'd have to
care about you. Which I don't. I'm not emotionally involved in some rando on an OSR board that... doesn't even like OSR. At least I'm a fan of OSR and play it regularly. I mean, if we're going for levels of pathetic here, you've got me beaten by a mile. I'm fine just pointing and laughing...
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 08:25:04 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
I think we're miscommunicating. Exploderwizard suggested a different definition of "evil race". Let's call these two things:
1) Possibly Evil Races - This includes humans. Humans can be nazis, but they can also be paladins. Plenty of other fantasy races fall into this category - dwarves, elves, etc.
2) Innately Evil Races - These are races that cannot be anything but evil from birth. So it is morally OK to kill innately-evil babies.
Exploderwizard tried to say that "evil races" meant #1, so campaigns did need "evil races". However, I clarified that wasn't what Macris was talking about in his video.
I do think one can have a fun fantasy campaign with humans as the only race - or with various non-human races, but none of them innately evil. One can also have a fun fantasy campaign with innately-evil race(s).
One can have fun a million different ways, so?
Let me postulate some hypoteticals:
Campaign one Orcs are inherently Evil so it's fine to exterminate them.
Campaign two has only humans, under what conditions is it okay to exterminate one group of humans?
Campaign three has races other than human but NONE are inherently evil, under what conditions is it okay to exterminate one of them?
Asuming we're talking about intelligent races why isn't diplomacy the ONLY acceptable solution if no one is inherently evil?
I might be the exception around here but I've played Evil campaigns, didn't enjoyed it as much as a regular campaign, I've also played "Muh shades of grey morality!" campaigns, same as before it's not the same play style.
So, in a campaign where you want maximum stakes extermination must be on the table, and (unlike the enlightened centrists) I don't think that the Arachnids wanting to genocide all humans can EVER be morally justified which means the Humans (not being the agresors) are justified in fighthing back even if that means exterminating EVERY single arachnid from the universe BECAUSE that's what they want to do to us.
Enter the "muh complexity!" smoothbrain enlightened centrists.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
Gotta love a guy who's always accusing people of launching StRaWmEn and loses his shit anytime he thinks someone even remotely misrepresented him somehow go out of his way to ignore context and twist something someone said.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 25, 2023, 09:38:44 PM
I think Macris is slightly off target here (though the core thrust of his argument is sound).
RPG campaigns need antagonists.
If everyone you cross paths with is just 'misunderstood' or 'not really evil'... what's the point of fighting? Now, granted, if you wanted to run some kind of strange social-fu game, I guess this would work. Kinda. I suppose it's an interesting idea.
But that's not what we're after. So we need antagonists. People we can fight and not have to worry about 'but what about their point of view?'. Because they're the bad guys. Doesn't matter if they're undead, monstrous races, aliens, or whatever.
Yeah, that's pretty much what he is arguing. But, as you know, whenever someone makes a declarative statement, the usual suspects suddenly become smooth-brained and can't see anything but "Absolutes bad!"
I wonder who these people are, since even jhkim said he's OK with innately evil races in his elfgames, and no one's actually said that absolutes are bad. The only harsh arguments going on have been against Geeky's sTrAwMeN. But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
Who said this?
QuoteAnd not all games need to include inherently evil races for there to be something to do. Just potentially evil or at least antagonistic will do.
Someone with nuance and reading comprehension who knew what they were talking about and never mentioned that absolutes were necessarily bad, nor that inherently evil races shouldn't exist. Only that they weren't necessary for all games.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
Gotta love a guy who's always accusing people of launching StRaWmEn and loses his shit anytime he thinks someone even remotely misrepresented him somehow go out of his way to ignore context and twist something someone said.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 25, 2023, 09:38:44 PM
I think Macris is slightly off target here (though the core thrust of his argument is sound).
RPG campaigns need antagonists.
If everyone you cross paths with is just 'misunderstood' or 'not really evil'... what's the point of fighting? Now, granted, if you wanted to run some kind of strange social-fu game, I guess this would work. Kinda. I suppose it's an interesting idea.
But that's not what we're after. So we need antagonists. People we can fight and not have to worry about 'but what about their point of view?'. Because they're the bad guys. Doesn't matter if they're undead, monstrous races, aliens, or whatever.
Yeah, that's pretty much what he is arguing. But, as you know, whenever someone makes a declarative statement, the usual suspects suddenly become smooth-brained and can't see anything but "Absolutes bad!"
I wonder who these people are, since even jhkim said he's OK with innately evil races in his elfgames, and no one's actually said that absolutes are bad. The only harsh arguments going on have been against Geeky's sTrAwMeN. But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
Who said this?
QuoteAnd not all games need to include inherently evil races for there to be something to do. Just potentially evil or at least antagonistic will do.
I'm living rent free in the head of this particular "enlightened centrist" smoothbrain.
VS doesn't argue in good faith EVER, your best course of action IMNSHO is to put him on ignore.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
In order to lie to or about you, I'd have to care about you. Which I don't. I'm not emotionally involved in some rando on an OSR board that... doesn't even like OSR. At least I'm a fan of OSR and play it regularly. I mean, if we're going for levels of pathetic here, you've got me beaten by a mile. I'm fine just pointing and laughing...
I never said you were lying about me specifically, and this isn't an OSR board, but a TTRPG board ostensibly dedicated to discussing TTRPGs in general. It just happens to be primarily, but not exclusively dominated by OSR now, cuz most of the old posters left, and most that remain are either fans of the site owner, who's an OSR designer, or embroiled in the culture war.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 10:50:08 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 25, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Any game that includes humans includes evil races. No created fantasy race can be as barbaric, cruel, and evil as humans can be to each other. Are the aggressive wretched orcs in most fantasy settings more evil than humans have historically been to each other? I think not. Humans cheat, extort, oppress, enslave, torture , and murder their own kind far more than many so called evil races do within their own species.
In the video, Macris is talking about innately evil races -- such that it's morally OK to kill a baby of that race.
If you want to define that humans are an "evil race", then sure, games need evil races - but then, all games have evil races. Even woke games are fine to have nazis as villains.
Nazi isn't a race but an ideology.
Every nazi was part of the human race.
So no, woke games aren't fine with having evil races, except when they are made by some "minority" and cast ALL people of European descent as evil, a la Coyote & Crow, and every other Afro-Futurist game/setting.
Gotta love a guy who's always accusing people of launching StRaWmEn and loses his shit anytime he thinks someone even remotely misrepresented him somehow go out of his way to ignore context and twist something someone said.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 25, 2023, 09:38:44 PM
I think Macris is slightly off target here (though the core thrust of his argument is sound).
RPG campaigns need antagonists.
If everyone you cross paths with is just 'misunderstood' or 'not really evil'... what's the point of fighting? Now, granted, if you wanted to run some kind of strange social-fu game, I guess this would work. Kinda. I suppose it's an interesting idea.
But that's not what we're after. So we need antagonists. People we can fight and not have to worry about 'but what about their point of view?'. Because they're the bad guys. Doesn't matter if they're undead, monstrous races, aliens, or whatever.
Yeah, that's pretty much what he is arguing. But, as you know, whenever someone makes a declarative statement, the usual suspects suddenly become smooth-brained and can't see anything but "Absolutes bad!"
I wonder who these people are, since even jhkim said he's OK with innately evil races in his elfgames, and no one's actually said that absolutes are bad. The only harsh arguments going on have been against Geeky's sTrAwMeN. But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
Who said this?
QuoteAnd not all games need to include inherently evil races for there to be something to do. Just potentially evil or at least antagonistic will do.
I'm living rent free in the head of this particular "enlightened centrist" smoothbrain.
VS doesn't argue in good faith EVER, your best course of action IMNSHO is to put him on ignore.
This post brought to you by the guy whose every single reply post, except maybe one, has involved some attempt to misconstrue or uncharitably interpret what the other poster said.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
In order to lie to or about you, I'd have to care about you. Which I don't. I'm not emotionally involved in some rando on an OSR board that... doesn't even like OSR. At least I'm a fan of OSR and play it regularly. I mean, if we're going for levels of pathetic here, you've got me beaten by a mile. I'm fine just pointing and laughing...
I never said you were lying about me specifically, and this isn't an OSR board, but a TTRPG board ostensibly dedicated to discussing TTRPGs in general. It just happens to be primarily, but not exclusively dominated by OSR now, cuz most of the old posters left, and most that remain are either fans of the site owner, who's an OSR designer, or embroiled in the culture war.
So, a board run by an OSR designer, where most of the posters are, by your own admission, primarily fans of the OSR. The jokes just write themselves, at this point...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
In order to lie to or about you, I'd have to care about you. Which I don't. I'm not emotionally involved in some rando on an OSR board that... doesn't even like OSR. At least I'm a fan of OSR and play it regularly. I mean, if we're going for levels of pathetic here, you've got me beaten by a mile. I'm fine just pointing and laughing...
I never said you were lying about me specifically, and this isn't an OSR board, but a TTRPG board ostensibly dedicated to discussing TTRPGs in general. It just happens to be primarily, but not exclusively dominated by OSR now, cuz most of the old posters left, and most that remain are either fans of the site owner, who's an OSR designer, or embroiled in the culture war.
So, a board run by an OSR designer, where most of the posters are, by your own admission, primarily fans of the OSR. The jokes just write themselves, at this point...
I'm sure Pundit's intent is for this board to be exclusively OSR, as opposed to getting traffic from as many TTRPG gamers regardless of their preference as possible.
EDIT/PS: I wonder were the OSR label is in this pic...
(https://www.therpgsite.com/therpgsite_logo2.png)
Pundit should probably change it to read "A form for discussing OSR games". You should tell him he had his banner done wrong.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 11:15:24 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:13:06 PM
But I suppose shit don't need to actually happen for you to declare it did, since you're fine with lying.
In order to lie to or about you, I'd have to care about you. Which I don't. I'm not emotionally involved in some rando on an OSR board that... doesn't even like OSR. At least I'm a fan of OSR and play it regularly. I mean, if we're going for levels of pathetic here, you've got me beaten by a mile. I'm fine just pointing and laughing...
I never said you were lying about me specifically, and this isn't an OSR board, but a TTRPG board ostensibly dedicated to discussing TTRPGs in general. It just happens to be primarily, but not exclusively dominated by OSR now, cuz most of the old posters left, and most that remain are either fans of the site owner, who's an OSR designer, or embroiled in the culture war.
So, a board run by an OSR designer, where most of the posters are, by your own admission, primarily fans of the OSR. The jokes just write themselves, at this point...
I'm sure Pundit's intent is for this board to be exclusively OSR, as opposed to getting traffic from as many TTRPG gamers regardless of their preference as possible.
EDIT/PS: I wonder were the OSR label is in this pic...
(https://www.therpgsite.com/therpgsite_logo2.png)
Pundit should probably change it to read "A form for discussing OSR games". You should tell him he had his banner done wrong.
And you think that makes it better? SMH... :o
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:55:51 PM
I never said you were lying about me specifically, and this isn't an OSR board, but a TTRPG board ostensibly dedicated to discussing TTRPGs in general. It just happens to be primarily, but not exclusively dominated by OSR now, cuz most of the old posters left, and most that remain are either fans of the site owner, who's an OSR designer, or embroiled in the culture war.
So, a board run by an OSR designer, where most of the posters are, by your own admission, primarily fans of the OSR. The jokes just write themselves, at this point...
Eirikrautha, you registered on this board in 2019. I registered back in 2006. It certainly wasn't an OSR board back in 2006. Back then, Pundit hadn't published anything - and he was playing True20.
If this is an "OSR board" because a bunch of OSR people signed up and started talking about different stuff here, then by that logic, a bunch of people coming and playing D&D differently changes what "D&D" is.
It's the same thing. A bunch of newbies like you come in and think they can define what the "real thing" is, ignoring the people who have been playing the whole time.
I wonder where does the "Orcs don't have to be evil!" thing end, making Megatron and the Decepticons into morally grey sorta heroes?
Greetings!
Well, I'm all for "Variety, Nuance, and Depth"--however, it strikes me that saying *THAT* on one hand, and saying that "There shouldn't be inherently EVIL races in a campaign world are two distinctly different things.
Come on, people. Stop being smarmy and disingenuous. Throughout D&D's history--even back in the day--there was neutral Orcs and Good-aligned Ogres. Then, of course, there arrived everyone's favourite goody-goody Drow Elf Ranger, Drizzt Do'Urden. While such things existed--and many people embraced such racial exceptions for their campaigns, no one was arguing that there "Shouldn't be Inherently Evil Races in a campaign."
No reasonable person is attacking a mature, reasonable DM or player that desires some variety or nuance in racial exceptions in a game campaign. The argument is targeted square-away at the eye-rolling, smug, pussy-cuck crybabies that shriek about how racist, phobic, Colonial, Supremacist, and toxic gamers are that want traditional races and frameworks in the campaign to remain an essential part of the campaign and game foundation.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on September 26, 2023, 01:07:59 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 10:55:51 PM
I never said you were lying about me specifically, and this isn't an OSR board, but a TTRPG board ostensibly dedicated to discussing TTRPGs in general. It just happens to be primarily, but not exclusively dominated by OSR now, cuz most of the old posters left, and most that remain are either fans of the site owner, who's an OSR designer, or embroiled in the culture war.
So, a board run by an OSR designer, where most of the posters are, by your own admission, primarily fans of the OSR. The jokes just write themselves, at this point...
Eirikrautha, you registered on this board in 2019. I registered back in 2006. It certainly wasn't an OSR board back in 2006. Back then, Pundit hadn't published anything - and he was playing True20.
If this is an "OSR board" because a bunch of OSR people signed up and started talking about different stuff here, then by that logic, a bunch of people coming and playing D&D differently changes what "D&D" is.
It's the same thing. A bunch of newbies like you come in and think they can define what the "real thing" is, ignoring the people who have been playing the whole time.
Ahhh, I was waiting for the, "I've been here longer than you." It completes the I Haven't Got Anything Relevant To Say board nicely. Now do the logical fallacies; I've still got spaces open...
P.S. "Old School" describes a style of play intended to simulate (mostly) the way many of us played D&D back in the late 70s and early 80s. Pretty sure those of us who played back then aren't the newbies (regardless of when we registered on any particular website). Pretty sure VisionStorm wasn't playing back then...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:31:39 PM
And you think that makes it better? SMH... :o
No clue WTF you mean by that. But then again this entire line of questioning makes no sense, outside it being some sort of gotcha line of deflection for the fact you have no real arguments. So you have to make it about attacking me by resorting to implying that I'm wrong somehow by virtue of posting in a so-called "OSR board" while not worshiping at the altar of Gary Gygax.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 26, 2023, 01:19:45 AM
I wonder where does the "Orcs don't have to be evil!" thing end, making Megatron and the Decepticons into morally grey sorta heroes?
The same way that the Galactic Empire became made up of morally gray sorta heroes when George Lucas failed to make humans innately evil?
Besides, as SHARK pointed out, there have always been non-evil orcs, ogres, whatever. Orcs never had to be evil, they just usually were. Creature alignment has always been a tendency in D&D, outside of certain supernatural creatures.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 26, 2023, 01:19:45 AM
I wonder where does the "Orcs don't have to be evil!" thing end, making Megatron and the Decepticons into morally grey sorta heroes?
That's been around for at least 30 years, back when all there was were the original G1 toys, cartoons and comics. :)
Quote from: SHARK on September 26, 2023, 06:05:53 AM
Greetings!
Well, I'm all for "Variety, Nuance, and Depth"--however, it strikes me that saying *THAT* on one hand, and saying that "There shouldn't be inherently EVIL races in a campaign world are two distinctly different things.
Come on, people. Stop being smarmy and disingenuous. Throughout D&D's history--even back in the day--there was neutral Orcs and Good-aligned Ogres. Then, of course, there arrived everyone's favourite goody-goody Drow Elf Ranger, Drizzt Do'Urden. While such things existed--and many people embraced such racial exceptions for their campaigns, no one was arguing that there "Shouldn't be Inherently Evil Races in a campaign."
No reasonable person is attacking a mature, reasonable DM or player that desires some variety or nuance in racial exceptions in a game campaign. The argument is targeted square-away at the eye-rolling, smug, pussy-cuck crybabies that shriek about how racist, phobic, Colonial, Supremacist, and toxic gamers are that want traditional races and frameworks in the campaign to remain an essential part of the campaign and game foundation.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Dude, tell it to GeekyBugle. He's the guy knee-jerking all over the place.
Evil races aren't necessary. There are plenty of evil individuals, dangerous races, and misguided folks that need to be opposed to provide opposition in your game world. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with having them in your game, and for certain game experiences they are essential.
I've always struggled with the idea that an inherently selfish, mean, and dishonest race could form large social groups. I guess it's more about practicality than anything. For example, the Valesians in Spacemaster Privateers are velociraptors. They see themselves as perfectly rational. There are predators and there is prey. The contact and uplift teams suffered high casualties trying to bring them into interstellar society. They didn't have any large social bodies on their worlds.
8) It was never holy writ alignment, it was a propensity towards such alignment range, with exceptions assumed to be understood by mature readers (I know, never assume...).
That's why humans covered all 9 because there's wonderful examples of individuals & groups doing any of those ethoi in various shades within. (It's the only existing example we have, so sample size of one.) All other races are given these shorthand brushstrokes so as to keep things loosely thematic while having breadth of range for different tables. This way doesn't fix the creatures' cultures, groups, & individuals into something too precise to fit in one's own campaign.
It's like using animal analogs to empart a quick understanding of a new fictional creature; it's a way to tell quickly a relateable baseline that you can show later as nuanced difference. You cannot do all detailed & nuanced together at once from the beginning because then their shapes lose form amongst their muddled sameness. The Contrast makes thematic distinctions pop out in relief, which helps give narrative* thrust to the players' choices in a meaningful way. (*Narrative in this usage is its 3rd meaning about representing a situation's aims or values.) Too tonally similar often leaves confusion and disinterest in the situation.
PS: Also, you are all worthy of love and deserve a hug. :) Be kind, rewind!
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmEFXSjEpcY
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
I agree with you for the most part, but Conan DOES have evil races. What Conan does not have is Good races.
If the EXCEPTION is a good Orc it follows that the vast majority are EVIL, it's basic logic.
Why do you think the woke REEEEEEEEEEEEEE against words as normal/abnormal? They asign a moral judgment when those words only describe what the vast majority of a species does/is:
For instance humans are normally heterosexual, ergo being heterosexual is normal, there's no value/moral judgement.
Now extrapollate to EVIL races: It's NORMAL for an Orc to be Evil (of course here there IS a moral/value judgement), ergo if you want one that isn't you make an exception.
Feel free to use other words like propensity, tendency, etc. Fact is Orcs ARE evil and you might encounter one that ISN'T, but that Orc would constitute an exception to the rule not prove the rule is wrong.
The vast majority of Mammals give birth to live offspring, monothremes existing doesn't disprove the fact.
Quote from: oggsmash on September 28, 2023, 02:27:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
I agree with you for the most part, but Conan DOES have evil races. What Conan does not have is Good races.
That's possible, and I'm prepared to concede that. I'd be curious to know what you are thinking of. GeekyBugle cited "The Iron Shadows in the Moon" which has gray man-eating apes on a remote island. I feel that's more a beast than an evil race, but I'll concede that they can be considered an evil race. There is probably some other story or stories I'm forgetting.
Broadly, in the R.E. Howard stories, Conan overwhelmingly fights other humans. There are some rare appearances of non-human beings, like the elephant-headed alien in the tower Yag-Kosha, but we know almost nothing about them - and it's hard to judge whether they are innately evil as a race. Also, I recall Conan had what he thought might be a dream fighting frost giants, but we don't even know if they were real. I'll grant there is probably some story I don't remember that has an evil race in it, but I don't think evil races are necessary for a Conan game.
Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2023, 03:31:48 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 28, 2023, 02:27:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
I agree with you for the most part, but Conan DOES have evil races. What Conan does not have is Good races.
That's possible, and I'm prepared to concede that. I'd be curious to know what you are thinking of. GeekyBugle cited "The Iron Shadows in the Moon" which has gray man-eating apes on a remote island. I feel that's more a beast than an evil race, but I'll concede that they can be considered an evil race. There is probably some other story or stories I'm forgetting.
Broadly, in the R.E. Howard stories, Conan overwhelmingly fights other humans. There are some rare appearances of non-human beings, like the elephant-headed alien in the tower Yag-Kosha, but we know almost nothing about them - and it's hard to judge whether they are innately evil as a race. Also, I recall Conan had what he thought might be a dream fighting frost giants, but we don't even know if they were real. I'll grant there is probably some story I don't remember that has an evil race in it, but I don't think evil races are necessary for a Conan game.
We do know the giants are real. He still has the woman's veil when he wakes up. Therrs also that old race from Queen of the Black Coast that had basically died out i recall being evil, but its been years since ive read that one.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 28, 2023, 03:07:30 PM
If the EXCEPTION is a good Orc it follows that the vast majority are EVIL, it's basic logic.
Why do you think the woke REEEEEEEEEEEEEE against words as normal/abnormal? They asign a moral judgment when those words only describe what the vast majority of a species does/is:
For instance humans are normally heterosexual, ergo being heterosexual is normal, there's no value/moral judgement.
Now extrapollate to EVIL races: It's NORMAL for an Orc to be Evil (of course here there IS a moral/value judgement), ergo if you want one that isn't you make an exception.
Feel free to use other words like propensity, tendency, etc. Fact is Orcs ARE evil and you might encounter one that ISN'T, but that Orc would constitute an exception to the rule not prove the rule is wrong.
The vast majority of Mammals give birth to live offspring, monothremes existing doesn't disprove the fact.
"I'm now forced to accept that Orc were never inherently evil. But I can still prove to you that they are, because LOLgic."
(https://media.tenor.com/BzdybKbJj7gAAAAd/moving-goalpost.gif)
This argument was never about what's "normal" or commonplace, but about what's inherent, immutable or "innate". NO ONE at ANY point throughout this discussion argued against "normalcy". And something being typical within a given population does not make it "logical" to blanketly apply that label to the entire population, regardless.
Human beings are not a "heterosexual" species. They are a sexually reproductive species, that's it. The majority might tend towards what we refer to as "heterosexual" preferences or behavior, but these labels are merely a social convention concocted in the modern age with no solid scientific basis. There's no clear consensus on where heterosexuality ends and bisexual tendencies begin, or to what extend environmental factors (like being in prison or having homosexual sex at an early age) might affect sexuality. And humans could just as well be bisexual or even homosexual for that matter (plenty of gay people still have kids even at this day and age), and still sexually reproduce. For some species of sexually reproducing animals, sexual reproduction is largely a matter of hormones rather than sexual preference. Sexuality is an aside.
To refer to humans as a "heterosexual" species would be asinine, and a desperate reach to desperately attempt to "win" this argument. And NOBODY has ever referred to humans as a species that way. Nobody has ever said "Humans ARE heterosexual (as in PERIOD). So to claim that "humans are normally heterosexual, therefore Orcs ARE evil, and that's a 'FACT'" would make no sense. This is not how logic works.
I think that evil races are very rare on REH's Conan stories. In Shadows in the Moonlight, the main villains are ordinary men, who are transformed into statues by an angry god, so not a separate species to humans. There's also a man-ape in the story, but it's just a beast. The giants in The Frost Giant's Daughter are children of a god, and I suspect gods themselves. I don't think that would count as a race, but I might be wrong. In Queen of the Black Coast, it's a race of winged apes, but they appear to have been good to start with (they are described as gods), then turned evil when their water source was poisoned. And since there's just one left when Conan arrives, it's not even a species at that point.
The clearest example I can think of is from Pool of the Black Ones, where there is an evil non-human species. So such races certainly exist, but the vast majority of those stories don't have evil races in them and do just fine without them. Also, there's no pre-known evil race, like orcs or goblins, that Conan just knows are evil in advance.
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
It actually works great for science fiction- the broad idea that "intelligent tool-user" is inimical to other things (with some other assumptions that block out the possibilities of meaningful diplomacy) is touched on in the excellent-but-overrated novel
The Dark Forest. The idea in its more reasonable interpretation is discussed in other media, that has humans able to ally easily with species that inhabit gas giants and airless small rocky worlds than they are other oxygen breathers. You can also make the case that in most science fiction, the ability to educate, deal peaceably, respect borders, etc., makes humans dealing with Vulkans or Spathi much more like humans dealing with other nations of humans- something arguably impossible for Neanderthals and our own ancestors, in the example provided in the video.
Quote from: KrisSnow on September 24, 2023, 07:01:03 PM
Maybe relevant: a discussion of why cults make good antagonists, by providing PCs something clearly Evil to kill while being small enough for a band of 3-6 people to reasonably take on. https://udan-adan.blogspot.com/2017/10/cults-cultists-and-d.html
Really good point I think. It is skirting the issue though- the debate that gets talked about often involves if someone or some
thing can be
born bad. The video makes the point that they can be
born incompatible, and then makes the case that this is the same thing. I don't see why a species or race couldn't be genetically or magically (or both) born to be cowards, born to hate humans, born to be greedy or tricky or just genocidal. There's no reason to assume that these things are impossible, and indeed, many animals have such urges built in as instincts. Bees that form a heat ball when invaded by hornets have an inbuilt desire to kill such things, even if the instinctual behavior isn't technically classic aggression. But it's destructive to the invader nonetheless.
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings.
I feel he's making the case that these settings might actually be improved by the existence of evil races. Certainly Howard's own evil "serpent men" have been dropped into later Conan media to pretty good effect.
Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2023, 03:31:48 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 28, 2023, 02:27:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
I agree with you for the most part, but Conan DOES have evil races. What Conan does not have is Good races.
That's possible, and I'm prepared to concede that. I'd be curious to know what you are thinking of. GeekyBugle cited "The Iron Shadows in the Moon" which has gray man-eating apes on a remote island. I feel that's more a beast than an evil race, but I'll concede that they can be considered an evil race. There is probably some other story or stories I'm forgetting.
Broadly, in the R.E. Howard stories, Conan overwhelmingly fights other humans. There are some rare appearances of non-human beings, like the elephant-headed alien in the tower Yag-Kosha, but we know almost nothing about them - and it's hard to judge whether they are innately evil as a race. Also, I recall Conan had what he thought might be a dream fighting frost giants, but we don't even know if they were real. I'll grant there is probably some story I don't remember that has an evil race in it, but I don't think evil races are necessary for a Conan game.
Are you fucking kidding me!?
Quote
"Yagkoolan yok tha, xuthalla!"
Does that refresh your memory? If not then read from chapter 2 http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600971h.html (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600971h.html)
Quote
Know, oh prince, that between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars.
Robert E. Howard
Now tell me again the Serpent Men from Kull do not apply to Conan, I'm dying to hear your reasoning.
There's always Star Fire New Empire's approach to alignment. You roll percentile for your race, and for each race they encounter. If the rolls are close together, they get along, if the rolls are far apart they don't. No need for moral discussions.
I did always like the bit of early Warhammer 40k fluff from an ad in Dragon Magazine. When humanity finally discovered another intelligent species they went to great lengths to prepare for a diplomatic and friendly first contact but when the diplomats first saw each other they both decided they didn't like what they saw, drew their side arms and started shooting. The Orks were the newly encountered race.
Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2023, 03:31:48 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 28, 2023, 02:27:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
I agree with you for the most part, but Conan DOES have evil races. What Conan does not have is Good races.
That's possible, and I'm prepared to concede that. I'd be curious to know what you are thinking of. GeekyBugle cited "The Iron Shadows in the Moon" which has gray man-eating apes on a remote island. I feel that's more a beast than an evil race, but I'll concede that they can be considered an evil race. There is probably some other story or stories I'm forgetting.
Broadly, in the R.E. Howard stories, Conan overwhelmingly fights other humans. There are some rare appearances of non-human beings, like the elephant-headed alien in the tower Yag-Kosha, but we know almost nothing about them - and it's hard to judge whether they are innately evil as a race. Also, I recall Conan had what he thought might be a dream fighting frost giants, but we don't even know if they were real. I'll grant there is probably some story I don't remember that has an evil race in it, but I don't think evil races are necessary for a Conan game.
The ape is not what he was talking about, the actual iron shadows were an evil race cursed for eternity and were the real danger on the island, not the ape. The frost giants were real, because we see the Atali's clothing in his hands as he is talking to the Aesir about his encounter. I agree they are not necessary and there are a whole lot of dark grey, but like I said there are unquestionably evil races...even if not evil to the last man...and given Howards....."worldview"....there are certain races that are most certainly portrayed as degenerate amoral savages....perhaps not capital E evil...but....not people you are going to want to rub elbows with.
Quote from: oggsmash on September 29, 2023, 09:00:24 AM
Quote from: jhkim on September 28, 2023, 03:31:48 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 28, 2023, 02:27:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
I agree with you for the most part, but Conan DOES have evil races. What Conan does not have is Good races.
That's possible, and I'm prepared to concede that. I'd be curious to know what you are thinking of. GeekyBugle cited "The Iron Shadows in the Moon" which has gray man-eating apes on a remote island. I feel that's more a beast than an evil race, but I'll concede that they can be considered an evil race. There is probably some other story or stories I'm forgetting.
Broadly, in the R.E. Howard stories, Conan overwhelmingly fights other humans. There are some rare appearances of non-human beings, like the elephant-headed alien in the tower Yag-Kosha, but we know almost nothing about them - and it's hard to judge whether they are innately evil as a race. Also, I recall Conan had what he thought might be a dream fighting frost giants, but we don't even know if they were real. I'll grant there is probably some story I don't remember that has an evil race in it, but I don't think evil races are necessary for a Conan game.
The ape is not what he was talking about, the actual iron shadows were an evil race cursed for eternity and were the real danger on the island, not the ape. The frost giants were real, because we see the Atali's clothing in his hands as he is talking to the Aesir about his encounter. I agree they are not necessary and there are a whole lot of dark grey, but like I said there are unquestionably evil races...even if not evil to the last man...and given Howards....."worldview"....there are certain races that are most certainly portrayed as degenerate amoral savages....perhaps not capital E evil...but....not people you are going to want to rub elbows with.
Or degenerate immoral decadents, like the Hyperboreans? (I think I got it right but if not the white people from far north who are ruled by wizards and witches and like to murder and enslave other people).
Quote from: Venka on September 28, 2023, 05:13:01 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 24, 2023, 06:11:03 PM
This works well for fantasy.
It doesn't work well for science fiction.
It actually works great for science fiction- the broad idea that "intelligent tool-user" is inimical to other things (with some other assumptions that block out the possibilities of meaningful diplomacy) is touched on in the excellent-but-overrated novel The Dark Forest. The idea in its more reasonable interpretation is discussed in other media, that has humans able to ally easily with species that inhabit gas giants and airless small rocky worlds than they are other oxygen breathers. You can also make the case that in most science fiction, the ability to educate, deal peaceably, respect borders, etc., makes humans dealing with Vulkans or Spathi much more like humans dealing with other nations of humans- something arguably impossible for Neanderthals and our own ancestors, in the example provided in the video.
OK, I haven't read
The Dark Forest, so I have to do that before I address it.
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 29, 2023, 04:17:45 PM
OK, I haven't read The Dark Forest, so I have to do that before I address it.
Well in that case I won't spoil it for you further. First read
The Three Body Problem, as
The Dark Forest is a direct sequel (if you're in a hurry it reads fine by itself, but both are pretty good).
There's a third novel, but if I could unread it I would. On top of being awful, it also ruins many of the fundamental premises that made the first two work.
Quote from: Venka on September 29, 2023, 05:11:47 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on September 29, 2023, 04:17:45 PM
OK, I haven't read The Dark Forest, so I have to do that before I address it.
Well in that case I won't spoil it for you further. First read The Three Body Problem, as The Dark Forest is a direct sequel (if you're in a hurry it reads fine by itself, but both are pretty good).
There's a third novel, but if I could unread it I would. On top of being awful, it also ruins many of the fundamental premises that made the first two work.
OK, first of all, Liu Cixin is definitely the product of Communist China. His cultural paranoia oozes through that text.
Second, I agree that you don't explore interstellar space by being either technological luddites or not aggressive as a species. I do believe that such a species doesn't survive that stage without curbing some of that aggression because the same technology that allows you to explore interstellar space allows you to destroy planets as well, including your own homeworld. Liu Cixin gives you only a very binary choice of either being the killer or the prey if you are an interstellar society and we are back with Good vs Evil only.
For those not following, here is a short video explaining the problem.
EDIT: Something else to consider. Any civilization that is technologically capable of interstellar travel is also capable of terraforming worlds, building free-flying space colonies, and advanced waste recycling. They are really not going to be interested in fighting over material resources because there are plenty out there.
Well we are deep into spoilers about the book at this point, but the general thesis is that, if you can't communicate easily with something far away, then none of what humans or indeed any animal would use for diplomacy wouldn't be helpful. If you spend the requisite hundreds of years communicating with a near neighbor, they could turn into a xenophobic group in between communications and send a Bussard ramjet to detonate your star- and that this is based on the speed of light being insurmountable.
This is a fine thesis, and could well explain the universe (which is presumably teeming with intelligent life) is so quiet- anyone who tries to make noise is silenced by someone who is afraid of them, and there's always gonna be something afraid of them.
Stripped away of the other stuff in the other books (the first book includes an alien race that wants Earth essentially for its land, contrary to the Dark Forest hypothesis in the second book, and also features individual aliens listening for messages and prepared and empowered unilaterally with the ability to respond, which you would obviously not set up as a species if you believe in said dark forest hypothesis- the third book adds in faster than light travel which totally obviates the dark forest hypothesis, and spends much of the book following unlikable characters and using a ham-fisted barely disguised environmental metaphor to argue for the destruction by suicide of all sentient life), the dark forest hypothesis thesis and book are pretty good.
It's basically the "environmental niche" idea, but predicated around the idea that it's easy to attack from a distance, but impossible to govern or communicate over the vast distance of space, so therefore any being or civilization detected can only either kill you or fail to discover you on a long enough timescale- so you have to kill them if you detect them.
Where is the defense of biomagic determinism?
Does anyone here doubt that, with enough science, a human being could be genetically engineered that would be, as we call it, evil? If that were the goal of a mad scientist (or a team of them), could a person who is violent, lacks trust, is fearful, hateful, whatever, be created, a person who, while technically sound enough of mind to function, is genetically predetermined to be awful?
If the answer is "yes", ok. I think that is correct. If the answer is "no", however, it's not gonna be because "humans have freedom because of their souls" or "all humans are a blank slate because that's politically convenient and also I hate all hierarchies". It's gonna be based on some unknown complexity in genes or brains or chemicals. If humans or other animals could be engineered to be tall or short, strong or weak, then they could also be engineered to be dumb or smart.
If you look at the wikipedia page for "biological determinism", you'll see that it takes a different tact; it's based on the idea that if you hold this to be substantially true already about living humans, then you're some reprobate badguy or whatever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism
Which isn't anyone's topic in TTRPGs now, nor was it never. But it does get levied, as an accusation of sin, against anyone who acknowledges that physical reality and state influence the state of mind (keep in mind that many people who get mad about this are also strict materialists philosophically- this contradiction never bothers them though).
Anyway, this phrase is used as an accusation against anyone who creates orcs to be genetically evil and gives them a -2 Int modifier. It's based on the idea that, if you grant that it's possible at all in any form, technological or supernatural, then you are promoting a harmful ideology (by drawing relatively obvious conclusions from biology, ones not particularly contraindicated by any classic religion).
From the perspective of tabletop gaming, the idea that there's both biological and magical determinism is just fine- and holding that belief is enough to cause at least two big schisms, "there shouldn't be evil races" people (not particularly popular, but they gained a lot of ground amongst the rule-writers at Paizo, Hasbro, and some others), and the "there shouldn't be racial stat modifiers" people (more popular because all in 5e D&D specifically, having floating +2 stat modifiers gets you a feat four levels early with the generally accepted character build rules, and most of their games end at low level).
These two general movements are not ideas that old school games had any time for, though if you have both these beliefs and go to run a game using B/X through 3.X, you'll very easily be able to establish these rules. It's extremely easy to sand all the lovingly crafted bonuses and penalties away from all races, and it's exactly one line in your houserule document you hand out, should you choose to do it. By contrast actually building all the details in requires work and thought. Similarly, taking races intended to be evil and making them misunderstood is trivial as well.
So adding these two ideas to old school games is easy. But adding the inverse into a game not designed for them is very hard, and that asymmetry will be used to abuse more traditionally-minded gamers.
Anyway, to the point I started with- I don't recall a recent full-throated defense of the idea that:
1- An evil scientist could create humans that all tend towards selfishness, brutality, or are unusually smart or stupid.
2- An evil god could create an entire race that is loyal to him and his dark principles, compelled to sacrifice virgins or babies or whatever is genre appropriate to him, for, you know, evil.
3- An evil wizard could split the difference here, creating an entire race of sentient slaves, artificially loyal to him (ideally he eventually fucks up and gets eaten by his own creation, but the morality play isn't necessary for the backdrop).
We have seen plenty of recent OSR settings that implement these, such as Worlds Without Number, but it's rare to see it defended explicitly as a thing to defuse the accusations from those looking to smear anyone who builds such worlds or tells such stories.
From The Angel In The Black Tower
Do you know what it really takes to make one of my subhumans? The angel asked. You have to treat them like they are less than human, it's really as simple as that."
"The schools are key of course. You've seen the budget items and you know my creatures need to be able to read orders and file reports. It's so much easier for them to drop a note to condemn their fellows than it is to speak out in public. Not to mention developing discipline and narrowness of vision. They need to know what happens to weaklings and fools. To achieve that I need teachers that can be strict and cruel at need to maintain order, of course, and so, these are drawn from the weaklings and failures, small and bitter they are of little use to the legions but are so apt to take their revenge on the whelps in the class room. I see to it that the males and females receive their education. It's all very coeducational and progressive, the mating impulse helps to keep things competitive and directed away from dangerous notions and philosophies. Most of the females wind up in the breeding chambers where their fickle affections can be used to keep the males hostile and frustrated, but there have always been a few with the vicious streak needed for command in the legions."
Quote from: David Johansen on September 30, 2023, 04:16:34 PM
From The Angel In The Black Tower
Do you know what it really takes to make one of my subhumans? The angel asked. You have to treat them like they are less than human, it's really as simple as that."
"The schools are key of course. You've seen the budget items and you know my creatures need to be able to read orders and file reports. It's so much easier for them to drop a note to condemn their fellows than it is to speak out in public. Not to mention developing discipline and narrowness of vision. They need to know what happens to weaklings and fools. To achieve that I need teachers that can be strict and cruel at need to maintain order, of course, and so, these are drawn from the weaklings and failures, small and bitter they are of little use to the legions but are so apt to take their revenge on the whelps in the class room. I see to it that the males and females receive their education. It's all very coeducational and progressive, the mating impulse helps to keep things competitive and directed away from dangerous notions and philosophies. Most of the females wind up in the breeding chambers where their fickle affections can be used to keep the males hostile and frustrated, but there have always been a few with the vicious streak needed for command in the legions."
^This sounds like the schools I was forced to attend as a child.
To keep the post on-topic, is this qoute suggesting that bad people are made not born?
It's suggesting you can't just pull an orc out of the breeding pits and expect him to have the nastiness and vicious temperment they are famous for, they have to go to school for that.
Inherently evil races ≠ trite or lowbrow gaming.
They simply lower the hurdle in combat heavy games. No need to parse lore or understand metanarrative. The goblins in the castle are dicks, lets kill them, take their stuff and become heroes. They weren't tricked into being dicks by some demagogue they're goblins that's their thing.
Morally grey scenarios can cause the same analysis paralysis as over inflated lethality in games. It often comes with a side order of in group conflict or hostility among players. Having bad guys and good guys doesn't negate the possibility of good roleplay.
Quote from: Venka on September 30, 2023, 12:10:43 PM
Where is the defense of biomagic determinism?
Does anyone here doubt that, with enough science, a human being could be genetically engineered that would be, as we call it, evil?
I don't doubt it. The genetic formula for a sociopath is probably discoverable
Quote from: ForgottenF on September 24, 2023, 07:43:41 PM
...The xenomorph isn't strictly speaking evil; it's just an animal following it's biological imperatives...
We don't know that. If we base it on the first film alone, I think it's more like a really nasty drunk, that knows exactly what he's doing, and doesn't care.
On the question of whether to include evil races, I suggest it's a flawed premise, derived from Tolkien's secondary-world-building extravaganza, which taught us to think of things in terms of sprawling history, sociology, and scientific-like reasoning. If we think of gaming as being more like symbolic fairy tales or dreams or allegories, then we cut past the modern conceits and go back to the primal elements that the Arbiter of Worlds video elaborates on--I would agree that the most vivid and bracing games flow from there.
I'm gonna say that while I'm totally neutral about whether you should or should have not evil races in your games (I prefer generally human-like enemies or untold monstrosities - I kinda scoff at evil-race that could be just as well be played by antagonistic tribe of some Picts, Arabs, Americans or French I can slaughter without any moral problem anyway).
However for more formal thing, I consider this whole ancestral memory of neanderthals to be great bullshit.
Putting even aside we have no signs of some massive terrible war between our kinds, and that in tribal past we speak about scattered small groups where battles are more like modern bar brawns than actual warfare (though of course much bloodier), it's also way more probable the legends about evil humanoids just spring from much more recent memory of wars between various human nations - see Sidhe and Fomori and Ireland and bloody genocide of neolithic people by invading Goidels, Giants of nordic legend or Greek could spring from Hunter-Gatherers who were just bigger than average neolithic farmer. And so on, and so on. Neanderthals are past extremely ancient, I really doubt their memory could survive so long.
Also while neadnerthal was bulkier and more durable, I really doubt they were actual terror for Homo sapiens. We are not talking about such incredible advantage as man vs bear or gorilla, just pinch stronger, and neanderthals were much less tribal, so really bigger tribes of invading Hss were not that threatened by scatterd Hsn family clans. If anything - we were source of horror for them.
Quote from: Scooter on September 30, 2023, 07:22:59 PMI don't doubt it. The genetic formula for a sociopath is probably discoverable
It is known that ASPD has a genetic component. I'm not up-to-date on the literature, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone had figured out what the relevant genes are, or at least a subset of them.
Yes, there should be evil races, if anything else it just helps provide some short hand for game mechanics. And if you want to do morally gray antagonistic stuff, you can do that with the species/races available for player characters to choose from. Like, if you want to do some morality story about overcoming differences, it should be done with like.. dwarves being aggressive and trying to attack human lands or something like that, and then you can have those differences resolved.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 09, 2023, 01:13:04 PM
However for more formal thing, I consider this whole ancestral memory of neanderthals to be great bullshit.
Putting even aside we have no signs of some massive terrible war between our kinds, and that in tribal past we speak about scattered small groups where battles are more like modern bar brawns than actual warfare (though of course much bloodier), it's also way more probable the legends about evil humanoids just spring from much more recent memory of wars between various human nations - see Sidhe and Fomori and Ireland and bloody genocide of neolithic people by invading Goidels, Giants of nordic legend or Greek could spring from Hunter-Gatherers who were just bigger than average neolithic farmer. And so on, and so on. Neanderthals are past extremely ancient, I really doubt their memory could survive so long.
Also while neadnerthal was bulkier and more durable, I really doubt they were actual terror for Homo sapiens. We are not talking about such incredible advantage as man vs bear or gorilla, just pinch stronger, and neanderthals were much less tribal, so really bigger tribes of invading Hss were not that threatened by scatterd Hsn family clans. If anything - we were source of horror for them.
Yeah, I found the whole thing shaky. I focused earlier on why that prehistory should dictate anything about how I play my elf-games now.
But even the whole angle of it seems weird. I'm willing to grant possible ancestral memory that long - it's weird, but not impossible. But as you say, the evidence for a all-out two-sided war was slim. Humans likely had more to fear from other humans than from Neanderthals. And Neanderthals weren't giants - they were if anything shorter - just stocky compared to relatively lanky HSS.
QuoteAnd Neanderthals weren't giants - they were if anything shorter - just stocky compared to relatively lanky HSS.
IIRC they were of simmilar height than co-existing Hss. Now of course till modern times most Hss were shorter than their full potential allowed - possibly neanderthals too.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 13, 2023, 06:44:37 PM
QuoteAnd Neanderthals weren't giants - they were if anything shorter - just stocky compared to relatively lanky HSS.
IIRC they were of simmilar height than co-existing Hss. Now of course till modern times most Hss were shorter than their full potential allowed - possibly neanderthals too.
As I understand it, ancient HSS weren't uniformly shorter. There is evidence that early hunter-gatherers were taller than early farmers. Not that their lives were good, but possibly they got more protein in their diet if they survived.
https://modernfarmer.com/2022/04/farming-made-our-ancestors-shorter/
There doesn't seem to be an absolute answer, as there is significant variation of height within populations and we only have limited bones. Still, say, this is an illustration of common ancestor HSH (Heidelburgensis) compared to Neanderthal (HSN) and Cro-Magnon (HSS).
(https://cdn.sci.news/images/2012/06/image_369.jpg)
Source: https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/article00369.html
Quote from: jhkim on November 13, 2023, 08:31:03 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 13, 2023, 06:44:37 PM
QuoteAnd Neanderthals weren't giants - they were if anything shorter - just stocky compared to relatively lanky HSS.
IIRC they were of simmilar height than co-existing Hss. Now of course till modern times most Hss were shorter than their full potential allowed - possibly neanderthals too.
As I understand it, ancient HSS weren't uniformly shorter. There is evidence that early hunter-gatherers were taller than early farmers. Not that their lives were good, but possibly they got more protein in their diet if they survived.
https://modernfarmer.com/2022/04/farming-made-our-ancestors-shorter/
There doesn't seem to be an absolute answer, as there is significant variation of height within populations and we only have limited bones. Still, say, this is an illustration of common ancestor HSH (Heidelburgensis) compared to Neanderthal (HSN) and Cro-Magnon (HSS).
(https://cdn.sci.news/images/2012/06/image_369.jpg)
Source: https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/article00369.html
I'm pretty sure the guy in the middle is a very successful podcast host, and ex-MMA fighter.
MMA that's where neanderthals are hiding.
Maybe it's better to say... Every RPG with a heavy combat focus should have an opponent type that PC's can kill without feeling any kind of remorse or worrying about moral quandries.
Whether that's Orcs, Zombies, Demons, Automatons, Nazis or Evil cultists.
Nazis and Evil Cultists get into the grey area, but if they're presented as unrepentant dedicated to the cause (Particularly in the case of Cultists dedicated to Demons and other Evil Gods) then PC's can have a gay ole time cutting them down and not worrying about the morality of the situation.
Quote from: jhkim on September 24, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
Quote from: SHARK on September 24, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
What are your thoughts on the program by Macris?
I certainly think that he puts the nails down in all the handwringing Woke crybabies that REEE about "No, races shouldn't be EVIL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmEFXSjEpcY
I think phrasing it as a mandate ("campaigns should have evil races") is a dumb overreach, which goes against a lots of things other than wokeness. Conan doesn't have evil races. Neither does 7th Sea, Ars Magica, and many other settings. There are lots of great fantasy stories and lots of great fantasy RPGs that don't have innately evil races.
Further, his justification for this is stretching. He talks a bunch about Neanderthals, even suggesting that evil fantasy races all represent Neanderthals - and that competing biology represents some sort of moral mandate. I disagree. Modern humans do not have some sort of moral mandate to behave like our prehistoric ancestors. That's not a woke ideal - that's a message of Judaism, Christianity, and many other established religions, among others.
If he or anyone wants to make an RPG that is an atheist morality tale where orcs represent Neanderthals and all orcs should be wiped out, that's fine. It's just a game. But it's not how all fantasy games should be. Fantasy campaigns should be different from each other, and represent different themes.
I would agree with you. I think it is more interesting to have each race (let's put aside questions about individual monsters) hold its own motivations and goals, many of which conflict and result inevitably in war, etc. Make the Elves arrogant and decadent, and the Orcs young, brash, and violent barbarians with no regard for civilized virtues. I like my fantasy worlds to be full of shades of gray (with some darker than others), so as to force the players to think and make choices, and even be surprised now and again. Creating "all inherently evil" races creates a paradigm where there are "inherently good" races which is even more boring. I like celestials to be arrogant and uncaring, and their definition of "good" not having any room for what happens to lesser races; and the demons to be arrogant and so committed to their own free will that they are equally indifferent to the results of their cruelty and ambitions.
QuoteMaybe it's better to say... Every RPG with a heavy combat focus should have an opponent type that PC's can kill without feeling any kind of remorse or worrying about moral quandries.
Nah I disagree. You can have something more akin to real life warfare either medieval or modern, fighting perfectly normal human beings.
Like in real war. Still combat heavy, but yeah you are shooting Ahmed the Kebab Maker called by Shah Rashid el Bashir el Fitzwilliam to defend his oil platform. Sorry.
QuoteI would agree with you. I think it is more interesting to have each race (let's put aside questions about individual monsters) hold its own motivations and goals, many of which conflict and result inevitably in war, etc. Make the Elves arrogant and decadent, and the Orcs young, brash, and violent barbarians with no regard for civilized virtues. I like my fantasy worlds to be full of shades of gray (with some darker than others), so as to force the players to think and make choices, and even be surprised now and again. Creating "all inherently evil" races creates a paradigm where there are "inherently good" races which is even more boring. I like celestials to be arrogant and uncaring, and their definition of "good" not having any room for what happens to lesser races; and the demons to be arrogant and so committed to their own free will that they are equally indifferent to the results of their cruelty and ambitions.
TBH I'd note that I think there were no always-Lawful, always-Chaotic or always-Good races. And you could play Evil and Chaotic PCs which make whole need for full races of baddies, even more weird. Like make halflings Good-always, literally impossible of Evil, and let my assasins slaughter entire villages, and we're fine. Cosmic War does not take hostages.
I've always found it notable in a great deal of mythology there is almost always evil species, creatures and races.
This is extra notable when you consider this is likely not merely a projection of xenophobia or simply fear of the other. Such as in the case of the Scandinavian languages and the subtle degrees of words they used for Foreignness.
Utlänning being foreigner
Främling being stranger
Raman being total outsider.
Varelse being utter alien, or hostile.
Within these classification I find it amusing the latter two, which is where pig orks and evil creatures would dwell, I find all valid, but I like this breakdown of the four for degrees of hostile.
Okay, I read most of this, but my 2 cents.
I tend to have "mostly evil" races. I'm fine with it. Sure, there can be an exception, but the players may go a whole campaign and unless I decide to make a story about "the good kobold" who would have to come from an extraordinary set of circumstances, they will never see one. Though, I also have no problem with someone else having a campaign world where kolbolds are portrayed differently (I'm running a Greyhawk campaign).
So, for example, a few months back I ran a scenario where some kobolds relocated to an abandoned mine located near a rural farming community. Some local kids wandered too close to the mine and the kobolds... well, they killed and ate the kids. The farmers sent some people out looking for the kids and those people were killed too. The farmers realized they needed help, put up a notice and the players came to town...
They cleared out the mine. They found the remains of the kids. There were kobolds, a chieftain, some trained boars, even a few Urds (the winged kobolds), and some eggs and young. One of my players, playing a Chaotic Good ranger asked me, "Do you have any problem if I kill the young and destroy the eggs." He's a ranger. "Go for it," I said. No alignment challenge. There was a Lawful Good fighter in the party, his player didn't care for the action, but he/the player stood aside. The ranger's job is to protect the people. He went in and did it with the party Thief. I didn't describe it graphically.
Yeah, from a human perspective, those Kobolds are 'evil'. Though from the Kobolds perspective, maybe they are trying to survive. But I'm not playing Philosophy 101. This sort of thing makes it interesting, as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on November 18, 2023, 05:19:05 PM
I've always found it notable in a great deal of mythology there is almost always evil species, creatures and races.
This is extra notable when you consider this is likely not merely a projection of xenophobia or simply fear of the other. Such as in the case of the Scandinavian languages and the subtle degrees of words they used for Foreignness.
Utlänning being foreigner
Främling being stranger
Raman being total outsider.
Varelse being utter alien, or hostile.
I believe this breakdown is from the sci-fi novel Ender's Game, rather than from historical usage in old Swedish.
https://enderverse.fandom.com/wiki/Hierarchy_of_Foreignness
Nothing wrong with using this in a game, or having evil species in one's game world. I don't think it's necessary to be like history or mythology, though.
Since ancient Scandinavians didn't actually encountered any evil alien species, I'd say the breakdown is expressing xenophobia - like how Greeks used "barbarian" to refer to non-Greeks. And even in Norse mythology, there were giants and dwarfs who were opposed to the Norse gods, but in many stories, they didn't come across as evil. In general, the pre-Christian Norse weren't big on moral superiority - they accepted fighting other people without considering them evil. So, for example, there was a giant who built the wall around Asgard as a bargain and the gods tried to cheat him.
Quote from: jhkim on November 20, 2023, 01:49:21 PM
Quote from: Socratic-DM on November 18, 2023, 05:19:05 PM
I've always found it notable in a great deal of mythology there is almost always evil species, creatures and races.
This is extra notable when you consider this is likely not merely a projection of xenophobia or simply fear of the other. Such as in the case of the Scandinavian languages and the subtle degrees of words they used for Foreignness.
Utlänning being foreigner
Främling being stranger
Raman being total outsider.
Varelse being utter alien, or hostile.
I believe this breakdown is from the sci-fi novel Ender's Game, rather than from historical usage in old Swedish.
https://enderverse.fandom.com/wiki/Hierarchy_of_Foreignness
Nothing wrong with using this in a game, or having evil species in one's game world. I don't think it's necessary to be like history or mythology, though.
Since ancient Scandinavians didn't actually encountered any evil alien species, I'd say the breakdown is expressing xenophobia - like how Greeks used "barbarian" to refer to non-Greeks. And even in Norse mythology, there were giants and dwarfs who were opposed to the Norse gods, but in many stories, they didn't come across as evil. In general, the pre-Christian Norse weren't big on moral superiority - they accepted fighting other people without considering them evil. So, for example, there was a giant who built the wall around Asgard as a bargain and the gods tried to cheat him.
Yes I am indeed aware of Orson Scott Card having used the terminology, but what I said applies regardless, the fact they had degrees of it suggests a lot, at least it suggests there was people worth or not worth fighting, than merely an us vs them thing, and indeed if their legends and myths are to be believed they did encounter "aliens" of the supernatural and terrestrial variety.
But Orson Scott Card used it for a reason, it wasn't merely something he invented.
I also like it because I think it's a good replacement for alignment.
Quote from: jhkim on November 20, 2023, 01:49:21 PM
So, for example, there was a giant who built the wall around Asgard as a bargain and the gods tried to cheat him.
This as far from the actual plot and meaning of the myth of the giant and Svadilfari that I honestly wonder if you can actually read.
Nah, you are just twisting things, hoping the people reading you don't know enough to notice your distortions.
And before you respond, decide whether you want to debate this point with someone who has the Prose Edda sitting right here next to him... in the original Old Icelandic (which I studied in while in grad school)...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on November 20, 2023, 10:23:54 PM
Quote from: jhkim on November 20, 2023, 01:49:21 PM
So, for example, there was a giant who built the wall around Asgard as a bargain and the gods tried to cheat him.
This as far from the actual plot and meaning of the myth of the giant and Svadilfari that I honestly wonder if you can actually read.
Nah, you are just twisting things, hoping the people reading you don't know enough to notice your distortions.
And before you respond, decide whether you want to debate this point with someone who has the Prose Edda sitting right here next to him... in the original Old Icelandic (which I studied in while in grad school)...
My dad works at Nintendo much?
Not wanting to be apart of whatever this debate is, what is the real version or spin on the story might I ask?
Quote from: Eirikrautha on November 20, 2023, 10:23:54 PM
Quote from: jhkim on November 20, 2023, 01:49:21 PM
So, for example, there was a giant who built the wall around Asgard as a bargain and the gods tried to cheat him.
This as far from the actual plot and meaning of the myth of the giant and Svadilfari that I honestly wonder if you can actually read.
Nah, you are just twisting things, hoping the people reading you don't know enough to notice your distortions.
And before you respond, decide whether you want to debate this point with someone who has the Prose Edda sitting right here next to him... in the original Old Icelandic (which I studied in while in grad school)...
It was an off-the-cuff reference from vague memory, not intended as a description of the full myth. I understand the builder was trying to hustle the gods, knowing that they would underestimate his building ability -- but the gods still bargained with him and he tried to deliver exactly what he promised, only failing because Loki interfered with him.
In retrospect, it being a hustle does make it a bad example. If you want to describe the myth more fully, I'll certainly accept correction.
The larger point is that the giants are not portrayed as purely evil. The Asgardian gods will bargain with giants, engage in contests and fellowship with giants, and sometimes intermarry with them. Thor has a son Magni with the giant Járnsaxa. At times, they will go and visit with giants, staying in giant houses -- and conversely, giants may be hosted at Asgard. The giants as a whole are the enemy, but they are not evil demons.
Historically the evil race was who ever you opposed culturally/racially/politically... a foreign race/nation that often had practices you would find horrific (such as human and child sacrifices) and day to day practices that would not go over well in your society. Evil is from a perspective...even the Bible calls for killing certain people (caanites come to mind as a considered an evil race the bible calls to genocide) to the last man/woman/child. So I think in a fantasy game having an evil race/culture is super easy and if players are conflicted about waging absolute genocide on them (goblin slayer style where he clubs the goblin kids) they can simply choose to show mercy, work a deal, do as they please.
QuoteHistorically the evil race was who ever you opposed culturally/racially/politically... a foreign race/nation that often had practices you would find horrific (such as human and child sacrifices) and day to day practices that would not go over well in your society. Evil is from a perspective...even the Bible calls for killing certain people (caanites come to mind as a considered an evil race the bible calls to genocide) to the last man/woman/child. So I think in a fantasy game having an evil race/culture is super easy and if players are conflicted about waging absolute genocide on them (goblin slayer style where he clubs the goblin kids) they can simply choose to show mercy, work a deal, do as they please.
The distinction however lies in nature vs nurture one. Israelites did not kill all Caananites, Gibeonites are certainly not shown as evil monsters. (Not even mention that Hebrew is Caananite language).
Evil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race. They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose. They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it. They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs. They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries. They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.
A lot of this stuff about nature vs nurture misses something obvious. Orcs are not an analogue for a human culture. They are a fantasy race in a fantasy setting. All of this stuff about nature vs nurture or the dominant orc culture may well not even apply at all. For example, the orcs in LotR did not arise naturally and did not have an orc culture that developed naturally. They were made by the Dark Lord to be his soldiers. They were purpose built to be brutal killers and that's just what they are. In a fantasy setting, it's common for races to be made by gods or other powerful entities in their own image or to serve their purposes. If, in this setting, the orcs were created by a malevolent god or entity to be its foot soldiers to conquer or destroy the world, it makes perfect sense that they what they were made to be.
I've run campaigns with and without evil races. What I want is a base game that has the idea of them in there, without apology. It needs to use words like "savage", "irredeemable", and "regrettably this race can never share the land with humans".
It's super easy to take that stuff out if you don't like it, but knowing where and with what measure to put it in in the first place? Extremely tough.
Similarly, paladins need to be built from the ground up as lawful good. Super easy to take that restriction away if you don't like it.
Quote from: yosemitemike on November 23, 2023, 12:24:14 AM
Evil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race. They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose. They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it. They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs. They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries. They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.
A lot of this stuff about nature vs nurture misses something obvious. Orcs are not an analogue for a human culture. They are a fantasy race in a fantasy setting. All of this stuff about nature vs nurture or the dominant orc culture may well not even apply at all. For example, the orcs in LotR did not arise naturally and did not have an orc culture that developed naturally. They were made by the Dark Lord to be his soldiers. They were purpose built to be brutal killers and that's just what they are. In a fantasy setting, it's common for races to be made by gods or other powerful entities in their own image or to serve their purposes. If, in this setting, the orcs were created by a malevolent god or entity to be its foot soldiers to conquer or destroy the world, it makes perfect sense that they what they were made to be.
D&D Orcs are the funniest. Evil beings, created by an evil god to be evil, and that god constantly monitors them to keep them on the track of evil.
"OMG, bio essentialism!" scream the baby-brains. "They're a stand-in for black people!" whine the morons.
Quote from: Grognard GM on November 23, 2023, 01:24:27 AM
D&D Orcs are the funniest. Evil beings, created by an evil god to be evil, and that god constantly monitors them to keep them on the track of evil.
"OMG, bio essentialism!" scream the baby-brains. "They're a stand-in for black people!" whine the morons.
They clearly aren't though unless you actually believe that black people aren't human and were created by a bloodthirsty, savage evil god in his own image to be evil.
Look, everyone already knows we need people to stick our swords in, and whose heads demand splitting with our axes. And fantasy games need lots of them. So "evil races" exist.
They aren't going to kill themselves, boys.
Quote from: yosemitemike on November 23, 2023, 12:24:14 AM
Evil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race. They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose. They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it. They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs. They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries. They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.
I agree particularly with the bolded parts - and this is exactly my problem with the video from the OP. The video claims that there is a moral imperative to put evil races into a fantasy game, because of Neanderthals somehow, and I don't think that makes any sense. My game worlds are obviously a personal creative investment or invention, but they aren't a political statement. They're intentionally different than what I think the real world is like or should be.
However, I don't think orcs work well to avoid moral quandaries, because there is the problem of women, children, and prisoners. It's written into the original Monster Manual that PCs will encounter a lair with non-combatants and orc children, but slaughtering helpless babies is something that most players get uncomfortable with. In my experience, demons or undead work a lot better as enemies with no moral quandaries.
Quote from: tenbones on November 23, 2023, 01:13:14 PM
Look, everyone already knows we need people to stick our swords in, and whose heads demand splitting with our axes. And fantasy games need lots of them. So "evil races" exist.
They aren't going to kill themselves, boys.
Only humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.
Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 02:04:24 PM
Quote from: yosemitemike on November 23, 2023, 12:24:14 AM
Evil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race. They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose. They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it. They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs. They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries. They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.
I agree particularly with the bolded parts - and this is exactly my problem with the video from the OP. The video claims that there is a moral imperative to put evil races into a fantasy game, because of Neanderthals somehow, and I don't think that makes any sense. My game worlds are obviously a personal creative investment or invention, but they aren't a political statement. They're intentionally different than what I think the real world is like or should be.
However, I don't think orcs work well to avoid moral quandaries, because there is the problem of women, children, and prisoners. It's written into the original Monster Manual that PCs will encounter a lair with non-combatants and orc children, but slaughtering helpless babies is something that most players get uncomfortable with. In my experience, demons or undead work a lot better as enemies with no moral quandaries.
Not women, females, not babies: pups, brood.
Why are you racist against demons and the undead?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 02:04:24 PM
However, I don't think orcs work well to avoid moral quandaries, because there is the problem of women, children, and prisoners. It's written into the original Monster Manual that PCs will encounter a lair with non-combatants and orc children, but slaughtering helpless babies is something that most players get uncomfortable with. In my experience, demons or undead work a lot better as enemies with no moral quandaries.
Not women, females, not babies: pups, brood.
One can use whichever words you like in one's own game, obviously. I was talking about the original Monster Manual, which uses "females" and "young". i.e. In a lair, there are 50% as many females as male orcs, and 100% as many young as male orcs.
I think there are some good options to change this. The gargun - the orcs of the Hârn setting - have an insect-life lifecycle, so there is a dangerous bloated queen that lays eggs. Newly hatched gargun are almost immediately walking and dangerous. There was a related change in the Lord of the Rings movies, where Tolkien orcs were shown being created full-grown from pupae in pits.
NGL, you're right that Harn does properly alien evil races very well with the gargun. Likewise to a lesser extent mistrust for the Ivashu, in that even when they aren't trying to they effectively wind up serving the mad plans of their godking creator. Harn is just pretty cool overall, and provides some good and relatively unique templates and techniques for doing that sort of thing.
This is why you should NEVER give an inch to a leftist: Now demons being inherently evil is racist too (Jhkim alt-right confirmed).
QuoteEvil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race. They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose. They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it. They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs. They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries. They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.
I always considered this argument to be really weak considering pulp/action heroes never had problems mudering human mooks and henchmen by hundreds.
QuoteOnly humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.
Of course not.
One of dictionary definition of people is: (countable) Persons forming or belonging to a particular group, such as a nation, class, ethnic group, country, family, etc.
And of course term person in traditional philosophy is applied not just to humans but also to angelic spirits and to Three Persons of God.
When we take fantasy - which is separate cultural entity quite new, then in most revered classic we have FREE PEOPLE OF MIDDLE-EARTH, the moniker under which both elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits and ents function.
"Learn now the lore of Living Creatures!
First name the four, the free peoples:
Eldest of all, the elf-children;
Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses;
Ent the earthborn, old as mountains;
Man the mortal, master of horses:"
And yes that also make Tolkien orcs, at least in most theories about their origin (because one include apes so it's maybe more doubtful), people. Not free of course.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 28, 2023, 01:37:26 PM
And of course term person in traditional philosophy is applied not just to humans but also to angelic spirits and to Three Persons of God.
The classical definition from Boethius: Individual substance/hypostasis of a rational nature. So if they're rational individuals, they're people.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 28, 2023, 01:37:26 PM
QuoteEvil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race. They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose. They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it. They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs. They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries. They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.
I always considered this argument to be really weak considering pulp/action heroes never had problems mudering human mooks and henchmen by hundreds.
QuoteOnly humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.
Of course not.
One of dictionary definition of people is: (countable) Persons forming or belonging to a particular group, such as a nation, class, ethnic group, country, family, etc.
And of course term person in traditional philosophy is applied not just to humans but also to angelic spirits and to Three Persons of God.
When we take fantasy - which is separate cultural entity quite new, then in most revered classic we have FREE PEOPLE OF MIDDLE-EARTH, the moniker under which both elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits and ents function.
"Learn now the lore of Living Creatures!
First name the four, the free peoples:
Eldest of all, the elf-children;
Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses;
Ent the earthborn, old as mountains;
Man the mortal, master of horses:"
And yes that also make Tolkien orcs, at least in most theories about their origin (because one include apes so it's maybe more doubtful), people. Not free of course.
per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person
1. a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
But neither the elves, dwarves or halflings are either angelic nor one of the three persons of God
Look, I love LotR but his poetry isn't going to change the definition.
So, nice try but no prize.
Quoteper·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person
1. a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
Nice definition you found. The problem is I found definitions myself.
For instance this:
person (plural persons or (by suppletion) people)
1. An individual who has been granted personhood; usually a human being. [from 13th c.]
Each person is unique, both mentally and physically.
2. A character or part, as in a play; a specific kind or manifestation of individual character, whether in real life, or in literary or dramatic representation; an assumed character.
3. (Christianity) Any one of the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity: the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
4. Any sentient or socially intelligent being.
5. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) Someone who likes or has an affinity for (a specified thing). [from 20th c.]
Jack's always been a dog person, but I prefer cats.
6. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) A human of unspecified gender (in terms usually constructed with man or woman).
7. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) A worker in a specified function or specialty.
I was able to speak to a technical support person and get the problem solved.
8. The physical body of a being seen as distinct from the mind, character, etc. [from 14th c.]
9. (law) Any individual or formal organization with standing before the courts. [from 14th c.]
At common law a corporation or a trust is legally a person.
10. (law, euphemistic) The human genitalia; specifically, the penis.
11. (grammar) A linguistic category used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to whom or about whom they are speaking. See grammatical person. [from 14th c.]
12, (biology) A shoot or bud of a plant; a polyp or zooid of the compound Hydrozoa, Anthozoa, etc.; also, an individual, in the narrowest sense, among the higher animals[19th century].
QuoteLook, I love LotR but his poetry isn't going to change the definition.
Yes it does, because despite your utter authism in this area Geeky - dictionary definitions are not set in stone, objective rigid science.
And different dictionaries had different definitions. The one of your English teacher, or the one of dictionary you had in house in NO WAY trump accomplished philosopher like Boetius, or accomplished linguist like Tolkien. (And of course even their definitions are not really objective - because especially in philosophical/theological/abstract terms - there is no such thing.)
Thank God not every system is d&d.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: tenbones on November 23, 2023, 01:13:14 PM
Look, everyone already knows we need people to stick our swords in, and whose heads demand splitting with our axes. And fantasy games need lots of them. So "evil races" exist.
They aren't going to kill themselves, boys.
Only humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.
Oh no, I was definitely saying that you can have human cultures in my games that deserve axes to their heads.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2023, 06:01:07 AM
Quoteper·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person
1. a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
Nice definition you found. The problem is I found definitions myself.
For instance this:
person (plural persons or (by suppletion) people)
1. An individual who has been granted personhood; usually a human being. [from 13th c.]
Each person is unique, both mentally and physically.
2. A character or part, as in a play; a specific kind or manifestation of individual character, whether in real life, or in literary or dramatic representation; an assumed character.
3. (Christianity) Any one of the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity: the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
4. Any sentient or socially intelligent being.
5. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) Someone who likes or has an affinity for (a specified thing). [from 20th c.]
Jack's always been a dog person, but I prefer cats.
6. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) A human of unspecified gender (in terms usually constructed with man or woman).
7. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) A worker in a specified function or specialty.
I was able to speak to a technical support person and get the problem solved.
8. The physical body of a being seen as distinct from the mind, character, etc. [from 14th c.]
9. (law) Any individual or formal organization with standing before the courts. [from 14th c.]
At common law a corporation or a trust is legally a person.
10. (law, euphemistic) The human genitalia; specifically, the penis.
11. (grammar) A linguistic category used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to whom or about whom they are speaking. See grammatical person. [from 14th c.]
12, (biology) A shoot or bud of a plant; a polyp or zooid of the compound Hydrozoa, Anthozoa, etc.; also, an individual, in the narrowest sense, among the higher animals[19th century].
QuoteLook, I love LotR but his poetry isn't going to change the definition.
Yes it does, because despite your utter authism in this area Geeky - dictionary definitions are not set in stone, objective rigid science.
And different dictionaries had different definitions. The one of your English teacher, or the one of dictionary you had in house in NO WAY trump accomplished philosopher like Boetius, or accomplished linguist like Tolkien. (And of course even their definitions are not really objective - because especially in philosophical/theological/abstract terms - there is no such thing.)
Congratulations, you found a lot of definitions not in use, a few that confirm what I am saying, eg: Dog Person (Do you happen to know of ANY Dog-Loving Martians?)
So you're not only wrong, you're so wrong you're in a different dimension.
Quote from: tenbones on November 29, 2023, 12:55:04 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: tenbones on November 23, 2023, 01:13:14 PM
Look, everyone already knows we need people to stick our swords in, and whose heads demand splitting with our axes. And fantasy games need lots of them. So "evil races" exist.
They aren't going to kill themselves, boys.
Only humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.
Oh no, I was definitely saying that you can have human cultures in my games that deserve axes to their heads.
Some Human cultures do deserve an axe to the head, in my settings.
QuoteCongratulations, you found a lot of definitions not in use, a few that confirm what I am saying, eg: Dog Person (Do you happen to know of ANY Dog-Loving Martians?)
So you're not only wrong, you're so wrong you're in a different dimension.
No you see the point is - point I am making against your insane linguistic authism - that there is no OBJECTIVE CORRECT DEFINITION OF ABSTRACT TERMS.
And PERSON is philosophical abstract term. So screeching autistic-ally that ents are not people because MUH DICTIONARY won't help you.
Now in real world of course persons are limited to humans, angels and God, but well we're talking about fantasy, so I call bullshit on such logic.
In fact your argument of "non in use" which as usually is limited to your English teacher and your dictionary, is double ridiculous because indeed use, the usage nowadays, when disputing fantasy of course because that's specific context we dispute (after all there is no real elves and orcs) is like 99,999% against you. In all fantasy discussion all around world - there is 0 problem, ever in calling sentient, intelligent creatures of any kind - PERSONS or PEOPLE. Which is quite logical because use of Person came from philosophical/theological terms - Armchair Gamer gave excellent Boetius definition - and most fictional intelligent creatures are fullfilling conditions of traditional norm of personhood. The end.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2023, 03:17:45 PM
QuoteCongratulations, you found a lot of definitions not in use, a few that confirm what I am saying, eg: Dog Person (Do you happen to know of ANY Dog-Loving Martians?)
So you're not only wrong, you're so wrong you're in a different dimension.
No you see the point is - point I am making against your insane linguistic authism - that there is no OBJECTIVE CORRECT DEFINITION OF ABSTRACT TERMS.
And PERSON is philosophical abstract term. So screeching autistic-ally that ents are not people because MUH DICTIONARY won't help you.
Now in real world of course persons are limited to humans, angels and God, but well we're talking about fantasy, so I call bullshit on such logic.
In fact your argument of "non in use" which as usually is limited to your English teacher and your dictionary, is double ridiculous because indeed use, the usage nowadays, when disputing fantasy of course because that's specific context we dispute (after all there is no real elves and orcs) is like 99,999% against you. In all fantasy discussion all around world - there is 0 problem, ever in calling sentient, intelligent creatures of any kind - PERSONS or PEOPLE. Which is quite logical because use of Person came from philosophical/theological terms - Armchair Gamer gave excellent Boetius definition - and most fictional intelligent creatures are fullfilling conditions of traditional norm of personhood. The end.
Thing is, with philosophy you can twist things until EVERYTHING is subjective.
But language, to be the tool we use to communicate with, needs ACTUAL definitions.
As for your Ad Populum, well, that's just a logical fallacy.
QuoteThing is, with philosophy you can twist things until EVERYTHING is subjective.
Kinda, but not exactly. Reality is objective. Language is not. Language is based on custom and usage - if it was objective then your jab that some meanings I quoted being outdated would be obviously false - because what's once objective, is always objective.
QuoteBut language, to be the tool we use to communicate with, needs ACTUAL definitions.
No i does not. I mean maybe for aspies, but thanks Lord you are small minority of people. Most languages across untold millenia never were based on ACTUAL DEFINITIONS. They were based on common usage, intuition, and generally social abilities and desire of people to communicate.
And if you want strict definitions - then honestly considering term PERSON is derived from philosophical jargon of Catholic Church - then the closest to OBJECTIVE definition of personhood gonna be Boetius definition quoted by Armchair.
QuoteAs for your Ad Populum, well, that's just a logical fallacy.
No it's not when we talk about language, because language is created ad populum. It's born from usage of people, not from some uni intellectualists trying to define things. Not from dictionary writers. From USAGE. That's why it change, sometimes in directions we do not like, and yet never in history change stopped. So good luck with objective definitions bro.
PS. Also because person has such muddled meaning we have two plurals: persons and people - used in different contexts. Fun!
My favorite part of this thread is the guy who can barely speak English trying to lecture us about language
Well if this jab was directed at Geeky, then he is just aspie.
If it was directed at me, then indeed I can get really clunky with this unholy French-German hybrid jargon, nevertheless things disputed here does not rely on my linguistic abilities whatsoever.
At least it was discussion, something you are clearly unable to understand, as proven by basically every post you've made on this boards so far.
Something that really bugs me about this, specific to RTS video games.
I want to play evil campaigns in RTS. Something like Destroy All Humans! but with armies. If I'm playing a brutal war simulator, then I might as well embrace the brutality in all its naked horrific glory.
Unfortunately, I run into two problems here.
Firstly, there aren't many evil campaigns and they all suck ass. In warcraft you play as a disposable patsy for some demons. In starcraft you play a psycho succubus with boyfriend issues. Blegh! I want cool villains, not stupid ones. The writers are incompetent and it's obvious their heart isn't really in it.
Secondly, RTS writers and players keep telling me they want everyone to be good guys. So they give the orcs, demons, space bugs, etc redemption stories so now they're good guys who sing kumbaya and rescue kittens from trees. It's stupid and I hate it.
RTS stories suck since video game stories in general mostly suck, but it's especially bad regarding evil campaigns and evil races.
Warcraft is widely considered the best RTS story ever, but it's mediocre at best. The writing is clumsy and incompetent, not surprisingly because the writer had no experience writing before. He later went on to write Starcraft and we all know how terrible that story is. People today still tell me how amazing they think it is. It's like listening to Twilight fans gush about how hot the creepy stalker Edward is and just as cringy.
Note that when I say "evil" I'm using it as a shorthand for "doesn't give a flying fuck what a goody two shoes thinks," not cartoon villains who carry literal villain cards and constantly talk about how evil they are.
Warhammer Fantasy & 40,000 are the only RTS settings that don't suck and don't try to be bland and inoffensive like the above examples, but that hasn't had a decent RTS since 2005.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2023, 09:39:18 PM
QuoteThing is, with philosophy you can twist things until EVERYTHING is subjective.
Kinda, but not exactly. Reality is objective. Language is not. Language is based on custom and usage - if it was objective then your jab that some meanings I quoted being outdated would be obviously false - because what's once objective, is always objective.
QuoteBut language, to be the tool we use to communicate with, needs ACTUAL definitions.
No i does not. I mean maybe for aspies, but thanks Lord you are small minority of people. Most languages across untold millenia never were based on ACTUAL DEFINITIONS. They were based on common usage, intuition, and generally social abilities and desire of people to communicate.
And if you want strict definitions - then honestly considering term PERSON is derived from philosophical jargon of Catholic Church - then the closest to OBJECTIVE definition of personhood gonna be Boetius definition quoted by Armchair.
QuoteAs for your Ad Populum, well, that's just a logical fallacy.
No it's not when we talk about language, because language is created ad populum. It's born from usage of people, not from some uni intellectualists trying to define things. Not from dictionary writers. From USAGE. That's why it change, sometimes in directions we do not like, and yet never in history change stopped. So good luck with objective definitions bro.
PS. Also because person has such muddled meaning we have two plurals: persons and people - used in different contexts. Fun!
From where does a dictionary (used to) take the definitions/meanings of a word?
After you answer that, go back and read the definitions of: Person and People.
Have fun.
I agree on one thing: Domina is just a Troll.
I am good, thus everything and everyone different to me is evil.
There, I'm glad I could clear this up for people.
Why should I care about some random stranger's opinion of how I should run a campaign in which he will never participate?
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 09, 2023, 08:06:27 PM
Well if this jab was directed at Geeky, then he is just aspie.
If it was directed at me, then indeed I can get really clunky with this unholy French-German hybrid jargon, nevertheless things disputed here does not rely on my linguistic abilities whatsoever.
At least it was discussion, something you are clearly unable to understand, as proven by basically every post you've made on this boards so far.
No, your ability to communicate definitely does depend on your ability to use the language you're writing or speaking in.