Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125983My gaming experience is that we kill stuff because the DM put it in our path specifically so we can kill it and the game's presentation expects us to solve our problems typically through violence. The PCs are just disposable killing machines and the setting is a death labyrinth intended to reward us with abstract loot by killing stuff. We didn't kill humanoids because they born evil, we killed them because the DM put them in our path so we could kill them for loot. Monsters are bags of XP and loot spawned by spawn points and random generation tables, nothing more.

If that education makes me completely wrong about everything (whatever that entails), then feel please enlighten me as to the correct way of playing fantasy games and consuming fantasy fiction.

I wouldn't say you're 'wrong.'

I'd say that if that's the extent your fantasy roleplaying though you experienced only an extremely tiny range of actual play; akin to trying to paint a realistic portrait using only a single pigment.

Hack'n'Slash (basically what you're describing) is a style of play that basically falls under what's known as the Slayer motivation, but there's a much broader range of categories than that; 4E D&D identifies those other types as actors, explorers, instigators, power gamers, storytellers, thinkers and watchers.

Other than the power gaming motivation, few other player types have a desire for combat as their preferred solution to an encounter.

- Actors' primary interest is roleplaying a distinctive character during interactions.
- Explorers would rather be soaking up the atmospheric text and learning all sorts of hidden lore the DM's devised for the setting.
- Instigators want to make deliberately bad choices in order to make things happen.
- Power gamers fall on the more meta side in that they're looking for options to make their character as mechanically strong as possible, but in game will want opportunities to test and/or show off their work.
- Storytellers are looking for ways to incorporate their character into the world; if you're using an established setting they're the one with a PC attached, however vicariously, to some relevant major NPC or organization if at all possible (instead of a starting generic fighter, they're the one who was apprenticed to one of the Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr).
- Thinkers engage situations as problems to be solved; whether social, investigation or combat.
- Watchers are there because they want to have fun with their friends regardless of what they're doing.

The groups I've run with rarely include Slayers, while actors, explorers and storytellers are common (and power gamer is an extremely common secondary motivation).

Every motivation test I've ever taken has landed me solidly in the Thinker category with what looks like outliers into most of the other categories. But those are mostly because world lore (explorer), leveraging your interaction skills (actor), knowing what the GM wants to have happen (storyteller) and having the right mechanics for the job (power gamer) all make problem-solving a lot easier.

The result of this is that probably twice as much time in our campaigns are spent engaging in social interactions and solving problems in non-standard ways than is ever spent in combat. Even in systems like 4E (supposedly "all combat") we'd have an actual fight maybe once out of every every dozen encounters. Awareness, stealth, engineering, persuasion and judicious use of magic (illusions, conjurations and transmutations mostly) were the primary tools of the party.

It's frankly the reason I had to separate out skills and other non-combat boons from classes in the system I've nearly finished writing. Forcing fighters to have just a small number from a very limited pallet of skills on top of fighting not being especially common amongst many of my testing groups was a double-whammy of not fun. So now you could be an arcanist, artisan, barbarian, entertainer, military, religious, etc. who knows how to fight. Everyone has tools useful outside of combat because in terms of player motivation, fighting for the sake of fighting isn't as common as it used to be.

In large part I think we can attribute that to video games. If you want the visceral experience of carving through enemies by the tens, hundreds and thousands no table top game can compete with modern video games, because the game can calculate far more variables in nanoseconds than player brains using calculators could in an hour and give you combat resolution in real time.

Whereas, as every computer "rpg" with its three option dialogue tree has show; the best computer programming can presently produce are railroady stories that are literally incapable of lateral thinking and out of the box problem solving. Nor does it appreciate how well you roleplay "your" character.

Which is why my generalized experience with the local/regional RPG community has been a steady reduction in the number of players with slayer motivations (power gamers just shift focus to non-combat abilities) while actors, instigators, storytellers and thinkers are on the rise (explorers and watchers being pretty consistent).

These are players much more prone to view a situation where you see inevitable combat and slaughter as a problem with multiple solutions and opportunities. The actor wants a chance to roleplay their interaction with the orcs. The storyteller will be plumbing the setting lore they're aware of for advantages. The explorer will be seeking clues to other outcomes. The thinker is weighing the cost vs. benefit of a fight vs. other solutions (would negotiations work? Would a bribe to allow us passage be cheaper than replacing the healing resources we'd consume to keep going after the fight?).

My experience is virtually the opposite of yours. I rarely find people to be as misanthropic and hateful as you sadly seem to have experienced. I see a restaurant owner who made my dad a batch of egg salad free of charge because it's his favorite and he's stuck at home during all this mess. I see members of my church pooling resources to assist those most affected. I see people who are struggling themselves go out of their way to buy gift certificates for their favorite local restaurants that they're holding onto until things go back to normal and leaving even bigger tips for their carry-out than normal to help keep them afloat. I see medical professionals working every day to save lives.

My experience is that people are generally good when dealing with each other (there's always some bad apples, but they're the minority); it's faceless institutions where people are dehumanized into numbers and algorithms determine decisions that are cruel and often wicked.

And that colors the adventures that get portrayed by people I associate with too. Our characters aren't interchangeable death machines. The first session of most campaigns is establishing the PCs in a community; be it a border town, a city borough or some other place. We meet the locals and learn of surrounding dangers and opportunities. We listen to the traveling bard at the tavern to get a sense of the world (and because clues come from the conservation of detail or lack there of). Then we figure out what we, these adventurers and protectors of civilization, are going to do based on what we've learned.

It doesn't matter if Box is an SJW or not.  What matters is that he is a one-issue poster.  IIRC, he's had about two times in the last six months when any post he made wasn't about this pet issue.  So I've mainly stopped reading them, because I know what is in the post as soon as I see the poster:  Same old same old, or an attempt to try to steer the conversation to that same old.   If the conversation indicates hope of some other outcome based on responses, I'll go back and skim to see if the post is one of the exception.  Which is where I get the two times.  It's entirely possible I've missed two or three more.  

So the real question is whether or not he is a troll.  Does he do this because he doesn't have anything else to talk about, or does he enjoy wasting everyone's time with his pet issue?  I have no idea which one it is, only the behavior I have observed above.  My suggestion is that anytime he talks about something else, he be interacted with, but otherwise ignored.  That way, he'll either get bored and go away, or he'll expand his horizons a little.  Would be a win for the board if it were the latter.

QuoteWhere do half-orcs come from?

Your mom.

Spoiler

Not the Codex but I couldn't resist.

Quote from: nDervish;1126216The Gygax quote I was thinking of in this thread was more along the lines of "Orcs can be converted to become Lawful.  And then you should slit their throats before their Chaotic nature has a chance to reassert itself, so that they'll still be Lawful when they die."

I wasn't saying that as a negative. I'm not an objectivist but I'm not knocking Gygax for being one.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183I'm a cynical condescending bastard who only sees the worst in people and looks forward to the apocalypse because I hate humanity and wishes it would go extinct.

Sounds like something Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would say.

Well, we know where Deep Ones come from, anyhow.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1126231It doesn't matter if Box is an SJW or not.  What matters is that he is a one-issue poster.  IIRC, he's had about two times in the last six months when any post he made wasn't about this pet issue.  So I've mainly stopped reading them, because I know what is in the post as soon as I see the poster:  Same old same old, or an attempt to try to steer the conversation to that same old.   If the conversation indicates hope of some other outcome based on responses, I'll go back and skim to see if the post is one of the exception.  Which is where I get the two times.  It's entirely possible I've missed two or three more.  

So the real question is whether or not he is a troll.  Does he do this because he doesn't have anything else to talk about, or does he enjoy wasting everyone's time with his pet issue?  I have no idea which one it is, only the behavior I have observed above.  My suggestion is that anytime he talks about something else, he be interacted with, but otherwise ignored.  That way, he'll either get bored and go away, or he'll expand his horizons a little.  Would be a win for the board if it were the latter.

I've interacted with him before about other things and seen him post about other stuff as well. I even had a few amicable interactions with him (after initial disagreements) in a thread about Planescape several months ago, though, those interactions went a bit south after we hit a wall at some point and started disagreeing again.

Thing is he tends to be inconsistent and nitpicky with his arguments, sometimes arguing against things that were never said, holding positions that seem arbitrary for no reason yet won't let go, and can't seem to maintain a coherent thought sometimes, rambling on and on, even contradicting himself. So the discussion just goes around in circles getting nowhere.

I don't think he's a troll, I just think that he rambles and mopes too much, then gets lost in his own thoughts typing out these long replies that often don't address what you actually said and seem almost like an excuse to keep arguing about the same thing.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126292I've interacted with him before about other things and seen him post about other stuff as well. I even had a few amicable interactions with him (after initial disagreements) in a thread about Planescape several months ago, though, those interactions went a bit south after we hit a wall at some point and started disagreeing again.

Thing is he tends to be inconsistent and nitpicky with his arguments, sometimes arguing against things that were never said, holding positions that seem arbitrary for no reason yet won't let go, and can't seem to maintain a coherent thought sometimes, rambling on and on, even contradicting himself. So the discussion just goes around in circles getting nowhere.

I don't think he's a troll, I just think that he rambles and mopes too much, then gets lost in his own thoughts typing out these long replies that often don't address what you actually said and seem almost like an excuse to keep arguing about the same thing.

I've read through this whole trainwreck of a thread, finally (whew!), and I think I see the problem.  There is a basic conflict of assumptions that underlies BoxCrayonTales' objections and the responses herein.

First, he assumes that there is no such thing as a person who is inherently evil.  As in, "evil from the day of birth with no hope or chance of reformation" kind of argument.  Whether because of a religious, leftist, or other cultural bias, he would assert (as a sizable portion of folks, I would imagine) that evil is not an inherent quality.  People must become evil, either through initiation, abuse, or unfettered inclination.  Therefore, the creation of fantasy that normalizes this idea (of the irredeemable evil) can normalize this belief when dealing with actual people.

Now, I disagree with the above strongly, but I think that's his basic starting point.  There are some psychological studies that have show people on the left side of the political spectrum have a strong outgroup bias, and this may be one reason.  They have a tendency to assume that everyone is just like they are (every person I've ever met who decries private gun ownership with the old canard, "What if they get angry and shoot someone!?!" is simply assuming that others are no better at anger management than they are), and extend the moral courtesies that they would like to receive themselves to those outside their own cultural or moral groups.

The second sticking point is that, as far as I can tell, BoxCrayonTales had no desire to argue his point.  Normally, when we of the non-SJW stripe bring up an idea, we do so as a test of its validity.  We present an idea for others to examine, think about, and then critique.  There is a growing number of people who don't express ideas in order to have them examined or challenged.  Istead, they express ideas to establish their moral or cultural superiority.  It is a membership flag, a way of establishing that the person has the "right" feelings.  It's somewhat akin to the way a devout religious person might reference their religion in order to establish that they are part of the ingroup ("It's in God's hands" or "Inshallah").  So he wasn't expressing his ideas for study; just as a demonstration of virtue.

BoxCrayonTales may have his pet issues (who doesn't), but I don't think he's a troll and he's certainly not a SJW. I've only had good interactions with him and I find his posts interesting, even if I disagree.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183The way D&D depicts humanoids bears a disturbingly close resemblance to real life racist and colonizer propaganda used throughout history to justify man's inhumanity to his fellow man.

This may well be true, but Orcs are not your fellow man; they are a different species. Normatively, we don't have well-developed ethics of how to treat other sentient species, for obvious reasons. History suggests humans are plenty willing to genocide each other for all kinds of perceived differences so it's hard to imagine they wouldn't genocide a different species given the chance, especially a human society at a medieval or prior stage of development where scarcity really bites and there is next to no perceptible technological progress in a human lifespan (so if you want to get richer you need to take it from someone else).

Also, in a fantasy world where gods make their pleasure or displeasure felt directly, the human attitude to appropriate treatment of orcs is going to be shaped by what the gods think surely?

Anyway I recently re-read LotR and it's pretty clear (to me as a Brit) the orcs are depicted quite a lot like the working class. Michael Moorcock argued the same thing. It's like holding up a mirror to how your society is fucked up. Put most bluntly, who would you kill if you could get away it? I am not claiming Tolkien literally fantasised about killing working class people, in case anyone needs that pointed out...

Quote from: Mishihari;1126199Wow, that's a lot of hubbub on a topic that seems like it should be simple.

In my games, orcs fill the roll of "evil bad guy that you don't have to feel bad about killing because they're evil and will kill you if given the chance."  They're savage, animalistic, and brutish, and there really is not any peaceful contact between humans and orcs ever.  Thus the only ways a half-orc could be received is by rape, either in a raid by one side on the other, or if slaves are taken.  It's a squicky idea, so it's not really something we've ever wanted to dwell on in the game, and the point is understood but not really discussed.  Half-orcs are also exceedingly rare, so again it doesn't come up much.

If you want a more nuanced orc in your game, sure, there are a lot of possibilities.  But going the traditional route there is no reason to make it complicated at all.

Agree. The existence of half-orcs and the implied origins are consistent with the idea that the default AD&D world is a pretty dark and savage place.

Also, just because half-orcs are a character race option doesn't mean there need to be loads of them. I kind of like the idea of playing the only half-orc most people will ever see.

There is likely to be a lot of prejudice among humans obviously. Not just because orc=ugh, but because a half-orc is a walking, talking reminder of that time the defences didn't hold, and that they might not hold next time.

Quote from: nDervish;1126216"Vore" as in "carnivore".  A fetish for imagining that you're being eaten alive, frequently involving gigantic women who are large enough to pop your entire body into their mouth like an M&M and swallow you whole.

And the world just got a little bit stranger, again. Although I half-suspect this is some urban dictionary made up shit rather than a fetish any person actually has.

Quote from: Marchand;1126388Although I half-suspect this is some urban dictionary made up shit rather than a fetish any person actually has.

Seems active enough on Fetlife, this is one of about 60 groups devoted to the topic:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4253[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Zalman;1126392Seems active enough on Fetlife, this is one of about 60 groups devoted to the topic:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4253[/ATTACH]

This is either proof that;

A) there are enough fucked up humans that we don't need orcs or goblins, just groups of fucked up humans.

B) that consensual human/orc relations happen regardless of how monstrous the orcs are because there are enough fucked up humans to make it happen regardless.

C) both.

Quote from: Chris24601;1126394This is either proof that;

A) there are enough fucked up humans that we don't need orcs or goblins, just groups of fucked up humans.

B) that consensual human/orc relations happen regardless of how monstrous the orcs are because there are enough fucked up humans to make it happen regardless.

C) both.

You forgot D) beergoggles.

You know what, nevermind.  Having read through it after Melan's original post, I proclaim this thread to be irredeemably stupid and unworthy of any engagement including my original response.

Questions for all the GMs!!

1) How do you feel about using human foes vs. monster foes?

2) Have you encountered any opposition by players regarding killing human foes?

3) Are any thoughts regarding the above questions game dependent? AKA, are there D&Disms at play that don't show up in other RPGs?