Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 03:10:13 AM
I don't have any books by Robert E. Howard in my Library. In the movie Conan the Destroyer the stupid virgin princess was a white chick that Conan didn't even want, and instead he freed Zula, the last warrior of her tribe, a Nubian played by Grace Slick, and she joined his party and he accepted her without having to be charmed, unlike with the stupid virgin princess.

In Queen of the Black Coast, Conan's greatest lover in Howard's tales, Bêlit, is described as having "dark eyes", and "rich black hair, black as a Stygian night."

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 27, 2021, 01:08:39 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 12:37:00 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2021, 11:55:37 PM
Yeah.  I almost feel sorry for the people who knuckle under and change their language because of the whining of the perpetually offended.

To be fair, there are reasons other than SJW appeasement to drop the term "race."

I dropped it for species because I feel its just damned stupid to call an array of options that includes robots, talking animals, embodied spirits, dragons, giants sprites, humanoid insects and humans "races."

Races makes sense if your options are limited to the Middle Earth stans because there actually IS some shared ancestry among the "races of men."

It makes zero sense when your options wouldn't be out of place sharing the Mos Eisley cantina.

And that reason is, when one isn't playing fantasy.

On this I have to call "Bullshit." Race is an utterly anachronistic concept when it comes to fantasy based on the medieval or ancient world.

The notion that "species" is somehow modern is pure ignorance.

Genus and species were being used by Aristotle in 350 BC (species being the Latin translation of the Greek εἶδος) while "race" didn't come into use in the sense of tribe or common ancestry until the 1700's.

For morphologies as divergent as dragons, minotaurs, lizardmen, etc. species is absolutely the correct Medieval term to be using while race in medieval times was used to describe people with a common occupation (miners and cobblers would be races) or of the same generation (i.e. Millenial and Gen-X would be races) and also particular flavors wines (i.e. champagne is a race of wine).

Posting as a separate thought from above, but given that my playable options include;

- Beastmen (first created by humans using biomancy on animals to serve as slaves).

- Eldritch (embodied spirits exiled to the mortal world in line with the idea of fey being angels neither good enough for heaven nor wicked enough for hell... includes giants, sprites, talking animals, dragons, dryads, sylphs, etc.).

- Golems (constructs built by the humans, dwarves and beastmen).

- Dwarves, Malfeans and Mutants (humans warped by various magics into inhuman forms).

... I'm thinking that for the particular setting of my game system that perhaps "Origin" or "Type" would be a better term than even my presently used Species for the collection of options available for PCs.

Mainly because I think trying to use the term "race" to describe all of those just sounds nonsensical to me in the same way that calling my dog, my smartphone and myself three different races sounds nonsensical.

FWIW, in OD&D, the term "race" never appears (it was written in the early '70s, after all.) The original equivalence was "character-types."

Purely because I'm an airy-headed intellectual who likes thinking his way through theoretical arguments I'll try to get down to (what seems to me like) the root of the issue: If there are genuinely conscientious objectors to the concept of "race" in an RPG out there, what are they really complaining about?

And the answer, it seems to me, is that they think using any kind of biologically-based template or feature as a character creation shortcut or customization tool -- ethnicity, sex, species, physical challenges, or what have you -- is a validation of the biologically essentialist stereotype. In other words, they object to the idea that a particular type of physical biology can have enough of an unignorable effect on its possessors' lives, experiences, abilities, perspectives and personalities that one can use knowledge of the former as a quick and reliable proxy symbol for evaluating the latter.

In this perspective, assuming a half-orc NPC is likely to be stupid and cruel, or that an elven NPC will be wise and magically powerful, is the same "injustice" as assuming a female NPC will probably be hyperemotional and ineffective in combat, or assuming an ex-Confederate soldier in a Wild West game is personally racist, or assuming a character in a wheelchair can't possibly make a viable adventurer -- it's all stereotyping. The fact that all these beings are fictional in this context is no excuse: it's the habit of thought that is (presumably) being formed by such scenarios which is being decried, because it's assumed this habit will "leak" into how people treat actual other people in real life.

Now note that this in no way contradicts the Pundit's expressed opinion that many of the people using this argument are not in fact using it in good faith, because they don't really care about "improving" D&D or RPGing in general so much as they want handy clubs to beat particular opponents with. Those folks one should not bother attempting to answer anyway. But for those sincerely influenced by such arguments, this may provide some grounds to start deconstructing them. Is it really true that once no RPG character template has biologically or culturally "standard" score modifiers or ability lists any more, people will start thinking of real people less stereotypically? Or will it more likely be the case that to make the templates practically useful, players will simply wind up settling on a set of favoured "default" elements and end up bringing their own stereotypes into the game?

Quote from: Omega on January 27, 2021, 04:07:44 AM
Rambo was never "just entertainment" at least not the first two.

When you're a kid growing up in the 80s, Rambo was 100% about seeing dudes get blown up. I realize Rambo 3 is some sort of commentary on Afghanistan, First Blood is about Vietnam vets, etc., but honestly IDGAF. I just want to see the bad guys get run through with a giant knife.

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 08:38:02 AM
Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

Whut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

He also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

One final comment on Gender and early D&D. I made it a house rule in my games that players making female characters during character generation could add one to their Charisma, but giving up a point of Strength. This wasn't required, just an option. In addition, Male characters could add a point to their Strength, if they lost a point of Charisma. Also, this was an optional rule. Players could also play either gendfer with exactly the stats they had rolled.

This wasn't so much gender misogyny, instead it was giving the players the option to play the kind of character (male or female) that they wanted. 

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 08:38:02 AM
Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

Whut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

He also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

Beat me to it, G.D.

I like to joke that by the time of the Lord of the Rings, the reason the elves all look so wise and decent is because all the stupid and arrogant ones died.

As the Fellowship departs Rivendell, Elrond refuses to bind them with any oath, save for Frodo to not give up the Ring (for obvious reasons). Some of the Fellowship are a little puzzled by this, but Elrond would've been privy to the insanity caused by Feanor's oath and how it bound his descendants. Some oaths should not be sworn at all.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 27, 2021, 11:24:56 AMIn this perspective, assuming a half-orc NPC is likely to be stupid and cruel, or that an elven NPC will be wise and magically powerful, is the same "injustice" as assuming a female NPC will probably be hyperemotional and ineffective in combat, or assuming an ex-Confederate soldier in a Wild West game is personally racist, or assuming a character in a wheelchair can't possibly make a viable adventurer -- it's all stereotyping. The fact that all these beings are fictional in this context is no excuse: it's the habit of thought that is (presumably) being formed by such scenarios which is being decried, because it's assumed this habit will "leak" into how people treat actual other people in real life.

If this is the issue, then the term used to describe the "race" of the character is irrelevent. If D&D continues to use a race+class character creation system, this will always be a problem.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 27, 2021, 12:17:06 PMIf D&D continues to use a race+class character creation system, this will always be a problem.

Agreed. This might even be seen as another manifestation of the "Feat Problem", wherein once any character ability is explicitly codified as something some characters possess and others don't, the action the "Feat" enhances or facilitates is immediately disincentivized from other characters' options.  Likewise, when a template is defined in terms of a standard set of rules-codified character abilities, by definition any character taking that template is going to be evaluated via consideration of those abilities, and it's precisely the standardization of that ability set which makes the template a useful character-creation and gameplay tool.

What the "real" objection seems to be is that fictional characters designed as elements in a game system are inevitably going to be more regularized and standardized than real people, and so excessive focus on games is going to ruin people's ability to make distinctions among those real people. It's just another version of the "OMG D&D players will try casting spells in real life and become Satanists!" panic.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 10:51:06 AM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 27, 2021, 01:08:39 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 12:37:00 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2021, 11:55:37 PM
Yeah.  I almost feel sorry for the people who knuckle under and change their language because of the whining of the perpetually offended.

To be fair, there are reasons other than SJW appeasement to drop the term "race."

I dropped it for species because I feel its just damned stupid to call an array of options that includes robots, talking animals, embodied spirits, dragons, giants sprites, humanoid insects and humans "races."

Races makes sense if your options are limited to the Middle Earth stans because there actually IS some shared ancestry among the "races of men."

It makes zero sense when your options wouldn't be out of place sharing the Mos Eisley cantina.

And that reason is, when one isn't playing fantasy.

On this I have to call "Bullshit." Race is an utterly anachronistic concept when it comes to fantasy based on the medieval or ancient world.

The notion that "species" is somehow modern is pure ignorance.

Genus and species were being used by Aristotle in 350 BC (species being the Latin translation of the Greek εἶδος) while "race" didn't come into use in the sense of tribe or common ancestry until the 1700's.

For morphologies as divergent as dragons, minotaurs, lizardmen, etc. species is absolutely the correct Medieval term to be using while race in medieval times was used to describe people with a common occupation (miners and cobblers would be races) or of the same generation (i.e. Millenial and Gen-X would be races) and also particular flavors wines (i.e. champagne is a race of wine).

Greetings!

Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes. Evidently most people in the Asian East, such as the Chinese and the Mongols, also used the term "Race". All of these references, ancient, medieval, and pre-modern, use the term "Race" to describe any particular race, tribe, or ethnic grouping. "The Dorian barbarians which invaded Greece, were a savage and militant race"; "The Mongols, as a race, are violent and uncivilized, compared to our own Chinese civilization"; "The Ethiopian race are a gracious and happy people, skilled in gold-working and trade alike". Just some paraphrased examples. Ancient and medieval authors used "Race" routinely to describe particular races and tribes, including themselves, just in general. Romans and Goths, Celts, Spaniards, Greeks, Egyptians, Scythians, Persians, Nubians, Carthaginians, Israelites, Huns, Sarmatians, Libyans, Gauls, Thracians, Samnites, and so on, were all at various times described as separate and distinctive "Races". No one questioned whether all were not human, whether civilized or barbarian, all were known to be humans, embracing different races as a general term to describe them as a people, culture, and civilization. Much in the same ordinary manner used by D&D and normal gamers until well, quite recently, right? *Laughing*

D&D of course adds a mechanical distinction for game purposes, but the game culture usage of the term isn't too different from historical standards used by people for thousands of years. All of this recent pontificating and theorizing about "Races" and issues of "Race" in the game is ideologically driven nonsense, purposely designed and promoted to create drama and change the hobby culture in particular, and the larger culture as a whole.

Cheers, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 27, 2021, 09:37:10 AM
All of these issues with the term "race" and racial abilities can all be easily solved if D&D just switches back to race-as-class. Something I've been trying to get them to do for a dozen years no. Just a selection of classes all balanced with one another. You wouldn't even need a spot on the character sheet for "Kin" or "Background" or "Species" or whatever term people think is least offensive at that point in time.

So then elves can't be priests, and Dwarves can't be thieves, etc...

No, I like race seperate from class, and I'll use the term Race because that's what I've been using for decades and I don't care what some snotty SJWs think about me. They can go play at the "inclusive" table and gnaw each other with critical theory buzzwords and fight over who is a more woke gamer.

Quote from: Brad on January 26, 2021, 11:42:44 AM
"fantasy has this unfortunate obsession with an anti-intellectual sort of ethnography"

What clown wrote this sentence and expected it to be taken seriously? That's rhetorical and the answer of course is a fucking moron who fashions himself as some sort of erudite sophisticate. What the hell is wrong with just reading a book or playing a game and enjoying it and that's it? Why does EVERYTHING need more meaning beyond "it is entertaining"? These are the same sort of retards who watch 80s movies and don't understand the entire appeal is watching Rambo blow up a dude with an explosive arrow, no matter how ridiculous that might be.

Quote from: Omega on January 27, 2021, 04:07:44 AM
Rambo was never "just entertainment" at least not the first two.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 11:29:12 AM
When you're a kid growing up in the 80s, Rambo was 100% about seeing dudes get blown up. I realize Rambo 3 is some sort of commentary on Afghanistan, First Blood is about Vietnam vets, etc., but honestly IDGAF. I just want to see the bad guys get run through with a giant knife.

If you realize that there really is political meaning, but you don't give a fuck - then just ignore the politics and get on with the action. But other people who look and see meaning aren't wrong. If you don't want to hear it, don't read it.

Quote from: Zalman on January 27, 2021, 10:15:06 AM

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 03:10:13 AM
I don't have any books by Robert E. Howard in my Library. In the movie Conan the Destroyer the stupid virgin princess was a white chick that Conan didn't even want, and instead he freed Zula, the last warrior of her tribe, a Nubian played by Grace Slick, and she joined his party and he accepted her without having to be charmed, unlike with the stupid virgin princess.

In Queen of the Black Coast, Conan's greatest lover in Howard's tales, Bêlit, is described as having "dark eyes", and "rich black hair, black as a Stygian night."

R.E. Howard wasn't particularly into the blonde Aryan ideal -- Conan was dark-haired, after all, and Sonja was a redhead -- but he did have considerable prejudice against black people especially. The casting and character of Grace Jones in the movie sequel was a liberal-minded change done for the 1980s film that wasn't present in the original stories of the 1930s. We can see some of Howard's attitudes most blatantly in his letters, for example:

QuoteThere is also a conversation between Howard and Novalyne Price that is remembered in her memoir on Howard.  Howard tells Novalyne,  "[...] I guess you know if a Negro is found on the streets after dark in Coleman, Santa Anna, and several other towns around here, they run him out of town.  Chances are they might tar and feather him."  When Novalyne reacted negatively, Howard returned, "Let me tell you something, girl, that you don't seem to know.  Those people come from a different line.  They have different blood."

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20090827135105/http://www.rehupa.com/romeo_southern.htm

Howard was an excellent writer, and had plenty of positive qualities, but his attitudes on race are pretty clear.

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 08:38:02 AM
Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

Whut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

He also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

Feanor died before the final battle against Melkor/Morgoth. The only interaction between them was in Aman when Feanor slammed his door in Melkor's face.

I think the argument being put forth is that Feanor was "perfect" even in his hubris and fall. (What do we mean by Perfect anyway...) His decisions were bad, even evil, but he was still the most powerful and skilled Eldar, and his sordid history made him a rebel and a renegade and kind of troubled hero.

"We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep. We are threatened with many evils, and treason not least; but one thing is not said: that we shall suffer from cowardice, from cravens or the fear of cravens. Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda."