EGG on 'The Spirit of AD&D'

[S'mon]

pg 26 Role-Playing Mastery (1987), by E Gary Gygax:

"This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people. Humans, with the help of their demi-human allies, are and should remain the predominant force in the world. They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game."

I'm sorely tempted to apply some cultural Marxist Frankfurt School Deconstruction/Critique to this, but I'll just say I thought this was a very interesting perspective. I wondered to what extent you think your own D&D games and campaign worlds conform to this analysis?

 

[Lanefan]

It's somewhat setting-dependent, really. In my last campaign, Elves were in deep decline with Humans ascendent; a somewhat typical scenario. In my next campaign it'll be somewhat the reverse: Humans in decline (but stubbornly refusing to admit it as a race) with Elves on the rise and actively but quietly expanding their influence and territory. And while both Humans and Elves consider themselves to be generally Good, what's good for one is quite likely not so good for the other...

Lanefan

 

[Arkhandus]

Hrm. I think my own homebrew settings certainly do. In my currently-active ones, Rhunaria and the Land of the Nine Swords (just my extrapolation on the Bo9S' bits of flavor text), humans are definitely the predominant race, and generally more decent than not. And some of the human cultures produce more heroic adventurers than most of the other major races.

 

[Ranger REG]

pg 26 Role-Playing Mastery (1987), by E Gary Gygax:

"This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people.

I don't know about the "and large" part.

My RPG is predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large is made up of bad people.

 

[Herobizkit]

I'm with Ranger REG here. IMCs, humanity is almost always the cause of the world's woes, not the solution. Humans defile nature, war with each other, and strive to conquer any civilization they choose for their own greed. Most other "good" races don't; if Elves turn on Elves, or Dwarves on Dwarves, for example, it's a Really Big Deal compared to a war versus two camps of humans.

With the OP's quote, EGG has also given us some insight as to why Paladins had to be human, back in the day.

Stupid Paladins.

 

[S'mon]

I'm with Ranger REG here. IMCs, humanity is almost always the cause of the world's woes, not the solution. Humans defile nature, war with each other, and strive to conquer any civilization they choose for their own greed. Most other "good" races don't; if Elves turn on Elves, or Dwarves on Dwarves, for example, it's a Really Big Deal compared to a war versus two camps of humans.

With the OP's quote, EGG has also given us some insight as to why Paladins had to be human, back in the day.

Stupid Paladins.

I think this brings out the conflict between the Gygaxian perspective, embodied in Keep on the Borderlands and Against the Giants - ie other races are bad, go into their homes and kill them - and (post)modern norms influenced by the Deconstruction/Critical Theory that American kids are subject to in college. You don't have to go so far as having it that "Humans are the Cancer of History" (to paraphrase Susan Sontag) in your campaign world, to be a bit uneasy with the Gygaxian approach.

 

[Hussar]

S'mon, I don't think you even have to blame Post Modern theory for this. Fantasy, in general, has long been uncomfortable with the idea that it's okay to simply go into something's home and kill it. Morally ambiguous modern fantasy has a very long tradition. From Frankenstein onward, you have heaps of works that paint humans in a pretty damning light.

The idea that humans are generally good is, frankly, pretty far removed from a lot of fantasy.

 

[Belbarid]

pg 26 Role-Playing Mastery (1987), by E Gary Gygax:

"This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people. Humans, with the help of their demi-human allies, are and should remain the predominant force in the world. They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game."

I'm sorely tempted to apply some cultural Marxist Frankfurt School Deconstruction/Critique to this, but I'll just say I thought this was a very interesting perspective. I wondered to what extent you think your own D&D games and campaign worlds conform to this analysis?

The human race is indeed, by in large, made up of good people. Sadly, it's rarely *run* by good people, but that's not the point here. When some person manages to poke his/her head above the crowd and make some kind of lasting mark, what you get depends on the person involved. You might get a Saddaam Hussein, who begins programs to increase the education levels, especially literacy, among the population he ruled. You might get a Saddaam Hussein who begins killing off people at a rate that makes it look like he wants to give Stalin a run for his money. Either way, *humanity* is going to end up with the blame for what one influential *human* did.

At least, in the eyes of those who enjoy blaming large sections of people for the actions of a few.

Everyone's seen this effect- the average IQ of a mob is equal to the sum of the members' IQ, divided by the number of toes present.

I'm a little disjointed, possibly because I just woke up and I'm running a D&D game in 3 hours, but what I'm getting at is that people are generally okay. Populations, despite being made up of people, are problematic. Pretentious half-wits like Sontag may like to piss and moan, but the same Genus and Species that came up with Auschwitz and the Cambodian killing fields also spawned Mother Theresa, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jonas Salk, and enough others that I could keep listing them until my D&D group showed up wondering why their DM was still in his pajamas holding an hours-cold cup of coffee.

 

[shilsen]

The idea that humans are generally good is, frankly, pretty far removed from a lot of fantasy.

I'd say that the idea that humans are generally good is, frankly, pretty far removed from a lot of reality

Humans in my games generally form the predominant force in the world, but they do so not because they are good, honorable and unselfish, but because they are unreliable, dishonorable and selfish, focused primarily on their own desires and needs but in a short-sighted and often unintelligent way.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I wondered to what extent you think your own D&D games and campaign worlds conform to this analysis?

To maximum extent. I've never run or played in a campaign that did not have humans as the campaign baseline, and the most common race (not just demographically but for PC's as well); where the PC's were intended and destined to become the saviors and protectors of civilization as well as leaders of cities and nations in their own right.

Are the humans generally good? No, they're generally highly neutral, self-centered or at least wanting to be left alone. The remainder might be predominantly evil but evil preys as much on itself as on the neutral and good allowing the few good humans to exert just enough dominance to keep civilization expanding (or at least from collapsing).

Oh, there have been two exceptions. First was possibly for brief periods during a long 1E campaign where certain bent/broken house rules made dwarves a particularly preferred race for PC's. The other was an "Evils" campaign that I ran for a while - but at the time I was noticably confused and indecisive about just what direction such a campaign could or should be taken in.