Racially diverse artwork in D&D...does it influence you?

[Korgoth]

You failed to absorb all of what I wrote, which was to follow the citations in the article, which are quite sound. That's silly of you. It is also very silly of you to ignore the quote from Tolkien in the article where he comes right out and talks about it.



Norse dwarves are not really much like Tolkien's dwarves. Tolkien nicked some names and crafting skill, but his dwarves are not anthropomorphic rot grubs from the body of a giant and they haven't stolen anybody's hair.

Man, you really have got to read this stuff before you talk about it.



Original sin is not any old sin at all. In the context I'm talking about, it's an element of Catholic doctrine. Again, doing some actual reading instead of explosively guffawing would help you greatly.

You don't have to get snotty. First, I've read Norse mythology (not all of it, but a fair amount) and second I'm fairly well-versed in Catholic theology (even took a grad course at a seminary). Just because I dared disagree with the great eyebeams does not automatically make me an ignoramus.

The elves are not born pure. They're subject to concupiscense, ego and pride... in fact, moreso than humans in some cases. Feanor is no angelic being and his faults are far from merely intellectual. If the elves were born without original sin as you suggest then they would not be fallen creatures and even a venial sin would be a major event for an elf. I'm not seeing that.

For a credible source see here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

As for the dwarves, obviously the Catalogue of Dwarfs is the source for many of the names. They're also small and ugly and like treasure. And they're great smiths. Just like Norse dwarfs.

Now, if you have a citation from an authentic text (not the electronic poison known as Wikipedia) where Tolkien describes dwarves as Jews in any way not relating purely to their language, then let's see it. There might be such a reference, but I'm asking you for a real citation.

And seriously, telling me to "do some actual reading" just makes you sound like a petulant freshman. Which you very well may be, but you should at least try to act mature and that way people may start to respect you.

 

[eyebeams]

Plenty of real-world species don't have notable distinct races/sub-species.

I wouldn't combine "race" - an ill-defined cultural term - with "subspecies" - a somewhat better, yet still not well-defined term. Almost any sexually reproducing species with significant genetic diversity will have subspecies or variations that are obvious even if they do not express themselves in a stable population cluster.

And the fantasy demi-human races (elves, dwarves) are more like human sub-species than separate species. But in any case, traditionally we have had different races of elves, dwarves, halflings etc - "High Elves" vs "Wood Elves" vs "Grey Elves", "Hill" vs "Mountain" vs ""Duergar" dwarves, "Stout" vs "Hairfoot" halflings. The thing is of course that these are not analogues to real-world human distinctions.

Well, that matters. We are human beings playing these guys, not RPG-playing robots. That means that forming a relationship with the character happens under the influence of the real world, so applying elements unevenly like this really sticks out.

 

[S'mon]

The studies I've read about that sort of thing are pretty clearly linked to acquired changes and not inherited ones (esp with people changing from being tall to short, to tall again). Selection for skin color is something I can see happening fairly rapidly, but even then the real world is does not provide consistent support for the idea that it would outpace migration. There's plenty of room to plausibly put people who have virtually any appearance anywhere without resorting to magic.

I was reading about very different head shape in medieval English skulls - pronounced brow ridges, vaulted skull with notably smaller cranial cavity. Of course there are people who still look like this (including a friend of mine) but there seems to have been notable drift towards larger brains and more gracile skulls just in 800 years. Which makes me strongly doubt theories that European's high performance in IQ tests derives from superior intelligence evolved in the Ice Age. Anyway yes, you can realistically have say pale-skinned humans in a hot desert setting (modern Australia) or dark-skinned humans in a cold high-latitude setting (modern Europe and North America) but they won't have evolved there, and they probably won't have been there more than a few centuries (if there is a pre-existing population they can interbreed with) or millenia (if not).

 

[S'mon]

I wouldn't combine "race" - an ill-defined cultural term - with "subspecies" - a somewhat better, yet still not well-defined term.

Historically biologists used them to mean the same thing - a population group visually distinguishable from other population groups within a species. This is different from colloquial uses of race as in "the Scots race", "the human race" etc.

Nowadays sub-species is often taken to mean a larger difference than race, eg "The human species has several races but no living sub-species".
I was using sub-species for the demi-human types (elf, dwarf) and races for sub-groups within the demi-humans (high elf, hill dwarf), in accordance with modern usage.

 

[S'mon]

IAlmost any sexually reproducing species with significant genetic diversity will have subspecies or variations that are obvious even if they do not express themselves in a stable population cluster.

Um, variation has to express in a stable population cluster to be a sub-species or race. I have brown hair, my father has blond hair and my mother has black hair, that doesn't make us three different sub-species.

 

[billd91]

As for the dwarves, obviously the Catalogue of Dwarfs is the source for many of the names. They're also small and ugly and like treasure. And they're great smiths. Just like Norse dwarfs.

Now, if you have a citation from an authentic text (not the electronic poison known as Wikipedia) where Tolkien describes dwarves as Jews in any way not relating purely to their language, then let's see it. There might be such a reference, but I'm asking you for a real citation.

And seriously, telling me to "do some actual reading" just makes you sound like a petulant freshman. Which you very well may be, but you should at least try to act mature and that way people may start to respect you.

If you'd deign to look at the Wikipedia article, you'd see the citation eyebeams is trying to point you to for Tolkien's Jewish inspiration for Middle Earth dwarves... his own letters. Doing a small amount of additional searching, I found this direct quotation, also referring to the letters:

...in Letter #176 he says, "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country,
but with an accent due to their own private tongue....."

So, yes. It appears to be a bit more than just their language construction, but also being alien in their own places.

 

[eyebeams]

You don't have to get snotty. First, I've read Norse mythology (not all of it, but a fair amount) and second I'm fairly well-versed in Catholic theology (even took a grad course at a seminary). Just because I dared disagree with the great eyebeams does not automatically make me an ignoramus.

The elves are not born pure. They're subject to concupiscense, ego and pride... in fact, moreso than humans in some cases. Feanor is no angelic being and his faults are far from merely intellectual. If the elves were born without original sin as you suggest then they would not be fallen creatures and even a venial sin would be a major event for an elf. I'm not seeing that.

Doesn't matter. Original sin is not about whether you're a bastard. It's about whether your ancestor being a bastard condemns you to a shortened life of toil and pain. Elves are "unfallen." This is why they can return to Valinor and why they are greater than Men. They can do terrible things and make mistakes, but they do not bear an inherent burden of sin.

As for the dwarves, obviously the Catalogue of Dwarfs is the source for many of the names. They're also small and ugly and like treasure. And they're great smiths. Just like Norse dwarfs.

They are still not stark white man-grubs.

Now, if you have a citation from an authentic text (not the electronic poison known as Wikipedia) where Tolkien describes dwarves as Jews in any way not relating purely to their language, then let's see it. There might be such a reference, but I'm asking you for a real citation.

Listen to him:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-G_v6-u3hg[/ame]

The Wikipedia reference does in fact come from reputable Tolkien scholarship. Basically, lots of people have known this about Middle earth for a long time, and it's utterly uncontroversial. The controversy is more about what that says about the subtext of the work and Tolkien's character, on which points I'm inclined to be charitable. The main letter which is typically cited is #176.

And seriously, telling me to "do some actual reading" just makes you sound like a petulant freshman. Which you very well may be, but you should at least try to act mature and that way people may start to respect you.

It's not petulance when you're right.

 

[eyebeams]

Um, variation has to express in a stable population cluster to be a sub-species or race. I have brown hair, my father has blond hair and my mother has black hair, that doesn't make us three different sub-species.

That's where the "or" but in the rest of my quote comes from.

 

[eyebeams]

Historically biologists used them to mean the same thing - a population group visually distinguishable from other population groups within a species.

There are population groups that have similar inherited features but share less ancestry with each other than with groups that look different from either of them.

This is different from colloquial uses of race as in "the Scots race", "the human race" etc.

It's more considered, but still problematic.

Nowadays sub-species is often taken to mean a larger difference than race, eg "The human species has several races but no living sub-species". I was using sub-species for the demi-human types (elf, dwarf) and races for sub-groups within the demi-humans (high elf, hill dwarf), in accordance with modern usage.

D&D character types can't really be defined that way. I mean, humans and demons can have offspring.

 

[eyebeams]

I was reading about very different head shape in medieval English skulls - pronounced brow ridges, vaulted skull with notably smaller cranial cavity. Of course there are people who still look like this (including a friend of mine) but there seems to have been notable drift towards larger brains and more gracile skulls just in 800 years.

I'm unconvinced that this is the result of selection, given how different people look just because of environmental factors. European men went from 5'9" to 5'4" just because of lifestyle changes and didn't crawl back up in height until the 1800s or so. This was not because there was a sudden evolutionary advantage to being short that went away, just like we are not current selecting for bad teeth compared to our ancestors -- we just have them because we eat more sugar.

Which makes me strongly doubt theories that European's high performance in IQ tests derives from superior intelligence evolved in the Ice Age.

No, it derives from the fact that IQ tests were invented by Europeans to administer to other Europeans.

Anyway yes, you can realistically have say pale-skinned humans in a hot desert setting (modern Australia) or dark-skinned humans in a cold high-latitude setting (modern Europe and North America) but they won't have evolved there, and they probably won't have been there more than a few centuries (if there is a pre-existing population they can interbreed with) or millenia (if not).

As somebody who lives in Northern Ontario around folks with darker skin than me who've lived here for tens of thousands of years, I'd call that assertion premature.