On the matter of half-orcs

[Wik]

Yeah, the assumption for Tieflings in all editions wasn't that they were the immediate byproduct of a human/devil relationship, but the end result of a relationship a few generations down the line.

In their original appearance (Planescape), there were a huge number of devils and demons, and the origin of Tieflings wasn't really delved into (only that they were human and... "something else"). It was often assumed that most Tieflings had a Succubus or an Erinyes somewhere in their past, or a more human-like devil.

Later, when the planar influence wasn't so obvious and Tieflings were still present, this got a bit weird. And I think that's where the rape origin story began for these poor guys.

But nowadays, WotC got it right. Tieflings are humans who have been corrupted due to infernal origins in their backstory. Sort of like how it was done in Dawnforge, six or seven years ago.

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, tieflings are products of their ancestors' pact with infernal powers. Now, I haven't delved deeply into Bael Turrath lore, but I'm pretty sure they don't mention rape once.

So, in other words, the same as half-orcs in the 1e and 3e books.

Yeah, the assumption for Tieflings in all editions wasn't that they were the immediate byproduct of a human/devil relationship, but the end result of a relationship a few generations down the line.

So rape a few generations back is okay, but rape now is not?

Sorry, but I still don't buy defending tieflings while attacking half-orcs on the basis of their origins. Way too much double standard going on.

RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So rape a few generations back is okay, but rape now is not?

Sorry, but I still don't buy defending tieflings while attacking half-orcs on the basis of their origins. Way too much double standard going on.

RC

You didn't quote the rest of his statement. I'm sorry, but I don't think tieflings of previous editions were the eventual product of rape, be it immidiate or a few generations back.

Half Orcs stated that they were typically the product of rape. Tieflings stated that they had demonic or devilish ancestry, typically because of a shapechanger, erinyes, or succubus along the line. If you can't see the difference between a supernaturally attractive person getting dirty and someone being raped, I'm not sure what else to say.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Half Orcs stated that they were typically the product of rape.

Where, exactly?

AFAICT, half-orcs are described as the product of human and orc ancestry, and nothing else, in any official D&D or AD&D book.

Tieflings stated that they had demonic or devilish ancestry, typically because of a shapechanger, erinyes, or succubus along the line.

So, when Uther Pendragon changes his shape in Excaliber to sleep with Ygraine, pretending to be her husband, it isn't rape? I would say that it is. I would say that it is as much an offense as rape by violence. Perhaps more, as it causes the victim to be a willing participant in her own violation.

Likewise the use of drugs, charm spells, or supernatural domination.

If you can't see that this is "someone being raped", I'm not sure what else to say either.


RC

 

[Aeolius]

In the 1e Monster Manual, half-orcs were described as being half orc and half human, goblin, or hobgoblin. Of course most players chose half-human, as they would integrate more readily into society. Perhaps if someone has an issue with a half-human monster, then a monster crossbreed would suffice?

 

[pawsplay]

I'd like to put in my two cents on the whole tiefling demon-touched association to the rape argument.

First off, tieflings are products of their ancestors' pact with infernal powers. Now, I haven't delved deeply into Bael Turrath lore, but I'm pretty sure they don't mention rape once. I think concensual relations with devils is entirely reasonable for a group of ancient nobility who sought infernal power. Even such, I am not very well read in this section of the lore, but an important thing to note is that while you can make this association, Wizards does not. The core rules imply that the ancestors made whatever pacts they did out of greed lust, and that there was a magical taint (bodies warped by magic, not genetic interspecies offspring). My mind doesn't really go from there to rape.

I also did not mention rape. As I was trying to say above, it's clear that the tiefling's ancestors decided to give them over, and all future generations, to the influence of fiendish creatures.

But even so, lets say they did. Lets say there was a whole lot of charms and domination going on. What's important is that it's about imagery, and while I'm not trying to say that kind of rape is better or worse than another, I will go out on a limb enough to say that one certainly stands out and offends the senses more. If I hear that a person is a tiefling because their wealthy father fell into the charms of a succubus and impregnated her, only to realize it cost him his soul, I'll think "Wow, that's kinda screwed. Good story". If I hear that my person is a half orc because a tribe came to town, burned down the barns, raised the crops, killed the animals and children and raped the women, a very real part of me goes "Wow, that's a visceral and unneccessary bit of lore that I don't want in my core game world".

I hope you recognize that is because your personal preference, not because one kind of sexual assault necessarily rates higher in offensiveness than the other.

I understand other groups find it to be fine. For that, there is nothing wrong. But for me, it is not, and it's completely where draw the line in the sand. It would offend my sensibilities if Wizards included rape as part of the core, not because I expect them to go easy on me, not because I want them to censor their material, but for all of the same reasons that have been explored already in this thread. Why? Because domination and charms do not cross the line for me. Does that mean I condone date rape? Absolutely not. But it's a magical, fantastical kind of element that doesn't make me squeem for the same reason that killing 1000 orcs doesn't make me squeem like killing 1000 innocent villagers.

Perhaps it has something to do with the relative significance, in your perspective, of forcible rape versus drug or date rape. Obviously, I am not in a position to judge why one bothers you and the other does not, but then, you are not in a better position to judge others with the opposite or a different viewpoint.

 

[Mallus]

Half-demons are ultimately no more likely to be the product of a loving relationship than half-orcs.

I think I need to make my point more clearly (and not for the first time, I'm afraid).

I don't think rape should be mentioned explicitly in any of the racial descriptions in the PHB (or DMG/MM for that matter). Not for half-orcs or tieflings or anything else. There is no benefit to be had invoking rape in the official rules.

If an individual DM decides that rape is implied in a racial backstory, they're free to include that detail in their campaigns, or free not to use that at all.

If a DM decides that a race doesn't belong in the game itself, because they feel that rape is an implied in their backstory, that's kinda silly, because they're objecting to their interpretation of said race, which exists not on the page but in their own heads.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No argument there.

The "X is good, but Y is bad because Y has backstory Z, which X also has" position is silly.

There are all kinds of other reasons to like or dislike X or Y, which are based on taste, and are not necessarily silly. Nor, if you find backstory Z to be a problem, is it silly to therefore dislike the inclusion of both X and Y.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.


RC

 

[arscott]

But Raven, Who's arguing that half-orcs are bad? I'm only saying that "It's bad that half-orcs have rape strongly implied in their backstory". And however you personally think of them, tieflings simply don't have that same kind of backstory implication--certainly not in 4e where tieflings aren't literally fiend-progeny, and even in earlier editions where they are generally understood to be products of depraved but consentual relationships.

WotC feels that the rape implication in half-orcs is strong enough that it justifies heavy-handed wierdness like gruumsh-eye mutants and favored of kord, and over the course of this thread I'm disagreeing with them less and less, no matter how much I personally prefer the Eberron solution.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I am saying that the "strong implication" in the half-orc backstory is largely a product of your expectations, as is the lack of "strong implication" in the tiefling backstory. The level of implication in backstory, in any D&D or AD&D book, is the same. You, not the books, are colouring it differently.

EDIT: For example, how many D&D adventures have you seen where orcs have a human leader? I know that I have seen quite a few. That suggests orcs and humans can have consensual relationships right there, to me at least. 1e orcs were Lawful Evil -- they had rules in an ordered society. Again, this suggests that their relationships might require consent.

Likewise, you might successfully argue that devils require consent (although said consent is very likely to be gained by trickery, esp. in 4e, where the succubus is a devil, and thus arguably still rape [not a lawyer, but I wouldn't advise trying "I tricked her into giving consent" as a defense]), but the demon/devil backstory throughout mythology, fantasy fiction, and legend leans at least as heavily toward rape as a normative with infernal powers as does the half-orc backstory in LotR. Consensual intercourse with infernal powers, at least in mythology, implies a loss of the soul -- as in the Middle Age's Witches' Sabbat -- in effect, something that some folks might consider far, far worse than rape.


RC