D&D and Racial Essentialism

[Hussar]

Err... so? Humans have pretty specific outlooks and viewpoints that span the entire species, they just tend to be fairly transparent to us to the point that we tend to assume that they are univerally shared traits of all sentient species or else when we encounter a human that doesn't seem to share these traits we consider them aberrant (consider the term 'sociopath').
/snip

Really? Name two. Two specific viewpoints that not only span the entire species but all points in history as well. Or, heck, we'll only go back, say, two thousand years. Show me a two outlooks that span all cultures.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the folks who did the Human Genome thing, one of the first things they announced is that there is no genetic marker for race (in humans).

And we still share 98% or so of our genetic material with chimpanzees. Mice are pretty close, too.

I think humans and elves in fantasy are more like humans and chimps, or wolves and domestic dogs, than like, say, Asian humans and African humans.

And I don't think it's too much to say a chimp has a dramatically different outlook on the world from a human (though they aren't as completely alien as older science traditions might have supposed). Chimps use tools and communicate and have culture and strong social bonds, but they don't naturally make art, they don't naturally develop religion, they don't naturally organize into supergroups, and though they make tools, they don't make technology.

It's also probably not very controversial to say that a domestic dog has a very different "personality" from a wolf. Breeds are even said to have their own distinct personalities (small and yippy vs. large and playful, forex).

In my book, that is what underpins the fantasy racial archetypes that are going on here -- biology. An orc and an elf and a dwarf are biologically distinct. It's more like a human and a chimp (or even a human and a neandertal) than like two different races of humans. Fantasy worlds merely envision, to an extent, a world where we are not the only species of homo in existence. Which has actually been the norm throughout history according to the archeological record, modern life notwithstanding.

That said, I do have a tendency to view that biology as flexible in my own games -- the racial descriptions are descriptive, not proscriptive. An orc has the possibility of being benevolent, but it might be kind of like teaching a chimp sign language. It's certainly not something that naturally occurs to them to do.

 

[Celebrim]

But, it is equally farcical to believe that all men of a particular group are always one thing as well. There are far more differences within a given group than between the averages of different groups. So, while sprinters may share particular characteristics recently, that does not mean that all African Americans are sprinters.

Yes, so? Did I suggest otherwise?

But, isn't this precisely what we say about humanoid races in RPG's?

I would say that 'no, it's not'.

To put it most plainly, let's focus this conversation on the mechanics.

What 'we say' is that elves have a +2 bonus to dexterity. Does this mean that all elves are dexterous? No, it means that the normally observed range of elven dexterity is 5-20.

Somewhere out there is an elf with Dexterity 5 and no ability to sing, and he's probably sick and tired of being asked to help with things that require fine motor skills just because he's an elf.

And somewhere out there is a drow elf who isn't moody and emo and who doesn't wield two scimitars.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think it's helpful to address this issue by bringing in what would be biologically realistic for a fantasy world. The gameworlds of fantasy RPGs are not models for scientific thought experiments. They are literary or dramatic creations.

To compare: it is in my view at least an open question whether the dwarves of Wagner's Ring Cycle should be interpreted as anti-semitic caricatures. But it is completely irrelevant to that question to point out that (within the story) they are not humans at all, and a fortiori therefore not Jews. It is in my view less of an open question whether the orcs of LoTR are an anti-Turkic/Asian/Hun caricature, and again it is not to the point that (within the story) they are not humans at all. It is of the essence of literature and drama that thematic points are made in symbolic, illusory or mimetic terms. That is, more-or-less, the point of writing.

In relation to D&D, the question is: Is the way that the races are presented expressive of racialised thinking? As I said above, I believe that the answer clearly is Yes, and that this is a consequence of the literary antecedents of the game.

As to the presence of alien species in sci-fi games, I express no view. Runequest, because of the very different way in which it treats non-human races, might also be different - again, I don't have a considered view.

 

[Ariosto]

All dwarves drink a lot and have Scottish accents.

Pretty much all adventurers drink a lot. The standard menu in Fantasyland seems to consist half of booze and half of stew.

The Scottish accent is a new one on me, though. Where was that laid down?

 

[Celebrim]

Really? Name two. Two specific viewpoints that not only span the entire species but all points in history as well. Or, heck, we'll only go back, say, two thousand years. Show me a two outlooks that span all cultures.

#1: Food is consumed communally and socially.

One of my favorite send ups to this is in 'Good Will Hunting', where Matt Damon's character is invited to maybe go have coffee, and he responds, 'Or we could go eat carrots'. Of course, deep down we understand, 'We could go eat carrots' isn't a proper stage of food consumption this early in a relationship, which is precisely the joke that the character is making (which falls flat because its an egghead joke, and autistic tendencies are not something you are supposed to demonstrate to the female to impress her because well, they are 'aberrent').

Another thing that I find really funny about this one, is whereever you go in the world, the locals will insist that this aspect of their culture - the communal convivial production and consumption of food - is unique to their culture, or at least, that its uniquely important to their culture in a way that it isn't to the surrounding cultures.

Of course, this just relates to the fact that presentation of food is a source of pride in humans probably at a very deep biological level.

#2: It's funny when bad things happen.

See comedy.

That's just the first two that popped into my head, but there are probably 10's of thousands of similar universal human cultural positions which probably wouldn't be shared by other species. For example, I was watching a bonobo troop the other day, and I noticed that when food is shared among bonobo's, there natural tendency is to want to split up and move into separate locations where they feel secure in their privacy. I'm not a bonobo, but I conjecture that for them, having someone watch them eat is inherently stressful... probably because they feel and fear that that someone might try to take it away, but also perhaps (if they are capable of more advanced emotions) because they may believe that tempting their friend to take the food away is impolite.

That answer probably isn't the one you were looking for, but let me think about it abit and I will certainly be able to come up with some more complex universal human outlooks.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, so? Did I suggest otherwise?

Well, if there are more differences within a group than between groups, what's the point of bringing up African American sprinters? Groups in D&D certainly aren't portrayed as having wide varieties, other than humans.

I would say that 'no, it's not'.

To put it most plainly, let's focus this conversation on the mechanics.

What 'we say' is that elves have a +2 bonus to dexterity. Does this mean that all elves are dexterous? No, it means that the normally observed range of elven dexterity is 5-20.

Somewhere out there is an elf with Dexterity 5 and no ability to sing, and he's probably sick and tired of being asked to help with things that require fine motor skills just because he's an elf.

And somewhere out there is a drow elf who isn't moody and emo and who doesn't wield two scimitars.

Totally agree with you on the points of gross physical characteristics. So, yup, an elf has a range from 5 to 20. Elves live longer as well. Another gross physical characteristic.

But what about the personality traits and the social traits?

We have no problems with humans in D&D having a multitude of cultures. But every dwarf lives underground and has a strong love for Law. Every elf lives in a forest and loves magic. Every orc is savage and destructive.

Can we, as Kamikaze Midget, move beyond these things? Of course. Anyone who plays for any length of time has probably tinkered with the races quite a bit. But, again, the races tend to be just that - your race (in the D&D meaning of the word) defines nearly everything about you - your world view, your position in the world, what you like and what you don't like.

You generally, in most settings anyway, see, for example, dwarves living in forests AND dwarves that live underground. Elves (discounting Drow for the moment) who love cities and cut down trees every chance they get while at the same time having elves that are total nature bunnies.

The races in fantasy tend to be very one dimensional. It's easy to point to something like Avatar as being an example, but, Avatar is just the tip of the iceburg. It's simply reflecting what's already going on in the genre.

 

[Pig Champion]

And somewhere out there is a drow elf who isn't moody and emo and who doesn't wield two scimitars.

I was with you all the way, until you started lying left and right!

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think it's helpful to address this issue by bringing in what would be biologically realistic for a fantasy world.

Given that the blogger addressed a range of genera that included science fiction, and that the main target of his post was a science fiction game, I think it quite appropriate to bring in biology.

The gameworlds of fantasy RPGs are not models for scientific thought experiments. They are literary or dramatic creations.

This is something I pointed out in a slightly different way within the rant.

It is in my view less of an open question whether the orcs of LoTR are an anti-Turkic/Asian/Hun caricature, and again it is not to the point that (within the story) they are not humans at all.

Well, to begin with, it's never said that orcs are not human at all. In fact, we know that elves and humans are genetically identical (at least in the same sense that you and I are genetically identical), and at the time of the completion of LotR the somewhat murky conception of the author as to exactly what orcs were was that they were either of elvish or human stock, which would have made them genetically identical to the other two either way.

So, in fact, its much fairer to say that the orcs are in fact humans.

And while it is not an open question that the presentation of the orcs/easterlings was deeply rooted in allusions to the repeated invasion of Europe from the East, it is ridiculous to assert that they are "a anti-Turkic/Asian/Hun caricature" because well, they are not nor are they intended to represent turks, huns, or mongols at all. Tolkien abhored symbolism and allogory, and had a far better understanding of the ideas of 'one to one' and 'onto' than you seem to display. He would have been appalled by attempts claim that he was asserting that the Monguls were orcs or even orcish in nature, or at least, to assert that Asian people were more prone to orcish behavior than humanity in general. The claim that orcs are a Turkish caricature has no more basis in fact than the equally unread claim that the Sauron was an allegory for Hitler and the orcs were Waffen SS.

In relation to D&D, the question is: Is the way that the races are presented expressive of racialised thinking?

I'm not even sure what that means. Is there anyway to present races that isn't expressive of 'racialized thinking'? Why in the heck are we fighting the 'nurture vs. nature' fight in proxy through fictional alien species, and why in the heck would you think thats the only thing the author is interested in when he creates an alien species? Tolkien didn't really even have a bone in the 'nurture vs. nature' fight as we'd normally phrase it in modern terms; as you pointed out he's not really writing about biology or upbringing, but rather a fight between 'the better angels of our being' and our 'demons'.

 

[Celebrim]

We have no problems with humans in D&D having a multitude of cultures. But every dwarf lives underground and has a strong love for Law. Every elf lives in a forest and loves magic. Every orc is savage and destructive.

Why is it that I can write the Great Text Wall of China just to avoid being hit with false binary choices, and yet people still assume that if I'm not in one camp that I must be in the radically opposing one?

Really, I've already written about three paragraphs on the relationship of this point to what I've already said. Why do I need to cover it again as if I'd said nothing on the subject?