D&D General How To Reconcile the Settings

I honestly consider all of my recent posts (in the orc topical arc) to be beyond reproach and never needed a correction or clarfication beyond issues with jot speaking english as an original tongue.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fiction does not exist in a vacuum. Stories are shaped by the implicit biases of those writing them, and if the authors do not take a critical look at their own preconceived notions of the world, it can lead to their creative work containing unfortunate implications. Worse still is if authors intentionally include dog whistles in their work that aren't immediately recognized at first, but are eventually noticed both by the dominant power groups within the audience, for which the stories subconsciously (or even consciously) reinforce their existing biases; and by members of those marginalized groups from whom those stereotypes were drawn from, which results with them being alienated by the work, because it's yet another item on the huge pile of things in society that are portraying them as "other" or even "lesser". It's not just restricted to racism; sexist and queerphobic elements can be found all over speculative fiction. You have to look below the surface to find them, but people who face hate in real life simply for who they are tend to have a good eye for spotting those things.

In their codifying depiction in Tolkien's works, Orcs, though inhuman on the surface, were implicitly coded as an "other", drawing from negative stereotypes about various "others" in human history filtered through the lens of British culture -- most notably, the Tartars and the Mongols. Then add in influences from the Yellow Peril and from early 20th century scientific racism, plus a mythology of corruption from the Fair Folk into orcs, and you have yourself a creature that is designed to evoke a sense of terror and revulsion born from real-world prejudices.

Many of those cultural touchstones that gave rise to the original orc faded out of the cultural consciousness over time, but other racist stereotypes rose to take their place. Orcs "diversified", beginning to draw on misinformed notions of African culture and peoples as well as Asian ones. But no matter what ingredients go into the cake, it comes out the same: a savage horde of tribes vying for supremacy within themselves but united in the threat they pose to civilized society. And the traditional, generic, stereotypical fantasy setting and its idea of "civilized society" remains to this day heavily Eurocentric. See the problem?

Can you portray nomadic raiders posing a threat to settled societies without them being racist caricatures? Of course. The problems come when you A) ascribe them a moral quality of universally Evil with a capital E, and B) make them mono-cultural, mono-ethnic, and/or mono-species. One or the other is forgiveable, but combining both tends to result in authors falling back on hateful stereotypes about non-White peoples, usually either Asians via the Mongols or the indigenous peoples of the Americas (see pretty much every John Wayne movie ever) to give their marauding hordes more flavour. Except when they're Vikings. Then they're just drunk. Not!Vikings don't come out pretty either, and are just as butchered in portrayal as Not!Indians, but unlike the Aboriginal peoples, the Scandinavians aren't exactly a marginalized group.


Obvious reason is that my favourite published WotC setting is Eberron, and the Valaes Tairn are so much cooler than their angsty Undead worshipping Aereni cousins back on the island. The Silaes Tairn and Draleus Tairn go even harder. And those Shadow House pansies? Pshaw. Plus the fact that Valaes Tairn are not portrayed as slobbering idiots that you can genocide for XP guilt-free? The Draleus Tairn may need to have their heads checked though; not a good idea to go picking fights with dragons.

With how many proper nouns I just dropped, it should be obvious that the elves of Eberron are not a monoculture. You can't paint them all with one brush. And that's good. Too many D&D races and cultures tend to have the two joined at the hip. Don't do that! Make your other races culturally diverse like humans are! Maybe not as much so if you're pressed for time and space, but at the very least don't have it so that your players can immediately guess what an NPC is going to be like just on account of the colour of their skin or the shape of their ears.

In general, I find making elves just "humans, but better" boring, particularly when it manifests as "humans, but gooder". They're also pretty regularly portrayed as arrogant and snooty, but usually benign comapred to the more immediate threats of orcs and goblins, which is also boring. Play into their Fey roots, draw on the myths of the Aos Si and the Unseelie, and make them something to be feared. Or if you're going for a less alien portrayal, play into their long lives and the inevitable fear of death, which perhaps is even more intense than that in humans. Mkae them out to make a legacy for themselves that endures even after they shed the mortal coil, no matter how many lessers they have to step on to do it.

Also double scimitars. The martial arts nerd in me hates them, but they're just so cool anyways. Sorry voice in my head demanding historical accuracy.
I am definitely not reading your essay. Wow. That's long.
 


generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
I honestly consider all of my recent posts (in the orc topical arc) to be beyond reproach and never needed a correction or clarfication beyond issues with jot speaking english as an original tongue.
Alright, that's fine. Your fantasy Orcs can be, well, Orcs! I might want to make mine more moral, but you shouldn't be called racist for such things as making your Orcs Tolkein like in their evil.

I'm agreeing with you, just to be clear.
 

Alright, that's fine. Your fantasy Orcs can be, well, Orcs! I might want to make mine more moral, but you shouldn't be called racist for such things as making your Orcs Tolkein like in their evil.

I'm agreeing with you, just to be clear.
i might as well get a little more precise here.

Typically when i create orcs they run the gambit. They just lean hard in a direction as a population. If there is a hoard of them you will likely find that the median orc in said hoard is, well, awful.

Realism is one of my chief pillars though. Which is why i make a few abnormals. For every 10 or so orcs there is one that goes against the typical average flow of traits psychologically and morally. How much varies. The psychology of any orc someone meets will vary.

I roll for alignment distributions in my campaigns so this doesnt take as long as you might think because i have created charted curves that do most of my work.
 

They certainly have a racial constellation of average traits both psychological, physical, and spiritual/moral (its a universe with confirmation of the soul and of gods and magic. There would absolutely be racial traits for this. Adaptation will superglue itself to anything) and the deviations thereof.

My primary background is physics but my secondary is psychology. So havong every npc of a given race just be a carbon copy rubs me the wrong way.

That said not having the majority of them be very similar also rubs me the wrong way.

Hense, if your orcs are racially evil (i see no reason there wouldnt be such a thing as a racially "evil" race when its created by a literal evil god) there should be a tendancy. If not, thats just not realistic. Species and groups within them have consistant traits. That extenda to the mind.
 

Yes that's their exact point, and mine as well. Not to be rude, but do you happen to speak English as a secondary language? That was the point of their post, I believe.

Oh, wait! You're talking about them saying that Elves are aesthetically better as marauders, in which case I agree with you.
Ugh...sometimes i just miss things due to really simple grammar misconceptions.

But yeah. Not being my original tongue sometime my brain just doesnt want to do English...
 


I havent looked into it yet (have been meaning to) and so i dont know if its true, but I've heard that just a few hundred years ago it was actually uncommon in europe to not be fully multilingual. To the point of it being a small reletive portion of the population.

Im curious if that is true and if so, why does it seem to be receding in much of the world. Population density? Technological amplification of social networking?
 


Remove ads

Top