Consequences of playing "EVIL" races

[Umbran]

What is good or evil, right or wrong is subjective; it changes from person to person.

No, I don't. Injustice is injustice the world over.

I can totally understand not liking racism. I'm against it in the real world, myself. So, if you don't want to play games with racism... that is 100% cool.

It is just that the idea that no game should have anything remotely resembling racism rather doesn't match with your earlier admission that right and wrong are subjective.

I, personally, don't think the the interpretation of orcs as just flat out evil in a game has much of an impact on the real-world morality of players. Edit, so while I despise racism in the real world, I don't think fantasy game racism as seen in D&D is a major issue.

 

[Maxperson]

Racial and Gender Attribute maximums as found in 1e, which probably did not seem scandalous at all for Gary G to write, also demonstrates this racist paradigm.

There was nothing racist or sexist about the 1e PHB race and gender maximums. Women are factually weaker physically than men. Just look at the speed records and strength records for both sexes. A representation of that in the PHB is not sexist. Now, if he had given female PCs a lower int or wis maximum than male ones, THAT would have been sexist. He didn't do that.

The same goes for racial maximums. Gary got to design the races and whether those races were weaker, stronger, faster, slower, etc. than humans. It's not racist to have some races deviate from humans in a game with multiple races. He also didn't make all non-humans worse than humans. He gave them significant advantages that humans just didn't have, plus higher than human stats in some areas and lower in others. That's fair treatment of those races in his game.

 

[Umbran]

So the person that disseminates say, for example, Atomwaffen, type speech bares no culpability if they themselves did not create the message?

I do not want to presume what you think, Umbran, but I certainly hope the example I gave above was not the intended conclusion you wanted people to arrive at, from the single sentence of yours quoted above.

Such a speech is real-world socio-political commentary, intended to change real-world behavior of people.

D&D orcs are not.

Humans are very good at differentiating that which is presented as fiction from reality. Where we fail is at differentiating fiction that is presented as reality and matches our preferred narrative from reality.

I can't really go further than that on these boards, due to our rules.

 

[MGibster]

So the person that disseminates say, for example, Atomwaffen, type speech bares no culpability if they themselves did not create the message?

I think most of us see a very big difference between material designed to harm real people and a game where we pretend to be elves, dwarves, and humans defeating orcs. I don't believe the person p;aying a barbarian kicking down the door to an orc fortress is in any danger of suddenly doing the same to real people. i.e. D&D is harmless fun.

Swords and Sorcery, as a genre, has racist roots, the Solomon Kane stories of Rob E Howard are ample proof of this.

Yes they do. I still enjoy reading Solomon Kane and Conan stories.

The trope of kicking the door down of ‘Evil or Lesser races’ taking their stuff and being justified in slaughter or sparing them, clearly has some colonial roots in it’s paradigm.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but what's your point? Do you think those of us in 2020 who are playing these games have the same attitude as 19th and early 20th century colonist?

Racial and Gender Attribute maximums as found in 1e, which probably did not seem scandalous at all for Gary G to write, also demonstrates this racist paradigm.

Sexist maybe but I'm not sure it points to racism in this particular case.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Do you think those of us in 2020 who are playing these games have the same attitude as 19th and early 20th century colonist?

It is not as if the past just disappears, strains of thought going back to the 6th century BC are still very active today.

If one takes a Solomon Kane story set in Africa, and replace the dark skinned African tribesman with Bullywogs, have we then sufficiently sanitized the material, or is it now just a ‘dog whistle’?

Is it easy to accept the setup of a tribe of Orcs living in an ancient ruins that are too advanced to have been built by the primitive orcs, because that strain of thought has been with us for centuries.

I would argue books from Eric Von Daniken, like Chariots of the Gods are premised off the idea that no way could the indigenous people Possibly have created wonders like Machu Picchu.

Is substituting Orcs and Bullywogs for humans, truly changing the situation or just masking the racism underneath?

To be honest I do not have a clear answer. I honestly, do not think there is a simple answer to these questions, which is why truly fearless questions and examinations should performed.

I myself, am grappling with these type of questions since picking up a copy of the complete stories of Solomon Kane, a week ago.

While certainly not settled, the most recent information would seem to indicate besides interbreeding with Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Neanderthals likely had similar levels of material culture, larger cranial capacity, and frankly contributed a significant portion of Human genes.

As did other Homo Sapiens lines not discovered.

Neanderthals as dumb brutes was a fairly common portrayal in the past, and still present today.

Isn’t Orcs are evil as a trope more inline with the trope Neanderthals are primitive brutes?
Especially given that orcs and humans can interbreed in D&D?

Atavism can take many forms.

Now the easy part is the 1e Half Orc had caps to almost all stats beyond Str and Con. To be fair, all ‘demi-human’ ,(the actual 1e term),races did, but the half orc had much more stringent maximums.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Maxperson, I took a photo of of pg 15 of 1e PHB.
Half Orc could have as maximum 17 Int, 14 Wisdom, 17 Dex, 12 Cha.

Most other races had at least 17 max for ability scores.

Women have higher pain tolerance then men, is that modeled? No.

Science is also not on the side of Dex builds in 5e, but people want RPG empowerment, not full versimilitude.

I am not calling Gary G a racist or sexist, but he was a white male libertarian from the Midwest.
Based off his writings, he clove pretty close to conventional libertarian thought and convention.

Just look at the Col Plahdoh threads.

For the record, Gary is very dear to me, but I also believe in to paraphrase Burroughs a 'Naked Lunch'.

 

[MGibster]

It is not as if the past just disappears, strains of thought going back to the 6th century BC are still very active today.

And it's not as if we simply interpret past works the same as others did in previous years.

If one takes a Solomon Kane story set in Africa, and replace the dark skinned African tribesman with Bullywogs, have we then sufficiently sanitized the material, or is it now just a ‘dog whistle’?

Who knows? I simply can't keep up on what is and isn't a dog whistle these days.

Is it easy to accept the setup of a tribe of Orcs living in an ancient ruins that are too advanced to have been built by the primitive orcs, because that strain of thought has been with us for centuries.

It's a strain of thought that long predates colonialism. People throughout Europe picked apart the bones of the Roman empire for centuries while living it its ruins.

I would argue books from Eric Von Daniken, like Chariots of the Gods are premised off the idea that no way could the indigenous people Possibly have created wonders like Machu Picchu.

And I would agree with you. I hate those ancient alien theories precisely because they crap all over human achievement.

Is substituting Orcs and Bullywogs for humans, truly changing the situation or just masking the racism underneath?

Probably not. It's a game and I'm just trying to have fun. If I have a bunch of evil orcs in my game it's because I just need some antagonist for my protagonist to beat up on. I don't really think I'm masking any racism there.

Isn’t Orcs are evil as a trope more inline with the trope Neanderthals are primitive brutes?
Especially given that orcs and humans can interbreed in D&D?

If it is, so what? Where's the harm when we're talking about a fantasy species that doesn't exist in real life?

 

[Todd Roybark]

Where's the harm when we're talking about a fantasy species that doesn't exist in real life?

That is a great question, especially when taken seriously.

Clearly, the imaginary orcs are not subject to ‘real’ harm. The living human players may be subject to desensitization.

There is a concept of non violence from India called Ahmisa, which is present in multiple belief systems. The Jain religion considers all eating as an act of destruction, which clearly posses a problem as they include plants as living creatures.

Buddhist thought avoids this dilemma by simply defining plants as not being alive, more akin to crystals and so forth.

Most people think that we have different moral duties to living things vs non-living,
yet how things are defined in our imagination, has real world effects, in my opinion.

note I have played in plenty of X race is evil campaigns, including DM’ing them. I am not virtue signaling, or claiming that having a brew and an orc bake via Fireball spell makes the human player wicked in real life....if so then I myself have a lot to answer for.

But examining the issue, especially given the origins of the genre, and asking ourselves tough questions, is important, I think. The casual, narrational racism of the Solomon Kane stories certainly is leading me to ask these questions.

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson, I took a photo of of pg 15 of 1e PHB.
Half Orc could have as maximum 17 Int, 14 Wisdom, 17 Dex, 12 Cha.

So what. Orcs are stupid and ugly. He correctly modeled that. It doesn't make him racist for accurately modeling half-orcs.

Women have higher pain tolerance then men, is that modeled? No.

He also doesn't have PCs have to go to the bathroom several times a day. He wasn't trying to model reality, but rather give a loose approximation.

Science is also not on the side of Dex builds in 5e, but people want RPG empowerment, not full versimilitude.

They want that now, sure. In the 70s? I'm not convinced. In any case, I don't see how 5e has any bearing on 1e. Since 4e the game no longer has stat penalties for races, either. Things change.

I am not calling Gary G a racist or sexist, but he was a white male libertarian from the Midwest.
Based off his writings, he clove pretty close to conventional libertarian thought and convention.

I've never heard libertarians going on about half-orcs and dex builds.

 

[Li Shenron]

On the other hand how do you accord your friend who wants to play a drow or bugbear and walk into town.

It's always a matter of fantasy setting.

I generally run games with a "points of darkness" perspective i.e. most of the fantasy world is earth-like with exceptional places where "here be monsters". In such a fantasy setting, a monstrous PC should take precautions when walking into town i.e. hide, disguise, or just wait in the woods while the rest of the party does their errands in town.

Obviously, if you play in a setting like Planescape, there is nothing to worry about your PC looking whatever...