D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Mercurius]

Finally catching up to a point where I can start quoting and commenting

I'm bolding that description, because that is where I want to focus for a second.

What does "brutal-savage-evil" give us anyways? What value are we getting.

For example, Evil. Why have something born evil? That is not only boring but just a huge problem from a worldbuilding perspective. So figure out why they are Evil. Are they evil because they believe in "might makes right" and "the strong rule the weak". Great, we can work with that. We can imagine a society that has been at war so long that the idea of offering mercy to an enemy is seen as abberrant. They don't spar or train, if they get into a fight it is until one of them stops moving, because that proves they are strong.

And why are they that way? Well, I already explained it. War. Endless centuries of War.

And now, we look at Brutal and Savage. Well, that slots in nicely doesn't it? I'm picturing that Rambo: Last Blood movie. Brutal and Savage describes how Rambo killed all those men. War would do that.

But, now we get to the kicker. The truly beautiful part of this. What happens to orcs not raised in Orc society? None of that above stuff applies to them. Those norms are not the norms they have. Their worship of Gruumsh as the God of Strength might be for the Strength to forgive others. They didn't have that formative moment where two children got into a scrap, one helps the other up, and the adult demeans them because a true warrior would finish off his enemy, not aid him in standing. Without those experiences, Orcs are just people.

The problem is, they are human. At a fundamental level, they have to be.

I don't remember which ancient philosopher it was, but they made a claim that I think applies here. "Man is the measure of all things"

We, as humans, cannot create a race of people that use language, tools, and housing without making them a mirror of ourselves. We just can't, because we are the only thing we have ever encountered that does those things. And, every single time in history someone has said "but those aren't really people" they've been wrong.

So, I think the solution is very much to limit things to points that aren't personality based. Orcs, Humans and Halflings are very similiar in terms of lifespan, and halflings and humans seem to be very similar in just about all aspects.

Elves, Dwarves and Gnomes all live a lot longer, and that can be used to make them different. You can also do things like I gave Elves a "memory garden". Essentially when they Trance, they can revisit and affect their own memories. They can literally chose to forget things, or enshrine certain memories. That makes them different without having to say something like "All elves are born more empathetic than the other races, their gods demanding that they learn everything about other people they can" Which, would just be weird.

I also want to point this out. You never have a race "born with" or "forced by a god" to have good traits. Orcs are just born violent and savage, but no race is just born kind-hearted and merciful. Something to consider.

Good post--and some excellent solutions. I generally agree with what you're saying here, with the caveat of what I just wrote in my reply to Hussar, which I'll put slightly differently here.

The rules of fantasy are different from the rules of the real world. We all love that word "verisimilitude" (one of those big words used far more within the RPG community than outside it), which is quite relevant and I think goes along with what you are saying: the fantasy world must make sense within its own context, it must be internally coherent, but doesn't need to abide by how things work in our world. Thus an "all-evil" race can make sense if, as you say, it is grounded within the context of the world.

So, yes, "man is the measure of all things" and everything we imaginatively create will be a reflection of who we are. But orcs (for instance) aren't simply mirrors of who we are; they are mirrors of certain aspects of who we are. In Tolkien's world, they are the shadow to elves, which mirror those "higher" aspects of human nature. In a way we can say that in Middle-earth: Humans = elves + orcs. Elves are elves, orcs are orcs, but humans have some choice in who and what we are, and in that sense have a nature of freedom that potentially makes them even greater than elves.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What about inherently good races (e.g. non-Kender Hobbits); or inherently lawful (e.g. Dwarves), or inherently chaotic (e.g. Elves and Gnomes)? If inherent evil has to go (and I'm not at all convinced that it does) then by extension so must those other three - right?

And about always good races.... (not in English, but with subtitles!)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

What about inherently good races (e.g. non-Kender Hobbits); or inherently lawful (e.g. Dwarves), or inherently chaotic (e.g. Elves and Gnomes)? If inherent evil has to go (and I'm not at all convinced that it does) then by extension so must those other three - right?

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Get rid of racial norms in D&D, and make the races more open. Gnomes can be evil villains, goblins can be heroes. Orcs can be civilized and intelligent, while Halflings can be selfish and awful.
I don't think the lawful/chaotic stuff has to go, but the evil/good definitely does.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I find the comment silly.

Watch the documentary "13th", read up on how the American "justice" system disproportionately effects African Americans, how prison labor is slavery, and then decide whether or not slavery in modern days of the US is a laughing matter.

john oliver prison labor - Search Videos

www.bing.com

Educate yourself before dismissing a real problem as "silly".

 

[Valchrys]

The more I read the criticisms against D&D, the more I'm becoming convinced that the game's lore can't really survive in this era. The weak point, imo, of the lore is the mythology of creator gods. I've leaned on this lore a lot to create adventures over the years but the fact that gods exist and they created their respective races to reflect their values is a sore that won't go away with some changes to language. Gruumsh is an Orc supremacist. Lolth is a Drow supremacist. All the gods are shorthand for cultural bias. How do you keep these symbols of racism and think you're going to address external criticism from people who openly don't like D&D or the Fantasy genre, in general? Maybe people who play the game may just say that having one or two racists gods isn't the issue. But that doesn't seem realistic right now.

It seems like the only direction that the designers can go, given the nature and source of the criticism, is to remove the connection between gods and races. Then the gods have to become more philosophies than actors. Then you can throw out all the racial lore. Several campaign settings can survive that change but FR without gods needs a lot of work to bring up to a professional standard. I'm not even sure if D&D's cosmology survives in its current state.

I guess all of this is a good reason to make a 6th edition since they could rewrite everything. But then it becomes the 4th ed situation where fans will say it's not really D&D. Just like the designers can't reduce the number of stats to less than six, it becomes a question of are racial creator gods necessary to create the feel of D&D?

 

[Umbran]

Non humans are separate species according to this definition.

Okay, can we please agree that the term "species" in this context is at best vaguely suggestive/descriptive? Because the biological meaning we have for it really does not apply to D&D fantasy.

 

[Oofta]

Okay, can we please agree that the term "species" in this context is at best vaguely suggestive/descriptive? Because the biological meaning we have for it really does not apply to D&D fantasy.

Just pointing out where the confusion lies, not meant as a comment one way or another on bigger issues. The books aren't always consistent or clear and the english language is sometimes easily interpreted multiple ways.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If points are divisive. They can be replied to with respect.

I just want to point out that the lines between divisive and trolling is very thin.
Trolling generally means: make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

While divisive means:
tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm a bit confused by the orc discussion. In my understanding, a humanoid creature is one that is some what like a human (walks upright on 2 legs, with 2 arms), but it isn't a human. A monster can be humanoid for example. I always thought that is what orcs were: monsters that are humanoid in appearance, but still monsters.

There are exceptions to that assumption. Mind flayers have 2 legs, 2 arms, and are aberrations. Giants are the same way. Humanoid generally means a creature similar enough to humans in scales of civilization, intelligence, culture, language, and diet that makes them be humanoids. (I mention diet, because Illithids eat brains)

 

[Umbran]

Just pointing out where the confusion lies, not meant as a comment one way or another on bigger issues. The books aren't always consistent or clear and the english language is sometimes easily interpreted multiple ways.

Yes, and if you aren't very specific about how you interpret it... who is to blame for that, hm?

There's a rhetorical technique (and logical fallacy) that is often called "bait-and-switch". Is it where one starts speaking using one definition or meaning of a term, but ends using a different one. When words are of questionable or uncertain meaning in the context in which they are used (like "species" in a fantasy world where dragons can interbreed with almost anything) it is extremely easy to bait-and-switch, often without even meaning to do so.

Thus, my suggestion that we toss "species" when we need to start talking about a fantasy world in which far too many things can interbreed for the Earth-term to apply. If the book uses the term, we should not plow forward as if that has all the meanings we can usually attach to it.