The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[AbdulAlhazred]

Do you think it would be possible for a campaign setting written today to approach some of darker aspects of man and morality without the contemporary audience at large assuming that those who wrote and world-built such a project somehow condoned or championed bad behavior?

In short: is there room in the tabletop games of today to explore harsher worlds and situations?

If no, I am curious to hear thoughts on why video games, movies, and other mediums are permitted to do so but it's out of bounds for TTRPGS.

If yes, what do you feel an author/creator should do to indicate a clear divide between the personal real-world beliefs of the author/creator and the in-game "realities" of how fictional societies and situations are portrayed?

Sure, I think it is possible. You would want to avoid centering it on some sort of racial/ethnic/cultural division in which one side is depicted as 'evil', at least unless they are non-human enough to not evoke any associations with actual people/cultures. One way would be to simply avoid that entirely. The scenario involves humans, they are not specifically of different cultures or ethnicity etc. In terms of what the 'bad behavior' is, I think we all have a good idea what sort of limits are likely to be needed. Again, we're looking at the avoidance of appearing to justify certain unacceptable but common social behaviors, like violence against women.

So, it has to be approached with some care, but that leaves a lot of territory and doesn't exclude the above elements as elements, just limits how they need to be depicted.

In terms of how do you depict a divide? I'm not sure that is a huge requirement. That is, if you were following restrictions such as I've outlined, it shouldn't reasonably look like you are condoning or encouraging anything which would be offensive or problematic. Right? Life is harsh in your game, people are sometimes forced to make really tough choices and do things that we don't normally consider proper behavior, but the reasons are clearly survival. There's going to be some lines, but I think that can work. If you are going to make the PCs members of a society which behaves in ways we today find unacceptable, then you're going to have to explain very clearly how and why that is, and still keep within certain lines. Some things won't fly.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think 3e and 4e did a decent job removing some of those tropes. But 5e brought them back

@Malmuria For an example, this post from a previous thread talks about how lizardfolk pulp-style 'cannibalism' (in the sense of eating other sentient beings), changes between editions. In OD&D and 1e they're 'cannibals'. In 3e that becomes a "largely unfounded" charge. But in 5e they are back to being 'cannibals'.

Lizardfolk are probably based on the horibs in Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan at the Earth's Core (1930). Burroughs frequently used the pulp cannibalism trope.

 

[Cadence]

It feels like human groups in the real world have a way of rallying (or at least uniting) when there is an other to put themselves against. Or of making someone else be the other when they need to feel better about themselves and their circumstances. And of dehumanizing that other to justify the worst of behavior against them. And they imbue their vision of that other with a panoply of negative emotional and motivational traits, and if possible try to associate outward ones (skin color and hue, eye shape, or clothing styles or accent if those others don't work) to build a separation. It feels like that never goes anywhere good, and often leads to heinous atrocities.

What benefit does having a human-ish other, one that is distinguishable by visible traits, bring that is worth the cost of reinforcing the expectation that those who are different are potentially that vile other?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It feels like human groups in the real world have a way of rallying (or at least uniting) when there is an other to put themselves against. Or of making someone else be the other when they need to feel better about themselves and their circumstances. And of dehumanizing that other to justify the worst of behavior against them. And they imbue their vision of that other with a panoply of negative emotional and motivational traits, and if possible try to associate outward ones (skin color and hue, eye shape, or clothing styles or accent if those others don't work) to build a separation. It feels like that never goes anywhere good, and often leads to heinous atrocities.

What benefit does having a human-ish other, one that is distinguishable by visible traits, bring that is worth the cost of reinforcing the expectation that those who are different are potentially that vile other?

Its a valid question. Part of the answer is simply that your RPG will be pretty niche if it won't tell such stories at all (of conflict with other 'humans'). That excludes most of literature and folklore!

 

[Campbell]

@Malmuria

Exalted Third Edition's setting does what I feel is a pretty good job at addressing themes of colonial power in a pretty nuanced way that really does not give any particular world view too much of a moral high ground. The Solar Exalted are caste as the rightful rulers returned after a betrayal from the more numerous Dragon Blooded Exalts and their Sidereal viziers, but it's very likely that in their excess the Solars of old deserved their fate.

The Dragonblooded rule the Realm, a dynastic empire that retains control of satrapies/tribute states that feed the expansion of the Realm's military might. They are responsible for much cruelty, but in many ways keep the world safe from various spirits, fey folk, and rampaging gods.

Lunars are the Fangs at the Gates, vengeful and aggrieved skin walkers who were not able to save their Solar mates. They have waged an endless war of aggression against The Realm ever since. They are in many ways an inversion of the Barbarians at the Gates trope, but portrayed in much more nuanced way.

Pretty much the entire meat of the setting is taking a critical look at the power relationships that exist between feudal/colonial powers and those on their edges. It does so in a way that leaves it very open to interpretation who is right and who is wrong while very much not shying from the darkside of the impacts of imperialism and the great man theory of history on the countless mortals who live in Creation.

It also has shonen anime style fights.

 

[pemerton]

Again, he doesn't call them out as a proxy for mongolians at all. The reason for this "cultural baggage" is because people keep repeating this false assertion.

To be clear, there is a sense of imagery, an evoking “the other”.

Yes. When JRRT wants to evoke an evil "other", he draws upon readily-available racist tropes.

I also feel it wrong to continually create links between fictional creatures (and in this case, literal monsters) and real world peoples where they don’t exist. Especially when the oft cited evidence is wrong

This is not to say there is no link between older prejudicial views informed thoughts,concepts, ideas, language and imagery that sparkedthese creatures. this is the inescapable reality of context upon author. But that’s not the same as saying the creatures themselves are these things, or meant to be proxies of these or have a direct correlation.

this is certainly not the same as saying this imaginary creature is a stand in or proxy for this specific group of peoples.

<snip>

As a further aside to those that seek conclusions beyond connotations of the evils of the southern and eastern humans that were enslaved to Sauron’s will, I offer this quote of Samwise’ thoughts:

““It was Sam’s first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man’s name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace.”

Hardly a passage written by someone who could only conclude that people of colour were irredeemably evil and that white is right etc.

Having read lots of the early days of the hobby, there’s enough to suggest that little thought when into adding something beyond “oh my days that’s cool, whack it in”, but I’ve seen very little that suggests there was a concerted effort on the part of any of the early creators to go out of their way to make goblinoids be representative of any specific ethnicity. Certainly, a level of sensitivity is lacking to a modern audience accustomed to such things, but no deeper meanings there.

You seem very keen to rebut views that no one in this thread has voiced.

Was JRRT a virulent racist? Or just very relaxed about the deployment of racialised tropes? I don't know. I'm commenting on his work. Likewise for the material in D&D. No one in this thread has said that the authors of D&D set out to express racist views. Maybe they did; maybe they didn't. The point is that they, like JRRT, expressed obviously racist ideas.

 

[pemerton]

I just read the essay Revisiting Race in Tolkien’s Legendarium: Constructing Cultures and Ideologies in an Imaginary World

In its discussion of the sources of JRRT's ideas and tropes, it doesn't seem to me to add a great deal to what is already in Shippey, and what @Doug McCrae has already mentioned in this thread.

It certainly doesn't provide any basis for supposing that there are no affinities between JRRT's work and racial tropes and stereotypes!

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I just read the essay Revisiting Race in Tolkien’s Legendarium: Constructing Cultures and Ideologies in an Imaginary World

In its discussion of the sources of JRRT's ideas and tropes, it doesn't seem to me to add a great deal to what is already in Shippey, and what @Doug McCrae has already mentioned in this thread.

It certainly doesn't provide any basis for supposing that there are no affinities between JRRT's work and racial tropes and stereotypes!

Thank you for doing the reading. I shouldn't be so lazy but I'm glad someone else did it.

 

[Aging Bard]

Yes. When JRRT wants to evoke an evil "other", he draws upon readily-available racist tropes.



You seem very keen to rebut views that no one in this thread has voiced.

Was JRRT a virulent racist? Or just very relaxed about the deployment of racialised tropes? I don't know. I'm commenting on his work. Likewise for the material in D&D. No one in this thread has said that the authors of D&D set out to express racist views. Maybe they did; maybe they didn't. The point is that they, like JRRT, expressed obviously racist ideas.

Yes, this is exactly right, and is the essence of implicit bias. Humans are natural pattern matchers, and it is mostly a helpful adaptation. But it also produces implicit bias: anything different from what we know as "normal" is potentially a threat. This is where we must fight against our innate evolutionary programming to not see differences as threats. It is hard, but very necessary. Overt racism, sexism, et al. is comparatively easier to deal with than the huge amount of implicit bias and resulting microaggressions. It's a never ending obligation to be attentive and empathetic.

 

[pemerton]

Thank you for doing the reading. I shouldn't be so lazy but I'm glad someone else did it.

I found it a bit disappointing, because it promised to tell us something meaningful about JRRT and race/racism, but what it actually did was catalogue his influences and ways those are expressed. All the conclusions are left as exercises for the reader; and at least in the case of this reader it didn't really change my thinking or shed significant new light.