D&D General Demihumans of Color and the Thermian Argument

[Fanaelialae]

I think that right there is the problem. You can create as inhuman a mindset as you can think up, and most players will either ignore that mindset or not play the race at all. So there needs to be a happy medium where the race is alien enough to be different but not so alien that it can't be understood and played.

I'm not saying it's not possible. Just that it's difficult.

My view on the matter, which I realize diverges from the common wisdom, is that it isn't a problem.

Those players who want to engage with the alien mindset will, and it will enhance their experience because that's what they're looking for. Those who don't want, to don't have to, and can play their character like a funny looking human. I simply have the NPCs react to them accordingly. Not in a punitive manner, but simply recognizing that the character is different from the other elves/dwarves/whatevers that they've known. I mean, there are a fairly diverse range of outlooks amongst humans (some of which I find difficult to imagine from my own perspective). I see no reason that other sentient beings couldn't have similar neuro-diversity.

As an aside, I said this in the other thread so I wasn't initially going to repeat it here. However, I don't see any reason why a campaign shouldn't be inclusive and have diversity. Even if the snow elves in your campaign world have alabaster hair and skin, it's a fantasy world. Whether by some quirk of genetics, act of the gods, portent, or whatever, just work with the player to come up with a reason (which will probably also give you a cool potential story hook that your player is already interested in). In general, I think demihumans should have all the diversity of humans.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm probably not as sensitive to it as I could be, but I also think we have made progress. It wasn't that long ago that someone threw a hissy fit at a game day because there was a mention of a lesbian couple. His reaction was that "it was supposed to be a family friendly game". In addition, some of the art is starting to show diversity, even if it isn't enough.

However, I do have an issue with every depiction of anything negative in a campaign being justified because of the type of creature, the culture or other aspects of in game universe as "a Thermian argument". In other words, sexist chainmail bikinis are IMHO stupid. But a campaign world that says "in this region women are treated poorly, it's a very patriarchal society", while not something I would do in my campaign is legitimate. Saying that a non-human creature does not think like a human, even if intelligent, is justifiable.

So I think it's two separate things. Some things can be justified by the setting. Having little differentiation in skin color, hair, facial features or chainmail bikinis is not on that list. Some of the things people would put on the Thermian list, I would not.

There's a couple arguments adjacent to Thermian arguments that sometimes get confused. For clarity, a Thermian Argument is only when an in-universe answer is given to an out-of-universe question. So things that are not Thermin but close include:

1. An in-universe answer to an in-universe question: "Why do Thayan slavers make their slave wear chainmail bikinis?" This is asking what Thayans think/believe/whatever, so answering with Thayan cultural notes is fine and acceptable. "Because Thayans are evil slavers" is, in fact, a fair answer here.

2. A vague question being misinterpreted: "Why doesn't Red Sonja ever wear pants?" I'm sure there's a weird lore reason for this, and it wouldn't be wrong to give that response to this question if there isn't other context explaining that the asker wanted an out-of-universe answer.

Importantly, there's two completely valid answers to this kind of question: why do Thayans do this, and why did the author include it in the setting. Sometimes you need to make sure you're asking the right question.

 

[Zaukrie]

This is something I try to touch on in one of my draft novels, but have failed at..... What is the difference between people that can mate, human, elf, etc.?

 

[Faolyn]

I am not sure. I'd say 90%, but not 99.99%. Non-humans are the hardest, but the same problem arises with values within a civilization of humans. Let's say the PC is from a slaver empire, like Rome. Are 99.99% roleplaying 20th century westerner trying to abolish slavery, or is there a significant part of them at least trying to roleplaying being from that culture, being raised in it and embracing its values? It's not as difficult/borderline impossible as non-human, but I have seen a significant part of players engage with it and have fun. I have also, from the same group, seen people bored to death by a session-long in-character discussion about a finer point of the setting's politics and whether it is ethical to bind elementals to propel airships (while most of the group had fun). I agree that it's not the most common type of play, and I don't imply any play style is superior to another, nor that I don't engage in dungeon-delving sometime and have fun, but I think it's more prevalent than you estimate.

It's a cognate subject, but it also affects representation: can cultural values other than 21th century, Western ones be represented in a setting at this point? Can lizardmen be strongly territorial, human flesh eaters AND a playable race? Of course, if you don't play them as an "acting exercise" to borrow your words, it doesn't really matter because you won't say "hey, Bill the Warrior just failed is 3rd death save... dibs on his liver!" except for comedic value and not really roleplay the fact that you're stooping to adventuring with foreign livestock for some unfathomable reason that would make your ancestor disgusted.

The current lizardfolk lore isn't that they eat people, it's that they don't waste dead bodies when they could be used as food. They're not "adventuring with livestock." They're adventuring with allies. If and when those allies die, then to a lizardfolk, it makes sense to consume the body rather than let it go to waste by burying or burning it. But for the most part, they wouldn't hunt other humanoids for food. Especially not when animals are easier to eat and rarely have class levels.

Same goes with a cannibalistic, HUMAN, society.

In the real world, cannibalism as a societal practice is often a highly ritualized and religious thing. You're confusing that with cannibalism engaged in by people who are in famine conditions or with mentally ill individuals.

You can combine that with the lizardfolk example above, that a lizardfolk eats a dead ally both to not waste the meat and to keep some of the essence of that ally with them.

Most setting are free of intra-species prejudice (there is few example of overtly racist [in the real life sense] societies, and few overtly racist against other species (even the dwarf/elf hatred is more a friendly rivalry than a dark, "go sit at the back of the bus" relationship). I am feeling that not only self-insertion lessens the need to have other species as available to PCs, but also that some cultures, whenever PCs can hail from them, are (increasingly?) 21th century United States replicas because of the need of anyone being able to self-insert.

Personally, I've seen very little self-insertion in fantasy worlds. Rather, I see people building worlds that are interesting and fun to play in--and bigotry is neither interesting nor fun (except to bigots, of course).

If your numbers are true and 99.99% of the people don't care about how their species (extra hard) and cultural values (very hard) would influence their decision making, then it's better for the game to have maximum diversity... but then I don't see the added value of having varied cultures and species depicted in game if the ultimate goal is to roleplay them the same way. I'd feel that the settings writers are making a lot of effort that would go to waste.

For starters, I'd imagine that a lot of worldbuilders enjoy writing those cultural/species differences. And there's plenty of gamers who will adopt some of those mores for their characters, even if they don't use them all or go whole-hog. And there's plenty of gamers who will use the given information as a prompt for creating their characters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Saying “elves/dwarves/gnomes/etc aren’t human, so they don’t have to have human ethnic features” is a Thermian Argument. It attempts to refute critique of the lack of POC representation in most modern fantasy fiction based on in-fiction lore and logic, ignoring the fact that the fiction is written by real humans who have the option to write it differently.

Sure. Though I think saying "non-humans do not have human ethnic features" is fine. But this means they don't have European/white features then either.

 

[Steampunkette]

There's a couple arguments adjacent to Thermian arguments that sometimes get confused. For clarity, a Thermian Argument is only when an in-universe answer is given to an out-of-universe question. So things that are not Thermin but close include:

1. An in-universe answer to an in-universe question: "Why do Thayan slavers make their slave wear chainmail bikinis?" This is asking what Thayans think/believe/whatever, so answering with Thayan cultural notes is fine and acceptable. "Because Thayans are evil slavers" is, in fact, a fair answer here.

2. A vague question being misinterpreted: "Why doesn't Red Sonja ever wear pants?" I'm sure there's a weird lore reason for this, and it wouldn't be wrong to give that response to this question if there isn't other context explaining that the asker wanted an out-of-universe answer.

Importantly, there's two completely valid answers to this kind of question: why do Thayans do this, and why did the author include it in the setting. Sometimes you need to make sure you're asking the right question.

The Canonical Answer to why she dresses in a Chainmail Bikini is 3 layers of horrible writing by dudes trying to come up with some excuse to keep her in the chainmail bikini.

1) Combat Distraction.
2) She was raped and secretly wants the sexual attention. (Implied that she wants to be raped again 'cause she hasn't had sex since)
3) She was raped and wants to lure rapists over so she can kill them when they try something.

She was written to have given these answers, canonically, when bluntly asked about her bikini.

 

[Faolyn]

This is The Doctor erasure and I will not be having it.

Tuvok, the Doctor, and Seven of Nine should've had their own show.

Can we include Naomi Wildman, subunit of Ensign Wildman?

 

[Steampunkette]

Can we include Naomi Wildman, subunit of Ensign Wildman?

ABSOLUTELY.

And Icheb.

 

[Imaculata]

I have dwarves in my current homebrew campaign that have a mediterranean tinted skin and no beard. Diversity was never on my mind. The setting and its cultures were. Having dwarves in your setting that don't look like the standard Tolkien dwarves, keeps things fresh.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The Canonical Answer to why she dresses in a Chainmail Bikini is 3 layers of horrible writing by dudes trying to come up with some excuse to keep her in the chainmail bikini.

1) Combat Distraction.
2) She was raped and secretly wants the sexual attention. (Implied that she wants to be raped again 'cause she hasn't had sex since)
3) She was raped and wants to lure rapists over so she can kill them when they try something.

She was written to have given these answers, canonically, when bluntly asked about her bikini.

All these answers are way worse than her actually wearing it.