D&D General All Dead Generations: "Classic Vs. The Aesthetic"

[overgeeked]

Surprisingly bad.

As are most of these "we have to keep the racism" arguments. Tradition is a terrible reason to keep something around. The longer these kinds of arguments go on the more I think the racism is the interesting part of the game for some people. It lets them pretend they're not racist while wading through a sea of racist stereotypes that they can gleefully murder at their whim. Let's tear the mask off already. The racist tropes are tired and old. They deserve to die. Let them go.

 

[Scribe]

As are most of these "we have to keep the racism" arguments. Tradition is a terrible reason to keep something around. The longer these kinds of arguments go on the more I think the racism is the interesting part of the game for some people. It lets them pretend they're not racist while wading through a sea of racist stereotypes that they can gleefully murder at their whim. Let's tear the mask off already. The racist tropes are tired and old. They deserve to die. Let them go.

Already at the 'its only racists' point? Nah, I'll pass.

 

[Charlaquin]

They aren't interesting. They are your neighbor with bigger teeth, and a green or grey tint of the skin.

My neighbor would be a lot more interesting if he had bigger teeth and a Frey or green tint to his skin. Just saying.

You hang out every Thursday at the pub.

Yes, and?

Human in all but name and minor cosmetics, that's the path removing everything problematic puts us on.

So? What’s wrong with characters having cosmetic differences from humans? You say “what’s the point of having them?” I say “what’s the point of not having them?” They’re cool. Have them if you want them. Or don’t, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Argyle King]

The word you're trying not to use is the Other. Yes, these creatures are historically the foe, villain, monster, outsider, and other. That's exactly the problem. They're incredibly thinly veiled racist stereotypes and have been for decades. Yes, even when Uncle Tolkien used them. Just because you're used to them, you like using them, or they're convenient shorthand for you does not make them less racist. That they're only ever used as the foe, villain, monster, outsider, and other is part of the problem. That they're the default evil is part of the problem.

Their function can be the same as any other character in fiction. Serving any one of an infinite possibilities. You don't have to use racist tropes to have a foe, a villain, or a monster. A well-dressed human will do. A cannibal dwarf is just as good as an orc. You don't have to use racist tropes to reinforce in groups and out groups. Breaking bread with people of shared interest will do as will defending against a common enemy. Now just imagine the common enemy is a human and you're standing next to an orc defending your village.

Look at Game of Thrones. Nearly 100% human characters and plenty of villains. Plenty of anti-heroes. Plenty of violence and intrigue. No need for racist tropes. But you don't need to go 100% human. You can still use orcs, trolls, goblins, gnolls, bugbears, etc. Modern gamers are simply pushing back against the obvious racism dripping from these creatures. You can have a chaotic tribe of humans as the villains. You can have an orc wizard as the villain. You can have a goblin artificer as the foe. A gnoll scholar as the quest giver. A bugbear detective. A troll gardener. You don't have to only use non-human creatures as villains.

Likewise you don't have to use humans, elves, dwarfs, and halflings as the good guys. At a guess you don't have trouble making any of those into foes, villains, monsters, outsiders, or other. It's simple. There is no default for those races, they can be anything. Good, bad, or in-between. So why is it so difficult to see orcs, goblins, ogres, or trolls as anything but the monster? Why is it so hard to let them be neutral or good? Not in a morally relativistic flip the meaning of good and evil on its head sense. But in a straightforward sense. Why not a LG troll paladin? Why not a goblin scribe who serves the good king of the human lands? Why not a gnoll shipwright building the best barges in the land.

Why do orcs, goblins, trolls, etc have to be evil? Tradition is about the worst excuse possible.

I think you make good points.

Though I think the question isn't "why do orcs, goblins, and trolls... have to be evil?"

I believe there comes a point at which the question becomes "why do orcs, goblins, trolls..." exist as part of this game at all?

 

[Malmuria]

They aren't interesting. They are your neighbor with bigger teeth, and a green or grey tint of the skin.

You hang out every Thursday at the pub.

Human in all but name and minor cosmetics, that's the path removing everything problematic puts us on.

But wasn’t that basically the case in adnd as well? At best the monsters were not entirely alien to humans, but rather expressions of a singular human emotion—unfocused rage in orcs, malicious self interest in goblins, etc, all with vague allusions to literature that readers should have been familiar with. I’d hardly say that there was a lot of deep thinking going on as to the worldview and ways of knowing and being in ‘orc culture.’ They different than humans insofar as human culture was relatively three dimensional in characterization (borrowing heavily from medieval europe, at least superficially). After sometime, a bit of thought was put into questions like where do they get their food? Where are their children? How did the big ogre fit through that tiny hallway?—ie, gygaxian naturalism. Looking at the 5e books, I’d say we are still there with the monsters. If anything, actual and creative deep worldbuilding that could articulate how humanoid monsters think differently would be appreciated, especially compared to the current description which in a lot of cases just boils down to ‘a god made them evil, I guess.’

in the article, the author talks about the main inspiration for classic play other than the medieval fantasy: the western. And a lot of dnd clicks into place when you see how these Midwestern authors took the ethos and practices of us settlement of the west and put it with the castles and weapons of medieval-ish Europe to create the aesthetic of the game.

finally, the expectation in a contemporary game is that the characters are generally closer to heroes than fo grave robbing thieves. Maybe this has been the case since dragonlance. But, ironically the modern game is arguably more focused on combat, due in part to the fact that people want balanced encounters. So perhaps modern play could learn something from the classic game in creating stories less centered around fighting.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you make good points.

Though I think the question isn't "why do orcs, goblins, and trolls... have to be evil?"

I believe there comes a point at which the question becomes "why do orcs, goblins, trolls..." exist as part of this game at all?

Why do people keep asking this? Obviously, they exist as part of the game because people want them to. They’re cool. They don’t need any more reason than that.

 

[Argyle King]

Why do people keep asking this? Obviously, they exist as part of the game because people want them to. They’re cool. They don’t need any more reason than that.

There's already redundancy with a lot of things. I'm not alone in thinking that adding more is less desirable than simply cutting some of it out.

I agree with what a lot of people have said about fantasy stories being capable of having villains or bad guys without using evil races. So, why have them?

I think it would be better to work toward making differences interesting and creating a more immersive experience rather than making more of a narrative lacking in definition.

From a gameplay perspective, I don't see how adding options which aren't really options at all (due to not doing anything) is a net gain.

Anecdotally, I already have newer players asking questions about why there aren't tangible benefits to different morphologies ("I have horns but they don't do anything?). Going further in that direction is something which creates more disconnect.

 

[overgeeked]

There's already redundancy with a lot of things. I'm not alone in thinking that adding more is less desirable than simply cutting some of it out.

I agree with what a lot of people have said about fantasy stories being capable of having villains or bad guys without using evil races. So, why have them?

I think it would be better to work toward making differences interesting and creating a more immersive experience rather than making more of a narrative lacking in definition.

From a gameplay perspective, I don't see how adding options which aren't really options at all (due to not doing anything) is a net gain.

Anecdotally, I already have newer players asking questions about why there aren't tangible benefits to different morphologies ("I have horns but they don't do anything?). Going further in that direction is something which creates more disconnect.

It's really weird that your options are "evil races exist in game and remain evil" or "evil races are removed from the game entirely"...at no point is it possible for you to consider removing the evil from the race and keep the race. It's a really odd argument to make. That strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Orcs are problematic because of the racist stereotypes. You can keep the orcs and remove the racist stereotypes. It will just be fractionally more work.

 

[Malmuria]

There's already redundancy with a lot of things. I'm not alone in thinking that adding more is less desirable than simply cutting some of it out.

I agree with what a lot of people have said about fantasy stories being capable of having villains or bad guys without using evil races. So, why have them?

I think it would be better to work toward making differences interesting and creating a more immersive experience rather than making more of a narrative lacking in definition.

From a gameplay perspective, I don't see how adding options which aren't really options at all (due to not doing anything) is a net gain.

Anecdotally, I already have newer players asking questions about why there aren't tangible benefits to different morphologies ("I have horns but they don't do anything?). Going further in that direction is something which creates more disconnect.

I think if there is redundancy that points to the fact that humanoid monsters are already presented as one dimensional foils for human cultures. Like, the whole thing with hobgoblins is that they are “militaristic.” That’s not, imo, meaningful worldbuilding, that’s just creating a fantasy race around a single cultural description.

 

[Argyle King]

It's really weird that your options are "evil races exist in game and remain evil" or "evil races are removed from the game entirely"...at no point is it possible for you to consider removing the evil from the race and keep the race. It's a really odd argument to make. That strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Orcs are problematic because of the racist stereotypes. You can keep the orcs and remove the racist stereotypes. It will just be fractionally more work.

I did not say those were my two perceived choices.

I agree with removing the problematic stereotypes.

However, if that means that they become functionally equivalent to being human, I'm not sure there's an added value to their existence in the game.

I see a push for some portion of the contemporary D&D audience to make choices primarily aesthetic in nature. I can disagree with that and simultaneously disagree with racism without turning it into a binary choice. My advocacy for cutting things out starts where the point to including something appears to end.