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

[Yora]

I think people who are really upset about this basically just don't want D&D.

They want something else, but wish that to be called D&D. And that's a problem for others, because it attempts to overwrite D&D with something else, basically taking away and erasing what they like. There is already very little left in 5th edition that resmbles what D&D was, except for some window dressing. And now the discussion is to remove even that as well.

The whole issue is because of brand recognition. People are fighting over the privilege to be the only ones to call their vision of a fantast game D&D.

I'm in the Go Call It Something Else camp myself. The games I run have moved so far from the D&D iconography that I don't think of them as D&D myself anymore.

 

[Morrus]

I think maybe we need an "Evil Orcs" subforum.

 

[Argyle King]

Further thoughts I had after a previous post:

Choosing a small handful of things to define more is, as I perceive it, why some races appear as choices in the PHB and why some remain in the Monster Manual.

I think it's fair to be critical of the criteria by which creatures are defined as friend or foe (or as either human-ish or monster,) especially if/when said criteria seems to be built around things which are disparaging to real world people and cultures.

But is it deemed more respectful to those cultures to say they have no distinctiveness at all? I'm not so sure, and I see how going too far in that direction is disparaging as well.

A challenge, in regards to writing fantasy, is that a lot of it is intended to be a caricature of humanity: the uber-virtuous paladin; the elderly wizard; the gruff dwarf, and so-on. So, I think there's some amount of tension between figuring out the boundaries within which exaggeration and caricature are useful for portraying a story but don't become shorthand for including hateful and hurtful ideas (whether intentional or not).

I feel that questions need to be asked concerning what's included when finite space is available.

Additionally, what kind of story is attempting to be told? What's the aesthetic the writer/artist is attempting to create? What are the expectations of the audience?

A setting with cultural nuance, explorations of society, and blood-n-guts traumatic warfare will approach portrayals of people and peoples very differently than the Dungeon Fantasy campaign I run in which the deity choices for the cleric included Santa Claus, Cthulu, and Thor.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Let's drill down a bit more here shall we?

Let's move away from orc into SF and Star Trek. Just for a moment. Vulcans. Now, vulcans are FAR closer to humans than orcs are to humans. Vulcans are physically pretty much just humans with funny ears. They don't even have bumpy heads. A pair of dollar store ears and a bad hair cut and you're cosplaying a Vulcan. Not a huge stretch.

Are you going to tell me that Vulcans add nothing to the Star Trek universe? Note, vulcans have been portrayed as both good guys and bad guys at different times so, it's not like they are one dimensional in alignment. Yet, we're talking about a mountain of information about a fictional race, novels, movies, TV shows, you name it. They've featured in pretty much every single Star Trek franchise save DS9.

So, the notion that being "just a functional equivalent to being human" doesn't really equate with their being of little value. From Vulcans, we get Romulans, which have hugely added to the setting and the stories that are told. Probably second only to Klingons really. And, speaking of Klingons, let's not forget how wide a variety of character we've seen there - from the human eating warriors of Discovery to the HONOR!!! bound Lt. Worf and everything in between. Klingons certainly serve as a template for how any race can be interesting AND not a bag full of racist stereotypes at the same time.

@Scribe talks about how these D&D races suddenly become cardboard cutouts if you take away the alignment angle. "They aren't interesting. They are your neighbor with bigger teeth, and a green or grey tint of the skin." To me, that's just a complete failure of imagination. If the only thing that makes orcs (or whatever) interesting is the racist tropes, then, well, that thing shouldn't be in the game. But, there are all sorts of examples of these things being redeemed. Vampires were once a bad stand in for Eastern European immigrants. Now, after Anne Rice, they are sexy romantic figures with tragic stories. Look at the differences between Dracula - a completely vile character with no redeeming qualities - and the modern takes on vampires, from Buffy's Spike to various other shows.

Or, look at what they are doing to bring the Mythos stories into the 21st century sans the massively bigoted rhetoric that makes me want to wash my eyes out with bleach after reading. There are fantastic writers doing fantastic things with the Mythos and leaving Lovecraft consigned to the dustbin of history where he belongs.

Heck, the whole point of the Steampunk movement is to shine a critical light on the mysogynistic and racist underpinnings of Victorian and Edwardian era SF. And, they've massively succeeded. All sorts of fantastic works that take some of the really cool ideas of the time and then marry them to modern sensibilities to create something new that doesn't tell large numbers of potential fans that they are of less value.

 

[Argyle King]

Let's drill down a bit more here shall we?

Let's move away from orc into SF and Star Trek. Just for a moment. Vulcans. Now, vulcans are FAR closer to humans than orcs are to humans. Vulcans are physically pretty much just humans with funny ears. They don't even have bumpy heads. A pair of dollar store ears and a bad hair cut and you're cosplaying a Vulcan. Not a huge stretch.

Are you going to tell me that Vulcans add nothing to the Star Trek universe? Note, vulcans have been portrayed as both good guys and bad guys at different times so, it's not like they are one dimensional in alignment. Yet, we're talking about a mountain of information about a fictional race, novels, movies, TV shows, you name it. They've featured in pretty much every single Star Trek franchise save DS9.

So, the notion that being "just a functional equivalent to being human" doesn't really equate with their being of little value. From Vulcans, we get Romulans, which have hugely added to the setting and the stories that are told. Probably second only to Klingons really. And, speaking of Klingons, let's not forget how wide a variety of character we've seen there - from the human eating warriors of Discovery to the HONOR!!! bound Lt. Worf and everything in between. Klingons certainly serve as a template for how any race can be interesting AND not a bag full of racist stereotypes at the same time.

@Scribe talks about how these D&D races suddenly become cardboard cutouts if you take away the alignment angle. "They aren't interesting. They are your neighbor with bigger teeth, and a green or grey tint of the skin." To me, that's just a complete failure of imagination. If the only thing that makes orcs (or whatever) interesting is the racist tropes, then, well, that thing shouldn't be in the game. But, there are all sorts of examples of these things being redeemed. Vampires were once a bad stand in for Eastern European immigrants. Now, after Anne Rice, they are sexy romantic figures with tragic stories. Look at the differences between Dracula - a completely vile character with no redeeming qualities - and the modern takes on vampires, from Buffy's Spike to various other shows.

Or, look at what they are doing to bring the Mythos stories into the 21st century sans the massively bigoted rhetoric that makes me want to wash my eyes out with bleach after reading. There are fantastic writers doing fantastic things with the Mythos and leaving Lovecraft consigned to the dustbin of history where he belongs.

Heck, the whole point of the Steampunk movement is to shine a critical light on the mysogynistic and racist underpinnings of Victorian and Edwardian era SF. And, they've massively succeeded. All sorts of fantastic works that take some of the really cool ideas of the time and then marry them to modern sensibilities to create something new that doesn't tell large numbers of potential fans that they are of less value.

I do not believe Vulcan's are as one-dimensional as it may seem at first.

As you pointed out, there's a lot more to Vulcans (both mechanically and culturally) than just ears. They have a reason to exist in that story.

I do think Vulcans are also a good example because they showcase how a species might be used as a critique or a caricature of humanity without being offensive. At first glance they are used to point out the failings of humans as illogical and misguided creatures, but they are sometimes also used as a contrast to highlight why the highs and lows of the human emotional experience is important.

 

[Argyle King]

Let's drill down a bit more here shall we?
to create something new that doesn't tell large numbers of potential

Sorry for the double-post. It's getting a little confusing responding to two threads about much of the same topic.

I think, in a lot of ways, Klingons kinda were functionally just humans, but that was an intentional choice to explore an aspect of the story.

I perceived Klingons as being the Star Trek analog to the USSR. Making them so similar to humans while having a longstanding conflict with humans and the Federation kinda pokes fun at the idea of two cultures with so many similarities finding reasons to kill each other. Having humans look down upon Klingons as violent and savage also served as a somewhat amusing reflection of how Vulcans viewed humans -with humans taking offense to it but not realizing that they're doing the same thing while looking at Klingons.

I think that has some basis in D&D elves, humans, and orcs.

 

[Shiroiken]

Sigh, here we go again.

One thing that would have resolved this issue is the alignment percentages from AD&D. There used to be a descriptor in the alignment description that represented the percentage chance of any given creature being that alignment. This was used to clarify that while most creatures are of a specific alignment, there are almost always outliers. Pretty much the only "always" (100%) creatures were unique creatures and ones that specifically exemplified a particular ethos (angels, demons, devils, modrons, etc).

While I don't remember the exact numbers, a modern usage would be to list the various humanoids that everyone seems to take issue with as having "usually" with their alignment. This would correspond with approximately 50% of these creatures having the listed alignment, meaning there's plenty of those who aren't. This would be for both the good elves and dwarves, as well as the evil orcs and goblins. This would simply be the assumed cultural type for the default medieval fantasy, which can be easily be modified by the DM for their own campaign.

 

[Yora]

In the case of Start Trek, I think most if not all of the other major peoples were created to be neighboring cultures that the Human culture has interactions with. And as a show centered around diplomacy and engaging with other cultures, cultural differences are treated as a challenge that can be overcome to the benefit of everyone involved.
The first half of DS9 (the good half) expanded the Cardassian to not just be Space Nazis, but a nation that is living under a strong military dictatorship. They are a culture with internal problems that tries to overcome them by reaching out to their neighbors, even though those are mostly hesitant. (At least until the second half of the show, which is all about big battles against Space Nazis.)

But D&D isn't like that. Orcs, goblins, and ogres aren't neighboring countries of the human, elven, and halfling nations, with which they have a complicated diplomatic relationship. They are CR 1/4, CR 1/2, and CR 2 monsters.
You absolutely can turn them into cultures with their own nations, as is done in Eberron. But for that you have to tie them into a specific setting that defines not only their cultures, but also the cultures of the good races. D&D is not a setting. It's a toolbox of generic pieces from which people can assemble their own settings. If you change them from creatures to cultures, you fundamentally change what D&D is.

 

[Hussar]

@Yora - I agree that D&D is a somewhat different genre than Star Trek. Heck, I'm a much bigger SF fan that I ever was a fantasy fan, so, I'm constantly having to check myself that I'm not looking down my nose at fantasy.

But, if all monsters are are CR X bags of HP, then, well, make them all monsters. Make them unintelligent animals. Heck, Monster Hunter is pretty popular and, from what little I know, the monsters aren't intelligent in that game, nor do they have culture (although, I will freely admit my ignorance of the specifics of a game I've never played and feel absolutely free to correct my ignorance).

My point being, if the function of these game elements is simply to provide a combat challenge, then there's no point in giving them a language or intelligence or a culture. No one has problems with giant spiders after all. Killing giant spiders, or wyverns or the various other beasties, both magical and not, is generally seen as perfectly fine without any baggage.

So, why do we need races with cultures and languages and religions and whatnot if their only function in the game is to be killed by the PC's?

While I do think that D&D is largely about killing the baddies, even the most ardent hack and slasher will still interact once in a while with an orc or whatnot without killing it. I think that the argument that orcs and goblins aren't neighbouring countries falls rather flat as soon as you open the books. Even in the core books, orcs are described as having nation states. Religions are described. Many of the humanoids are described as having cities and doing trade and whatnot. As soon as you do that, you no longer have wandering bags of XP.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

First of, I have to say I am really glad someone started this thread. The two current threads in which the exact same topic is already being discussed clearly weren't enough!

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.

But this is I am genuinely glad to see. Someone else in the lonely middle ground in which you end up arguing against everyone and everyone assumes that you're advocating for something you're not.

I have disliked the always-evil races in D&D, and especially certain racist depictions of them for decades. At the same time, I actually want the fantasy species to be different, I want them to mean something. I am really not fan of the current trend of eroding all differences they may have, perhaps leaving cosmetics and some super powers (as long as they don't actually make you better at anything.)

And as my go to examples of how to do this well are Glorantha and Star Trek, it should be pretty clear that I might not exactly be clamouring for always-evil-hordes-of-others for the player characters to remorselessly slaughter, but this discussion is so polarised that most people simply cannot conceive anything except the extremes.