D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Yaarel]

I think you might want to think a bit more about what you say, because you're reaaaaaaaally not getting it here.

Who, exactly, do you think Halflings/Hobbits represent?

English people is the answer. Right out of Tolkein's own mouth. So, if you're saying "They're not good enough for mighty culture!", what do you think you're saying? Hmmm. It's also pretty funny after you insulted Halflings/Hobbits lol.

Halflings are thematically innocent children. Calling someone elses ethnicity "children" can easily be offensive.

I assume the self-descriptions of English halfling and the Scottish ratfolk are being self-effacing in a playful way. But that doesnt necessarily come across well when the game is out in the wild, among gamers who arent in on the joke, and dont share the insider perspective. Moreover, the approach especially fails when deciding how to speak contemptuously about someone elses ethnicity.

I'm unclear on what you're trying to say here.

Do you think that you, personally, being offended by viking halflings is "the same thing" as someone from an oppressed culture dealing with an actual racist or highly negative stereotype?

Because if so no. You're just wrong. It's not even a valid opinion.

I feel it is a reallife evil to demonize or humiliate any ethnicity, whether the ethnicity is in power or out of power.

Also, power is often relative. East Asian ethnicities are minorities in the US and have suffered abuse there. But they are majorities in East Asia and in power there.

Humans and ethnic ways of being human deserve human dignity.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Halflings are thematically innocent children. Calling someone elses ethnicity "children" can easily be offensive.

I assume the self-descriptions of English halfling and the Scottish ratfolk are being self-effacing in a playful way. But that doesnt necessarily come across well when the game is out in the wild, among gamers who arent in on the joke, and dont share the insider perspective. Moreover, the approach especially fails when deciding how to speak contemptuously about someone elses ethnicity.

This is a misreading of at least the original halflings (hobbits) in what they are.

Thematically, what hobbits were supposed to be was salt-of-the-Earth countrymen who found their virtue in family, crafts, growing things and good living. Being great fighters were not what they were known for, because war and battle was not something they valued--but they were capable of doing it at need.

The treatment of them as childlike in some games is largely a sign of bias in itself, a reflection of authors who have some degree of contempt for them because they don't bring some of the adventuring virtues that those authors value, at least in that context.

Halfings problems aren't that their don't have a perfectly admirable and adult set of virtues; its that to many people they just aren't cool.

 

[MGibster]

Thematically, what hobbits were supposed to be was salt-of-the-Earth countrymen who found their virtue in family, crafts, growing things and good living. Being great fighters were not what they were known for, because war and battle was not something they valued--but they were capable of doing it at need.

Hell, from what I remember, they bow to no one!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hell, from what I remember, they bow to no one!

Right. Now, they largely can do so in the original work because of no one having the werewithal to make an issue out of it, but one gets the impression until it gets really impossible they're masters of passive resistance.

 

[billd91]

This is a misreading of at least the original halflings (hobbits) in what they are.

Thematically, what hobbits were supposed to be was salt-of-the-Earth countrymen who found their virtue in family, crafts, growing things and good living. Being great fighters were not what they were known for, because war and battle was not something they valued--but they were capable of doing it at need.

The treatment of them as childlike in some games is largely a sign of bias in itself, a reflection of authors who have some degree of contempt for them because they don't bring some of the adventuring virtues that those authors value, at least in that context.

Halfings problems aren't that their don't have a perfectly admirable and adult set of virtues; its that to many people they just aren't cool.

Yes, but. (there's always a but)
Even with those admirable adult virtues, hobbits are also kindly children of the West and are sheltered by people more willing/able to take up gritty, even-more adult tasks. So what may seem admirable to one group, may seem kind of patronizing and negative to another.
And that's part of the challenge with dealing with any culture.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, but. (there's always a but)
Even with those admirable adult virtues, hobbits are also kindly children of the West and are sheltered by people more willing/able to take up gritty, even-more adult tasks. So what may seem admirable to one group, may seem kind of patronizing and negative to another.
And that's part of the challenge with dealing with any culture.

Yeah.



Ideally, D&D can represent and dignify reallife Native American cultures. But then D&D will be dealing with the troubles that come from wellmeaning ignorance, even while studiously achieving respectfulness and goodwill.

 

[Faolyn]

That's of course the problem with this sort of thing. Some particularly associations are blatant enough almost anyone can see the problem with it; if you've used African culture as the basis for your civilization of ape-men you either are really oblivious or really don't care.

But in other cases you just have to kind of make a decision, and even the fact some members of the culture don't like it might not be enough (because some members of a culture are going to see almost anything as a veiled slam, especially if they're members of a historically oppressed culture.

Let's give an example.

Let's say you have a group of Dogmen. You assign them to a culture based on Croatia. Now, I'm half Croatian and often consider "dog" a good shorthand for what I consider virtues (loyalty, determination, working with others well when needed) but others would focus on their more negative associations and find it an insult. Is my view more legitimate than theirs? Theirs than mine?

In this sort of case, it would be important for the writer to emphasize why they decided to have not!Croatian dogfolk. For instance, the writer could play up those virtues of loyalty, determination, and cooperation, and the artist could illustrate them as looking alert, friendly, protective, fierce, etc. This would push a positive view and narrative. It wouldn't stop people from saying that dogs are a bad choice for whatever reason, but those reasons wouldn't be supported by the book.

Then you have the Gaz10 way, where the dogfolk would be actively written as dirty, mangey, poop-eaters who lick their own genitals, and the art would depict them as drooling, flea-ridden messes. In that case, the negative view and narrative would be supported by the book.

Of course, you'd also have to do this with the culture half of the people and de-emphasize or not include nasty stereotypes about actual Croatians in the write-up--or at least specify that they are stereotypes and not the truth.

Now, it would likely be harder to do this with orcs or some other previously always-evil race because of the decades of baggage associated with orcs. It might be less hard to do it with elves or a previously always-good race, because I think most people are more willing to accept a good people turned evil than vice versa.

 

[Mordhau]

Yeah.



Ideally, D&D can represent and dignify reallife Native American cultures. But then D&D will be dealing with the troubles that come from wellmeaning ignorance, even while studiously achieving respectfulness and goodwill.

The theory is that by hiring cultural consultants they can avoid this.

I'm somewhat sceptical because there's no guarantee that two different people from the same minority group will actively agree about content. I've read accounts of journalists getting into trouble for articles and people blasting them for not using sensitivity readers when they insist that they did use sensitivity readers.

Which is not to say they should not be used, but they are not a cure-all and independent creators may not have the funds to pay them.

 

[Faolyn]

Halflings are thematically innocent children. Calling someone elses ethnicity "children" can easily be offensive.

I honestly don't see that. Thematically, I've always seen them as part-rustic folk, part sneaky folk. Their only "innocence" comes from the fact that they're usually not very worldly.

OK, I know that 3x gave them a childlike appearance, but that's kind of creepy in my opinion and I don't use that idea.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Halflings are thematically innocent children. Calling someone elses ethnicity "children" can easily be offensive.

No they aren't.

This is perfect though, you're showing that your own ignorant projection of what Halflings are is more important to you than the facts, which really blows up your own argument.

Ideally, D&D can represent and dignify reallife Native cultures. But then D&D will be dealing with the troubles that come from wellmeaning ignorance, even while studiously achieving respectfulness and goodwill.

Oh the irony.

kindly children

No.

Where are you getting this from? As Thomas said, authors treating them as "childlike" is just ignorance telling on itself. Are you confusing them with Kender? With Kender, those are explicitly childlike and playful and so on. Halflings are not. They're based on English country folk (or rather Tolkien's perception of them).

I feel it is a reallife evil to demonize or humiliate any ethnicity, whether the ethnicity is in power or out of power.

This is a deeply self-serving attitude in this context, pious as it may sound. Also, given you think being associated with one of the most purely positive races in D&D is "humiliation", your standards are hard to understand.

Which is not to say they should not be used, but they are not a cure-all and independent creators may not have the funds to pay them.

If you can't afford something, and you're not smart enough or good enough at making deals/negotiating to get it for free, but you don't actually have to do it (unlike, say, eating), maybe don't do it? Novel concept I'm sure. We have the internet now. I'm pretty sure if you are clear that you have no money, but would like advice, going to the right parts of the internet will get you some advice from the right people.