D&D 5E D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism

[FrogReaver]

It makes zero sense for a biological entity to be inherently evil. D&D humanoids are K-strategies, which means they have only one or a few young, which have a relatively longish maturation period and thus need to be cared for; they aren't r-strategists (unless you're using Space Fungus orcs instead of the typical D&D orcs). They need to eat and create tools and comfort objects like clothing, but they can't create it all themselves so they have to live in groups. They live in groups which means they need to be able to work in a group. They have societies, which means that they need to be able to work to keep the society stable or to improve it. If they were Always Evil, they would lack the ability to do any of the above for any period of time, and they would have died out ages ago, their evil having cause them to implode.

I'm going to push back hard here. That an individual cares for their young or works together with other individuals in groups doesn't preclude that individual from being evil. An evil creature isn't a one whose every act must be deemed evil.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it might be worth separating playing a game set in a particular created fictional world and the creative process that creates that particular fictional world.

There might be a strong point in there that the act of creating a fictional world based on real world false and negative stereotypes being true is bad even if playing in a fictional world where such descriptions are factually true isn't negative of itself. In essence, 1) does doing the described act corrupt the creative process and 2) is playing in a fictional world based on a corrupt creative process itself corrupt?

 

[Malmuria]

[Edit: I realize from a reply that I failed to clearly express my intended message here. I might try again tomorrow.]

Interesting! For me, primitive (applied to people or cultures) definitely brings up a lot of other images and information, a lot of it contradictory, and only a subset of that revolves around the tools and tech that they use. I expect that woud be true for others, too, but I'm willing to say I might be wrong in that. When an RPG presents creatures as primitive, I don't just think spears.

I think* about language, lifestyle, social structure and government, family units, religion and superstition, and knowledge of the world at large -- all stuff that relates to the people. Just as primitive tools are lesser than advanced ones, the same applies to all those other aspects of the people -- they are less than, not as developed, at a lower stage. Where other societies have deeply hold advanced religious beliefs, the primitive folk have superstition. I'd like to do away with that baggage and show how fantasy cultures, like real life human ones, have different development (not less development).

*Think isn't even accruate. It's all called to mind unbidden. It's all wrapped up in what I have learned though badly taught history and sociology and pop culture.

I think that you were perfectly clear that you are not advocating for these ideas, but that the word “primitive” carries those connotations. It carries those connotations because of the way it has been used continuously for the past two centuries or so in the west, i.e. as way of talking about contemporary people as “survivals” of the past. It has absolutely been a word used to characterize religious beliefs, for example.”

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But what, as per my examples, the NPC motive has been set into motion? I get the, oh we are dungeon delving and going into a cave... oh no, there are kobolds! Attack! But, even in those situations, there is a setup, no? I mean, heck, even modules as old as The Keep on the Borderlands had a setup.
In the games you play, do they have a story? If so, is there already a precedent of things that are inherently evil? If not, does your table still attack blindly? Again, that seems like a misrepresentation.

How many babies do you come across in your campaigns that need slaying? In all my years, at all my tables, with all different groups, I have heard of it happening once. I have yet to see it with my own eyes. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But it seems rare.

Correct. They all have a motive. Do none of the PCs at your table have a motive or are they just entering random wandering monster fights?

Sounds like you understand this very well. This DM's lore for their table establishes orcs to be just as bad as the cultists or slavers. It just sounds like to me, you don't agree with his lore.

Orcs are "kill on sight" at some tables because - the lore establishes it. Hence - motive.

If it is okay for a party to kill human cultists because they are bad, and the lore of a world says orcs are bad because they too do evil things, then it is okay to kill them.

Again, I challenge you to find a player that kills orcs on sight without a lore motive or a character motive. It doesn't exist. This is why I said the statement is a misrepresentation.

I am going to end with a bit of a rant: This is why I find the non-prepared, seat-of-their-pants DMs to be the primary culprits for these types of misinterpretations. The DM who has put in the time and effort into their world, so as to establish lore and setting and culture would never even have to bother with this sort of criticism.

Thread has moved on, so I'm not going to do my usual play-by-play. All I will say is, I have known plenty of people--some of them on this very forum, most of them elsewhere--who legit just want to be able to stab an orc because it's an orc and not think about it. No preamble, no establishing backstory (that would be boring faffing about, not adventuring), just "ah yes, orcs, the things you stab because they're bad." It's a thing. It's even a thing for people who otherwise put a lot of work into a world overall, building complex political and cultural things, populating a sandbox carefully with a variety of things that cohere together, or writing a big and meaningful plotline.

And yes, the overall trend is toward "well...just saying that outright has some kinda clear Bad Vibes, so let's make up a reason nothing needs to change and then continue as we were." Like, the specific reason for all that work above was so that they wouldn't actually need to think about it, and the person who built that world was explicit that that's why they did it. I can't remember the specific poster otherwise I'd just name them, and I don't really feel like doing the google search to find them. But they were very clear that the reason for it was so that they could preserve the "there's no need to think about it, they're just orcs" mentality, hence why I used it as an example. You can only get "we need to make an excuse for why this is okay" when (a) the not-okay thing is already there, and (b) you're aware that it's not-okay and thus feel the need to make it okay again.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
But I also think it's important to rise above that.

That's a really easy position to take when you're not on the receiving end of it for years and years and years.

/snip

But, you can't just shout 'that's a problem, you must stop'. That makes you the a-hole.

I obviously disagree. When someone is telling you, directly, that what you are doing is hurting them and they don't like it, that doesn't make them the a-hole. It makes you one for not stopping. There's really no other solution here. Telling someone, "Oh, it doesn't really hurt you, so, I'm not going to stop" makes it all about you. It is telling people that your convenience is more important than considering their feelings.

/snip
Can we have the discussion about whether such issues are actually a problem and if so point out why they are, while taking the time to seriously answer the counterpoints? Or am I stuck always hearing 'that is bad, you must stop' on repeat forever?

Well, you'll keep hearing it until you stop hurting people.

I mean, what else is there really to say? You have been told that what you are doing is hurting someone. Instead of stopping, you are insisting that the person telling you that they have been hurt prove that they've been hurt. And then questioning that explanation and refusing to accept it unless it meets your criteria for "being hurt".

At what point do you think you come out of this on the right side of the issue?

 

[FrogReaver]

That's a really easy position to take when you're not on the receiving end of it for years and years and years.

I obviously disagree. When someone is telling you, directly, that what you are doing is hurting them and they don't like it, that doesn't make them the a-hole. It makes you one for not stopping. There's really no other solution here. Telling someone, "Oh, it doesn't really hurt you, so, I'm not going to stop" makes it all about you. It is telling people that your convenience is more important than considering their feelings.



Well, you'll keep hearing it until you stop hurting people.

I mean, what else is there really to say? You have been told that what you are doing is hurting someone. Instead of stopping, you are insisting that the person telling you that they have been hurt prove that they've been hurt. And then questioning that explanation and refusing to accept it unless it meets your criteria for "being hurt".

At what point do you think you come out of this on the right side of the issue?

What you are doing is hurting me. Will you stop?

 

[Scars Unseen]

Does anything change for you if we talk about primitive people instead of primative tools?

So the people who were replying to you were talking in terms of primitive technological levels, but I think that it wouldn't be too far fetched to also use the word when referring to less advanced - or seemingly so - societal organizations. That is, societies that are largely engaging in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle rather than farming and raising stock animals.

The important thing would be whether it was a word used in a narrative context or an objectively descriptive one. In the former, it could be both derogative and okay to be derogative because it would be the view of one fictional society upon another fictional society, and it's perfectly fine for fictional societies to be flawed, prejudiced and quite possibly incorrect in their views. In the latter case, I would say that it might be better to either be clear on what you mean within the text when you use such language or simply find a better way to describing what you want to get across.

 

[Hussar]

What you are doing is hurting me. Will you stop?

Okay

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Irlo I got what you were saying and I agree. These were exactly the sort of unfortunate connotations I was thinking when I said that talking about "primitive people" instantly sounds way more questionable than talking about "primitive technology".

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It makes zero sense for a biological entity to be inherently evil. D&D humanoids are K-strategies, which means they have only one or a few young, which have a relatively longish maturation period and thus need to be cared for; they aren't r-strategists (unless you're using Space Fungus orcs instead of the typical D&D orcs). They need to eat and create tools and comfort objects like clothing, but they can't create it all themselves so they have to live in groups. They live in groups which means they need to be able to work in a group. They have societies, which means that they need to be able to work to keep the society stable or to improve it. If they were Always Evil, they would lack the ability to do any of the above for any period of time, and they would have died out ages ago, their evil having cause them to implode.

I guess we have different definitions for evil -- which is fine, since I was convinced that "good" and "evil" in universe are aligned to the morality of the group of players, not the setting's moral tennets. Therefore, no two groups will agree on the definition. I don't see "tool creations" and "caring for young" as exclusive of evil. You can be extremely evil and able to function (a real life evil mafia member can be a very nice family person despite being a crime lord). On the other hand, a biological race with an instinctive urge to eat other young sentient beings (not their own young, but other species's young) would certainly qualify as inherently evil (if the tables' consensus is that eating children is evil, which isn't a far-fetched hypothesis).