D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[Bagpuss]

I've had two half-elf PCs made using 2024 rules; the first combined species features between the two species, like 50/50 from each species. The second is just using the full elf racial features, they just happen to be half-elven within the fiction.

So one didn't use the 2024 rules and one was just a paint job on a elf.

 

[Hussar]

So one didn't use the [emoji638][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji638][emoji640] rules and one was just a paint job on a elf.

Mechanically, that’s all a half elf ever was- a paint job on an elf.

 

[Bagpuss]

Yup. The trope remains to this day about half-orcs being children of sexual assault perpetrated by members of one brutal species or another.

Can I ask what the problem with that is? Clearly rape in warfare is horrific, that is a problem. Unfortunately it is something that is very common in times of war, either due to a break down in discipline or intentionally as a tool of terror and subjugation as reports from the Ukraine show us.

What I mean is what is the problem in depicting such events in fiction?

Orcs are in fantasy fiction to represent the worst aspects of humanity when in war. They are there to be brutal, savage, uncaring creatures of primal rage that is what they represent. They are a fictional tool to explore the most deplorable side of man, so what is wrong in showing them as such in fiction?

 

[Bagpuss]

It always seemed so unnecessary to me. Same assumption was usually not made with half-elves. (I know of the original backstory of Tanis, but that was an exception.) In my current setting different species cannot crossbreed, but they certainly often manage to coexist more or less peacefully and interspecies romances do happen.

Yes because elves and orcs served polar opposite uses in fantasy fiction.

Orcs were there to explore the distilled worst aspects of humanity, what man would be like without the laws and rules of civilization to keep his base instincts in check. So clearly the half-orcs were going to be the result of rape during warfare.

Elves were immortal (or at least very long living) fae creatures of romance, arts, and a fictional tool to represent what humanity could aspire to, but also warning about becoming too detached, logical and aloof (see also Vuclans "space elves"). So half-elves were going to be children of tragic love between immortal elf and human.

Neither race are meant to cover the range of human emotion or experience.

I can't understand why people are so confused by this.

 

[Aldarc]

Or we could look at the actual core in that I specifically and repeatedly states that I hate the Mulatto tragedy of Tanis Half-Elven being the assume default because it's directly insulting to me and not try to diminish it for a dumb joke about 'oh, so you don't like elves'. Okay?

Why bother? When people tell you that there is more tropes to half-elves than this one, you ignore that and just circle back to this one as if it was the only one. But it's not a joke to note that your prejudices against elves may be affecting your views regarding half-elves.

Edit: let me put it this way, I have seen many half-elves at my tables and none of my players have even the remotest idea who Tanis Half-Elven is. If it's a trope, I think that it is less the default or assumed core than you are imagining for most contemporary tables.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes because elves and orcs severed polar opposite uses in fantasy fiction.

Orcs were there to explore the distilled worst aspects of humanity, what man would be like without the laws and rules of civilization to keep his base instincts in check. So clearly the half-orcs were going to be the result of rape during warfare.

Elves were immortal (or at least very long living) fae creatures of romance, arts, and a fictional tool to represent what humanity could aspire to. So half-elves were going to be children of tragic love between immortal elf and human.

I can't understand why people are so confused by this.

We understand it, we just don't want it. It is simplistic and has racist undertones. And whilst I'm fine with some darker themes, I definitely do not want sexual assault to be featured or even referenced in my supposedly fun leisure activity.

And it doesn't need to be that way. We can have different intelligent species without putting them into a racist hierarchy.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I understand (but don't agree with) the argument that half-orcs are no longer needed as orcs are regular PHB playables now.

But I really dislike that full orcs have been made to look like grey skinned humans with pointed ears in the new art. Along with losing their powerful build mechanically. There is nothing really recognisable as 'orc' about them anymore.

It feels like saying that in order to be morally good, you need to be hot.

 

[Bagpuss]

We understand it, we just don't want it. It is simplistic and has racist undertones.

Orcs are representing this aspect of all humanity not a particular race, I always find it concerning when people say these features only reflect one particular race. Yes racist have used similar terms used to describe orcs (brutal, savage, etc) to describe particular races but that's because they are racists and accusing them of being the worst of humanity.

Yes it is simplistic but there is nothing wrong with that. It provides a clear evil to fight against one that represents the evil men are capable of. Fighting against evil is a common trope in fantasy, sitting down to discuss issues and find common ground isn't.

And whilst I'm fine with some darker themes, I definitely do not want sexual assault to be featured or even referenced in my supposedly fun leisure activity.

Okay but that's your choice, which you are requiring the nature of the game to change to accommodate, which in many ways is fine, games should change to reflect the times. Still people don't mind bad stuff being done by bad people being referenced in the game, it's not like it is constantly raised as an issue. That way I know they are the bad people to be killed.

And it doesn't need to be that way. We can have different intelligent species without putting them into a racist hierarchy.

Ah but then it isn't the same game anymore is it. If I'm having to consider the moral aspect of dungeon delving and should I really be exploring this tomb that orcs have made their home seeking treasure, am I the bad guy? Not sure I want that in my supposedly fun leisure activity.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes because elves and orcs served polar opposite uses in fantasy fiction.

Orcs were there to explore the distilled worst aspects of humanity, what man would be like without the laws and rules of civilization to keep his base instincts in check. So clearly the half-orcs were going to be the result of rape during warfare.

Okay. What if they were used for a similar but different purpose, that allowed for us to, y'know, not have mandatory sexual assault as part of our play?

Because orcs being heroic figures that represent being in touch with the natural world and feeling one's feelings strongly and authentically, rather than getting caught up in the lies and limitations and brouhaha of so-called "civilized" society, is a trope with decades of history behind it. You may not have heard of an obscure franchise called "Warcraft," but it's had a pretty key role in making orcs and half-orcs entirely heroic characters that DO still contrast with the "lawful"(ish) humans.

Elves were immortal (or at least very long living) fae creatures of romance, arts, and a fictional tool to represent what humanity could aspire to, but also warning about becoming too detached, logical and aloof (see also Vuclans "space elves"). So half-elves were going to be children of tragic love between immortal elf and human.

Elves have been many, many things, but the elves in D&D were in no way a warning. They were a conscious and direct imitation of Tolkien's elves, who are not a warning in any way. They're equal children of Iluvatar, whose lives and nature are simply different from ours, and there's nothing particularly "doomed" about humans who love them. (Indeed, Beren and Luthien are some of the most blessed people in the entire legendarium--but being blessed and living a comfortable life are two very different things in Middle-Earth.)

Neither race are meant to cover the range of human emotion or experience.

Says you. I've seen both cover just about anything you could ask for. Quite poignantly, in some cases.

I can't understand why people are so confused by this.

Mostly, they're confused by why you're saying that things which humans built in one way because they felt like it, but which people now could rebuild in a new way because they feel like it, cannot ever actually be rebuilt and must always take the one and only form you see in them.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Orcs are representing this aspect of all humanity not a particular race, I always find it concerning when people say these features only reflect one particular race. Yes racist have used similar terms used to describe orcs (brutal, savage, etc) to describe particular races but that's because they are racists and accusing them of being the worst of humanity.

Except that when this process is literally identical to actual racism, up to and including actively referencing IRL ethnic groups (I won't use the terms others have used in the past because, well, they're blatantly racist, but I promise you these terms ARE there), this whole line of reasoning gets far too tenuous to accept.

Orcs act as a stand-in for human racism. That's not okay. It needs to stop.

Yes it is simplistic but there is nothing wrong with that.

If it were only simplistic and nothing else, it would be okay. Sadly, it is not "only simplistic and nothing else." That's the problem.

It provides a clear evil to fight against one that represents the evil men are capable of. Fighting against evil is a common trope in fantasy, sitting down to discuss issues and find common ground isn't.

Sure. But we can do that without needing, y'know, actual human racism? Mind flayers are a great example. Zombies, if you want massive hordes. Vampires, if you want hedonistic consumption. Werewolves, if you want a tragic inability to control horrible, violent urges. Etc.

There are so many other ways to do this same thing, to have unrealistically simple problems with unrealistically simple solutions, without involving real-world racist tropes, terms, and projections.

Okay but that's your choice, which you are requiring the nature of the game to change to accommodate, which in many ways is fine, games should change to reflect the times. Still people don't mind bad stuff being done by bad people being referenced in the game, it's not like it is constantly raised as an issue. That way I know they are the bad people to be killed.

Sure. But "bad people doing bad things" doesn't have to involve literal actual sexual assault. Like, why does it have to be THAT specific issue? Why does THAT specific crime have to be invoked? There are so many other horrible things people do to one another that don't involve sexual violence in the least.

And of course it's about changing things. The game is something created by people. Everything in it is only in it because a human decided it should be there. We are saying that some of those decisions are Really Not Great and we'd prefer that other decisions be made. Your originalism argument falls completely flat if the original state was there purely because some designer felt like it should be 40 years ago, and not because that thing is structurally or creatively essential to the experience of play.

Which, I mean, I should hope that fictional sexual assault is not structurally nor creatively essential to playing D&D. That would mean some very bad things about D&D, like....that it is in some way inherently about people committing sexual assault?

Ah but then it isn't the same game anymore is it. If I'm having to consider the moral aspect of dungeon delving and should I really be exploring this tomb that orcs have made their home seeking treasure, am I the bad guy? Not sure I want that in my supposedly fun leisure activity.

Sure. There should be room for uncomplicated dungeon-delving for those who want it.

But that uncomplicated dungeon-delving should not therefore preclude people treating it more seriously. Baking "this is an entire race of rapists" into the game does that. Leaving things open to interpretation, or better yet, setting a naturally neutral tone and providing guidance for various ways DMs can adjust that tone as they see fit, is surely better. Would you not agree?