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

[Charlaquin]

I don't really see an issue with it. You can call it what you want I suppose. What I am interested in is if I find the idea compelling (not whether it expands into behaviors unseen in humans or not). I wouldn't call it a restriction though. An intensification perhaps. But that is how you are going to be discussing any features of human-like groups.

That’s exactly what I’m getting at though. All character writing is ultimately examination of the human condition under different lenses. We can shift the emphasis, sure - say that orcs are generally more likely to result to violence than humans are. But that’s still reflecting human behaviors, just a narrower subset of them. And there may be reasons to want to explore that in fiction. But I think “having orcs be capable of a wider range of expression is bad because it makes them too human” is a poor critique. They were aalways entirely within the range of human expression.

Humans are intelligent, but I can imagine a species of human that are more intelligent or less intelligent than humans.

Can you, though? I mean, we can imagine a group of fantastical creatures that, on average, are better at certain mental tasks than humans are on average. But if you can imagine it, it isn’t really outside the scope of human intelligence, is it? You know, given that you thought of it and you’re a human, as far as I know.

And they would be banging in ways humans don't.

Was this a typo…?

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, like, those are all things some humans do. That’s not inhuman at all, it’s just a subset of human behavior.

I think you are looking for something very different from what I am talking about. This is more of a semantic argument. What makes something not human, isn't that it does things completely alien to humans (though some of their behaviors could be). It could simply be about tendencies. Again the analog here is something like Neandethals. Who had a lot in common with humans. And the way we usually discuss distinctions is in differences in their ability to withstand cold, overall strength, uses of technology, etc. We know their brains were a different size but they were likely as intelligent as humans (though they may have behaved differently, and thinking about whether they were more prone to violence or lesses interesting). And you see this in apes. Chimps are extremely violent. I can imagine a race of beings descended from chips who are violent in ways that would horrify a human. But bonobos are more peaceful. So I don't really see an issue of making distinctions around how a race is more X or less Y than your typical human. Also my points about chimps and neanderthals are not to raise a debate about those (I am just randomly picking up what information I remember hearing about them and using those as examples)

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's how I like my orcs!

Best I can do is an orc clad in a stola

 

[CleverNickName]

So here's the big thing for warlike orcs: Don't!

Don't make a "Species" more warlike than humans. That's dull and boring and annoying.

Make a CULTURE more warlike than the standard! And have it be Orcs and Hobgoblins and Ogres and anyone else they conscript or enslave along their way!

Including? NON-AGGRESSIVE ORC CULTURES that are forced to fight against their will by their new Orcish Overlords of the Black Hand!

Now you've got some deep emotional conflict, a regional conflict, allies in the enemy camp who can move around without being questioned too deeply but still be treated with suspicion or disdain, -and- you can have the local cultures be pissed about "Orcs" even though it's really -just- the Black Hand that are causing problems.

WAY more involved and engaging than "Orcs bad. Kill them."

Plus? You can make them Scantily Claaaaaad and flirty! Big burly orcs in thigh high boots with 6 inch stilletto heels going WAAAAGH for the Black Hand!

 

[Charlaquin]

Out of curiosity, how would you define "alien/inhuman" then? Because how I see it when I look our fellow animals is that they are not that different from us in many ways. They have similar feelings, they have similar instincts, though some stronger and some weaker than in us. They even reason in the same way than us, though most are pretty crap at it, but that is more like being a human child; a difference of degree not of kind. Yet they objectively are not human.

Yep. I don’t think it’s actually possible for humans to write truly inhuman characters. In order to get outside the range of human behavior, you have to go outside the range of character writing. You can have alien spices that are more plot device than character, a la xenomorphs. And you can use tricks to hide the fundamental humanity of characters, like having their actions not obviously follow from any relatable motivations. But that can be risky, because the further you stray from relatability, the less interesting characters tend to get. This is why I think “make them more alien” is a misguided goal. We should instead be conscious of what aspects of humanity we are using our alien characters to explore.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would have to say that some of the things you think are difficult/impossible to conceive in speculative fiction makes me sad.

I think the bigger issue is trying to put the onus of writing xenofiction -- a very niche and unappreciated subgenre-- on the shoulders of every player that wants to play something the looks cooler than a sad shaved ape.

It's comes back--however indirectly-- to this weird old D&D ism of making you 'earn' or pay for anything cool and not default even if it doesn't offer more mechanical power.

You can't be a cool lizard man, you have to also be a weird cannibal or something.

 

[Gradine]

I come back to a thread about scantily clad and well proportioned women in RPGs and now it's all orcs all the time.

As foretold in the prophecy...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yep. I don’t think it’s actually possible for humans to write truly inhuman characters. In order to get outside the range of human behavior, you have to go outside the range of character writing. You can have alien spices that are more plot device than character, a la xenomorphs. And you can use tricks to hide the fundamental humanity of characters, like having their actions not obviously follow from any relatable motivations. But that can be risky, because the further you stray from relatability, the less interesting characters tend to get. This is why I think “make them more alien” is a misguided goal. We should instead be conscious of what aspects of humanity we are using our alien characters to explore.

I just do not share your definition of "inhuman". Gorillas are not humans, chimps are not humans, dogs are not humans. Yet they are not incomprehensible to us, they are not completely unlike us, they are no xenomorphs. Your definition of "humanity" would entail a large section of the animal kingdom. I just don't think that is a coherent or helpful definition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That’s exactly what I’m getting at though. All character writing is ultimately examination of the human condition under different lenses. We can shift the emphasis, sure - say that orcs are generally more likely to result to violence than humans are. But that’s still reflecting human behaviors, just a narrower subset of them. And there may be reasons to want to explore that in fiction. But I think “having orcs be capable of a wider range of expression is bad because it makes them too human” is a poor critique. They were aalways entirely within the range of human expression.

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I never said having more human orcs was bad. I said games should be able to do both.

On the distinction you are making here, I think since we are human, we are obviously going to imagine other beings in language we understand and in human terms. But it is still important differences. But I already made all my points about that in my previous post so I don't think there is value going back and forth on it

Can you, though? I mean, we can imagine a group of fantastical creatures that, on average, are better at certain mental tasks than humans are on average. But if you can imagine it, it isn’t really outside the scope of human intelligence, is it? You know, given that you thought of it and you’re a human, as far as I know.

Yes I can. I can imagine a race who are exceedingly better at math and science than humans, and how build technology that allows them to move close to the speed of light or teleport or do whatever. What I can't do is be exceedingly better than a human at math and science. Again I think people are playing something of a semantic argument here and also setting the bar to a level that a none of us who are advocating for this approach would agree with (like I said earlier, I am not trying to create a perfect simulation, I am trying to imagine, it is a goal).

Was this a typo…?

Yes lol. But I can't remember what word I intended to use now

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd probably start by asking you to define what you mean by "warlike", since it's a very fuzzy term. Any answer I give, you can say "that's not warlike, that's just [adjective]".

I mean, I agree it’s a very fuzzy term. And I don’t think we can really come up with a definition that isn’t framed in terms of human behaviors, since war is a human activity. I can try? Having a capacity for engagement in large-scale violence on behalf of state bodies, maybe?

After that, I'll go with the Buggers from Ender's Game as a starting point.

I haven’t read it, sorry. I think I may have heard a brief summary as part of a Jacob Gellar video once… are they the aliens that pass on their cultural memories by killing and eating each other?