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

[Charlaquin]

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)

But, see, notice how quickly this line of discussion is veering into the exact language of scientific racism and eugenics?

 

[dbolack]

These are the only two I can think of, really!

School Ties for a palet cleanser?

 

[Vaalingrade]

But, see, notice how quickly this line of discussion is veering into the exact language of scientific racism and eugenics?

"Let me tell you what the bumps on an orc's skull tells us about how okay killing their children is..."

Science.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

But they also aren’t narratively characters. A gorilla or a chimp or a dog doesn’t typically fill the same role in a story that a human character does. Sometimes they do, but this is achieved by the writer giving them human motivations and potentially inner dialogue. Ishmael is a fantastic book, featuring a gorilla as a central character. But the character is fundamentally human in how he thinks and acts. He has interesting insight into the human condition due to his outside position from it, but again, this is fundamentally a lens for exploring humanity, just as all non-human characters are.

 

[Gradine]

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.

Here is the point; think of a story or book or movie where dogs are characters. Not actual dogs, but dogs in fiction. What comes first? Homeward Bound, maybe? All Dogs Go To Heaven, if you're a Bakshi fan (and why wouldn't you be?). The thing is, those characters.... are human. Not in the literal physical sense but in the metaphorical, literary sense. They are human because we*, writing them, are also human, and are reflecting aspects of our humanity onto them. The fiction we create... it's all through a human lens. And that's what I at least suspect (I can't speak for her) that's what she's talking about.

The thing is, pretty much all non-human characters fall into this category. Sometimes by accident, but often by design; the entire purpose of fiction to explore the human condition, through whatever molds and lenses that may interest us at the time.

That's not to say that true xenofiction is impossible, it's just, if you're telling stories that have nothing to say about humanity or the human condition...... why?


*Or I guess in at least one of these examples, Ralph is human. Presumably

 

[MGibster]

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.

Would we even want alien aliens in D&D? I mean as player characters of course. In most stories I've read involving something truly alien, the story revolves around the people trying to figure out the alien. It's hard to get invested in characters we have absolutely nothing in common with.

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

Why can't I just be a cannibal? Why does it have to be weird?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How would you express a species as more warlike than humans?

The reason I avoided "warlike" and talked about being aggressive instead, is that I don't think "warlike" is clearly defined enough to be a trait in this sense. People may engage warfare for many very different reasons. We might imagine very emotional and aggressive species engaging a warfare a lot, but so might a completely coldly emotionless and cruelly utilitarian one, yet these species would be pretty much polar opposites in many ways.

 

[Morrus]

Ugh. I have con crud, and everybody in this thread is reporting everybody else. I can't deal with this today. Thread closed.