Consequences of playing "EVIL" races

[Ovinomancer]

Each race has it's own gods and elves hate orcs, orcs and goblins fight, etc. Tribalism is everywhere in fantasy games and literature. The gods of these races often instigate it. The very existence of racial pantheons is proof of it.

Other threats wouldn't stop tribalism, either. In real life, despite outside threats like Viking raids and such, towns still protected their own over others and maintained feuds. Humanity is tribal. We always have been, and pretty much(since I don't like to use absolutes) all of the world's societies still are.



I don't think so. It's logical from a fantasy standpoint, since fantasy worlds are different and fantasy races could act that way, but it's not realism.

Ah, the realism debate, again. Could you go ahead and define realism for this thread so we can skip all that leads up to that point?

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, the realism debate, again. Could you go ahead and define realism for this thread so we can skip all that leads up to that point?

Not again, no.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Each race has it's own gods and elves hate orcs, orcs and goblins fight, etc. Tribalism is everywhere in fantasy games and literature. The gods of these races often instigate it. The very existence of racial pantheons is proof of it.

Other threats wouldn't stop tribalism, either. In real life, despite outside threats like Viking raids and such, towns still protected their own over others and maintained feuds. Humanity is tribal. We always have been, and pretty much(since I don't like to use absolutes) all of the world's societies still are.



I don't think so. It's logical from a fantasy standpoint, since fantasy worlds are different and fantasy races could act that way, but it's not realism.

It’s my attempt to portray a world with such fantastic elements in a realistic way.

Sure there are divisions in our world. There are also things that unite. Many are enlightened in the way that we’re talking about. I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that things could improve given the fatastic elements that are present in the world and would surely shape it.

Realism as the stated goal is present in both, even if one is drawing on fantastic elements. This is why I think it best to not argue about the use pf the word realism, and instead look at the outcome, and the choices leading to that outcome.

To me, it’s more meaningful that a GM would choose to respond to PC race choice in such a strong way than it is that his reason for doing so is some attempt at realism.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not again, no.

I agree. Let's then not use realism as an argument. It's not really necessary.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree. Let's then not use realism as an argument. It's not really necessary.

It's factual here, though. Realism is why it is happening. I'm not going to avoid the truth simply because you dislike it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's factual here, though. Realism is why it is happening. I'm not going to avoid the truth simply because you dislike it.

I don't know what the "truth" here is, Max, because you're going to decline to define what you mean by "realism" so all I have that you think it means you're right. I don't see the result your advocating for as particularly restricted by "realism," but more of whatever lens you use to view the real world distilled by whatever assumption set you're using into a "realism" that means you're right. It's a word that doesn't really have any usefulness because it's so viewpoint based. Which is why, if you're going to insist on using it, you need to define it so we can all understand what it is you mean when you say it. Right now, "realism" doesn't mean to me what it means to you.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know what the "truth" here is, Max, because you're going to decline to define what you mean by "realism" so all I have that you think it means you're right. I don't see the result your advocating for as particularly restricted by "realism," but more of whatever lens you use to view the real world distilled by whatever assumption set you're using into a "realism" that means you're right. It's a word that doesn't really have any usefulness because it's so viewpoint based. Which is why, if you're going to insist on using it, you need to define it so we can all understand what it is you mean when you say it. Right now, "realism" doesn't mean to me what it means to you.

Scroll up man. I've already said what it was. If you aren't going to read, don't blame me if you don't understand.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Of course it's realism. Realism is an approximation of something that happens in real life. Any such attempt is realism, no matter what. It may or may not be appropriate based on setting details, but it is realism.]

That's not realism. Realism is an artistic movement spanning across visual art, literature, and theatre that started in the 1800s as a reaction to Romanticism. Realist works focus on the presentation of the everyday, the normal, the mundane, and avoid stylization. Often times, realist works would focus on showing the life and times of the poor and the underclasses. Subgenres of realism include social realism, American regionalism, British kitchen sink realism, Soviet proletariat literature, and French naturalism, among others.

What you're trying to describe, I would call either "verisimilitude" or "historical accuracy". However, the nature of both terms undermines your argument of one truth, one "real". Verisimilitude is but invoking the perception of reality; as long as it feels real, it doesn't matter if it actually is. As for historical accuracy, let's just say that academic history is in no way settled. The discovery of new events, emergence of evidence that challenges previously held theories and models of events, and emergent and conflicting analyses of historical events make it so that trying to present one viewpoint, one telling of history as "accurate" is a non-starter.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not realism. Realism is an artistic movement spanning across visual art, literature, and theatre that started in the 1800s as a reaction to Romanticism. Realist works focus on the presentation of the everyday, the normal, the mundane, and avoid stylization. Often times, Realist works would focus on showing the life and times of the poor and the underclasses. Subgenres of realism include social realism, American regionalism, British Kitchen sink realism, Soviet proletariat literature, and French naturalism, among others.

This is not how it's used in RPGs.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Here's what I think will happen: the first few times a PC of an "evil" race encounters the setting appropriate backlash, they'll take it in stride. Probably by the fourth time it happens it won't be fun anymore, for players or GM.