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

[Yora]

"to give pleasure and delight" is a phrasing that opens all kinds of cans of worms.
To be the devil's advocate and conjure up a strawman from thin air: Do we really want to condone and support "we kill a whole bunch of people because they are ugly and stupid and every one of them is a threat to us" because it "gives pleasure and delight"?
Again, totally devil's advocate and strawmen as far as the eye can see, but people who share racist jokes with their friends also see it as mindless fun that doesn't mean anything. That certainly is not a standard by which to condone anything.

Would you apply the same logic with actors who play bad people? Is it "unhealthy" to play a character that does bad things?

Absolutely not. There is definitely a place for unpleasant fiction. And it can have both great artistic and entertainment value. But to regard such things as escapes from the hardships of personal life seems a very strange concept to me.

We're just there to relax from the daily stressors with friends by roleplaying completely fictional personalities and defeating completely fictional super-evil bad guys.

Well, you are.
I am certainly open to the idea that for some people escapism is a real thing, even though I don't understand it myself. But this very much doesn't make it a universal trait of all fiction and RPGs in general. Escapism is not the inherent point of fantasy RPGs. That's only a utility some people are able to find in it if they want to.

 

[DarkMantle]

"to give pleasure and delight" is a phrasing that opens all kinds of cans of worms.
To be the devil's advocate and conjure up a strawman from thin air: Do we really want to condone and support "we kill a whole bunch of people because they are ugly and stupid and every one of them is a threat to us" because it "gives pleasure and delight"?

To keep opening that can of worms, do we want to condone people watching innocent people being horrifically tortured, mentally and physically?

Just curious, because I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that people keep making torture porn movies and people keep watching them, which I can't do anything about it, even if I find it disturbing and I think the world could be better without it, but I'm not sure.

 

[Mercurius]

"to give pleasure and delight" is a phrasing that opens all kinds of cans of worms.
To be the devil's advocate and conjure up a strawman from thin air: Do we really want to condone and support "we kill a whole bunch of people because they are ugly and stupid and every one of them is a threat to us" because it "gives pleasure and delight"?
Again, totally devil's advocate and strawmen as far as the eye can see, but people who share racist jokes with their friends also see it as mindless fun that doesn't mean anything. That certainly is not a standard by which to condone anything.

Again, understand the context in which Le Guin said that - which I shared above. That essay was a speech she gave in the early 70s, as a kind of defense of fantasy against what was, at the time, a negative view. She was specifically talking about a negative view on the idea that pleasure in its own right is bad, that everything must be serious, meaningful, useful, etc. It is a great essay - check it out.

But it in this context, it is the place where we all meet. We all play RPGs for fun - to give pleasure and delight, no? But everything after that differs, and that's fine. If I want to view D&D through the lens of archetypal psychology, I shouldn't expect you to (though I think it is a useful, interesting lens).

It is not about condoning anything - that is, as you said, a strawman (so why say it?). But in this context, it implies that some people stop there - many, most even (who knows). And more to the point, there is absolutely nothing wrong if one's approach to gaming is solely focused on pleasure and delight--having fun with their friends, or just solo--and not about deeper meanings or various hermeneutical approaches.

Absolutely not. There is definitely a place for unpleasant fiction. And it can have both great artistic and entertainment value. But to regard such things as escapes from the hardships of personal life seems a very strange concept to me.

It is strange to you that a group of people just want to hang out and play a game of make believe, without having to think about what a mess the real world is?

I think the "escape" part is that some just want to play a game of make-believe that has nothing to do with real world politics and social issues and object to what they feel is an intrusion of stuff that they don't see as relevant--and actually a detractor--to their dice-rolling.

 

[Yora]

The common conversation goes that in the dark days of the past, people played D&D like "Those orcs are all murderers and thieves! Let's kill them all and take their stuff!" And that was a horrible thing and we have to rewrite the game so that orcs are no longer evil raiders that want to steal pretty young white women.

And which way is it supposed to be now? Do we condemn that kind of fantasy and demand it gets changed, or do we file it away under "they do it to escape their lives and only mean it as harmless fun"?
Can't eat the pie and have it too.

 

[Charlaquin]

Today, we are still averse to uncertainty and ambiguity

I disagree. I mean, certainly we have some aversion to uncertainty, but one need only look at the success of things like antiheroes, complex villains, thought-provoking art, etc. to see that we are also often attracted to it. Primal fear of the unknown doesn’t only drive us to avoid the unknown, but also to seek to make it known.

This attractive perspective made its way into fantasy fiction through its authors' POVs and the readers who enjoyed it.

I think “it’s just fantasy” is a very unattractive perspective. It speaks to a lack of intellectual curiosity I find extremely offputting.

Fantasy is escapism, not homework. It allows us to explore human themes without taking up the same cognitive category as the burdens of real-life.

Can you really say you’re exploring “human themes” when all the wonderful complexities of the human condition have been simplified out of the fiction in question?

 

[Charlaquin]

There is a collective culture around this, and a personal. For example,

I am the exact opposite. I use my fantasy to examine my real life burdens. I double down, I dig in, I escape by going deeper. Perhaps Im unique in this, but I dont think this generalization is as universal as it may appear.

You are definitely not unique in this.

 

[DarkMantle]

I disagree. I mean, certainly we have some aversion to uncertainty, but one need only look at the success of things like antiheroes, complex villains, thought-provoking art, etc. to see that we are also often attracted to it. Primal fear of the unknown doesn’t only drive us to avoid the unknown, but also to seek to make it known.

In many cases, yes, understanding the unknown would give someone an advantage and increase their chances of survival. There is also a very many people who are often very stressed about uncertainty. Why Uncertainty Is More Stressful Than Certainty Of Bad Things To Come
Accepting uncertainty is a big theme in self-help psychology when overcoming anxiety, for example. Dealing with uncertainty during the pandemic has been a big thing. All in all, I would think there's a lot more than some aversion to uncertainty across the general population. I personally wouldn't underplay that, but YMMV.

EDIT: Also I believe you're referring to uncertainty and ambiguity in the fiction, which is safer and less threatening when it's fictional. Whereas in my quote that you quoted, I was originally referring to escaping from uncertainty in the real world, which can actually harm one's mental and physical health. However, everyone is different, and many people will enjoy shades of grey in their fantasy fiction.

I think “it’s just fantasy” is a very unattractive perspective. It speaks to a lack of intellectual curiosity I find extremely offputting.

Can you really say you’re exploring “human themes” when all the wonderful complexities of the human condition have been simplified out of the fiction in question?

General "you", or specific "you" = me?

 

[Scribe]

Do we condemn that kind of fantasy and demand it gets changed...

Based on the views of a vocal few? Yes.

Then again, I looked up "Goblin Slayer" yesterday to see what the fuss was all about and...not everyone seems to agree that things need to be changed apparently.

 

[Minigiant]

The modern world was starting to realize that an increasing number of stereotypes are really problematic in a global civilization

I don't think that was it.

I think the problem became that the modern world developed fantasy that was concept and thought out. And when D&D's stereotypes were looked back at, they looked lazy, nonsensical, uninspired, or shallow.

Which was true sometimes. D&D often just copied ideas and mashed them together haphazardly without thinking about how the final product was. (how can a race of evil underground chronic backstabbers be a real threat?). And this laziness or lack of care allowed taking from places that could be problematic if you do it without thinking.

 

[Bohandas]

To have fun, some people run away from Sociology 101, and some people run towards it

To be perfectly frank, the prevalence of these kinds of debates that we're having in this thread has convinced me that Sociology 101 is fantasy.

It all seems to be a bunch of bizarre headcanons and what-ifs that are being presented as objective truth.