EGG on 'The Spirit of AD&D'

[Filcher]

"They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game."

I like this sentiment because it thrusts PCs to the front of the stage. They aren't just another set of the wandering fighter/maginc-user/rogue combo, but instead are THE ones holding back the tide of evil. "The most heroic" and there might not be others like them for leagues in any direction.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I agree with Gary that human beings are basically good.

 

[S'mon]

To maximum extent. I've never run or played in a campaign that did not have humans as the campaign baseline, and the most common race (not just demographically but for PC's as well); where the PC's were intended and destined to become the saviors and protectors of civilization as well as leaders of cities and nations in their own right.

Are the humans generally good? No, they're generally highly neutral, self-centered or at least wanting to be left alone. The remainder might be predominantly evil but evil preys as much on itself as on the neutral and good allowing the few good humans to exert just enough dominance to keep civilization expanding (or at least from collapsing).

Yes, that sounds a lot like my own core campaign world.

IMCs the PCs are usually human, and more often than not they fight 'for' humanity, or at least their particular slice of it - in my current game the major global threat is the Mabden (from Moorcock's Corum series) - race of human invaders from another dimension. But I don't generally assume that most humans are naturally Good or Lawful, and certainly not most humans in leadership positions. And I include eg non-evil hobgoblin groups who can potentially be allied with rather than exterminated.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

My settings have been pretty much the opposite of that in most respects. The standard PHB races have been downplayed and moved away from the center to make way for others. In fact of the PHB only humans, elves, and dwarves even exist. All the rest are new "monster" races, and it's they who have the spotlight in these settings. Humans are Warhammer influenced with grimly tyrannical societies at constant war. Dwarves are closest to the original fluff but with trade and mercantile aspects played up alongside their control of metal resources. Elves, well I don't like elves so I made them the race everyone hates. Genocidal racial supremicists with a technology based on magical biotech. They instigated a short-lived civil war amongst dwarves in the past as a prelude to invasion. Since the one absolutely inviolable taboo of dwarven society is all dwarves are family and none shall kill another dwarf, they now have an unspeakable hatred of elves. Dwarves kill elves on sight.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

I'm sorely tempted to apply some cultural Marxist Frankfurt School Deconstruction/Critique to this, but I'll just say I thought this was a very interesting perspective. I wondered to what extent you think your own D&D games and campaign worlds conform to this analysis?

I think one of the major problems of applying a Deconstruction/Critique here is, yet again, the presence of sentient non-human creatures. Comparisons between D&D worlds and our own often seem to neglect this crucial difference.

In the case of Keep on the Borderlands and Against the Giants, the crucial difference is that the orcs, goblins and giants aren't sitting around, just living a semi-peaceful existence. They're actively aggressive, raiding, plundering, and destroying human and demihuman settlements, and show no compunction about killing non-combatants and taking their stuff.

When it comes to real-life human cultures, imperialist exploitation is quite obviously wrong. But, in many cases, those other human races didn't actually do anything to actually deserve invasion and conquest, only being "backward" in the minds of those who thought it was somehow their duty to "civilize" them. But any 'cultural Marxist, Frankfurt School' analogy is a poor fit in a world where these humanoid and giant races are active aggressors on their own-most orcs and hill giants, according to their PHB characteristics, will not be interested in friendly relations with their neighbors, but will actively seek to dominate and kill them.

This kind of analogy could be stretched to fantasy games as a whole-and if the whole genre is in such a supposedly awkward moral position, is it even morally justifiable to play them?

Just as with discussions of how a fantasy world might industrialize, these types of discussions often forget about the presence of non-humans and magic. Here, we have actual, concrete, proof that these things exist, and they will actively influence how human society shapes and influences itself. Again, this is a fantasy world, not the real world, and it has to be remembered that the beings that are supposedly being killed and looted are not innocent-they're doing precisely the same thing when the situation is reversed.

As for my own vision of Greyhawk, in many ways it's an unpleasant place-even the supposedly "Good" countries and races do very nasty things to one another, and political pragmatism often trumps considerations of alignment. With that in mind, there are still realms where justice and equality are more prevalent-and different realms will respond in different ways, some being better than others.

The result is a hodgepodge of racism, reconciliation, sexism, equality, hatred, kindness, shades of grey, and mercy. Oddly enough, this is similar to the real world, where even supposedly self-interested elites can act with altruism and compassion, or those who claim lofty goals can just as easily perform acts that would be viewed as morally gray, if not evil.

 

[WayneLigon]

I wondered to what extent you think your own D&D games and campaign worlds conform to this analysis?

Unless I am purposefully doing a really hard-edged World of Darkness or Warhammer thing, I agree with it completely. The human race is mostly Good, and the PCs are heroes who help hold back the darkness. That's been the assumption not only of almost every D&D game I've run, but of any RPG I've played in, the previous two mentions aside.

 

[Fifth Element]

Everyone's seen this effect- the average IQ of a mob is equal to the sum of the members' IQ, divided by the number of toes present.

Indeed. One way I've seen this expressed is that "smart people adapt, stupid people insist." So the intelligent people, unable to get the stupid people to see that what they're doing is stupid, can only try to make the best of the results of the stupidity.

 

[Jack7]

I think some may have missed the target of what was being aimed at.

Gygax never said humans were perfect, he said they were basically good. He also never said anything about humans versus demi-humans, but about humans and their demihuman allies acting as a counterweight against the encroachment of evil in the form of monstrous races.

Since it is fantasy then the major arc, or characteristic in this case, of apparent division between good and evil is race (not as in human race, but what is more truly species). Some species are good and represent certain overall traits of progress and are therefore constructive in nature, some species overall represent evil and forces of destruction.

This doesn't mean individual humans can't be evil, some are or can be just plain reckless and disastrous, and he didn't say that a particular dragon can't be good, cunning, clever, and basically selfless, it just means that overall man and his allies are champions of good and monsters and their ilk are representatives of evil.

Man is not only the representation of good, he and his allies have the obligation to stand against evil, to strike out after it, to conquer and overcome it, and to make the world safe towards a good end.

He never said men were perfect, he said that, in context, man is a force for good and should remain that way,

"...mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game."

Unfortunately for a while the game lost that most important and fundamental moral aspect and impetus in a practical orgy of emphasis on amoral character development, toy-hunger, and self-absorbed angsty existential introspection.

But Gygax was entirely right. The game is muscular and certain and active, it has a purpose, it is not passive and self-absorbed. It is a game about fantasy and heroism, not about the supposed magic of postmodern existential ennui consumed with self-doubt and lust for super-powers.

 

[shilsen]

I think some may have missed the target of what was being aimed at.

I think some may have understood it just fine and just disagreed.

Gygax never said humans were perfect, he said they were basically good. He also never said anything about humans versus demi-humans, but about humans and their demihuman allies acting as a counterweight against the encroachment of evil in the form of monstrous races.

As noted above, I think a lot of people got that. And some people choose to not have their settings work that way.

Since it is fantasy then the major arc, or characteristic in this case, of apparent division between good and evil is race (not as in human race, but what is more truly species).

Since there is not one single monolithic kind of fantasy, nor one particular kind that D&D is usable with, that's just one way of doing it. It's just as easy to make the major arc of division between good and evil age, gender, education, religion, or simply individual personality.

Some species are good and represent certain overall traits of progress and are therefore constructive in nature, some species overall represent evil and forces of destruction.

They can be. And similarly, some species can simultaneously represent overall traits of progress and forces of destruction.

This doesn't mean individual humans can't be evil, some are or can be just plain reckless and disastrous, and he didn't say that a particular dragon can't be good, cunning, clever, and basically selfless, it just means that overall man and his allies are champions of good and monsters and their ilk are representatives of evil.

Man is not only the representation of good, he and his allies have the obligation to stand against evil, to strike out after it, to conquer and overcome it, and to make the world safe towards a good end.

If the DM so chooses for that setting.

He never said men were perfect, he said that, in context, man is a force for good and should remain that way...

If he said "can be" instead of "is" and "could" instead of "should", then he'd be more universally correct than he is in the quotation.

Unfortunately for a while the game lost that most important and fundamental moral aspect and impetus in a practical orgy of emphasis on amoral character development, toy-hunger, and self-absorbed angsty existential introspection.

But Gygax was entirely right.

Only for his game and some other people's. There is nothing which makes the philosophy espoused in the quotation any better than most others, especially from a gaming viewpoint.

The game is muscular and certain and active, it has a purpose, it is not passive and self-absorbed. It is a game about fantasy and heroism, not about the supposed magic of postmodern existential ennui consumed with self-doubt and lust for super-powers.

That's highly simplistic and reductionist, IMNSHO. A game can be fantastic and about heroism while also being about existential ennui, self-doubt and lust for super-powers. A game can certainly be about fantasy and heroism in a world where humans and their allies do not play the roles the quotation suggested. And, of course, since there are a myriad different functional definitions of fantasy and heroism, the game can be a whole lot of other things. I've run games where the setting fit Gygax's quotation. I'm running a game right now which diverges drastically from it.

The various segments of the quotation are also not necessarily or inextricably interlinked. I'm running an Eberron game right now which is certainly heavily fantastic, and where the PCs are certainly heroic in the sense of putting themselves at great risk to protect the populace and the world around them. But this occurs in a world where humans and their allies are arguably as great a cause of the world's ills and a source for evil as other 'monstrous' creatures. The setting just came out of a huge century-long continental war which was mostly about human nations fighting each other, and caused more devastation than any monstrous force has in millennia. The PCs have got a very detailed look at exactly what evil lurks in the hearts of men. And now they're about to try to save the world from a gigantic invasion by insane forces from beyond (basically, Cthulhu is coming to Eberron), which will require the forces of humanity to work together to fight. So, in the same campaign, there's the conception of humans as creatures which are nowhere near predominantly good, but there's also the conception of these not-so-good creatures having to fight evil of a kind they have never dreamt of. It's not an either/or proposition, as the quotation (and your post) seems to imply.

There are more things in D&D, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[prosfilaes]

Since it is fantasy then the major arc, or characteristic in this case, of apparent division between good and evil is race

There's no requirement of that in fantasy. It's an option, but it's an option a lot of fantasy writers have rejected.

Unfortunately for a while the game lost that most important and fundamental moral aspect and impetus in a practical orgy of emphasis on amoral character development, toy-hunger, and self-absorbed angsty existential introspection.

The options are hardly down to "humans, good, orcs bad" or no morality at all. And I'm not sure I see where the game lost this moral aspect.

But Gygax was entirely right. The game is muscular and certain and active, it has a purpose, it is not passive and self-absorbed. It is a game about fantasy and heroism, not about the supposed magic of postmodern existential ennui consumed with self-doubt and lust for super-powers.

You state that as fact. The game can be muscular and certain, but it can also be uncertain and cerebral. Fantasy and heroism can exist very much in a world where you don't know who to trust and you don't know which actions are the best way to go. Many things are possible with D&D.

Personally, I like my games with fairly sharp good and evil. But I don't particularly like taking some human (...oids) and labeling them evil so we can kill them. For my moral tastes, I'd rather be fighting people who are evil for personal choices or slimy monstrosities that really are evil to the core. There's no talking with a mind-flayer or a demon.