Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 9733684" data-attributes="member: 2013">Part of the current aversion to blanket labelling of all races comes, I think, from moving away from the Gygaxian assertion that worlds &quot;should&quot; be humano-centric.Generally, my opinion is that in a &quot;default pseudo-medieval world&quot; where PCs are adventuring for fame AND FORTUNE, resources are scarce (else, why get into a dangerous profession like adventuring to accumulate a fortune), most humanoid races tend to revert to what I see from humanity (the only intelligent race with which I have experience in real life)... which is to say, tribalism combined, &quot;othering&quot; of those outside the tribe, and that as such, outside of locations that have an abundance of resources (usually more cosmopolitan and/or magic-rich areas), most races are by default insular, compete with other tribes for resources, and generally consider anyone competing with them for resources to be &quot;the enemy&quot; (and ascribe dark deeds to them).In such a world, where different &quot;ancestries&quot; so would have even more pronounced differences than skin hue (pointy ears on elves? bearded women on dwarves? difference in stature between goliaths and halflings? these are much more obvious differences than skin hues), and would naturally lead to &quot;races.&quot;I don't consider this &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;good&quot; per se, more like human(oid) nature in the face of scarcity. It explains why in the default fantasy setting, humanity finds elves distant and aloof, they find dwarves stubborn and stodgy, but can tolerate both (humans are generally interested in settling different areas than elves and dwarves) especially when they aren't in competition for resources, while orcs and hobgoblins - generally competing for the same land and resources - are ascribed &quot;evilness.&quot; It's much easier justify in one's head, &quot;kill the evil monsters and take their stuff&quot; than &quot;kill the nice allies and take their stuff.&quot;Similarly, orcs and hobgoblins hate humans for competing with them for resources. Since tales were traditionally told from the perspective of a humano-centric world, the human lens of &quot;who is evil&quot; was applied (it's one of the reasons I actually LIKED the Orcs of Thar - it flipped this trope on its head in some ways and showed how the monsters would consider the humans &quot;evil&quot; and &quot;marauders&quot;). Knowing campaigns in an &quot;old-school&quot; game are explicitly being told through that lens of humanocentrism makes me not uncomfortable with having a world where humanoids are &quot;evil.&quot; When I run a game where &quot;alignment matters&quot; (e.g., 3e with its alignment-typed damage) I am likely to explicitly point out the lens to my players and point out that &quot;absolute law&quot; or &quot;absolute good&quot; often does NOT align precisely with what most human societies would call &quot;good&quot; or &quot;evil&quot; (yes, orcs in the Monster Manual are &quot;often Chaotic Evil&quot; but you not should assume your axiomatic - lawful - weapon is going to deal bonus damage to every orc you meet - in my mind, alignment damage is more for use of those that are extraplanar creatures borne of that moral energy and/or mortal beings actively dedicated to promulgating the tenets of the moral axis). I think of it as &quot;Chaotic&quot; or &quot;Evil&quot; or &quot;Lawful&quot; or &quot;Good&quot; and not &quot;chaotic&quot; or &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;lawful&quot; or &quot;good&quot; if you will.Anyway, before this devolves into an alignment thread, I'll just point out that &quot;if your stories are told through the lens of humanocentrism&quot; (as old-school D&amp;D often was), it makes sense to me that erstwhile allies of humans (dwarves, elves) aren't &quot;evil&quot; but are &quot;mistrusted&quot; while enemies are &quot;evil.&quot; It's the LENS.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 9733684, member: 2013"] Part of the current aversion to blanket labelling of all races comes, I think, from moving away from the Gygaxian assertion that worlds "should" be humano-centric. Generally, my opinion is that in a "default pseudo-medieval world" where PCs are adventuring for fame AND FORTUNE, resources are scarce (else, why get into a dangerous profession like adventuring to accumulate a fortune), most humanoid races tend to revert to what I see from humanity (the only intelligent race with which I have experience in real life)... which is to say, tribalism combined, "othering" of those outside the tribe, and that as such, outside of locations that have an abundance of resources (usually more cosmopolitan and/or magic-rich areas), most races are by default insular, compete with other tribes for resources, and generally consider anyone competing with them for resources to be "the enemy" (and ascribe dark deeds to them). In such a world, where different "ancestries" so would have even more pronounced differences than skin hue (pointy ears on elves? bearded women on dwarves? difference in stature between goliaths and halflings? these are much more obvious differences than skin hues), and would naturally lead to "races." I don't consider this "evil" or "good" per se, more like human(oid) nature in the face of scarcity. It explains why in the default fantasy setting, humanity finds elves distant and aloof, they find dwarves stubborn and stodgy, but can tolerate both (humans are generally interested in settling different areas than elves and dwarves) especially when they aren't in competition for resources, while orcs and hobgoblins - generally competing for the same land and resources - are ascribed "evilness." It's much easier justify in one's head, "kill the evil monsters and take their stuff" than "kill the nice allies and take their stuff." Similarly, orcs and hobgoblins hate humans for competing with them for resources. Since tales were traditionally told from the perspective of a humano-centric world, the human lens of "who is evil" was applied (it's one of the reasons I actually LIKED the Orcs of Thar - it flipped this trope on its head in some ways and showed how the monsters would consider the humans "evil" and "marauders"). Knowing campaigns in an "old-school" game are [B]explicitly being told through that lens of humanocentrism [/B]makes me not uncomfortable with having a world where humanoids are "evil." When I run a game where "alignment matters" (e.g., 3e with its alignment-typed damage) I am likely to explicitly point out the lens to my players and point out that "absolute law" or "absolute good" often does NOT align precisely with what most human societies would call "good" or "evil" (yes, orcs in the Monster Manual are "often Chaotic Evil" but you not should assume your axiomatic - lawful - weapon is going to deal bonus damage to every orc you meet - in my mind, alignment damage is more for use of those that are extraplanar creatures borne of that moral energy and/or mortal beings actively dedicated to promulgating the tenets of the moral axis). I think of it as "Chaotic" or "Evil" or "Lawful" or "Good" and not "chaotic" or "evil" or "lawful" or "good" if you will. Anyway, before this devolves into an alignment thread, I'll just point out that "if your stories are told through the lens of humanocentrism" (as old-school D&D often was), it makes sense to me that erstwhile allies of humans (dwarves, elves) aren't "evil" but are "mistrusted" while enemies are "evil." It's the LENS. [/QUOTE]

Verification