Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4299594" data-attributes="member: 15538">My intention here is not primarily to gloat, although there is always satisfaction in seeing one's insights confirmed. I just thought some things I wrote in 2005 in my review of Races of Destiny pop out now with 4e here. I thought some of this might be an interesting jumping off place for talking about the new edition in a different way.<a href="http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11261.phtml" target="_blank">http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11261.phtml</a> Describing humans as a fantasy race faces certain hurdles. First, since we are humans, the humans in a fantasy world must be recognizable to us. At the same time, however, they are not us, but inhabitants of a magical world populated by many other intelligent species. Further, genre demands that they behave, alternately, as pseudo-medieval characters mired in feudalism and superstition, and as idealized counterparts to the modern reader. How can such a balance be achieved, satisfying both the fantasy element and protagonistic desire? The second problem is that in a world of many races, all essentially the fantasy masks of human authors, depecting humans as a distinct race can be difficult. Dwarves are industrious, elves magical and aloof, and halflings deft and common-sense. Humans can not be merely average without raising, ironically, the question of what justifies their existence. ...The way the authors have tackled the human problem is to romanticize human agentic traits. That is, industry, ambition, exploration, and other actions of sheer willfullness characterize human beings. Out of some political sensibility, as well as the demands of genre, the authors have described human cultures as more diverse and provincially different than nonhuman ones. Thus, you can have pseudo-Celts, pseduo-Arabs, and pseudo-Romans all populating your fantasy world, while nonhumans exist as monocultures. There are three problems with this approach. First is the ethnic bias of the authors. The values ascribed to humans are clearly Western industrial values, and moreover, favor the masculine ideals of Western society over the feminine. Second, it pays little compliment to humanity. Not all humans are aggressive, and not all humans are agents of exploration or vision. Some humans are blessedly peaceful, others are piggishly superstitious, zealous, or stubborn. Third, there is no clear analog between human culture in this book and civilizations in literature or history. ... It also depicts humans as innovators and invetors, despite a historical picture of humanity that I would call "resistant to progress except when obviously of benefit at the present time." In short, the book espouses a view of "humanity" consistent with mid 20th century American pragmatism. I expect that from Star Trek; I do not expect that from a game centered on the exploits of a pseduo-medieval society's highly armed and dangerous outcasts. ...This book does not touch on the question, "Where do little half-orcs come from?" Most likely this is for the simple reason that the explanation is both disquieting and politically touchy. ...... While using Races of Destiny in large chunks is not likely to change your campaign as much, say, as using the Expanded Psionics Handbook or the Book of Exalted Deeds, it does impinge on some assumptions of the core rulebooks. The authors seem to be reaching for an ideal of a new D&D, something outside the Greyhawk paradigm, as if young players need a new D&D to interact dialectically with nostalgia for an older game they don't even remember. This is not a book that describes a world with the same underlying assumptions as the core rulebook, and indeed of Greyhawk and Mystara. ......what we get is a combination of cookbook (in the form of races, feats, and whatnot) and gazeteer to an essentally amorphous "new D&D." Once again, I have reason to cringe that Wizards of the Coast did not see fit to develop a core game world firmly in the traditions of a now decades old roleplaying phenomenon....... Halflings were hobbits, not kender or gypsies. Dwarves were fighters and clerics, not wizards. Elves were aloof and magical, and half-elves were natural loners. D&D 3.5, with its greater versatility and customization, should have opened the door for more nuanced examinations of the archetypal races. Instead, the trend has been to supplant old ideas with newer ones with shallower roots. </blockquote>

Verification