log in or register to remove this ad

 

The problem with Evil races is not what you think

Your incorrect assumption here is that all of that is because of the Native populations, and not because of the colonizers' and their descendants' centuries of racial oppression in attempt to get rid of the native populations. I mean, have you not heard about all of this?!?! The Boarding Schools were an attempt to commit cultural genocide against the Native peoples, kids were often taken off reservations and forced into adoption for the same reason, and the rest of their struggles (financially, occupationally, etc) are largely because of that.
I made no such claim.
Nice strawman.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sorry, @aramis erak I most certainly wasn't trying to imply differently. But, the reasons for the poor housing and deplorable living conditions aren't because First Nations people in Canada are primitive. It's because of many, many reasons that because of board rules I won't talk about, they are forced into poverty and those living conditions.

There's a difference between primitive and poor and victims of horrendous practices for the past several hundred years.

((Sorry, but, if you've been watching the Canadian news, this is a REALLY touchy subject right now.))
No argument. But it was presented in a manner that was, fundamentally, deeply flawed, since at no point since contact have they been technological equals except by integration and assimilation. I'm also aware of the situation in Canada; locally in Oregon it's also an issue, and at least as of 6-7 years ago, even more so in Alaska. The Dineh are pulling together documentaries to show the plight of their people.

Did they benefit from improvement in tech? To a large percentage, yes. But never to equality. Never enough to be considered equal. Never enough to be a real threat, either.

And did it harm their culture? yes.
 

Hussar

Legend
No argument. But it was presented in a manner that was, fundamentally, deeply flawed, since at no point since contact have they been technological equals except by integration and assimilation. I'm also aware of the situation in Canada; locally in Oregon it's also an issue, and at least as of 6-7 years ago, even more so in Alaska. The Dineh are pulling together documentaries to show the plight of their people.

Did they benefit from improvement in tech? To a large percentage, yes. But never to equality. Never enough to be considered equal. Never enough to be a real threat, either.

And did it harm their culture? yes.
Again, this is a REALLY sensitive subject, so, I'm very much on tenterhooks right now and if I misspeak, please take it in the sense that I'm an idiot, not that I'm trying to pick a fight.

In the context of this thread though, we're talking about a division between "primitive" and "modern". Two groups need not be equal for both to be considered "modern". By primitive, aren't we describing a situation where a group is so far back that they cannot even understand modern ideas and technology? We might call the people who painted the Lescaux Caves primitive, because, well, they couldn't even conceptualize oil based paints, let alone make them or use them. However, someone who paints NOW in ochre, for example, isn't primitive. They are simply choosing a different tool.

The Amish were brought up. The Amish aren't primitive by any measure. The technology they are using might not be modern, but, it's still light years ahead of any paleo or neolithic peoples. They use iron and steel. Heck, Amish people are considerably more technologically advanced than any Renaissance European and we would never describe them as primitive.

One has to be careful to not combine economic and social issues with a lack of development.

A shark is not a primitive life form. A modern shark is every bit as evolved as you or I. Just because a shark hasn't changed in thousands of years does not make it primitive.
 

Again, this is a REALLY sensitive subject, so, I'm very much on tenterhooks right now and if I misspeak, please take it in the sense that I'm an idiot, not that I'm trying to pick a fight.
I'd not even suggest Idiocy, that it's against the rules notwithstanding.

Just a comparison that set off a hotbutton issue for me, because it does rub those sociocultural and historical "raw nerve" areas.

But it reminds me...
At what level of separation is it OK to define biological lack of abilities? Different species within the same genus? Different genii within the same subfamily? Different subfamilies within the same family? Different families within the same suborder? Different families within the same order? (etc.)

We do, at present, know that within the same subfamily (Homininae) are 3 tribes and 4 ot 5 living species... 1 or 2 species of tribe gorillini (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei), 2 of Paninini (Pan pan, Pan bonobo), 1 of tribe Hominini (Homo Sapiens), 3 known species in the Family Hominidae not within the subfamily Homininae (Tribe Ponginae, Pongo pygmaeus, Pongo abelii , and Pongo tapanuliensis; the old Pongo pongo is deprecated since sequencing the DNA) with a slim chance of one or two more species in the family, possibly a new Pongidae (Yeti as described) or Homo (an insular form diminutive, similar to the Indonesian (Homo floresiensis) and Philippine (Homo luzonensis) hobbitiforms. Both such cryptids have 18th C or later reports.

So, at what point do we make the distinction between "acceptable" to have instinctual behaviors H. sapiens would find inherently evil and not?
 

Oddly, he said the purpose of not only keeping alignment but applying it to an entire race in the game was for roleplay, which I don't understand at all.
I think it's not an uncommon attitude among old-school creators because back when they were playing/running RPGs in the 1980s or w/e, they saw alignment as a tool to cause players to roleplay PCs, whereas without alignment, PCs always just did what was the most optimal thing for the PC to do (as the player saw it).

You can see examples of this in Kevin Siembieda's writing about running Rifts, for example. There's a giant Rifts DM book (I forget the name) which includes a lengthy description of him running a game. It's amusing that he thought this was a good thing to include, because it doesn't paint him in a terribly flattering light, as he's basically bossing players around and telling them that their PCs have to act in certain ways because of their alignment.

But anyway, that's why - because in Ye Olde Dayes, a lot of groups didn't have much of a conception of the "role-playing" part of role-playing games, and some DMs saw alignment and similar structures as the only way to get them to do it.

Re: entire races it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 

I've never had a problem with evil races. They're evil, and that's that. Why are they evil? Who knows? I can't explain why people in RL do terrible things.

I think the 'why' of it is completely over-rated. Were the Mongols evil when they swept across Asia? How about Saxon troops serving Bonaparte? Norsemen raiding the British Isles?

I find it sufficient to say 'these people view you as prey, and will kill and eat you given the opportunity'. Or enslave, or perhaps just rob and kill for the more enlightened ones. If a player wants more, well, there's a handy hook upon which to hang a plot.

Oddly enough, I've never have a player inquire to the 'why' of it too deeply.
 

Monadology

Explorer
I've never had a problem with evil races. They're evil, and that's that. Why are they evil? Who knows? I can't explain why people in RL do terrible things.

I think the 'why' of it is completely over-rated. Were the Mongols evil when they swept across Asia? How about Saxon troops serving Bonaparte? Norsemen raiding the British Isles?

Those are cultures, not races. A culture is by its nature temporary and the evils of various cultures are not plausibly biologically determined. You are comparing apples to oranges. The existence of cultural evil is not the same thing as the existence of innately evil races.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top