The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[pemerton]

On "primitive" and similar notions (eg "crude" used of material artefacts):

There is a long tradition of talking about material cultures in the social sciences. This tradition is hardly un-vexed! But at its best it manifests historical awareness.

Marshall Hodgson was a historian at U Chicago. His method of doing world history is broadly similar to Weber. In one of his essays (The Great Western Transmutation) he discusses (among other things) the Spanish conquest of Mexico. He compares the material technology of Spain, Turkey and China to the material culture of the Aztecs. The former three are broadly comparable; the latter he suggests is comparable to classical Sumer. This (in his view) is part of the explanation of how conquest was possible.

I'm a big fan of Hodgson and Weber, and use them in teaching. I think the technicalisation/rationalisation analysis of modernity is explanatorily powerful. Of course there are critics, some of whom I also use in teaching (eg Hobson's The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation). I get frustrated that (per Hobson) movable metal type was first invented in Korea and yet in schools it continues to be taught as a German invention.

Anyway, I think there is a big difference between nuanced analysis that tries to incorporate technological aspects of complex causal processes; and the use of "primitive" as a label in a game system, particularly if - in the posited world of the game - there is no explanation beyond an authorial fiat of "backwardsness" to explain why there are differences in technology.

I think that last point is important though typically ignored. The main theme of Hodgson's essay that I mentioned above is that processes of gradual social diffusion maintained technological parity throughout the Eurasian and North African area for several thousand years; and that imperialism/colonialism in its modern form is one result of a social process that could in principle have taken place anywhere in that area (and almost commenced in 11th/12th century China), that happened to take place in western Europe, and that produces technological innovations at such a rate that (i) gradual processes of diffusion are no longer possible, while (ii) dramatic imbalances of power arise which lead to the actual processes of conquest and resulting diffusion that we have all experienced over the past several centuries.

A typical D&D world has (i) milennia of history, and (ii) no social process comparable to the emergence of modernity in Europe and its spread to the rest of the world, and yet (iii) ostensible technological contrasts between neighbouring peoples like (say) the Kingdom of Keoland in the World of Greyhawk (high mediaeval material culture) and the Lizardfolk of the Hool Marshes. Its a reversal of JRRT's Shire: Tolkien uses authorial fiat to give us a completely inexplicable combination of pre-modern social norms and trappings with industrial level material production; these D&D worlds use authorial fiat to give us completely inexplicable examples of "backwardsness" not because of a geographically-caused inability to participate in processes of diffusion of technological innovation, but because the author has decided that Lizardfolk (or Orcs, or Golbins, or . . .) are incapable of "development".

That's one basis of my dislike of the use of the notion of "primitive" peoples in FRPGing.

 

[Malmuria]

On "primitive" and similar notions (eg "crude" used of material artefacts):

There is a long tradition of talking about material cultures in the social sciences. This tradition is hardly un-vexed! But at its best it manifests historical awareness.

Marshall Hodgson was a historian at U Chicago. His method of doing world history is broadly similar to Weber. In one of his essays (The Great Western Transmutation) he discusses (among other things) the Spanish conquest of Mexico. He compares the material technology of Spain, Turkey and China to the material culture of the Aztecs. The former three are broadly comparable; the latter he suggests is comparable to classical Sumer. This (in his view) is part of the explanation of how conquest was possible.

I'm a big fan of Hodgson and Weber, and use them in teaching. I think the technicalisation/rationalisation analysis of modernity is explanatorily powerful. Of course there are critics, some of whom I also use in teaching (eg Hobson's The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation). I get frustrated that (per Hobson) movable metal type was first invented in Korea and yet in schools it continues to be taught as a German invention.

Anyway, I think there is a big difference between nuanced analysis that tries to incorporate technological aspects of complex causal processes; and the use of "primitive" as a label in a game system, particularly if - in the posited world of the game - there is no explanation beyond an authorial fiat of "backwardsness" to explain why there are differences in technology.

I think that last point is important though typically ignored. The main theme of Hodgson's essay that I mentioned above is that processes of gradual social diffusion maintained technological parity throughout the Eurasian and North African area for several thousand years; and that imperialism/colonialism in its modern form is one result of a social process that could in principle have taken place anywhere in that area (and almost commenced in 11th/12th century China), that happened to take place in western Europe, and that produces technological innovations at such a rate that (i) gradual processes of diffusion are no longer possible, while (ii) dramatic imbalances of power arise which lead to the actual processes of conquest and resulting diffusion that we have all experienced over the past several centuries.

A typical D&D world has (i) milennia of history, and (ii) no social process comparable to the emergence of modernity in Europe and its spread to the rest of the world, and yet (iii) ostensible technological contrasts between neighbouring peoples like (say) the Kingdom of Keoland in the World of Greyhawk (high mediaeval material culture) and the Lizardfolk of the Hool Marshes. Its a reversal of JRRT's Shire: Tolkien uses authorial fiat to give us a completely inexplicable combination of pre-modern social norms and trappings with industrial level material production; these D&D worlds use authorial fiat to give us completely inexplicable examples of "backwardsness" not because of a geographically-caused inability to participate in processes of diffusion of technological innovation, but because the author has decided that Lizardfolk (or Orcs, or Golbins, or . . .) are incapable of "development".

That's one basis of my dislike of the use of the notion of "primitive" peoples in FRPGing.

Its a concept that people gloss over I guess because it is still so much a part of contemporary global culture, now with different names, for example in the field of development and the usage of "developed" and "developing" to describe societies. . Same thing with "industrialization," as if current economic transformations in, say, south china, will be exactly parallel to Britain during the nineteenth century.

Dnd communities are special because they will simultaneously port over this worldview into a high fantasy setting and claim that it's just fictional and has no relationship to the real world. And then tell you to stop talking about it.

 

[pemerton]

Dnd communities are special because they will simultaneously port over this worldview into a high fantasy setting and claim that it's just fictional and has no relationship to the real world. And then tell you to stop talking about it.

They will also assert that verisimilitude is very important to them even though their authorially-stipulated social forms are utterly inexplicable on any social scientific basis!

EDITED to add: I've got no objection to authorial stipulation in lieu of realism. But then you have to own the meaning of the tropes and received ideas that inform your stipulations. That doesn't have to mean saying or writing nothing. But it does preclude just telling people not to talk about what you've written or said. No one has the privilege of being their own last word.

 

[Malmuria]

They will also assert that verisimilitude is very important to them even though their authorially-stipulated social forms are utterly inexplicable on any social scientific basis!

EDITED to add: I've got no objection to authorial stipulation in lieu of realism. But then you have to own the meaning of the tropes and received ideas that inform your stipulations. That doesn't have to mean saying or writing nothing. But it does preclude just telling people not to talk about what you've written or said. No one has the privilege of being their own last word.

Right? People will say that their world is "medieval European fantasy" and in the next breath talk about its gold-based cash economy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right? People will say that their world is "medieval European fantasy" and in the next breath talk about its gold-based cash economy.

Yeah, obviously gold is not terribly realistic. OTOH cash was quite a bit more prevalent than traditional ideas about 'Dark Age Europe' make room for. In fact historians of Medieval Europe will laugh you out of the room if you utter that phrase in their presence these days. Now, obviously 6th Century North Western Europe was not in general a place where cash was commonplace in everyday life, such as it is in D&D games, typically. OTOH even the 5th Century Saxon 'kings' issued coinage. It was mostly silver of course, though gold coins did exist in all periods and were minted from time-to-time. The Romans definitely minted them too.

Random people who play D&D obviously get a lot of historical ideas wrong, but we all do understand certain basics. Separate social roles/specialization, how communities can organize, etc. Anyway, the game needs to be playable, so cash economy, little racism against other demi-humans (strongly doubt that one would exist, lol), equality of the sexes, etc.

 

[Ixal]

Who decides what is 'primitive'? I mean, take some people who live by hunting and gathering. They have a toolkit, right? The technology which makes up that toolkit has been developed over a, literally, immeasurable length of time. Like, we cannot even say "technology started here." So is it more primitive than your average group of Americans living in Seattle? Most of our tech is maybe 100 years old, 200, 500, even the oldest of our technologies are what, 12,000 years old (going back to the first urban constructions). How can you call anything more primitive than something else? I mean, OK, maybe there are situations where you can, if some people are, say, refugees from a fallen civilization and they had to go reinvent stone axes from scratch. I don't think that's normally the case for any D&D cultures though.

There are DEFINITELY better words to be used than 'primitive', it is simply inaccurate, and communicates the, probably erroneous, idea that the PCs tools and things are going to automatically be superior to those of a group of beings which has probably existed in their home environment for centuries, millennia, or possibly even much longer than that.

OTOH there is no doubt that, say, 18th Century British had things like steel and guns that Native Americans lacked. However, I would note that the what those Native Americans made from that steel was versions of their own tools, which the English found to be quite handy (witness all the steel tomahawks they made)! Nor did Native Americans find firearms all that handy, except as a way to fight said English/Americans (or each other sometimes). So, it isn't clear that an objective evaluation would conclude that one group's tech was definitively superior to the others. When they came together, the result was some sort of fusion.

Finally, I think it is fair to say that often one group has a superiority in terms of the operational means available to it. So Native Americans were not making steel, certainly not guns whereas in principle the British could potentially make tomahawks. However, making a stone tomahawk was still not a skill that British people had, any more than Native Americans were able to smelt iron. Either one could learn the other's skills, but Britain had operational means to do things like mass produce goods. Is this 'higher technology'? I mean, its kind of hard to say, that technology, in its most modern form, seems to be destroying the Earth. Maybe we were the ones who needed to learn something? Pity we didn't.

The ultimate point is, these sorts of highly judgmental words and statements are very subjective, very context dependent, and generally close people's minds to ideas that they might actually want to let in. It seems like there might be better ways to phrase things.

Primitive is a very common and widely used word describing a vast technological difference or a lack of sophistication. And it is simply a fact that this sort of technological difference existed in history with "primitive" being the world to describe that.
Saying that "a toolkit has been developed over a, literally, immeasurable length of time." doesn't mean anything. Everyones toolkit has. Only that some tools are much more efficient, but require more knowledge and infrastructure to maintain so not everyone has access to them.

 

[pemerton]

Primitive is a very common and widely used word describing a vast technological difference or a lack of sophistication.

I don't think it is very widely used in contemporary social science. At least I don't come across it all that often.

It occurs in older work eg Durkheim, but it's one of the things I have to encourage my students to disregard/overlook so that they can find what is of value in Durkheim despite its use.

Further, and as I posted upthread, in the real world there are explanations for the diffusion or non-diffusion of various technologies. And those explanations don't depend upon theories of the "backwardsness" of particular peoples. Whereas in D&D that's exactly the explanation that is put forward.

 

[Ixal]

I don't think it is very widely used in contemporary social science. At least I don't come across it all that often.

It occurs in older work eg Durkheim, but it's one of the things I have to encourage my students to disregard/overlook so that they can find what is of value in Durkheim despite its use.

Further, and as I posted upthread, in the real world there are explanations for the diffusion or non-diffusion of various technologies. And those explanations don't depend upon theories of the "backwardsness" of particular peoples. Whereas in D&D that's exactly the explanation that is put forward.

It is also used in multiple other fields like mathematics or programming to (often, but not always) describe basic elements.

And while there might be reasons why technology progressed slower or differently in some parts of the world, the word primitive describes the current technological difference between two groups without touching history.
So, coming back to D&D, when a group of adventurers come from Cormyr from example and meet a group of Grippli who fashin all their tools out of wood, stone and bone and their buildings out of mud and do not know how to smelt metal, let alone create steel or might not even be aware of that concept, then they are quite objectively primitive for those adventurers.
The same way Cormyr would look primitive to someone from Ancient Netheril or to someone from a modern/scifi world.

 

[pemerton]

And while there might be reasons why technology progressed slower or differently in some parts of the world, the word primitive describes the current technological difference between two groups without touching history.

It inevitably touches history.

In the actual world we live in, their are reasons - processes of social causation - which explain the diffusion of technologies.

In FRPGing, to posit (i) differences in technology, with (ii) no evident explanation of those differences, is implicitly (iii) to buy into the notion that there are reasons inherent in peoples that explain those differences. Which is the reproduction of racist tropes.

So, coming back to D&D, when a group of adventurers come from Cormyr from example and meet a group of Grippli who fashin all their tools out of wood, stone and bone and their buildings out of mud and do not know how to smelt metal, let alone create steel or might not even be aware of that concept, then they are quite objectively primitive for those adventurers.

Why has there not been the diffusion of technology from Cormyr to the Grippli?

 

[Ixal]

Why has there not been the diffusion of technology from Cormyr to the Grippli?

Ask that to the designers of the FR.
Also, why has there not been a diffusion of technology from Europe, through Costal Africa, to Central/Interior Africa? Or from Europe to the Natives in North America? Or China/Japan to South East Asia? That technology is not adopted is hardly unheard of. A concrete example would be that Shaka Zulu refused to buy guns when it was offered to him as he thought short spears (impi) and shields are superior.

Even today groups and tribes remain who voluntarily live without technology or are even consciously left alone by the rest of the world and remain on a stone age technological level.
The word primitive describes the current situation, regardless of reason.