The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[Argyle King]

In the context of D&D, how sure do you feel a PC must be that a target is wholly evil (and not capable of redemption) before the PC kills said target?

 

[Malmuria]

In the context of D&D, how sure do you feel a PC must be that a target is wholly evil (and not capable of redemption) before the PC kills said target?

Part of the tension is that dnd uses combat as the default for conflict resolution, and that can close down possibilities for what the PCs do in any given situation, or make the game not fun for some people, since you're aren't engaging as much with the mechanics as much if you aren't fighting. So, what the PCs do should be contextual: are they being attacked? How do they feel about killing things--is that the only response to evil? What is the system of law and definitions of crime like in this world? But I've been in dnd sessions where all these questions get reduced to, well the paladin did a detect evil and this creature is evil so roll initiative.

 

[transmission89]

It's such a common and frustrating misconception that discussing the historical context of an author or the way that tropes get taken up and redeployed so quickly becomes "oh you're just saying this author is racist and dismissing the entire work." It disables analysis and makes the conversation highly reductive.



It's always striking to me how many fantasy worlds copy the geography of the real world - forgotten realms and game of thrones come to mind.

You’re right, it’s frustrating when the discussion of historical context comes up and is only utilised in support of a specific analysis, ignoring context when it doesn’t suit. It absolutely is reductive and dismissive. Again, literary theory is great when sitting back pontificating with a glass of wine, not so great as a foundational argument about wider systematic changes in derivative work. So, if one wants a literary theory discussion of Tolkein and an analysis of his works through various lenses, I’m down for that.
Arguing that fictional races are problematic cos Tolkien, that’s where the dispute comes in.

 

[Doug McCrae]

JRR Tolkien's conception of orcs changed over time. His last writing on the subject was an essay Orcs (1959-1960) (with two minor notes added in 1969) published in JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien, Morgoth's Ring (1993):

Though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they [orcs] must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded. (pg 419)​

Tolkien's view of how orcs ought to be treated in 1960 was more humane than Gary Gygax's in 2005, expressed in a thread on Dragonsfoot. He supported the killing of prisoners by a paladin and even considered the execution of non-combatants to be acceptable Lawful Good conduct:

The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed

The orcs in Tolkien's Orcs are rather human:

They needed food and drink, and rest, though many were by training as tough as Dwarves in enduring hardship. They could be slain, and they were subject to disease; but apart from these ills they died and were not immortal, even according to the manner of the Quendi; indeed they appear to have been by nature short-lived compared with the span of Men of higher race, such as the Edain. (pg 418)​

But a minority are Tolkien's equivalent of demons – incarnated fallen Maiar:

Morgoth had many servants, the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar; and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms. Those whose business it was to direct the Orcs often took Orkish shapes, though they were greater and more terrible. Thus it was that the histories speak of Great Orcs or Orc-captains who were not slain, and who reappeared in battle through years far longer than the span of the lives of Men. (pg 418)​

They are no longer corrupted elves, but corrupted men. JRR Tolkien: "The theory [of corrupted men] remains nonetheless the most probable." (pg 417) Christopher Tolkien: "This then, as it may appear, was my father's final view of the question: Orcs were bred from Men." (pg 421)

 

[Alzrius]

Tolkien's view of how orcs ought to be treated in 1960 was more humane than Gary Gygax's in 2005, expressed in a thread on Dragonsfoot. He supported the killing of prisoners by a paladin and even considered the execution of non-combatants to be acceptable Lawful Good conduct:

Your link goes to the wrong page, and truncates the quote. The corrected link goes over here, and the full paragraph is as follows:

The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them so as to correct their ways or else do as the NG party did. CN and LN opponents would likely slaughter the lot. Evil opponents would enlist, enslave, or execute them according to the nature of the Evil victors and that of the survivors. Enlistment would be for those of like alignment, slaughter for those opposite the victors' predisposition to order or disorder. Enslavement is an option for any sort of Evil desiring workers.

 

[Esau Cairn]

This is a delicate topic. I very much want commentary to course correct me where necessary. Thank you in advance.

Nothing personal, but the very title of this thread is antagonistic.

The problem with Evil races is not want you think​

Not only because I taught in university for years, but just as a reader, this statement inherently says that you believe you know what I think and that what I think is--by your perspective--not just incorrect, but wrong.

To constructively suggest another option: "The problem with Evil races may not be what you think" or even "The problem with Evil races is fraught with ethical and ethnic problems". As is equating "race" in frpg terms to cultural ethnicity in our world. Or hazards of speaking for others.

However, there ample evidence that all of the above are quite common.

Makes me glad I play with the group I do.

 

[pemerton]

Well, indeed, he’s well known also for his dislike of allegories and stating LOTR is not an allegory, yet it doesn’t stop others critiquing it as an allegorical work (such as , I don’t know asserting his evil coming from the east or south as meaningfully applying to actual real world groups).

You seem to be confusing (at least) allegory, symbolism, trope and theme. JRRT didn't - when he denied that LotR was allegory, he meant it was not allegory in the strict sense. (He did write some allegories - there is a good discussion of this in Shippey's book.)

LotR is clearly not an allegory of the fall of the Roman Empire (Eastern or Western) nor of British colonialism in North Africa and Asia nor of either World War.

But it is not devoid of meaning. Some of that is linguistic - the book reflects JRRT's own professional views as a philologist. Some of that is theological - it is a very Christian work. Some of that is literary - Lothlorien, for instance, renders the world of the fairy story in the form of the naturalistic novel, which I (at least) think is a major literary achievement. And some of that is racial. No doubt there are many other sorts of meaning also to be found in it.

It seems to me that from many of the comments that he and his works are on trial to some extent. If we are using debates around his work and views as justification for demanding rewrites for writing derivative of his.

The above is utter non sequitur.

I love critiquing, exploring and analysing fiction. Literary theory is a great way to do it, but it is, to some extent, intellectual masturbation. It’s great applying different lenses to explore different fiction from different perspectives. But one has to acknowledge that if you are looking for specific things in your lens, you will undoubtedly find them. This applies to a racial lens, feminist lens, post feminist lens, queer theory etc. Especially when combined with the baggage that any reader brings to their reading of the text. It is an inherently subjective process.

Which makes it a less than stable, suitable platform for demanding changes to a game because of your (not specifically you, a general your) subjective interpretation of the works.

This is both false - a denial of difference across different works and authors, and a feeble attempt to flatten them all into sameness - and also a strange assertion from someone who seems to think that the identification of Orcs with a fall is not a mere subjective act of onanism.

 

[pemerton]

It's such a common and frustrating misconception that discussing the historical context of an author or the way that tropes get taken up and redeployed so quickly becomes "oh you're just saying this author is racist and dismissing the entire work." It disables analysis and makes the conversation highly reductive.

Agreed.

 

[pemerton]

In the context of D&D, how sure do you feel a PC must be that a target is wholly evil (and not capable of redemption) before the PC kills said target?

My own view is that the easiest way to deal with this problem is to frame most violence by heroic-type PCs as either defensive or consensual. (Often it might be both.)

That tends to be consistent with the romantic world view that is typical of fantasy.

It tends to paint assassins, pre-emptive strikers, poisoners, and sorcerers who strike secretly from afar as morally dubious - but that is also consistent with that romantic world view!

 

[Aging Bard]

Nothing personal, but the very title of this thread is antagonistic.

It is personal (an attack, to be clear), you know it is, and the title is not antagonistic. Stop the passive aggressiveness.

Not only because I taught in university for years,

Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. And I have a Master's degree. So what?

but just as a reader, this statement inherently says that you believe you know what I think

No I do not, and I never said that. You are wrong.

and that what I think is--by your perspective--not just incorrect, but wrong.

No I do not, and I never said that. Again you are wrong.

To constructively suggest another option: "The problem with Evil races may not be what you think"

This is wordsmithing

or even "The problem with Evil races is fraught with ethical and ethnic problems".

This shows me that you did not read what I wrote. The problem is people making such vile interpretations. Games are unreal. People who want to assert such interpretations are the problem, and should be shunned. If you are unable to separate the unreal game from your feelings among players of good faith, then that is your problem, not the game's problem. But as I said, lots of players cannot be taken at good faith, and their toxic influence confuses player feelings and game objectives. This is a very real problem, which is why toxic players needs to be ejected. Playing in a setting with ethical problems is fine as long as the players understand that the setting is problematic and act accordingly. Now you not wanting to play in such a setting is your choice and is fine, but without any conflict what are you fighting? Several commentators have suggested undead or other clearly Evil monsters. That's also fine, but it's boring. The greatest monsters are evil humans. If you are uncomfortable with the reality of humans in a completely unreal setting, then I don't know what to say. As I said, it's a matter of trust. If you can't trust your group to understand the unrealness of the game (i.e. they are getting off on racism, sexism, etc.), the you need a different group. Based upon your final comment, you have the right group!

As is equating "race" in frpg terms to cultural ethnicity in our world. Or hazards of speaking for others.

I did not do this. Race = species, and most RPG players know this. Changing the terminology is fine with me, but so is not changing it, as I am fine with abstract definitions.

However, there ample evidence that all of the above are quite common.

Agreed, which I addressed and rejected. Again, did you read what I wrote?

Makes me glad I play with the group I do.

Which was my point!