The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[Panfilo]

Circling back to the OP's theme, I think the other side of the coin from [viewing non-European-coded cultures as inferior and/or evil] is [viewing western/colonial points of view as superior/good]. The 5E alignment system, aside from being pretty juvenile from an ethical philosophy standpoint generally, states that "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

Underline mine. Needless to say, what a society expects of its constituents can be reframed as horrendously evil with some change in perspective. Knights didn't follow chivalry and conquistadors were not at all Christ-like, but even if they did follow the explicit morays of their cultures, they still would have been rather evil by modern standards.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, it looks like you are now(?) just arguing for arguments sake. Do you really expect adventures to provide a detailed historic justification for the current state found in said adventure? A treatise about the socio-economical circumstances which made a specific tribe of goblins live in the same cave structure as a beholder?

No you don't, because it is not relevant for the adventure which describes the current snapshot in time the adventurers are confronted with. Only now you suddenly want this requirement because you failed to argue that "primitive" is an inherently racist word used to degrade entire societies instead of just describing the state of technological development (or artistic style).

Sorry, I'm still trying to catch up on this thread, and I've been reading the Grippli example for a while and you are really, really missing the point.

It's not that this group of Grippli are described as primitive. After all, that might very well be true, as you say. It's just a snapshot of a particular place and time. That's not the issue.

The issue is that Grippli are ALWAYS described as primitive. And, the Northern European stand ins - in this case Cormyr, are NEVER primitive. Heck, all one has to do is look up and down the Sword Coast description. Every single PHB race is never described as primitive. They build fantastic cities like Waterdeep and Neverwinter. They are ALWAYS the top of the heap. And the swamp dwelling frog men? The humanoids? ALWAYS primitive. Never primitive because of where they live or because of history, but always primitive because of what they are.

I mean, good grief - this is a community that has traded with CANDLEKEEP, the largest repository of knowledge in Faerun, for a long time. The Grippli village is TWO DAYS from Baldur's Gate. It's in the Cloakwood. It's not some isolated area where these people would never come into contact with outsiders. They regularly trade with other people.

This would be like expecting people from Cardiff to be "Primitive". Or, to put it in a North American perspective. People in London, Ontario should be primitive because they're a couple of hundred kilometers from Toronto. Heck, it's not even that far. We're talking about 60, 70 miles from Baldur's Gate.

Reference for distances: Forgotten Realms (Faerun, Sword Coast) Interactive Map

So, again, explain to me why on earth these people would be even slightly less advanced than anyone else?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

/snip
It's not that this group of Grippli are described as primitive.
/snip

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the main issue was describing their culture as primitive (i.e. "they primitively decorated their walls with giant crab arms"), as it's a judgmental statement on their artform as inferior or "more primitive" than other means of decorating.

And that's where I see the main issue. The argument over whether or not technology of certain cultures is "more primitive/advanced than others" is neither here nor there and is a red herring, as that's not what the word "primitive" was being used to describe in the relevant context. Primitive was being used to judge their culture, and that's what makes it especially problematic. Who gave anyone the right to judge any other culture's artform, especially on whether or not it was "primitive"?!?!

That's the real issue with what was printed, IMO. Cultural judgement of another culture (and no, it doesn't matter if the race isn't real, because there are other cultures in the real world that do/have decorated in similar manners, and it is not right of anyone to judge that art form).

 

[Hussar]

Circling back to the OP's theme, I think the other side of the coin from [viewing non-European-coded cultures as inferior and/or evil] is [viewing western/colonial points of view as superior/good]. The 5E alignment system, aside from being pretty juvenile from an ethical philosophy standpoint generally, states that "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

Underline mine. Needless to say, what a society expects of its constituents can be reframed as horrendously evil with some change in perspective. Knights didn't follow chivalry and conquistadors were not at all Christ-like, but even if they did follow the explicit morays of their cultures, they still would have been rather evil by modern standards.

To be fair, alignment has always been based on modern conceptions of morality. And a fairly absolutist approach as well. Once you start goign down that road of, "Well, it's good by the standards of that community" it is practically impossible for alignment to be used as any sort of measurement. As you say, there are all sorts of real world examples where the community would have judged particular actions as "good" that, by our perspective, are pretty horrifying.

 

[Hussar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the main issue was describing their culture as primitive (i.e. "they primitively decorated their walls with giant crab arms"), as it's a judgmental statement on their artform as inferior or "more primitive" than other means of decorating.

And that's where I see the main issue. The argument over whether or not technology of certain cultures is "more primitive/advanced than others" is neither here nor there and is a red herring, as that's not what the word "primitive" was being used to describe in the relevant context. Primitive was being used to judge their culture, and that's what makes it especially problematic. Who gave anyone the right to judge any other culture's artform, especially on whether or not it was "primitive"?!?!

That's the real issue with what was printed, IMO. Cultural judgement of another culture (and no, it doesn't matter if the race isn't real, because there are other cultures in the real world that do/have decorated in similar manners, and it is not right of anyone to judge that art form).

Fair enough. I wasn't really commenting on this specific use of the word. I was more pointing to the fact that primitive will only be used in a D&D context to describe certain groups, irregardless of any other considerations. Wood elves, despite not really mining or using metals, not really building anything, and living a hunter/gatherer existence as per the description in the PHB, are never, ever described as "primitive" for example. Not to bring up the whole Halfling issue here, but, why are halflings never described as primitive? Small, tribal groups of agrarian farmers that don't mine for metals, don't build roads or large works, are actually quite famous for never living in cities, and never building nation states, are also 100% modern, never described as being technologically or culturally backward.

It's not really that hard to see why.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Book 1 (1977 edition) includes the following on page 8:

A NOTE ON GENDER AND RACE​

Nowhere in these rules is a specific requirement established that any character (player or non-player) be of a specific gender or race. Any character is potentially of any race or of either sex.​

Looking back at this, it reads like a deliberate if implicit repudiation of the AD&D obsession with both - though it predates the 1978 PHB. I believe there were pre-PHB treatments of sex in the D&D corpus - with stuff about STR limits and CHA minimums and the like - so maybe that is what was being implicitly referenced?

Maybe. I don't recall anything OFFICIAL about gender-based limits, but it may well have been common practice. I honestly cannot recall it ever came up in any of our games, though after the release of 1e we all just rolled our eyes and ignored that rule. Honestly, most players were boys anyway, and so were most PCs.

So, Marc may simply be a little more conscious of these factors than most of us were back then. Good for him! Honestly, I know nothing of the guy.

 

[Ixal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the main issue was describing their culture as primitive (i.e. "they primitively decorated their walls with giant crab arms"), as it's a judgmental statement on their artform as inferior or "more primitive" than other means of decorating.

And that's where I see the main issue. The argument over whether or not technology of certain cultures is "more primitive/advanced than others" is neither here nor there and is a red herring, as that's not what the word "primitive" was being used to describe in the relevant context. Primitive was being used to judge their culture, and that's what makes it especially problematic. Who gave anyone the right to judge any other culture's artform, especially on whether or not it was "primitive"?!?!

That's the real issue with what was printed, IMO. Cultural judgement of another culture (and no, it doesn't matter if the race isn't real, because there are other cultures in the real world that do/have decorated in similar manners, and it is not right of anyone to judge that art form).

Art is not only culture but also technique and dependent on tools and those two can be primitive. Or do you think that cavemen choose to do mono coloured paintings on the wall of caves because of their culture and not because they did not have access to more paint, canvases and brushes?

 

[Hussar]

Art is not only culture but also technique and dependent on tools and those two can be primitive. Or do you think that cavemen choose to do mono coloured paintings on the wall of caves because of their culture and not because they did not have access to more paint, canvases and brushes?

Fair enough. But, paleothic or neolithic humans had limited access to newer technologies. After all, those cave paintings were the cutting edge of art of the time.

But, you've still failed to explain how a group of people, who trade with the greatest repository of knowledge in the land, and who live less than a day from a major city (by boat), lack tools or technologies. Sure, I can understand some remote island culture who have never made contact with other people might lack technologies, or a group of people surrounded by a honking big impassable desert might not have access. But, can you explain why a group of people who have regular contact, to the point where when they stop delivering fish, it's actually something of a problem for Candlekeep, and have traded for years, lack advancements.

Bonus points if you can explain why it is ONLY tribal peoples in the game that are "primitive".

 

[Hussar]

Art is not only culture but also technique and dependent on tools and those two can be primitive. Or do you think that cavemen choose to do mono coloured paintings on the wall of caves because of their culture and not because they did not have access to more paint, canvases and brushes?

I would also point you to the Lascaux caves if you think that "cavemen" painted in mono colors. I've seen the recreations, not the originals unfortunately, and I'm going to tell you that even color blind me could tell there were more than two colors.

 

[Aldarc]

I would also point you to the Lascaux caves if you think that "cavemen" painted in mono colors. I've seen the recreations, not the originals unfortunately, and I'm going to tell you that even color blind me could tell there were more than two colors.

It's about like all the people nowadays who think that these ancient statues, monuments, and architecture in the ancient world (e.g., Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.) were as colorless and undecorated as the way we found them.