D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[doctorbadwolf]

It has it's places (fiends, abberrations, undead) but applied to humanoids it's generally bad.

Although I do wonder how you feel about creatures that are inherently good, because sometimes good essentially means "no fun allowed" and sometimes to do serious good you need to do something reprehensible (I'm thinking specifically of something from Pathfinder).

Eh, the edge-dark “do a genocide or the world will end” type moral dillema trope bores me, but yeah humanoids can’t be inherently good or evil or neutral. All they can have is predispositions, and even those are thin ice.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

It has it's places (fiends, abberrations, undead) but applied to humanoids it's generally bad.

Although I do wonder how you feel about creatures that are inherently good, because sometimes good essentially means "no fun allowed" and sometimes to do serious good you need to do something reprehensible (I'm thinking specifically of something from Pathfinder).

I think its the same with inherently good beings as what i said with evil people vs an evil event.

Esentially you have:

moral evil (what we base alignments on typically) = evil as in cognizant malevolence/maleficence
Amoral evil (what we think of as "bad" but not moral bad) which are unfortunate things wich trouble mankind simply unfortunately = grandma died because of an especially cold winter, flu happens (no extra context. Just normal typical flu season stuff.), it rains a little too much, you tripped and skinned your knee (these are what the ancient world termed "evils" some major and some minor but its not moral evil its just vaguely "the bad thing")

How does this apply to "good" and "good beings"?

Well apply the same logic. Are they good -> beneficent/benevolent or are they just vaguely good without intention? One is a person with a good alignment. The other is just good. Struck gold today and you will be able to get grandma that special medicine so she lasts a few more winters? Great! Thats good. Not moral good but still good. Now did you choose to do it? If the answer is yes then yes. Now its moral good.

An angel is innately good. Lawful good in particular (for most cosmologies). If its just a dumb chipmunk celestial doing weird celestial things because of instincts and not really any choice of its own its not really a good aligned person (maybe vaguely) but its "good". Now, if you have an angel who undermines their god because of deciding its wrong to do something thay god said to do, theyve probably broken some cosmic laws and upset some sort of balance a bit but their alignment is true neutral good (according to their actions in context with their knowledge and intent)

 

[Charlaquin]

Much like trolls or ... well any other monster. I simply see no reason to distinguish between orcs, gnolls, beholders, succubi or any other number of evil monsters.

...Plane of origin?

But it goes back to a simple issue. If orcs are not necessarily evil, why are other monsters not necessarily evil? What about red dragons or chokers or beholders?

Red dragons are not necessarily evil in my world, though they tend to be (much like orcs tend to be). Chokers and Beholders are aberrations, tying their origins to the far realm. In my world it’s not really clear if aberrations have inherent alignments, or if the forces of evil, good, law, and chaos are necessarily even applicable to them. But they certainly are antithetical to life native to the cosmos.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Eh, the edge-dark “do a genocide or the world will end” type moral dillema trope bores me, but yeah humanoids can’t be inherently good or evil or neutral. All they can have is predispositions, and even those are thin ice.

no. Thats as easily dispelled as the following.

Most humanoids dont have an inherent moral lean.

A god creates a race that does.

OOPS! Now there is one.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Chokers and Beholders are aberrations, tying their origins to the far realm. In my world it’s not really clear if aberrations have inherent alignments, or if the forces of evil, good, law, and chaos are necessarily even applicable to them. But they certainly are antithetical to life native to the cosmos.

very rational. I approve.

 

[Hussar]

All I can say is that I disagree. I don't see a strong association between orcs and colonialism and I doubt many people do. I don't associate green skinned orcs with any particular ethnicity.

Again, it doesn't really matter if you do or not. It's about acknowledging that there are people who DO see the analogy. Without the argumentum ad populum of "doubt many people do". Because, frankly, that's the point. The whole point is that for about a century or so, the colonialist roots in genre fiction went largely unremarked on and ignored. Of course there aren't a lot of people who do. This is a fairly new branch of criticism. People in Tolkien's time, or even in the 80's, wouldn't likely see it or even care if they did.

I see far more issues with hags, harpies, drow, succubi and so on.

A trope of D&D is that some creatures are inherently evil. I don't play D&D to plumb philosophical foundations of morality and I don't think the origin of orcs has any bearing on what role they should play in anyone's game.

Again, I don't care how you play the game. It's not my place to tell you anything. What I DO care about is the denial that the issue exists at all. What you're essentially arguing is that because it's not a problem for you, then it shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

D&D is based on pre-1970's fantasy and SF fiction. That body of work is replete with bigotry and racism. It really, really is. Like I said, you have a problem with dark skinned humans being stupid and brutish, but, dark skinned humanoids are fine? And you don't see any issue there? None at all?

 

[Hussar]

See, I think the point that's being missed here is context.

Succubus or harpies, AFAIK, don't have a history of being used as stand ins for the "Other". There's no lengthy series of works in the genre where harpies are used at all, again, AFAIK. While there are stories with succubi, they are again, not seen as "lesser beings" ripe for having their property and lives taken from them.

Look at how vampires are depicted, particularly since the 80's. They aren't lesser beings. If anything, they're MORE human than humans. They are typically wish fulfilment fantasies filled with very powerful beings that can do whatever they please, whenever they please. Lestat being a prime example here. Or Spike from Buffy. Who wouldn't want to be one of those characters? Powerful, immortal, doing whatever they want, taking whatever they want, and always getting the hot girl.

Those are not negative depictions at all.

Now, picture orcs, or beast men, or whatever sub-human variant your fantasy du jour has. No one wants to be an orc. No one wants to be a kobold living in a sewer. Sure, half-orc is cool, or that kobold PC is cool. Because you get all the good things about the race - stronger, faster, whatever - and still get all the benefits of belonging to the "us". There's a very good reason Gully Dwarves have never caught on as a PC race.

The colonialism in D&D is hard wired into the DNA. It's undeniably there.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

When most people dont use something to represent x and you force everyone to associate it with x you are actually forcing people to dwell on x when they are in the process of not involving x at all.

You're not helping.

You just acknowledged that he was right that people's typical usage of orcs has nothing to do with colonialism and remarked that that was a problem.

If people perpetuate an idea less and less over time they will inherently use related objects for completely unrelated purposes. That is the natural progression of how a tendancy's influence diminishes.

In psychology we call it extinction (of a line of thought, behavior, concept, or a habit). What people do when they perseverate over dying things like this is that they actually delay this extinction.

When people obsess over these niche ideological topics that they themselves acknowledge most people's usage of an object is agnostic of, they are actually replenishing them. Revitalizing a dying thing.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

See, I think the point that's being missed here is context.

Succubus or harpies, AFAIK, don't have a history of being used as stand ins for the "Other". There's no lengthy series of works in the genre where harpies are used at all, again, AFAIK. While there are stories with succubi, they are again, not seen as "lesser beings" ripe for having their property and lives taken from them.

Mmm... No. Succubi are the incarnation of the All Women are Lustful trope, which is pretty damn misogynistic, while Harpies were incarnations of evil winds meant to spread misery and suffering.

Look at how vampires are depicted, particularly since the 80's. They aren't lesser beings. If anything, they're MORE human than humans. They are typically wish fulfilment fantasies filled with very powerful beings that can do whatever they please, whenever they please. Lestat being a prime example here. Or Spike from Buffy. Who wouldn't want to be one of those characters? Powerful, immortal, doing whatever they want, taking whatever they want, and always getting the hot girl.

Again: Mmm... No. The OG Vampire in fiction, Dracula, was basically a personification of "these foreigners are gonna steal all our women!". Not a very good look on Vampires. As well as some more modern versions of them basically making them into incarnations of abusive relationships.

Which yeah, you could ignore and think of them as more modern interpretations, the fact that you choose to not do that for Orcs is... well... kinda interesting and is probably a reflection of your biases.

 

[Charlaquin]

Mmm... No. Succubi are the incarnation of the All Women are Lustful trope,

I dont... think they are, really? Like, for one thing Inccubi exist as a male counterpart. For another, succubi and incubi don’t have a history of being used as stand-ins for their entire respective genders the way that orcs have been as a stand-in for a race of people.

Again: Mmm... No. The OG Vampire in fiction, Dracula, was basically a personification of "these foreigners are gonna steal all our women!". Not a very good look on Vampires.

Right, but the difference there is that the vampire-as-predatory-foreigner is widely accepted for the problematic trope that it is, and subject to thorough and widespread critique and deconstruction.

As well as some more modern versions of them basically making them into incarnations of abusive relationships.

Yeah...? I would think it would be pretty obvious why a creature that’s used as an allegory for abusive relationships being evil is not a problem in the same way that a creature that’s used as an allegory for a race of people being evil is.