This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons  (Read 19004 times)

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #90 on: September 22, 2022, 10:14:39 AM »
   I think part of the issue is also the tendency to lump all the early source material together. I wonder how much of the assumptions about D&D's 'coding' of humanoids comes from taking GAZ10 The Orcs of Thar--which does make some racial and historical references, but is done with a largely parodic tone that allows for PC humanoids--and projecting that back onto all the old material, including the stuff where humanoids are an irredeemable, implacable threat. I do have a copy of GAZ10, but it would take a braver soul than me to do a deep dive into it in an online environment. :)

In my big long rejoinder to this article, I do put forward the thesis that to the extend you want to lend credence to these sorts of claims, an examination of the facts show that the roots of the game are free and clear, that it was as the timeline moved forward the game became more "problematic."

There seems to be a "Whig Theory of History" in play, where there's the unspoken assumption that history is a story of constant progress onward and upward towards the light. If you find something you could legitimately call "problematic" in a D&D product published in 1988, it is therefore assumed without evidence that what was written in 1983 was even worse, in 1978 even more worse, and in 1973 worse still.

Again, I think the facts demonstrate if anything the reverse is true. As time marched on, things got worse.

I'm sure one of the reasons is that socially inept troglodytes make up not only a part of the fan base, but also a part of the talent base. And so hapless idiots gonna hapless idiot. Why should rangers just be giant slayers? There are so many other types of creatures in the game world. Let's allow players to make their rangers unique. Instead of bonuses against "giant class," in 2E rangers get to choose a hated race.

But I do think that trying to be PC can make things un PC. One example I touched on is, take the berserkers (1E MM). Now I'm not saying this actually was the rationale or how it came about in 3E. But you could ask "Why should this be limited to the white-as-snow Norse culture? Shouldn't we be more inclusive and open this up to people of color?" So instead of berserking berserkers, you get raging barbarians. Great. So now you just put out a game that suggests indigenous people have anger management issues.

What both these examples have in common is taking an existing idea that is very specific, then making it generic so it fits within the framework of a general rule rather than an exception, thereby increasing options for the player while making the rules more streamlined. This is more or less the very nature of what happens when an old system gets "refined." I'm not saying all refinements are a bad thing. I'm just saying this sometimes happens, and so it actually gives a causal mechanism as to why D&D has actually become more "problematic" rather than less over time.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #91 on: September 22, 2022, 10:31:45 AM »
   I think part of the issue is also the tendency to lump all the early source material together. I wonder how much of the assumptions about D&D's 'coding' of humanoids comes from taking GAZ10 The Orcs of Thar--which does make some racial and historical references, but is done with a largely parodic tone that allows for PC humanoids--and projecting that back onto all the old material, including the stuff where humanoids are an irredeemable, implacable threat. I do have a copy of GAZ10, but it would take a braver soul than me to do a deep dive into it in an online environment. :)

In my big long rejoinder to this article, I do put forward the thesis that to the extend you want to lend credence to these sorts of claims, an examination of the facts show that the roots of the game are free and clear, that it was as the timeline moved forward the game became more "problematic."

There seems to be a "Whig Theory of History" in play, where there's the unspoken assumption that history is a story of constant progress onward and upward towards the light. If you find something you could legitimately call "problematic" in a D&D product published in 1988, it is therefore assumed without evidence that what was written in 1983 was even worse, in 1978 even more worse, and in 1973 worse still.

Again, I think the facts demonstrate if anything the reverse is true. As time marched on, things got worse.

I'm sure one of the reasons is that socially inept troglodytes make up not only a part of the fan base, but also a part of the talent base. And so hapless idiots gonna hapless idiot. Why should rangers just be giant slayers? There are so many other types of creatures in the game world. Let's allow players to make their rangers unique. Instead of bonuses against "giant class," in 2E rangers get to choose a hated race.

But I do think that trying to be PC can make things un PC. One example I touched on is, take the berserkers (1E MM). Now I'm not saying this actually was the rationale or how it came about in 3E. But you could ask "Why should this be limited to the white-as-snow Norse culture? Shouldn't we be more inclusive and open this up to people of color?" So instead of berserking berserkers, you get raging barbarians. Great. So now you just put out a game that suggests indigenous people have anger management issues.

What both these examples have in common is taking an existing idea that is very specific, then making it generic so it fits within the framework of a general rule rather than an exception, thereby increasing options for the player while making the rules more streamlined. This is more or less the very nature of what happens when an old system gets "refined." I'm not saying all refinements are a bad thing. I'm just saying this sometimes happens, and so it actually gives a causal mechanism as to why D&D has actually become more "problematic" rather than less over time.

Bolding mine

1.- Race, in the D&D sense means species, there's the HUMAN race and there's the OTHER races, this was of course muddled when they started allowing halfbreeds, if I find ANY fault is in allowing half elves/orcs/etc.

Therefore, the Ranger having a "hated race" isn't racist as we understand it. But again, I don't like the choice of words, preferred prey/enemy would be a much better wording.

2.- You're assuming two things (erroneusly) here:
a) Indigenous means non-white, when it doesn't.
b) Only non-whites are barbarians, which is also false.

Given all of that, IMHO the only "problematic" content is in your eyes, and just like the Orcs are stand ins for black people crowd are projecting their inner thoughts on those who don't share them you're projecting your conclusions unto others.

We say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in this case I would say that:

Bigotry/Hate/Istophobia is in the mind of the beholder. Either by projecting their own or by judging stuff in current year "morals" and assuming ill intent on others.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #92 on: September 22, 2022, 11:02:00 AM »
1.- Race, in the D&D sense means species, there's the HUMAN race and there's the OTHER races, this was of course muddled when they started allowing halfbreeds, if I find ANY fault is in allowing half elves/orcs/etc.

Race is the accurate term. We use the term "the human race" in the real world all the time. And I don't know where you get your crazy ideas about things becoming muddled. In myth and folklore, you have examples of things like nymphs bearing offspring with humans and such. You're just speaking crazy talk to force the facts to line up with your conclusions.

Quote
Therefore, the Ranger having a "hated race" isn't racist as we understand it. But again, I don't like the choice of words, preferred prey/enemy would be a much better wording.

Congratulations, You managed to argue your way to exactly what I was saying.

Quote
2.- You're assuming two things (erroneusly) here:
a) Indigenous means non-white, when it doesn't.
b) Only non-whites are barbarians, which is also false.

You're assuming two things (erroniously) here:
1) that I assumed indigenous means non-white when I wasn't;
2) that I assumed only non-whites are barbarians, which I also didn't assume

Quote
Given all of that,

No. That's not given. You're just completely wrong on the facts and you're saying crazy things to make the facts what you need them to be to reach your conclusions.

That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #93 on: September 22, 2022, 11:16:51 AM »
1.- Race, in the D&D sense means species, there's the HUMAN race and there's the OTHER races, this was of course muddled when they started allowing halfbreeds, if I find ANY fault is in allowing half elves/orcs/etc.

Race is the accurate term. We use the term "the human race" in the real world all the time. And I don't know where you get your crazy ideas about things becoming muddled. In myth and folklore, you have examples of things like nymphs bearing offspring with humans and such. You're just speaking crazy talk to force the facts to line up with your conclusions.

Things become muddled in the game since different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, so race becomes something else than the synonym of species.

Quote
Quote
Therefore, the Ranger having a "hated race" isn't racist as we understand it. But again, I don't like the choice of words, preferred prey/enemy would be a much better wording.

Congratulations, You managed to argue your way to exactly what I was saying.

Congratulations, you managed to say stuff in such a weird way that the opposite is understood then.

Quote
Quote
2.- You're assuming two things (erroneusly) here:
a) Indigenous means non-white, when it doesn't.
b) Only non-whites are barbarians, which is also false.

You're assuming two things (erroniously) here:
1) that I assumed indigenous means non-white when I wasn't;
2) that I assumed only non-whites are barbarians, which I also didn't assume

So, IF you're not assuming those (and you're not just backpedaling) why is it "problematic" the use of Barbarians? Is it because they can be of ANY color/race?

Quote
Quote
Given all of that,

No. That's not given. You're just completely wrong on the facts and you're saying crazy things to make the facts what you need them to be to reach your conclusions.

Nope, you're just completely incapable of communicating in a clear way what you're saying, assuming it's not a backpedal.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Cat the Bounty Smuggler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #94 on: September 22, 2022, 02:23:18 PM »
Quote from: an IQ-draining article
Chris Nammour, a lifelong roleplayer, described how people often codify racial dynamics onto their fantasy unintentionally. “[I’ll ask players] what does an elf sound like? What’s their accent? And people say, Oh, well, they sound British, and dwarves sound Scottish and so on,” he says. “It’s always associating historically heroic races with Western and Northern European traits. And then my immediate response to that is what accent does an orc have?” The responses, he noted, are not ‘they sound British.’

It's a real shame Linda only sees what she wants to see.

What's really ridiculous is that the dwarf/Scottish association is, IIRC, because of a Scottish voice actor who played a dwarf in an early BBC radio play of either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, and the association got stuck in place. Literally no deeper reason than that.

Probably the same sort of reason for Elves: they were played by Brits with upper-class accents because (a) Tolkien was British, and (b) Elves are aristocratic in their portrayal.

Also in my mind orcs don't have any sort of ethnic accent, they just sound deep and guttural. Goblins are high-pitched and slightly squeaky, but otherwise not associated with any particular real-world group.

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #95 on: September 22, 2022, 03:34:06 PM »
Things become muddled in the game since different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, so race becomes something else than the synonym of species.

Maybe that's why it's called race and not species. In myth and folklore you can find wording describing a particular "race of fairies" for instance, and cross-breeding is possible.

Quote
So, IF you're not assuming those (and you're not just backpedaling) why is it "problematic" the use of Barbarians? Is it because they can be of ANY color/race?

Backpedal on what? I said it clearly and precisely the first time. It's problematic because Barbarians are indigenous. Has nothing to do with color, and only has to do with race insofar as we're treating the category of "indigenous" as a race. Barbarian is a synonym for savage. Savage people (non pejorative) refer to primitive people who inhabit their native lands, as opposed to primitive tribes that move around, which are nomads. Hence savages are indigenous to the lands they inhabit. Hence barbarians are indigenous.

There's no fancy argument. No logic you need to follow. It's simply a matter of words mean things. It helps clear up a lot of confusion if you know what actual meanings of the words are.

Quote
Nope, you're just completely incapable of communicating in a clear way what you're saying, assuming it's not a backpedal.

It's not my fault you don't know what words mean. That by itself isn't a problem. It's your this attitude you have where you think you know better than everyone else when you are literally the person who is lacking the requisite knowledge to follow along.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #96 on: September 22, 2022, 03:41:06 PM »
What's really ridiculous is that the dwarf/Scottish association is, IIRC, because of a Scottish voice actor who played a dwarf in an early BBC radio play of either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, and the association got stuck in place. Literally no deeper reason than that.

That's exactly what I assumed it was. Only I didn't realize it went that far back. I've never been into Tolkien, so I just assumed Warcraft II (I think it was II) that popularized Scottish dwarfs.

Quote
Also in my mind orcs don't have any sort of ethnic accent, they just sound deep and guttural. Goblins are high-pitched and slightly squeaky, but otherwise not associated with any particular real-world group.

When I was in highschool, blissfully ignorant of Tolkien and before Warcraft II was made, we had to make up our own dwarf accents whole cloth. And so we also went with a non-ethnic specific deep, guttural kind of accent. The closest match I can think of was probably Battle Cat from He-Man. So let it be known, my games are Furry-friendly. No, you can't play a Tabaxi. But you can play a dwarf.

As for orcs, I believe we've decided orcs drink Jagermeister. I guess that would mean half-orcs do Jager-bombs.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

Effete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #97 on: September 22, 2022, 04:08:47 PM »
What's really ridiculous is that the dwarf/Scottish association is, IIRC, because of a Scottish voice actor who played a dwarf in an early BBC radio play of either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, and the association got stuck in place. Literally no deeper reason than that.

Probably the same sort of reason for Elves: they were played by Brits with upper-class accents because (a) Tolkien was British, and (b) Elves are aristocratic in their portrayal.

Also in my mind orcs don't have any sort of ethnic accent, they just sound deep and guttural. Goblins are high-pitched and slightly squeaky, but otherwise not associated with any particular real-world group.

You begin by correlating accents directly with Tolkienian source material, but it's unclear if you are doing the same with orcs/goblins here. The Good Professor said orcs took whatever language they could, often multiple languages mashed together, but used in a very archaic manner. The "common tongue" of Middle Earth is Adüniac, thanks to the prevalance of the Numenorean kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor, so many orcs speak a debased version of "common". But many likely pepper their language with Black Speech, local human dialects, or even dwarven (possible for the Moria orcs, though we never get a clear example of their speech).

Goblins, in Middle Earth, are just a "breed" of orc, generally characterized as smaller than other breeds like Gundabad orcs or the uruk-hai (literally "orc-folk" or "orc-men" i.e., "half-orc"). I can't recall off hand if Tolkien explained the root of the term "goblin," but considering how the entire mythology is based around language, it's safe to assume "goblin" may be from some non-Aduniac human language, or just a "replacement word" for the benefit of the reader. Remember, Tolkien claimed (not seriously, but in keeping with his own mythos) that he was only translating the Red Book. The word "hobbit" was an anglicised version of OE holbylta (hole-dweller), which in Aduniac would have been Perriannath. No one in Middle Earth would have uttered the sound-structure "hob-bit." "Goblin" may be a similar case... just a word to help the reader differentiate between orcs," but never something the inhabitants of ME would have actually used.

D&D orcs and goblins are, of course, very different, with structured languages of their own and being wholly different species, ostensibly incapable of interbreeding.

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #98 on: September 22, 2022, 06:27:47 PM »
D&D orcs and goblins are, of course, very different, with structured languages of their own and being wholly different species, ostensibly incapable of interbreeding.

The 1E PHB and MM are quite clear on this matter. Orcs are fecund, breeding with just about anything (except elves). The most common half-breeds being orc-goblin, orc-hobgoblin, and orc-human. 9 times out of 10, they offspring is just straight up orc, but 10% are able to pass as the other stock.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

Effete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #99 on: September 22, 2022, 06:53:17 PM »
D&D orcs and goblins are, of course, very different, with structured languages of their own and being wholly different species, ostensibly incapable of interbreeding.

The 1E PHB and MM are quite clear on this matter. Orcs are fecund, breeding with just about anything (except elves). The most common half-breeds being orc-goblin, orc-hobgoblin, and orc-human. 9 times out of 10, they offspring is just straight up orc, but 10% are able to pass as the other stock.

Ah, ha!
Thanks.

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #100 on: September 22, 2022, 07:02:07 PM »
Barbarian is a synonym for savage. Savage people (non pejorative) refer to primitive people who inhabit their native lands, as opposed to primitive tribes that move around, which are nomads. Hence savages are indigenous to the lands they inhabit. Hence barbarians are indigenous.

There's no fancy argument. No logic you need to follow. It's simply a matter of words mean things. It helps clear up a lot of confusion if you know what actual meanings of the words are.

This argument may not be fancy, but it sure it perplexing.

Sure, barbarian and savage are synonyms ... but not because neither is a Nomad. It's because both mean "uncivilized". Nomadic means "moves around", which is neither opposite, nor even mutually exclusive with, being uncivilized.

Nomads are not "non-indigenous" just because they move around from season to season. They're not "wanderers". Nomads travel a route, and are perfectly indigenous to their area. That area is just a bigger one than "savage villagers". (Though one could make that point that enough of a "village" means they aren't "savages" at all, which is precisely counter to your curious contraposition with "nomads".)

Nor are "barbarians" necessarily indigenous. If encountered in their homeland, then they are. If they're the invading army in a foreign land, then they're not. It's not rocket science.
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

Osman Gazi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #101 on: September 22, 2022, 07:36:59 PM »
1.- Race, in the D&D sense means species, there's the HUMAN race and there's the OTHER races, this was of course muddled when they started allowing halfbreeds, if I find ANY fault is in allowing half elves/orcs/etc.

Race is the accurate term. We use the term "the human race" in the real world all the time. And I don't know where you get your crazy ideas about things becoming muddled. In myth and folklore, you have examples of things like nymphs bearing offspring with humans and such. You're just speaking crazy talk to force the facts to line up with your conclusions.

Things become muddled in the game since different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, so race becomes something else than the synonym of species.

Not entirely accurate.  There are many examples of different species cross-breeding and producing fertile offspring.  Even homo sapiens had fertile offspring when they interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, which were different species, taxonomically speaking.  Another more common example today is wolves and dogs, two separate species, can produce fertile offspring.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7402
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #102 on: September 22, 2022, 09:08:01 PM »
1.- Race, in the D&D sense means species, there's the HUMAN race and there's the OTHER races, this was of course muddled when they started allowing halfbreeds, if I find ANY fault is in allowing half elves/orcs/etc.

Race is the accurate term. We use the term "the human race" in the real world all the time. And I don't know where you get your crazy ideas about things becoming muddled. In myth and folklore, you have examples of things like nymphs bearing offspring with humans and such. You're just speaking crazy talk to force the facts to line up with your conclusions.

Things become muddled in the game since different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, so race becomes something else than the synonym of species.

Not entirely accurate.  There are many examples of different species cross-breeding and producing fertile offspring.  Even homo sapiens had fertile offspring when they interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, which were different species, taxonomically speaking.  Another more common example today is wolves and dogs, two separate species, can produce fertile offspring.

You're aware (I hope) that speciation is a process, it takes a very long time for a new species to form from another, Tigers and Lions can still interbreed, their offspring isn't fertile, same for horses and donkeys.

In the process of speciation there's a point where the new species is different enough to be recognized but still close enough to the mother to be able to interbreed. Then, after enough time passes WITHOUT the species interbreeding then they can no longer produce fertile offspring, then they can no longer produce offspring, at which point they will even stop trying and even attrack if the other tries.

Now, here's a definition for you:

https://www.britannica.com/science/species-taxon
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #103 on: September 22, 2022, 09:44:07 PM »
This argument may not be fancy,

I never said it was an unfancy argument. I said it wasn't an argument period. Definition is not an argument.

Quote
but it sure it perplexing.

I never said you wouldn't be perplexed. In fact, one of my points was if you have no idea what you're talking about, you're likely to be confused.

Quote
Sure, barbarian and savage are synonyms ... but not because neither is a Nomad.

I never said the reason is because they're not nomads.

Quote
It's because both mean "uncivilized".

I never said otherwise. Though I did say there were additional conditions involved. You're just using the least precise definition.

Quote
Nomadic means "moves around", which is neither opposite, nor even mutually exclusive with, being uncivilized.

I never said nomadic tribes were not uncivilized. In fact, I was specifically speaking about primitive nomadic tribes.

Quote
Nomads are not "non-indigenous" just because they move around from season to season.

I never said it was "just" because they move around.

Quote
They're not "wanderers". Nomads travel a route, and are perfectly indigenous to their area.

I never said nomads can't have travel routes. But the fact is one of the defining characteristics of nomadic societies is the absence of ancestral land. A homeless man might beg on the same four corners year after year. That doesn't mean he's no longer homeless.

Quote
That area is just a bigger one than "savage villagers".

No. It's not "just" bigger. There's a whole lot of factors that necessarily come along with this distinction that you're missing entirely.*

Quote
(Though one could make that point that enough of a "village" means they aren't "savages" at all, which is precisely counter to your curious contraposition with "nomads".)

I never said savages and nomads were collectively exhaustive.

Quote
Nor are "barbarians" necessarily indigenous. If encountered in their homeland, then they are. If they're the invading army in a foreign land, then they're not. It's not rocket science.

The people for whom making negative generalizations about indigenous people is considered "problematic" would not be suddenly okay with disparaging someone for their heritage just because they happen to be on vacation in another country at the time.


* Here's what you're missing. The word "savage" is a French derivative of the Latin word, silvaticus; aticus meaning "pertaining to" and silva meaning "woods" or "forest."

Wooded areas are more dense in the resources needed for survival--materials to build shelter, animals to hunt, naturally-growing vegetation. And so primitive societies living off the land don't need to move around a lot. They can establish permanent roots.

Open areas like plains, steppes, and deserts have their resources spread out over a wider area. Primitive societies living off the land in these areas need to be able to move long distances. They cannot establish permanent roots. They have to constantly be on the move to where the resources are.

Difference in size of land area held is hardly the only difference. The terrain differs. Access to resources differs. The set of skills necessary for survival differ. The cultures necessarily differ. What they value will differ. The first group highly value land. The second highly value horses. These are going to be two completely separate categories of peoples. You know the word for the latter; nomads. So what's the word for the former? What's the word that pertains to people of the woods?

If you don't know, you don't know, and that's why your perplexed. I gave you the word. You chose to respond in ignorance rather than assimilate the knowledge.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #104 on: September 23, 2022, 09:05:17 AM »
Barbarian really just meant “those who are not of our ‘superior’ society and culture.” It’s purely an exonym used to describe other groups. If you were not Greek (or later Roman), the you were a barbarian.

Savage generally just means “a group whose morals and practices permit actions we deem excessively violent, if not outright evil.” It’s another exonym and is not actually a direct synonym with barbarian (though there can be crossover… i.e. an outgroup that is excessively violent).

Nomad is similar as it’s a group that doesn’t remain at fixed location year round. Depending on the society and practices they may or may not be considered barbarians or savages.

For example; shepherds are often nomadic because they move with their flocks who need more resources than a single location can provide, but are still considered part of the main culture in the region so are not barbarians nor are they excessively violent so are not savages.

By contrast, a wandering band of hunter-gatherers would likely be both nomadic and barbarians with whether or not they’re considered savages depending on their choice of food; animals/wild plants… probably just barbarians. other people’s food or actual people… savages.

Non-nomadic barbarians are pretty self-explanatory. They don’t belong to dominant local culture you come from. Whether they’re just barbarians or savage barbarians depends on how they treat others. Share a meal with you? Barbarian. Make you their meal? Savages.

For an inverse example, a dominant culture (ex. Aztecs) of high sophistication for the area can be savages in behavior (regular human sacrifice, often of slaves taken in conquest or demanded as tribute) while being neither the barbarians (not the regional outgroup) nor nomadic.

None of the terms though are endonyms… no one within those societies would consider their society to be barbaric or savage and would only consider “nomadic” in the sense that describes their moving about rather than placing some moral judgment on their people.

As to orcs… mine are green-skinned mutants operating a rump state of what essentially fantasy Rome whose leaders claim descent from the last Emperor before the Cataclysm and seek to re-conquer all the territory once controlled by “their” empire. If they’re “coded” as anything it’s self-entitled elites who think they deserve to rule the world.

The barbarians of the setting are primarily human survivors of the cataclysm who banded together into clans and tribes and abandoned the pagan conquest-based religion of the Empire for a more peaceful monotheistic faith brought by once persecuted missionaries who aided and protected them.