Well, are they? (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?760191-On-the-Red-Tide-setting-(as-presented-in-Scarlet-Heroes))
Or are some people just trying to find reasons to be outraged instead of taking fiction at face value...
Mostly the second. But there is also that some folks have become so sensitive that they will find offense in just about anything.
Sometimes a savage is just a savage.
If orcs become "problematic" how long before fighting of any kind in RPGs becomes "problematic"?
Of COURSE they are. I mean, you know, "Orc's burden" and all that...
(This is really, really, really a "who cares" topic [though I am still pissed that an Orc got the scholarship I wanted).:-)
Its a thread over at the insane asylum. What do you think?
No, they are not and fuck every single person that keep touting that garbage with a rusty whaling hook.
Quote from: OmegaIts a thread over at the insane asylum. What do you think?
You know this (mostly useless) emoticon we have here:
:enworld:
We need something a bit like that to serve our constant need to dismiss TBP issues.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839238You know this (mostly useless) emoticon we have here:
:enworld:
We need something a bit like that to serve our constant need to dismiss TBP issues.
Fuck off gets the point across rather succinctly.
I think the question is crap, because it implies a binary of:
1) No one could ever possibly use non-human races to express a racist allegory.
or
2) Every fantasy race is explicit white supremacy.
That's not how it works. Some fantasy expresses subtle or not-so-subtle racist ideas. Some great authors - like H.P. Lovecraft, R.E. Howard, and E.R. Burroughs - had blatantly racist views in the real world, and in some cases, they expressed these views in their fantasy.
In a lot of cases, it's hard to avoid having fantasy races coming across as allegories for people. I've several times run into the awkward "room full of orc women and children" situation, for example. Alternately, I played an orcish merchant in a recent GURPS Fantasy campaign, and he was proud of his family and heritage. When these things come up, it reminds people of real-world race - and people can sometimes show their views.
Quote from: Omega;839235Its a thread over at the insane asylum. What do you think?
To be fair there are a fair number of folks posting in that thread calling 'bullshit' on the suggestion that the depiction in question is anything but "some sort of objection looking for a problem."
What do people no longer actually read Tolkien?
The Moria Orcs hate the Uruk Hai from Isengard, the Isengarders hate the Morder Orcs, the Morder Orcs hate the Minis Ithil Orcs, and everybody hates the little Snaga Orcs. The Orcs in the Lord of the Rings are all a butch of fucking racists.
Or were you maybe talking about some other kinds of Orcs?
Quote from: Bren;839244What do people no longer actually read Tolkien?
The Moria Orcs hate the Uruk Hai from Isengard, the Isengarders hate the Morder Orcs, the Morder Orcs hate the Minis Ithil Orcs, and everybody hates the little Snaga Orcs. The Orcs in the Lord of the Rings are all a butch of fucking racists.
Or were you maybe talking about some other kinds of Orcs?
Since when was tribalism racist?
Orcs practice a form of meritocracy. It's not about how you look or status or education, you're either tougher or weaker and that's the only metric that matters. If you're tougher you're the boss for now. If you're weaker you're either a slave or lunch.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839238You know this (mostly useless) emoticon we have here:
:enworld:
We need something a bit like that to serve our constant need to dismiss TBP issues.
Having run into one of the admin from over there on a chat. Insane asylum might be too mild a term. I wish I were joking.
I'm so tired and bored of this sort of crap...I wish all the navel-gazing SJWs would crawl back into their holes and go back to sleep. THey aren't helping anyone or solving any problems...
Dwarves are the real racists. They hate goblins, they hate orcs, they hate elves, they hate giants. WTF is up with those bigot midgets?
Of course orcs are racist. They allows go on proclaiming how superior they are to other races. Always raiding the lands of their peaceful neighbors and only sparing those that can be slaves to work on in the fields as those poor none orcs get whipped by painful thorn whips. May the gods have mercy to those captured non-orc women. I mean those orcs just love to attack the elves. I mean fuck how racist can you get?
Or we can group up and face the fact that this is just a silly game. Take your pick people.
Not this bullshit again.....
Quote from: jhkim;839240I think the question is crap, because it implies a binary of:
1) No one could ever possibly use non-human races to express a racist allegory.
or
2) Every fantasy race is explicit white supremacy.
That's not how it works. Some fantasy expresses subtle or not-so-subtle racist ideas. Some great authors - like H.P. Lovecraft, R.E. Howard, and E.R. Burroughs - had blatantly racist views in the real world, and in some cases, they expressed these views in their fantasy.
In a lot of cases, it's hard to avoid having fantasy races coming across as allegories for people. I've several times run into the awkward "room full of orc women and children" situation, for example. Alternately, I played an orcish merchant in a recent GURPS Fantasy campaign, and he was proud of his family and heritage. When these things come up, it reminds people of real-world race - and people can sometimes show their views.
This is fair, but my question was more of an opener, not an explicit "there are only two choices" sort of thing. And, of course, ANY author is going to project something of their own personal views in their writings; to think otherwise is pretty ridiculous. However, in this specific case, I suppose my question is more of, hey, this seems completely ridiculous so wtf is the deal?
To me, at least, when I play D&D specifically, orcs are just bags of experience points. They are inherently evil, so killing them raises no eyebrows. Interestingly enough, when I ran MERP not that long ago, there is a specific passage about orcs (actual orcs, not uruks) being culturally evil, not genetically, so I ran with that and it created all sorts of interesting in-game "problems". But in neither instance did I think that orcs were some sort of racist allegory, because it was "only a game". THAT is the issue for me: if it's a game, why drag a bunch of legitimate real-world issues? I want to play games as an escape from reality...I do honest philosophical reflection enough, no need to pollute my fun.
Quote from: jeff37923;839263Not this bullshit again.....
Yes we got this bullshit again. I just want to burn it in fire.
The problem I have with this argument is that the people who are making it are basically equating humans to non-humans.
Orcs are a related, but different species, like say the Neanderthal or Homo Erectus.
If you comparing real world humans to a fictional, non-human species, and then claiming it's a sign of racism, I think the person doing the comparing is the racist in order to even see the comparison in the first place.
I haven't clicked on that thread link, but I can imagine what it's like.
I've seen it all before many times and it's boring.
Quote from: Brad;839226Well, are they? (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?760191-On-the-Red-Tide-setting-(as-presented-in-Scarlet-Heroes))
Or are some people just trying to find reasons to be outraged instead of taking fiction at face value...
This again? God, I've seen seeing this same topic since the 80s. (Not directed at the OP).
Quote from: Brad;839226Well, are they? (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?760191-On-the-Red-Tide-setting-(as-presented-in-Scarlet-Heroes))
Or are some people just trying to find reasons to be outraged instead of taking fiction at face value...
Cannot speak about the context of the specific game linked. Is it possible some game added racist overtones to orcs? Sure.
Are orcs inherently a racist concept? Absolutely not. People like to project their own analogies onto them and then claim things based on this as if their projections are "facts".
First off, there's a difference between race and species (and its an unfortunate Gygaxian legacy of this hobby and the other hobbies it inspired that those two continue to be confused). And "specism" (specieism?) is not racism. If I hate cockroaches, that doesn't make me racist against roaches.
Second, many people are uncomfortable with a fantasy creature being "inherently evil". Even Tolkien wrestled with that insomuch as it applied to his Catholic beliefs, which is why we don't have any set origin of Tolkien's orcs/goblins. Fair enough, except that being uncomfortable with that doesn't over-ride author intention. If, in a fantasy world, its declared "all such-and-such are inherently evil", they just are. Real-world logic doesn't apply. And for those people who refuse to engage it on those terms, I call general hypocrisy. Things can exist in a fantasy setting that cannot exist in real life (in fact that's rather the point). So judging a race by those standards, in a situation you're willing to give a pass to "Magic!" is hypocritical.
Thirdly, not all cultures are created equal. One can hate a culture without being racist, because culture is no more inherent than religion. And if a culture is based on mass slaughter, mindless brutality, and constant warfare, then that culture is not some ethical highground that deserves some level of respect.
But last, and most important of all,
you cant be racist against things that don't exist.All that said, SJWs are going to continue flogging this dead horse for as long as they can, because that's the
whole point of being an SJW.
As if the blatant orc racism around here wasn't bad enough, we need to have a conversation about why this site didn't roll out a rainbow banner to celebrate #lovewins. Clearly this is problematic.
Quote from: The_Shadow;839280As if the blatant orc racism around here wasn't bad enough, we need to have a conversation about why this site didn't roll out a rainbow banner to celebrate #lovewins. Clearly this is problematic.
I got a nasty email because I didn't rainbow up my profile pic on facebook last week.
My response? "I love gays, but I fucking hate rainbows."
Orcs in my game world are such racists they no longer ride wargs but Dukes of Hazard chariots flying the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.
Bastards probably vote Republican too, excepted the enlightened ones still trying to get Ron Paul voted benevolent over lord of all.
Quote from: Brad;839264To me, at least, when I play D&D specifically, orcs are just bags of experience points. They are inherently evil, so killing them raises no eyebrows.
OD&D orcs were chaotic, or neutral. Meaning that they werent all thugs or raiders. Moreso because O and BX chaos did not necessarily = evil.
https://youtu.be/SA0aKjY8K50
Someday we can put all this SJW nonsense behind us, and just talk about rpgs. But that is not this day.
Quote from: TristramEvans;839281I got a nasty email because I didn't rainbow up my profile pic on facebook last week.
My response? "I love gays, but I fucking hate rainbows."
Me too. Hang on while I cut and paste my response:
Well, for starters, I was an activist who was a member of MassEquality ‡ when we were still working towards legalizing same-sex marriage ANYwhere. You were living in this state then. Where were you?
For another, I'm not a sheep. I'm not one of those johnny-come-latelies who drape themselves in rainbows now they're sure they're not going to lose their jobs and their friends won't dare to snarl at them over it. I get that a lot of rainbow-waving politicians were on record as opposing same-sex marriage just a couple years ago.
But I sure as hell don't have to justify myself to YOU. This is the same reason I don't wear green on St. Patrick's Day: because I'm Irish 364 days a year, and I've got nothing to prove. Go be a sheep if you want, but no one elected you anyone's shepherd.
‡ For those of you scoring at home, MassEquality was the grassroots organization that spearheaded the fight to legalize same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839238We need something a bit like that to serve our constant need to dismiss TBP issues.
Well ... that kinda presumes that we're uniquely enlightened and sensible over here.
The truth is more along the lines of that here (a) we don't have to come up with twisted circumlocutions to call someone acting like an asshole an asshole, and (b) the mods aren't powertrippers who won't tolerate dissent, backtalk or being shown to be wrong.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate a snarky, jeering emoticon.
Anyway, it's a source of ongoing bemusement to me that in a hobby where our characters are serial killers, casual murderers, thieves and rapists, it's
racism that's out of line.
Skullgrinder and Spleenchewer were having a bit of fun with the prisoner when the elf arrived. Chewer threw a sneer towards Grinder who responded with a faint shake of the head as he backhanded the weeping human for good form.
"Anything?" the elf asked in his soft, musical voice.
"Nar, he sez he's a pasi-thingie. You know, one of them what don't want no more wars. Thought if he could just talk to us we'd all be lying in the soft grass sipping weak wine together."
"Is that so?" the elf smirked at the suffering man, "Well, as it happens he's gotten his chance to talk to us and we will be marching on his precious village tomorrow. So, if he doesn't have anything to tell us about their defenses, you might as well give him his wish. Stake him out on the beach with his feet in the river. And as it's going to be such a hot and sunny day, put some watered down wine just outside of his grasp."
The orcs nodded silently as the elf strode off with a slight bounce to his step.
"Fugging elf," grunted Chewer.
Grinder just kept his head down and that was what saved him from the elf's blade, which cleanly removed Spleen Chewer's head from his shoulders.
"You're a good fellow Skullgrinder, do me a favour and throw this mess in the river after you've staked out our friend with the gentle, peace-loving heart here would you? This silk shirt is new and I'd hate to get any blood on it."
Grinder just smiled and nodded, he knew what was good for him. The ripper fish in the river would be driven into a frenzy by Chewer's fool blood and the humans legs would soon follow. That's what unthinking bias got you in this orcs army and he had no desire to join the human pacifist on the beach.
Quote from: Ravenswing;839341
Anyway, it's a source of ongoing bemusement to me that in a hobby where our characters are serial killers, casual murderers, thieves and rapists, it's racism that's out of line.
It'll all be "out of line" at this rate.
Remember, rape (or even very indirect implications of rape) is quickly becoming taboo as a topic in fiction too. See what happened to Game of Thrones, the Batgirl comic cover, several incidents in video-gaming and movies, etc.
The bizzaro-world attitude now is that even realistically depicting a subject like racism or rape
as obviously bad things is actually endorsing them and mentally assaulting all the fragile people who require trigger warnings on everything.
Murder (especially of "non-problematic" groups) is still fine and dandy, but for how much longer?
I wouldn't be surprised if tabletop RPGs soon find themselves fielding renewed attacks on their "problematic violence". After that we'll be left playing gentleman thieves for a little while until that last bastion is taken, and then we'll all end up playing RPGs where we peacefully wander around a house looking for clues as to where our overweight-but-proud otherkin sister ran off to. :D
(EDIT: Yes, I edited this several times, that's how nervous this climate of assume-the-worst outrage makes me.)
I do seem to remember a Laws Study class at a college that was blasted for not having trigger warnings on the course material that dealt with sex crimes. If you are so triggered in class about it, how di you expect to deal with it in a courtroom?
As far as rpgs are concerned? Aren't the enlighted hall monitors supposed to be playing nWoD and Exalted? Plenty of "triggers" there.
I've just read the thread and, to be honest, I couldn't really see anything wrong.
The OP was a bit uncomfortable with how the Shou were portrayed. A number of other people explained the reasons why.
There wasn't a great deal about orcs being a racist idea, at least that i could see.
But, there again, I enjoy RPG.NET as much as I enjoy The RPG Site and don't really have an axe to continually grind ...
No, of course not.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839348I wouldn't be surprised if tabletop RPGs soon find themselves fielding renewed attacks on their "problematic violence".
The hobby is a really easy target for those who are trying to aggrandize themselves. Another easy target are people who enjoy the works of HP Lovecraft, but don't feel bad about HPL's personal life.
Quote from: Lynn;839367The hobby is a really easy target for those who are trying to aggrandize themselves. Another easy target are people who enjoy the works of HP Lovecraft, but don't feel bad about HPL's personal life.
Yeah any thread related to HPL's work inevitably ends up being about what a racist prig he was in spite of the fact that he's been dead for 80 years and most of his best works have essentially no racist elements, and the few that do can almost all be
read and enjoyed completely without any racial subtexts if they do exist. It's entirely possible for a Deep One to be nothing more than a fishman monster...
Are orcs racist? Yes, they hate all other races and especially elves from what I hear.
So someone feel's "uncomfortable" playing a game. Wah. Life is uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable because you have to deal with people who don't think the way you do. Wah. Wah, wah, wah.
It's a game. No laws are being broken except someone's sense of propriety. This is why we now live in a world were people use 20 words to explain what could be said in 5.
Quote from: Brad;839226Or are some people just trying to find reasons to be outraged instead of taking fiction at face value...
A dude who seeks racism in the most improbable and ludicrous places, doesn't realize that he is not yet aware of his own racism. This is called projection and well known in psychology (this is universal): you attribute intents and flaws to people you don't know, and generally always the same, so in fact you are but describing yourself. So, this dude is racist, and he has yet to discover it (though probably not toward ethnic groups, but intolerant and having prejudices towards some groups of people).
People need to chill the fuck out.
The allegories, euphemisms, and "racism emulation" happened when a handful of SJWs read the description of Orcs and decided these were the "savage minorities". That's on them, not on the author.
I just read them as "horrible human-like monsters" and ran them accordingly. They represent savagery sure, but even tribal cultures IRL have recorded religious, courtship, and hunting rituals. The Orcs are portrayed as horrible rapists, ravagers and killers. They are a caricature of evil fears of savagery.
Sheesh.
Quote from: trechriron;839405The Orcs are portrayed as horrible rapists, ravagers and killers. They are a caricature of evil fears of savagery.
Sheesh.
Depending on the past culture, they arent quite caricatures. But in the end they are just fiction in a game specifically originally designed to "MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL!" where any creature could be anything you wanted it to be.
The never ending debate from the Purple Toilet. I think I was banned on this topic from there a while back.
Jackasses. Anyhow... is anyone really shocked?
This is why I prefer to keep goblinoids as supernatural dark fey-like creatures who do not have developed cultures, societies or babies. Other than whatever is deemed necessary to provide basic antagonists.
If someone reads about stupid, slobbering, green/grey-skinned, tusked, man-eating monsters that live only for war and are expert torturers and their first thought is "Those are obviously supposed to be black people", that says far, far, FAR more about them than it does the material.
Well, on the one hand, Orcs are not a "race" of humans, per se. Taxonomically, they're a different tribe or sub-tribe or something.
Usually orcs appear in a medieval fantasy world. Real humans in medieval times were willing to discriminate against other humans on the basis of class, religion, family, or even because the Pope had excommunicated a fellow Christian, to the point that people would even attack and loot such people. So the bad rep and violent treatment of orcs seems historically appropriate. So does the idea of monsters in general, even in human form (see trolls, and the historical notion of orcs and goblins).
I do think that sometimes some of modern racial tensions can been seen being mirrored and vented at in some games in the guise of orcs and other monster races. And I have seen (intelligent but dysfunctional in other ways) parents make rules such as "you can't play games where you kill humans, but aliens and monsters are ok - and I can play GTA but you can't - hey let's play some HALO).
Anyway, yes having orcs generally involves strong themes of accepted intolerance and violence towards a group of thinking humanoids. Being overly appalled at games with them and where it's morally ok to kill them... seems likely to be naive, but may also point to some areas worth looking at if it can be done without annoying judgementalism. Certainly though I would rather play or watch a straightforward dwarf vs. orc bloodbath with no moral compunctions, than suffer through a belaboured morality struggle with the possibility of orc reconciliation.
One of my favorite and often-used version of orcs is actually the description in In The Labyrinth, where they're basically just aggression-oriented humans with pointy ears and teeth and more skin color varieties, and who tend to have violent leader-follower cultures, but have the same stats as humans. Just like humans but more so, they have plenty of individuals who are thugs, some more agreeable individuals, and also some smart, likeable, benevolent and civilized ones. This puts the "blame" for bad actions and resentment and prejudice mostly on the shoulders of culture and individuals. Sure there are discrimination/intolerance issues if one is interested in those, and there's the possibility for condoning what could probably be seen as horrible murderous behavior by players - but I'd say that's actually interesting and can ultimately be a good thing to have in a game because it can actually have players look at their own behavior in an imaginary context rather than towards actual real humans. Stifling and resisting messed up thinking is what has it persist until it explodes in ugly ways.
I'm not going to read the rpgnet thread. Nothing good ever comes from it.
But: it is remarkably easy to read the depiction of orcs as intentionally racist, if you are so inclined. Due to its popularity, Tolkien's work have been and sometimes still are appropriated by hard right escapists. It has happened before, it will happen again. However "can be re-interpreted by racists according to their world view" is not the same as intentionally racist.
However, there is also a premodern literary tradition influencing Tolkien's depiction of the work that is significantly older than classic racism, which can be traced from medieval chronicles to the Lord of the Ring: The depiction of outside raiders and invaders by the raided and invaded, using biblical images and motifs, the more apocalyptic the better. If you are so inclined, yes the prejudices and enmities of medieval times can be interpreted as racist, if you transfer completely modern, contemporary ideas and concepts into a medieval and therefore completely unmodern context.
The combination of real events and biblical motifs of destruction and apocalypse are a distinct trope of medieval reports about these outside forces, often bordering on the supernatural, mostly because the authors of these texts were monks who were familiar with the biblical elements.
So, clearly, the authors of medieval chronicles described the invaders and outsiders of their times, the Normans/Magyars/Turks/Mongols as the descendants of Gog and Magog, and clearly these enmities therefore must be horrible savages and, as all educated people knew that these invaders were harbingers of the endtime. They are followed by swarms of locusts, you know.
Eventually, the Turkish invasion of the Balkans and eastern Europe combined these already established tropes with a new-found panic throughout Europe after the conquest of Constantinople (including the even then highly anachronistic idea of a renewed crusade movement), new media technology to spread all kinds of texts thanks to the printing press and an audience interested in tales of horror and blood thirst (that was nothing new, nor has it changed significantly). This spawned a whole genre of literature, the Turk letters, and, due to the ongoing presence of the Osman Empire at the fringe of the European border, including the sieges of Vienna, these had various revivals and an ongoing tradition - up to and including World War II propaganda. Its core is basically a mixture of a dehumanization of the enemy with an exaggeration of its military prowess and a focus on these martial aspects. The military strength is interpreted as a result of savagery (instead of simply better educated troops, which is a lot closer to the historical facts).
Now, enter a very well read professor of literature, well versed in medieval literature and prose, trying to emulate medieval literature and its elements in his own universe. And yes, there are elements of Turcica writings in Tolkien's works - some quite obvious- bloodthirst, the feeling of a great danger from the East, even the symbols of hand and eye (hand of fatimah) or some a bit more subtle: from Orkish drums to mehter, the oldest ongoing military music tradition.
So yes, Tolkien's Orks are inspired by the depiction of outside forces, especially Turks. Helm's Deep is actually at the Kahlenberg.
Quote from: soltakss;839359I've just read the thread
Congratulations on being the only person in the thread to do so.
Quote from: Axiomatic;839640Congratulations on being the only person in the thread to do so.
Yeah, the thread title got changed pretty quickly to something more appropriate too, and most seemed to disagree with the OP.
We're a bunch of drama-llamas.
I'm disappointed, as this commentary thread is longer than the offending rpg.net thread.
So, who is easily offended?
Quote from: One Horse Town;839642Yeah, the thread title got changed pretty quickly to something more appropriate too, and most seemed to disagree with the OP.
We're a bunch of drama-llamas.
Oh hey, there's no doubt about it, that thread didn't end up being too bad. However, part of the reason is the author in question jumped in and did a decent job of defending himself, as well as the fact that the initial notion was pretty off-base from the outset in this case (and the thread starter was actually open to the notion that he was maybe reaching, which of course usually isn't the case with these deals). Other threads I've seen have been much worse...
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;839648Oh hey, there's no doubt about it, that thread didn't end up being too bad. However, part of the reason is the author in question jumped in and did a decent job of defending himself, as well as the fact that the initial notion was pretty off-base from the outset in this case (and the thread starter was actually open to the notion that he was maybe reaching, which of course usually isn't the case with these deals). Other threads I've seen have been much worse...
I think the recent "How can we improve" thread over there forced a few users to face some of the insanity, and there's been some backing away among the users. Maybe that's just my perception though.
I think this kind of stuff is worth talking about, as someone who voluntarily left rpg.net when things just got too weird. Talking about what was weird and why. The hangover of fandoms and communites over social justice crap.
It's gonna affect people for a while.
Theres only so many times one can have the same debate without it getting boring. And unlike many rpgnetters, echo chambers really disinterest me, and I think we're all pretty much of agreement on the subject, and our occasional trolls for the other side aren't representing at the moment.
Not to stoke the fire, however, but kinda amused Pundit hasnt started a thread about the Dark Albion thread over there where a user blatantly misrepresents him by saying he stated that playing Blue Rose "forces homosexuality" (which links to article in which he says he found the homosexual themes in the game heavy-handed and forced). But maybe even he gets tired of responding to the BS every once in a while.
Quote from: TristramEvans;839689Theres only so many times one can have the same debate without it getting boring.
As opposed to talking about Alignment or Dragonlance? :D
Everyone say hello to the SA goons stalking this thread!
Hello, goons!
Quote from: thedungeondelver;839720Everyone say hello to the SA goons stalking this thread!
Hello, goons!
Hello, fucktards!
Feel free to join the conversation if your balls ever drop.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;839717As opposed to talking about Alignment or Dragonlance? :D
Before that thread, I hadnt talked about Dragonlance in 15 years
Quote from: thedungeondelver;839720Everyone say hello to the SA goons stalking this thread!
Hello, goons!
Cool, how did you detect them!? Are they talking about us now somewhere? Can you link or quote any juicy comments from there? :D
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839728Cool, how did you detect them!? Are they talking about us now somewhere? Can you link or quote any juicy comments from there? :D
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3698899&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=59
Beware the stupidity and cowardice. Not even laugh-worthy.
Quote from: Axiomatic;839640Congratulations on being the only person in the thread to do so.
I've read the thread. It started off much the same old thing (as I said) but it does get better.
Quote from: TristramEvans;839737http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3698899&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=59
Beware the stupidity and cowardice. Not even laugh-worthy.
Aww shucks, you're right. That wasn't the fun I hoped it would be. :(
Try harder goons, you have a reputation to maintain!
Quote from: Axiomatic;839640Congratulations on being the only person in the thread to do so.
I read it. Congrats on being a dick. Next.
Yet another of the same ol same ol over there and elsewhere. The loonies post, the sane people, post the admin ban the sane people, (well ok that part might not have happened, yet) more sane people post, loonies rally, ad nausium.
But compared to many other threads, that one is pretty darn tame. And short so far.
QuoteQuotethey have some really unfortunate vibes of negative stereotypes of Pacific Islanders as violent xenophobic savages.
There is nothing in Shou society or culture that is related to Pacific Islander society or culture.
Their only commonality is that they live on a island.
I particularly like this very early reply. There are more good replies in the thread.
Quote from: TristramEvans;839737http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3698899&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=59
Beware the stupidity and cowardice. Not even laugh-worthy.
Ha! Isn't the guy who posted that the same guy who rage-quit freelancing for the new Exalted edition? I seem to recall a resemblance in user-name when i followed a link Nexus put up in the Exalted thread here.
Guess he found that writing game material took too much time from his shit-posting about opinions he doesn't like, made by people he doesn't like, on boards he doesn't like. :rotfl:
This thread does suck donkey balls though. I agree about that.
Quote from: One Horse Town;839806Ha! Isn't the guy who posted that the same guy who rage-quit freelancing for the new Exalted edition? I seem to recall a resemblance in user-name when i followed a link Nexus put up in the Exalted thread here.
Guess he found that writing game material took too much time from his shit-posting about opinions he doesn't like, made by people he doesn't like, on boards he doesn't like. :rotfl:
This thread does suck donkey balls though. I agree about that.
I wonder what the average age of a poster is there. I have a feeling that it's a lot of folks that grew up playing D&D 4E or late 3.x edition, went to college in 2010 and decided everything is a problem.
Quote from: Ulairi;839836I wonder what the average age of a poster is there. I have a feeling that it's a lot of folks that grew up playing D&D 4E or late 3.x edition, went to college in 2010 and decided everything is a problem.
Down to a single one they lost their collective minds when 5e was announced and even created fake "leaks" of outrageous rules to try and shit up early playtest discussion traffic, so I'd say you were pretty close to right.
Well, good to see Plague of Hats is still a massive douche. Shine on you fucking manchild.
If you're worried about the pretend race being racist, or the pretend culture is "Appropriating" anything, or the pretend violence has horrible real world implications...
You should probably get out of this hobby and never come back.
I never thought I'd see the day where Progressive's became the establishment rallying against Dungeons and Dragons like the 80's right wing conservatives did..
It's just, instead of leading to "Satan" now it leads to "Sexism" and "Racism".
Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss.
Quote from: Orphan81;839928If you're worried about the pretend race being racist, or the pretend culture is "Appropriating" anything, or the pretend violence has horrible real world implications...
You should probably get out of this hobby and never come back.
I think the Pundit is right and many of the people with such concerns don't regularly play. Many have likely left the RPG hobby and are enjoying their current hobby of being very concerned about books they'll never buy or use. I imagine they'll buy some books that they consider acceptable and sufficiently thematic and interesting looking that they can effectively function as a coffee table book. Actually play or run RPGs? Maybe once a year at a sufficiently progressive small RPG convention or maybe via Skype every once in a blue moon, if at all.
Quote from: NathanIW;839936I think the Pundit is right and many of the people with such concerns don't regularly play. Many have likely left the RPG hobby and are enjoying their current hobby of being very concerned about books they'll never buy or use. I imagine they'll buy some books that they consider acceptable and sufficiently thematic and interesting looking that they can effectively function as a coffee table book. Actually play or run RPGs? Maybe once a year at a sufficiently progressive small RPG convention or maybe via Skype every once in a blue moon, if at all.
I'm starting to think this is true myself. I have a campaign going on at all times, sometimes 2 of them. I'm constantly writing material for my games or planning future one's I want to run...
I never see these guys talking about their current campaigns, of what's going on with them, or even if their in the midst of playing something..
Combine that with the sheer amount of posts they have on their respective forums and you get this picture of someone whose just spending all their time bitching online and trying to look smugly superior for being offended at Orcs while others are not.
Quote from: Omega;839248Since when was tribalism racist?
Er, well it probably is the basis of most racism just write large.
Quote from: Orphan81;839928If you're worried about the pretend race being racist, or the pretend culture is "Appropriating" anything, or the pretend violence has horrible real world implications...
You should probably get out of this hobby and never come back.
That's a bit harsh.
Some people don't want to play in certain settings because of the content.
That's fine - People can always choose the setting they play in and how they play.
If someone doesn't want to play in a setting with racist/sexist/homophobic/prejudiced content, then they shouldn't have to. They can choose to play in a different setting. That is far better than leaving the hobby altogether.
I also read the thread, and it's actually a good thread.
Better than this one.
mmmm.
and I totally agree with my esteemed colleague above:
QuoteSome people don't want to play in certain settings because of the content.
That's fine - People can always choose the setting they play in and how they play.
If someone doesn't want to play in a setting with racist/sexist/homophobic/prejudiced content, then they shouldn't have to. They can choose to play in a different setting. That is far better than leaving the hobby altogether.
Quote from: NathanIW;839936I think the Pundit is right and many of the people with such concerns don't regularly play. Many have likely left the RPG hobby and are enjoying their current hobby of being very concerned about books they'll never buy or use. I imagine they'll buy some books that they consider acceptable and sufficiently thematic and interesting looking that they can effectively function as a coffee table book. Actually play or run RPGs? Maybe once a year at a sufficiently progressive small RPG convention or maybe via Skype every once in a blue moon, if at all.
We see it too in boardgaming. People who act like snobs and hate on some game essentially "because someone told me to." not because they actually played the game. Seen this sort of behavior for just about anything since at least the 90s, provably 80s.
Quote from: soltakss;840118That's a bit harsh.
As harsh as say, attacking entire RPG publishing companies on their portrayal of fictitious beings, or their game's portrayal of overt analog cultures as being racist? I think it's not harsh at all. I think its common sense.
Quote from: soltakss;840118Some people don't want to play in certain settings because of the content.
Sure. Some people don't. So in keeping with the point of the thread (and several of its corollary threads from TBP) - is it necessary to make hyperbolic claims that do not exist about the nature of a game for it's own sake? Why not take it to some other logical extreme - are Orcs a manifestation of "rape-culture"? Or are the assumptions of your views on D&D that all half-orcs are the product of consensual sex?
Here's a better way of dealing with it: If it suits the needs of your game, rock on. If it doesn't - don't consume the material and let it trouble your little soul.
Quote from: soltakss;840118That's fine - People can always choose the setting they play in and how they play.
then why even post this response? See below...
Quote from: soltakss;840118If someone doesn't want to play in a setting with racist/sexist/homophobic/prejudiced content, then they shouldn't have to. They can choose to play in a different setting. That is far better than leaving the hobby altogether.
Two things - 1) This quote flies in the face of your previous one. One of them requires no statement whatsoever. I'd argue that both are stipulated writ-large for *all gaming*. Unless you're a hostage of a gaming terrorist with a gun held up to your head and you're being forced to play their racist/sexist/homophobic/prejudiced game.
2) The spurious logic used to even fuel this notion of Orcs-as-racists (as pointed out - they are as a conceit of their nature in-game) - and people being too sensitive to "handle it", probably means that any pastime which requires acceptance of any distinction will fall into the same idiotic fallacious logic-pattern.
There's always kneedle-point. I hear that's not very racist.
Quote from: tenbones;840166There's always kneedle-point. I hear that's not very racist.
Dunno about that. You don't see much black wool do you?
Hm, I honestly didn't realize that so many people in the RPG community considered orcs to be that much of problematically racist concept.
Noted for future reference. I'd rather not get quoted on g.txt again and get labelled as a bigot any more. Especially since I don't feel that I'm an awful person. Man the internet gets me down a lot these days, but I guess that's part of the learning process?
Quote from: Necrozius;840174Noted for future reference. I'd rather not get quoted on g.txt again and get labelled as a bigot any more. Especially since I don't feel that I'm an awful person. Man the internet gets me down a lot these days, but I guess that's part of the learning process?
At this point, I think 'bigot' and 'racist' have been devalued alongside 'fascist' and (in a less serious context) 'munchkin' to the point where they're usually little more than empty curses.
Quote from: One Horse Town;840170Dunno about that. You don't see much black wool do you?
You said "black". That's totally racist. What's wrong with you?
Quote from: Necrozius;840174Hm, I honestly didn't realize that so many people in the RPG community considered orcs to be that much of problematically racist concept.
"They" don't. Only dumbasses on TBP and the smaller enclaves where these same idiots gather to warm-themselves like penguins surrouned by their deep-winter storms of butthurt.
Quote from: Necrozius;840174Noted for future reference. I'd rather not get quoted on g.txt again and get labelled as a bigot any more. Especially since I don't feel that I'm an awful person. Man the internet gets me down a lot these days, but I guess that's part of the learning process?
That's why you need to not do what they're doing: don't victimize yourself over your feelings. They do not define you. Their opinions on some board do not validate you. Unless you let them. Otherwise you're letting your feelings get in the way of your reason. Just like they do about RPG's.
Goons ain't shit. Fuck them. Don't care.
Quote from: tenbones;840185where these same idiots gather to warm-themselves like penguins surrounded by their deep-winter storms of butthurt.
awesome!!!
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;839253I'm so tired and bored of this sort of crap...I wish all the navel-gazing SJWs would crawl back into their holes and go back to sleep. THey aren't helping anyone or solving any problems...
The only way that will happen is the internet implodes and literally vanishes. As long as they have a venue to get together and get a sense of belonging, they will. Which to me is the biggest crime of the internet: Giving the crazies a chance to build a home and find like-minded people to shout from.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;840236Goons ain't shit. Fuck them. Don't care.
What he said. I hung out on a goon-affiliated fandom site for a while before I clued in to what was going on, so I can attest to their ain't-shitness.
Of course orcs are racist! Have you heard the kind of shit they say about gnomes?
Meanwhile, on rpgnet, Samurai as a character class might be racist:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?760063-5e-not-a-thread-June-Survey/page8
Sample quote:
QuoteIn a fantasy game predominantly themed on Western culture, mythology and fantasy, where the only difference between a Samurai and a Fighter or Paladin or Knight is that the Samurai is, "like, Asian and stuff" (thematically and/or mechanically), it's pretty racist (how racist it is depends on execution).
In a fantasy game predominantly themed on East Asian or Japanese culture, mythology, and fantasy, it might not be (might not be, because the game itself could be an Orientalist pastiche, and thus the existence of a "samurai" class is far from the most racist thing about it)... Historical faithfulness isn't the reason the Samurai class is racist. Orientalism is.
Consider that alongside this article about a touring Monet exhibit being forced to stop giving a demonstration kimono to white visitors as they had done during their leg in Japan:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2015/07/07/mfa-backs-down-over-kimono-event-response-protests/lv9NHcnpW0lsRE77d9hvkI/story.html
What a minefield this is all becoming. Tread lightly. :eek:
A while back I joked that Legend of the Five Rings would soon be taboo. Maybe it wasn't such a joke after all.
My Japanese head just exploded.
Edit: why did I click that thread? Why? It goes to Cthulu's anus. Why am I surprised it was Cthulu's anus, when it clearly states "Come to Cthulu's anus, click here!" and lo and behold... I saw the inside of Cthulu's anus.
Edit 2: So by this idiotic criteria - WHAT ISN'T racist that has a cultural feel distinct from D&D Fantasy watered down western euro-fantasy? Greek Spartans using a shield and spear? RACIST. Hobgoblins using O-Yori armor with slanted eyes? RACIST. Black warriors that happen to be from a jungle kingdom? DOUBLE-RACIST. LOL these people are idiots.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840510Meanwhile, on rpgnet, Samurai as a character class might be racist:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?760063-5e-not-a-thread-June-Survey/page8
Sample quote:
Consider that alongside this article about a touring Monet exhibit being forced to stop giving a demonstration kimono to white visitors as they had done during their leg in Japan:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2015/07/07/mfa-backs-down-over-kimono-event-response-protests/lv9NHcnpW0lsRE77d9hvkI/story.html
What a minefield this is all becoming. Tread lightly. :eek:
A while back I joked that Legend of the Five Rings would soon be taboo. Maybe it wasn't such a joke after all.
What I fucking love about that idiot over on RPG.net is that he is so fucking white. It's perfect. He is like those creepy dudes that would hit on my wife when she'd go to the stupid japanese cartoon club meetings. (my wife is is chinese/japanese). Fucking terrible people.
Quote from: tenbones;840515My Japanese head just exploded.
Edit: why did I click that thread? Why? It goes to Cthulu's anus. Why am I surprised it was Cthulu's anus, when it clearly states "Come to Cthulu's anus, click here!" and lo and behold... I saw the inside of Cthulu's anus.
http://cthulhusanus.com
???
Quote from: Brad;840519http://cthulhusanus.com
???
That which has been seen, cannot be unseen.
That schlorking noise is the sound of my sanity points going down the drain...
Quote from: tenbones;840515Edit: why did I click that thread? Why? It goes to Cthulu's anus. Why am I surprised it was Cthulu's anus, when it clearly states "Come to Cthulu's anus, click here!" and lo and behold... I saw the inside of Cthulu's anus.
I loled.
To be fair though, someone later in that thread made the rather excellent suggestion of having samurai be a background (in 5e terms) rather than a class. I'm going to mull that one over.
Quote from: tenbones;840515Edit 2: So by this idiotic criteria - WHAT ISN'T racist that has a cultural feel distinct from D&D Fantasy watered down western euro-fantasy? Greek Spartans using a shield and spear? RACIST. Hobgoblins using O-Yori armor with slanted eyes? RACIST. Black warriors that happen to be from a jungle kingdom? DOUBLE-RACIST. LOL these people are idiots.
That is the SJW dilemna
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DBFZfSiEzDU/VK1810gpN9I/AAAAAAAAAMM/dUSGE8hourA/s1600/stephen_lea_sheppard_rpg_net_idiot.tiff)
The solution , of course, is to roll your eyes and then simply never ever play with any such people in your group. They aren't hard to identify, in fact there's an easy test: just randomly, for know reason, say "boobs", and see how they react.
Meanwhile, for an actually intelligent examination of orientalism and rpgs, check out the final issue of Paul Mason's Imazine.
Quote from: TristramEvans;840537That is the SJW dilemna
"No ethical way for me to pursue this hobby." So he's bitching that he's too lazy to make up crap, which means he has to rely on his horrible racists misconceptions, which in turn is BAD. So, either don't be lazy, or don't be a fucking idiot and ascribe racism to every single thing that might not be 100% accurate.
"...There may in fact be no ethical way for me to pursue this hobby-"
LOL Oh my fucking god that's hysterical.
The ANGST of it.
Extra special snowflake points for calling himself "A creative".
Sweet Jesus...
No... I need Vengeful Jesus. Just toss the lightning-bolt already...
My wife is half Chinese and half Japanese. The only RPG she's ever had any interest in playing in L5R and I own the latest edition as well as the Second City box set because of her and her friends. Now, because I'm white, if I play it's obviously orientalism. But, when I ran it for my wife and two of her asian friends (and one of my friends) was their enjoyment due to oreintalism or due to them liking it because it's myth based on their cultural touchstones and they do not identify as much with the western mythology?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840535I loled.
To be fair though, someone later in that thread made the rather excellent suggestion of having samurai be a background (in 5e terms) rather than a class. I'm going to mull that one over.
That's what I did in my 5e game. But with the caveat it's for the social class of what a Samurai represents for non-fighters/fighters. I started a samurai fighter specialty, but it's still in the works.
Quote from: tenbones;840515Edit 2: So by this idiotic criteria - WHAT ISN'T racist that has a cultural feel distinct from D&D Fantasy watered down western euro-fantasy? Greek Spartans using a shield and spear? RACIST. Hobgoblins using O-Yori armor with slanted eyes? RACIST. Black warriors that happen to be from a jungle kingdom? DOUBLE-RACIST. LOL these people are idiots.
A "Fighter" wearig generic, featureless armor with completely occludes their ethnicity and gender.
I'd like to note, that of all the mods at RPGnet, StephenLS is one I only ever respected. Maybe not for his opinions, but because he genuinely seemed a nice person who seriously considered several PoV and seemed not to have an ego on the line. That was my experience with him over the time I was posting on that site.
Now, obviously I find the quoted passage absolutely ridiculous, but I cant help but feel anything but pity for him. He's obviously bought into a specific worldview and is trying to match it with his personal ethics. This is what I find corrosive about the SJWs. Their rhetoric is so wrapped up in "this is Good and Right and everything else is evil" , that when someone who actually wants to be a good person and isnt simply using Social Justice as an excuse for hatred and self-promotion, it just fucks with their heads. It uses guilt to enforce toeing the line, the same way that certain religions do.
Thats why its a parasite on this hobby, and any other geek hobby it tries to get its claws into.
Quote from: Nexus;840549A "Fighter" wearig generic, featureless armor with completely occludes their ethnicity and gender.
Right. That's like saying "Atari 2600 combat is better than Battlefield 4 because it's less problematic having Americans kill Chinese."
Quote from: TristramEvans;840550I'd like to note, that of all the mods at RPGnet, StephenLS is one I only ever respected. Maybe not for his opinions, but because he genuinely seemed a nice person who seriously considered several PoV and seemed not to have an ego on the line. That was my experience with him over the time I was posting on that site.
My experience with him over at TBP before I was banned was similar. But then after I was banned he said some off-color shit as I recall about me, and of course by that time I couldn't respond. So /shrug. Whatever. It's clear that no amount of discussion over a forum of whining ankle-biters there would surmount that kind of angst in that capture. That's a pretty steep level of self-loathing and intellectual disgust.
Quote from: TristramEvans;840550Now, obviously I find the quoted passage absolutely ridiculous, but I cant help but feel anything but pity for him. He's obviously bought into a specific worldview and is trying to match it with his personal ethics. This is what I find corrosive about the SJWs. Their rhetoric is so wrapped up in "this is Good and Right and everything else is evil" , that when someone who actually wants to be a good person and isnt simply using Social Justice as an excuse for hatred and self-promotion, it just fucks with their heads. It uses guilt to enforce toeing the line, the same way that certain religions do.
Thats why its a parasite on this hobby, and any other geek hobby it tries to get its claws into.
I agree. It's rather terrifying. I've felt like, ever since the Zak and Pundit-5e debacle, on top of Gamergate (my wife is in the computer gaming business) and the sheer amount of shit-brown Kool-Aid, people I'm actually close to apparently have been secretly guzzling, is revealed and suddenly they start up on this self-flagellating assault on anything distinct-as-evil. Its like we've woken up and Invasion of the Body Snatchers has happend in our RPG community.
It's fucking weird. I stand my ground where I can tho. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion, but I'm not the kind of person that let's emotional pandering be passed of objective fact. Especially at other people's expense (most especially my own).
Back on target...
Are Orcs racist? Yes. Generally speaking they are.
The real question is: Do using Orcs as racists in your RPG's make you a racist?
I maintain - no. It doesn't say anything about you at all. No more than watching a horror movie makes you an axe-murderer.
It might/should be another thread - Fantasy Racism as a gaming trope. Where is it justified and good conflict? where does it seem highly conflated and dumb.
Quote from: tenbones;840573Right. That's like saying "Atari 2600 combat is better than Battlefield 4 because it's less problematic having Americans kill Chinese."
Yep. And if that was instituted as the norm there would be cries of "Erasure" so you can't win.
Quote from: TristramEvans;840537That is the SJW dilemna
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DBFZfSiEzDU/VK1810gpN9I/AAAAAAAAAMM/dUSGE8hourA/s1600/stephen_lea_sheppard_rpg_net_idiot.tiff)
It's almost hilarious how self-defeating these people are. "Eurofantasy is generic, bland, and overdone but basing fantasy settings around other cultures is racist, appropriative, and unethical."
For people who claim they want more diversity in gaming, they seem hellbent on stifling any attempts to do just that.
Quote from: Marvelous_Metal_Man;840589It's almost hilarious how self-defeating these people are. "Eurofantasy is generic, bland, and overdone but basing fantasy settings around other cultures is racist, appropriative, and unethical."
For people who claim they want more diversity in gaming, they seem hellbent on stifling any attempts to do just that.
Given Stephenls' involvement in Exalted which is just jammed packed with
non Eurofantasy influences he seems to have gotten over his issues.
Quote from: Nexus;840591Given Stephenls' involvement in Exalted which is just jammed packed with non Eurofantasy influences he seems to have gotten over his issues.
Maybe.
Or maybe this is his own personal version of playing Vampire the Masquerade. He's a monster who whines about the angsty-ness of being a monster, but he just can't help himself. He must create to survive, but his creations are by their very nature problematic and unethical. Oh wow is he. Wow is he! Don't you just feel the unfortunate white man's angst? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bren;840593Oh wow is he. Wow is he!
I hate to be a spelling shitlord, but it's "woe". Don't hate me. :(
The rest of your post is spot-on.
Quote from: Marvelous_Metal_Man;840589It's almost hilarious how self-defeating these people are. "Eurofantasy is generic, bland, and overdone but basing fantasy settings around other cultures is racist, appropriative, and unethical."
For people who claim they want more diversity in gaming, they seem hellbent on stifling any attempts to do just that.
It makes sense if you conclude the endgoal is "generate as much outrage as possible."
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840600I hate to be a spelling shitlord, but it's "woe". Don't hate me. :(
The rest of your post is spot-on.
Well shit. :banghead: That either makes the sarcasm less funny or, depending on your point of view, sort of makes me part of the joke. I'm not mad. Contrarily I laughed out loud. Really. I mean not the LOL but the real thing. I guess that's why I never one the state spelling bee. (That won was on purpose.)
BTW, I like the new avatar. Torpedoes locked.
Quote from: TristramEvans;840604It makes sense if you conclude the endgoal is "generate as much outrage as possible."
Manufactured outrage, self righteousness and self loathing seem to the main drives for much this.
You will never be able to please whining piss babies because they're always dying for something to whine about and have people pay attention to them.
Quote from: tenbones;840575Back on target...
Are Orcs racist? Yes. Generally speaking they are.
But are they? Most depictions of orcs have them as warlike. Warlike does not = racist. If they were racist they probably wouldnt be banging humans so often. They are often depicted as not liking elves, but usually the feeling is mutual and disliking the guys you are warring with or want to destroy does not = racist.
Really. Some factions of Dwarves and Elves tend to be depicted as sometimes flat out racist. Orcs tend to just want to crack skulls and get it on.
Quote from: Omega;840639But are they? Most depictions of orcs have them as warlike.
I'll answer by quoting myself.
Quote from: Bren;839244The Moria Orcs hate the Uruk Hai from Isengard, the Isengarders hate the Morder Orcs, the Morder Orcs hate the Minis Ithil Orcs, and everybody hates the little Snaga Orcs. The Orcs in the Lord of the Rings are all a butch of fucking racists.
Or were you maybe talking about some other kinds of Orcs?
It's not like there is just one version of Orcs. Personally I like the old ways and the sort of Orcs where you don't want to eat the jerky unless you know who it is from. The PCing of Orcs appeals to me almost as little as invention of Dark Elves and the subsequent PCing of Dark Elves and that Dzzurr Drool Drizzit or whatever the name is of that two-sword wielding angsty muchkinized GMPC.
Quote from: Omega;840639If they were racist they probably wouldnt be banging humans so often.
:confused:
Fighters committing racist genocide in real life are known for raping the women of the group they hate; it has
nothing to do with respect and everything to do with sadism, terrorism, and opportunity.
Quote from: Omega;840639But are they? Most depictions of orcs have them as warlike. Warlike does not = racist. If they were racist they probably wouldnt be banging humans so often. They are often depicted as not liking elves, but usually the feeling is mutual and disliking the guys you are warring with or want to destroy does not = racist.
Really. Some factions of Dwarves and Elves tend to be depicted as sometimes flat out racist. Orcs tend to just want to crack skulls and get it on.
I'm talking about bog-standard D&D (Realms at least) Orcs. Of course they're warlike, but they're also racists, by dint of the fact they believe all other races are inferior. I'll leave this here for you to ponder the implications beyond the outright obvious...
Traditional orcish culture is extremely warlike and when not at war the race is usually planning for it. Most orcs approach life with the belief that to survive, one must subjugate potential enemies and control as much resources as possible, which puts them naturally at odds with other races as well as themselves. This belief is spurred in part by Gruumsh and his pantheon, which teaches that all races are inferior to the orcs. Eyes of Gruumsh are orcs specially tied to the one-eyed god and offer sacrifices, read omens, and advise tribes through Gruumsh's will.
Male orcs dominate most orcish societies and females are usually, at best, prized possessions and little better than livestock at worst. Male orcs pride themselves on their number of wives and sons, as well as their scars from battle and rituals. Orcs also prize the possession of slaves, though relatively few own them.And I should add: THIS IS FINE. Are there exceptions to this generalization? Sure, why not. There are exceptions to most generalizations. It doesn't mean as a game developer it makes you a racist to use them or even to emphasize the Orc's racist tendencies - you know, because *they're not real*.
Quote from: jhkim;839240Some great authors - like H.P. Lovecraft, R.E. Howard, and E.R. Burroughs - had blatantly racist views in the real world, and in some cases, they expressed these views in their fantasy.
In fairness to Burroughs, Barsoom was racially diverse and the white Martians were the only ones with no redeeming qualities. If he were writing today, there would be an immense thread of complaint about reverse discrimination and SJWs, and misterguignol would have to host a party to soothe feelings and help find white men.
On the other hand, while the Lord of the Rings has a definite swarthy=evil thing, orcs are orcs. I can imagine racist stereotypes recast as fantasy races that would put me off, but orcs are very far from that.
Quote from: rawma;840781In fairness to Burroughs, Barsoom was racially diverse and the white Martians were the only ones with no redeeming qualities.
The green martians receive quite a shitting on though, even if a few of them are redeemable. Then again, you really have to squint to interpret them as a depiction of a particular real-world culture.
Quote from: rawma;840781In fairness to Burroughs, Barsoom was racially diverse and the white Martians were the only ones with no redeeming qualities. If he were writing today, there would be an immense thread of complaint about reverse discrimination and SJWs, and misterguignol would have to host a party to soothe feelings and help find white men.
On the other hand, while the Lord of the Rings has a definite swarthy=evil thing, orcs are orcs. I can imagine racist stereotypes recast as fantasy races that would put me off, but orcs are very far from that.
I don't think Tolkien was particularly racist, which is why I didn't mention him. However, I think the racism of Lovecraft, Howard, and Burroughs are all pretty evident in their stories.
I don't think allowing for redeeming features means no racism. Sure, in his later Tarzan stories, Burroughs included some ignorant-but-well-intentioned blacks that Tarzan allied with - and likewise in later Barsoom stories he showed more redeeming traits to the barbarous Green Martians. Portraying that blacks can be brave and have good rhythm doesn't mean he wasn't racist - it's a part of racism. In one scene, Birth of a Nation shows a black maid heroically defending her white owner's family from marauding Union troops. That doesn't make it non-racist.
Quote from: tenbones;840722And I should add: THIS IS FINE. Are there exceptions to this generalization? Sure, why not. There are exceptions to most generalizations. It doesn't mean as a game developer it makes you a racist to use them or even to emphasize the Orc's racist tendencies - you know, because *they're not real*.
This is backwards. It's fine to portray the existence of racism regardless of whether it's fictional or not. If I have racist Nazis in my game, that doesn't make me a racist.
Conversely, suppose I have a game where I have a heroic order of paladins who are intent on racial purity - and they go around slaughtering orc women and children to prevent more orcs from breeding. That's nasty shit to portray, and you'd be right to give me crap about it. Just like you'd be right to, say, have issues if I ran a pedophiliac game of Maid - even though no real children were touched.
Quote from: jhkim;840787I don't think allowing for redeeming features means no racism. Sure, in his later Tarzan stories, Burroughs included some ignorant-but-well-intentioned blacks that Tarzan allied with - and likewise in later Barsoom stories he showed more redeeming traits to the barbarous Green Martians. Portraying that blacks can be brave and have good rhythm doesn't mean he wasn't racist - it's a part of racism.
He imported racist stereotypes of his time into the Tarzan stories (which I never read and would just as soon ignore); in his own world-building of Barsoom he didn't. It's something, however small.
Quote from: Planet Algol;840636You will never be able to please whining piss babies because they're always dying for something to whine about and have people pay attention to them.
This is true. Really, this site thrives on it.
Quote from: Bren;840644I'll answer by quoting myself.
But that is again tribalism or near gang level antics. That isnt racist unless we are using racist now to mean "dont like something".
"I hate car thieves!" - "You racist you!"
"Im a vegetarian!" - "You racist you!"
Quote from: rawma;840803He imported racist stereotypes of his time into the Tarzan stories (which I never read and would just as soon ignore); in his own world-building of Barsoom he didn't. It's something, however small.
I can't tell if we're just disagreeing about specifics judgment of Edgar Rice Burroughs, or if we have a deeper disagreement, so I'm going to try a hypothetical.
Let's suppose there was a writer in the 1930s, and we knew for certain that he believed in racial essentialism, including:
* Blacks are naturally big and tough, but also generally dumb, superstitious, and lazy. Still, they are good at sports and dance, and they can be brave and loyal.
* Orientals are short and flexible, generally hard-working and well-behaved, but they are repressed and hidebound, and untrustworthy.
* Jews are medium-sized and hairy, and generally smart, but they are greedy and clannish.
He doesn't hate any race, but he makes sure his doctor is Jewish and not black, and he hires a Chinese man as his gardener to be hard-working, and so forth. He has a view of racial harmony of each race in its place, doing what they do best.
Now let's say this person writes a fantasy world. In his fantasy world, there are fictional races that don't have any one-to-one matchup with real-world races. These aren't real-world races, but he puts in exactly his themes of real-world racial harmony, with each race in their place.
On the one hand, this is better than him writing a book with stereotyped real-world races, but still, I don't think it's correct to say that his fantasy world has nothing to do with racism just because the races are fictional. Would you agree?
Quote from: Omega;840854But that is again tribalism or near gang level antics. That isnt racist unless we are using racist now to mean "dont like something".
"I hate car thieves!" - "You racist you!"
"Im a vegetarian!" - "You racist you!"
Tolkien describes the Orcs as looking physically very different. Morphologically there is more of a difference between what humans call our races. And that's not even getting into the hate between species like Orcs and Dwarves or Goblins (Orcs) and Elves. I'm not seeing a bright line between tribalism and racism. When the other tribe looks like a different race, isn't that racism?
Quote from: Omega;840854But that is again tribalism or near gang level antics. That isnt racist unless we are using racist now to mean "dont like something".
"I hate car thieves!" - "You racist you!"
"Im a vegetarian!" - "You racist you!"
Racism is a special case of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is just a fancy word for saying "my group is better than yours". It's the same dynamic, no matter what word you use.
In the incredible The Lost Continent (AKA Beyond Thirty) Edgar Rice Burroughs had a post-apocalyptic Europe of 2116 A.D. where whites were naked savages and Ethiopian blacks were a sophisticated industrial civilization. Not what I expected from a 1916 pulp novel.
Quote from: jhkim;840859I can't tell if we're just disagreeing about specifics judgment of Edgar Rice Burroughs, or if we have a deeper disagreement, so I'm going to try a hypothetical.
I think we have more disagreement over Tolkien than Burroughs; you did notice where I said only that it's "something, however small"? I'll concede that I like his Barsoom stories and that probably biases me to greater forgiveness of his flaws.
Your hypothetical is hilarious, so soon after you complained about someone's implied binary. I don't concede that it accurately maps to Burroughs, whose first Barsoom novel was from 1912 and featured a positive portrayal of miscegenation. The races of Barsoom are not "each in their place"; John Carter upsets the existing balance by deposing tyrants and allying with honorable Martians of all races. I don't know whether your description accurately characterizes Burroughs' beliefs about race, or how far his views deviated from his contemporaries; it is certainly an issue to discover that an author whose work you like held repellent views on race, but I can think of much worse examples. And since I never said "nothing to do with racism", your conclusion is apparently part of an argument with someone you made up in your own head. So you'll have to excuse me for not taking you as an authority on who in the long past was too racist.
I'll leave it to other people to say whether you should only use "Oriental" for rugs and food, not people.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;840877In the incredible The Lost Continent (AKA Beyond Thirty) Edgar Rice Burroughs had a post-apocalyptic Europe of 2116 A.D. where whites were naked savages and Ethiopian blacks were a sophisticated industrial civilization. Not what I expected from a 1916 pulp novel.
Good point.
I read that book decades ago so I had to refresh my memory using Wikipedia. It was consistent with my vague recollection--the Abyssinians aren't portrayed as exactly enlightened, more as an inversion of white racist views. (Blacks in charge, whites as slaves.) Without going back to the text I couldn't say if this was intended to elicit a kneejerk sense of revulsion at the upending of the natural order, or enable the presumably white audience to empathize with all victims of slavery. It would be especially interesting know what kind of status was held by non-whites in Pan-America.
Maybe I'll dig out my copy.
Quote from: Arminius;840927I read that book decades ago so I had to refresh my memory using Wikipedia. It was consistent with my vague recollection--the Abyssinians aren't portrayed as exactly enlightened, more as an inversion of white racist views. (Blacks in charge, whites as slaves.) Without going back to the text I couldn't say if this was intended to elicit a kneejerk sense of revulsion at the upending of the natural order, or enable the presumably white audience to empathize with all victims of slavery. It would be especially interesting know what kind of status was held by non-whites in Pan-America.
Maybe I'll dig out my copy.
Whatever the case may be, it at least implies Burroughs believed all races are capable of building and maintaining advanced, world-power level societies, which is a truth a lot of racists would reject.
Oh, found it on Project Gutenberg. I'll just leave this:
QuoteColonel Belik was much surprised, however, upon his part to learn of the great nation which lay across the ocean, and when he found that I was a naval officer, he was inclined to accord me even greater consideration than formerly. It was difficult for him to believe my assertion that there were but few blacks in my country, and that these occupied a lower social plane than the whites.
Just the reverse is true in Colonel Belik's land. He considered whites inferior beings, creatures of a lower order, and assuring me that even the few white freemen of Abyssinia were never accorded anything approximating a position of social equality with the blacks. They live in the poorer districts of the cities, in little white colonies, and a black who marries a white is socially ostracized.
[...]
The Abyssinians themselves are a fine looking race of black men—tall, muscular, with fine teeth, and regular features, which incline distinctly toward Semitic mold—I refer to the full-blooded natives of Abyssinia. They are the patricians—the aristocracy. The army is officered almost exclusively by them. Among the soldiery a lower type of negro predominates, with thicker lips and broader, flatter noses. These men are recruited, so the colonel told me, from among the conquered tribes of Africa. They are good soldiers—brave and loyal. They can read and write, and they are endowed with a self-confidence and pride which, from my readings of the words of ancient African explorers, must have been wanting in their earliest progenitors. On the whole, it is apparent that the black race has thrived far better in the past two centuries under men of its own color than it had under the domination of whites during all previous history.
Without getting too fancy about the author's stance vis à vis the first-person narrator, this reads as a racist mind trying to free itself from racism, but not quite getting there.
Edit: Shipyard Locked, I'm being a little harsh toward Burroughs. On a skim, the book's treatment of race is very interesting. The Abyssinians of all ranks are portrayed as voracious readers and devout in their belief in their civilizing mission to bring Christianity to the barbarians. The first soldiers encountered are cavalrymen. One might take them as a deliberate reflection of the antebellum South or 19th century ideas of the white man's burden.
I read that decades ago. The only thing I recall is the Abyssinian Empire. I liked the concept as it was initially presented and I remember using it as a mental place holder for my 'empire' whenever I ended up with Africa as a starting point in Risk. It reads pretty racist from a modern viewpoint. Painful to read at times, in the same way it is sometimes painful watching female roles in 1960s TV shows.
Edgar Rice Burroughs kicks ass!! I didn't appreciate him as a teen, but I rediscovered his work a few years ago and I was amazed by his powerful, fast paced storytelling. I am surprised Hollywood hasn't mined his lesser known works.
Quote from: Spinachcat;841161Edgar Rice Burroughs kicks ass!! I didn't appreciate him as a teen, but I rediscovered his work a few years ago and I was amazed by his powerful, fast paced storytelling. I am surprised Hollywood hasn't mined his lesser known works.
He's like REH in that I wish Hollywood would just do a straight up adaptation of one of his stories rather than warping them into something they think will sell, but rarely does.
Quote from: Spinachcat;841161Edgar Rice Burroughs kicks ass!! I didn't appreciate him as a teen, but I rediscovered his work a few years ago and I was amazed by his powerful, fast paced storytelling. I am surprised Hollywood hasn't mined his lesser known works.
Actually, I tend to think of
At The Earth's Core,
The Land That Time Forgot and
The People That Time Forgot as being pretty obscure, but they all got (not very good) film treatments (although the two "...Time Forgot" were pretty well received by the public).
Quote from: Spinachcat;841161Edgar Rice Burroughs kicks ass!! I didn't appreciate him as a teen, but I rediscovered his work a few years ago and I was amazed by his powerful, fast paced storytelling. I am surprised Hollywood hasn't mined his lesser known works.
Yeah, I like ERB's writing a lot.
I used the examples of Lovecraft, Howard, and Burroughs because they're all excellent writers, in my opinion.
Quote from: TristramEvans;839689Not to stoke the fire, however, but kinda amused Pundit hasnt started a thread about the Dark Albion thread over there where a user blatantly misrepresents him by saying he stated that playing Blue Rose "forces homosexuality" (which links to article in which he says he found the homosexual themes in the game heavy-handed and forced).
Starting a thread here? I don't see the point. The lies were being told over there; and thankfully someone there pointed out as much.
Quote from: Marvelous_Metal_Man;840311Of course orcs are racist! Have you heard the kind of shit they say about gnomes?
The gnomes deserve it.
LOL doesn't that reveal that Gnomes are racists against Orcs?
Quote from: tenbones;840547That's what I did in my 5e game. But with the caveat it's for the social class of what a Samurai represents for non-fighters/fighters. I started a samurai fighter specialty, but it's still in the works.
To be honest, it's nothing more than a reskinning of either the Soldier or the Noble background in 5e... Doesn't require much retooling.
Quote from: tenbones;841933LOL doesn't that reveal that Gnomes are racists against Orcs?
Gnomes aren't racist. They punch up.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;841937Gnomes aren't racist. They punch up.
Gnomes are like Harry Callahan, they hate EVERYONE.
(Then they gnomemurder them.)
Well of course orcs are racist! You're small, fragile, and bathe far too frequently, you puny little humie. Ain't it easy to tell whose the master race around here?
(Orcs actually come from Tolkien's strong dislike of industrialization, where they are his industrialized war-race, mass produced and numbered, so if they're racist they're racist against like... 19th century England and the industrial revolution?)
Quote from: GreyICE;841940Well of course orcs are racist! You're small, fragile, and bathe far too frequently, you puny little humie. Ain't it easy to tell whose the master race around here?
(Orcs actually come from Tolkien's strong dislike of industrialization, where they are his industrialized war-race, mass produced and numbered, so if they're racist they're racist against like... 19th century England and the industrial revolution?)
Most people that get into it & then get mad would say the depiction pf orcs is classist 1st and racist 2nd...
Also in LotR orcs are smaller than humans and usually weaker, as well as inferior warriors*, allthough they're tougher than humans (roughly as tough as dwarves or hobbits). They're mooks (allthough mooks with lots of stamina), and probably intended to be. Uruks are way bigger and stronger, "man-sized", and more dangerous overall except, possibly, for that odd age thing**.
*=this is why Sauron wants human warriors. They're better Fighters. Much better. Even if their gear is inferior, human > orc, that's why Sauron hasn't killed off humanity in the regions he rules. Simply put, he'd much rather have 1000 haradrim or easterlings or other "swarthy" men than 5000 orcs, even though orcs may sometimes be more efficient.
**=some think that orcs can get as old as Elves, it's just that it's extremely rare. That's an edge for common orcs over uruks.
Quote from: The Ent;841944Most people that get into it & then get mad would say the depiction pf orcs is classist 1st and racist 2nd...
Also in LotR orcs are smaller than humans and usually weaker, as well as inferior warriors*, allthough they're tougher than humans (roughly as tough as dwarves or hobbits). They're mooks (allthough mooks with lots of stamina), and probably intended to be. Uruks are way bigger and stronger, "man-sized", and more dangerous overall except, possibly, for that odd age thing**.
*=this is why Sauron wants human warriors. They're better Fighters. Much better. Even if their gear is inferior, human > orc, that's why Sauron hasn't killed off humanity in the regions he rules. Simply put, he'd much rather have 1000 haradrim or easterlings or other "swarthy" men than 5000 orcs, even though orcs may sometimes be more efficient.
**=some think that orcs can get as old as Elves, it's just that it's extremely rare. That's an edge for common orcs over uruks.
Well of course they are. Because belonging to an industrial society makes you smaller, and all you're good for is taking a beating. You're just another faceless goon (seriously, Tolkien's politics bled through his writing very hard). For fucks sake, Sauron numbered them. Like each individual one.
Fortunately Gygax wisely chose to ignore that bullshit, and gave us goblins and kobolds for our disposable trash monster needs.
Quote from: GreyICE;841949Well of course they are. Because belonging to an industrial society makes you smaller, and all you're good for is taking a beating. You're just another faceless goon (seriously, Tolkien's politics bled through his writing very hard). For fucks sake, Sauron numbered them. Like each individual one.
Fortunately Gygax wisely chose to ignore that bullshit, and gave us goblins and kobolds for our disposable trash monster needs.
I don't disagree at all! :)
I quite like the Gygaxian humanoid set-up.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;841935To be honest, it's nothing more than a reskinning of either the Soldier or the Noble background in 5e... Doesn't require much retooling.
It depends entirely on the conceits of your game. For me - Samurai absolutely should be a background, and could fit into either Noble or Soldier. But if you want a tweak of the culture - you can toss in some slight differences.
Same goes for the Archetype for the Fighter Class. A "Champion" is a signifier or nothing but whatever the flavor-text and mechanical representations present to the player. Battlemaster as well. They represent as names only whatever the GM agrees to utilize them for.
I see no reason, except laziness, to not give cultural references of classic cultural fighting archetypes the same treatment, if only to differentiate the "Fighter" a bit more. If someone has some issue with that - heh, thats their problem. Not mine.
Spartans, Viking Berserker, Knights, Chanshi, Kensei, Sohei, Immortal, Legionaire, Gladiator etc. etc. have their place in my games as fighter archetypes that could be easily fleshed out. But that's just me.
Quote from: tenbones;841954Spartans, Viking Berserker, Knights, Chanshi, Kensei, Sohei, Immortal, Legionaire, Gladiator etc. etc. have their place in my games as fighter archetypes that could be easily fleshed out. But that's just me.
And all of which can be duplicated by retooling everything that's all in 5e? Why must people want to have their own classes for everything? Do we really want to have a plethora of classes again? Are we that much for Special Snowflake-ness?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;842074And all of which can be duplicated by retooling everything that's all in 5e? Why must people want to have their own classes for everything? Do we really want to have a plethora of classes again? Are we that much for Special Snowflake-ness?
Nah. Not classes, just archetypes. So you're a fighter with the Samurai archetype. (Actually for me it will be a fighter with a Bushi archetype and a samurai background, or something like that)
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;840540"...There may in fact be no ethical way for me to pursue this hobby-"
Wouldn't it be lovely if Sheppard and all the other Swine who say stuff like this actually MEANT it, and weren't just bullshitting to try to show off to everyone just how profoundly 'activist' they are? And as a result of really meaning it, left our hobby forever?
That would fucking rock.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;841937Gnomes aren't racist. They punch up.
Hehe. :D
But seriously, the whole concept of punching up/down gives me a headache these days.
Quote from: RPGPundit;842090Wouldn't it be lovely if Sheppard and all the other Swine who say stuff like this actually MEANT it, and weren't just bullshitting to try to show off to everyone just how profoundly 'activist' they are? And as a result of really meaning it, left our hobby forever?
That would fucking rock.
That would require actual conviction and principles that outweigh their addiction to self-loathing and victimization-as-ratification. Quite a difficult thing to accomplish. it's sooo much easier to do nothing at all and bemoan their own plight! the annggssst!!!
Quote from: GreyICE;841940Well of course orcs are racist! You're small, fragile, and bathe far too frequently, you puny little humie. Ain't it easy to tell whose the master race around here?
(Orcs actually come from Tolkien's strong dislike of industrialization, where they are his industrialized war-race, mass produced and numbered, so if they're racist they're racist against like... 19th century England and the industrial revolution?)
Yes, Orcs are Classist - Tolkien (and Games Workshop) orcs talk like cockneys. In Marxist terms they exemplify rural/suburban bourgeois fear of the urban proletariat. Of course this isn't an issue in the USA, so through cultural appropriation from the original English source, Americans may make Orcs about race instead of class - IME they generally get used as a 'Red Indian' stand-in in D&D's version of the Wild West. Which then leads to 'noble savage' Orcs too.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;842123Hehe. :D
But seriously, the whole concept of punching up/down gives me a headache these days.
At least someone found it funny.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840510Meanwhile, on rpgnet, Samurai as a character class might be racist:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?760063-5e-not-a-thread-June-Survey/page8
Sample quote:
Consider that alongside this article about a touring Monet exhibit being forced to stop giving a demonstration kimono to white visitors as they had done during their leg in Japan:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2015/07/07/mfa-backs-down-over-kimono-event-response-protests/lv9NHcnpW0lsRE77d9hvkI/story.html
What a minefield this is all becoming. Tread lightly. :eek:
A while back I joked that Legend of the Five Rings would soon be taboo. Maybe it wasn't such a joke after all.
That exhibit thing gets to be the stupidest thing I've read all week. Seriously? A painting made in protest against what is called Orientalist today, and people protesting because visitors are allowed to dress as the model?
Quote from: TristramEvans;840538The solution , of course, is to roll your eyes and then simply never ever play with any such people in your group. They aren't hard to identify, in fact there's an easy test: just randomly, for know reason, say "boobs", and see how they react.
Meanwhile, for an actually intelligent examination of orientalism and rpgs, check out the final issue of Paul Mason's Imazine.
I agree with the recommendation.
Quote from: tenbones;840575It might/should be another thread - Fantasy Racism as a gaming trope. Where is it justified and good conflict? where does it seem highly conflated and dumb.
That might actually be interesting.
Quote from: Nexus;840591Given Stephenls' involvement in Exalted which is just jammed packed with
non Eurofantasy influences he seems to have gotten over his issues.
The current Exalted might turn out to be a lot more Eurocentric than the last one.
Orcs tend to be quite bigoted against Elves. If you're an Elf, just see what you get at an Orcish lunch counter or an Orcish fountain! This is not much of a live issue, since both correspond to a shithole in the Auld High Tongue.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;840540"...There may in fact be no ethical way for me to pursue this hobby-"
.
When the logical conclusion of an idea leads you here, then that tells you a lot (and that does seem to be the logical conclusion here). I think it is important to be respectful toward the source of something (I don't think it is a positive thing to be deliberately insulting when you draw on tropes for example). But the notion of cultural appropriation really seems to more about dividing people into tribes than bringing them together and encouraging exchange of ideas. I've also noticed it creating some strange arguments in the music community (where borrowing a musical style is being equated with stealing IP). In gaming this is especially troublesome because fantasy worlds are basically built on borrowing elements of culture and inventing on them.
Quote from: AsenRG;842652That exhibit thing gets to be the stupidest thing I've read all week. Seriously? A painting made in protest against what is called Orientalist today, and people protesting because visitors are allowed to dress as the model?
Ass backward it is: Prohibiting people from sharing stuff is a recipe to
keep it "exotic," not to make it familiar!
It just happens that plenty of people would enjoy trying on a kimono; there's nothing sinister about it. Sometimes protestors are just being jackasses.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;842656But the notion of cultural appropriation really seems to more about dividing people into tribes than bringing them together and encouraging exchange of ideas.
Quote from: Phillip;842660Ass backward it is: Prohibiting people from sharing stuff is a recipe to keep it "exotic," not to make it familiar!
Funny, that's exactly what I stated on RPG.net:D! One would almost assume it's a logical conclusion multiple people are reaching separately.
I'm not sure whether I also signaled the moderators for hidden racism;).
Quote from: S'mon;842623Yes, Orcs are Classist - Tolkien (and Games Workshop) orcs talk like cockneys.
Grishnakh, from LotR doesn't sound Cockney to me.
Quote'My dear tender little fools," hissed Grishnakh, 'everything you have, and everything you know, will be got out of you in due time: everything! You'll wish there was more that you could tell to satisfy the Questioner, indeed you will: quite soon. We shan't hurry the enquiry. Oh dear no! What do you think you've been kept alive for? My dear little fellows, please believe me when I say that it was not out of kindness: that's not even one of Ugluk's faults."
Quote from: S'mon;842623Yes, Orcs are Classist - Tolkien (and Games Workshop) orcs talk like cockneys.
Do they in Tolkien? I never noticed. Obviously the Warhammer orcs do.
He may have mistaken the orcs from LotR for the trolls from the Hobbit.
Quote from: Axiomatic;842851He may have mistaken the orcs from LotR for the trolls from the Hobbit.
Or mistaken Tolkien for Peter Jackson...
Quote from: TristramEvans;840537That is the SJW dilemna
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DBFZfSiEzDU/VK1810gpN9I/AAAAAAAAAMM/dUSGE8hourA/s1600/stephen_lea_sheppard_rpg_net_idiot.tiff)
And this is why rpg.net has problems.
On the plus side, the internal monologue will spiral into a never-ending pit of self-referential efforts at avoiding any sort of externalization of "the other" which will mean nothing further gets done, until ultimately, like some sort of Burroughsian monstrosity, the angst-ridden introspective will crawl up into his or her own ass and disappear.
.
.
.
.
.
Also, totally unrelated (yet also totally related) I just want to say THANK YOU to the Troll Lord Games people for still allowing chainmail bikinis in Castles & Crusades. Without angsting once about it.
Quote from: camazotz;843190And this is why rpg.net has problems.
I just noticed his self-description as "a creative." Reminds me of the term "bright." What bullshit! Like Stephen is some special type of intellect because he makes up shit for playing elves. What an intellectually classist ass.
Jesus fuck, that is uhh... something else. Sometimes when I see shit like that I almost stop and wonder if they are serious or if it's just some sort of SJW status dance that is done for points.
Quote from: Arkansan;843224Jesus fuck, that is uhh... something else. Sometimes when I see shit like that I almost stop and wonder if they are serious or if it's just some sort of SJW status dance that is done for points.
Depends on the person. Stephen always seemed like an earnest fellow to me. There are many who just do it for attention, or to troll, or in some cases they just use the whole SJW ethos as a front for being vitriolic little shits.
It's...kinda like Watchmen I guess.
Quote from: TristramEvans;843227Depends on the person. Stephen always seemed like an earnest fellow to me.
Isn't he the Freaks and Geeks gamemaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lea_Sheppard)?
Quote from: Bren;843214I just noticed his self-description as "a creative." Reminds me of the term "bright." What bullshit! Like Stephen is some special type of intellect because he makes up shit for playing elves. What an intellectually classist ass.
I think he meant creative as in someone who makes stuff for the game industry.
Quote from: Lynn;843253Isn't he the Freaks and Geeks gamemaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lea_Sheppard)?
I believe so yes. I know he was in The Royal Tenenbaums. Apparently he lives in a burb of the city I live in.
Also, that poor suffering halo polishing, crusader against misogyny used to pull a cheque reviewing video games for Vice magazine...
Quote from: Planet Algol;843264Also, that poor suffering halo polishing, crusader against misogyny used to pull a cheque reviewing video games for Vice magazine...
I take it there's an implication there, but I've never heard of that magazine (which means nothing, really, I haven't read Magazines since Wizard was a thing)
Quote from: TristramEvans;843268I take it there's an implication there, but I've never heard of that magazine (which means nothing, really, I haven't read Magazines since Wizard was a thing)
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/poster-v12n1
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843255I think he meant creative as in someone who makes stuff for the game industry.
As a literate INDIVIDUAL, I took it to mean he's a moron who cannot tell the difference between a noun and an adjective.
Quote from: Kellri;843287As a literate INDIVIDUAL, I took it to mean he's a moron who cannot tell the difference between a noun and an adjective.
It's a word now. You may not like it but it is.
http://www.capacitron.com/graphic-design/creative-noun/
Here's the dictionary. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creative) Check out meaning 1 for definition 2 "Creative as a noun".
Quote from: Enlightened;843299It's a word now. You may not like it but it is.
http://www.capacitron.com/graphic-design/creative-noun/
Here's the dictionary. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creative) Check out meaning 1 for definition 2 "Creative as a noun".
Using creative as a noun instead of as an adjective is an informal usage. I question his decision to use an informal word instead of the more commonly used words such as creator (the usual noun for one who creates) or designer (the commonly used noun for people who design RPGs). Rather than assume he is just plain ignorant of ordinary English usage and industry norms, I presumed he chose the non-standard word for a reason. And his word choice comes with certain negative connotations that are consistent with some of the other negative aspects of his world view as revealed in the rest of his post.
Quote from: Kellri;843287As a literate INDIVIDUAL, I took it to mean he's a moron who cannot tell the difference between a noun and an adjective.
It is an informal noun.
Quote from: Bren;843316Using creative as a noun instead of as an adjective is an informal usage. I question his decision to use an informal word instead of the more commonly used words such as creator (the usual noun for one who creates) or designer (the commonly used noun for people who design RPGs). Rather than assume he is just plain ignorant of ordinary English usage and industry norms, I presumed he chose the non-standard word for a reason. And his word choice comes with certain negative connotations that are consistent with some of the other negative aspects of his world view as revealed in the rest of his post.
I don't know. I see this word a lot increasingly to refer to anyone involved in writing, design, art, etc. It is actually pretty handy because lots of people do more than one thing, so calling them a creative, is an easy way to wrap that up. I think we are reading too deep into the guy's word choice here (which to be fair is one of the reasons I dislike things like Political Correctness in the first place...it gives undo weight to minor decisions about words). I do think the conclusion he reaches in that post is strange and an example of how crippling some of these concepts can become, but I can't rip the guy apart for using an informal noun.
Quote from: Enlightened;843299It's a word now. You may not like it but it is.
http://www.capacitron.com/graphic-design/creative-noun/
Here's the dictionary. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creative) Check out meaning 1 for definition 2 "Creative as a noun".
Then he's more than welcome to check his creative privilege, like the proper white knight that he is.
Y'know I didnt post that just to invite a bunch of childish personal attacks on the fellow. Have some class folks.
Quote from: Planet Algol;843276http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/poster-v12n1
Ah, I see.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843323I don't know. I see this word a lot increasingly to refer to anyone involved in writing, design, art, etc. It is actually pretty handy because lots of people do more than one thing, so calling them a creative, is an easy way to wrap that up.
I have not noticed this usage before. How is the meaning of "a creative" different than "a creator"?
QuoteI think we are reading too deep into the guy's word choice here (which to be fair is one of the reasons I dislike things like Political Correctness in the first place...it gives undo weight to minor decisions about words). I do think the conclusion he reaches in that post is strange and an example of how crippling some of these concepts can become, but I can't rip the guy apart for using an informal noun.
You may be correct and that is always a danger in a very close reading of the wording. But "creative" struck me as jarring and on a second reading, annoying. To me,
creator is something one does, whereas
creative sounds like something one is or is not. And creative seem clearly to be a higher status category than non-creative. Which seems part and parcel of the sort of dividing people into categories that is at the foundation of social justice analysis.
Quote from: Planet Algol;843276http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/poster-v12n1
Haha. Tells it all doesn't it.
Quote from: Bren;843371I have not noticed this usage before. How is the meaning of "a creative" different than "a creator"?
.
I see it quite a bit. I am not sure of the difference between the two. In my mind, creator suggests someone who originates something (the person who starts a live) while a creative can include a contributor in a wide range of capacities. I am sure there are a few words with cross over here.
Quote from: Bren;843371I tor"?
You may be correct and that is always a danger in a very close reading of the wording. But "creative" struck me as jarring and on a second reading, annoying. To me, creator is something one does, whereas creative sounds like something one is or is not. And creative seem clearly to be a higher status category than non-creative. Which seems part and parcel of the sort of dividing people into categories that is at the foundation of social justice analysis.
I think it's a bit of a reach in this case. My reading is he is saying that because he has been a contributor to WoD. I think he is just trying to make a distinction here that it is his in his capacity as a contributor to the industry side of the hobby that he is being affected. But even if I am incorrect, at worst he is just saying it is affecting him as a person involved in a creative pastime. I have no interest in parsing that for hidden classist content anymore than I have an interest in finding hidden racist content in orcs. In this case, what he says is already giving us enough to focus on rather than how he says it.
Well describing yourself as "a creative" seems pretty pretentious and self-important. I too, like BB, think putting classism in it is stretching a bit though. Allthough there's a bunch of classism in TBP of course.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843374I see it quite a bit. I am not sure of the difference between the two. In my mind, creator suggests someone who originates something (the person who starts a live) while a creative can include a contributor in a wide range of capacities. I am sure there are a few words with cross over here.
I agreed with Brendan - I see "Creative" used a lot among graphic designers and writers of various types.
Quote from: Lynn;843381I agreed with Brendan - I see "Creative" used a lot among graphic designers and writers of various types.
Yeah, I do too. Even in my circles. I generally attribute it to people that actually produce "things" as part of their lifestyle. The weird thing for me is I've never heard anyone make self-references "as a creative" in the singular sense. It's usually done as a group generalization "well you know, creatives live different lifestyles than the 'straights'. " or some shit like that.
It has a whiff of Kanyeism referring to himself as such... but who cares.
To me, while Sheppard might well be a nice guy, the totality of fail in his post speaks to a much larger problem that I don't lay at his feet: but to all the idiots that identify with the horrible tail-eating logic contained in it.
The amount of self-loathing one has to be consuming to come to these retarded conclusions is a little breathtaking. Because it's being made without any consideration for the larger context or downstream effects of the logic he's using. And we all know despite his, and those who will pat him on the back and agree with him, attempts at crafting this sad little confession - there is a gigantic amount of dissonance OR disingenuity to it. Perhaps both? Because very simply, as he comes to his inevitable conclusions his "hobby" might not be in accordance with his warped view of his own ethics, he perseveres on doing it anyway.
So either he is being honest - in which case he's guilty of violating his own ethical standards (as fucked in the head as they appear to be). Or he's making a call to show his SJW credentials and using his own hobby as a proxy to show that he's trying. Poorly, though it might seem to colored people, but dammit, he's TRYING! and that makes his entire post meaningless, because he continues to participate in doing what he identifies as "problematic".
Let's not get into the logical pitfalls of eating other cultures food, wearing styles of clothing, consuming their entertainment! oh my. Where does it end?
Fools. All of them.
Edit: I saw a video yesterday of a college-age kid in AZ attacking a religious protester physically, because he didn't like the guy's sign. The protester said he was practicing free speech. the kid screamed back "I hate free speech! It provokes aggression!"...
Well put, tenbones. Well put.
Of course a person with SJW attitudes can't be truly creative really, wich makes him referring to himself as "a creative" full of total fail. It's not about creating, it's the opposite, it's stopping people from creating stuff by making up stupid, destructive rules about what can and can't be done.
In truth, the SJWs truly are very Victorian. Thou shalt not!
(Oh and WW/Onyx Path(etic) is hardly very creative)
Quote from: tenbones;843395Edit: I saw a video yesterday of a college-age kid in AZ attacking a religious protester physically, because he didn't like the guy's sign. The protester said he was practicing free speech. the kid screamed back "I hate free speech! It provokes aggression!"...
That's so SJW it hurts.
Wouldn't surprise me if it was one of those nobody mods on TBP - you know the ones, the non-entities that's never contributed worth a damn but works for WW/Onyx Path/works on Exalted and, voila, mod!
Quote from: The Ent;843414Wouldn't surprise me if it was one of those nobody mods on TBP - you know the ones, the non-entities that's never contributed worth a damn but works for WW/Onyx Path/works on Exalted and, voila, mod!
That actually crossed my mind when I saw it.
Here it is. Jesus...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SISq_y_WhKg
LOL he sounds like a man-child.
Quote from: tenbones;843419That actually crossed my mind when I saw it.
Here it is. Jesus...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SISq_y_WhKg
LOL he sounds like a man-child.
I've watched this over and over. While I don't think the kid should have rushed the guy holding the sign, he slammed him on the pavement pretty hard. The kid also seems like he might have something seriously wrong with him mentally (his demeanor and the way he spoke didn't sound normal at all). I understand that once things get physical it is hard to judge and respond in a measured way. That seemed like it was too much force for what the kid was doing. I am certainly concerned about the rise of hostility toward free speech (I've seen some articles in the past few months that have simply stunned me), but the boneheaded things he said were at the end of a protracted physical confrontation so I don't know that I would give it a whole lot of weight.
granted. I don't even agree with anything put on the sign. But at the point where you're willing to lose it enough to attack someone... over whatever is on the sign or what someone says... that event stands on its own.
But yeah - the hystrionics makes it hard to to watch other than being laughable.
Quote from: Planet Algol;843276http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/poster-v12n1
OK, at least that was mildly funny.
Quote from: tenbones;843395Let's not get into the logical pitfalls of eating other cultures food, wearing styles of clothing, consuming their entertainment! oh my. Where does it end?
Fools. All of them.
Yeah. I remember when some guy tried to tell a friend that practiced karate at the time that this is "Asian stuff and not for us white people". At the time we called that guy a racist and a moron. (And nobody faulted my friend for offering him to leave or to eat a very Asian punch delivered by a very Bulgarian fist).
When did it become the other way around? Is my friend a cultural appropriator now (I believe he's still practicing)?
O tempora, o mores!
Quote from: tenbones;843421granted. I don't even agree with anything put on the sign. But at the point where you're willing to lose it enough to attack someone... over whatever is on the sign or what someone says... that event stands on its own.
But yeah - the hystrionics makes it hard to to watch other than being laughable.
What did the sign say? I couldn't read it at all.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843424What did the sign say? I couldn't read it at all.
QuoteWarning
Masturbators
Thieves Liars
Drunkards
Fornicators
Homosexuals
Judgement Day
Nothing to get that upset about.
Some of my best friends resemble those people!
C'mon, masturbators?!?!? Dude... you poor poor man.
Quote from: Melichor;843426Nothing to get that upset about.
That's a pretty shitty sign.
Gotta love this:
Quote.......
Masturbators.......
So he hates everybody except the three people in the world who don't masturbate.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843433That's a pretty shitty sign.
Except the sign isn't really saying anything. It's a list with a warning about judgement day.
If you read into it then you can make it as shitty as you want. Which is what the intent is.
And it worked, as the video shows.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843420I've watched this over and over. While I don't think the kid should have rushed the guy holding the sign, he slammed him on the pavement pretty hard. The kid also seems like he might have something seriously wrong with him mentally (his demeanor and the way he spoke didn't sound normal at all).
That's what I thought as well.
No matter what the kid's problem was, if he isn't in a proper mental state (through use of will power, medication or available intervention of helper / companion animal) to
keep his hands off other people, he shouldn't be in public.
Quote from: Melichor;843437Except the sign isn't really saying anything. It's a list with a warning about judgement day.
If you read into it then you can make it as shitty as you want. Which is what the intent is.
And it worked, as the video shows.
I think the idea is you are you supposed to put the warning about judgement day together with all the things on the list. I doubt it was some performance art piece where he was juxtaposing two unrelated lists of things just to get a reaction. It looks to me like it is trying to warn people that he thinks god will be judging everyone on the list because the end is nigh.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843443It looks to me like it is trying to warn people that he thinks god will be judging everyone on the list because the end is nigh.
It always is...for someone.
Quote from: Melichor;843437Except the sign isn't really saying anything. It's a list with a warning about judgement day.
If you read into it then you can make it as shitty as you want. Which is what the intent is.
And it worked, as the video shows.
It's essentially an abridged version of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;843463It's essentially an abridged version of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Abridged? Try 'mutilated'.
Quote from: Lynn;843381I agreed with Brendan - I see "Creative" used a lot among graphic designers and writers of various types.
Like 'storyteller'?
Quote from: Kellri;843487Like 'storyteller'?
Usually when I encounter it it is to distinguish between people working the creative end of a project versus a technical or business end of a product.
While I'm sure it was never intentional, Gygax's American upbringing unconsciously colored his development of the D&D backdrop. Under this interpretation, goblinoids, orcs and other humanoids are stand-ins for Native Americans whereas the party/fellowship of the ring/murderhobos represent white settlers/cowboys/conquistador/nazis. Russians like to cast Sauron as some sort of communist hero in fanfics, so this isn't much a stretch.
Of course, the real problem is not the accidental subconscious racism. The real problem is that D&D is a crime fantasy. The PCs wander around killing villages of disenfranchised minorities and looting their homes. Designers might try to mitigate this by making the victims into always evil monsters, but that only causes more problems because the victims are otherwise living, breathing people. 5th edition D&D even went so far as to say that orcs have no free will.
Designers shouldn't be trying to "solve" the problem of butchering caricatures by justifying it. We should be trying to solve the problem by changing the victims from caricatures to human (or equivalent) criminals endowed with self-determination. D&D settings are full of bandits, raiders and so forth who choose to be evil rather than being (as absurd as it sounds) born evil. Rather than creating entire fictional races who exist only to be slaughtered and looted, why not just use actual criminals who deserved to be punished? It's not perfect by any stretch, but it is far less philosophically problematic.
As Game of Thrones demonstrates, humans can be far more evil than any orc. In fact, Tolkien's orcs actually did demonstrate personhood qualities like a cannibalism taboo, loyalty, camaraderie, vengeance, pragmatism, and a desire to retire after the war ended.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503Designers shouldn't be trying to "solve" the problem of butchering caricatures by justifying it. We should be trying to solve the problem by changing the victims from caricatures to human (or equivalent) criminals endowed with self-determination.
Let me see if I got this, your solution to the "problem" of killing fictional fantasy species is to switch to killing fictional humans. Did I get that right? :confused:
As a solution this seems nutty; perhaps it would help if you clarified what the exact "problem" is that you are trying to solve.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843499Usually when I encounter it it is to distinguish between people working the creative end of a project versus a technical or business end of a product.
I'm in a field where the creative people are called scientists. Maybe that's why the "creative" label isn't something I've seen before.
Or, alternatively, Gary wrote a game based on a bunch of shit he read in books that were popular at the time.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503While I'm sure it was never intentional, Gygax's American upbringing unconsciously colored his development of the D&D backdrop. Under this interpretation, goblinoids, orcs and other humanoids are stand-ins for Native Americans whereas the party/fellowship of the ring/murderhobos represent white settlers/cowboys/conquistador/nazis. Russians like to cast Sauron as some sort of communist hero in fanfics, so this isn't much a stretch.
.
This seems like an enormous stretch to me. The argument seems to be that because Gygax was an American he must have subconsciously used orcs as native Americans. What's the evidence for that other than mere speculation? If Gygax had been born in the early 1800s, I could certainly see this point having some weight. But I think more likely he was just basing them of things he found in books like Lord of the rings and they seemed like cool, ugly monsters for a fantasy game.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;843506Or, alternatively, Gary wrote a game based on a bunch of shit he read in books that were popular at the time.
I'm more leaning towards this, than most of the overthought wank we've been getting in this thread.
Also, I'm going to answer the Title of this thread:
Yes, most Orcs are Racist. As well as Classist and Speciest, especially in D&D. They've been led to believe that everything they see belongs to them, and that they should take it. No other creature is worthy of respect, or even, life if they deem it so.
Does that make them evil? Maybe. But that does make them racist.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503While I'm sure it was never intentional, Gygax's American upbringing unconsciously colored his development of the D&D backdrop. Under this interpretation, goblinoids, orcs and other humanoids are stand-ins for Native Americans whereas the party/fellowship of the ring/murderhobos represent white settlers/cowboys/conquistador/nazis. Russians like to cast Sauron as some sort of communist hero in fanfics, so this isn't much a stretch.
What the fuck?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503Of course, the real problem is not the accidental subconscious racism.
The real problem is the mental gymnastics needed to make this concept even remotely likely.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503We should be trying to solve the problem by changing the victims from caricatures to human (or equivalent) criminals endowed with self-determination. D&D settings are full of bandits, raiders and so forth who choose to be evil rather than being (as absurd as it sounds) born evil. Rather than creating entire fictional races who exist only to be slaughtered and looted, why not just use actual criminals who deserved to be punished? It's not perfect by any stretch, but it is far less philosophically problematic.
I don't think it's less philosophically problematic at all. In fact it's worse. If we are going to overthink our silly little game of make-believe to this extent, then we must acknowledge that real-world criminals are often driven into their unlawful activities by circumstances beyond their control. Poverty, discrimination, bad genetics, bad parenting, peer pressure, a terrible culture, any and all of these things can strongly push any luckless individual born into them toward a life of crime.
Then we're right back where we started, with outrage-seeking-missile-people wondering which real-life disenfranchised groups we are secretly, gleefully pretend-murdering.
I prefer to simply not overthink glorified sessions of cops-and-robbers.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503As Game of Thrones demonstrates, humans can be far more evil than any orc. In fact, Tolkien's orcs actually did demonstrate personhood qualities like a cannibalism taboo, loyalty, camaraderie, vengeance, pragmatism, and a desire to retire after the war ended.
WTF.:banghead:
1) nope. Nope nope nope. Humans CANNOT really be way more evil than orcs, as orcs are essentially exaggerated parodies of the worst and lowest bits of humanity
2) "personhood qualities"? Wtf?
3) vengeance and pragmatism ain't positive
4) they don't show real cameraderie, they're backstabbers to the core
That's all.
However there's worse humanoids than Middle Earth Orcs - like Discworld Goblins.
This is one of the better trolls I've seen in a while.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503While I'm sure it was never intentional, Gygax's American upbringing unconsciously colored his development of the D&D backdrop. Under this interpretation, goblinoids, orcs and other humanoids are stand-ins for Native Americans whereas the party/fellowship of the ring/murderhobos represent white settlers/cowboys/conquistador/nazis. Russians like to cast Sauron as some sort of communist hero in fanfics, so this isn't much a stretch.
Of course, the real problem is not the accidental subconscious racism. The real problem is that D&D is a crime fantasy. The PCs wander around killing villages of disenfranchised minorities and looting their homes. Designers might try to mitigate this by making the victims into always evil monsters, but that only causes more problems because the victims are otherwise living, breathing people. 5th edition D&D even went so far as to say that orcs have no free will.
Designers shouldn't be trying to "solve" the problem of butchering caricatures by justifying it. We should be trying to solve the problem by changing the victims from caricatures to human (or equivalent) criminals endowed with self-determination. D&D settings are full of bandits, raiders and so forth who choose to be evil rather than being (as absurd as it sounds) born evil. Rather than creating entire fictional races who exist only to be slaughtered and looted, why not just use actual criminals who deserved to be punished? It's not perfect by any stretch, but it is far less philosophically problematic.
As Game of Thrones demonstrates, humans can be far more evil than any orc. In fact, Tolkien's orcs actually did demonstrate personhood qualities like a cannibalism taboo, loyalty, camaraderie, vengeance, pragmatism, and a desire to retire after the war ended.
ha! LOL...oh this is good! A perfect representation of the friggin mental mess that is the SJW stance on everything. Well done!
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503While I'm sure it was never intentional, Gygax's American upbringing unconsciously colored his development of the D&D backdrop. Under this interpretation, goblinoids, orcs and other humanoids are stand-ins for Native Americans whereas the party/fellowship of the ring/murderhobos represent white settlers/cowboys/conquistador/nazis. Russians like to cast Sauron as some sort of communist hero in fanfics, so this isn't much a stretch.
Of course, the real problem is not the accidental subconscious racism. The real problem is that D&D is a crime fantasy. The PCs wander around killing villages of disenfranchised minorities and looting their homes. Designers might try to mitigate this by making the victims into always evil monsters, but that only causes more problems because the victims are otherwise living, breathing people. 5th edition D&D even went so far as to say that orcs have no free will.
Designers shouldn't be trying to "solve" the problem of butchering caricatures by justifying it. We should be trying to solve the problem by changing the victims from caricatures to human (or equivalent) criminals endowed with self-determination. D&D settings are full of bandits, raiders and so forth who choose to be evil rather than being (as absurd as it sounds) born evil. Rather than creating entire fictional races who exist only to be slaughtered and looted, why not just use actual criminals who deserved to be punished? It's not perfect by any stretch, but it is far less philosophically problematic.
As Game of Thrones demonstrates, humans can be far more evil than any orc. In fact, Tolkien's orcs actually did demonstrate personhood qualities like a cannibalism taboo, loyalty, camaraderie, vengeance, pragmatism, and a desire to retire after the war ended.
You can tell good parody when you cannot tell the difference between the satire and the real thing. Bravo!
Quote from: tenbones;843430Some of my best friends resemble those people!
C'mon, masturbators?!?!? Dude... you poor poor man.
I'm still wondering why they put an object in a list with human qualities. I mean, a masturbator is something sex shops are happy to sell you, right:D?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843433That's a pretty shitty sign.
Gotta love this:
So he hates everybody except the three people in the world who don't masturbate.
It is just a sign saying "most of you aren't up to my standards":).
And to be fair, asexuals probably don't masturbate, either. So there's slightly more than three people like that in the world.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;843463It's essentially an abridged version of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Doesn't mean people who recognised themselves are going to like it.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503While I'm sure it was never intentional, Gygax's American upbringing unconsciously colored his development of the D&D backdrop. Under this interpretation, goblinoids, orcs and other humanoids are stand-ins for Native Americans whereas the party/fellowship of the ring/murderhobos represent white settlers/cowboys/conquistador/nazis. Russians like to cast Sauron as some sort of communist hero in fanfics, so this isn't much a stretch.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
QuoteOf course, the real problem is not the accidental subconscious racism. The real problem is that D&D is a crime fantasy. The PCs wander around killing villages of disenfranchised minorities and looting their homes. Designers might try to mitigate this by making the victims into always evil monsters, but that only causes more problems because the victims are otherwise living, breathing people. 5th edition D&D even went so far as to say that orcs have no free will.
Well, 5e has a point. If they don't have free will, you don't have to kill them. You can just become the Guy In Charge, and issue better orders.
QuoteDesigners shouldn't be trying to "solve" the problem of butchering caricatures by justifying it. We should be trying to solve the problem by changing the victims from caricatures to human (or equivalent) criminals endowed with self-determination. D&D settings are full of bandits, raiders and so forth who choose to be evil rather than being (as absurd as it sounds) born evil. Rather than creating entire fictional races who exist only to be slaughtered and looted, why not just use actual criminals who deserved to be punished? It's not perfect by any stretch, but it is far less philosophically problematic.
Let me check it again. You're actually suggesting that murderous vigilantism is somehow better, ethically speaking, from killing people because they're your enemies (due to ethnicity)?
I don't see that as much of an improvement.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;843512I'm more leaning towards this, than most of the overthought wank we've been getting in this thread.
Also, I'm going to answer the Title of this thread:
Yes, most Orcs are Racist. As well as Classist and Speciest, especially in D&D. They've been led to believe that everything they see belongs to them, and that they should take it. No other creature is worthy of respect, or even, life if they deem it so.
Does that make them evil? Maybe. But that does make them racist.
Ahem, that makes them criminals. Nothing more, nothing else. That's how most criminals actually operate.
Quote from: The Ent;843579WTF.:banghead:
1) nope. Nope nope nope. Humans CANNOT really be way more evil than orcs, as orcs are essentially exaggerated parodies of the worst and lowest bits of humanity
The presentation in Tolkien, however, leaves them as essentially more sympathetic than some humans.
Quote3) vengeance and pragmatism ain't positive
And animals display those as well.
Quote4) they don't show real cameraderie, they're backstabbers to the core
I'd disagree, but let's not turn it into a discussion of LotR.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;843602ha! LOL...oh this is good! A perfect representation of the friggin mental mess that is the SJW stance on everything. Well done!
You
hope this is a parody;).
Quote from: AsenRG;843623Ahem, that makes them criminals. Nothing more, nothing else. That's how most criminals actually operate.
D&D Orcs believe that they were given a divine mandate that they are superiour. And it might be criminal behaviour, but criminals can be racist too.
The point is, according to their God and religious dogma, that unless they are Orcs, they are not worthy of being considered people. Which to me, is pretty racist.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;843503While I'm sure it was never intentional, Gygax's American upbringing unconsciously colored his development of the D&D backdrop. Under this interpretation, goblinoids, orcs and other humanoids are stand-ins for Native Americans whereas the party/fellowship of the ring/murderhobos represent white settlers/cowboys/conquistador/nazis. Russians like to cast Sauron as some sort of communist hero in fanfics, so this isn't much a stretch.
Of course, the real problem is not the accidental subconscious racism. The real problem is that D&D is a crime fantasy. The PCs wander around killing villages of disenfranchised minorities and looting their homes. Designers might try to mitigate this by making the victims into always evil monsters, but that only causes more problems because the victims are otherwise living, breathing people. 5th edition D&D even went so far as to say that orcs have no free will.
Designers shouldn't be trying to "solve" the problem of butchering caricatures by justifying it. We should be trying to solve the problem by changing the victims from caricatures to human (or equivalent) criminals endowed with self-determination. D&D settings are full of bandits, raiders and so forth who choose to be evil rather than being (as absurd as it sounds) born evil. Rather than creating entire fictional races who exist only to be slaughtered and looted, why not just use actual criminals who deserved to be punished? It's not perfect by any stretch, but it is far less philosophically problematic.
As Game of Thrones demonstrates, humans can be far more evil than any orc. In fact, Tolkien's orcs actually did demonstrate personhood qualities like a cannibalism taboo, loyalty, camaraderie, vengeance, pragmatism, and a desire to retire after the war ended.
Oh... you're good. You're very good.
Quote from: AsenRG;843623You hope this is a parody;).
It's definitely a great example of Poe's law.
For my two cents on the general issue,
1) I have no major issues with killing orcs in a game. It's a game.
2) This doesn't mean that I think that there is no racism in fantasy. A lot of classic fantasy is from the 20s, 30s, and 40s - and it is full of conscious and unconscious racism. I do have a problem with people who want to deny that racism exists in fantasy.
In particular, both liberals and conservatives tend to sanitize adaptations of older fantasy to remove the racism - usually by removing the minority characters. For example, the black maid Esmeralda is edited out or toned down from most adaptations of Tarzan. I dislike this.
If I want to do old-style fantasy, then I'll do it. If orcs are really evil by their nature, then orc genocide is the right solution. Some players find this heavy or uncomfortable. In that case, I'd prefer to just play without orcs rather than finding ways to justify / sanitize them. In that sense, I minorly agree with BoxCrayonTales.
Quote from: jhkim;843644For my two cents on the general issue,
1) I have no major issues with killing orcs in a game. It's a game.
2) This doesn't mean that I think that there is no racism in fantasy. A lot of classic fantasy is from the 20s, 30s, and 40s - and it is full of conscious and unconscious racism. I do have a problem with people who want to deny that racism exists in fantasy.
Do you think that's how it is now in modern game development? Do you think it's representative of how most people play? Is it a "real concern"?
People shouldn't conflate prejudice with racism. If you were a white kid grew up in the mid-west during the 50's, I sure as hell wouldn't expect you to know much about the realities of being Asian or Black or whatever. And because you might have some cultural prejudices as an adult - doesn't necessarily make you a racist. All racists are prejudiced and are so actionably.
There's a distinct difference. Saying it's a concern in RPG's is like saying it's a concern in H.P. Lovecraft. If reading H.P. Lovecraft is going to turn someone into a racist - the odds are they already *are*.
Otherwise this is like saying playing D&D is going to make you a devil-worshipper - just because some asshole believes it will. Likewise, what happens in the game is up to its players. It's not about the designer to impose their beliefs onto the players anymore than it is for the players to do whatever the fuck they wanna do with/within the game.
If people wanna wipe their ass with their Moldvay books, and play tic-tac-tow in the new shit-stain on them and call it D&D - I really don't give a damn, I'll just opt out of playing with those idiots. If someone wants to say - Moldvay's books imply that playing tic-tac-toe with your feces is part of the game because Orcs like to do it in the books, should 1) not be playing RPG's 2) Needs to take some critical thinking classes.
Edit: I should say that I don't sanitize my games as much as I run them to make sense. Orcs = Evil. I don't play by alignment. I play Orcs as violent and expansionistic. Is that racist? No. Because it's not real. It's a game.
No joking here for once.
I don't think a single person has ever been made racist by playing an RPG. In contrast, I think that RPGs have made a number of people much less sexist, racist, etc. By just hanging out with a group of often very disparate people, your mind tends to open. So in that sense, I almost can't fathom this complaint. Even if you start out with one of the systems where "women get -2 strength and +2 charisma" or the like, just by playing games with women and interacting with them on a game level will tend to make you less sexist. It's like gay/trans people. There's a lot of people who started out with the idea that "LGBT people are all about sex" and just by playing RPGs or board games with them, or hanging out with them in general have gone "oh, they're just people, but slightly different from me in a way that doesn't even matter".
On the other hand I have read certain systems/adventures and come across some archaic shit, like turning up a stone and finding a rotting rat carcass. There's a number of settings in the 80s and 90s that loved their noble savages and the idea that the Drow are the iconic evil elves rather than the Shadow Elves still rankles (that may just be the Drow being cheap ass straw villains while the Shadow Elves have legitimate reasons to be angry).
But seriously, anyone who says this hobby has in some way perpetrated persecution of any kind (ignoring edition wars) is insane.
Quote from: jhkim;843644For my two cents on the general issue,
1) I have no major issues with killing orcs in a game. It's a game.
2) This doesn't mean that I think that there is no racism in fantasy. A lot of classic fantasy is from the 20s, 30s, and 40s - and it is full of conscious and unconscious racism. I do have a problem with people who want to deny that racism exists in fantasy.
In particular, both liberals and conservatives tend to sanitize adaptations of older fantasy to remove the racism - usually by removing the minority characters. For example, the black maid Esmeralda is edited out or toned down from most adaptations of Tarzan. I dislike this.
If I want to do old-style fantasy, then I'll do it. If orcs are really evil by their nature, then orc genocide is the right solution. Some players find this heavy or uncomfortable. In that case, I'd prefer to just play without orcs rather than finding ways to justify / sanitize them. In that sense, I minorly agree with BoxCrayonTales.
I don't think there is any doubt that some of that early material was racist. And racism is still a real thing today. I just don't think that makes orcs in a typical D&D game racist. My issue is when people are hyper-focused on hidden messages and hidden racism to the point that they are reading everything in the worst possible light or ignoring the complexity, nuance and context of a setting element. I find a lot of that kind of criticism inhibits people from expressing themselves because they are afraid that no matter what they write or say, it will be deemed problematic.
I actually try very hard to improve our content in this respect. My aim with the stuff I do has always been to be inclusive and open-minded, while being true to the setting. I like having things like strong female characters in my games and I like fantasy settings that are more diverse with less of a focus on northern Europe. But I find a lot of the discussions around these topics in gaming online make me more afraid to even attempt it at times. When you look at threads like some of the ones people have linked, that is pretty impossible for a designer to navigate safely. The hostility, the intensity and the aggression are just too much. Now I just ignore that stuff and do what I want...and I think its made a difference for the better.
But I fundamentally agree with you. There are two sides in these kinds of discussions and I see negative coming from both. On the one hand I dislike the hyper vigilant critiques, but I also am sometimes surprised by some of the reactions from the other side, which I've seen veer into racism.
Quote from: tenbones;843649People shouldn't conflate prejudice with racism. If you were a white kid grew up in the mid-west during the 50's, I sure as hell wouldn't expect you to know much about the realities of being Asian or Black or whatever. And because you might have some cultural prejudices as an adult - doesn't necessarily make you a racist. All racists are prejudiced and are so actionably.
I'm not sure we agree on the line of what is "racist" versus what is just "prejudiced", but hopefully it shouldn't make that much of a difference. Understand that I might sometimes say "racist" to mean what you consider "prejudiced", and I'll understand vice-versa.
In the bigger picture, I grew up in suburban New York in the 1970s. At my elementary school, the standard playground chant started with "A fight! A fight! A n***er and a white!" I never directly bullied someone because of their race - but I was a part of that culture. It is bizarre to me that people seem to insist that there is essentially no racism in stuff from that and earlier eras.
Quote from: tenbones;843649There's a distinct difference. Saying it's a concern in RPG's is like saying it's a concern in H.P. Lovecraft. If reading H.P. Lovecraft is going to turn someone into a racist - the odds are they already *are*.
Otherwise this is like saying playing D&D is going to make you a devil-worshipper - just because some asshole believes it will.
I read and enjoy H.P. Lovecraft. However, he was quite racist - and this is a theme in a lot of his writing, such as the existential horror at being of mixed blood.
I'm not concerned about Lovecraft. He's long dead and gone. I don't care about people who read him. I do care about people who insist that he wasn't racist, and bend over backwards to explain away and/or excuse his racism.
Quote from: tenbones;843649Edit: I should say that I don't sanitize my games as much as I run them to make sense. Orcs = Evil. I don't play by alignment. I play Orcs as violent and expansionistic. Is that racist? No. Because it's not real. It's a game.
Let me be clear. Reading a racist book doesn't automatically make me a racist. Playing a racist game doesn't automatically make me a racist. However, that doesn't mean that books and games can't be racist because they're not real. It is possible for game content to be racist.
Saying otherwise seems to be going crazy reactionary against people you disagree with.
What's wrong with Drow?
Quote from: GreyICE;843654By just hanging out with a group of often very disparate people, your mind tends to open. So in that sense, I almost can't fathom this complaint. Even if you start out with one of the systems where "women get -2 strength and +2 charisma" or the like, just by playing games with women and interacting with them on a game level will tend to make you less sexist. It's like gay/trans people. There's a lot of people who started out with the idea that "LGBT people are all about sex" and just by playing RPGs or board games with them, or hanging out with them in general have gone "oh, they're just people, but slightly different from me in a way that doesn't even matter".
First of all, plenty of people play games without having black players, LGBT players, or even women players.
Second, I disagree that social contact is sufficient to eliminate prejudice. People have had significant social contact with the opposite sex for centuries, and yet sexism continued to exist. I'm picturing now some stereotypical 1920s guy saying "I've got a wife and daughter. There's no way I'm sexist."
Quote from: jhkim;843672First of all, plenty of people play games without having black players, LGBT players, or even women players.
Second, I disagree that social contact is sufficient to eliminate prejudice. People have had significant social contact with the opposite sex for centuries, and yet sexism continued to exist. I'm picturing now some stereotypical 1920s guy saying "I've got a wife and daughter. There's no way I'm sexist."
Of course RPGs are not some miraculous panacea for bigotry. That's fucking stupid. Sure, you can game in your hole with your white supremist friends or whatever and use your own homebrewed settings, but on the whole that ain't how people game.
Social contact is a strong way to fight bigotry. I'd bet if you went back and asked some 14th century serf who worked alongside his wife on a farm "hey, do you think your wife is weak and helpless and stupid?" he'd laugh in your fucking face. Sure, I doubt he'd please the PC crowd, but I doubt he'd be anywhere as big a nitwit as the upper class Victorians were.
I think there's no fucking way that anyone with two functional brain cells could look at RPGs and go "oh yeah, that's a hobby that totally helped bigots". And if anyone says that, they're an enormous bag of tools.
Quote from: Nexus;843671What's wrong with Drow?
What
isn't wrong with that sack of shit race?
First, lets look at them objectively. They fucking rock! As long as they stay in the Underdark (what a terrible name) they have awesome magical powers, and awesome magical weapons and awesome magical gear, and all sorts of awesome magical shit.
Are they starving? Nope! They have tons of food and shit. Are they bothered by lack of light? Nope! Every canon says that they hate the sun and only go above in the night. Are they bothered by lack of space? Well the Underdark is like enormous as fuck and they'd have to go clear out some magical baddies, but they have room to expand.
The biggest problem with that place is... oh yeah, you're living with evil ass black elves who will kill you because they're bored and evil and shit. Their literal biggest problem is themselves. The number 1 cause for death for Drow is being murdered by other Drow. The number two cause is being murdered by nasty shit that the Drow summon, make deals with, or control.
So why do they make war on the surface? Mmmm... dunno. Oh wait, their insane spider god who they kind of love and hate said to. Oooh, wow, yeah. That's compelling plot there.
Want compelling? The Shadow Elves are twisted and pale from their life below ground. There's never enough food, there's never enough resources, their lives suck. They're fiercely loyal to each other most of the time because Shadow Elves are all they have against a bunch of shit that want to kill them. The surface world can't fucking handle a sudden influx of fast-breeding murderous elves, but the elves have no desire to live underground. Both the surface and the world below have legitimate logic there, and you're dealing with a situation that's complex, explosive, and cool.
Someone said "sickly elves? Can't have those! Lets make them healthy, give them all sorts of magical bling bling, and make their gripe with the surface 'for the evulz'". It's like a 12 year old was tasked with making the Shadow Elves "Kewl" and "Radical" and that's what they went with for their campaign world.
They're a piece of shit race that makes any setting that uses them that much shittier, in direct proportion to how long you have to deal with that bullshit.
Quote from: jhkim;843672First of all, plenty of people play games without having black players, LGBT players, or even women players.
Second, I disagree that social contact is sufficient to eliminate prejudice. People have had significant social contact with the opposite sex for centuries, and yet sexism continued to exist. I'm picturing now some stereotypical 1920s guy saying "I've got a wife and daughter. There's no way I'm sexist."
While social contact is not a cure, I think people presently really underestimate and dismiss the power that genuine social contact has here. Like anything else there is a host of factors. And as you point out, people having wives didn't stop them from being sexist. And its true someone can use this sort of connection as a shield from criticism (i.e. "Hey, I have black friends"). But I do find that how a person actually having real friends from a mix of different groups is a pretty good starting indication of how likely they are to be racist, sexist, etc. It is a simple matter of empathy, the more you are exposed to different types of people, the more you understand their points of view. Most of the people I meet who I would characterize as racist, are largely people who have limited or no contact with the groups they disparage. You can see social contact soften prejudices in real time. I've seen a member of my own family who was a bit hostile to homosexuality completely change attitude after befriending someone who who was gay.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843665My issue is when people are hyper-focused on hidden messages and hidden racism to the point that they are reading everything in the worst possible light or ignoring the complexity, nuance and context of a setting element.
That parallels a lot of present arguments in regards to race relations in North America - that argument is unconscious bias thwarts any and all attempts at fairness, no matter how seemingly sincere, by supremacist members. Hyper focus on hidden messages and hidden racism because - no matter what -
those born and raised evil cannot overcome the essential nature of their programming to not act on their essentially racist natures. Contrary to any external demonstration otherwise from supremacists, dig in and you will always find something evil.
The focus on hidden messages and hidden racism isn't something limited to our hobby at all.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;843624D&D Orcs believe that they were given a divine mandate that they are superiour. And it might be criminal behaviour, but criminals can be racist too.
The point is, according to their God and religious dogma, that unless they are Orcs, they are not worthy of being considered people. Which to me, is pretty racist.
And apart from the divine mandate, which happens to propagate by race, what makes it different from those that think everybody that doesn't work is superior to those that do, and entitled to their possessions? Such people exist today.
My point is, if they're racist as well, that would be in addition to having that crime-enabling mindset.
Quote from: nezach;843630It's definitely a great example of Poe's law.
Indeed.
Quote from: GreyICE;843654No joking here for once.
I don't think a single person has ever been made racist by playing an RPG. In contrast, I think that RPGs have made a number of people much less sexist, racist, etc. By just hanging out with a group of often very disparate people, your mind tends to open. So in that sense, I almost can't fathom this complaint. Even if you start out with one of the systems where "women get -2 strength and +2 charisma" or the like, just by playing games with women and interacting with them on a game level will tend to make you less sexist. It's like gay/trans people. There's a lot of people who started out with the idea that "LGBT people are all about sex" and just by playing RPGs or board games with them, or hanging out with them in general have gone "oh, they're just people, but slightly different from me in a way that doesn't even matter".
On the other hand I have read certain systems/adventures and come across some archaic shit, like turning up a stone and finding a rotting rat carcass. There's a number of settings in the 80s and 90s that loved their noble savages and the idea that the Drow are the iconic evil elves rather than the Shadow Elves still rankles (that may just be the Drow being cheap ass straw villains while the Shadow Elves have legitimate reasons to be angry).
But seriously, anyone who says this hobby has in some way perpetrated persecution of any kind (ignoring edition wars) is insane.
Quote from: GreyICE;843679Of course RPGs are not some miraculous panacea for bigotry. That's fucking stupid. Sure, you can game in your hole with your white supremist friends or whatever and use your own homebrewed settings, but on the whole that ain't how people game.
Social contact is a strong way to fight bigotry. I'd bet if you went back and asked some 14th century serf who worked alongside his wife on a farm "hey, do you think your wife is weak and helpless and stupid?" he'd laugh in your fucking face. Sure, I doubt he'd please the PC crowd, but I doubt he'd be anywhere as big a nitwit as the upper class Victorians were.
I think there's no fucking way that anyone with two functional brain cells could look at RPGs and go "oh yeah, that's a hobby that totally helped bigots". And if anyone says that, they're an enormous bag of tools.
You know, by now I've seen enough people that tried to use RPGs to propagate racist stereotypes, that I don't believe in your optimistic POV.
RPGs are a social endeavour. Like any other social endeavour, they can help the case of opening your mind, help the opposite cause, or not have any influence on the matter.
One would say FB should help people to get to know, say, LGBTQ people, or minorities. In practice, extremist pages are flourishing!
Quote from: Lynn;843687That parallels a lot of present arguments in regards to race relations in North America - that argument is unconscious bias thwarts any and all attempts at fairness, no matter how seemingly sincere, by supremacist members. Hyper focus on hidden messages and hidden racism because - no matter what - those born and raised evil cannot overcome the essential nature of their programming to not act on their essentially racist natures. Contrary to any external demonstration otherwise from supremacists, dig in and you will always find something evil.
The focus on hidden messages and hidden racism isn't something limited to our hobby at all.
And while I do think there is such a thing as unconscious bias and unconscious racism, I think we are in a situation where people are kind of seeing it everywhere. I wouldn't want to ignore things though like people being treated differently in job hunts because their names don't sound white or the disparities in the criminal justice system. There are places where it makes a lot of sense to pay attention to hidden bias where we can see it. Those are real and happen, and need to be addressed. But its the hyper vigilance around the hidden that troubles me, it just seems to reach Red Scare levels at times, and it also produces a kind of hopelessness when you just throw up your hands and say we're all racist, all the time, and there is no way for us ever to truly empathize with anyone outside our own experiences, all we can do is constantly vet ourselves for these hidden thoughts. That feels paralyzing and a bit mystical to me. Me and my wife are not from the same country, we're not the same race either, I can't imagine having any kind of genuine interaction with her if we have to undergo that kind of intense self-analysis all the time. At a certain point I think you have to give folks the benefit of the doubt, assume we are not thoroughly corrupted by our surroundings.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843685Most of the people I meet who I would characterize as racist, are largely people who have limited or no contact with the groups they disparage. You can see social contact soften prejudices in real time. I've seen a member of my own family who was a bit hostile to homosexuality completely change attitude after befriending someone who who was gay.
Social contact within the context of time and shared experience.
In the late 80s, I was living in Japan, in a large industrial city of several million people (its canals were ripe for giant monster growth) that had something like less than 100 resident westerners. You pretty much knew everyone else who looked foreign.
I ran into a guy stepping off the bullet train who was obviously not Japanese and Id never seen before, so I nodded and said hello. He looked at me solemnly and said "You know, I am Iranian". To which I said "Man, we are all just Gaijins." He laughed. I ran into him now and then after that, and he was always ready with a smile and a hello.
Quote from: AsenRG;843688You know, by now I've seen enough people that tried to use RPGs to propagate racist stereotypes, that I don't believe in your optimistic POV.
RPGs are a social endeavour. Like any other social endeavour, they can help the case of opening your mind, help the opposite cause, or not have any influence on the matter.
One would say FB should help people to get to know, say, LGBTQ people, or minorities. In practice, extremist pages are flourishing!
Yes, "optimistic". It's not like I've watched this happen multiple times! Nope, I'm just a foolish optimist, wandering through the world all starry eyed and happy with joy for the goodness of my fellow man! Actually, I'm just too experienced to believe your incredibly stupid POV.
But go on, tell me about all these RPGs that propagate racist stereotypes. Is it going to be some self-published piece of shit that no one played? It is, isn't it. It's going to be something that some Klan dingdong published, and him and his five klan buddies played and no one else in the universe even remembers until someone found a copy and uploaded it to the internet, and now it's "evidence roleplayers are actually worshipping Satan."
I can't help but thinking that every time you've "seen" this has been on the internet.
Quote from: GreyICE;843683What isn't wrong with that sack of shit race?
First, lets look at them objectively. They fucking rock! As long as they stay in the Underdark (what a terrible name) they have awesome magical powers, and awesome magical weapons and awesome magical gear, and all sorts of awesome magical shit.
Are they starving? Nope! They have tons of food and shit. Are they bothered by lack of light? Nope! Every canon says that they hate the sun and only go above in the night. Are they bothered by lack of space? Well the Underdark is like enormous as fuck and they'd have to go clear out some magical baddies, but they have room to expand.
The biggest problem with that place is... oh yeah, you're living with evil ass black elves who will kill you because they're bored and evil and shit. Their literal biggest problem is themselves. The number 1 cause for death for Drow is being murdered by other Drow. The number two cause is being murdered by nasty shit that the Drow summon, make deals with, or control.
So why do they make war on the surface? Mmmm... dunno. Oh wait, their insane spider god who they kind of love and hate said to. Oooh, wow, yeah. That's compelling plot there.
Want compelling? The Shadow Elves are twisted and pale from their life below ground. There's never enough food, there's never enough resources, their lives suck. They're fiercely loyal to each other most of the time because Shadow Elves are all they have against a bunch of shit that want to kill them. The surface world can't fucking handle a sudden influx of fast-breeding murderous elves, but the elves have no desire to live underground. Both the surface and the world below have legitimate logic there, and you're dealing with a situation that's complex, explosive, and cool.
Someone said "sickly elves? Can't have those! Lets make them healthy, give them all sorts of magical bling bling, and make their gripe with the surface 'for the evulz'". It's like a 12 year old was tasked with making the Shadow Elves "Kewl" and "Radical" and that's what they went with for their campaign world.
They're a piece of shit race that makes any setting that uses them that much shittier, in direct proportion to how long you have to deal with that bullshit.
Well, I respectfully disagree with your opinions. Personally I find them interesting and fun, but mileage will vary.
Edit: I was wondering if you felt there was something innately "problematic" about from a stand point of racism.
Quote from: Nexus;843693Well, I respectfully disagree with your opinions. Personally I find them interesting and fun, but mileage will vary.
You can find them fun. Interesting... I guess. It's certainly interesting how a completely infeasible society that would collapse under the weight of its own backstabbing survives. It's certainly interesting why they want to invade the surface world, or how they even organize with all the backstabbing. It's certainly interesting how they're Shadow Elves with all the bits that matter filed off.
But to say that they're a more compelling, deeper, and more evocative race than the Shadow Elves? Nah. Personally I think they'd be more suited for a superheroes game, they have the cartoonishly evil motivations to fit right in with a certain style of pulp comic.
Edit: Ah, I see your edit. I think it's fucking stupid that the cartoonishly evil race is also the "black skin" race, but I don't think that any racism went into their creation. It's blatantly clear that they started out as "dark faeries" and were the sort of "designated evil mastermind" race that people added more and more details onto until the entire structure is so absurd that it's impossible to even pick out anything salvageable. I blame those ridiculously bad Drizzt novels for the popularity of them as a cartoon villain for everything.
Did you know there are not one, not two, not three, but four
different gods specifically for the Drow? Four! For a goddamn subrace. Just specifically for them alone. The idea coherent thought and planning went into this clusterfuck is inane.
Quote from: GreyICE;843692Yes, "optimistic". It's not like I've watched this happen multiple times! Nope, I'm just a foolish optimist, wandering through the world all starry eyed and happy with joy for the goodness of my fellow man!
Oh no, don't take me wrong! I've interacted with you enough on this forum that the idea of you happy seems like a stretch already, and "happy with joy"?
Nah, I'm not that optimistic;).
QuoteActually, I'm just too experienced to believe your incredibly stupid POV.
And you think your experience covers everything:D?
Keep going...
(Also, I happen to have some experience of my own. Which one is more valid? Well, reasonable people would say they cancel out. Since I'm obviously not interacting with one of those, though, obviously my experience wins without a contest!)
QuoteBut go on, tell me about all these RPGs that propagate racist stereotypes.
I'm not planning to. You're one of the people that sometimes have something interesting to say, but I ignore what they say the rest of the time for lack of, how to put it gently, emotional control on your side.
Now is obviously not one of those times for you, so I'm not planning to prolong that interaction. Instead, I'm going to kindly ask you to fuck off, and we'll see if I feel like discussing it tomorrow:)!
(Also, it's not "propagate racist stereotypes", dickhead. Read my post again! I said it's about RPGs acting like the extremists' pages on FB, in getting together people prone to racism, confirming their preexisting biases against people, and being used as "shining examples" and "confirmation" for what their biases already are.)
QuoteIs it going to be some self-published piece of shit that no one played? It is, isn't it. It's going to be something that some Klan dingdong published, and him and his five klan buddies played and no one else in the universe even remembers until someone found a copy and uploaded it to the internet, and now it's "evidence roleplayers are actually worshipping Satan."
Yeah, talk about missing the mark:D!
QuoteI can't help but thinking that every time you've "seen" this has been on the internet.
I wish you were right:).
Alas, as before, missing the mark is the code word;)!
Normally I'd encourage someone to learn the basics of writing before attempting to communicate - normally writing is not littered by colored circles with simplistic expressions - but in this case I believe the lack of skill in communicating is paired with a lack of interesting thoughts to communicate.
Quote from: GreyICE;843696Did you know there are not one, not two, not three, but four different gods specifically for the Drow? Four! For a goddamn subrace. Just specifically for them alone. The idea coherent thought and planning went into this clusterfuck is inane.
Why can't subraces worship a pantheon of their own? Did you know that most of the original Drow 'Gods' were actually lesser divine beings to out right Demons? For example, in the 2e Menzonberranzan boxed set, their Minor Demon Goddess Lolth only controlled ONE city of the Drow race? In fact, the current Forgotten Realms God of Slimes and Oozes was a former Drow God who controlled his OWN city, which was patriarichal as opposed to the matriarichal cluster fuck Menzoberranzan. But we never got any details about Ghaunadaur's town, so we have no idea how big a mess that place was. Obviously, it became to unmanageable, so he left it behind to be the full time God of Food Mold. Which should tell you something.
Then 3e came along and made Lolth into a major Goddess on her own, and then was fully embraced as the Goddess of Dark Elves by 4e.
Here's the thing, all the stuff you described about how Dark Elves being nearly impossible to exist is correct, except for ONE thing:
The Drow Society ONLY works because Lolth treats them like her personal Lego toys. Because unless they have divine intervention, a chaotic society like the Drow as described simply cannot exist. You need some sort of order, unless you have someone above pushing around the pieces to make sure it works, no matter how stupid it gets. She determines what happens, and if something goes a way she doesn't like, she destroys it and rebuilds into the way 'it should be'.
Once she gets bored with them, they'll collapse and die on their own.
Quote from: GreyICE;843723Normally I'd encourage someone to learn the basics of writing before attempting to communicate - normally writing is not littered by colored circles with simplistic expressions - but in this case I believe the lack of skill in communicating is paired with a lack of interesting thoughts to communicate.
Dude. You are talking about Drow. Thought can't get much less interesting than that.
Quote from: jhkim;843669Let me be clear. Reading a racist book doesn't automatically make me a racist. Playing a racist game doesn't automatically make me a racist. However, that doesn't mean that books and games can't be racist because they're not real. It is possible for game content to be racist.
Saying otherwise seems to be going crazy reactionary against people you disagree with.
Sure. That's what I'm saying too. But I'm very wary about saying D&D was written with race as some overt political slant enough to be "racist". To that I say - in regards to fantasy creatures? No. For the very reasons you cited - game content is game content.
There are people - like at the TBP - who think otherwise. They're the ones that claim Golarion is racist, Oriental Adventures is racist (omg the word Oriental!!), Samurai as written by white people is racist. etc. etc. (nevermind that the magnificent Kara-Tur boxset is written by Mike Pondsmith , a black guy. You think they'd call him a racist? LOL hardly). Not saying this is you - just saying that it sounds like the bonehead troll was saying it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;843725Why can't subraces worship a pantheon of their own? Did you know that most of the original Drow 'Gods' were actually lesser divine beings to out right Demons? For example, in the 2e Menzonberranzan boxed set, their Minor Demon Goddess Lolth only controlled ONE city of the Drow race? In fact, the current Forgotten Realms God of Slimes and Oozes was a former Drow God who controlled his OWN city, which was patriarichal as opposed to the matriarichal cluster fuck Menzoberranzan. But we never got any details about Ghaunadaur's town, so we have no idea how big a mess that place was. Obviously, it became to unmanageable, so he left it behind to be the full time God of Food Mold. Which should tell you something.
Then 3e came along and made Lolth into a major Goddess on her own, and then was fully embraced as the Goddess of Dark Elves by 4e.
Here's the thing, all the stuff you described about how Dark Elves being nearly impossible to exist is correct, except for ONE thing:
The Drow Society ONLY works because Lolth treats them like her personal Lego toys. Because unless they have divine intervention, a chaotic society like the Drow as described simply cannot exist. You need some sort of order, unless you have someone above pushing around the pieces to make sure it works, no matter how stupid it gets. She determines what happens, and if something goes a way she doesn't like, she destroys it and rebuilds into the way 'it should be'.
Once she gets bored with them, they'll collapse and die on their own.
I am aware how deities work in AD&D.
The idea that "a God did it" is even less satisfying than "a wizard did it". I understand what you're saying, but that concept doesn't resonate at all. Is Lolth Lawful Evil? No? She's chaotic? She's got ridiculous levels of planning going on apparently. She carefully micromanages her ridiculous and absurd "society", even smashing it and rebuilding it so that it never changes, for centuries.
Not only does that drop a deuce on everything that "Chaotic" has ever meant, it in no way makes them satisfying villains. It just removes any responsibility for them having coherent motivation - they do things because they are ordered to by an insane evil god, so of course these things are insane and evil. Their society is insane and evil because the goddess of micromanagement says it shall be so.
And I'd say the fact that the Drow gods keep getting promoted up the divine food chain says a lot about how settings focus on them disproportionately.
Quote from: tenbones;843728Sure. That's what I'm saying too. But I'm very wary about saying D&D was written with race as some overt political slant enough to be "racist". To that I say - in regards to fantasy creatures? No. For the very reasons you cited - game content is game content.
Depends on what you mean by "racist game", really. Does it mean it's a game that can turn you into a racist? Then no such games exist. They simply can't, not anymore than Blue Rose can turn you into a gay:D!
If we're talking about a game where racist views receive validation, however? I've seen enough self-admitted racists gravitating towards the same game materials to think that's
a totally empty concern;).
Quote from: Nexus;843671What's wrong with Drow?
Some people have never read HG Wells' The Time Machine
Quote from: Nexus;843693Well, I respectfully disagree with your opinions. Personally I find them interesting and fun, but mileage will vary.
Edit: I was wondering if you felt there was something innately "problematic" about from a stand point of racism.
Nope, lol, apparently its no deeper than "my imaginary fairies are better than your imaginary fairies"
Quote from: GreyICE;843733I am aware how deities work in AD&D.
The idea that "a God did it" is even less satisfying than "a wizard did it". I understand what you're saying, but that concept doesn't resonate at all. Is Lolth Lawful Evil? No? She's chaotic? She's got ridiculous levels of planning going on apparently. She carefully micromanages her ridiculous and absurd "society", even smashing it and rebuilding it so that it never changes, for centuries.
Not only does that drop a deuce on everything that "Chaotic" has ever meant, it in no way makes them satisfying villains. It just removes any responsibility for them having coherent motivation - they do things because they are ordered to by an insane evil god, so of course these things are insane and evil. Their society is insane and evil because the goddess of micromanagement says it shall be so.
And I'd say the fact that the Drow gods keep getting promoted up the divine food chain says a lot about how settings focus on them disproportionately.
The setting's focus shifted because Players wanted it to, because those books sold well. And like any company all WoTC can do is look at the sales figures and see that if Book A sells better than Book B, they should probably look at making more things based on Book A.
Personally, I hate the Drow. But frankly, they're no more silly than Orcs.
Quote from: GreyICE;843679Social contact is a strong way to fight bigotry. I'd bet if you went back and asked some 14th century serf who worked alongside his wife on a farm "hey, do you think your wife is weak and helpless and stupid?" he'd laugh in your fucking face. Sure, I doubt he'd please the PC crowd, but I doubt he'd be anywhere as big a nitwit as the upper class Victorians were.
(excuse rant) Yes, but I've seen plenty of modern Politically Correct nerds claim there are no male/female strength differences in real life - that the belief in such is a sexist social construct. That farmer and his wife would laugh at such notions, and the female police & soldiers I've known would laugh at it too - they have to work around not being as strong as most male opponents (and comrades), which they can do, but it's definitely a factor for them and it would be very dangerous for them to believe otherwise. But sedentary nerds are able to believe what they've been told by their University professor and either have had no real world experience or believe that experience to be socially constructed and not-real.
Quote from: GreyICE;843683What isn't wrong with that sack of shit race?
First, lets look at them objectively. They fucking rock! As long as they stay in the Underdark (what a terrible name) they have awesome magical powers, and awesome magical weapons and awesome magical gear, and all sorts of awesome magical shit.
Are they starving? Nope! They have tons of food and shit. Are they bothered by lack of light? Nope! Every canon says that they hate the sun and only go above in the night. Are they bothered by lack of space? Well the Underdark is like enormous as fuck and they'd have to go clear out some magical baddies, but they have room to expand.
The biggest problem with that place is... oh yeah, you're living with evil ass black elves who will kill you because they're bored and evil and shit. Their literal biggest problem is themselves. The number 1 cause for death for Drow is being murdered by other Drow. The number two cause is being murdered by nasty shit that the Drow summon, make deals with, or control.
So why do they make war on the surface? Mmmm... dunno. Oh wait, their insane spider god who they kind of love and hate said to. Oooh, wow, yeah. That's compelling plot there.
Want compelling? The Shadow Elves are twisted and pale from their life below ground. There's never enough food, there's never enough resources, their lives suck. They're fiercely loyal to each other most of the time because Shadow Elves are all they have against a bunch of shit that want to kill them. The surface world can't fucking handle a sudden influx of fast-breeding murderous elves, but the elves have no desire to live underground. Both the surface and the world below have legitimate logic there, and you're dealing with a situation that's complex, explosive, and cool.
Someone said "sickly elves? Can't have those! Lets make them healthy, give them all sorts of magical bling bling, and make their gripe with the surface 'for the evulz'". It's like a 12 year old was tasked with making the Shadow Elves "Kewl" and "Radical" and that's what they went with for their campaign world.
They're a piece of shit race that makes any setting that uses them that much shittier, in direct proportion to how long you have to deal with that bullshit.
The Drow long predate the Mystara Shadow Elves, who were created more as a reaction to the Drow.
Quote from: Bren;843727Dude. You are talking about Drow. Thought can't get much less interesting than that.
Oy! He could've been talking about Dragonborn! :D
Quote from: TristramEvans;843753Some people have never read HG Wells' The Time Machine
Above-ground Elves are Eloi? That explains so much.
(Oh well, at least the music rocks. Krautrock FTW! :D)
Quote from: The Ent;843777Oy! He could've been talking about Dragonborn! :D
Shhhh! Don't get them started. ;)
I think I identified the problems with orcs in D&D: They are not fucking evil enough. I blame the alignment system for that: replacing an actual horrific description with that neat little sign that says ,,evil" is effectively the opposite of the 'show, don't tell' policy that creates accessible and believable fictional scenes and characters.
So what is the evil orcs actually do? They pillage, they raid villages, they plunder, murder and rape. Pretty loathsome, all told, but not particularly worse than anybody's ancestors, ten or so generations down the line. In a historical context, brutal raiders and a marauding soldateska is basically banal and most importantly very, very human (as proven by history). So within a pseudo-historical, pseudo-medieval world the orcs aren't worse than, let's say the Magyar riders or Danish Jomsvikings: completely horrible when they attack you, but brave and all when they attack your enemies. There is not enough vileness in concrete that the orcish raider and the human one (at least if you are not whitewash the latter one).
Now compare this to the broos of Glorantha: broos fill a similar ecologic niche within their setting as orcs do in most D&D worlds: They are humanoid enemies who live in warbands and small tribes, they are raiders and occasionally the occupants of abandoned mines, old ruins and similar places to explore.
However, broos aren't just "those other guys, in green", they are vile creatures: They deliberately spread plagues and diseases, because they are highly resistant against illnesses, while their prey isn't. They almost exclusively reproduce as parasitic rapists, attacking sentient creatures and livestock alike, with new-born Broos almost inevitably killing their mothers. Broos raid farms and mate with the livestock. Weeks later, any infected animals will give birth to dozens or even hundreds of slimy infant broos. They will try to escape to the wilderness, and any that survive will form a new pack of feral broos. They cover their weapons and tools in filth, to make sure that whoever fights them will suffer from infections even if they survive. Broos don't conquer; they contaminate.
Broos are not just a menace on a physical level like Orcs, they are a psychological menace exploiting the usual fear of disease, they are even an ecological threat that can obliterate whole ecosystems through exploitation and fornication. Broo can be seen as inherently evil creatures (they also serve one of the primary gods of chaos, making them even a spiritual threat, but that is setting-specific stuff), even though there is the occasional redeemed one. D&D-ish orcs though? If they are as bad as Vikings, they are only a few centuries away from building Volvos.
Quote from: AsenRG;843734Depends on what you mean by "racist game", really. Does it mean it's a game that can turn you into a racist? Then no such games exist. They simply can't, not anymore than Blue Rose can turn you into a gay:D!
If we're talking about a game where racist views receive validation, however? I've seen enough self-admitted racists gravitating towards the same game materials to think that's a totally empty concern;).
I don't know that that makes the game itself racist though. Someone finding a racist message in a book, doesn't mean the book is racist. There are plenty of people who take something relatively innocent and co-opt it for a darker purpose. That said, I do think we're deluding ourselves if we think racism can never occur in fantasy settings. I'm pretty wary of overly aggressive critiques that find problems in everything, but I've also seen some instances in my time as a gamer that made me question the beliefs of the designer. The problem with "are orcs racist" threads is they water down the concern so much because it lowers the bar for what constitutes racism. So when someone does have a legitimate complaint, people can dismiss it as online hysteria. I don't think orcs are racist, but I also do think we could do better in making minorities feel welcome in the hobby when I see how many of these conversations play out online. Getting really defensive about fantasy books not staying lily white, is definitely going to signal to people they are not welcome (I'm not talking about saying you like races in reacting with hostility to things like black guys in armor in D&D art and that sort of thing).
Quote from: Beagle;843848D&D-ish orcs though? If they are as bad as Vikings, they are only a few centuries away from building Volvos.
Good post and I love this line.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843852I don't think orcs are racist, but I also do think we could do better in making minorities feel welcome in the hobby when I see how many of these conversations play out online.
The online RPG community does a piss poor job of being welcoming. (Despite some people's rhetoric to the contrary, I don't think the online community wants to be welcoming or sees being so as their job.) It seems like maybe 20% of the posters online are way more unwelcoming than anyone I've met in real life in over 40 years of gaming.
Face-to-face is a better and much more effective way to welcome people to the hobby.
Quote from: TristramEvans;843755Nope, lol, apparently its no deeper than "my imaginary fairies are better than your imaginary fairies"
The classic gamer debate.
Quote from: Nexus;843900The classic gamer debate.
Elfgame discussions do come down to Comic Book Guy-isms most of the time.
"Worst. Edition. EVER!" :rant:
Quote from: GreyICE;843679Social contact is a strong way to fight bigotry. I'd bet if you went back and asked some 14th century serf who worked alongside his wife on a farm "hey, do you think your wife is weak and helpless and stupid?" he'd laugh in your fucking face. Sure, I doubt he'd please the PC crowd, but I doubt he'd be anywhere as big a nitwit as the upper class Victorians were.
Nobody believed that in the Victorian Era. That is just a modern stereotype, basically modern people trying to feel better about themselves by acting like people in the past were idiots. Everybody in the 1800's knew that women worked hard on farms, that they worked in factories, that they gave birth and carried around kids. Both the Victorian and the medieval man knew that women weren't weak and helpless, they also knew the fact that they weren't as strong as men - something that a lot of modern believe people don't seem to accept.
Quote from: Sergeant Brother;843917Nobody believed that in the Victorian Era. That is just a modern stereotype, basically modern people trying to feel better about themselves by acting like people in the past were idiots. Everybody in the 1800's knew that women worked hard on farms, that they worked in factories, that they gave birth and carried around kids. Both the Victorian and the medieval man knew that women weren't weak and helpless, they also knew the fact that they weren't as strong as men - something that a lot of modern believe people don't seem to accept.
You know, I chose the Victorian era specifically because outside of maybe modern day Islam or certain periods of Chinese rulership, the Victorian era featured some of the most restrictive and defined gender roles.
To say that no one believed them in the Victorian era is literal madness.
Quote from: S'mon;843773(excuse rant) Yes, but I've seen plenty of modern Politically Correct nerds claim there are no male/female strength differences in real life - that the belief in such is a sexist social construct.
I've run into this attitude and think the sole reason men have been more numerous in occupations and activities that required brute strength was purely because of sexism.
Quote from: GreyICE;843921You know, I chose the Victorian era specifically because outside of maybe modern day Islam or certain periods of Chinese rulership, the Victorian era featured some of the most restrictive and defined gender roles.
To say that no one believed them in the Victorian era is literal madness.
Well look at the rest of his post - "WOMEN ARE WEEEEAAAAAK!!!"
Prob'ly part of the same bunch of dudes as those other dudes, what'stheirnames.
Quote from: Beagle;843848I think I identified the problems with orcs in D&D: They are not fucking evil enough. I blame the alignment system for that: replacing an actual horrific description with that neat little sign that says ,,evil" is effectively the opposite of the 'show, don't tell' policy that creates accessible and believable fictional scenes and characters.
So what is the evil orcs actually do? They pillage, they raid villages, they plunder, murder and rape. Pretty loathsome, all told, but not particularly worse than anybody's ancestors, ten or so generations down the line. In a historical context, brutal raiders and a marauding soldateska is basically banal and most importantly very, very human (as proven by history). So within a pseudo-historical, pseudo-medieval world the orcs aren't worse than, let's say the Magyar riders or Danish Jomsvikings: completely horrible when they attack you, but brave and all when they attack your enemies. There is not enough vileness in concrete that the orcish raider and the human one (at least if you are not whitewash the latter one).
Now compare this to the broos of Glorantha: broos fill a similar ecologic niche within their setting as orcs do in most D&D worlds: They are humanoid enemies who live in warbands and small tribes, they are raiders and occasionally the occupants of abandoned mines, old ruins and similar places to explore.
However, broos aren't just "those other guys, in green", they are vile creatures: They deliberately spread plagues and diseases, because they are highly resistant against illnesses, while their prey isn't. They almost exclusively reproduce as parasitic rapists, attacking sentient creatures and livestock alike, with new-born Broos almost inevitably killing their mothers. Broos raid farms and mate with the livestock. Weeks later, any infected animals will give birth to dozens or even hundreds of slimy infant broos. They will try to escape to the wilderness, and any that survive will form a new pack of feral broos. They cover their weapons and tools in filth, to make sure that whoever fights them will suffer from infections even if they survive. Broos don't conquer; they contaminate.
Broos are not just a menace on a physical level like Orcs, they are a psychological menace exploiting the usual fear of disease, they are even an ecological threat that can obliterate whole ecosystems through exploitation and fornication. Broo can be seen as inherently evil creatures (they also serve one of the primary gods of chaos, making them even a spiritual threat, but that is setting-specific stuff), even though there is the occasional redeemed one. D&D-ish orcs though? If they are as bad as Vikings, they are only a few centuries away from building Volvos.
Excellent analysis, if you ask me:)!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;843852I don't know that that makes the game itself racist though. Someone finding a racist message in a book, doesn't mean the book is racist. There are plenty of people who take something relatively innocent and co-opt it for a darker purpose.
I'm using the "see who their friends are" criteria. Since these are games, the question is, do self-admitted racists gravitate towards the same game material?
If yes, there's probably something about it.
Quote from: Bren;843862Good post and I love this line.
The online RPG community does a piss poor job of being welcoming. (Despite some people's rhetoric to the contrary, I don't think the online community wants to be welcoming or sees being so as their job.) It seems like maybe 20% of the posters online are way more unwelcoming than anyone I've met in real life in over 40 years of gaming.
Face-to-face is a better and much more effective way to welcome people to the hobby.
Alas, too true at the welcoming part!
Quote from: AsenRG;843981I'm using the "see who their friends are" criteria. Since these are games, the question is, do self-admitted racists gravitate towards the same game material?
If yes, there's probably something about it.
So which games have been revealed to you as racist through your research? Which games do all the "self-admitted racists" play? I've been on this planet 48 years, and I've never met a "self-admitted" racist. I've met a few people who had some pretty dumb ideas, but since literally none of them played rpgs afaik, I wasn't able to come to any conclusions in that regard. Even if I knew a dozen "self-admitted racists" who were rpg players and they all played D&D, I'm not sure that would be enough to give weight to the notion that Orcs are a racist construct in fantasy games or that D&D is a racist game...considering the numbers of people who play it and
aren't self-admitted racists.
Quote from: AsenRG;843981I'm using the "see who their friends are" criteria. Since these are games, the question is, do self-admitted racists gravitate towards the same game material?
If yes, there's probably something about it.
!
Growing up, I noticed a lot of self described racists gravitated toward loud and aggressive punk music...that doesn't make loud and aggressive punk music by its very nature racist. There is a difference between a racist band that plays aggressively and a sings about racist themes and attracts skinhead fans, and a non-racist band that just happens to play aggressively but doesn't sing about racist themes. Certainly if you find out a band has an unusually large skin head following, that is eye brow raising. Same with a game. I just don't think it is the only criteria you can use here. A lot of non-racist games are going to be labeled racist through guilt by association with that criteria.
Oh no, RPG's are racist, sexist insensitive and they trigger my SJW syndrome.
Oh butt hurt this is interfering with my creative side. More butt hurt people made fun of me. Special butt hurt we need to protest these great injustices.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;844001So which games have been revealed to you as racist through your research? Which games do all the "self-admitted racists" play? I've been on this planet 48 years, and I've never met a "self-admitted" racist. I've met a few people who had some pretty dumb ideas, but since literally none of them played rpgs afaik, I wasn't able to come to any conclusions in that regard. Even if I knew a dozen "self-admitted racists" who were rpg players and they all played D&D, I'm not sure that would be enough to give weight to the notion that Orcs are a racist construct in fantasy games or that D&D is a racist game...considering the numbers of people who play it and aren't self-admitted racists.
On the one hand, I agree that just because many racists like something doesn't necessarily mean that the thing is racist. However, it is a warning sign to look closely at that thing.
Again, I think that racist themes in fiction aren't the biggest deal. I can still enjoy reading H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, because they were excellent writers. However, they were undoubtedly racist, and I don't think we should try to deny or justify that. I am fine with my son reading them - but I also talk with him about racism, and he recognizes it.
As for self-admitted racists, several years ago, there was a white supremacist thread "Learn All You Need to Know About Race from Dungeons & Dragons." (This was reported by Chris Van Dyke in his "Race in D&D" blog - I'm not linking to the site because it is vile, but you can find it by search if you really want.) It started with the following,
QuoteFrom reading and posting on the Opposing Views section of the forum, I read a lot of foolish comments from the anti's. Statements like "I know a black person who is really smart, therefore everything you say about racial intelligence differences is wrong." Well, of course, the lack of understanding of statistics this statement shows is staggering. I try to recall when in my life when I could have fallen for such a foolish statement and I can't think of when I would have.
I completely understood how there could be smart blacks and yet blacks be less intelligent than whites as a whole when I was a child. When was the first time I thought about an idea like that? When I got into Dungeons and Dragons at the age of nine or ten. I knew that elves were more agile than humans. I knew that because they had a +1 bonus (back when I started playing, now its +2) to Dexterity, I knew they were more dexterous even though the average elf had a Dexterity of 11.5 and humans could have a Dexterity of 18.
These days, orcs have an average Intelligence of 8.5 (10.5 average for 3d6, -2) and since IQ roughly corresponds to D&D Intelligence times ten, then that puts your typical orc at an average IQ of about 85 . . . who does that remind you of? Of course, even as a child (long before I was racially aware) I would have known you were a fool if you said that orcs were as smart as humans just because you had an orc character with an Intelligence of 16. So when I was ten, I apparently knew more about statistics than your typical anti does.
And this point may seem a bit silly, but it introduces an important idea that most white people are conditioned not to believe in - racial essentialism. The idea that race determines certain characteristics or tendencies. We knew that elves we dexterous, that dwarves were tough, that orcs were mean and nasty. We also knew that there were exceptions and that exceptions didn't mean that general trends didn't still apply.
D&D also has a lot about racial loyalty. Elves band together in protection of their forests. Orcs raid human villages and have to be stopped by the hero. In D&D, you have loyalty to your people and you know that sometimes a race in general can be a threat to your's.
As I've grown older over the years I've continued to enjoy role playing games and my though the games I've played have advanced beyond just fighting orcs and finding magic items - but I think that some of those ideas I was exposed to as a child were good lessons that maybe helped me come to terms with ideas that are part of beings a White Nationalist.
On the one hand, I don't think that this proves anything about the conscious or unconscious intent of D&D. However, regardless of the intent, a more important issue is what kids get out of it.
This is among the reasons why I approve of the increased minority representation in illustrations for Pathfinder and 5th ed.
I'd wager that most white supremacist groups worth their weight in excrement could take just about any popular thing and twist it to their needs. Nuts and lunatics are excellent at that sort of thing. The fact that something can be interpreted as somehow racist doesn't mean it is or has to be. If a game has a million people playing it, some of them are going to be racists. Some of them are probably pedophiles and misogynists too. It just stands to reason. So if D&D is one of the games we are talking about then I'm going to need more than some white supremacists having a little fun trying to turn a popular thing into a racist hammer before I'll buy the notino that the game itself is overtly racist. Otoh, if we are talking about a game that has a total of 20 players, all of whom are white supremacists...well I don't really care since I'm reasonably certain the game is a pos I don't want to play.
Any thread about HPL will within about one page be derailed by "that guy" - the "I can't read his stories because he was such a dirty rotten racist!" guy. I've known many HPL fans, and I wouldn't characterize any one of them as racist. In fact, I'd characterize them as the opposite - they've pretty much all been intelligent, very open and tolerant and really completely NON-racist individuals. I often wonder if "that guy" is so hyper sensitive to any possible racist subtext because he himself has those ideas running through his head and his response is to over-react to anything that might trip his meter or something.
I've never met a racist Lovecraft fan. His sort of "weird" stories are exactly the sort of "deviant art" most white supremists despise.
The man himself was virulently and actively racist though. That's impossible to deny.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;844081Any thread about HPL will within about one page be derailed by "that guy" - the "I can't read his stories because he was such a dirty rotten racist!" guy. I've known many HPL fans, and I wouldn't characterize any one of them as racist. In fact, I'd characterize them as the opposite - they've pretty much all been intelligent, very open and tolerant and really completely NON-racist individuals. I often wonder if "that guy" is so hyper sensitive to any possible racist subtext because he himself has those ideas running through his head and his response is to over-react to anything that might trip his meter or something.
This seems to assume the binary that I have to either think:
1) There is no racism at all in HPL - any perceived racism is just hypersensitive overreaction.
2) HPL's stories should never be read because of his racism.
This sounds like bullshit to me.
I love HPL's stories, and I certainly don't assume the HPL fans are racist. However, HPL himself was undoubtedly racist - and that racism is clear in his stories.
I likewise find it ridiculous that people who seem to be arguing that there cannot be any racism in games simply because games aren't real. It's not necessarily a big deal, but in an industry dating from the 1970s, there's going to be racism in some products, and I prefer to acknowledge it.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;844081Any thread about HPL will within about one page be derailed by "that guy" - the "I can't read his stories because he was such a dirty rotten racist!" guy.
I think its more complicated than that.
There are those like the pair recapping HPL's stories over on TOR who cannot summarize a story without pointing out any racist aspects of the story. They read HPL but they didn't inhale.
HPL & HPL fans are easy targets just like RPG fans, for pseudo intellectuals looking to build up their number of SJW Twitter followers.
Quote from: jhkim;844097This seems to assume the binary that I have to either think:
1) There is no racism at all in HPL - any perceived racism is just hypersensitive overreaction.
2) HPL's stories should never be read because of his racism.
This sounds like bullshit to me.
I love HPL's stories, and I certainly don't assume the HPL fans are racist. However, HPL himself was undoubtedly racist - and that racism is clear in his stories.
I likewise find it ridiculous that people who seem to be arguing that there cannot be any racism in games simply because games aren't real. It's not necessarily a big deal, but in an industry dating from the 1970s, there's going to be racism in some products, and I prefer to acknowledge it.
There's a "3" to that binary (;)) - You could recognize that HPL was a racist, in a time long before any sort of equality movement when there were an awful lot of racist people walking around and it wasn't really considered terribly remarkable, and still read and enjoy his stories as just good creepy tales...
It's got little to do with whether or not HPL was a racist. I don't doubt it at all. At this point, pretty much anyone with a more than passing interest in the guy's work has been beaten about the skull repeatedly with all the proof of the fact. It's about whether or not his racism - in so much as it is present in his stories - is ANY SORT of threat to any sort of equality now. Does it mean anything if HPL was a racist at this point in history?
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;844001So which games have been revealed to you as racist through your research?
What research? I just met those people, they somehow passed my "screening process" (often by recommendation by some player who really hadn't done his or her homework), and later I realised it was failure of the process.
Then, upon careful examination, I was struck how similar their tastes were. All of them had the same explanation, which was pretty much the same as the one quoted by jhkim.
QuoteWhich games do all the "self-admitted racists" play?
Them? Any that makes "humanoid races" a thing with real stat changes.
Bonus point for content that makes Elves, which they see as "Aryan ideal", superior to other races.
Double bonus points for content like the Book of Elves, where Elves are maintaining a strict segregation and dislike or even act against any possible "dilution of the Elven blood". All of them believed in the segregation, too, despite me explaining to them that it's a BS idea.
For example, this research (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27816-want-tall-smart-children-find-an-exotic-stranger) explains it.
QuoteI've been on this planet 48 years, and I've never met a "self-admitted" racist.
Your were lucky and/or secluded.
I mean, you've never seen a skinhead or others of the same ilk? Seriously?
QuoteEven if I knew a dozen "self-admitted racists" who were rpg players and they all played D&D, I'm not sure that would be enough to give weight to the notion that Orcs are a racist construct in fantasy games or that D&D is a racist game...considering the numbers of people who play it and aren't self-admitted racists.
And I'm not talking about orcs, in this instance. See above.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844014Growing up, I noticed a lot of self described racists gravitated toward loud and aggressive punk music...that doesn't make loud and aggressive punk music by its very nature racist. There is a difference between a racist band that plays aggressively and a sings about racist themes and attracts skinhead fans, and a non-racist band that just happens to play aggressively but doesn't sing about racist themes. Certainly if you find out a band has an unusually large skin head following, that is eye brow raising. Same with a game. I just don't think it is the only criteria you can use here. A lot of non-racist games are going to be labeled racist through guilt by association with that criteria.
Certainly, but I'm not talking about music at all. I'm talking about game content that explicitly aligns with the views of racists that some people are just better than others.
There's a difference with "not singing about racist themes" here, isn't it?
Quote from: jhkim;844028On the one hand, I agree that just because many racists like something doesn't necessarily mean that the thing is racist. However, it is a warning sign to look closely at that thing.
Again, I think that racist themes in fiction aren't the biggest deal. I can still enjoy reading H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, because they were excellent writers. However, they were undoubtedly racist, and I don't think we should try to deny or justify that. I am fine with my son reading them - but I also talk with him about racism, and he recognizes it.
As for self-admitted racists, several years ago, there was a white supremacist thread "Learn All You Need to Know About Race from Dungeons & Dragons." (This was reported by Chris Van Dyke in his "Race in D&D" blog - I'm not linking to the site because it is vile, but you can find it by search if you really want.) It started with the following,
On the one hand, I don't think that this proves anything about the conscious or unconscious intent of D&D. However, regardless of the intent, a more important issue is what kids get out of it.
This is among the reasons why I approve of the increased minority representation in illustrations for Pathfinder and 5th ed.
Yeah, that post pretty much sums up my views on the matter.
Quote from: jhkim;8440972) HPL's stories should never be read because of his racism.
Personally, I don't like them because I think they are, generally, not my cup of tea, not because some elements are racist.
Quote from: AsenRG;844180Your were lucky and/or secluded.
I mean, you've never seen a skinhead or others of the same ilk? Seriously?
And I'm not talking about orcs, in this instance. See above.
Yeah, I've seen and met a few skinheads. Most of them were just dumb kids who thought the "look" was cool. I have no idea if any of them played rpgs.
Quote from: soltakss;844184Personally, I don't like them because I think they are, generally, not my cup of tea, not because some elements are racist.
Fair enough. Nobody should take issue with that afaic...
I don't take issue with people not liking HPL because of his racist ideas either. I just take issue with every discussion about him inevitably turning into another debate about his racism - even if the discussion started out as something like "what is your favorite mythos story?" or something.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;844192Yeah, I've seen and met a few skinheads. Most of them were just dumb kids who thought the "look" was cool. I have no idea if any of them played rpgs.
The ones I've met didn't care one bit for the look, for all I could tell, but that's besides the point. I haven't played RPGs with them, of course, but they're not the only opportunity to meet people with such views:).
But if you've met skinheads, you obviously have met "self-identified racists", too. I mean, their insistence on "racial purity" is pretty much part of the package deal they get!
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;844193Fair enough. Nobody should take issue with that afaic...
I don't take issue with people not liking HPL because of his racist ideas either. I just take issue with every discussion about him inevitably turning into another debate about his racism - even if the discussion started out as something like "what is your favorite mythos story?" or something.
With that, I completely agree! Though in my case, it's REH discussions I'm sorry about, since I'm not into HPL for reasons unrelated to his views;).
Quote from: AsenRG;844194With that, I completely agree! Though in my case, it's REH discussions I'm sorry about, since I'm not into HPL for reasons unrelated to his views;).
Yeah the same issue arises with Howard, although he's a bit more redeemable in that regard so it's usually not as toxic...
It really seems to be the younger crowd and or people who have only recently got into gaming that complain about Lovecraft being racist.
They act as if they're spilling some sort of big secret none of have known about. Bringing the light of truth to us ignorant heathens who have gone on blissfully unaware of Lovecraft's faults...and therefore only spreading his evil rhetoric...
The "OMG! Don't you guys know he was totally racists!"
Where most of us have gone "Yeah, we've known this for years now...you deal with it and move on...not everyone of his stories is dripping with descriptions of ugly undead Negros or cat's named offensive slurs.."
Quote from: AsenRG;844180Certainly, but I'm not talking about music at all. I'm talking about game content that explicitly aligns with the views of racists that some people are just better than others.
There's a difference with "not singing about racist themes" here, isn't it?
.
I don't think the game content aligns with racist views, but I do think there are racists who see their views in the content. A better analogy might be a band that has lyrics about norse mythology or something in one of their albums and white supremacists draw a connection between that and their beliefs in a master race or something. I do get what you are saying. There are "races" in D&D, but "races" really means species in the game and if it were invented today, I doubt the term race would be employed. A fantasy world is a bit of a thought experiment where humans are not alone. It is a bit like saying what would the world be like if there were still subspecies like Neanderthals competing with humans. Clearly some people who are racist will see their racist beliefs reflected in it (because they'll perceive the neanderthals as a stand in for one group and humans as a stand in for another). That doesn't make the content itself racist. It doesn't make the 99.99% of the population that plays the game without looking at it through a white supremacist framework racist. The problem isn't the game, it is the white supremacists who want to turn the game into a tool for their propaganda.
That said, I am absolutely in favor of diverse art and in the gaming community being more welcoming to minorities (which I stated elsewhere on this thread----or maybe a related one as we have a couple that are crossing topic). I just don't think the way to do that is to remove stat bonuses and penalties for elves and dwarves.
Quote from: AsenRG;844180Them? Any that makes "humanoid races" a thing with real stat changes.
Bonus point for content that makes Elves, which they see as "Aryan ideal", superior to other races.
Double bonus points for content like the Book of Elves, where Elves are maintaining a strict segregation and dislike or even act against any possible "dilution of the Elven blood". All of them believed in the segregation, too, despite me explaining to them that it's a BS idea.
For example, this research (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27816-want-tall-smart-children-find-an-exotic-stranger) explains it.
.
Racism definitely exists as a thing in fantasy settings. And elves tend to be pretty racists. But that doesn't mean there is a racist message or that the designers were racists. It just means we know racism is a thing and so in a world where you don't just have different human ethnic groups, but you have elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings, there is going to be prejudice between those groups. In most instances where I've seen this in fantasy it is actually an anti-racist message. Something existing in a setting, isn't automatically an endorsement of it. This was the issue we had back in the 80s with the satanic panic, where the presence of magic in fantasy alarmed a lot of christian parents. But having spells in the game wasn't an endorsement anything, it was just something that made the setting more interesting.
Quote from: AsenRG;844180Your were lucky and/or secluded.
I mean, you've never seen a skinhead or others of the same ilk? Seriously?
.
Here i have to agree with you. I have lived on both coasts and definitely met self described racists. I do think location matters here though. There are communities where blatant racism is just unacceptable and there are communities where it is tolerated. When I was in southern California, there were a ton of racists who made no bones about their beliefs (it was just ridiculously prevalent there). On the east coast it was way more subtle and a lot less prevalent but still existed (and we still had things like Skinheads). I went to high school in a Jewish community and every once in a while the synagogues or Jewish cemeteries would get painted with swastikas.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844216I don't think the game content aligns with racist views, but I do think there are racists who see their views in the content. A better analogy might be a band that has lyrics about norse mythology or something in one of their albums and white supremacists draw a connection between that and their beliefs in a master race or something.
No.
Sorry, this is game content that deals explicitly with in-game racism (between fictional races or species). It's not about anything else that somebody is interpreting.
It's closer to an war movie that's meant to show the horrors of war in order to send an anti-war message, and some gun nut deciding to go arm himself a bit more because
obviously the message is "the better armed side wins". (BTW, let me clarify, I'm talking specifically about "Complete Book of Elves" elves, and other games that have chosen to imitate them and put similar elves).
Reading the Complete Book, however, didn't leave me with an impression that the authors condemn such attitudes. If anything, I got the opposite impression!
Neither of the aforementioned racists had got this impression, either.
Granted, I was exactly 18 at the time, so I didn't think "elves do it, it must be cool" or any shit like that. I decided "elves suck donkey balls" (and still haven't come across anything to disprove said opinion, quite the opposite).
Let's go to the aforementioned war movie example. If neither gun nuts nor people currently serving in the military nor regular citizens are able to detect its message, does it matter whether the pro-war message was sent intentionally or unintetionally, due to the producer "botching his roll"?
I'd say no. It's still sending the same message.
And if it gets sequels which mostly keeps the same elements, but updates the weapons part with new tactics and weapons?
Yeah, I think the same.
QuoteI do get what you are saying. There are "races" in D&D, but "races" really means species in the game and if it were invented today, I doubt the term race would be employed.
In fact, they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. They're somewhere between a race and a species. Doesn't change the fact that to many people they are like real-world entities.
QuoteClearly some people who are racist will see their racist beliefs reflected in it (because they'll perceive the neanderthals as a stand in for one group and humans as a stand in for another). That doesn't make the content itself racist. It doesn't make the 99.99% of the population that plays the game without looking at it through a white supremacist framework racist. The problem isn't the game, it is the white supremacists who want to turn the game into a tool for their propaganda.
The question is, why does every new edition keep the game in a state that fits the supremacists* point of view? Do we assume this load of bullshit is in fact an accurate representation of reality, or what?
*I strongly suspect that it's not just
white supremacists who would see it that way. I've just never met any of the others, much less talked to them about games.
QuoteThat said, I am absolutely in favor of diverse art and in the gaming community being more welcoming to minorities (which I stated elsewhere on this thread----or maybe a related one as we have a couple that are crossing topic). I just don't think the way to do that is to remove stat bonuses and penalties for elves and dwarves.
The stats bonuses and penalties are just part of it. Which are the smartest, most beautiful, fastest race? Having ancient secrets and inborn nobility? Often ruling much of the setting?
Then add something like the Complete Book of Elves which has them maintaining racial purity and imply that this makes them better... and even if you don't support any racist statements, it starts to seem like you do.
But fine, I can see mechanical bonuses and penalties due to different body types! Having them for mental stats, however, is a bit too much, IMO.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844217Racism definitely exists as a thing in fantasy settings. And elves tend to be pretty racists. But that doesn't mean there is a racist message or that the designers were racists. It just means we know racism is a thing and so in a world where you don't just have different human ethnic groups, but you have elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings, there is going to be prejudice between those groups. In most instances where I've seen this in fantasy it is actually an anti-racist message. Something existing in a setting, isn't automatically an endorsement of it. This was the issue we had back in the 80s with the satanic panic, where the presence of magic in fantasy alarmed a lot of christian parents. But having spells in the game wasn't an endorsement anything, it was just something that made the setting more interesting.
Sure, I agree with this!
The problem is when the execution actually plays into the hands of people who would use it to support their racist agenda.
I mean, seriously, why did we have to have the "Aryan ideal" race be also the most supportive of practices that seem like what contemporary racists would approve of? Why not make the frigging hobbits into bigots?
I'd like to see the skinhead that tries to identify with a hobbit and claim this supports his racial purity stance...
"So, when you're protecting your racial purity, you get low, with tendency to get fat, and with an enormous appetite, but you're oh-so-sneaky! Because you suck in straight combat, that is."
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844218Here i have to agree with you. I have lived on both coasts and definitely met self described racists. I do think location matters here though. There are communities where blatant racism is just unacceptable and there are communities where it is tolerated. When I was in southern California, there were a ton of racists who made no bones about their beliefs (it was just ridiculously prevalent there). On the east coast it was way more subtle and a lot less prevalent but still existed (and we still had things like Skinheads). I went to high school in a Jewish community and every once in a while the synagogues or Jewish cemeteries would get painted with swastikas.
Well, glad we agree:).
And I don't know how much location matters. I'm not even writing from the same continent as you, and it seems what I said tends to be pretty consistent. See also the article JHKim posted;).
Quote from: AsenRG;844224Well, glad we agree:).
And I don't know how much location matters. I'm not even writing from the same continent as you, and it seems what I said tends to be pretty consistent. See also the article JHKim posted;).
Location matters a great deal because in some places racism is simply more acceptable and prevalent. Case in point, when I was in southern california our neighbor belonged to the John Birch Society, the KKK had an actual presence, most of my friends parents were outwardly racist towards black people, Jews and Mexicans. In the north east where we moved to, you rarely encountered that kind of intense racism, and when you did it was a surprise (again though, location mattered here as well). There was still racism, but it was not anywhere near the level we experienced before.
I missed the article JHKim posted, you can certainly repost it again if it is relevant. I would be pretty suspicious of any study that claims there are no differences in intensity of racism in different places having seen it first hand myself.
Quote from: AsenRG;844224No.
Sorry, this is game content that deals explicitly with in-game racism (between fictional races or species). It's not about anything else that somebody is interpreting.
It's closer to an war movie that's meant to show the horrors of war in order to send an anti-war message, and some gun nut deciding to go arm himself a bit more because obviously the message is "the better armed side wins". (BTW, let me clarify, I'm talking specifically about "Complete Book of Elves" elves, and other games that have chosen to imitate them and put similar elves).
Reading the Complete Book, however, didn't leave me with an impression that the authors condemn such attitudes. If anything, I got the opposite impression!
Neither of the aforementioned racists had got this impression, either.
Granted, I was exactly 18 at the time, so I didn't think "elves do it, it must be cool" or any shit like that. I decided "elves suck donkey balls" (and still haven't come across anything to disprove said opinion, quite the opposite).
Let's go to the aforementioned war movie example. If neither gun nuts nor people currently serving in the military nor regular citizens are able to detect its message, does it matter whether the pro-war message was sent intentionally or unintetionally, due to the producer "botching his roll"?
I'd say no. It's still sending the same message.
And if it gets sequels which mostly keeps the same elements, but updates the weapons part with new tactics and weapons?
Yeah, I think the same.
.
It has been a long time since I read the Complete Book of Elves (not since it came out actually). But my memory is me and everyone else who read it saw it as making fun of elven arrogance, and none of us saw anything aryan in it at all (I mean we understood they were presented as racists, but we didn't think they were drawing a connection between the elves and the Germans). The elves were kind of the butt of the joke from my view. Keep in mind the majority of the people I gamed with were Jewish. And even those who were not Jewish usually had at least one Jewish parent (myself included). And the school system we went to was a predominantly Jewish school where we had several courses on things like the Holocaust. The elves to me felt a lot more like aristocrats obsessed with 'good breeding' than the Nazis who were obsessed with Eugenics and systematically killed millions. These are both lousy things, but I feel pretty comfortable making light of English or New England style aristocrats than Nazis.
On the war movie front, I think if people are not able to discern the message either way, then that doesn't really justify extracting one does it? I mean if anti-war people see a film and think it is against war, but pro-war people see it and think it is pro-war, that pretty much demonstrates they are just bringing that stuff in with them.
Quote from: AsenRG;844224The problem is when the execution actually plays into the hands of people who would use it to support their racist agenda.
I mean, seriously, why did we have to have the "Aryan ideal" race be also the most supportive of practices that seem like what contemporary racists would approve of? Why not make the frigging hobbits into bigots?
I'd like to see the skinhead that tries to identify with a hobbit and claim this supports his racial purity stance...
"So, when you're protecting your racial purity, you get low, with tendency to get fat, and with an enormous appetite, but you're oh-so-sneaky! Because you suck in straight combat, that is."
I don't think elves are supposed to be the aryan ideal race. For one thing in D&D, the standard elf is pretty short. For another thing, they are physically weaker than many of the other races (in the form of a Constitution penalty). The aryan ideal was tall and strong.
Elves are not the only bigots in D&D. Dwarves are pretty racist too. I am just not seeing what you are here. I understand some lunatic white supremacists have tried to co-opt the game for their purposes, but I think they really have to stretch the material to make it work. And I don't think we should scrub out interesting elements just because some jerks are going to misuse it.
Orcs weren't originally a race in D&D, they were a monster. No different from lizard-men, trolls, or ogres. In early D&D books there are references to orcs eating people (as there is in Tolkien). What is the role of monsters in culture? It's to put some form to our inchoate dread of being prey, of the foul and predatory and grotesque in nature. And then to slay the monstrous predator in order to symbolically overcome our dread and fear.
Now, if people want to decry the innate human urge to project hate and fear into the form of monsters, then go ahead. There have been some thoughtful treatments of the subject (for instance, John Gardner's Grendel). But cleansing monsters from pop culture is quite a sweeping task. And it makes pretty much any of the conventional RPG where you fight and kill things unplayable.
I've always liked Fantasy Hero, first edition's take on it. Hordes of man sized monsters symbolize life's endless petty little evils and major monsters represent natural disasters, and evil overlords represent corrupt governments, corporations and similar man made great evils.
Interestingly Tolkiens elves are, at least symbolically, man in a state of grace without original sin and the fall. So in that sense they are like the Aryan ideal except in a Christian sense rather than a Nietzscheian sense.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844227Location matters a great deal because in some places racism is simply more acceptable and prevalent. Case in point, when I was in southern california our neighbor belonged to the John Birch Society, the KKK had an actual presence, most of my friends parents were outwardly racist towards black people, Jews and Mexicans. In the north east where we moved to, you rarely encountered that kind of intense racism, and when you did it was a surprise (again though, location mattered here as well). There was still racism, but it was not anywhere near the level we experienced before.
I missed the article JHKim posted, you can certainly repost it again if it is relevant. I would be pretty suspicious of any study that claims there are no differences in intensity of racism in different places having seen it first hand myself.
No, I mean this article.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=844028&postcount=264
AFAICT, the author is American. I'm not, yet I know people that had (in all likelyhood) never heard of his article, and yet reaching the same conclusions.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844230It has been a long time since I read the Complete Book of Elves (not since it came out actually). But my memory is me and everyone else who read it saw it as making fun of elven arrogance, and none of us saw anything aryan in it at all (I mean we understood they were presented as racists, but we didn't think they were drawing a connection between the elves and the Germans). The elves were kind of the butt of the joke from my view. Keep in mind the majority of the people I gamed with were Jewish. And even those who were not Jewish usually had at least one Jewish parent (myself included). And the school system we went to was a predominantly Jewish school where we had several courses on things like the Holocaust. The elves to me felt a lot more like aristocrats obsessed with 'good breeding' than the Nazis who were obsessed with Eugenics and systematically killed millions. These are both lousy things, but I feel pretty comfortable making light of English or New England style aristocrats than Nazis.
Can we safely assume that you were conditioned not to pay attention to racist messages, and not to interpret messages disfavorably, then:)?
Because it sure seems like you're cutting the book too much slack. Again, see who likes it...;)
QuoteOn the war movie front, I think if people are not able to discern the message either way, then that doesn't really justify extracting one does it? I mean if anti-war people see a film and think it is against war, but pro-war people see it and think it is pro-war, that pretty much demonstrates they are just bringing that stuff in with them.
That's not my analogy, though. If the only people that detect a possible anti-war message are the anti-war activists...then the message was botched, IMO.
Quote from: AsenRG;844242Can we safely assume that you were conditioned not to pay attention to racist messages, and not to interpret messages disfavorably, then:)?
Because it sure seems like you're cutting the book too much slack. Again, see who likes it...;)
.
No, I was taught to pay attention to racist messages because racism is bad and the holocaust shows where that kind of thinking can lead. I just think people who find it in things like the book of elves do so because that is what they want to see in it. Again there is a big difference between humorously depicting arrogant elves as prejudiced and endorsing real world racism. Having stat bonuses for elves in a game doesn't mean the designers or writers subscribe to racial essentiism in humans in the real world.
Quote from: AsenRG;844242That's not my analogy, though. If the only people that detect a possible anti-war message are the anti-war activists...then the message was botched, IMO.
It depends on what the film is trying to do. If they are trying to make an anti-war film and people are not seeing that message, yeah it is bad film making. But if they are making a movie about coming of age against the backdrop of war, then it isn't meant to weigh in one way or the other. It doesn't become a pro-war movie if it has a deals neutrally with the moral questions of war so it can focus on other themes. People who read such a film as pro-war are taking that in with them.
Quote from: Haffrung;844235Orcs weren't originally a race in D&D, they were a monster. No different from lizard-men, trolls, or ogres. In early D&D books there are references to orcs eating people (as there is in Tolkien). What is the role of monsters in culture? It's to put some form to our inchoate dread of being prey, of the foul and predatory and grotesque in nature. And then to slay the monstrous predator in order to symbolically overcome our dread and fear.
Now, if people want to decry the innate human urge to project hate and fear into the form of monsters, then go ahead. There have been some thoughtful treatments of the subject (for instance, John Gardner's Grendel). But cleansing monsters from pop culture is quite a sweeping task. And it makes pretty much any of the conventional RPG where you fight and kill things unplayable.
Different monsters symbolize different sorts of fears.
Some monsters are absolutely metaphors for race and racial issues. For example, Lovecraft's "The White Ape" depicts a fear of miscegenation via Sir Wade Jermyn's monstrous wife from Africa. The theme is repeated in the wife brought from the South Seas in The Shadow Over Innsmouth. From another light, the domesticated dragons in Naomi Novik's Temeraire series depict themes of social class and slavery.
Let's say I'm in an AD&D game where orcs are evil monsters, and as a result, my paladin goes through and kills a ton of orc women and children (as described in the Monster Manual). That's going to evoke issues of ethnic cleansing. That doesn't mean that I'm a real-life racist - but the meaning is there.
Other monsters may resonate with different fears. For example, many monsters (vampires, werewolves, zombies) are transformations of people that often portray fears of certain influences - conformism, sexuality, etc. Different monsters and situations will depict different things.
Quote from: jhkim;844289Let's say I'm in an AD&D game where orcs are evil monsters, and as a result, my paladin goes through and kills a ton of orc women and children (as described in the Monster Manual). That's going to evoke issues of ethnic cleansing. That doesn't mean that I'm a real-life racist - but the meaning is there.
Is it ethnic cleansing to kill a tribe of lizard men? Of ogres? Of ettins? Again, I don't present orcs as cattle-stealing savages. I never bought into the sanitization of the 2E era. To me, they're monsters. Those young will grow up to raid human communities and enslave or devour the inhabitants.
I see humanoids as twisted and malicious beastmen. Take gnolls. They're hyenas (filthy, cruel carrion-eaters) in humanoid form. The fact they have complex social organization doesn't mean they're an ethnicity in the human sense. They're monsters. Ineffably evil.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844253No, I was taught to pay attention to racist messages because racism is bad and the holocaust shows where that kind of thinking can lead. I just think people who find it in things like the book of elves do so because that is what they want to see in it. Again there is a big difference between humorously depicting arrogant elves as prejudiced and endorsing real world racism. Having stat bonuses for elves in a game doesn't mean the designers or writers subscribe to racial essentiism in humans in the real world.
Well, what can I say? I also saw it as racist. Following your logic, I've wanted to see it there.
I can assure you most people that know me would be kinda surprised to hear that:).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844256It depends on what the film is trying to do. If they are trying to make an anti-war film and people are not seeing that message, yeah it is bad film making. But if they are making a movie about coming of age against the backdrop of war, then it isn't meant to weigh in one way or the other. It doesn't become a pro-war movie if it has a deals neutrally with the moral questions of war so it can focus on other themes. People who read such a film as pro-war are taking that in with them.
And if it's a movie about coming of age against the backdrop of war, but way too many people are detecting a pro-war message as well...would you say it's good film-making;)?
Quote from: jhkim;844289Different monsters symbolize different sorts of fears.
Some monsters are absolutely metaphors for race and racial issues. For example, Lovecraft's "The White Ape" depicts a fear of miscegenation via Sir Wade Jermyn's monstrous wife from Africa. The theme is repeated in the wife brought from the South Seas in The Shadow Over Innsmouth. From another light, the domesticated dragons in Naomi Novik's Temeraire series depict themes of social class and slavery.
Let's say I'm in an AD&D game where orcs are evil monsters, and as a result, my paladin goes through and kills a ton of orc women and children (as described in the Monster Manual). That's going to evoke issues of ethnic cleansing. That doesn't mean that I'm a real-life racist - but the meaning is there.
Other monsters may resonate with different fears. For example, many monsters (vampires, werewolves, zombies) are transformations of people that often portray fears of certain influences - conformism, sexuality, etc. Different monsters and situations will depict different things.
Yes, this.
See now when it comes to things like Lovecraft's monstrous wife from Africa, that sort of thing may have (probably did) originated with his fears and racist ideas regarding racial mixing and what not, but when I READ that, I'm not thinking about that at all. For me it all ties into the notion that the mythos has been a force on this planet since long before humanity came to be. As such, the oldest groups of human beings have a more ancient "connection" to the cosmic influences Lovecraft is writing about. Humanity originated in Africa and the oldest peoples on this planet have the longest, deepest mythos connections...I dunno...it just seems to fit with the general ideas of the stories.
Quote from: AsenRG;844306And if it's a movie about coming of age against the backdrop of war, but way too many people are detecting a pro-war message as well...would you say it's good film-making;)?
.
It would depend. But in this case I don't think a lot of people are holding up Elves as an Aryan ideal. There are groups who have done so; most folks think they are making a pretty strange connection. I can see their logic, I understand why they are doing what they are there, but I think their conclusion on the matter is flawed. And again, I don't think it is a good idea to write or design things around those kind of edge cases. I think you write and design under the assumption that the audience isn't skinheads trying to bend what you do toward their racist agenda.
Quote from: AsenRG;844306Well, what can I say? I also saw it as racist. Following your logic, I've wanted to see it there.
I can assure you most people that know me would be kinda surprised to hear that:).
s.
I am not saying seeing it as racist makes you racist.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844340It would depend. But in this case I don't think a lot of people are holding up Elves as an Aryan ideal.
A lot? Hopefully not!
A
surprisingly big number? Alas, yes, at least from my experience.
QuoteThere are groups who have done so; most folks think they are making a pretty strange connection. I can see their logic, I understand why they are doing what they are there, but I think their conclusion on the matter is flawed.
I think they're twisting it, too. I also think the material itself makes it way too easy to reach erroneous conclusions.
QuoteAnd again, I don't think it is a good idea to write or design things around those kind of edge cases. I think you write and design under the assumption that the audience isn't skinheads trying to bend what you do toward their racist agenda.
Personally? I write, when I write, for personal pleasure. I also derive pleasure from subverting tropes, or following them to logical conclusion (which often results in a reductio ad absurdum, but that's the fun part).
So no, I don't write around edge cases. Instead, I write to make them snivel and suffer by reading it;).
I guess that means I'm not a good person, but that's fine with me:D!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844341I am not saying seeing it as racist makes you racist.
Okay, let's chalk up that misunderstanding to me being suspicious, can we? Or if you prefer, we can chalk it up to me having had to kick a few players out of my circle in order to stop them destroying games with arguments.
Quote from: AsenRG;844353A lot? Hopefully not!
A surprisingly big number? Alas, yes, at least from my experience.
The only folks I've heard of doing this are the storm front guys and some other rare cases. I've never once met anyone in real life who does so. I've never even met any gamers online who do so.
QuoteI think they're twisting it, too. I also think the material itself makes it way too easy to reach erroneous conclusions.
Some things are going to be easier than others to twist. I don't think that is the fault of the designer or the people who use it without twisting it. I think one of the worst things you can do is avoid interesting or nuanced ideas because a few people may use them the wrong way.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844357The only folks I've heard of doing this are the storm front guys and some other rare cases. I've never once met anyone in real life who does so. I've never even met any gamers online who do so.
Count yourself lucky. I'm not talking from theory or from Internet discussions, though:).
QuoteSome things are going to be easier than others to twist. I don't think that is the fault of the designer or the people who use it without twisting it.
Definitely not the fault of the normal people, yes;).
QuoteI think one of the worst things you can do is avoid interesting or nuanced ideas because a few people may use them the wrong way.
Yeah, I wouldn't do that. That said, given that we're talking about the standard RPG representation of some races, I wouldn't call that neither nuanced, nor interesting.
In fact, I find it far more nuanced and far more interesting to turn the expected setting on its head, including in ways that would make those people really uncomfortable:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;844379Count yourself lucky. I'm not talking from theory or from Internet discussions, though:).
We are in different countries so that may be part of it. As I said as well, I moved to a region of the country where racism isn't as prevalent as it was where I lived before.
QuoteYeah, I wouldn't do that. That said, given that we're talking about the standard RPG representation of some races, I wouldn't call that neither nuanced, nor interesting.
This is a pretty subjective thing. For the standard D&D rulebook material, which has to work for a wide range of settings because every GM is going to use it differently, I think the classic races generally work pretty well. I find them interesting enough for what they are meant to do. I would be reluctant to change those simply because there are people misusing them.
QuoteIn fact, I find it far more nuanced and far more interesting to turn the expected setting on its head, including in ways that would make those people really uncomfortable:D!
Inverting tropes deliberately for its own sake isn't something I consider all that interesting. I don't object to it and I don't mind messing with tropes. I just don't find it all that more compelling than the tropes themselves. What is more interesting to me is an open-mindedness to these things, allowing yourself to try new things but not doing so simply to break away from the old. I do think playing with tropes in interesting ways is cool and sometimes that involves turning them on their head. My aim though isn't to make bigots squirm, since I don't really want to spend a whole lot of time thinking about what makes bigots tick and then writing to them as my audience with the aim of provocation. For me, I'd rather make a setting and design material that entertains and intrigues the people at my table. But I also don't see it as a form of moral instruction. I am not there to help my players figure out the world or to shock them into a particular way of thinking (especially since they are all pretty well-adjusted people).
There's an important distinction to be made between two types of fallacies.
The first is racism, and the second is seeing everything in terms of race. The latter doesn't imply the former. You can easily not be racist, and still commit the fallacy of viewing things through the projected lens of everything being about race. Which leads to one looking at a gamebook and seeing/creating metaphors and analogies and attributing these to authorial intent.
Case in point, one can look at elves and say they match an "Aryan Ideal". When doing so, however, one should realize that the very concept of an Aryan Ideal is coming from themselves. Most of us don't ever think about life (or fantasy) in those terms. It's purely subjective speculation, without any evidence besides what the reader is himself inferring, to attribute any such ideas to the author of a fantasy work. Just because you can apply a metaphor to something, doesn't mean that something is defined by that metaphor, or that the metaphor holds any sort of value or truth beyond the specific perception of that individual.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844383We are in different countries so that may be part of it. As I said as well, I moved to a region of the country where racism isn't as prevalent as it was where I lived before.
Even a different city makes a difference, so of course that's part of it:).
QuoteThis is a pretty subjective thing. For the standard D&D rulebook material, which has to work for a wide range of settings because every GM is going to use it differently, I think the classic races generally work pretty well. I find them interesting enough for what they are meant to do. I would be reluctant to change those simply because there are people misusing them.
It is indeed a subjective thing. I find the classic races suck pretty badly for a wide range of settings, and are merely inadequate for others.
Of course, I wouldn't be reluctant at all to change them.
QuoteInverting tropes deliberately for its own sake isn't something I consider all that interesting.
Not for its own sake, but to see what new and interesting things we can do with the new ones.
QuoteI don't object to it and I don't mind messing with tropes. I just don't find it all that more compelling than the tropes themselves. What is more interesting to me is an open-mindedness to these things, allowing yourself to try new things but not doing so simply to break away from the old.
Indeed. I might have failed to explain myself.
QuoteI do think playing with tropes in interesting ways is cool and sometimes that involves turning them on their head. My aim though isn't to make bigots squirm, since I don't really want to spend a whole lot of time thinking about what makes bigots tick and then writing to them as my audience with the aim of provocation.
Well, it was relatively recently I met the last one (and she even managed to play with us for a while - one of my regular players still has to answer for giving her recommendation).
QuoteFor me, I'd rather make a setting and design material that entertains and intrigues the people at my table. But I also don't see it as a form of moral instruction. I am not there to help my players figure out the world or to shock them into a particular way of thinking (especially since they are all pretty well-adjusted people).
I make setting and design material that entertains me, period.
It's just that I'm entertained by stuff that certain categories of other people would dislike. In my point of view, who your enemies are is almost as important as who likes you.
Quote from: TristramEvans;844430There's an important distinction to be made between two types of fallacies.
The first is racism, and the second is seeing everything in terms of race. The latter doesn't imply the former. You can easily not be racist, and still commit the fallacy of viewing things through the projected lens of everything being about race. Which leads to one looking at a gamebook and seeing/creating metaphors and analogies and attributing these to authorial intent.
Case in point, one can look at elves and say they match an "Aryan Ideal". When doing so, however, one should realize that the very concept of an Aryan Ideal is coming from themselves. Most of us don't ever think about life (or fantasy) in those terms. It's purely subjective speculation, without any evidence besides what the reader is himself inferring, to attribute any such ideas to the author of a fantasy work. Just because you can apply a metaphor to something, doesn't mean that something is defined by that metaphor, or that the metaphor holds any sort of value or truth beyond the specific perception of that individual.
Or you can be told by people that believe in said "Aryan ideal" that elves are a great representation of what they believe. Which is, of course, exactly how it happened in my case;).
Before the second time, I admit, I considered them simply murderous self-righteous bastards.
Quote from: AsenRG;844433Or you can be told by people that believe in said "Aryan ideal" that elves are a great representation of what they believe.
Just as one can be told by Otherkin that Changeling: The Dreaming is a great representation of what they believe.
And both statements can be afforded the same amount of gravitas.
Quote from: TristramEvans;844439Just as one can be told by Otherkin that Changeling: The Dreaming is a great representation of what they believe.
And both statements can be afforded the same amount of gravitas.
If I knew who the fuck Otherkin were, or held the slightest interest in C:tD, maybe this post might have elicited more of a reaction from me. As it is, all you get is a shrug.
(Last time I flipped a C:tD book open, or any Changeling book, was years ago and I didn't finish it).
Quote from: AsenRG;844540If I knew who the fuck Otherkin were, or held the slightest interest in C:tD, maybe this post might have elicited more of a reaction from me. As it is, all you get is a shrug.
(Last time I flipped a C:tD book open, or any Changeling book, was years ago and I didn't finish it).
Translation: Just because some weirdos can use an RPG book to justify their kooky beliefs doesn't mean it's the book's fault, or that non-weirdos should give a shit. So Aryan Elf people are batshit crazy weirdos, and nothing they say should be taken seriously, or influence how non-weirdos regard RPG content.
Quote from: Haffrung;844235Orcs weren't originally a race in D&D, they were a monster. No different from lizard-men, trolls, or ogres. In early D&D books there are references to orcs eating people (as there is in Tolkien). What is the role of monsters in culture? It's to put some form to our inchoate dread of being prey, of the foul and predatory and grotesque in nature. And then to slay the monstrous predator in order to symbolically overcome our dread and fear.
Orcs do hold a special distinction in D&D though, through the existence of the half-orc.
Quote from: Haffrung;844542Translation: Just because some weirdos can use an RPG book to justify their kooky beliefs doesn't mean it's the book's fault, or that non-weirdos should give a shit. So Aryan Elf people are batshit crazy weirdos, and nothing they say should be taken seriously, or influence how non-weirdos regard RPG content.
Again,
you wish.
Asen, if you don't think that they are batshit crazy, can we at least agree that they are assholes?
Quote from: AsenRG;844649Again, you wish.
I'm sorry, are you now actually arging that racist shitheads are
not mentally and emotionally-impaired wackjobs?
Would you like to make a case for the scientific validity of phrenology while you're at it?
Ladies and gentlemen...
(http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdresplarge/mritems/Images/2015/7/18/64c193ca133e4b9c9c776af159c63054_18.jpg)
...the "Master Race".
Quote from: Deadfish;844660Asen, if you don't think that they are batshit crazy, can we at least agree that they are assholes?
Asshole doesnt cover it. To actually hold those beliefs in this day and age, living in a first world western nation, requires a level of ignorance and denial of scientific fact that puts it
below the level of people who think the moon landing was faked.
Racists are stupid and insane. There's no reason to mince around with that. I'm not talking about making off-colour jokes or occasionally throwing around stereotypes, I mean actual "the white race is pure and inherently superior" belief systems that seem to particularly infect inbred redneck drunks and angst-puppy juvenile delinquents.
Case in point, anyone who sees their belief system as validated by the
mechnical bonuses in a Roleplaying game...that's serious Tom Hanks territory there.
He was the one who implied that they were sane. I was just trying to figure out how despicable he thinks that they are.
Quote from: TristramEvans;844665Asshole doesnt cover it. To actually hold those beliefs in this day and age, living in a first world western nation, requires a level of ignorance and denial of scientific fact that puts it below the level of people who think the moon landing was faked.
Nearly everyone alive holds some sort of belief that has no basis in reality. Racists are just a lot more vocal and obviously stupid.
Quote from: Deadfish;844669He was the one who implied that they were sane. I was just trying to figure out how despicable he thinks that they are.
Holy Christ, why does it fucking matter?
Do you think he's trying to create a stealth defense of racism or something?
Are we supposed to flagellate ourselves for your amusement because we might not dislike these assholes to the depth that you do?
Yes, Orcs practice racism. They view Orcs as superior to all other races.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;844680Holy Christ, why does it fucking matter?
Do you think he's trying to create a stealth defense of racism or something?
Are we supposed to flagellate ourselves for your amusement because we might not dislike these assholes to the depth that you do?
No, we think he's over-valuing the thoughts and opinions of racists in terms of using them to gauge the perceived "racist qualities" of otherwise broadly popular role-playing games. Most of us just write them off as lunatics...
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;844680Holy Christ, why does it fucking matter?
Do you think he's trying to create a stealth defense of racism or something?
Are we supposed to flagellate ourselves for your amusement because we might not dislike these assholes to the depth that you do?
He's saying just because Charles Manson thinks Helter Skeltor is violent race war prophecy, that doesn't make it so.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;844700Most of us just write them off as lunatics...
Don't do that. A lunatic isn't responsible for their actions. Racists are jackasses, and have to be held accountable for their jackssery.
Quote from: Deadfish;844660Asen, if you don't think that they are batshit crazy, can we at least agree that they are assholes?
Of course we can! I mean, there is a reason why "if he/she suffers from racism, sexism, and other -isms" is explicitly an instruction to my players when they recommend me a new player...:)
Quote from: TristramEvans;844665Asshole doesnt cover it. To actually hold those beliefs in this day and age, living in a first world western nation, requires a level of ignorance and denial of scientific fact that puts it below the level of people who think the moon landing was faked.
Racists are stupid and insane. There's no reason to mince around with that. I'm not talking about making off-colour jokes or occasionally throwing around stereotypes, I mean actual "the white race is pure and inherently superior" belief systems that seem to particularly infect inbred redneck drunks and angst-puppy juvenile delinquents.
Case in point, anyone who sees their belief system as validated by the mechnical bonuses in a Roleplaying game...that's serious Tom Hanks territory there.
Do not mistake someone's unwillingness to accept facts that don't work for him or her for stupidity or mental illness.
That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: TristramEvans;844661I'm sorry, are you now actually arging that racist shitheads are not mentally and emotionally-impaired wackjobs?
Mentally, no. Sure, some of them might be. Many other of those same people are not.
For an example, the first such guy I met was, and probably still is, not only an RPG player, but also
a lawyer. That's not "mentally damaged" by any rate.
Emotionally? I'd say "probably", but it gets too close to diagnosing them. (I'd guess some of them might just have accepted opinions widely held among their friends).
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;844680Holy Christ, why does it fucking matter?
Do you think he's trying to create a stealth defense of racism or something?
Are we supposed to flagellate ourselves for your amusement because we might not dislike these assholes to the depth that you do?
Oh, I disliked them long before this thread. I just know that no, a lot of them aren't
mentally disturbed;).
Quote from: TristramEvans;844665Racists are stupid and insane. There's no reason to mince around with that. I'm not talking about making off-colour jokes or occasionally throwing around stereotypes, I mean actual "the white race is pure and inherently superior" belief systems that seem to particularly infect inbred redneck drunks and angst-puppy juvenile delinquents.
There's an inherent danger to using dismissive terms that way.
Ive met plenty of ignorant people who hold racist beliefs, but Ive also interacted with highly intelligent, well educated people who hold racists beliefs, - despite their professed political beliefs. Many of them were not white or ethnically "North American Pioneer Descendants of Northern European Caucasians". Some also hold beliefs that racism cannot be perpetuated against whites.
The inbred redneck drunk is easy enough to spot and avoid.
My thoughts on the topic:
1) People have different lines between what they call a "racist" - a violent white supremacist; a kindly old grandmother who openly espouses that whites are good at some things, and blacks are good at different things - and we should respect and celebrate the differences; a manager who doesn't espouse the difference, but still has an deep-set feeling that, say, a candidate named "Latisha" sounds less serious and professional.
2) Regardless of what they call them, all of these types are a problem. We can't just write them off and ignore them, because they have serious and measurable effects. To take a recent example, lots of people knew a racist church shooter but didn't think his racism was significant.
3) Fictional works don't neatly fall into two bins of being worthless racist trash and non-racist. There are some excellent works of art that are thoroughly racist, and there are many more works that have some racist influence (especially works from past centuries and decades). It is not just crazy oversensitivity from me as a parent to think that there is racist influence in some works I love from the 1970s and 1980s.
4) Writing or rewriting RPG material is not a particularly important front for dealing with racism.
5) This doesn't mean that there is no racism or racist influences in any RPG material.
6) That doesn't mean that every claim of racism in RPGs is accurate. Some claims will be off-base.
7) Given that some RPG material is racist, is it important? It's not at the forefront, but if we're talking about trivial details of RPGs (as we often do on forums), I think it's worth considering. In particular, I think that kids can learn elements of racism. Kids do learn moral/ethical lessons from fiction like Disney films, young adult books, and RPGs.
8) Particularly for kids over age 8 or so, I don't think the answer is to shield kids from seeing racism, but rather to point out racism where it exists. I was fine with my son reading Tarzan, but I'm going to be sure he recognizes the racism in it.
Did someone watch this film link:Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elves_(film)) while on acid?
To be fair, I think [insert aspect of game here] adopted as metaphor of extremist philosophy is more abundant in Europe than the US.
In the US, Drow Lovers are every bit as numerous as Elf Lovers or Dwarf Lovers or even more so, so dunno what that says about the games themselves, probably nothing as it's all in the head of the specific jackass.
Same with Stormbringer and "the dark side of the hobby", Will with his "everything's misogyny", etc.
Quote from: CRKrueger;844744Same with Stormbringer and "the dark side of the hobby...
Was that a typo or do you have a problem with the Lord of Melnibone's battle blade?
Quote from: jhkim;844740My thoughts on the topic:
4) Writing or rewriting RPG material is not a particularly important front for dealing with racism.
7) Given that some RPG material is racist, is it important? It's not at the forefront, but if we're talking about trivial details of RPGs (as we often do on forums), I think it's worth considering. In particular, I think that kids can learn elements of racism. Kids do learn moral/ethical lessons from fiction like Disney films, young adult books, and RPGs.
8) Particularly for kids over age 8 or so, I don't think the answer is to shield kids from seeing racism, but rather to point out racism where it exists. I was fine with my son reading Tarzan, but I'm going to be sure he recognizes the racism in it.
Agreed, and enjoyed the reasonable viewpoints presented in 7 and 8, well, the whole damned response, actually. There are tremendous problems out here in the real world, not the least among them that there are way too many people engaging in "blame the victim" psychology. That is where our efforts and concern should go, out here in the world. All this hand-wringing over Racism in RPG content is, well, it's just trivial, relatively speaking.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;844680Holy Christ, why does it fucking matter?
Do you think he's trying to create a stealth defense of racism or something?
Are we supposed to flagellate ourselves for your amusement because we might not dislike these assholes to the depth that you do?
Whoa, buddy, you can fuck right off and go be a cunt to someone else, dickhead.
Quote from: AsenRG;844707Do not mistake someone's unwillingness to accept facts that don't work for him or her for stupidity or mental illness.
That's all I'm saying.
I consider stupidity a form of mental illness. And I consider willful ignorance one of the most virulent forms of stupidity.
Quotethe first such guy I met was, and probably still is, not only an RPG player, but also a lawyer. That's not "mentally damaged" by any rate.
You're operating under the assumption one cannot be mentally damaged and still achieve an educational degree? People can be competent in some areas, and incompetent in others. George Bush managed to get elected to the office of president of the USA. He also thought God talked to him and told him bombing Iraq was a good idea.
Quote from: Lynn;844714There's an inherent danger to using dismissive terms that way.
Ive met plenty of ignorant people who hold racist beliefs, but Ive also interacted with highly intelligent, well educated people who hold racists beliefs, - despite their professed political beliefs. Many of them were not white or ethnically "North American Pioneer Descendants of Northern European Caucasians". Some also hold beliefs that racism cannot be perpetuated against whites.
The inbred redneck drunk is easy enough to spot and avoid.
Indeed.
Quote from: jhkim;844740My thoughts on the topic:
1) People have different lines between what they call a "racist" - a violent white supremacist; a kindly old grandmother who openly espouses that whites are good at some things, and blacks are good at different things - and we should respect and celebrate the differences; a manager who doesn't espouse the difference, but still has an deep-set feeling that, say, a candidate named "Latisha" sounds less serious and professional.
2) Regardless of what they call them, all of these types are a problem. We can't just write them off and ignore them, because they have serious and measurable effects. To take a recent example, lots of people knew a racist church shooter but didn't think his racism was significant.
3) Fictional works don't neatly fall into two bins of being worthless racist trash and non-racist. There are some excellent works of art that are thoroughly racist, and there are many more works that have some racist influence (especially works from past centuries and decades). It is not just crazy oversensitivity from me as a parent to think that there is racist influence in some works I love from the 1970s and 1980s.
4) Writing or rewriting RPG material is not a particularly important front for dealing with racism.
5) This doesn't mean that there is no racism or racist influences in any RPG material.
6) That doesn't mean that every claim of racism in RPGs is accurate. Some claims will be off-base.
7) Given that some RPG material is racist, is it important? It's not at the forefront, but if we're talking about trivial details of RPGs (as we often do on forums), I think it's worth considering. In particular, I think that kids can learn elements of racism. Kids do learn moral/ethical lessons from fiction like Disney films, young adult books, and RPGs.
8) Particularly for kids over age 8 or so, I don't think the answer is to shield kids from seeing racism, but rather to point out racism where it exists. I was fine with my son reading Tarzan, but I'm going to be sure he recognizes the racism in it.
I absolutely agree. With the caveat that if we're talking about RPGs, we're talking about them, no matter how unimportant they're in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: CRKrueger;844744Did someone watch this film link:Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elves_(film)) while on acid?
I'm not using, but if you say it improves the experience, I'd believe you.
QuoteTo be fair, I think [insert aspect of game here] adopted as metaphor of extremist philosophy is more abundant in Europe than the US.
Reasons or citation?
QuoteSame with Stormbringer and "the dark side of the hobby", Will with his "everything's misogyny", etc.
Who's Will?
Quote from: cranebump;844757Agreed, and enjoyed the reasonable viewpoints presented in 7 and 8, well, the whole damned response, actually. There are tremendous problems out here in the real world, not the least among them that there are way too many people engaging in "blame the victim" psychology. That is where our efforts and concern should go, out here in the world. All this hand-wringing over Racism in RPG content is, well, it's just trivial, relatively speaking.
Of course, but what else would we be discussing on an RPG forum?
All the issues discussed on this forum are utterly irrelevant to the society at large. Classes or classless? This or that setting? Linear probability vs 3d6?
Just like choosing sexy or non-sexist art, reducing racism in RPGs isn't something we do for the society at large, either. We do it to control how said society thinks of us, people in the hobby.
Quote from: TristramEvans;844775I consider stupidity a form of mental illness. And I consider willful ignorance one of the most virulent forms of stupidity.
And if you re-define words, you can prove virtually anything.
But for today's standards, stupidity isn't a form of mental illness except in extreme cases. And if you tell me you're never willfully* ignoring anything, I'd know you're either a saint, or you're just not able to spot your own blind spots. Most people aren't, of course, that's why they're blind spots!
*Keep in mind said "willful" decision may be a sub-conscious one.
QuoteYou're operating under the assumption one cannot be mentally damaged and still achieve an educational degree?
It is possible, but working as a lawyer requires it for said person to not be easy to swindle or otherwise influence. Hence, you can't claim said person was just mislead. We're talking "willfully ignorant" here, period.
QuotePeople can be competent in some areas, and incompetent in others. George Bush managed to get elected to the office of president of the USA. He also thought God talked to him and told him bombing Iraq was a good idea.
I'd rather not comment on US policy, seeing as I'm not a US citizen, and the rest of you could see my opinion on GWB as criticising your country.
Quote from: AsenRG;844878Who's Will?
Some guy who got banned at RPGnet, so he joined the forum here. Posted a lot. Complained about RPGnet a lot. Then rage quit this forum because he felt that too many people were wrong on the Internet.
QuoteI'd rather not comment on US policy, seeing as I'm not a US citizen, and the rest of you could see my opinion on GWB as criticising your country.
We're a big country. Some of us can take it.
Quote from: jhkim;844740My thoughts on the topic:
1) People have different lines between what they call a "racist" - a violent white supremacist; a kindly old grandmother who openly espouses that whites are good at some things, and blacks are good at different things - and we should respect and celebrate the differences; a manager who doesn't espouse the difference, but still has an deep-set feeling that, say, a candidate named "Latisha" sounds less serious and professional.
2) Regardless of what they call them, all of these types are a problem. We can't just write them off and ignore them, because they have serious and measurable effects. To take a recent example, lots of people knew a racist church shooter but didn't think his racism was significant.
3) Fictional works don't neatly fall into two bins of being worthless racist trash and non-racist. There are some excellent works of art that are thoroughly racist, and there are many more works that have some racist influence (especially works from past centuries and decades). It is not just crazy oversensitivity from me as a parent to think that there is racist influence in some works I love from the 1970s and 1980s.
4) Writing or rewriting RPG material is not a particularly important front for dealing with racism.
5) This doesn't mean that there is no racism or racist influences in any RPG material.
6) That doesn't mean that every claim of racism in RPGs is accurate. Some claims will be off-base.
7) Given that some RPG material is racist, is it important? It's not at the forefront, but if we're talking about trivial details of RPGs (as we often do on forums), I think it's worth considering. In particular, I think that kids can learn elements of racism. Kids do learn moral/ethical lessons from fiction like Disney films, young adult books, and RPGs.
8) Particularly for kids over age 8 or so, I don't think the answer is to shield kids from seeing racism, but rather to point out racism where it exists. I was fine with my son reading Tarzan, but I'm going to be sure he recognizes the racism in it.
All very good points. Racism and prejudice was my field of focus as an undergrad in Social Psychology.
The prevailing theories of Social Psychology are that, well...we're all kind of BORN racists...it's something we have to effectively "unlearn".
It's nothing to do with Humans being inherently evil of course or anything...but as my Professors in Psychology repeatedly hammered home..Humans are cognitively lazy...we are heuristic misers...Our brains try to come up with the quickest and easiest way to sort things..
It's why Stereotypes exist...it's a Heuristic way for our Brains to deal with overload of information.
Much as I love Dennis Leary, his quote on racism, while in the right place, is wrong (It involves the idea that racism is learned)
Racism of course can be taught, can be encouraged...but it's also something we have inherently do to evolution... "Those people look different from me and my Tribe, therefore I'm going to be weary and distrustful of them."
Our minds come with a lot of baggage that can influence our behavior. The good news is, it's so evolved we can ignore those instincts if we learn how to...It's why you teaching your son about racism is an excellent thing (for me it was my Mother).
The downside is...back when I was learning all of this information in the early millennium, it was understood to be a complex topic....sadly it's filtered down to many people who don't understand the nuance in how human perception works..
So what we end up with is "Virtue Signaling" and bullying from the extreme Left who over simplify it, and use it as a cudgel to engage in the same prejudicial behavior they're suppose to be fighting. The irony would be delicious if it wasn't so sad.
Oh for pity's sake - they're Orcs!!
They were created to be 'Bad Evil Guys' in a book that millions of people love.
Then they got borrowed for a little role playing game experiment thing that went on to become the biggest RPG in the world.!!!!
Orcs are Orcs damnit.
- Ed C.
Quote from: AsenRG;844878Who's Will?
A tragic victim of rape culture.
QuoteAnd if you re-define words, you can prove virtually anything.
That's a fair point. So lets look at the definition:
QuoteMental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior.
Certainly stupidity affects a person's mood, thinking, and behaviour. Stupidity is not a sign of mental health. Is it technically classified as a disorder? No. But certainly not one would object to it being called an
impairment of one's mental facilities. A disorder is defined by the dictionary as something that "disrupts the systematic functioning". If that isnt a dead ringer for a definition of stupidity, I don't know what is.
So, no, I didn't need to "redefine" any words to make my point.
QuoteBut for today's standards, stupidity isn't a form of mental illness except in extreme cases.
Stupidity isnt listed in the DMV if that's what you mean. "Today's standards" is a pretty low bar to set, though. We live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator. I feel no obligation to personally follow that trend, just because its the zeitgeist of our times.
QuoteAnd if you tell me you're never willfully* ignoring anything, I'd know you're either a saint, or you're just not able to spot your own blind spots. Most people aren't, of course, that's why they're blind spots!
I ignore lots of things on a day to day basis. You seem to be confusing "ignoring" and "wilfully ignorant" as synonyms though.
QuoteI'd rather not comment on US policy, seeing as I'm not a US citizen, and the rest of you could see my opinion on GWB as criticising your country.
I'm not a US citizen, though I lived in that country for a large part of Bush's administration. He was not well-loved among many Americans.
Quote from: AsenRG;844878I'd rather not comment on US policy, seeing as I'm not a US citizen, and the rest of you could see my opinion on GWB as criticising your country.
Most Americans didn't like George Bush. He didn't win the popular election the 1st time, and did so by a narrow margin the 2nd. He's widely regarded as one of the worst presidents by probably about 70% of the country by this point. So much so, his brother Jeb has to distance himself as much as possible from him.
But even if that were NOT the case...most of us have our Big Boy pants on, and can handle criticism of our country. Trying to act as if we're all some insufferable overly sensitive prima-donnas who can't handle bad words thrown at our country is actually FAR MORE INSULTING.
Quote from: Bren;844916Some guy who got banned at RPGnet, so he joined the forum here. Posted a lot. Complained about RPGnet a lot. Then rage quit this forum because he felt that too many people were wrong on the Internet.
We're a big country. Some of us can take it.
Thanks for the explanation. I think I remember it from RPG.net, but mostly we didn't have much in common.
And I'm not worried about those of you that can, Bren. Which means I'm probably not worried about 90% of theRPGSite.
Except I'm worried about the other 10%, and let's put it this way: 10% of theRPGsite still outnumber me:)!
Quote from: TristramEvans;845022That's a fair point. So lets look at the definition:
No. I'm not going to play the definitional game.
Here's my definition: A word falls under the sub-set of items encompassed by a broader term if the average person, upon hearing the word used in this context, wouldn't go "that's an
unusual way to use it". I'd count myself of having an average mastery of English language, so my reaction counts.
And I though "wow, that's an
unusual way to use the term mental illness".
QuoteStupidity isnt listed in the DMV if that's what you mean. "Today's standards" is a pretty low bar to set, though. We live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator. I feel no obligation to personally follow that trend, just because its the zeitgeist of our times.
By all means - I'm not out to change your views!
When communicating, however, it pays off to use words the way the majority of people use them.
QuoteI ignore lots of things on a day to day basis. You seem to be confusing "ignoring" and "wilfully ignorant" as synonyms though.
No. Willfully ignorant means you're basing an opinion on a belief you didn't bother to check, or chose to ignore whatever information was available.
I'm pretty sure you're doing this, or otherwise, you're enlightened (or saint).
QuoteI'm not a US citizen, though I lived in that country for a large part of Bush's administration. He was not well-loved among many Americans.
As I stated to Bren, I'm not worried about those that wouldn't object;).
Quote from: Orphan81;845038Most Americans didn't like George Bush. He didn't win the popular election the 1st time, and did so by a narrow margin the 2nd. He's widely regarded as one of the worst presidents by probably about 70% of the country by this point. So much so, his brother Jeb has to distance himself as much as possible from him.
But even if that were NOT the case...most of us have our Big Boy pants on, and can handle criticism of our country. Trying to act as if we're all some insufferable overly sensitive prima-donnas who can't handle bad words thrown at our country is actually FAR MORE INSULTING.
Yes, I know the whole issue about Jeb Bush being a brother.
And see your own words. It's
most of you, but not all;).
Let me just put it, I learned the hard way (on another forum, which funny enough
wasn't RPG.net) that the issue is that there is this minority that
can't handle criticism at their country.
I sincerely apologise to the Americans that aren't part of that issue, but I really, really am not looking towards anouther round with those that are. Chalk it up to bad experiences, if you will!
(Besides, those of you that aren't still JWB supporters part of the problem wouldn't hear anything new. Except maybe for the fact that elsewhere, "hearing God tell you what's a good idea" would put you squarely in the category of "people hearing voices", and so would make him ineligible, or be grounds for impeachment if he was already elected).
Quote from: tenbones;843419That actually crossed my mind when I saw it.
Here it is. Jesus...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SISq_y_WhKg
LOL he sounds like a man-child.
Contrary to your earlier post, he doesn't say "I hate free speech! It provokes aggression", what he actually said was "It's hate speech! It provokes assault", referring to the preacher's sign by "it", and no doubt meaning to suggest that the "assault" it provokes is against gay people (or maybe masturbators, or fornicators, or drunkards).
So it's less absurd but even more ironic, in that case, since the "assault" he was referring to clearly wasn't his own attempted assault of the street preacher.
Quote from: jhkim;843644For my two cents on the general issue,
1) I have no major issues with killing orcs in a game. It's a game.
2) This doesn't mean that I think that there is no racism in fantasy. A lot of classic fantasy is from the 20s, 30s, and 40s - and it is full of conscious and unconscious racism. I do have a problem with people who want to deny that racism exists in fantasy.
Sure, racism exists in fantasy to exactly the degree that fantasy is reflective of the society it produces. So naturally, there will be racism in fantasy, especially in older fantasy. Just like now, in our society, there's a ton of ridiculous pseudo-activist posturing, and critical-theory 'deconstruction' (that is, an intentional attempt to poison civilizational values while offering no effective substitute), so you see that in newer fantasy, where the supposedly noble never are, and the parallels for Europeans are all monsters, and the saintly religious figure is
always corrupt, and all institutions are inherently illegitimate at best and inept or downright oppressive at worst, and villains are never actually unjustified for their villainy but are actually lashing out against a society that is irredeemably evil, except for those few good heroes (almost always also outcasts in some way) who realize just how rotten it all is. In other words, most fantasy today is "fuck western civilization and down with human culture in general! Back to the cave with us!!".
Doing a "orcs are not actually bad, they're another race that has been brutally attacked by the racist humans" is potentially good too, the first time it's used. After that, it gets boring fast; mainly because "the embodiment of evil" is an archetypal concept way more powerful and significant in its evergreen universality (whether post-modernists wish it weren't so or not) than "let's do a heavy-handed metaphor for the cause-du-jour AGAIN".
Declaring that anyone who has evil orcs in their RPG games is obviously a Klansman is, on the other hand, fucking stupid beyond belief.
QuoteIn particular, both liberals and conservatives tend to sanitize adaptations of older fantasy to remove the racism - usually by removing the minority characters. For example, the black maid Esmeralda is edited out or toned down from most adaptations of Tarzan. I dislike this.
So do I. It's whitewashing. And it allows us to fail to understand the difference between what 'racism' meant in the first half of the 20th century and what people are using 'racism' to mean today.
QuoteIf I want to do old-style fantasy, then I'll do it. If orcs are really evil by their nature, then orc genocide is the right solution. Some players find this heavy or uncomfortable.
In my Albion campaign, there are no Orcs. But I made frenchmen into Frogs (not all of them, just the elites) and I made picts into sub-human cthulhu-worshipers. Is it because I desire the real-world genocide of the Picts and the French? No.
People who would think that even could have to do with the reason are morons. So imagine what I call people who think that my making orcs evil means I hate all black people.
RPGPundit
Quote from: GreyICE;843683Want compelling? The Shadow Elves are twisted and pale from their life below ground. There's never enough food, there's never enough resources, their lives suck. They're fiercely loyal to each other most of the time because Shadow Elves are all they have against a bunch of shit that want to kill them. The surface world can't fucking handle a sudden influx of fast-breeding murderous elves, but the elves have no desire to live underground. Both the surface and the world below have legitimate logic there, and you're dealing with a situation that's complex, explosive, and cool.
I'm assuming you know this, but for the benefit of others I'll point out that this is actually the Shadow Elves from Mystara, which take the place of the Drow in that setting.
RPGPundit
Quote from: AsenRG;843688One would say FB should help people to get to know, say, LGBTQ people, or minorities. In practice, extremist pages are flourishing!
I'm pretty sure that Facebook has played a HUGE part in the speed in which the United States turned around on the gay rights issues. For every "god hates fags" facebook group with 23 members in it, I raise you 45 million users putting those "=" signs on their profile pick or going rainbow.
Quote from: Bren;844916Some guy who got banned at RPGnet, so he joined the forum here. Posted a lot. Complained about RPGnet a lot. Then rage quit this forum because he felt that too many people were wrong on the Internet.
Oh, did he leave?
Quote from: RPGPundit;845457Oh, did he leave?
He may be lurking, but he hasn't posted in quite a while. He left a final
goodbye cruel, cruel forum post then exited stage left.
Well put re: racism in fantasy, and Especially The putdown on Modern "western civilization is always wrong" bullshit, Pundit. :)
Quote from: RPGPundit;845457Oh, did he leave?
Yeah. Pity, I had better conversations with him here than on TBP. :idunno:
Quote from: RPGPundit;845447Sure, racism exists in fantasy to exactly the degree that fantasy is reflective of the society it produces. So naturally, there will be racism in fantasy, especially in older fantasy. Just like now, in our society, there's a ton of ridiculous pseudo-activist posturing, and critical-theory 'deconstruction' (that is, an intentional attempt to poison civilizational values while offering no effective substitute), so you see that in newer fantasy, where the supposedly noble never are, and the parallels for Europeans are all monsters, and the saintly religious figure is always corrupt, and all institutions are inherently illegitimate at best and inept or downright oppressive at worst, and villains are never actually unjustified for their villainy but are actually lashing out against a society that is irredeemably evil, except for those few good heroes (almost always also outcasts in some way) who realize just how rotten it all is. In other words, most fantasy today is "fuck western civilization and down with human culture in general! Back to the cave with us!!".
RPGPundit
Definitely something I've noticed a lot of and always find yawn-inducing. The whole "greying" of everything. Nothing is good or evil, right or wrong. It's all shades of grey. Moral equivalence is (more often than not) boring...sure it's reality, but I'm not playing a game of reality. I'm playing a game of fantasy.
Quote from: Bren;845519He may be lurking, but he hasn't posted in quite a while. He left a final goodbye cruel, cruel forum post then exited stage left.
He accused the Forum of being RAPE ENABLERS and left.
Out of curiosity, anyone know what got him banned from the Big Purple in the first place?
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845527Definitely something I've noticed a lot of and always find yawn-inducing. The whole "greying" of everything. Nothing is good or evil, right or wrong. It's all shades of grey. Moral equivalence is (more often than not) boring...sure it's reality, but I'm not playing a game of reality. I'm playing a game of fantasy.
Eh, I like shades of grey fine, whether in oldschool fantasy stuff like Conan, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, Moorcock's stuff, Wagner's Kane etc or modern stuff like Ghibli's Princess Mononoke (best Man vs Nature ever), Game of Thrones, the Berserk manga, Bakker's Prince of Nothing, Abercrombie's stuff, etc.
Of course there's shitty shades of gray, just like there's shitty b&w.
Quote from: Orphan81;845534Out of curiosity, anyone know what got him banned from the Big Purple in the first place?
He was fairly crazy about personal attacks and stuff.
Quote from: The Ent;845535Eh, I like shades of grey fine, whether in oldschool fantasy stuff like Conan, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, Moorcock's stuff, Wagner's Kane etc or modern stuff like Ghibli's Princess Mononoke (best Man vs Nature ever), Game of Thrones, the Berserk manga, Bakker's Prince of Nothing, Abercrombie's stuff, etc.
Of course there's shitty shades of gray, just like there's shitty b&w.
oh of course. I'm referring to the shitty shades of grey...you know, where you can't have a terrorist who is just an evil guy or something. He has to be a "freedom fighter."
Quote from: The Ent;845536He was fairly crazy about personal attacks and stuff.
Ah! Well, I suppose that fits with him insinuating this forum is full of Rape Apologists!
Quote from: Orphan81;845534He accused the Forum of being RAPE ENABLERS and left.
Hmm, I thought Will just left at the terrible misogyny and Sacrosanct left because of the Rape Enabling. I know Stormbringer left because of Racism/Colonialism/Dark Side of the Hobby. It's hard to keep track of sometimes.
Quote from: CRKrueger;845541Hmm, I thought Will just left at the terrible misogyny and Sacrosanct left because of the Rape Enabling. I know Stormbringer left because of Racism/Colonialism/Dark Side of the Hobby. It's hard to keep track of sometimes.
I'm honestly sad about Sacrosanct having left. I enjoyed seeing his opinions on things.
Quote from: RPGPundit;845447Sure, racism exists in fantasy to exactly the degree that fantasy is reflective of the society it produces. So naturally, there will be racism in fantasy, especially in older fantasy. Just like now, in our society, there's a ton of ridiculous pseudo-activist posturing, and critical-theory 'deconstruction' (that is, an intentional attempt to poison civilizational values while offering no effective substitute), so you see that in newer fantasy, where the supposedly noble never are, and the parallels for Europeans are all monsters, and the saintly religious figure is always corrupt, and all institutions are inherently illegitimate at best and inept or downright oppressive at worst, and villains are never actually unjustified for their villainy but are actually lashing out against a society that is irredeemably evil, except for those few good heroes (almost always also outcasts in some way) who realize just how rotten it all is. In other words, most fantasy today is "fuck western civilization and down with human culture in general! Back to the cave with us!!".
Given the choice of racist parallels and anti-establishment parallels, I think I'd prefer the latter. Still, I don't think those are the only choices. I think of Lois Bujold's Chalion series, or Tamora Pierce's Tortall, which have some heroic knights and kings - but still note flaws in them and their society. (I haven't read Game of Thrones yet - is that what you're getting at here.)
It's an interesting question about where this is in RPGs. It seems to me that the vast majority of the fantasy RPGs - even newer ones - stick to a Tolkienesque setup of good races and evil races. The main exceptions I think of are having explicit clans/countries that are similar to races, like 7th Sea and Legend of the Five Rings, where these are more divided into light and dark rather than good/evil.
Quote from: RPGPundit;845447Doing a "orcs are not actually bad, they're another race that has been brutally attacked by the racist humans" is potentially good too, the first time it's used. After that, it gets boring fast; mainly because "the embodiment of evil" is an archetypal concept way more powerful and significant in its evergreen universality (whether post-modernists wish it weren't so or not) than "let's do a heavy-handed metaphor for the cause-du-jour AGAIN".
Here you imply that the only two options are Tolkienesque orcs, or a heavy-handed metaphor where orcs-are-good. That strikes me mostly as lack of imagination on your part. There are plenty of good modern fantasy writers who do neither of these.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845538oh of course. I'm referring to the shitty shades of grey...you know, where you can't have a terrorist who is just an evil guy or something. He has to be a "freedom fighter."
Cool, agreed.
Quote from: Orphan81;845545I'm honestly sad about Sacrosanct having left. I enjoyed seeing his opinions on things.
I miss Sacrosanct a lot myself. I've always respected Sacro.
Quote from: Orphan81;845545I'm honestly sad about Sacrosanct having left. I enjoyed seeing his opinions on things.
Quote from: The Ent;845557Cool, agreed.I miss Sacrosanct a lot myself. I've always respected Sacro.
Yeah, when he wasn't getting triggered or being a 5urry. You could see the decline though, it's weird, lot of times you can see the spiral begin that you know is going to end up in flameout, like it did with those two, or outright banning like it did with Pseudo and Silva.
Quote from: RPGPundit;845449I'm pretty sure that Facebook has played a HUGE part in the speed in which the United States turned around on the gay rights issues. For every "god hates fags" facebook group with 23 members in it, I raise you 45 million users putting those "=" signs on their profile pick or going rainbow.
Maybe. I'd honestly wish you were right and I was wrong:).
Only time will tell.
Quote from: RPGPundit;845447Sure, racism exists in fantasy to exactly the degree that fantasy is reflective of the society it produces. So naturally, there will be racism in fantasy, especially in older fantasy. Just like now, in our society, there's a ton of ridiculous pseudo-activist posturing, and critical-theory 'deconstruction' (that is, an intentional attempt to poison civilizational values while offering no effective substitute),
Agreed on both accounts;).
Doesn't mean it's an either-or issue.
Quoteso you see that in newer fantasy, where the supposedly noble never are,
Depending on your definition of noble, might be true to life.
Quoteand the parallels for Europeans are all monsters,
Like evil frogmen:D?
Quoteand the saintly religious figure is always corrupt,
Yeah, "always" is overdoing it.
"Most of the time" is the sweet spot.
Quoteand all institutions are inherently illegitimate at best and inept or downright oppressive at worst,
Can't really think of an example that goes into the legitimacy of institutions. And historically, most institutions were oppressive to one degree or another.
Quoteand villains are never actually unjustified for their villainy but are actually lashing out against a society that is irredeemably evil,
Can't think of an example, except Robin Hood.
Quoteexcept for those few good heroes (almost always also outcasts in some way) who realize just how rotten it all is.
Outcasts considering society to be rotten isn't a new thing. If the outcast is also the narrator, well...
QuoteIn other words, most fantasy today is "fuck western civilization and down with human culture in general! Back to the cave with us!!".
Not seeing it. What would be your examples?
(Also, the message I'm getting from the modern fantasy I read is "yeah, the past really sucked").
QuoteDeclaring that anyone who has evil orcs in their RPG games is obviously a Klansman is, on the other hand, fucking stupid beyond belief.
Sure it's stupid when generalizing. What you can take for granted is that if Klansmen were playing, they'd have really evil, irredeemable orcs, though.
Quote from: The Ent;845535Eh, I like shades of grey fine, whether in oldschool fantasy stuff like Conan, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, Moorcock's stuff, Wagner's Kane etc or modern stuff like Ghibli's Princess Mononoke (best Man vs Nature ever), Game of Thrones, the Berserk manga, Bakker's Prince of Nothing, Abercrombie's stuff, etc.
Of course there's shitty shades of gray, just like there's shitty b&w.
Precisely my thoughts.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845538oh of course. I'm referring to the shitty shades of grey...you know, where you can't have a terrorist who is just an evil guy or something. He has to be a "freedom fighter."
Most guys that we call terrorists today are considered freedom fighters by some group somewhere. (IS being a notable exception, and even then, there are those who believe it, they're just not a compact group you can point to).
What matters is who is the narrator.
Quote from: jhkim;845556Given the choice of racist parallels and anti-establishment parallels, I think I'd prefer the latter. Still, I don't think those are the only choices. I think of Lois Bujold's Chalion series, or Tamora Pierce's Tortall, which have some heroic knights and kings - but still note flaws in them and their society. (I haven't read Game of Thrones yet - is that what you're getting at here.)
It's an interesting question about where this is in RPGs. It seems to me that the vast majority of the fantasy RPGs - even newer ones - stick to a Tolkienesque setup of good races and evil races. The main exceptions I think of are having explicit clans/countries that are similar to races, like 7th Sea and Legend of the Five Rings, where these are more divided into light and dark rather than good/evil.
Here you imply that the only two options are Tolkienesque orcs, or a heavy-handed metaphor where orcs-are-good. That strikes me mostly as lack of imagination on your part. There are plenty of good modern fantasy writers who do neither of these.
Indeed, I'm just quoting this post because it bears repeating.
Quote from: jhkim;845556It's an interesting question about where this is in RPGs. It seems to me that the vast majority of the fantasy RPGs - even newer ones - stick to a Tolkienesque setup of good races and evil races.
I don't know about vast majority of games, but Runequest never did that, and it is hardly a new or an obscure game. Trollpak explicitly described the Uz (Troll) point of view and made it clear that Uz weren't evil, just not human. The Uz are much closer in world view to humans than are the Aldryami (Elves) or Mostali (Dwarves).
Neither does Star Wars do that. In Star Wars, which is space opera and arguably fantasy, most races (Hutts possibly are an exception) are pretty much like humans in that they are neither all black nor all white and people who live in wretched hives of scum and villainy no matter their species tend to be various shades of gray with a lot of individual examples of black.
Quote from: AsenRG;845618Most guys that we call terrorists today are considered freedom fighters by some group somewhere. (IS being a notable exception, and even then, there are those who believe it, they're just not a compact group you can point to).
Yeah, I know this. That's what I meant by "I know it's reality, but I'm not playing reality. I'm playing a fantasy game." Sometimes, I just want bad guys that are bad guys.
btw, I knew when I posted that example that I was in for a little poly-sci 101 lecture before too long...
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845628Yeah, I know this. That's what I meant by "I know it's reality, but I'm not playing reality. I'm playing a fantasy game." Sometimes, I just want bad guys that are bad guys.
btw, I knew when I posted that example that I was in for a little poly-sci 101 lecture before too long...
Yeah, and I knew I'd be in for a lecture of people preferring black and white in fantasy when posting:). So let's call it even, okay?
If you notice, that's why I quoted a post that said "I like shades of grey just fine", and explicitly agreed with it. You can play whatever fantasy you want, of course, but your preferences are no more universal than my own, and they're hardly a comprehensive reflection of all fantasy that's out there;)!
And personally, black and white views of reality bore me, unless it's about something really outrageous. That applies to views on game reality as well, with the same caveat:D.
Quote from: AsenRG;845633And personally, black and white views of reality bore me, unless it's about something really outrageous...
you mean like games in which groups of wizards and barbarians raid dungeons full of monsters for treasure?
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845713you mean like games in which groups of wizards and barbarians raid dungeons full of monsters for treasure?
That's an awfully big chip you have on your shoulder.
Most Fantasy games can have wizards and barbarians raiding places for treasure and it is a good staple of many a game.
Not many of them call the place a dungeon, though - In my mind, a dungeon is a place where you keep prisoners.
Quote from: soltakss;845736That's an awfully big chip you have on your shoulder.
Most Fantasy games can have wizards and barbarians raiding places for treasure and it is a good staple of many a game.
Not many of them call the place a dungeon, though - In my mind, a dungeon is a place where you keep prisoners.
What chip? I'm mostly just referencing D&D and it's offspring. They are fundamentally pretty outrageous games. I don't need to spend much time or energy worrying about the social lives of Orcs because Orcs are just monsters, just like a gelatinous cube.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845713you mean like games in which groups of wizards and barbarians raid dungeons full of monsters for treasure?
If that's all that's going on? Yes, that's a good example:).
If it was all that was going on, I wouldn't be in the hobby today.
Quote from: soltakss;845736That's an awfully big chip you have on your shoulder.
Most Fantasy games can have wizards and barbarians raiding places for treasure and it is a good staple of many a game.
Not many of them call the place a dungeon, though - In my mind, a dungeon is a place where you keep prisoners.
Yes, exactly, and from prisoners, we go to jailers, and who put them there, and it's shades of grey rather quick.
And the wizards and barbarians usually raid all kind of places, but usually do that for a reason, with treasure only occasionally being the only reason;).
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845759What chip? I'm mostly just referencing D&D and it's offspring. They are fundamentally pretty outrageous games. I don't need to spend much time or energy worrying about the social lives of Orcs because Orcs are just monsters, just like a gelatinous cube.
When I'm running D&D and its offsprings, they aren't just that.
Quote from: Bren;845623I don't know about vast majority of games, but Runequest never did that, and it is hardly a new or an obscure game. Trollpak explicitly described the Uz (Troll) point of view and made it clear that Uz weren't evil, just not human. The Uz are much closer in world view to humans than are the Aldryami (Elves) or Mostali (Dwarves).
Neither does Star Wars do that. In Star Wars, which is space opera and arguably fantasy, most races (Hutts possibly are an exception) are pretty much like humans in that they are neither all black nor all white and people who live in wretched hives of scum and villainy no matter their species tend to be various shades of gray with a lot of individual examples of black.
I love Trollpak, but really, trolls are still extremely cruel, barbarous, and bloodthirsty. The fun of playing a troll is in playing the bad guy - like playing actual vampires instead of whiny angst-bags. Similarly, I think Harn orcs are a fascinating picture - with their insect-like behavior and hives. However, I don't think either RQ trolls or Harn orcs are that different from how Tolkien gave his orcs a voice at times and had scenes about how they struggled with each other and their orders.
I would agree that Star Wars and Star Trek aren't Tolkienesque in the breakdown of good races and evil races. They're more like the 7th Sea or Legend of the Five Rings breakdown into clans that all have their good and bad sides. At times, this can go pretty far into racial essentialism - where each race has distinct strengths and weaknesses, like one race being good at sports but bad at math, etc. - which can get pretty patronizing. (Cough, Gungans, cough cough.)
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845628Yeah, I know this. That's what I meant by "I know it's reality, but I'm not playing reality. I'm playing a fantasy game." Sometimes, I just want bad guys that are bad guys.
btw, I knew when I posted that example that I was in for a little poly-sci 101 lecture before too long...
Yeah, I like black-and-white sides, too. However, it feels like your implication is that the choices are
either having orcs
or only having shades of grey. There are a lot of non-racially-charged options for outright evil. Many have different faults or parallels - but it's good to vary things up.
Quote from: jhkim;845817I love Trollpak, but really, trolls are still extremely cruel, barbarous, and bloodthirsty. The fun of playing a troll is in playing the bad guy - like playing actual vampires instead of whiny angst-bags. Similarly, I think Harn orcs are a fascinating picture - with their insect-like behavior and hives. However, I don't think either RQ trolls or Harn orcs are that different from how Tolkien gave his orcs a voice at times and had scenes about how they struggled with each other and their orders.
I would agree that Star Wars and Star Trek aren't Tolkienesque in the breakdown of good races and evil races. They're more like the 7th Sea or Legend of the Five Rings breakdown into clans that all have their good and bad sides. At times, this can go pretty far into racial essentialism - where each race has distinct strengths and weaknesses, like one race being good at sports but bad at math, etc. - which can get pretty patronizing. (Cough, Gungans, cough cough.)
I think when you are dealing with fantasy races, the idea of inherent qualities isn't such a bad thing or automatically racist, because these are more like different species. The difference between an elf and a halfling are far greater than anything you find between humans. I think what troubles me in these conversations is there seems to be this idea that liking orcs who are born bad or born good at fighting, is an endorsement or promotion of racism in the real world. To me that is just far too esoteric. I do think racism can occur here, but I am a lot more concerned when I see someone make an orc that is clearly a stand in for some real world race or culture and it is meant as a commentary on them. If someone is just making bad ass orcs and borrows from historically bad ass cultures to give them flavor, I don't really see an issue.
Quote from: jhkim;845817I love Trollpak, but really, trolls are still extremely cruel, barbarous, and bloodthirsty.
Newsflash. So are humans.
I think you have a thesis and you are looking hard for confirmation. While there are some evil races in Tolkien like orcs/goblins/trolls the dichotomy is often over emphasized. Even the arguably good elves aren't good except in comparison to their adversaries. In the Hobbit we see the elves of Mirkwood (formerly Greenwood the Great) imprison the dwarves based on suspicion and greed. In the LotR we see the elves in Lorien capture and imprison the Fellowship until they can be thoroughly interrogated. Some of the elves clearly hold grudges against dwarves encountered without Aragorn or Legolas he might never have escaped from their forest. And in the Silmarillion the pride and jealousy of the greatest of the elves drives the wars, deaths, rebellions, and tragedy of the First Age.
And that's ignoring the not truly good races like men and dwarves.
Unlike Tolkien's Orcs, RQ Trolls are not warped versions of some other race or species, they are warped due to a Chaos curse because of their refusal to bow to Chaos, but they are warped from their more essential and potent progenitors. Trolls are valiant and violent chaos fighters. The same really can't be said of humans in general. Who are more likely to be opportunistic in their opposition and often use and ally with Chaos. The Lunar Empire being only the most recent incarnation of human use of Chaos. Now on the downside, Trolls both culturally and biologically eat other sentients, so there is that. But some would argue that is just a matter of degree not kind to contemporary humans chowing down on our cousins the chimpanzees and our very distant cousins the dolphins.
QuoteThe fun of playing a troll is in playing the bad guy - like playing actual vampires instead of whiny angst-bags.
Again, I think you are seeing what you are looking for not what is necessarily there. I see playing a troll as easier than playing a Gloranthan Elf or Dwarf who are at least as inimical to humans as are the trolls, but are much more alien to humans than are the Uz. And similar in the level of violence to playing a Stormbull worshipping human but without the cultural craziness inherent in a true Stormbull initiate.
QuoteI would agree that Star Wars and Star Trek aren't Tolkienesque in the breakdown of good races and evil races. They're more like the 7th Sea or Legend of the Five Rings...
You've got the analogy backwards. 7th Sea and Five Rings are the derivatives. But they do seem to share the thumbnail sketch 2-dimensional view of the various peoples in setting.
Quote from: jhkim;845817I would agree that Star Wars and Star Trek aren't Tolkienesque in the breakdown of good races and evil races. They're more like the 7th Sea or Legend of the Five Rings breakdown into clans that all have their good and bad sides. At times, this can go pretty far into racial essentialism - where each race has distinct strengths and weaknesses, like one race being good at sports but bad at math, etc. - which can get pretty patronizing. (Cough, Gungans, cough cough.)
Um, you are really cherry picking your evidence here. Most people, myself included, dislike Gungans because Players usually role-play them like the only real Gungan they know of, Jar-Jar Binks who is a fucking idiot and the comic relief. We do not know of the heroism of Captain Tarpals or the leadership of Boss Nass unless you dig for it outside of the prequel movies. So, yes, there is the redeemable even in Gungans.
Now I need a drink because I cannot believe that I just defended fucking Gungans.
Quote from: jeff37923;845883Now I need a drink because I cannot believe that I just defended fucking Gungans.
Yousa meesa's big bombad hero.
I think I love this thread.
Quote from: Nexus;845910I think I love this thread.
We have it every three years I think.
Quote from: Bren;845893Yousa meesa's big bombad hero.
Make that two drinks.....
:D
Quote from: Bren;845826Newsflash. So are humans.
You're saving me writing a detailed reply here:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;845789If that's all that's going on? Yes, that's a good example:).
If it was all that was going on, I wouldn't be in the hobby today.
Yes, exactly, and from prisoners, we go to jailers, and who put them there, and it's shades of grey rather quick.
And the wizards and barbarians usually raid all kind of places, but usually do that for a reason, with treasure only occasionally being the only reason;).
When I'm running D&D and its offsprings, they aren't just that.
that's all well and good. If you want the game to be something other/more than what it really is set up for that's up to you. For myself, I don't think the game as originally designed is a very good foundation for any sort of exploration of moral or ethical subtlety. It's mostly about raiding the dungeon and coming out with the treasure for me. That doesn't make me a racist.
Don't get me wrong. I know where you're coming from and I do also see the value of adding levels of complexity to the proceedings to make things interesting. I just find that often people treat these games like "high art" - as though they are writing classic literature - while I tend to view them as "low art." It's a mostly "beer & pretzels" endeavor for me and I don't spend a lot of time looking for meaningful subtext in my Orcs...
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845994that's all well and good. If you want the game to be something other/more than what it really is set up for that's up to you. For myself, I don't think the game as originally designed is a very good foundation for any sort of exploration of moral or ethical subtlety. It's mostly about raiding the dungeon and coming out with the treasure for me. That doesn't make me a racist.
I obviously want that, yes:). And I'm using designs that are meant to allow such exploration, so the game I'm playing works for this.
And I've never claimed that having different preferences makes you a racist, just that games set up for your preferences are easier to exploit by racists;).
I added an addendum to my previous post as you were responding... :)
I'm not worried about what racists choose to exploit. They can do what they do and I can ignore it because they are morons.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;846004I'm not worried about what racists choose to exploit. They can do what they do and I can ignore it because they are morons.
I realized 'guilt by association' was largely meaningless when I realized how much J.R.R. Tolkien had been 'appropriated' by free love hippie neopagans. :)
Quote from: AsenRG;846000.
And I've never claimed that having different preferences makes you a racist, just that games set up for your preferences are easier to exploit by racists;).
But should we be designing things based on how bad actors are going to handle them? I think if you go down that path, you end up with some very vanilla results because anything that is interesting has potential for misuse. This applies not just to RPGs but to music, movies, etc. Movies with violence in them could be exploited by the wrong people. Music with references to myth or that tackles complicated political themes could be misused by the wrong people. In gaming, I write for an audience that I assume isn't racist. I don't want to avoid interesting design and setting choices simply because there is greater potential people might misunderstand them or misuse them.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;846010But should we be designing things based on how bad actors are going to handle them?
No, but we can design things in a way that sends the message that the opposite of their views is true.
Simple example: when playing D&D, if you want an elf, just roll 3d6 in order. No adjustments for race. Just give them bonuses to certain actions, like "bonus to talk with animals, bonus to resist getting tired, bonus to dance and sing, bonus to remain unseen in a forest". (You don't even have to say how much of a bonus it is, if you don't have a skill system, just remind the GM to keep it in mind when adjudicating the results).
There. Elves are graceful, skilled with bows (because when you're better at remaining unseen, you don't want to give up your location), hard to tire, friends to animals and so on. And no racist can use those as an example of anything, quite the contrary...:)
We might go further down towards simulation, but it's non-mandatory.
QuoteI think if you go down that path, you end up with some very vanilla results because anything that is interesting has potential for misuse.
Nope. Unless you're planning to claim that just rolling 3d6 in order produces vanilla characters because of the lack of bonuses;).
I'm pretty sure legions of OD&D players would disagree, though. Hell, I'd disagree, and I only occasionally play this kind of games:D!
QuoteThis applies not just to RPGs but to music, movies, etc. Movies with violence in them could be exploited by the wrong people. Music with references to myth or that tackles complicated political themes could be misused by the wrong people. In gaming, I write for an audience that I assume isn't racist. I don't want to avoid interesting design and setting choices simply because there is greater potential people might misunderstand them or misuse them.
And I didn't say you should. What I'm saying is, write explicitly for non-racist people and explicitly validate their views.
Then make it so edgy it cuts when misused.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;846004I added an addendum to my previous post as you were responding... :)
I'm not worried about what racists choose to exploit. They can do what they do and I can ignore it because they are morons.
It's your right to do so. Maybe I'm overreacting because the latest encounter with such a player was relatively recent:).
Then again, I'm afraid it can't be avoided if I want to keep introducing new people, which is part of my plans.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;846008I realized 'guilt by association' was largely meaningless when I realized how much J.R.R. Tolkien had been 'appropriated' by free love hippie neopagans. :)
Man, I don't want anyone that's not racist to feel guilty of anything. (I don't mind racist feeling guilty for existing, of course).
What I'm saying is, certain different design decisions would make my life easier, while ZZ and anyone else who plays for the fun of the "low art" probably wouldn't notice the difference;).
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;846008I realized 'guilt by association' was largely meaningless when I realized how much J.R.R. Tolkien had been 'appropriated' by free love hippie neopagans. :)
Tom Bombadil man. Tom Bombadil.
"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the Master:
His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster."
Quote from: AsenRG;846014Simple example: when playing D&D, if you want an elf, just roll 3d6 in order. No adjustments for race. Just give them bonuses to certain actions, like "bonus to talk with animals, bonus to resist getting tired, bonus to dance and sing, bonus to remain unseen in a forest". (You don't even have to say how much of a bonus it is, if you don't have a skill system, just remind the GM to keep it in mind when adjudicating the results).
In Glorantha, Agimori are human but have STR 3D6+6, CON 3D6+6 and take half damage from fire. Mini-maxers could have a field day with them. White supremacists probably wouldn't, because Agimori are black. Just because something has better stats doesn't make them automatic targets for white supremacists.
Quote from: AsenRG;846014No, but we can design things in a way that sends the message that the opposite of their views is true.
Simple example: when playing D&D, if you want an elf, just roll 3d6 in order. No adjustments for race. Just give them bonuses to certain actions, like "bonus to talk with animals, bonus to resist getting tired, bonus to dance and sing, bonus to remain unseen in a forest". (You don't even have to say how much of a bonus it is, if you don't have a skill system, just remind the GM to keep it in mind when adjudicating the results).
There. Elves are graceful, skilled with bows (because when you're better at remaining unseen, you don't want to give up your location), hard to tire, friends to animals and so on. And no racist can use those as an example of anything, quite the contrary...:)
We might go further down towards simulation, but it's non-mandatory.
If you want to design this way, that is cool, but I would much rather have both tools on the table to choose from and not worry about what neo-nazis are going to do with elves in my game. The problem with this for me is two-fold. One your solution doesn't really get around the problem, white supremacists are still going to see racial essentialism in what you are doing and apply it to their ideas. Two I think the concern operates on too esoteric a level. It is one thing if someone makes a setting that is visibly feeding into white supremacist views of the world (i.e. elves are clearly an aryan ideal, orcs are clearly meant to be stand-ins for certain minority groups, etc). It is quite another if elves are just snobby and have bonus to Dex and a Penalty to Con.
QuoteNope. Unless you're planning to claim that just rolling 3d6 in order produces vanilla characters because of the lack of bonuses;).
I'm pretty sure legions of OD&D players would disagree, though. Hell, I'd disagree, and I only occasionally play this kind of games:D!
I think if you are guided mainly by concern for racists, sexists, etc misusing things, you are going to end up having to make choices that are more vanilla because it takes options off the table. You may be able to find clever ways around them and imposed restraints can lead to creative choices at times. For example back when films were heavily censored, they had to be more creative and allude to things in different ways....but I don't think that is a good argument for censoring things in the first place (and if you look
QuoteAnd I didn't say you should. What I'm saying is, write explicitly for non-racist people and explicitly validate their views.
Then make it so edgy it cuts when misused.
I am not interested in being edgy for its own sake and I am not interested in writing explicitly so racists don't misuse what I say (anymore than I am interested in writing so religious fundamentalists don't misuse what I say or serial killers don't misuse what I say). I'm making games so regular people can have fun playing them and will hopefully find the settings interesting. The game isn't a weapon. I hate racism, but I don't even understand how one would make something so edgy it hurts racists (and how that would do anything real to stop racism at all).
I am interested in being inclusive and making people feel welcome by having more diversity and appealing to a broad cross-section of gamers. But I don't want to be guided by a concern for the subliminal or misappropriation. I do take art direction and content seriously. I spend a lot of time talking with artists about how what a piece conveys and if it sends messages either of us are uncomfortable with because I want to make sure the result lines up with our intention. Same with game content. But I won't do things like remove violence from our games or play up non-violent solutions simply because there are a few nuts who can't handle hack 'n slash. Nor do I want to use the lowest common denominators as a base measure for anything in design.
For example I like the idea of a world where the gods created different races and made them different from each other. I can find that interesting in a fantasy setting while totally rejecting the notion of racial essentialism in reality.
Quote from: AsenRG;846017It's your right to do so. Maybe I'm overreacting because the latest encounter with such a player was relatively recent:).
Then again, I'm afraid it can't be avoided if I want to keep introducing new people, which is part of my plans.
.
I think we agree that racists doing this is bad. Where I disagree is on the solution. Let's say someone uses a copy of one of our games to bludgeon someone over the head; is the solution to create a nerf coating to prevent injury or to tell violent people to not folks in the head with books? I think here you criticize the racist, not the game. Now if the game were genuinely sending aryan messages, by all means, critique it. But elves are basically aristocrats not aryans. The whole point of elven racism against other races, the thing that makes it entertaining to people, is how ridiculous it is. The joke is on the elves.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;845628Yeah, I know this. That's what I meant by "I know it's reality, but I'm not playing reality. I'm playing a fantasy game." Sometimes, I just want bad guys that are bad guys.
btw, I knew when I posted that example that I was in for a little poly-sci 101 lecture before too long...
The problem with the whole 'shades of grey' thing is that most people I've encountered make it into another extreme. Nothing is pure grey, some shades will always be lighter and darker, a lot of the times noticeably so.
Quote from: soltakss;846024In Glorantha, Agimori are human but have STR 3D6+6, CON 3D6+6 and take half damage from fire. Mini-maxers could have a field day with them. White supremacists probably wouldn't, because Agimori are black. Just because something has better stats doesn't make them automatic targets for white supremacists.
Weren't Agimori a created race?
Anyway, I never said this needs to be the only solution:). It was just an example.
(BTW, I don't care about min-maxers. I've found that just running games my typical way leads to the optimizers at the table warning new players "all stats need to be minimum level of competence, or the game is going to get much harder").
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;846026If you want to design this way, that is cool, but I would much rather have both tools on the table to choose from and not worry about what neo-nazis are going to do with elves in my game.
That's your right. I'm not asking for a boycott of all other games, I'm playing games that contradict that myself!
My point is that the discussion would be much easier and shorter. "Skills aren't genetic, you moron. The designer obviously disagrees with you." Period.
QuoteThe problem with this for me is two-fold. One your solution doesn't really get around the problem, white supremacists are still going to see racial essentialism in what you are doing and apply it to their ideas.
You can easily counter them that skills aren't genetically transferable.
QuoteTwo I think the concern operates on too esoteric a level. It is one thing if someone makes a setting that is visibly feeding into white supremacist views of the world (i.e. elves are clearly an aryan ideal, orcs are clearly meant to be stand-ins for certain minority groups, etc).
/me looks at own library.
/me sighs.
Let's drop that line of discussion, can we? We're not going to see eye to eye on the elves issue.
QuoteIt is quite another if elves are just snobby and have bonus to Dex and a Penalty to Con.
Some day, I want to see elves that have humility. Maybe I should run Dragon Age.
QuoteI think if you are guided mainly by concern for racists, sexists, etc misusing things, you are going to end up having to make choices that are more vanilla because it takes options off the table.
I never said "mainly". Decide what you're doing, than give it 10 minutes to think of the implications that might arise in some people's heads. You can't counter them all, can't prevent them from being stupid, but make it sure that the game at least gives arguments to the people opposing some views.
QuoteYou may be able to find clever ways around them and imposed restraints can lead to creative choices at times. For example back when films were heavily censored, they had to be more creative and allude to things in different ways....but I don't think that is a good argument for censoring things in the first place (and if you look
I think you didn't finish. But no, I'm not for imposing restraints.
Tweaking things around some stuff might work, though. And it might even give you ideas.
But if you think it wouldn't work as well? By all means, do whatever is good for the game! I just happen not to be seeing the current design of races as perfect, or even as interesting.
QuoteI am not interested in being edgy for its own sake
I never said "for its own sake". I just said "offend as many people as you like".
QuoteI am not interested in writing explicitly so racists don't misuse what I say (anymore than I am interested in writing so religious fundamentalists don't misuse what I say or serial killers don't misuse what I say).
Coming back to my reply, this is your right.
I'd prefer a game that doesn't give fuel to racists or religious fundamentalists, though.
QuoteI'm making games so regular people can have fun playing them and will hopefully find the settings interesting. The game isn't a weapon. I hate racism, but I don't even understand how one would make something so edgy it hurts racists (and how that would do anything real to stop racism at all).
I'm not saying it would stop racism by itself. Seriously, that would be laughable. Once again, I said it would make my life easier, by giving me fuel to oppose racists that share a hobby with me. Thus, I'd be more interested in your game.
QuoteI am interested in being inclusive and making people feel welcome by having more diversity and appealing to a broad cross-section of gamers. But I don't want to be guided by a concern for the subliminal or misappropriation. I do take art direction and content seriously. I spend a lot of time talking with artists about how what a piece conveys and if it sends messages either of us are uncomfortable with because I want to make sure the result lines up with our intention. Same with game content. But I won't do things like remove violence from our games or play up non-violent solutions simply because there are a few nuts who can't handle hack 'n slash. Nor do I want to use the lowest common denominators as a base measure for anything in design.
Remove violence? Who said to do that?
I'm pretty sure I didn't. Now, giving more weight to lower-lethality solutions is something I find more interesting, but that's not to say my campaigns don't have a bodycount attached. Quite the opposite.
QuoteFor example I like the idea of a world where the gods created different races and made them different from each other. I can find that interesting in a fantasy setting while totally rejecting the notion of racial essentialism in reality.
As before: you should design whatever you like, the way you like.
The aforementioned fantasy setting is one I've played a few times before, though;). I wouldn't mind seeing a setting where the gods created different races, but they're no more different than races today.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;846028I think we agree that racists doing this is bad. Where I disagree is on the solution. Let's say someone uses a copy of one of our games to bludgeon someone over the head; is the solution to create a nerf coating to prevent injury or to tell violent people to not folks in the head with books?
Of course not. I think people that weaponise deadtree books with lethal effect are much rarer than racists, though, and therefore, you need to worry much less about thosese.
QuoteI think here you criticize the racist, not the game. Now if the game were genuinely sending aryan messages, by all means, critique it. But elves are basically aristocrats not aryans.
For most racists I've met, the two concepts are complimentary. And seriously, I'm just tired of discussing elves.
QuoteThe whole point of elven racism against other races, the thing that makes it entertaining to people, is how ridiculous it is. The joke is on the elves.
I happen to agree. I've also seen enough people that didn't get it's a joke, which prompted my reaction.
After all, it would be much clearer that it's a joke if the mechanics didn't back it up, wouldn't it:D?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;846045The problem with the whole 'shades of grey' thing is that most people I've encountered make it into another extreme. Nothing is pure grey, some shades will always be lighter and darker, a lot of the times noticeably so.
Of course. I mean, that's the point of shades of grey.
It's when they're roughly similar in shade when people start talking about ethical dilemmas.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;846045The problem with the whole 'shades of grey' thing is that most people I've encountered make it into another extreme. Nothing is pure grey, some shades will always be lighter and darker, a lot of the times noticeably so.
I've mostly seen it become more like Shades of Black. Everyone is varying degrees of asshole so pick your poison.
Quote from: AsenRG;846048Weren't Agimori a created race?
Probably. Most if not all races in Glorantha were created by some deity or other, e.g. Dwarfs by Mostal, Elves by Aldrya, Trolls by (I forget who their mother was).
Quote from: Bren;846078Probably. Most if not all races in Glorantha were created by some deity or other, e.g. Dwarfs by Mostal, Elves by Aldrya, Trolls by (I forget who their mother was).
Yes, but in Glorantha's context this means, didn't someone tamper with them after the initial time of races-creation?
Quote from: AsenRG;846048That's your right. I'm not asking for a boycott of all other games, I'm playing games that contradict that myself!
My point is that the discussion would be much easier and shorter. "Skills aren't genetic, you moron. The designer obviously disagrees with you." Period.
I suppose, but couldn't you just ask the designer? Most designers respond to emails if you send them. If the question is what the designer meant, and you want this conveyed to the racist, in my case I am perfectly happy to send a personalized email explaining that my Mandaru Elves are not meant as a metaphor for Aryans or whatever.
QuoteYou can easily counter them that skills aren't genetically transferable.
Except you are giving them blanket bonuses, so it isn't just a matter of culture since they are getting them whenever they interact with animals. My point is that racists are going to find a way to read what they want into this stuff either way. The important thing is how normal, non-white supremacists, read the text.
QuoteI never said "mainly". Decide what you're doing, than give it 10 minutes to think of the implications that might arise in some people's heads. You can't counter them all, can't prevent them from being stupid, but make it sure that the game at least gives arguments to the people opposing some views.
I don't hold it against people if they design or write this way. My approach is to reflect on what the content actually is, how my audience will read it. I am just not going to spend time thinking about what skinhead might read into it. Just like I am not going to spend time worrying how a serial killer might take it.
QuoteComing back to my reply, this is your right.
I'd prefer a game that doesn't give fuel to racists or religious fundamentalists, though.
I don't want to give them fuel either. If I made a game that glorified Hitler and made the Nazi's seem like they were on to something, then a reasonable person could conclude I was giving them fuel. But if I just have something in my game like elves and dwarves, and they have physical differences, and racists are reading a kind of white supremacist theology into that, I think they are the ones who are fault here. If you are finding you have an inordinate number of racists in your gaming group using the game to debate you on these points, then find new gamers. Maybe you live in a place where this is more of problem, but where I am I've just never encountered anyone using D&D in that manner.
QuoteI'm not saying it would stop racism by itself. Seriously, that would be laughable. Once again, I said it would make my life easier, by giving me fuel to oppose racists that share a hobby with me. Thus, I'd be more interested in your game.
I see your concern here and I understand. At the end of the day for me, I think it is important that we not allow people like that to get into our heads though and shape what we do with our creative outlets. I would in all honesty be miserable having to write material with the deliberate intention of subverting white supremacist readers opinions. Believe me, my father is Jewish, I've experienced white supremacy first hand in that context. But I don't want to be guarding against these people even in my fantasy worlds.
QuoteRemove violence? Who said to do that?
I'm pretty sure I didn't. Now, giving more weight to lower-lethality solutions is something I find more interesting, but that's not to say my campaigns don't have a bodycount attached. Quite the opposite.
I only mentioned it because it is another topic along the same lines that I've seen come up in roleplaying game discussions, where people make similar arguments to the ones you are making about racism in RPGs around violence.
QuoteAs before: you should design whatever you like, the way you like.
The aforementioned fantasy setting is one I've played a few times before, though;). I wouldn't mind seeing a setting where the gods created different races, but they're no more different than races today.
There are games that treat races more as cultures if you are interested in that. One thing to keep in mind though, Race in a fantasy RPG is really a bit of misnomer. I almost used the word species in my own game for that reason, but didn't because Race has just been used so long and is ubiquitous. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans, Gnomes, and Orcs are not really comparable to the differences humans along ethnic and racial lines. If they were more like the real world, Elves might have a slightly higher rate of certain forms of cancer or something, and Humans might be more prone to auto-immune disorders but that would be about it. The difference between an elf and human is more like the difference between neanderthals and homo sapiens. My approach to fantasy settings is they are worlds where you have these different types of intelligence humanoids who continued to co-exist into the present era. That leads to a lot of interesting possibilities.
QuoteFor most racists I've met, the two concepts are complimentary. And seriously, I'm just tired of discussing elves.
Okay, but they could find that in just about anything. I mean again, elves have a Dex bonus and Con penalty; how is that at all close to the Aryan ideal they want? Aryans have generally been presented by white supremacists as strong, robust, blonde, etc. That to me isn't an elf.
Quote from: AsenRG;846080Yes, but in Glorantha's context this means, didn't someone tamper with them after the initial time of races-creation?
I don't think so, but I can't remember the Agimori creation myth and as I am on the road, my Glorantha library is not with me.
Quote from: Nexus;846051I've mostly seen it become more like Shades of Black. Everyone is varying degrees of asshole so pick your poison.
Noticed that tends to be what a lot of White Wolf fans love to do.
Quote from: jeff37923;845883Now I need a drink because I cannot believe that I just defended fucking Gungans.
Heh. OK, drink up. :-)
I don't want to get into a specific-case debate over Gungans here, but I accept that there are arguments either way - such as your claim that the problem is in the character of Jar-jar rather than the race. Could you at least agree that it is not crazy for someone to suggest that there is an element of racism in how Gungans are portrayed? I can see someone reasonably defending Gungans, but I can also see someone reasonably attacking Gungans in that they portray racism.
To my mind, a key problem is that most people want racism to be a binary. That is, either something is racist, in which case it is horrible and unacceptable, to be classed with slavery and lynchings - or it is perfectly fine, and no one should have any problems with it. I think instead there is a wide spectrum, where there is room to argue over the extent of the problems.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;846086I suppose, but couldn't you just ask the designer? Most designers respond to emails if you send them. If the question is what the designer meant, and you want this conveyed to the racist, in my case I am perfectly happy to send a personalized email explaining that my Mandaru Elves are not meant as a metaphor for Aryans or whatever.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;846086Race in a fantasy RPG is really a bit of misnomer. I almost used the word species in my own game for that reason, but didn't because Race has just been used so long and is ubiquitous. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans, Gnomes, and Orcs are not really comparable to the differences humans along ethnic and racial lines.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;846086Okay, but they could find that in just about anything. I mean again, elves have a Dex bonus and Con penalty; how is that at all close to the Aryan ideal they want? Aryans have generally been presented by white supremacists as strong, robust, blonde, etc. That to me isn't an elf.
I don't find any of these arguments convincing. To take the case of Gungans:
1) Just because a creator says they aren't racist, is not proof of lack of racism. There are some arguments over whether Gungans are racist - like jeff's - but I don't take Lucas' word as any proof that there isn't a problem.
2) Just because Gungans whatever are technically a species and not a race, that doesn't mean there can't be racial prejudice in how they're portrayed.
3) Not fitting a stereotype about white supremacist ideals is also no proof of lack of racism. i.e. Gungans don't have to match up to a particular neo-nazi stereotype for there to be a problem.
I should say, I suppose, that I do have problems with Gungans - but the point isn't about them specifically, but about what arguments are reasonable.
How are Gungans representative of racism?
Quote from: jhkim;846172Could you at least agree that it is not crazy for someone to suggest that there is an element of racism in how Gungans are portrayed? I can see someone reasonably defending Gungans, but I can also see someone reasonably attacking Gungans in that they portray racism.
No, I can't agree to that because it makes about as much sense as claiming that Klingons are racist caricatures of militant black activists. You see, that was a thing when
Star Trek: The Next Generation first came out where I lived in Lancaster/Palmdale CA.
Can someone see racism in Klingons or Gungans or anything else? Sure, if they are myopic and have just dropped a couple of tabs of Acid.
You can claim that anything represents racism, but how tenuous is your chain of logic in justifying that claim?
It is like this exchange below.
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/11822460_10207466820377276_5238477592337212231_n.jpg?oh=9555494f1f0ba1679c96d65db37b9bd5&oe=56432C46)
Quote from: TristramEvans;846177How are Gungans representative of racism?
This. So much this.
Quote from: TristramEvans;846177How are Gungans representative of racism?
Jar Jar in particular comes very close to the "Stepin Fetchit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepin_Fetchit)" black stereotype: the dumb black sidekick and comedy relief seen in early film in the US and black face performances. The race as presented also comes across to some as an insulting presentation of native people: simple minded, speaking pidgin English, etc.
While I wasn't offended by the Gungans (I just felt found them silly and childish) I know a few other black people that were very put off by them. But I don't feel it was intentionally meant to be offensive or racist though I can see that impression comes from.
Quote from: jhkim;846172He
I don't find any of these arguments convincing. To take the case of Gungans:
1) Just because a creator says they aren't racist, is not proof of lack of racism. There are some arguments over whether Gungans are racist - like jeff's - but I don't take Lucas' word as any proof that there isn't a problem.
That is a much different case though, because this isn't an instance of there are loose connections one can draw to a real world concept if one is a white supremacist who wants to see those connections. Jar Jar Binks is much more obviously based on a stereotype. I think intent does matter, but so does execution.
Quote2) Just because Gungans whatever are technically a species and not a race, that doesn't mean there can't be racial prejudice in how they're portrayed.
I never said that them being mythical or fantastical means there can never be racial prejudice in them. That isn't my argument. Because people are drawing on real world cultures, it is absolutely possible for racism to be present. If someone makes orcs that are clearly mocking a racial group, that is definitely racism. My point is that there is a conceptual difference here between race/ethnicity and Race in a campaign setting, and having races in D&D with inborn traits isn't an argument for racial essentialism in the real world. My point here is just that in instances where the intent isn't there and the outcome doesn't seem to be racist unless you break it down like Fox Mulder, it probably isn't really racist. In the specific case of the elves in D&D, I think it is very clear they are not aryans.
Quote3) Not fitting a stereotype about white supremacist ideals is also no proof of lack of racism. i.e. Gungans don't have to match up to a particular neo-nazi stereotype for there to be a problem.
That isn't my point though. The reason lining up with the aryan concept in this case is important is because that is the issue the poster raised. He is concerned that white supremacists are using the game to promote racism and specifically concerned about elves as analogs for aryans. His point is that elves feed white supremacy because they are close to the aryan ideal, so that is why I am trying to show they are not. Gungans are a separate issue.
That said, things ought to fit some criteria to be considered racist and bad, and I think it is important that the bar for that criteria not be so low that we throw everything under the sun over it. You usually seem pretty reasonable on these issues to me, so I don't really take issue with much of what you've said on this. What troubles me is when you have people clearly looking for problems in things that are just not readily visible. I agree with you on Howard and Lovecraft for instance. But I don't think that that means that an orc in D&D represents much of anything beyond a green monstrous threat from the periphery of human habitation unless someone actively injects racist elements into them.
QuoteI should say, I suppose, that I do have problems with Gungans - but the point isn't about them specifically, but about what arguments are reasonable.
It has been a while since I saw Phantom Menace, but I remember Jar Jar Binks being pretty gringe worthy on that front (I do recall the gungans themselves being less like that, but I could be misremembering). I don't take issue with you disliking Gungans or feeling that Lucas draws too freely on racial stereotypes in his movies. Personally I am fine with borrowing cultural elements to make something cool, but I remember phantom menace having a few things that felt a bit insensitive like the Trade Federation for example talking in very heavy and stereotypical Chinese accents. I don't think Lucas is a racist but those do feel like decisions from a 1940s or 50s production in terms of how they handled that stuff.
Quote from: Nexus;846223Jar Jar in particular comes very close to the "Stepin Fetchit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepin_Fetchit)" black stereotype: the dumb black sidekick and comedy relief seen in early film in the US. The race as presented also comes across to some as an insulting presentation of native people: simple minded, speaking pidgin English, etc.
While I wasn't offended by the Gungans (I just felt found them silly and childish) I know a few other black people that were very put off by them. But I don't feel it was intentionally meant to be offensive or racist though I can see that impression comes from.
Yeah, I think it is pretty hard to deny that the stereotype is present there. People can certainly debate intent and whether it crossed the line, but I remember watching it in the theater and feeling like the character Jar Jar felt a bit like old black face in some respects. I think this gets complicated fast, because while cultural borrowing can definitely enhance science fiction and fantasy, and isn't something I want to see people shy away from, there are cultural elements that are just insulting. I have no problem with someone taking bits of Mongol culture or bits of Middle Eastern culture to flesh out a race and make it interesting. I also think people sometimes get too sensitive about vague things in this respect. But that doesn't mean there isn't racism that happens or there aren't lines that are going to piss me off a bit. If your not just drawing on culture, but painting a caricature that is hurtful, to me that gets into racist territory. I do think we should approach these with a pinch of rationality though and weigh the material as objectively as we can, without leaping to conclusions. And I think intent is still very important, though it is not the only consideration.
There are also divisions within communities themselves over what is a harmful representation and I think that is where a lot of complexity comes in. I'm from an Italian American and Jewish Family. On the Italian American side, you see a split over the mafia. Most Italian Americans I know love stuff like the Sopranos, God Father and anything mafia related. There is a point of pride in it. But there is a very vocal minority in the Italian American community who dislike the portrayal of Italian Americans as members of the mafia (to the point that when mafia games, movies, or books come out, there are regular calls for boycotts in one of the Italian American monthlies). In my own family, I've only ever encountered people who love mafia stuff. They view it as their genre. Personally I think it is still fine for people to portray Italian characters as mobsters in television, largely because Italians have been so thoroughly assimilated into US culture that it isn't like there is widespread prejudice against them. Plus there are plenty of Italian characters out there who are not members of the mob.
Quote from: Nexus;846223While I wasn't offended by the Gungans (I just felt found them silly and childish) I know a few other black people that were very put off by them. But I don't feel it was intentionally meant to be offensive or racist though I can see that impression comes from.
Well, that is the rub in all this. It does not matter what the intention of the creator is, any short-sighted person with a grudge can figure out a justification to be offended by something. I know of several black adults who believe that Mark Twain's
Huckleberry Finn should be banned because it contains racist language in it - they have chosen to not see that the entire story is about a boy helping a black slave attain his freedom, they only concentrate on the language which was what was commonly used at the time - and used to develop the character of Huckleberry Finn himself.
The thing that strikes me is this - Is the offense genuine? Or is this just something manufactured in order to further another agenda?
Are we comparing Mark Twain, the seminal American novelist, to the guy who stuck Ewoks in to sell kids toys?
Mark Twain having a conversation on race is extremely deep. Lucas thinks deep means he needs to do ocean effects.
Quote from: GreyICE;846304Are we comparing Mark Twain, the seminal American novelist, to the guy who stuck Ewoks in to sell kids toys?
To be fair, he stuck Ewoks in because they couldnt afford to do a Wookie planet. Hence Ewoks are just small wookies with the name spelled backwards.
Quote from: Nexus;846223Jar Jar in particular comes very close to the "Stepin Fetchit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepin_Fetchit)" black stereotype: the dumb black sidekick and comedy relief seen in early film in the US and black face performances. The race as presented also comes across to some as an insulting presentation of native people: simple minded, speaking pidgin English, etc.
Huh, I never picked up on that, but Im not familiar with Fetchit (or blackface outside of modern parodies).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844357The only folks I've heard of doing this are the storm front guys and some other rare cases. I've never once met anyone in real life who does so. I've never even met any gamers online who do so.
I've had a lot of non-white D&D players who play elves, sometimes intentionally to play 'the Other' to the white humans, or they depict their elf PCs as their own ethnicity.
Nordicist types seem more likely to see Tolkien's Rohirrim as their ideal, not his Elves.
Quote from: S'mon;846407Nordicist types seem more likely to see Tolkien's Rohirrim as their ideal, not his Elves.
Well the Rohirrim do look like SS recruitment posters...
'Best to stay away from using unnammed hordes in your games, unless they're nazis or robots. Everything else will get you accused of having too much sociological or imperialistic baggage.
Quote from: GreyICE;846304Are we comparing Mark Twain, the seminal American novelist, to the guy who stuck Ewoks in to sell kids toys?
Mark Twain having a conversation on race is extremely deep. Lucas thinks deep means he needs to do ocean effects.
Nope, we are comparing the idiotic concept that Mark Twain's book Huckleberry Finn is racist with the idiotic concept that orcs/Gungans/whatthefuckevers are racist.
Quote from: jhkim;846172Heh. OK, drink up. :-)
I don't want to get into a specific-case debate over Gungans here, but I accept that there are arguments either way - such as your claim that the problem is in the character of Jar-jar rather than the race. Could you at least agree that it is not crazy for someone to suggest that there is an element of racism in how Gungans are portrayed? I can see someone reasonably defending Gungans, but I can also see someone reasonably attacking Gungans in that they portray racism.
People can "reasonably" argue damn near anything, but if what they're arguing is horseshit, it's still horseshit no matter how "reasonable" they are when they argue it.
QuoteTo my mind, a key problem is that most people want racism to be a binary. That is, either something is racist, in which case it is horrible and unacceptable, to be classed with slavery and lynchings - or it is perfectly fine, and no one should have any problems with it. I think instead there is a wide spectrum, where there is room to argue over the extent of the problems.
It is binary. Either something or someone is racist or they're not. If you lack the spine to come right out and call someone a racist (and offer up real evidence to back your assertion) then you really don't need to be flinging it around like Rip Taylor does with confetti. This chickenshit wheedling of "I'm not calling Tolkien/Lucas/Martin a racist but..." is passive-aggressive cuntiness at its worst.
QuoteI don't find any of these arguments convincing. To take the case of Gungans:
1) Just because a creator says they aren't racist, is not proof of lack of racism. There are some arguments over whether Gungans are racist - like jeff's - but I don't take Lucas' word as any proof that there isn't a problem.
2) Just because Gungans whatever are technically a species and not a race, that doesn't mean there can't be racial prejudice in how they're portrayed.
3) Not fitting a stereotype about white supremacist ideals is also no proof of lack of racism. i.e. Gungans don't have to match up to a particular neo-nazi stereotype for there to be a problem.
I should say, I suppose, that I do have problems with Gungans - but the point isn't about them specifically, but about what arguments are reasonable.
Oh please.
All this pearl-clutching over Jar Jar Binks reminds me of Jerry Falwell's assertion the Tinky-Winky, the purple Teletubby, was gay and pushing a "gay agenda". I'm sure the reverend thought his claims were "reasonable" too.
I'll put it bluntly: If you watch an orange space alien who acts like Buster Keaton and the first thing that pops into your head is "A Black Guy!" then
you are the one with racial hangups* -not the guy who created the character, not the people who made the costume, and
certainly not the actor, who has had to put up with sixteen years of ignorant abuse from ignorant fucktards. (http://www.vice.com/read/ahmed-best-jar-jar-binks-interview) * Just like the preacher who sees a little purple alien and cries "A Gay Guy!" is the one with issues about sexuality.
Quote from: AsenRG;845618Maybe. I'd honestly wish you were right and I was wrong:).
Only time will tell.
I'm sorry, are you writing to us from 2004 or something? I'm pretty sure time just finished telling as of a month or so ago...
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;846224. I don't think Lucas is a racist but those do feel like decisions from a 1940s or 50s production in terms of how they handled that stuff.
Which is not a coincidence because that was EXACTLY what Lucas repeatedly and obsessively says he wants to evoke: the 1940s serials. That's a huge influence on Star Wars, and a huge influence on Indiana Jones, obviously.
So the problem is that with Phantom Menace, he had no one to stop him and had been out on the ranch for so long that he'd lost all sense of human perspective.
When people note that Jar Jar is similar to Stepin Fetchit, that's because that type of 'sidekick' was a super common type of sidekick in the 1940s serials.
Now, I don't think Lucas is racist either. I think he's so hugely out of it, he put an overt "Stepin Fetchit" into a major film for the first time in decades figuring that people would understand that this is all part of his artistic vision of recreating the 1940s serials, and it would be totally OK because it's an alien rather than a black person.
A lot of Chinese trade embargos going on in 1940s serials?
Quote from: TristramEvans;847373A lot of Chinese trade embargos going on in 1940s serials?
No. But there was a lot of Yellow Peril dating back at least to Sapper McNeil and Fu Manchu. The 1940s had plenty of sinister oriental stereotypes they just happened to be Japanese. Because of the war and stuff.
Quote from: Bren;847387No. But there was a lot of Yellow Peril dating back at least to Sapper McNeil and Fu Manchu. The 1940s had plenty of sinister oriental stereotypes they just happened to be Japanese. Because of the war and stuff.
Sure, Fu Manchu and all that. But my point was this defense by Lucas falls apart in that the prequels are horrible examples of pastiches of pulp serials.
Its amusing to me that the last Indiana Jones film, while rightfully derided as awful is actually a good example of like #156 in a series of pulp novels, one of the later Doc Savage books when ghost writers churned out continuosly less inspired works, in this case inspired by the mythology of the 50s instead of original social focus of the 30s and 40s on nazi occultism. But the SW Prequels arent really good examples of anything except that Lucas apparently spent up any creative genius he had in his youth.
Quote from: TristramEvans;847390Sure, Fu Manchu and all that. But my point was this defense by Lucas falls apart in that the prequels are horrible examples of pastiches of pulp serials.
I took that not as a defense, but as an explanation for the inclusion of the somewhat painful stereotypes.
Quote from: Bren;847391?
Typo, been reading something and it infected my speech.
Quote from: TristramEvans;847373A lot of Chinese trade embargos going on in 1940s serials?
The Yellow Peril. And the "Japs". The bad guys pretty much had to be either mobsters, nazis or Asians.
Quote from: Bren;847391I took that not as a defense, but as an explanation for the inclusion of the somewhat painful stereotypes.
Yeah, exactly. I'm in no way defending Lucas' utter narcissistic self-absorption to the point that he'd include something both stupid and offensive and seriously believe people wouldn't find it stupid and offensive just because it was true to the source he was trying to emulate.
Yes, Orcs are racist. They believe that they are not only culturally but also racially superior to all other races and species.
Back in '77, I recall some folks saying "Star Wars" was racist because the bad guys were all in black outfits and the good guys in white, which was just plain factually wrong besides the other muddle.
Now, what was racist was the nearly all-white casting. The assumption -- which often goes without saying -- that to do otherwise is bad business unless you've got a "blacksploitation" schtick going seems not to have changed much. If it's accurate, then the problem isn't just in Hollywood.
The whitewashing was just one of the many ways the SF Channel production of "Earthsea" got things so wrong I finally just gave up on trying to watch it.
I hope that one day I can create something as terrible a "failure" as the Star Wars prequels. That would be a lot of money to be sad about.
Bad Billion Dollar Spinachcat! Bad Bad!
Quote from: Phillip;847548Now, what was racist was the nearly all-white casting.
I don't even consider that racist. If a white person wants to write about white people, that shouldn't be an issue.
QuoteThe whitewashing was just one of the many ways the SF Channel production of "Earthsea" got things so wrong I finally just gave up on trying to watch it.
That, on the other hand, was incredibly racist.
Quote from: Phillip;847548Back in '77, I recall some folks saying "Star Wars" was racist because the bad guys were all in black outfits and the good guys in white, which was just plain factually wrong besides the other muddle.
Now, what was racist was the nearly all-white casting. The assumption -- which often goes without saying -- that to do otherwise is bad business unless you've got a "blacksploitation" schtick going seems not to have changed much. If it's accurate, then the problem isn't just in Hollywood.
The whitewashing was just one of the many ways the SF Channel production of "Earthsea" got things so wrong I finally just gave up on trying to watch it.
You're one of those guys that thinks Klingons are parodies of militant blacks, aren't you?
Quote from: RPGPundit;847368Which is not a coincidence because that was EXACTLY what Lucas repeatedly and obsessively says he wants to evoke: the 1940s serials. That's a huge influence on Star Wars, and a huge influence on Indiana Jones, obviously.
So the problem is that with Phantom Menace, he had no one to stop him and had been out on the ranch for so long that he'd lost all sense of human perspective.
There was no one to "stop" George Lucas on any of his movies after 1973, when Universal chopped five minutes out of
American Graffiti because they could.
I love this notion that Lucas kept himself cloistered away from the world when he made the prequels, and sought no input from outside his ranch. The record shows otherwise. Among others he tried to hire to write or direct the prequels: Frank Darabont*, Lawrence Kasdan and David Hare. He actually did get Tom Stoppard to write some of Episode 3. Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Walter Murch were also consulted on the films.
Last time I checked, the writers and directors mentioned above are all human beings.
* From
Variety (http://variety.com/1997/voices/columns/drew-draws-fox-pic-pact-1116675236/):
QuoteTHE FORCE IS INTACT: George Lucas once considered hiring "Shawshank Redemption" writer-director Frank Darabont to script the first of the new "Star Wars" films. After Lucas wrote it himself, he asked Darabont to take a look and give him criticism. In these days of scripts rewritten umpteen times, Darabont's response was unusual. "I had nothing to tell him, not one idea," said Darabont. "I said I wouldn't change a single damn word, and I hope he didn't."
QuoteWhen people note that Jar Jar is similar to Stepin Fetchit, that's because that type of 'sidekick' was a super common type of sidekick in the 1940s serials.
No, when people assert that Jar Jar is similar to Stepin Fetchit, they are showing that they've never watched the latter, and possibly not the former either.
Stepin Fetchit is lazy, sluggish and slow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY-8759iP_M) -and often conniving to get out of doing work. Jar Jar Binks is a hyperactive klutz and not only does he not connive at anything, but he has no guile whatsoever. He's like a big kid -a cross between Buster Keaton and Curly Howard who always gets in trouble by being clumsy, fidgety and dumb.
Speaking of yellow peril and modern controversy (or the lack of it), I've been running my current Eberron campaigns in Riedra, on the continent of Sarlona.
This is a part of that setting canonically run by polite, helpful, but utterly insidious occult mind-slaver masters masquerading as exotic humans. They rule over an enormous population of normal humans who have been taught by long tradition to function as a unit, never question authority, and mistrust people from the western continent as devils. The setting books place the monk, samurai and ninja classes on that continent. Ogre mages (oni) abound. There is an obvious ersatz tibet right next to the evil empire, full of psionics and resistant to attempts to conquer it. Everyone believes in reincarnation and the turning of a great wheel. Dream lily stands in for opium.
All of this is an obvious outgrowth of Eberron's stated desire to draw from pulp sources. Now it should be noted that a lot of this set up is distinctly non-asian: the language, clothing and architecture for instance.
But still, given how people have reacted to Gungans and Neimoidians, I'm surprised I've yet to hear of any controversy over Riedra.
Quote from: Orphan81;845545I'm honestly sad about Sacrosanct having left. I enjoyed seeing his opinions on things.
Yeah, that sucks. This forum needs more people who are actively playing and enjoying the current edition of D&D. With every departure of someone like Sacrosanct, the RPGsite becomes more of a talking shop for theory-wanking grognards.
Quote from: RPGPundit;847368When people note that Jar Jar is similar to Stepin Fetchit, that's because that type of 'sidekick' was a super common type of sidekick in the 1940s serials.
They were? Where? Ive watched quite a few serials and can think all of... none that had a black comedy sidekick. Or that many black people at all.
Other movies of the era? Sure. Serials? Not any I ever saw.
So whatever reason Lucas was dropping all these odd race swaps into Phantom Menace, it wasnt coming from Serials. (Aside from maybe the conniving orientals. Which were indeed in a number of serials. Mainly Japanese for obvious reasons.)
Quote from: Omega;848181So whatever reason Lucas was dropping all these odd race swaps into Phantom Menace, it wasnt coming from Serials. (Aside from maybe the conniving orientals. Which were indeed in a number of serials. Mainly Japanese for obvious reasons.)
I haven't seen many film serials, but Connie from the Terry and the Pirates comics (later adapted into serials) is a reasonable model for Jar Jar. (He has a mock-Chinese accent rather than mock-Carribean, but the character is similar.)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9Owd3U97W7g/SnFpRf1171I/AAAAAAAABEI/XvyCN_QAAjU/s1600/Terry1aS.jpg)
For me, Jar Jar also brings to mind Birmingham Brown from the Charlie Chan movies, but Connie is a more useful sidekick and a closer match.
I think when people say Jar-jar invokes Stepen Fetchit they probably mean it as shorthand for the bumbling black sidekick/comedy character that embodies racial stereotypes of the time than an exact homage to the specific character.
Quote from: Nexus;848233I think when people say Jar-jar invokes Stepen Fetchit they probably mean it as shorthand for the bumbling black sidekick/comedy character that embodies racial stereotypes of the time than an exact homage to the specific character.
Agreed. They're being imprecise - but the broader point remains. Jar Jar most certainly does draw on racist stereotypes of older genres.
Quote from: PhillipNow, what was racist was the nearly all-white casting.
Quote from: TristramEvans;847586I don't even consider that racist. If a white person wants to write about white people, that shouldn't be an issue.
This leads to the bizarre logic that cutting out all non-white characters makes something
less racist. So a white writer can avoid accusations of racism by never including any non-white characters, but by including non-white characters opens them up to. It is similar to the idea that old movies like Fantasia (or old comics like The Spirit) can be made less racist by editing out the black characters.
So, consider two studios in the 1940s:
Studio A never makes any movies with significant non-white characters.
Studio B has some black and Asian characters, but their parts are often stereotyped and almost always subordinate - and the major non-white parts are given to white actors in make-up.
Your logic implies that Studio B is more racist.
Quote from: jhkim;848299Your logic implies that Studio B is more racist.
It's more of a choice between being silent and letting people think you're an idiot or opening your mouth to prove it.
In various arguments I've been told excluding characters is racist, having stereotypical characters is racist, having characters who do not fit preferential stereotypes is racist, and writing characters that are a different color than you is racist. Weighing my odds I'd say not having them only hits one of these conditions, while any other attempts hits two of these.
In reality I figure it's rather easy to write a character who by sane definitions isn't racist, but those aren't really the standards the internet subjects you to.
Quote from: jhkim;848299So, consider two studios in the 1940s:
Studio A never makes any movies with significant non-white characters.
Studio B has some black and Asian characters, but their parts are often stereotyped and almost always subordinate - and the major non-white parts are given to white actors in make-up.
Your logic implies that Studio B is more racist.
Logic is the farthest thing from the minds of the identity zealots.
Quote from: Haffrung;848305identity zealots.
That's a great fucking term, fits a helluva lot better than SJW. With all the economic, environmental and political problems in the world these days, the latest batch of "liberals" is most concerned with personal identity politics...but it's not politics, is it? It's really a religion, with orthodoxy, dogma, prophets, sacred texts, even the threat of the Inquisition via social media, all with the foundation of logic and reason replaced with belief and faith, of Good and Evil.
Quote from: CRKrueger;848347That's a great fucking term, fits a helluva lot better than SJW. With all the economic, environmental and political problems in the world these days, the latest batch of "liberals" is most concerned with personal identity politics...but it's not politics, is it? It's really a religion, with orthodoxy, dogma, prophets, sacred texts, even the threat of the Inquisition via social media, all with the foundation of logic and reason replaced with belief and faith, of Good and Evil.
Yes. Agreed. Also very well put.
It's one reason why I call myself "Centre/Left" these days.
I am sad to hear that Sacrosanct left.
Anyone know why?
Quote from: jeff37923;845883Now I need a drink because I cannot believe that I just defended fucking Gungans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=535Zy_rf4NU
:)
Quote from: Spinachcat;848391I am sad to hear that Sacrosanct left.
Anyone know why?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822429Oh, you know what? Forget it. You guys win. I had no love lost when I left RPG.net because it was taken over by a bunch of radical leftist whiners. In the past few months, this site has become the other side of the coin to them. I don't want to be part of a site that is radical and two-faced like them, and I don't want to be part of a site that has become a radical pro-MRA site either.
Have fun complaining about how it's not fair the gays and women are oppressing you. I'm out.
It had nothing to do with gaming, the mythical Grognard Majority or the horrors of the OSR Taliban. He followed Will into Portlandia basically.
Bummer. I blame the orcs.
Quote from: Spinachcat;848408Bummer. I blame the orcs.
They are the "Dark Side of the Hobby" after all. That's why Stormbringer left, remember?
Quote from: CRKrueger;848397He followed Will into Portlandia basically.
Even with a wiki search I do not understand your reference. Please explain.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;848416Even with a wiki search I do not understand your reference. Please explain.
Both Will and Sac live in the Pacific Northwest (Sac may have moved, but he lived there). Portlandia is a satirical comedy show that in part pokes fun at the liberal/hipster tropes and stereotypes of people living in the Pacific Northwest in general, Portland/Seattle specifically.
Both Will and Sac left the site due to feminist issues. Will if I remember right thought we were all rape apologists, and Sac later left due to us all being Right Wing MRAs. :rolleyes:
So, Sac followed Will into the depths of Pacific Northwest culture, aka Portlandia, the mythical place in the world most like Blue Rose. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;848418So, Sac followed Will into the depths of Pacific Northwest culture, aka Portlandia, the mythical place in the world most like Blue Rose. :D
Also home base for Green Ronin, Paizo and WotC.
Quote from: CRKrueger;848347With all the economic, environmental and political problems in the world these days, the latest batch of "liberals" is most concerned with personal identity politics...but it's not politics, is it? It's really a religion, with orthodoxy, dogma, prophets, sacred texts, even the threat of the Inquisition via social media, all with the foundation of logic and reason replaced with belief and faith, of Good and Evil.
There's plenty of dogma on the Right, as well, not to mention a grand champion breed of douche baggery that allows a shithead like Donald Trump to be the GOP frontrunner. Dogma. Sacred texts. Prophets. Shit. Pft...Pot? Meet your brother, kettle.
Quote from: cranebump;848457There's plenty of dogma on the Right, as well, not to mention a grand champion breed of douche baggery that allows a shithead like Donald Trump to be the GOP frontrunner. Dogma. Sacred texts. Prophets. Shit. Pft...Pot? Meet your brother, kettle.
So your defense of the Identity Zealots is they're just as batshit loco as the Religious Right or the Tea Party? You remade the point for me.
Oh For pity's sake - They're Orcs!!!!
They are monstrous creatures created for evil purposes - in most game worlds and in the Tolkein stuff that inspired most game worlds.
- ED C.
Quote from: jhkim;848299This leads to the bizarre logic that cutting out all non-white characters makes something less racist. So a white writer can avoid accusations of racism by never including any non-white characters, but by including non-white characters opens them up to. It is similar to the idea that old movies like Fantasia (or old comics like The Spirit) can be made less racist by editing out the black characters.
So, consider two studios in the 1940s:
Studio A never makes any movies with significant non-white characters.
Studio B has some black and Asian characters, but their parts are often stereotyped and almost always subordinate - and the major non-white parts are given to white actors in make-up.
Your logic implies that Studio B is more racist.
I don't think that it has to lead to that. If one takes the tact that all art must be viewed collectively, this inevitably leads to a no-win situation that we're seeing online all the time right now. If no minority characters are included its racist. If token minorities are inserted its hackneyed and obvious. If a person writes straight eurofantasy, its racist, If a person tries to write about culturally diverse fantasy worlds, its
appropriation.
Frankly, I've decided to wash my hands of all of that. Any piece of art should be judged on its own merits outside of the culture/historical/socio-political circumstances of the time. If a work contains elements of racism, that should be addressed. In the case of older works, whether the unfortunate implications in some of Lovecraft's stories or the dreadful stereotypes such as Ebony in The Spirit, these are easily dismissed as archaisms. They would not be acceptable today, but when viewing art from the past one can (and should) say "this was the past, its not a good element, but it has no relevance to modern life". The implied idea that all readers lack discernment, and are blindly influenced by anything the see or read is a faulty assumption. I can enjoy Eisner's comics, recognize Ebony as the product of a less-enlightened age, and continue to respect black people as human beings regardless.
In other words, if a work is culturally diverse, that's great. It has no bearing on its quality, but its something I enjoy because, frankly, living in many metropolitan cities, its more realistic to me. If a work isnt culturally diverse, that alone wont cause me to label it as racist. It might make it worth exploring
why that is, but the answer to that isnt going to be a foregone conclusion for me.
Quote from: cranebump;848457There's plenty of dogma on the Right, as well, not to mention a grand champion breed of douche baggery that allows a shithead like Donald Trump to be the GOP frontrunner. Dogma. Sacred texts. Prophets. Shit. Pft...Pot? Meet your brother, kettle.
lol, Americans are really considering electing Donald Trump? Thats hilarious. Maybe Jesse Ventura can be his running mate.
Quote from: Spinachcat;848391I am sad to hear that Sacrosanct left.
As am I. I think. I'm not always good matching screen names to my interactions with the person, especially when its been a while. Dont associate anything negative with the screen name though, and I recognize it immediately, so I must have had more than a few interactions with him.
Incidentally, I'm in the Pacific Northwest as well. But I get by by not talking to random people on the street.
Quote from: jhkim;848299This leads to the bizarre logic that cutting out all non-white characters makes something less racist. So a white writer can avoid accusations of racism by never including any non-white characters, but by including non-white characters opens them up to. It is similar to the idea that old movies like Fantasia (or old comics like The Spirit) can be made less racist by editing out the black characters.
So, consider two studios in the 1940s:
Studio A never makes any movies with significant non-white characters.
Studio B has some black and Asian characters, but their parts are often stereotyped and almost always subordinate - and the major non-white parts are given to white actors in make-up.
Your logic implies that Studio B is more racist.
Racist is racist. Sure, there are degrees of racism, but it isn't very helpful to say that one thing is more or less racist than another.
Saying that something is less racist is almost condoning it, or brushing it under the carpet.
Quote from: Koltar;848480Oh For pity's sake - They're Orcs!!!!
They are monstrous creatures created for evil purposes - in most game worlds and in the Tolkein stuff that inspired most game worlds.
- ED C.
Koltar gets it.
Quote from: The Ent;846413Well the Rohirrim do look like SS recruitment posters...
Anglo Saxons on horseback.
I'd blame the SS for appropriating Teutonic culture, not Tolkien.
Quote from: tzunder;848518Anglo Saxons on horseback.
I'd blame the SS for appropriating Teutonic culture, not Tolkien.
"I have in this war a burning private grudge ... against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler. ... Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble Northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere, incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized."--J.R.R. Tolkien,
Letters #45, 9 June 1941
Quote from: TristramEvans;848485lol, Americans are really considering electing Donald Trump? Thats hilarious. Maybe Jesse Ventura can be his running mate.
They are on the opposite ends of crazy.
Quote from: soltakss;848488Racist is racist. Sure, there are degrees of racism, but it isn't very helpful to say that one thing is more or less racist than another.
Saying that something is less racist is almost condoning it, or brushing it under the carpet.
Nonsense. Degrees matter. Shoving someone is different from hitting them in the face with a bat and then curb-stomping them. And recognizing that difference doesn't mean you condone shoving people. An elderly woman saying she doesn't like to go to a nearby donut shop anymore because the staff there can barely speak english is different from someone who thinks Middle Easterners are filthy subhumans under the thrall of the devil.
And frankly, everyone has some degree of racial discomfort. I guarantee you the most sophisticated and tolerant white person dropped into a black neighbourhood on the south side of Chicago will feel uneasy (and vice-versa).
Quote from: soltakss;848488Racist is racist. Sure, there are degrees of racism, but it isn't very helpful to say that one thing is more or less racist than another.
Saying that something is less racist is almost condoning it, or brushing it under the carpet.
I think there is a difference between a person who tells racially insensitive jokes and someone who believes a particular race is subhuman
My grandmother used to on rare occasions refer to a black person by the "n" word. It just wasn't an unusual word to use for much of her early life. At the same time, the notion that a person of color should be kept out of a job or a place because of his or her race would have made her very upset. She simply never would have wished harm or hardship on anyone and she treated everyone equally in her daily dealings. I consider her "racism" to be a very different thing from that of the average member of the KKK for instance...
Quote from: tzunder;848518Anglo Saxons on horseback.
I'd blame the SS for appropriating Teutonic culture, not Tolkien.
Eh, most depictions look pretty damn close to the SS version.
Quote from: The Ent;848628Eh, most depictions look pretty damn close to the SS version.
That would be because both Tolkien's creation of the Rhohirrim and the Nazi Tutonic-Volks-nonsense underlying the SS posters draws on earlier themes both historical and mythical.
Quote from: soltakss;848488Racist is racist. Sure, there are degrees of racism, but it isn't very helpful to say that one thing is more or less racist than another.
Saying that something is less racist is almost condoning it, or brushing it under the carpet.
That is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. You're saying there isn't a substantial difference between having a slight presence for your own race over others and murdering someone because you hate that person's race?
Quote from: cranebump;848457There's plenty of dogma on the Right, as well, not to mention a grand champion breed of douche baggery that allows a shithead like Donald Trump to be the GOP frontrunner. Dogma. Sacred texts. Prophets. Shit. Pft...Pot? Meet your brother, kettle.
There's an important difference at the moment. The American right is currently engaged in an internal war for its future between Reason-magazine-reading Libertarians (who are generally pro-pot, pro-gay, pro-women, anti-racist, varying degrees of anti-religion, and more than anything anti-big-government -often including anti-militarism and anti-NSA-spying) and the Religious Right/Social Cons (who are generally anti-drugs, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-immigrant, varying degrees of racist, strongly pro-religion to the extent of wanting to impose religious laws to degrees varying from strongly-christian-based religious 'protections' to outright Christian-sharia-law, totally pro-war, and totally in favor of Big Government and government totalitarianism as long as they and not the black guy are the people in power). It's a conflict that stands a chance of lasting at least another 5 years, maybe many more, and is going to become more pronounced as it goes along. For demographic reasons it is one the libertarians are likely to eventually win, though (most young republicans skew more and more toward the libertarian side, for example, a majority of republicans under 35 are pro gay-marriage; also noteworthy is that most young evangelicals are increasingly opposed to the idea of Christian-Coalition style involvement in politics).
The Democratic party, on the other hand, has completely bought into the Identity Politics Nanny-State crowd. There's no conflict there. Unless you count Bill Maher, no one on the left is putting up any kind of meaningful fight against the Cultural Studies Graduates who are now defining totalitarianism as the new face of the Democratic party. It's also not likely to get better, for demographic reasons (most Democrats under 35 are MORE likely to support censorship laws over identity politics issues, or the banning of substances or ideas that they think are against the public good; meaning that Democrats will only get more and more Totalitarian-Nanny-State-friendly as they go along, especially since the republican party is going the opposite way, meaning more and more young people who don't believe in censorship will find the Republican party becoming more and more palatable as it becomes less and less religious).
Quote from: Sergeant Brother;848954That is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. You're saying there isn't a substantial difference between having a slight presence for your own race over others and murdering someone because you hate that person's race?
Of course not, but excusing something that is only "a bit racist" is condoning racism.
No it's not. It's accepting the reality that sometimes people are imperfect and have some silly notions.
I agree with those who think that degree of racism matters. Maybe you can find a hint of it here and there in Tolkien's work, but from a different point of view you might also say that it's actually surprisingly little (considering that he was of roughly the same generation as Hitler, very enamored with ancient Norse and British cultural heritage, and born in South Africa). Some of his statements are actually anti-racist, others more so-so. I also like some of R.E. Howard's stuff, but I often find his racism much more obvious.
Tolkien's orcs are not comparable to any real population. They are more like boogeymen or trolls (they are actually based on goblins more than anything, and he often calls them just that). He gave them virtually every bad personality trait he could think of: they're brutal, crude, and love vandalism. They are the twisted creation of a "god" whose original flaw was arrogance and jealousy over not being able to actually create real living souls, and who let these feelings spiral down into pure evil and destruction.
As for the elves, they are obviously based on Norse and Anglo-Saxon myth, but other than that I can't see much 'aryan' about them. Their most distinguishing trait is that they are immortal. They could be hard to tell from humans (Turin was often mistaken for a Noldo), but what gave them away was a certain spark in their eyes.
Quote from: soltakss;848985Of course not, but excusing something that is only "a bit racist" is condoning racism.
Is condoning racism so bad? Well, if you're condoning racism that justifies killing people, obviously that's bad. Condoning very minor racism - not so bad. How do you even define racism anyway? That is a very politically charged question. In some cases, it is very odd to link radically different feeling that produce radically different actions and say that these feelings are somehow connected.
Is it racist for somebody to lock their car doors when a young black man walks by? Maybe, depending on how you define racism, but are the thoughts that motivate that act really at all similar to feeling a visceral hatred towards people that makes you want to kill them? What purpose would it serve to conflate the two? Not I good one.
Condoning stuff like this: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books is worse.
Honestly? We should all just play magical tea party with genderless, raceless stuffies.
Quote from: David Johansen;849075Condoning stuff like this: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books is worse.
Honestly? We should all just play magical tea party with genderless, raceless stuffies.
The thread itself and the material its talking about?
I think the endless line-up to declare things racist and sexist is essentially masturbatory internet twaddle.
It's not that I'm in favor of racism or sexism. But it's been reduced to the point of absurdity in the modern internet activism.
It's like inclusiveness went through a black hole and turned into a form of bigotry all its own.
Quote from: David Johansen;849075Condoning stuff like this: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books is worse.
Oh look, a funhouse mirror of this thread.
I think my problem lies in the belief that censoring the discussion of a difficult subject generally supports the problem rather than solving it.
If we are ever to overcome them, we need to explore questions of race and violence and sexuality and tribalism. Where it is not appropriate to do so directly we often use metaphor. Hence even if orcs are a racist stereotype, they are a tool for discussing the problem stripped of specific context.
One treatment of orcs I don't think I've ever seen is orcs as victims. I've seen them as noble savages and honorable warriors and inhuman thugs and sinister others but they used to be elves and were broken and twisted. Actually I've always been amused that Peter Jackson kept that line while showing them being born from spawning pits. I wonder if Aragorn knows where little elves come from?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;849094Oh look, a funhouse mirror of this thread.
There's nothing fun about these threads...
Twisting themselves into knots to denounce those they see as the worst sinners.
They're literally Fire and Brimstone Christians at the church on Sunday, signalling their Virtue by trying to call out the worst sinners.
It certainly feels like the birth of a new age of orthodoxy and censorship. But in reality things keep going on and just get covered up in that type of system. It makes you wonder who's side the SJWs are really on.
Quote from: David Johansen;849134It makes you wonder who's side the SJWs are really on.
The same side they've always been: They're own.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849126There's nothing fun about these threads...
If you thought that's what I was saying, then you and I must have very different memories of what 'fun'houses are actually like. ;)
(http://i.imgur.com/IJumW13.jpg?1)
Quote from: RPGPundit;848961There's an important difference at the moment. The American right is currently engaged in an internal war for its future between Reason-magazine-reading Libertarians (who are generally pro-pot, pro-gay, pro-women, anti-racist, varying degrees of anti-religion, and more than anything anti-big-government -often including anti-militarism and anti-NSA-spying) and the Religious Right/Social Cons (who are generally anti-drugs, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-immigrant, varying degrees of racist, strongly pro-religion to the extent of wanting to impose religious laws to degrees varying from strongly-christian-based religious 'protections' to outright Christian-sharia-law, totally pro-war, and totally in favor of Big Government and government totalitarianism as long as they and not the black guy are the people in power). It's a conflict that stands a chance of lasting at least another 5 years, maybe many more, and is going to become more pronounced as it goes along. For demographic reasons it is one the libertarians are likely to eventually win, though (most young republicans skew more and more toward the libertarian side, for example, a majority of republicans under 35 are pro gay-marriage; also noteworthy is that most young evangelicals are increasingly opposed to the idea of Christian-Coalition style involvement in politics).
The Democratic party, on the other hand, has completely bought into the Identity Politics Nanny-State crowd. There's no conflict there. Unless you count Bill Maher, no one on the left is putting up any kind of meaningful fight against the Cultural Studies Graduates who are now defining totalitarianism as the new face of the Democratic party. It's also not likely to get better, for demographic reasons (most Democrats under 35 are MORE likely to support censorship laws over identity politics issues, or the banning of substances or ideas that they think are against the public good; meaning that Democrats will only get more and more Totalitarian-Nanny-State-friendly as they go along, especially since the republican party is going the opposite way, meaning more and more young people who don't believe in censorship will find the Republican party becoming more and more palatable as it becomes less and less religious).
The fight against the Cultural Studies Graduates is also being carried on by scientists such as Steven Pinker. The more we understand about evolutionary psychology, and the biological roots of human behaviour, the more the nonsense the New Cultural Left pedal comes into conflict with science. The New Left is increasingly becoming home to the irrational mindset, and champions of reason and empiricism are becoming less and less reluctant to stand up to them as they realize the stakes. This will be the most important political fissure of the coming decades, as Western Classical Liberalism resists the demographic onslaught of the authoritarian Identity Politics movement. When liberal magazines like the Atlantic start to raise the alarm (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/), you know the barbarians are at the gates.
The demographics aren't all bad, though. The New Left is actually not especially appealing to most immigrants, who tend to be entrepreneurial and quite hard-headed about social issues. And anti-Western guilt and self-hate will lose a lot of their steam as the rest of the world catches up economically to the West. It will be hard to treat the people of the developing world as mistreated children who need the help of Western activists when they're outcompeting people in the West for jobs and no longer defer to the West politically or culturally.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;849126There's nothing fun about these threads...
No, there isn't. The discussion about the nature of Orcs is just fuckin' stupid. What makes it a funhouse is folks using the thread as an excuse to trot out their thinly-veiled political views.
Man TBP really don't like Sine Nomine books, don't they? Every once in a while someone brings up Crawford's works as some kind of epitome of cultural appropriation or insensitivity (or worse). They tend to take people at bad faith, don't they?
I mean, REALLY? Condemning a paragraph in a side bar of a sci-fi game that essentially says: "traditionally, in our human history, women weren't typically soldiers; here are a few popular explanations; you can ignore all of these, if you wish, it's your game" as the most sexist or racist thing EVER in an rpg?
What the fuck?
Yup. It's sheer idiocy.
Do we even want to start counting the incidents of both casual and intentional anti-Christian bias in this hobby? :) (Of course, the attitude of many seems to be "That bias doesn't exist, and if it does, you deserve it.")
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;849201Do we even want to start counting the incidents of both casual and intentional anti-Christian bias in this hobby? :) (Of course, the attitude of many seems to be "That bias doesn't exist, and if it does, you deserve it.")
Yeah and the same thing happens with allot of other biases. The double standard is really aggravating.
Quote from: Necrozius;849195Man TBP really don't like Sine Nomine books, don't they? Every once in a while someone brings up Crawford's works as some kind of epitome of cultural appropriation or insensitivity (or worse). They tend to take people at bad faith, don't they?
I mean, REALLY? Condemning a paragraph in a side bar of a sci-fi game that essentially says: "traditionally, in our human history, women weren't typically soldiers; here are a few popular explanations; you can ignore all of these, if you wish, it's your game" as the most sexist or racist thing EVER in an rpg?
What the fuck?
I'm not a fan of
Stars Without Number, but what TBP pseudointellectuals are doing is unwarranted bullshit. It is nothing but a bunch of SJWs having a contest to see who's outrage penis is larger.
Quote from: Necrozius;849195Man TBP really don't like Sine Nomine books, don't they? Every once in a while someone brings up Crawford's works as some kind of epitome of cultural appropriation or insensitivity (or worse). They tend to take people at bad faith, don't they?
I mean, REALLY? Condemning a paragraph in a side bar of a sci-fi game that essentially says: "traditionally, in our human history, women weren't typically soldiers; here are a few popular explanations; you can ignore all of these, if you wish, it's your game" as the most sexist or racist thing EVER in an rpg?
What the fuck?
They'd lose their shit over a sentence that said "Typically, male humans have external genitals."
Edit: Though that would be an odd sentence to be in a sci-fi rpg. :D
Quote from: Nexus;849243They'd lose their shit over a sentence that said "Typically, male humans have external genitals."
Edit: Though that would be an odd sentence to be in a sci-fi rpg. :D
That would depend on what this Sci-Fi future is like. ;)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;849201Do we even want to start counting the incidents of both casual and intentional anti-Christian bias in this hobby? :)
If you think it's bad as it is, can you imagine if Gygax hadn't been cautious enough to use a henotheistic baseline for what would turn out to be the "establishment" RPG for decades to come?
Quote from: jeff37923I'm not a fan of Stars Without Number...
Why? I know Traveller is your preference, but I like hearing people's detailed takes on SWN.
Quote from: Nexus;849206Yeah and the same thing happens with allot of other biases. The double standard is really aggravating.
I don't know that we can call something a double standard. The fact is, the majority in power tends to call all the shots, hence you get an unlevel playing field. Of course, there are a ton of people who profess that no one is at disadvantage, anywhere, or, if they are disadvantage, well, they put themselves there, so it's their job to get themselves out of it (but let them speak up against the status quo, and "oh, shit, who do they think they are?).
My whole take on this is that trying to enforce political correctness on role-playing games is a bullshit exercise. Creators can create whatever the fuck they want (at the risk of losing the business of buyers they probably don't want anyway).
What I have a huge problem with in THIS discussion is, again, the right wing apologists folding real world politics into the situation, particularly those who constantly cream over a libertarian Utopia without experiencing the great disconnect that, when mankind isn't vigilant, people take advantage. Guess when it comes to the social contract, they side with Rousseau. It's par for the course, but the constant bitching of those in power is infuriating--they don't believe anything needs to be done because they've never needed a thing, due to an accident of birth. In the case of social issues, it's safe to say, at least in America, that we can't leave it all up to individuals. We have cops shooting unarmed people (and no, attempting to run away is not a shootable offense--unless you're Loki).:-)
So, yeah -- these discussions about bringing the PC into RPG's IS ridiculous. But considering that most people in the real world aren't the over-thinking geeks you find on TBP, I don't believe it's a symptom of the deep and horrible seed of the fall of Western civilization.
(And I can see why some people left this site now--willing to bet they had to put up with a lot of pompous condescension).
Quote from: Nexus;849243They'd lose their shit over a sentence that said "Typically, male humans have external genitals."
Edit: Though that would be an odd sentence to be in a sci-fi rpg. :D
It strikes me as a characteristically
science-fictional sentence, the problem being that what most people want from a "sci-fi" (tip o' the propeller beanie to Forrest J. Ackerman) production is really just fantasy with big guns.
There are two startling (or Amazing or Astounding) implications in the sentence:
(a) The universe is one in which human males are a small enough part not to be so familiar as to obviate the kind of primer or handbook entry written by human males about so many other entities.
(b) External genitalia are merely 'typical', not anywhere near definitive.
Quote from: Necrozius;849195Man TBP really don't like Sine Nomine books, don't they?
Any links?
That's bizarre. What's their issue with SineNomine? Wrong skin color to write the excellent Spears of the Dawn?
Quote from: jeff37923;849211I'm not a fan of Stars Without Number,
Starvation Cheap is awesome. I don't know if I will ever use it for SWN, but I am using the beta for a Traveller adventure. I believe Starvation Cheap is Crawford's best work to date (and I loved Silent Legions for CoC) and truly indispensible for running a military Traveller campaign.
The Kickstarter ends today.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1637945166/starvation-cheap-planetary-warfare-for-stars-witho
Remember the Amber Zone adventure Soft Bunk? I am going to run a one-shot using Soft Bunk as the background.
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Roleplay/Traveller/Adventures/SoftBunk.phtml
Quote from: Spinachcat;849267Any links?
See here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19291942#post19291942) and here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19292078#post19292078) for examples.
I thought it was ludicrous that the "absolute worst examples" thread at TBP went directly from Racial Holy War to the stereotype of the money-grubbing Jew.
Scots, Chinese, Yankees and Whites generally have also been so characterized, perhaps sometimes with more justification. During the 1870-71 war, a French inventor came up with a machinegun equipped with a phonograph to lure "the music-infatuated German" to his doom.
Individuals vary in any case, and when a notion is that far from reality it's really bad strategy. It's also funny, but it's funnier when an exaggeration has a grain of truth.
To call such stereotypes "absolute worst" is even more breathtaking than to tar them heedlessly as racism in the first place. Recognizing that different cultures are different is not the same as hating any of them or any individual for being a member of any of them.
The notion that an abstract concept such as a 'race' is supreme over real living people, that the latter must be prevented from poking fun at the foibles of the so-important notion, seems to me an aspect of real racism. If the 'race' were not so inflated in the first place, it couldn't motivate the bad behavior it has/does.
Well, not to defend that thread in any way, but the linked OP dismissed Racial Holy War and FATAL right off the bat (which is completely fair, since they are both nothing more than ridiculous trolls, not real RPGs) and asked instead for actual examples of egregious sexism and racism in RPGs. Any reference to a "money grubbing jew" is in pretty ridiculously bad taste for anything published in the last 40 years. And not something to conflate with recognizing differences in other cultures.
I'm sure there's a ton of crap in that thread I would instantly dismiss as the rantings of the perpetually outraged fainting couch feminists, were I so masochistic as to bother reading past the first page, but genuine examples of racism/sexism are a fair cop.
Of course, there is context to be taken into account. Lord knows what one of them might do if they got a hold of a copy of the Adventure of Baron Münchhausen "role-playing game".
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;849271See here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19291942#post19291942) and here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19292078#post19292078) for examples.
Wow. Thank you. I could comment, but...just wow.
Fortunately, the RPG.net freakshow is rarely seen offline.
I say it is something to conflate with recognizing cultural differences. Part of the differences is the set of stereotypes group X has of itself versus the views of this or that set of outsiders. The supposed Jewish (or American, or whatever) fixation on money says at least as much about the ambivalences in the other circle that fostered the fable as it may coincidentally say anything accurate about Jews or Americans.
More importantly, I say it's not something to equate with racism. It's a freaking goofball game of sweetie-pie dragons and horndog hobbits among other things. Why is this "freaking goofball"? Because the big whingers about stereotypes are actually insisting on enforcing stereotypes: a such-and-such is not allowed to be so-and-so.
So Mel Brooks and Randy Newman are to be reviled not for appreciation of money, but for having the chutzpah to like money and happen to be Jewish. If only they would stay in ghetto poverty -- like righteous 'niggas' -- they wouldn't pose the horrid spectre of 'racism', eh? Seems to me that's pretty pernicious.
God the mods over their are annoying. The little lectures they give when they ask someone to "leave the thread"...lol. There's a real weird vibe there...
...not to mention it seems curiously recurrent that the mods jump in to sanction someone after he or she has made a good point about the inanity of the thread in question.
The point of Hargrave's "Take a Troll to Lunch" essay was precisely that feeling free to break stereotypes can open the door to more fun.
Maybe you find it more fun for orcs always to be evil and elves like heavenly angels, but that is just the opposite of the view Dave was espousing.
Likewise, not every Jewish kobold has to be like Marcus Goldman (or Martin Buber or Woody Allen or Allen Ginsburg or Albert Einstein or Bob Dylan) -- but why can't one be?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;849256Why? I know Traveller is your preference, but I like hearing people's detailed takes on SWN.
Quote from: Spinachcat;849267Starvation Cheap is awesome. I don't know if I will ever use it for SWN, but I am using the beta for a Traveller adventure. I believe Starvation Cheap is Crawford's best work to date (and I loved Silent Legions for CoC) and truly indispensible for running a military Traveller campaign.
The Kickstarter ends today.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1637945166/starvation-cheap-planetary-warfare-for-stars-witho
Remember the Amber Zone adventure Soft Bunk? I am going to run a one-shot using Soft Bunk as the background.
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Roleplay/Traveller/Adventures/SoftBunk.phtml
I'll start a new thread.
Quote from: Bren;849252That would depend on what this Sci-Fi future is like. ;)
Fair point :)
If the game did it racial write ups from the perspective of a general overview not written with any race (or a non human one) as the baseline.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;849291God the mods over their are annoying. The little lectures they give when they ask someone to "leave the thread"...lol. There's a real weird vibe there...
...not to mention it seems curiously recurrent that the mods jump in to sanction someone after he or she has made a good point about the inanity of the thread in question.
You mean like this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19295141#post19295141)?
Echo chamber? Nahh...
Quote from: Brad;849338You mean like this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19295141#post19295141)?
Echo chamber? Nahh...
yup. Like that. "Thread crapping." lol...
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;849402yup. Like that. "Thread crapping." lol...
More thread crapping (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763706-Infraction-warning)?
Quote from: Orphan81;849133Twisting themselves into knots to denounce those they see as the worst sinners.
They're literally Fire and Brimstone Christians at the church on Sunday, signalling their Virtue by trying to call out the worst sinners.
Literally is correct, it's a religion, which is why you see Identity Zealots vs. Religious Right Christians and the Right wingers aren't the ones frothing at the mouth and screaming with incoherent childish rage. That the Left has somehow become the mindless, reasonless, lockstep brigade is just mind-boggling and so disheartening.
Quote from: jeff37923;849211I'm not a fan of Stars Without Number, but what TBP pseudointellectuals are doing is unwarranted bullshit. It is nothing but a bunch of SJWs having a contest to see who's outrage penis is larger.
Well, Crawford did specifically create Spears of Dawn to give them the big Fuck Off. Instead of crying about how Golarion is problematic or no one is being culturally appropriate in their fantasy versions of ancient or medieval Africa, Crawford put his money where his mouth was, wrote a game to fill in the gaps he saw with other approaches, then gave people all the layouts and art for free, so they could do the exact same thing.
Of course, their schtick isn't making anything better, ever, it's just constantly attacking and vilifying everything others do (god it's so unbelievable how much like Karl Rove these idiots are), so when Crawford gave them the tools they needed to shit or get off the pot, not a single one of them responded and positively created a game.
So, now he's one of the main heretics the Identity Zealots have to screech about. He hasn't attained the pure vitriolic spitting hatred that Zak has, but Kevin's becoming too big to ignore, probably eclipsing the sales of any 4 or 5 one-man shops together.
What are the "sins" of Spears of Dawn?
Sweet 6 Pound 8 Ounce Baby Jesus, I'm so sure I'm gonna regret asking this :(
Quote from: Spinachcat;849531What are the "sins" of Spears of Dawn?
Sweet 6 Pound 8 Ounce Baby Jesus, I'm so sure I'm gonna regret asking this :(
Long story short: he dared to base its setting on actual history, and of course, you can't have civil wars in an African-like setting because as everybody knows, Africa was Eden before the evil white man colonized it.
Quote from: Luca;849540Long story short: he dared to base its setting on actual history, and of course, you can't have civil wars in an African-like setting because as everybody knows, Africa was Eden before the evil white man colonized it.
Ah yes, the Noble Savage rears its ugly head again. :rolleyes:
God forbid anyone ever just say that a culture was equal and different, with values different from Western culture, but with people both good and bad, and ideological disagreements of their own. I always wonder how much shit White Wolf would have gotten for the Laibon today, and those books made a specific point to respect the history and culture of Africa, and not put on kid gloves when inserting vampires into the setting.
Quote from: GreyICE;849553Ah yes, the Noble Savage rears its ugly head again. :rolleyes:
God forbid anyone ever just say that a culture was equal and different, with values different from Western culture, but with people both good and bad, and ideological disagreements of their own. I always wonder how much shit White Wolf would have gotten for the Laibon today, and those books made a specific point to respect the history and culture of Africa, and not put on kid gloves when inserting vampires into the setting.
No culture had murder, rape, war, slavery, genocide or bad breath until coming into contact with white people from europe. It is known.
Of course the extreme arrogance and racism that attitude itself shows is lost on the Identity Cultists.
Whenever I read this post title I kid you not my first thought is "I don't know if Orks are racist to other types of Goblins."
Quote from: PencilBoy99;849579Whenever I read this post title I kid you not my first thought is "I don't know if Orks are racist to other types of Goblins."
In Tolkien they are (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=839244&postcount=11). Other sources for Orcs/Orks vary on how they are portrayed.
Luca! Welcome to theRPGsite!
Quote from: Luca;849540Long story short: he dared to base its setting on actual history, and of course, you can't have civil wars in an African-like setting because as everybody knows, Africa was Eden before the evil white man colonized it.
If I'm gonna truly regret my line of questioning, please throw on some more details about his "sins"!
Got any links to anti-SineNomine posts to make me wish I never asked for them?
RPGnet...the two girls one cup of gaming!
Quote from: Spinachcat;849625Luca! Welcome to theRPGsite!
If I'm gonna truly regret my line of questioning, please throw on some more details about his "sins"!
Got any links to anti-SineNomine posts to make me wish I never asked for them?
RPGnet...the two girls one cup of gaming!
Well there isn't much more because Kevin replied in the following post and sunk the argument, but here you go:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19292124#post19292124
Or you might have a read at the original dib at Starvation Cheap:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19291942#post19291942
That one was still going on for a bit, although they're now busy ripping Warhammer to shreds because Space Marines can only be males and Buffy because slayers can only be females.
Quote from: Luca;849633That one was still going on for a bit, although they're now busy ripping Warhammer to shreds because Space Marines can only be males and Buffy because slayers can only be females.
Nah, most of them are cool with Slayers only being female, that's justified apparently. It's the Space Marines being all male that's the problem.
Quote from: Orphan81;849638Nah, most of them are cool with Slayers only being female, that's justified apparently. It's the Space Marines being all male that's the problem.
Reminds me of 3rd ed D&D, when about a dozen prestige classes had a "women only" clause, but only one had a "men only" - the eunuch warlock. :eek:
Of course, if you're building off of mythological source material, there tended to be a lot of special 'classes' reserved for special women in the story-telling traditions, so this is somewhat justified. You know, stuff like amazons, fairy-godmother archetypes, swanmays, fey enchantresses, hags, a huge variety of nature spirits, etc.
IIRC, Warhammer 40k has some occupations that are women only but other than them and Soace Marines being male only the world is pretty egalitarian in general. There are so many humans world that there are exceptions in both direction but the Imperium generally doesn't care much as long as you're ready to fight and die.
Quote from: Nexus;849651IIRC, Warhammer 40k has some occupations that are women only but other than them and Soace Marines being male only the world is pretty egalitarian in general. There are so many humans world that there are exceptions in both direction but the Imperium generally doesn't care much as long as you're ready to fight and die.
Warhammer 40K is a setting coming out of an 80's joke and with 30+ years of publications none of which ever bothered to keep track of "official canon".
Discussing it for sexism / racism / other political correctness' butthurt is just about one of the worse ways of wasting one's own time I can think of.
There are no female space marines because there are no models of female space marines and the cost of tooling for such a niche product is prohibitive.
Also violence against women in games is PROBLEMATIC and TRIGGERING.
Quote from: Spinachcat;849286Wow. Thank you. I could comment, but...just wow.
Fortunately, the RPG.net freakshow is rarely seen offline.
Yoicks. SO, shit written forty years ago is sexist? No fooling.
Of course, they're still running in circles yapping and peeing because of the dumb shit Gary put in the AD&D DMG about female characters. In 1981. Which people mostly thought was dumb then and Gary being old fashioned.
Quote from: Spinachcat;849267Any links?
That's bizarre. What's their issue with SineNomine? Wrong skin color to write the excellent Spears of the Dawn?
Well, yeah obviously, but more than that, he actually wrote something in a positive attempt to address the lack of good "cultural settings" instead of bemoaning the lack while attacking everything made. So in other words, he proved their entire raison d'etre worthless, so he's an Existential Threat.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;849271See here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19291942#post19291942) and here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?763579-What-are-the-absolute-worst-examples-of-racism-or-sexism-you-ve-seen-in-published-RPG-books&p=19292078#post19292078) for examples.
The worst part is when people get banned for saying what's objectively true. That link about women always fighting that they like to post (showing an illustration of a woman in full armor no less).....well, it happened now and then, with Scythians as an oft mentioned example. But where were the fighting female Spartans, Macedonians, Romans, Native Americans, Chinese etc etc? In the case of the Spartans I happened to read a book by a guy who looked very hard for just this (since Spartan women were generally freer than in Athens), and he found nothing.
This is also the problem with the boob armor argument; does it make sense or not? Who knows? Women hardly ever wore plate armor historically.
Quote from: David Johansen;849669There are no female space marines because there are no models of female space marines and the cost of tooling for such a niche product is prohibitive.
I'm still baffled just what would be required to make the change apparent. Because typically suggesting they put massive tits on something is as sexist as the next thing on the list. Otherwise there could be a few nurglings on each others shoulders within the armor and I'm not gonna know.
Made the mistake of getting into this argument back when I was head deep in 40k books, but at this point there's also something of a lore reason. By the time they were done with the conversion process there really wouldn't be any way left to tell, it's not like humans naturally grow to that size, spontaneously generate that many implants, or have significant parts of their genetic expression tied to a precursor genome. Few of them look all that much like they did when they started, and given his tendencies I seriously doubt the emperor left in such niceties as functioning reproductive organs.
At that point I'm not even convinced there would be much left to tell through cosmetic differences. Probably the only thing I really like about the recent lore is just how inhuman they are and how difficult it is for them to grasp the rest of humanity. Almost makes them tolerable.
No, they're just misunderstood.
... Drow as white people in blackface?
Nothing like a little pathological post-modern projection and the avoidance of the obvious connection to Norse "dark elves" - since that doesn't fit their narrative. No, it's easier to blame it on disposable oppressive white-men. EEEVIL white patriarchy!!! You white devils!
That thread is pretty classic TBP. Full of post-modern fallacies, an moral-relativistic bullshit. Not that it matters since they don't even play these games.
Does rpg.net totally ignore the Battletech Universe when they talk about egalitarian combatants? Half the major mech pilots are female, including Natasha, who is pretty much the best until the Clans show up. I guess it's easier to just ignore factual evidence that proves their whole position as a bunch of crap.
Well, it's not fun to toothgnash about something they approve of.
Edit: I also like that bit about Oriental Adventures. Where they have to shit all over it and say it's all about Japan. When the book, and a huge chunk of the boxset and modules are more about Shou Lung and Tu Lung (China/Taiwan). Plus they cover Philippines and Korean analogs as well... among Tibet, Nepal and the south-eastern analog nations.
Which pretty much means the people making this claim are doing exactly what they're falsely accusing TSR of doing. /sigh.
These people...
Arguing over female space marines is pointless. My stance on the issue is pretty simple. I'm perfectly fine with it being men-only officially. But if I ever ran a game of Deathwatch, I wouldn't hesitate to let the female players in my group run female SMs if they wanted.
As far as reproduction goes, there are conflicting sources. The Deathwatch rpg specifically does not automatically apply Chem Geld to SMs. Also, there are canonical sources that some SMs (specifically Space Wolves) like to celebrate with a bit of wenching. One of the most popular SMs, Ragnar Blackmane, had a physical attraction to a woman but she died before anything happened. So the issue is a little unclear.
But none of that really matters. As I said, the canon conflicts. It conflicts because there actually is no canon. Multiple GW people have come out and said that 40k has no one, true canon. It's a made-up universe that has been cooked up by a lot of different chefs. Every codex and novel is basically a new lens through which a slightly different view can be gained, and collectively they help the reader form his or her own mental picture of the 40k universe as a whole. It's all propaganda, and it all should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.
Quote from: Brad;849686Does rpg.net totally ignore the Battletech Universe when they talk about egalitarian combatants? Half the major mech pilots are female, including Natasha, who is pretty much the best until the Clans show up. I guess it's easier to just ignore factual evidence that proves their whole position as a bunch of crap.
Battletech is mostly ignored on rpg.net, which is probably a good thing. I love that universe, so I'd hate to have them dumping on it. If anything, they'd focus on how it's sexist for portraying Victor as 'good' and his sister as evil in the Fedcom civil war.
Quote from: tenbones;849685... Drow as white people in blackface?
Nothing like a little pathological post-modern projection and the avoidance of the obvious connection to Norse "dark elves" - since that doesn't fit their narrative. No, it's easier to blame it on disposable oppressive white-men. EEEVIL white patriarchy!!! You white devils!
That thread is pretty classic TBP. Full of post-modern fallacies, an moral-relativistic bullshit. Not that it matters since they don't even play these games.
That's the one that gets me. In Norse mythology, dark elves were said to be sprung from the earth. And the earth is dark, soil is black (fire giants are also black - from the earth). Now add a dash of Moorcock's decadent, depraved Melniboneans to make them cruel and villainous. Voila - drow.
But the clucking scolders on TBP are so myopic, and so obsessed with American political history, that influences like Norse dark elves and Moorcock's Melniboneans are mindlessly batted away in order to fit drow into a modern American political context. Do they even read history, mythology, and the fantasy novels that influenced D&D? Better question - do they even play D&D?
To be fair, the Norse black elves, svartalfar, are dwarves. So by making them elves you're kind of missing the entire point to begin with.
Which has always amused me. The Drow are the result of a mistranslation/misunderstanding. Yet another piece of shit for the shit race.
Quote from: Haffrung;849698Moorcock's decadent, depraved Melniboneans...
Those guys I like. And they are totally racist, viewing humans as some lower species.
Quote from: GreyICE;849700To be fair, the Norse black elves, svartalfar, are dwarves. So by making them elves you're kind of missing the entire point to begin with.
Which has always amused me. The Drow are the result of a mistranslation/misunderstanding. Yet another piece of shit for the shit race.
Yeah, I knew that too, fairly interesting story behind that. But fuck it. Drow are no more "problematic" than any make-believe conflict one has in their make-believe game.
That's a far cry from projecting ones own prejudices on a game in order to justify ones victimized feelings at the expense of the people that play it and created it. God forbid you actually enjoy it. But that's TBP for you.
Quote from: Haffrung;849698That's the one that gets me. In Norse mythology, dark elves were said to be sprung from the earth. And the earth is dark, soil is black (fire giants are also black - from the earth). Now add a dash of Moorcock's decadent, depraved Melniboneans to make them cruel and villainous. Voila - drow.
My Drow are very much like Melniboneans. (see the Chaotic Evil thread). Racist, egomaniacal, sociopathic, treacherous, vile, decadent - yep, all the hallmarks that should make people fear them. That's their culture by conceit of the game - and the fact a demon-goddess has been leading them for thousands of years. /shock. (wonder why they don't go after D&D for having Gods? Much less being demon-worshippers. I rarely hear them complain about Drow propensity for living sacrifice. Perhaps because it's mostly male? Is that not problematic? Apparently not.)
Quote from: Haffrung;849698But the clucking scolders on TBP are so myopic, and so obsessed with American political history, that influences like Norse dark elves and Moorcock's Melniboneans are mindlessly batted away in order to fit drow into a modern American political context. Do they even read history, mythology, and the fantasy novels that influenced D&D? Better question - do they even play D&D?
That's the problem with the pathological view of post-modernism. They use modern morality to judge the morality of the past as equal. This is a descended view that either conflates the absurd to astronomical levels - Imagine explaining to an ancient Akkadian taskmaster that "slavery" is immoral. This is the problem of looking at games like RPG's where they judge everyone and everything about the game based on whatever they feel doesn't suit their myopic narrative, as you pointed out.
Healthy post-modernism should see distinctions and make logical choices between those distinctions based on best outcomes of ones intent. Not "every social construct has an equal value" - because clearly they don't. Probably doesn't help they don't really understand their own points, because they're operating off of the "feels".
Quote from: tenbones;849704Not "every social construct has an equal value" - because clearly they don't.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13447657/james-harrison-pittsburgh-steelers-takes-away-kids-participation-trophies-says-awards-earned
Awesome!
This thread has convinced me to look at Spears at Dawn
Quote from: Luca;849663Warhammer 40K is a setting coming out of an 80's joke and with 30+ years of publications none of which ever bothered to keep track of "official canon".
Discussing it for sexism / racism / other political correctness' butthurt is just about one of the worse ways of wasting one's own time I can think of.
In general, I agree but I find that double standard grating. Same with all male space marines being an issue but all female slayers (or all female cavalry in Reign) are just fine.
About Orcs - In my settings, they're just one of many tribal peoples. I loved how they were handled in Earthdawn.
About 40K Space Marines - I have Female Astartes in my 40K settings, because the Emperor cared about effciency, not gonads, and I use the myserious 2nd and 11th Legions for my own custom Chapters when I run Deathwatch. I also have some Chapters have mixed genders, some be all male, some all female, some have transgender people, some have varying practices. If 40K neckbeards get offended when I run, they can suck it as they admit they're wrong while I boot them through the door.
People do what they want at their tables.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;849740People do what they want at their tables.
Bing! What you privately think or do is your thing. That's why sweating gaming stuff is simply pointless.
Quote from: cranebump;849742Bing! What you privately think or do is your thing. That's why sweating gaming stuff is simply pointless.
Yes. Well, the OP asked!
Are Sisters of Battle PCs in Deathwatch?
Quote from: Spinachcat;849763Are Sisters of Battle PCs in Deathwatch?
No. Deathwatch is purely made up of Space Marines drawn from all the chapters. Sisters of Battle are a playable career in Dark Heresy. Technically you can mix and match the two since they use
mostly compatible systems, but it's not quite perfect. And they'll be suited for somewhat different challenges. Deathwatch SMs are hyper-focused on combat while the typical SoB will have much more varied abilities and skills. So the GM needs to make sure to present a wide variety of challenges so one order doesn't dominate the spotlight.
Quote from: Brand55;849766No. Deathwatch is purely made up of Space Marines drawn from all the chapters. Sisters of Battle are a playable career in Dark Heresy. Technically you can mix and match the two since they use mostly compatible systems, but it's not quite perfect. And they'll be suited for somewhat different challenges. Deathwatch SMs are hyper-focused on combat while the typical SoB will have much more varied abilities and skills. So the GM needs to make sure to present a wide variety of challenges so one order doesn't dominate the spotlight.
Considering that Sisters use most of the same gear and can call down actual Emperor granted miracles, I've always thought that Sisters came out ahead.
That and the fact that there are a metric fuckton more of them than Marines.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;849740About 40K Space Marines - I have Female Astartes in my 40K settings, because the Emperor cared about effciency,
Which is why in MY settings, they're all male. Men physiologically can handle raw damage better than women can. Not to mention that to get the same level of strength, a woman typically (but not always) has to work harder. (Again, women can do it, and a lot of female athletes do.) And so in the interest of efficiency, in MY 40K, they're are no female Astartes.
And that's ignoring that all known Chapter clones were of the Emperor anyway, which are all male, and seeing that the Marines are based off the male genome, it's easier (thus more efficient) to modify other males with it.
But if other people want Space Marine women? More power to them, and I sincerely hope that they have a blast doing it.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;849769Considering that Sisters use most of the same gear and can call down actual Emperor granted miracles, I've always thought that Sisters came out ahead.
That and the fact that there are a metric fuckton more of them than Marines.
Looking at it in a 'real world' perspective, I'd probably agree. But the reality of the RPG mechanics is pretty clear. It doesn't help that the SoB careers were designed for Dark Heresy, which is based at a much lower power level than Deathwatch. The power armor available to an experienced SoB (by the book) is far inferior to that of a starting Deathwatch Battle-Brother, for example.
I know the "canon" is sort of iffy in 40K but I was always under the impression that there were no female Marines (or the other gender divided teams) was more a "can't" than a "won't". The Empire's degenerate stagnant tech base has lost the ability to convert women into Space Marines, same with other enhanced soldiers.The exception being the Sisters of Battle which is all female by decree.
Quote from: Nexus;849775I know the "canon" is sort of iffy in 40K but I was always under the impression that there were no female Marines (or the other gender divided teams) was more a "can't" than a "won't". The Empire's degenerate stagnant tech base has lost the ability to convert women into Space Marines, same with other enhanced soldiers.The exception being the Sisters of Battle which is all female by decree.
Pretty much. The explanation usually given is that the geneseed used to actually create a Space Marine comes from the Emperor and is thus only compatible with men. Mankind just doesn't have the capability to manipulate it enough to adapt it to female initiates even if they wanted to.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;849759Yes. Well, the OP asked!
Sorry. I was agreeing with you. Wholeheartedly.
Quote from: Brand55;849776Pretty much. The explanation usually given is that the geneseed used to actually create a Space Marine comes from the Emperor and is thus only compatible with men. Mankind just doesn't have the capability to manipulate it enough to adapt it to female initiates even if they wanted to.
The explanation is that Games Workshop didn't want to make more models just to cover female space marines, and the idea that the same model could be used for both never occurred to them.
It's the same reason that the "trustworthy Rhino chassis" is used for all sorts of vehicles, because they can spit out Rhino chasses like they're going out of style. It's also why female imperial guard models are almost never made (I believe there are no plastic female guard), despite there canonically being female imperial guard, and why the sisters of battle are all-female (one model, again). And all of the Eldar units are gender segregated (All guardians female, all warp spiders male, etc.).
Just assume "molds are expensive" as the default explanation for any completely random restriction in their universe. Don't worry though, none of those identical molds are interchangeable, because they'll add some extra sprue of cheap plastic and call WYSIWYG on you.
Quote from: Nexus;848233I think when people say Jar-jar invokes Stepen Fetchit they probably mean it as shorthand for the bumbling black sidekick/comedy character that embodies racial stereotypes of the time than an exact homage to the specific character.
Then the comparison is not only wrong, but utterly useless. It's like saying
Big Enos Burdette (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIgGZA4qQoc) from
Smokey and the Bandit embodies stereotypes common among Bond villains (he breaks the law and has lots of money and flunkies to do his bidding), and is therefore a slur against British and European men.
It would be flattery to call this kind of thinking moronic.
Quote from: Brand55;849776Pretty much. The explanation usually given is that the geneseed used to actually create a Space Marine comes from the Emperor and is thus only compatible with men. Mankind just doesn't have the capability to manipulate it enough to adapt it to female initiates even if they wanted to.
Thank you. I like the Monastic warrior order feel of the Space Marines and always thought of them as more genderless walking weapons than male for the most part. The SoB as warriors nuns and brides of the Emperor is cool too.
But if you want female Space Marines in your game (or Hell, male SoB) go for it. The universe isn't going to crack open.
I super love orcs really hard, and I don't mean the originals (although the ones in Peter Jackson's movie certainly looked cool) or the Warhammer version (they're fun but pretty one-note) and definitely not the Warcraft version (everything from that setting can go die). I like the orcs from Dungeons & Dragons, who are grey(!) skinned, boar-tusked shaggy guys in furs with giant axes who look like they got lost on their way to a Slipknot concert. They're a little denser than humans on average but a lot stronger and they are basically a cross between cavemen and vikings. Sometimes they can live in uneasy peace with humans or other neighboring communities but more frequently they live by raiding and pillaging.
I like playing up the pig thing (my Orcs go "REEEEEEE!") but mainly I play them as mega hard dudes who are usually selfish but not like, demonic baby-eaters or whatever. I don't see how any of that's necessary. Orcs are already poor, primitive and live in marginal territory; most of their interactions with the on-average weaker and richer humans is gonna be violent. You don't have to go into some weird free will debate to have Orcs be prone to armed robbery, their condition is pretty much set up for that as-is. I explain Half-Orcs as sometimes humans and orcs learn to tolerate each other (which doesn't mean Orc culture gets nice or cuddly or anything) and sometimes a scarred-up orc girl will meet a grizzled human fighter and be like "I like the size of your axe lol" and he'll be like "cute fangs babe rofl" and there's no need to say your Half Orc was the product of a war crime if you don't want to (but if you want to then sure, I guess).
In general I am not a fan of using real world cultures to give depth to fantasy races. So no congo drums for my orcs or ying-yang banners for my elves. If anything culture approximates roughly to region and climate in my mind and my Orcs tend to dwell up in the frozen north so materially they will be similar to death metal viking types.
I guess what I'm trying to say is you can take the basic stuff from the Monster Manual---Orcs are "often chaotic evil," scar themselves for decoration, live by raiding/stealing, love to fight and have a general "might makes right" view of things but then also have them want to take care of their kids or protect their people if they're chieftains or whatever.
Orcs
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f76/draggin55/Gamorrean_trio_btm.jpg)
Quote from: Harime Nui;851426I like playing up the pig thing (my Orcs go "REEEEEEE!") but mainly I play them as mega hard dudes who are usually selfish but not like, demonic baby-eaters or whatever. I don't see how any of that's necessary. Orcs are already poor, primitive and live in marginal territory; most of their interactions with the on-average weaker and richer humans is gonna be violent. You don't have to go into some weird free will debate to have Orcs be prone to armed robbery, their condition is pretty much set up for that as-is. I explain Half-Orcs as sometimes humans and orcs learn to tolerate each other (which doesn't mean Orc culture gets nice or cuddly or anything) and sometimes a scarred-up orc girl will meet a grizzled human fighter and be like "I like the size of your axe lol" and he'll be like "cute fangs babe rofl" and there's no need to say your Half Orc was the product of a war crime if you don't want to (but if you want to then sure, I guess).
Out of curiosity, does the reverse ever happen: a human woman willingly bears a half orc child?
Yes. Just like humans can be beautiful or hideous orcs in my games run the gamut from handsome beastman (or beastgirl) to Gamorrean looking mofos.
e: ofc. not everyone is shallow like me. Orcs produce adventurers (in the sense of wandering treasure-hunters liable to rise swiftly in power and cross much of the world) in a greater quantity than elves or dwarves but probably behind humans and halflings. Not every Orc is a sad dude with a chipped axe in a furry diaper. Some of them are powerful warlords in sexy armor with magic axes they pulled out of a ruined Storm Giant fortress or whatever. They can and will explore and exploit the world around them just like any of the other young and vigorous races, they're just a lot less likely to leave survivors.
Quote from: TristramEvans;851428Orcs
Makes sense. When we play Star Wars, I use my Orc miniatures
as Gamorreans.
IMO, Orcs can look like this guy
(http://i.imgur.com/KMItKhg.jpg)
or this guy
(http://i.imgur.com/eNLYjIC.gif)
Same basic features (pointy ears, coarse hair, grey skin) but one might be considered attractive while the other is scary as hell.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/646/20907776802_6c4aab7771_c.jpg)
e: oh you made that drawing?? snap, that's really good.
Here's a Half Orc Paladin I did (it's not as good) -
http://i.imgur.com/yFztSSS.jpg
Orcs come from legends of drowned corpses reanimated by demonic spirits, and I like em that way.
QuoteIn disposition, they are as the rabid dog. In tongue, as the scraping of nail on glass. They are they eye of madness at the centre of hate, and their existence is horror. Forever, perpetual horror.
(http://i29.tinypic.com/2ahv5eh.jpg)
Quote from: Harime Nui;851447e: oh you made that drawing?? snap, that's really good.
Here's a Half Orc Paladin I did (it's not as good) -
http://i.imgur.com/yFztSSS.jpg
Oh, I like that. Nicely done armour.
Thanks! Here's a sketch of what I think a 'typical' orc marauder might look like. In case I want to use this drawing for my PC in an upcoming game, he'd be an orc from a desert environment, so I avoided using any fur.
http://i.imgur.com/BWtbzZa.jpg
I like your take on orcs (and your drawings), Harime Nui.
I also usually default them to being more like the ones in Peter Jackson's movies (grey skinned and more human like, but with the occasional real scary monster types).
Tristram Evans: those drowned corpse ones are fucking bad-ass!
Thanks. On the subject of orcs here's another thing I made... never gotten to use this in a real game yet though
Random Orc Generator
Orc skin color (roll 1d4)
1. White
2. Grey
3. Green
4. Brown
Orc eye color (roll 1d2)
1. red
2. yellow
Orc kits (roll 1d8)
1. Hide armor, greataxe, buckler, javelins x6
2. Studded leather, falchion, buckler, javelins x6
3. Scale mail, greatclub, buckler, javelins x6
4. Hide armor, battleaxe, heavy shield, javelins x6
5. Studded leather, longsword, light shield, shortbow, arrows x20
6. Studded leather, falchion, shortbow, arrows x20
7. Scale mail, battleaxe, heavy shield, javelins x6
8. Scale mail, greataxe, shortbow, arrows x20
Orc alignment (roll 1d100)
001-60 | Chaotic Evil
61-81 | Chaotic Neutral
82-94 | Neutral Evil
95-100 | True Neutral
Details (roll 1d20 2-3x, reroll contradictory results)
1. Wolf fur mantle
2. Hair gelled up
3. Face painted
4. Face tattooed
5. Feathers in hair
6. Armor fringed with fur
7. Necklace of ears
8. Bracers fringed with raven feathers
9. Jawbone shoulder decoration
10. Ogre jawbone gorget
11. Ogre or Ettin skull helmet
12. Brass studs and rings in face
13. Large facial scarring
14. Wolf's head as headdress
15. Broken tusk
16. Dire boar tusks on mantle
17. Scarred/missing eye
18. One ear torn off
19. Necklace of rabbit's foot, chicken bones, wolf fangs and other fetishes
20. Eye of Gruumsh tattoo
Example raiding party - 6 Orc warriors (CR 1/2 e., CR 3)
-Names derived from list of Babylonian names http://www.peiraeuspubliclibrary.com/names/asia/babylonia.html
p --> q; b --> q; e --> a; i, a --> e, double consonents removed
Uqluu
White-skinned, red-eyed Orc
studded leather, longsword, light shield, shortbow, arrows x20
chaotic evil
large facial scarring, necklace of ears, necklace of animal fetishes
Kedeshmen
Brown-skinned, red-eyed Orc
Scale mail, greataxe, shortbow, arrows x20
Chaotic Neutral
Dire boar tusks on mantle, face painted, one ear torn off
Menuqequ (by random roll, the leader)
Grey-skinned, red-eyed Orc
Scale mail, battleaxe, heavy shield, javelins x6
chaotic evil
Dire boar tusks on mantle, armor fringed with fur, Eye of Gruumsh tattoo
Kapluu
Grey-skinned, yellow-eyed Orc
Hide armor, greataxe, buckler, javelins x6
Chaotic Evil
Face painted, bracers fringed with raven feathers, one ear torn off
Eserutunu
Green-skinned, yellow-eyed Orc
Studded leather, falchion, shortbow, arrows x20
Chaotic Evil
Necklace of ears, face painted, raven-feather fringing
Nekenur
White-skinned, yellow-eyed Orc
Hide armor, greataxe, buckler, javelins x6
Chaotic Evil
Hair gelled up, necklace of ears, face tattooed
-I've since given up using real Babylonian names and go for stuff that just sounds right and kinda funny like "I am Golal and this is my lovely wife, Bishpish."
Quote from: Harime Nui;851432Yes. Just like humans can be beautiful or hideous orcs in my games run the gamut from handsome beastman (or beastgirl) to Gamorrean looking mofos.
e: ofc. not everyone is shallow like me. Orcs produce adventurers (in the sense of wandering treasure-hunters liable to rise swiftly in power and cross much of the world) in a greater quantity than elves or dwarves but probably behind humans and halflings. Not every Orc is a sad dude with a chipped axe in a furry diaper. Some of them are powerful warlords in sexy armor with magic axes they pulled out of a ruined Storm Giant fortress or whatever. They can and will explore and exploit the world around them just like any of the other young and vigorous races, they're just a lot less likely to leave survivors.
Cool, I asked because i usually see it one way: a human father willingly sires an a half orc child but rarely the other way despite the "Beauty and the Beast" idea. And as you say orc depications run the spectrum from Pig men to muscular barbarian types with odd colored skin and tusk. Physical appearance isn't everything either and sometimes, given the aggressive "Want/Take" culture some orcs have the human sire might not have been wiling in some cases.
I like your take on orcs. Its similar to my own. I like the present the humanoid races as being in their own right with tendencies but there are all sorts of variants and individuals among them.
True story, my longest-played PC ever (climbed from level 1 up to the dizzying heights of level 7) was a Half-Orc Druid named Beogar. He hailed from a part of the setting called The Free North characterized by small human city-states while orc tribes regularly migrated through the large forests following deer herds on their way north. His mother, Beatrix, was a druidess of a local order called The Bear Circle. His father, Khaitar, was an orc warrior who's life she saved and so joined her on her adventures (he was basically her cohort). Khaitar was this jolly fat old warrior type who loved to tell tales of his traveling days and they built a lovely home in a rustic cabin out in the woods, having seven children of whom Beogar was the oldest. Beogar grew up in a loving environment and was a little naive and very ethical, but when angered he could show his "orc side" with some really brutal application of fire spells. It was a blast to play him.
Quote from: Trond;849678This is also the problem with the boob armor argument; does it make sense or not? Who knows? Women hardly ever wore plate armor historically.
I'll (badly) quote Jan on this one as she was doing costuming for years and got to discussing this with her and Kishma at a con. Kisma costumed as Red Shetland. Who is a parody of Red Sonja. Kishma passed away last year unfortunately.
Quote"Boob Armor? Look. If you have a even moderately sizable chest then you might want to shape the armor accordingly. This stuff has to be tailored and I'd rather be comfortable in the damn tin can rather than having my tits mashed. Besides. Looks cooler. Chainmail Bikini? If I rely on speed and maneuverability then all I need if I want a modicum of modesty is to cover the bouncy part. The armor just helps lessen the chance I'm getting an arrow in the lung before I hack you to pieces. Men should never be allowed to debate covering parts they ain't got!"
Quote from: Nexus;849812Thank you. I like the Monastic warrior order feel of the Space Marines and always thought of them as more genderless walking weapons than male for the most part. The SoB as warriors nuns and brides of the Emperor is cool too.
But if you want female Space Marines in your game (or Hell, male SoB) go for it. The universe isn't going to crack open.
Which is the opinion of the vast majority of people. It's when the holier than thou assholes decided that not having them or not condemning not having them made you a patriarchal shitlord that the problems arose.
Quote from: Nexus;851430Out of curiosity, does the reverse ever happen: a human woman willingly bears a half orc child?
My girlfriend thought Azog the Defiler was hot.
Quote from: Nexus;851430Out of curiosity, does the reverse ever happen: a human woman willingly bears a half orc child?
I'm sure it does. It's not orcs, but the latest adventure for Barebones Fantasy features a romance between a human woman and an ogre chieftain. In the Keranak Kingdoms, the official setting for that game, there are half-orcs, half-ogres, half-elves, and even half-giants. And there's no mention of rape being the primary source of half-breeds, sovat least some of those are coming from consensual couplings.
Quote from: Brand55;851937I'm sure it does. It's not orcs, but the latest adventure for Barebones Fantasy features a romance between a human woman and an ogre chieftain. In the Keranak Kingdoms, the official setting for that game, there are half-orcs, half-ogres, half-elves, and even half-giants. And there's no mention of rape being the primary source of half-breeds, sovat least some of those are coming from consensual couplings.
I was asking about Harime Nui's games in particular. I know its happened in general. :)
Quote from: Nexus;851949I was asking about Harime Nui's games in particular. I know its happened in general. :)
Ah, my mistake. That's what I get for responding too quickly.