TheRPGSite

Wizards of the Coast did everything the SJWs demanded of them. They made nonhuman #dnd5e races meaningless amorphic things to satisfy their insane leftist racial theories.
Now the SJWs said "not enough".
#dnd #osr #ttrpg

You are right, WotC has not done enough.

It is almost like they want to be white bigots and they have not fired Mike Mearls yet either!

That's the problem with appeasement, you can never give enough to satisfy those who demand it.

I used to think that Pundit's claim that SJWs hate humanity was him being hyperbolic, but in a discussion about non-evil orcs, their only defense for why orcs shouldn't be evil is "humans are evil too". Even in a fantasy world, these people can't comprehend of a group of creatures more evil than humans.

Nod > Bow > Bow Lower > Bend Knee > Kneel > Grovel > Put on These Chains > Die on Your Sword for Me > Burn in Hell > still not enough

Another hit piece from Wired magazine appraently RACISTS ARE EVERYWHERE in the hobby.

https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 25, 2021, 10:20:14 PM
I used to think that Pundit's claim that SJWs hate humanity was him being hyperbolic, but in a discussion about non-evil orcs, their only defense for why orcs shouldn't be evil is "humans are evil too". Even in a fantasy world, these people can't comprehend of a group of creatures more evil than humans.

What's bizarre is that no one is denying humans can be evil. But the reputation of orcs fluff-wise as vicious raiders, and crunch-wise as basic cannon fodder and XP bags for low to mid level PCs, seems to derange SJWs.

And of course, this entire argument is pointless as the angle has been explored well before, in the Eberron setting. But then, reading is hard for lefties.

I hear the new demands are pretty tame.

I'm pretty sure the Sudetenland will be the last one they make.

That whole Wired piece is full of fail. N.K. Jemisin is a hack.

'Orcs are humans' -- yeah, lemme stop you right there, Jemisin. News flash: no they are not. If you are attempting to equate orcs with humans, then I would say that says more about Jemisin than anything else.

They whine about Tolkien's depiction of them, but state Tolkien was their inventor. The word goes further back than Tolkien, though -- even TVTropes got this part right. Credit to those idjits; they point out how orcs have been creatively subdivided into several variants: you have the D&D/Tolkien orcs, you have the screaming loonie soccer hooligan Orks from Warhammer, and you have the noble-savage variant hailing from Blizzard's Warcraft series (and to a lesser extent, the Elder Scrolls universe).

So yeah. Orcs come in some different flavors.

I love the gimp who complains about Tanis Half-Elven in the Dragonlance books. Completely, utterly missing the point. Half-elves do not live as long as elves, but they outlive humans easily. They are trapped between two worlds, and the cultural issues in DL just make it worse (since elves and humans very rarely mate in that setting; most half-elves are, bluntly put, the result of rape). Krynn never had an Imryll Eluarshee to help humans and elves find common ground.

The shock, shock of people roleplaying legitimate in-character reactions must be terribly rattling for some of these snowflakes. I wonder if they think Alan Rickman really hated Daniel Radcliffe?

They're so desperate to try and eliminate the 'race' modifier, as usual. Unity my ass. SJWs want conformity, and they don't care what they fuck up to get to it.

James Lindsay has called it 'The Ratchet'. The Overton Window is constantly shifting left, and hardly ever shifts right. Even if the results are dumb or wrong or counterproductive.

If you were cool with a few "inclusive" phrases in your D&D. Congratulations. Now they're re-writing the lore and rules to conform to their ideology.

"fantasy has this unfortunate obsession with an anti-intellectual sort of ethnography"

What clown wrote this sentence and expected it to be taken seriously? That's rhetorical and the answer of course is a fucking moron who fashions himself as some sort of erudite sophisticate. What the hell is wrong with just reading a book or playing a game and enjoying it and that's it? Why does EVERYTHING need more meaning beyond "it is entertaining"? These are the same sort of retards who watch 80s movies and don't understand the entire appeal is watching Rambo blow up a dude with an explosive arrow, no matter how ridiculous that might be.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 26, 2021, 08:42:03 AM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 25, 2021, 10:20:14 PM
I used to think that Pundit's claim that SJWs hate humanity was him being hyperbolic, but in a discussion about non-evil orcs, their only defense for why orcs shouldn't be evil is "humans are evil too". Even in a fantasy world, these people can't comprehend of a group of creatures more evil than humans.

What's bizarre is that no one is denying humans can be evil. But the reputation of orcs fluff-wise as vicious raiders, and crunch-wise as basic cannon fodder and XP bags for low to mid level PCs, seems to derange SJWs.

Because for all of their shrieking about doing a heckin' problematic dogwhistles, they're the ones who look at Orcs and think of black people and project their own racism by suggesting everybody else must share that view, therefore the creators are racist despite them being the only people thinking that.

(https://i.imgur.com/51CWde0.jpg)

They're a strange bunch.

Reading the Wired article I found a perfect example of the typical SJ kafkatrap:

QuoteWhen Barber chose to play race and class combinations that strayed from stereotypes, he was looked at askew. "There was always pressure from the outside for me to make my characters conform to narrow boxes," he says. And even in the absence of such pressure, he would be falling into another trap: exceptionalism. Half-orc scholars, gnome barbarians.

So in other words, going with the tendencies of the chosen group is stereotyping, but going against them is exceptionalism, and both are somehow traps.  Heads they win, tails we lose.

I have basically gotten to the point in my life where the moment I spot this tactic in any argument I immediately dismiss it.

When I make up settings, I stopped using the term race. I use the term "peoples" for fantasy races and "species" for sci-fi races. It's a fairly charged term and it is only getting more charged as time goes on.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 26, 2021, 05:22:29 PM
Reading the Wired article I found a perfect example of the typical SJ kafkatrap:

QuoteWhen Barber chose to play race and class combinations that strayed from stereotypes, he was looked at askew. "There was always pressure from the outside for me to make my characters conform to narrow boxes," he says. And even in the absence of such pressure, he would be falling into another trap: exceptionalism. Half-orc scholars, gnome barbarians.

So in other words, going with the tendencies of the chosen group is stereotyping, but going against them is exceptionalism, and both are somehow traps.  Heads they win, tails we lose.

I have basically gotten to the point in my life where the moment I spot this tactic in any argument I immediately dismiss it.

When I play D&D, I automatically consider anyone who goes outside of established tropes as a troublemaker. I am right 99% of the time.

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 26, 2021, 05:32:52 PM
When I make up settings, I stopped using the term race. I use the term "peoples" for fantasy races and "species" for sci-fi races. It's a fairly charged term and it is only getting more charged as time goes on.

The recent game Against the Darkmaster did the same thing, using the term "Kin". I'm mostly sympathetic to the impulse, but I have to admit I generally think it's only a stopgap. When you change a term because an old term has accumulated too many negative connotations, all that happens is that the new term, if you use it the same way, ends up taking on the same connotations.

I've seen it happen in my own lifetime as the term "retarded" (which was originally used only in the sense of someone's development being delayed, the literal meaning of the word) became an insult, whereupon popular usage changed to "disabled", and then "challenged", then "differently-abled", then "exceptionalities", and all of them only became insults themselves in turn. (And each more rapidly than the last.)

The plain and simple truth is, we can't prevent one group using language to slur another, outlawing specific slurs only generates fresh slurs, and someone willing to hear a slur in a neutral term won't ever be persuaded it's not meant that way. About the only tactic I've seen that is of any use is to flatly and completely ignore such complaints when it's obvious they're in bad faith.

Well, YEAH.

The peaceful, indigenous players have to be saved from the fascist, colonist players. Frickin "Old-School, neck beard Trolls" only want to ruin "RPG Culture" with their syncophantic worship of that racist Lich, Gary Gygax.

D&D is more than races and classes. It's an opportunity to tell beautiful stories about race/gender-neutral heroes combating their disabilities in a harsh fantasy world. It's about the greater family of players and their characters unlimited by the systematic oppression of race, class and alignment.

Get a grip, dude. The OSR is a massive Trollcave that hinders the greater RPG Community.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 26, 2021, 06:09:27 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 26, 2021, 05:32:52 PM
When I make up settings, I stopped using the term race. I use the term "peoples" for fantasy races and "species" for sci-fi races. It's a fairly charged term and it is only getting more charged as time goes on.

The recent game Against the Darkmaster did the same thing, using the term "Kin". I'm mostly sympathetic to the impulse, but I have to admit I generally think it's only a stopgap. When you change a term because an old term has accumulated too many negative connotations, all that happens is that the new term, if you use it the same way, ends up taking on the same connotations.

I've seen it happen in my own lifetime as the term "retarded" (which was originally used only in the sense of someone's development being delayed, the literal meaning of the word) became an insult, whereupon popular usage changed to "disabled", and then "challenged", then "differently-abled", then "exceptionalities", and all of them only became insults themselves in turn. (And each more rapidly than the last.)

The plain and simple truth is, we can't prevent one group using language to slur another, outlawing specific slurs only generates fresh slurs, and someone willing to hear a slur in a neutral term won't ever be persuaded it's not meant that way. About the only tactic I've seen that is of any use is to flatly and completely ignore such complaints when it's obvious they're in bad faith.

I think it is less of same problem here because the people charging it through use are still using the same word. The difference between orcs and humans is not related to the real life differences between people of different melanin concentration. So barring the actual word, there is no transfer of meaning.

Quote from: Brad on January 26, 2021, 05:51:45 PM
When I play D&D, I automatically consider anyone who goes outside of established tropes as a troublemaker. I am right 99% of the time.

To be fair to the tropes, doing the exact opposite of a Trope (ex. the Big Guy is actually a softy who's good at repairing things) is also a trope.

Heck, TSR/WotC has made serious bank on Drzzt... whose whole schtick was breaking the Drow stereotypes (and thus became his own stereotype).

Rule number two of TVTropes (rule one is that the site will ruin your life) is that Tropes are just tools. Its how you use, ignore or abuse them that matters to the end result.

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 26, 2021, 07:15:26 PM
Well, YEAH.

The peaceful, indigenous players have to be saved from the fascist, colonist players. Frickin "Old-School, neck beard Trolls" only want to ruin "RPG Culture" with their syncophantic worship of that racist Lich, Gary Gygax.

D&D is more than races and classes. It's an opportunity to tell beautiful stories about race/gender-neutral heroes combating their disabilities in a harsh fantasy world. It's about the greater family of players and their characters unlimited by the systematic oppression of race, class and alignment.

Get a grip, dude. The OSR is a massive Trollcave that hinders the greater RPG Community.

Cannot tell if serious or troll or both...

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2021, 07:37:56 PM
To be fair to the tropes, doing the exact opposite of a Trope (ex. the Big Guy is actually a softy who's good at repairing things) is also a trope.

Heck, TSR/WotC has made serious bank on Drzzt... whose whole schtick was breaking the Drow stereotypes (and thus became his own stereotype).

Rule number two of TVTropes (rule one is that the site will ruin your life) is that Tropes are just tools. Its how you use, ignore or abuse them that matters to the end result.

No argument, but you and I both know the kind of people who want to play orcs wearing top hats and powdered wigs are fucking jackasses and not trying to actually play any sort of original, challenging role.

Quote from: Brad on January 26, 2021, 08:32:03 PM
No argument, but you and I both know the kind of people who want to play orcs wearing top hats and powdered wigs are fucking jackasses and not trying to actually play any sort of original, challenging role.

Yeah, I can definitely see it.

Honestly though, my problem has generally been the opposite. The most obnoxious kept making orcs who were extra scarred and ugly and aggressive and started fights the PCs couldn't win with his constant misbehavior justified by "I'm playing an Orc... what do you expect?" (note that my experience with this was mostly in Palladium Fantasy where orcs have always been a playable species). Or the guy who played a warforged like it was an HK-47 assassin droid (see Knights of the Old Republic) complete with a secret mission of betraying the entire realm the PCs fought for by sending intelligence to his true masters in the enemy empire.

I'd gladly take the orc in a top hat over either of those in terms of being disruptive... especially if they could actually do it with style or at least otherwise behave like a cooperative member of an adventuring party.

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 26, 2021, 05:32:52 PM
When I make up settings, I stopped using the term race. I use the term "peoples" for fantasy races and "species" for sci-fi races. It's a fairly charged term and it is only getting more charged as time goes on.

*ratchet sounds*

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2021, 09:05:29 PM

Quote from: Brad on January 26, 2021, 08:32:03 PM
No argument, but you and I both know the kind of people who want to play orcs wearing top hats and powdered wigs are fucking jackasses and not trying to actually play any sort of original, challenging role.

Yeah, I can definitely see it.

Honestly though, my problem has generally been the opposite. The most obnoxious kept making orcs who were extra scarred and ugly and aggressive and started fights the PCs couldn't win with his constant misbehavior justified by "I'm playing an Orc... what do you expect?" (note that my experience with this was mostly in Palladium Fantasy where orcs have always been a playable species). Or the guy who played a warforged like it was an HK-47 assassin droid (see Knights of the Old Republic) complete with a secret mission of betraying the entire realm the PCs fought for by sending intelligence to his true masters in the enemy empire.

I'd gladly take the orc in a top hat over either of those in terms of being disruptive... especially if they could actually do it with style or at least otherwise behave like a cooperative member of an adventuring party.

Emphasis added. This is the most important thing.

Now that the drow are being made progressively white... sooner or later this will once again come full circle and WOTC will be accused of whitewashing the drow and erasing their rich and obviously oppweseded black culture. Shame on you WOTC.

Quote from: RandyB on January 26, 2021, 10:02:26 PM
Emphasis added. This is the most important thing.

This just circled back to ye olde "some players just go out of their way to be assholes". So I'll say it again: when a new player starts off with a ridiculous concept, I immediately think they're just trying to be disruptive. People showing up with ten pages of backstory for a game they haven't even played yet: red flag. Same with all sorts of other crap like getting annoyed if you make them roll stats, won't let them use pregens, or refuse to allow some weird ability they found on an internet messageboard. Gigantic warning sign: insisting on playing chaotic-neutral no matter the character concept.

At this point in my life I have a limited amount of time to spend on gaming so I won't even entertain a whiff of this sort of horseshit. RPGs are about killing orcs and stealing their stuff, they're not about exploring what it means to be a transsexual lesbian elf or whatever the fuck the last weirdo I played with tried to pull out of their ass. No thanks.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2021, 09:05:29 PM

Quote from: Brad on January 26, 2021, 08:32:03 PM
No argument, but you and I both know the kind of people who want to play orcs wearing top hats and powdered wigs are fucking jackasses and not trying to actually play any sort of original, challenging role.

Yeah, I can definitely see it.

Honestly though, my problem has generally been the opposite. The most obnoxious kept making orcs who were extra scarred and ugly and aggressive and started fights the PCs couldn't win with his constant misbehavior justified by "I'm playing an Orc... what do you expect?" (note that my experience with this was mostly in Palladium Fantasy where orcs have always been a playable species). Or the guy who played a warforged like it was an HK-47 assassin droid (see Knights of the Old Republic) complete with a secret mission of betraying the entire realm the PCs fought for by sending intelligence to his true masters in the enemy empire.

I'd gladly take the orc in a top hat over either of those in terms of being disruptive... especially if they could actually do it with style or at least otherwise behave like a cooperative member of an adventuring party.

My experience is similar to Chris24601. I haven't played Palladium Fantasy - but in games where orc PCs are possible, I've seen more problems with using an orc PC as an excuse to act like a jerk.

More broadly on the topic, I don't have a problem with orc in D&D -- but I also don't have a problem with games/settings where that reinterpret orcs or otherwise have different race themes. For example, Shadowrun has orcs who are part of normal society, while Eberron has orcs and other monsters with their own countries.

Quote from: Brad on January 26, 2021, 11:42:44 AM
What the hell is wrong with just reading a book or playing a game and enjoying it and that's it? Why does EVERYTHING need more meaning beyond "it is entertaining"? These are the same sort of retards who watch 80s movies and don't understand the entire appeal is watching Rambo blow up a dude with an explosive arrow, no matter how ridiculous that might be.

I can enjoy Rambo for it's cheesy ridiculousness -- but it's also blatantly political. When Rambo teams up with mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and free American prisoners, that's about as political as a film gets -- far more pointedly political than modern movies like Captain Marvel or Black Panther, for example.

In practice, I find that people who say Rambo is "just entertainment" will also get upset at Captain Marvel rather than accept it as "just entertainment".

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2021, 09:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 26, 2021, 05:32:52 PM
When I make up settings, I stopped using the term race. I use the term "peoples" for fantasy races and "species" for sci-fi races. It's a fairly charged term and it is only getting more charged as time goes on.

*ratchet sounds*

Yeah.  I almost feel sorry for the people who knuckle under and change their language because of the whining of the perpetually offended.  They've been taught that being nice means compromising, and so they treat the complaints of the language police as if they are appeals based on politeness and sensitivity.

But it's all a lie.  The perpetually offend don't want a compromise.  They want submission.  Every complaint is just another exercise of power, another chance to make you grovel.  No amount of giving on your part will ever satisfy them, because it's not about what you are giving, but about their power to make you give.

So the weak and foolish change their language at the behest of the whiners, hoping to prove that they are good and nice people.  Yet all they achieve is to feed the beast, make the demands more strident and ridiculous.  So while I want to feel sorry for them, I can't help but feel angry, because they are making things worse for everyone.

I thought race was a silly word in the 90s.

Every time I taught the game to someone I had to say "they say race, but they really mean species".

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2021, 11:55:37 PM
Yeah.  I almost feel sorry for the people who knuckle under and change their language because of the whining of the perpetually offended.

To be fair, there are reasons other than SJW appeasement to drop the term "race."

I dropped it for species because I feel its just damned stupid to call an array of options that includes robots, talking animals, embodied spirits, dragons, giants sprites, humanoid insects and humans "races."

Races makes sense if your options are limited to the Middle Earth stans because there actually IS some shared ancestry among the "races of men."

It makes zero sense when your options wouldn't be out of place sharing the Mos Eisley cantina.

Quote from: TJS on January 27, 2021, 12:00:43 AMEvery time I taught the game to someone I had to say "they say race, but they really mean species".

True, but "species" is a very atmosphere-undermining term for a lot of games and settings.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 12:37:00 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2021, 11:55:37 PM
Yeah.  I almost feel sorry for the people who knuckle under and change their language because of the whining of the perpetually offended.

To be fair, there are reasons other than SJW appeasement to drop the term "race."

I dropped it for species because I feel its just damned stupid to call an array of options that includes robots, talking animals, embodied spirits, dragons, giants sprites, humanoid insects and humans "races."

Races makes sense if your options are limited to the Middle Earth stans because there actually IS some shared ancestry among the "races of men."

It makes zero sense when your options wouldn't be out of place sharing the Mos Eisley cantina.

And that reason is, when one isn't playing fantasy.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 27, 2021, 01:08:39 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 12:37:00 AM
To be fair, there are reasons other than SJW appeasement to drop the term "race."

I dropped it for species because I feel its just damned stupid to call an array of options that includes robots, talking animals, embodied spirits, dragons, giants sprites, humanoid insects and humans "races."

And that reason is, when one isn't playing fantasy.

Splitting the difference here a little: I think "species" does sound more like science fiction than fantasy. Still, I also think that warforged, talking animals, and dragons are all creatures that aren't well described by calling them a "race".

I'm not sure what is preferable. "Heritage" might be a better word. "Creature type" sounds a little too clinical, though it is most accurate.

Just call them thing.

When making a character just choose your thing.  Then choose your other thing. 

Quote from: sureshot on January 26, 2021, 08:25:06 AM
Another hit piece from Wired magazine appraently RACISTS ARE EVERYWHERE in the hobby.

https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/

Yeah, the real depths of their crack reporting at Wired is evident with this... <sneer> Might as well be reading the Washington Post, or one of the Murdoch rags. Wired describes D&D as being specifically racist against Orcs, however the Tolkien orcs that were used in D&D, were unquestionably evil. The same in depth reporting is evident in the following false assertions and false statements made by the reporter who wrote this article, one Cecilia D'Anastasio who used to be (or maybe still is) a Kotaku reporter.

She's busy over on Twitter doing Witch hunts for "Predators" instead of talking about games, and I'll save further commentary on that for some other time, and justget back to my response to her crappy article in Wired, right after providing a link for her Twitter so the rest of you can keep an eye on her. Smells like an SJW setup to me.  However let's address her attack on D&D and reveal her piss poor writing skills... I find it very hard to believe Wired actually pays her money to write about games. You all may have heard of her before, because we have certainly written about her here.

Cecilia D'Anastasio on Twitter
https://twitter.com/cecianasta/status/1346166945134080000

Anyway in the wired article she writes: "Orcs are human beings who can be slaughtered without conscience or apology."

Orcs are not humans, they are fucking orcs. miserable tortured once long ago (according to Tolkien who had studied European Mythology for many decades long before she or I was ever born) )Elven creatures that dug themselves out of the ground after being buried with the very essence of evil. In the traditional fantasy worlds, they only bring suffering, despair, and pain to humans. They can and should be slaughtered without conscience or apology, becuase they will slaughter humans without conscience or apology. Tolkien knew elves probably better than she or I ever could, as he has studied them for much longer than I have been alive, ...even now, ...and I'm quickly becoming venerable. Cecilia is still has the knowledge of a baby compared to either one of us.

She goes on to write, and I quote "Elves have otherworldly grace and enjoy poetry. Dark elves, known as Drow, have skin that "resembles charcoal" and are associated with the evil spider queen Lolth."  

They are fucking not. I knew of Dark Elves before I knew of D&D, as I had read about them first in Raymond Feists novel Magician, which predated TSR and Gygax Dark Elves almost half a decade. According to Feist, Who based his Dark Elveson his home game campaign, they were subterranean and simply untamed or wild, and simply didn't react well to the daylight, and races of the above.

In the first book, published in 1982 Pug the Magician went with his Leige Lord, Borric and fled from Castle Crydee which was under siege to Krondor to convey the news of a Tsurrani invasion from Tekumel, ...in fact the Tsoly'ani (Tsurrani to the people of Crydee) of Jakalla. While they are being hunted to death by the Tsurrani, they run into a band of migrating Dark Elves (The Drow who are also fleeing the Tsurrani) and get into yet another bad fight. The Dark Elves are pissed, they have been pushed out of their homes, and now they run into a band of humans who have invaded their forest and overrun their camp with their women and children, (with horses, I would add), so naturally they aggressively defend themselves. This was all part of a campaign originally in Raymonds D&D game, set in Midkemia, that he ran from I want to say 1975-76 on, and then wrote about later.

D&D Drow came about with the module Descent into the Depths of the Earth, which was first published in 1978 (This is inaccurate, as no modules but the B series was actually published before 1979) . In the last module in the preceding G-series, Hall of the Fire Giant King, the PCs were supposed to have discovered that the drow had instigated the alliance between the races of giants and their attacks on neighboring humans. The drow that survived the party's incursion have fled into tunnels leading deep into the earth. The adventurers will have arrived at the bottom of the dungeon below the cave-castle of King Snurre. In D1 Descent Into the Depths of the Earth, the PCs seek the home of the Drow by traveling through an underground world of caves and passages. In the tunnels, the adventurers first fight a tough drow patrol, and the next major fight is with a raiding party of mind flayers and wererats, who have halted their patrol long enough to torture their drow prisoner. The characters also find a grand cavern containing drow soldiers, purple worms, a lich, a clutch of undead, a giant slug, sphinxes, trolls, bugbears, troglodytes, wyverns, and fungi.

Other than at one-off games at conventions, I didn't see any of this, only the B series in the late 70's, except for B1 which was published in 1977. The G series was the second published set of modules being released by the RPGA. When the RPGA first published it in 1979, it was the Slavers (A Module series) series was introduced as part of an organized play campaign organized by the RPGA when it was founded in 1979, with the G series, being run at Ghenghis Con in 1981 and 82. the RPGA started the D series, with the Drow after that, I think I saw D1 in 1982 for the first time. But I already had adopted the wild Midkemia/Tekumel Drow for my home games long before, and they were not evil!  I really didn't see many D&D modules until 1980 or so...

Cecilia of course, wasn't even born, before all of this, including me, running Drow that were not evil, in my home-brewed games, occurred.

She goes on in her crappy Wired article to introduce the Elves as "...Good White People"... wait maybe not exactly like that, it is what she meant though. What she actually said and I quote was:

For Howard, desirable women were "lily-white." Elves, considered a superior race, were fair-skinned and light-eyed. In his work and Tolkien's, she says, "pretty much all of their own evil races—and even evil individuals, for the most part—are based on anti-black, anti-Semitic or Orientalist stereotypes." University of California, Irvine informatics professor Aaron Trammell has written about this at length as well.

I don't have any books by Robert E. Howard in my Library. In the movie Conan the Destroyer the stupid virgin princess was a white chick that Conan didn't even want, and instead he freed Zula, the last warrior of her tribe, a Nubian played by Grace Slick, and she joined his party and he accepted her without having to be charmed, unlike with the stupid virgin princess. Also, the Elves were never considered a superior race in Tolkiens' books.

First, Tolkien's Elves weren't all light-skinned, only the Vanyar were. They all have Golden hair. Most of you know Haldir, Thranduil, Celeborn, and Galdariel, they were all Vanyar The Teleri had darker skins, and a general tanned appearance. Some of them were also Grey, and were known as the Grey Elves, becuase they were not light or dark, but a combination of both. Some notable Teleri were Elrond's Daughter, a half Teleri, Arwen, and Luthien Tinuviel. The Nolder were the dark elves, actaully the Quenya translation is "Deep Elves". Elrond was part Noldor, Gil-Galad who was slain when defeating Sauron the first time, was also Nolder. Feanor the ancient great king, Feanwe, And Fingolfin, were also Noldor, they had chestnut or dark colored hair, and were not considered "Lily White", although the Noldor did consider themselves the superior among the races of elves.

The Valar attempted to fashion the world for Elves and Men, but Melkor continually destroyed their handiwork. After he destroyed the two lamps that illuminated the world, the Valar moved to Aman, a continent to the west of Middle-earth, where they established their home, Valinor. Yavanna created the Two Trees, which illuminated Valinor, leaving Middle-earth to darkness and Melkor.

Soon, stars created by Varda began to shine, causing the awakening of the Elves. The elves originally formed three groups: the Vanyar, the Noldor, and the Teleri, though some were captured and enslaved by Melkor, eventually to be bred into orcs. Knowing the danger the Elves were in, the Valar decided to fight Melkor to keep the Elves safe. After defeating and capturing Melkor, they invited the Elves to live in Aman. Many Elves accepted while others refused, and still others started for Aman but stopped along the way, including the Elves who later become the Sindar, ruled by the Elf King Thingol and Melian, a Maia. All of the Vanyar and Noldor, and many of the Teleri, reached Aman.

After a bunch of other B.S. that happened where the elves were not good to each other, Fëanor the Noldor high King, swore an oath of vengeance against Melkor and anyone who withheld the Silmarils from him, even the Valar, and made his seven sons do the same. He persuaded most of the Noldor to pursue Melkor, whom Fëanor renamed Morgoth, to Middle-earth. Fëanor's sons seized ships from the Teleri, attacking and killing many of them, and betrayed many of the Noldor, leaving them to make a perilous passage on foot in a memorable and tragic event known as the Kin-Slaying. Upon arriving in Middle-earth, the Noldor under Fëanor attacked Melkor and defeated his army, though Fëanor was killed by Balrogs. After a period of peace, Melkor attacked the Noldor, but was placed in a tight siege. Nearly 400 years later, he broke the siege and drove the Noldor back. 

The Elves didn't defeat Morgoth, either, they had to get the help of the Valar. I think the only actual good elves were the Grey elves, Including Luthien of the Teleri, who helped Beren, a man steal the Silmarils back from Morgoth, which the Noldor Elves then took and gave to the Grey Elves (Sindarin). Many of the Teleri were captured by Morgoth and twisted into Orcs, so they were'nt all good either.

Cecilia of course, knows nothing of this, because she has actually probably never read the Silmarillion, or she wouldn't be uttering them lies about the Elves over on wired magazine. In her ignorance she has been constructing this false narrative, or maybe all her SJW friends like Aaron Trammel at UC Davis. Been there, done that, and when I visited UC Davis, in Irvine... I found myself busy reading and translating a first printing St. Thomas Aquinas masterwork Summa Theologica, so I could understand christianity better.  Aaron Trammel seems to be there to try to figure out how not to be a white supremacist. What a waste of a good university education.

Cecilia also quotes Graeme Barber, who goes off one of the heroes of Dragonlance who is a persecuted half-elven, stating "I'm biracial myself. The animosity [Tanis] got from everywhere really sort of rubbed me the wrong way."

He then goes on to whine and lament about "There was always pressure from the outside for me to make my characters conform to narrow boxes," he says. And even in the absence of such pressure, he would be falling into another trap: exceptionalism. Half-orc scholars, gnome barbarians. Exceptional in a world that remains the same.

Days after the newest WOTC supplement Tasha's Cauldron of Everything was released, Barber penned a blog titled "Tasha's Cauldron Of No Change." "I think a lot of people were really disappointed with it because they were expecting something concrete," says Barber. "It didn't address anything. It just made these minor, superficial changes. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of stuff in the game remains." Optional rules are optional, he says. Lots of D&D groups were already offering the opportunity to be exceptional within a flawed system. It didn't address the game's deep-rooted racial essentialism.

All I have to say to this, is well, ...duh! It was AD&D 1e that codified racial discrimination with the Racial Preferences Table on Page 18, of the 1e AD&D Player's Handbook which is something I never adopted for my games by the way, in much the same way I never adopted requiring players to permanently maintain a specific morale alignment either. Any player in my games can change their alignment at will, just like people do in real life. Might be real hard to change back though, especially if other people observe this unexpected, or unwarranted change, like once again in real life.

My whole point is Cecilia missed all this, becuase when she says D&D Must Grapple with Racism in Fantasy she's obviously not talking about my D&D game, but about how WOTC is conducting itself as a steward of the TSR AD&D legacy. ...They are, of course, doing a terrible job, because they are a Company, and all about making money, and controversy and conflict sells well, including the conflict of racism.   

All this actually has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons. It's about Companies full of young people, full of racism, because they didn't learn anything at all in public schools. They didn't learn anything at the Universities they are attending, either. Maybe they should run their games without real-world racism in them, and just quit using the WOTC books, ...Dungeons & Dragons is high fantasy, after all. 

Quote from: jhkim on January 26, 2021, 10:57:54 PMI can enjoy Rambo for it's cheesy ridiculousness -- but it's also blatantly political. When Rambo teams up with mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and free American prisoners, that's about as political as a film gets -- far more pointedly political than modern movies like Captain Marvel or Black Panther, for example.

In practice, I find that people who say Rambo is "just entertainment" will also get upset at Captain Marvel rather than accept it as "just entertainment".

Rambo was never "just entertainment" at least not the first two.

The first one was about the plight of war veterans and especially how badly many of the Viet-Nam ones were treated on returning home. And does it without being ham-handed.
The second was of course about Afghanistan and not-so the cold war with Russia at the time. And does it without being too ham-handed. Kinda.
After that all bets are off as all the execs could see was violence sells.

Captain Marvel, Infinity War, and probably alot of upcomming marvel drivel are increasingly ham handed agenda platforms. Sometimes cloaked in a disguise of being political. Captain Marvel covered their agenda thinly with "think of the immigrants!". Whereas Infinity Gauntlet made no such efforts.

Quote from: TJS on January 27, 2021, 12:00:43 AM
I thought race was a silly word in the 90s.

Every time I taught the game to someone I had to say "they say race, but they really mean species".

No, they don't. There are many ways to define species, but none of them involve creation by the gods, which is the traditional origin of most fantasy races, from Tolkien's to those in many D&D settings. Elves didn't evolve into their niche, they were created. Not to mention, their characteristics are more metaphorical than adaptive. Or the problems with things like reproduction, since not only are half-elves fertile and viable, but so are half-dragons.

Race has some problems, but to use species you'd either have to go back to a pseudo-Aristotelian definition (which seems needlessly confusing, since nobody uses it that way anymore), or create some fantastic equivalent of a phylogeny within your setting.

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2021, 01:29:10 AM
Still, I also think that warforged, talking animals, and dragons are all creatures that aren't well described by calling them a "race".

I'm not sure what is preferable. "Heritage" might be a better word. "Creature type" sounds a little too clinical, though it is most accurate.

Heritage brings to mind cultural heritage more than anything, and doesn't seem a good fit for warforged or talking animals, either.

I used it dismissively a moment ago, but the Aristotelian method of classification would be a much better fit. He basically used kind and form, which are commonly translated into genus and species, but his definition was much looser and broader: Examples of forms were birds or fish, and examples of kinds were cranes or eagles. And that's basically how races are defined in many versions of D&D: Forms would be things like constructs or humanoids, while kinds would be orcs or warforged.

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 05:07:36 AM

Quote from: TJS on January 27, 2021, 12:00:43 AM
I thought race was a silly word in the 90s.

Every time I taught the game to someone I had to say "they say race, but they really mean species".

No, they don't. There are many ways to define species, but none of them involve creation by the gods, which is the traditional origin of most fantasy races, from Tolkien's to those in many D&D settings. Elves didn't evolve into their niche, they were created. Not to mention, their characteristics are more metaphorical than adaptive. Or the problems with things like reproduction, since not only are half-elves fertile and viable, but so are half-dragons.

Yes a big lore dump of lore wank is exactly what new players need.

Although wasn't 2e pretty big on the idea that gods gained their power from their believers?  So the believers presumably had to come first.  Really the gods were just giant parasitic entities.

Quote from: TJS on January 27, 2021, 05:40:03 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 05:07:36 AM

Quote from: TJS on January 27, 2021, 12:00:43 AM
I thought race was a silly word in the 90s.

Every time I taught the game to someone I had to say "they say race, but they really mean species".

No, they don't. There are many ways to define species, but none of them involve creation by the gods, which is the traditional origin of most fantasy races, from Tolkien's to those in many D&D settings. Elves didn't evolve into their niche, they were created. Not to mention, their characteristics are more metaphorical than adaptive. Or the problems with things like reproduction, since not only are half-elves fertile and viable, but so are half-dragons.

Yes a big lore dump of lore wank is exactly what new players need.

Although wasn't 2e pretty big on the idea that gods gained their power from their believers?  So the believers presumably had to come first.  Really the gods were just giant parasitic entities.

What's a big dump of lore got to do with it? Robots aren't species, and if you scratch the surface even slightly, neither are elves.

And D&D's always been somewhat schizophrenic (in the incorrect use of that word) about the divine. Gygax wrote an article in Dragon in the late 1e era defining how gods get power points from worship, which in turn was probably based Lankhmar's mythology. The concept's become more popular since, for instance Pratchett's Small Gods, or how the gods' power was linked to worship during the Time of Troubles that kicked off 2e. But many interpretations also posit that gods originally or still have an independent existence, there's not always a clear split between god and powerful entities like demon or elemental lords or ladies, and even if gods gain power from worship, that doesn't necessarily mean worship created them. D&D's kitchen sink cosmology makes it difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions.

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 05:54:58 AMAnd D&D's always been somewhat schizophrenic (in the incorrect use of that word) about the divine. Gygax wrote an article in Dragon in the late 1e era defining how gods get power points from worship, which in turn was probably based Lankhmar's mythology. The concept's become more popular since, for instance Pratchett's Small Gods, or how the gods' power was linked to worship during the Time of Troubles that kicked off 2e. But many interpretations also posit that gods originally or still have an independent existence, there's not always a clear split between god and powerful entities like demon or elemental lords or ladies, and even if gods gain power from worship, that doesn't necessarily mean worship created them. D&D's kitchen sink cosmology makes it difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions.

And it even predates EGG's article in some ways. Star Trek's "Who Mourns For Adonis" implies that the Olympians needed worshipers, and... not to get into theology, but... Christian scripture states that if two Christians act together, then Christ will be among them... suggesting that divine intervention on Earth relied on human attention (remember, EGG was a JW).

In regards to the origins and independent actions of the demi-human "races"... I've always really seen the elfy-dwarfy motif as simply reflections of various human traits and tendencies. They're more fun if you rule your game as humanocentric and the demi-humans as strange and inscrutable NPCs.

Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 27, 2021, 07:44:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 05:54:58 AMAnd D&D's always been somewhat schizophrenic (in the incorrect use of that word) about the divine. Gygax wrote an article in Dragon in the late 1e era defining how gods get power points from worship, which in turn was probably based Lankhmar's mythology. The concept's become more popular since, for instance Pratchett's Small Gods, or how the gods' power was linked to worship during the Time of Troubles that kicked off 2e. But many interpretations also posit that gods originally or still have an independent existence, there's not always a clear split between god and powerful entities like demon or elemental lords or ladies, and even if gods gain power from worship, that doesn't necessarily mean worship created them. D&D's kitchen sink cosmology makes it difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions.

And it even predates EGG's article in some ways. Star Trek's "Who Mourns For Adonis" implies that the Olympians needed worshipers, and... not to get into theology, but... Christian scripture states that if two Christians act together, then Christ will be among them... suggesting that divine intervention on Earth relied on human attention (remember, EGG was a JW).

In regards to the origins and independent actions of the demi-human "races"... I've always really seen the elfy-dwarfy motif as simply reflections of various human traits and tendencies. They're more fun if you rule your game as humanocentric and the demi-humans as strange and inscrutable NPCs.

I alluded to it, but didn't go into into detail: Nehwon seems to be the modern prototype for the idea that gods gain their power from their worshipers. And Leiber's stories were definitely one of the bigger influences on Gygax. "Lean Times in Lankhmar" is worth a read for anyone interested in the subject, as well as being a very entertaining story on its own.

And yes, the roots of the various demihuman races are clearly idealized humans. They're not races in the sense of peoples with distinct and fully-realized cultures, but reflections of a particular part of a human culture. Over time, different writers have expanded and extended the concept and added additional depth, but the origin isn't independently developed cultures or biological adaptations. A fantasy world based on something similar to the plethora of Homo species in Noven's Ringworld could be interesting, but it's not the way fantasy is typically handled.

All I gotta say is, anyone who rants on about Tolkien's elves being perfect and privileged and whatnot has never ever read about Feanor.

Seriously. There's a reason Mandos won't let Feanor reincarnate, after all.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 27, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
All I gotta say is, anyone who rants on about Tolkien's elves being perfect and privileged and whatnot has never ever read about Feanor.

Seriously. There's a reason Mandos won't let Feanor reincarnate, after all.

You mean the guy who was such an amazing craftsman, that the gods begged him for his greatest creations? And when he turned them down, one of the gods stole them, and then Feanor and his kin went and fucking killed the god to take them back? That ordinary, unprivileged guy?

Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbyDnjISpHM

I think he used to post here before he acquired TDS and drank the SJW Kool-Aid completely. So a DM is no longer allowed to set any boundaries or use any character creation system he wants or it's "Gatekeeping". He rants about the Kevin pushing Random character creation method yet you guessed it encourages Gatekeeping. So a player who knows that the DM plans to use a rpg that uses random character creation who gets a result they don't like can then accuse the DM of gatekeeping. It's one thing when a DM advertises as a player can take any class then at the last minute decides to use random character generation. Instead it's not the players fault or responsability for having chosen to join a game with rules he does not like it's gatekeeping.

Unfortunately these are the gamers Wotc insists on listening too.

Quote from: Brad on January 26, 2021, 10:29:27 PM

Quote from: RandyB on January 26, 2021, 10:02:26 PM
Emphasis added. This is the most important thing.

This just circled back to ye olde "some players just go out of their way to be assholes". So I'll say it again: when a new player starts off with a ridiculous concept, I immediately think they're just trying to be disruptive. People showing up with ten pages of backstory for a game they haven't even played yet: red flag. Same with all sorts of other crap like getting annoyed if you make them roll stats, won't let them use pregens, or refuse to allow some weird ability they found on an internet messageboard. Gigantic warning sign: insisting on playing chaotic-neutral no matter the character concept.

At this point in my life I have a limited amount of time to spend on gaming so I won't even entertain a whiff of this sort of horseshit. RPGs are about killing orcs and stealing their stuff, they're not about exploring what it means to be a transsexual lesbian elf or whatever the fuck the last weirdo I played with tried to pull out of their ass. No thanks.

Oh, I agree. The intersection of "special snowflake" and "asshole" approaches unity, especially these days.

All of these issues with the term "race" and racial abilities can all be easily solved if D&D just switches back to race-as-class. Something I've been trying to get them to do for a dozen years no. Just a selection of classes all balanced with one another. You wouldn't even need a spot on the character sheet for "Kin" or "Background" or "Species" or whatever term people think is least offensive at that point in time.

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 03:10:13 AM
I don't have any books by Robert E. Howard in my Library. In the movie Conan the Destroyer the stupid virgin princess was a white chick that Conan didn't even want, and instead he freed Zula, the last warrior of her tribe, a Nubian played by Grace Slick, and she joined his party and he accepted her without having to be charmed, unlike with the stupid virgin princess.

In Queen of the Black Coast, Conan's greatest lover in Howard's tales, Bêlit, is described as having "dark eyes", and "rich black hair, black as a Stygian night."

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 27, 2021, 01:08:39 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 12:37:00 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2021, 11:55:37 PM
Yeah.  I almost feel sorry for the people who knuckle under and change their language because of the whining of the perpetually offended.

To be fair, there are reasons other than SJW appeasement to drop the term "race."

I dropped it for species because I feel its just damned stupid to call an array of options that includes robots, talking animals, embodied spirits, dragons, giants sprites, humanoid insects and humans "races."

Races makes sense if your options are limited to the Middle Earth stans because there actually IS some shared ancestry among the "races of men."

It makes zero sense when your options wouldn't be out of place sharing the Mos Eisley cantina.

And that reason is, when one isn't playing fantasy.

On this I have to call "Bullshit." Race is an utterly anachronistic concept when it comes to fantasy based on the medieval or ancient world.

The notion that "species" is somehow modern is pure ignorance.

Genus and species were being used by Aristotle in 350 BC (species being the Latin translation of the Greek εἶδος) while "race" didn't come into use in the sense of tribe or common ancestry until the 1700's.

For morphologies as divergent as dragons, minotaurs, lizardmen, etc. species is absolutely the correct Medieval term to be using while race in medieval times was used to describe people with a common occupation (miners and cobblers would be races) or of the same generation (i.e. Millenial and Gen-X would be races) and also particular flavors wines (i.e. champagne is a race of wine).

Posting as a separate thought from above, but given that my playable options include;

- Beastmen (first created by humans using biomancy on animals to serve as slaves).

- Eldritch (embodied spirits exiled to the mortal world in line with the idea of fey being angels neither good enough for heaven nor wicked enough for hell... includes giants, sprites, talking animals, dragons, dryads, sylphs, etc.).

- Golems (constructs built by the humans, dwarves and beastmen).

- Dwarves, Malfeans and Mutants (humans warped by various magics into inhuman forms).

... I'm thinking that for the particular setting of my game system that perhaps "Origin" or "Type" would be a better term than even my presently used Species for the collection of options available for PCs.

Mainly because I think trying to use the term "race" to describe all of those just sounds nonsensical to me in the same way that calling my dog, my smartphone and myself three different races sounds nonsensical.

FWIW, in OD&D, the term "race" never appears (it was written in the early '70s, after all.) The original equivalence was "character-types."

Purely because I'm an airy-headed intellectual who likes thinking his way through theoretical arguments I'll try to get down to (what seems to me like) the root of the issue: If there are genuinely conscientious objectors to the concept of "race" in an RPG out there, what are they really complaining about?

And the answer, it seems to me, is that they think using any kind of biologically-based template or feature as a character creation shortcut or customization tool -- ethnicity, sex, species, physical challenges, or what have you -- is a validation of the biologically essentialist stereotype. In other words, they object to the idea that a particular type of physical biology can have enough of an unignorable effect on its possessors' lives, experiences, abilities, perspectives and personalities that one can use knowledge of the former as a quick and reliable proxy symbol for evaluating the latter.

In this perspective, assuming a half-orc NPC is likely to be stupid and cruel, or that an elven NPC will be wise and magically powerful, is the same "injustice" as assuming a female NPC will probably be hyperemotional and ineffective in combat, or assuming an ex-Confederate soldier in a Wild West game is personally racist, or assuming a character in a wheelchair can't possibly make a viable adventurer -- it's all stereotyping. The fact that all these beings are fictional in this context is no excuse: it's the habit of thought that is (presumably) being formed by such scenarios which is being decried, because it's assumed this habit will "leak" into how people treat actual other people in real life.

Now note that this in no way contradicts the Pundit's expressed opinion that many of the people using this argument are not in fact using it in good faith, because they don't really care about "improving" D&D or RPGing in general so much as they want handy clubs to beat particular opponents with. Those folks one should not bother attempting to answer anyway. But for those sincerely influenced by such arguments, this may provide some grounds to start deconstructing them. Is it really true that once no RPG character template has biologically or culturally "standard" score modifiers or ability lists any more, people will start thinking of real people less stereotypically? Or will it more likely be the case that to make the templates practically useful, players will simply wind up settling on a set of favoured "default" elements and end up bringing their own stereotypes into the game?

Quote from: Omega on January 27, 2021, 04:07:44 AM
Rambo was never "just entertainment" at least not the first two.

When you're a kid growing up in the 80s, Rambo was 100% about seeing dudes get blown up. I realize Rambo 3 is some sort of commentary on Afghanistan, First Blood is about Vietnam vets, etc., but honestly IDGAF. I just want to see the bad guys get run through with a giant knife.

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 08:38:02 AM
Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

Whut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

He also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

One final comment on Gender and early D&D. I made it a house rule in my games that players making female characters during character generation could add one to their Charisma, but giving up a point of Strength. This wasn't required, just an option. In addition, Male characters could add a point to their Strength, if they lost a point of Charisma. Also, this was an optional rule. Players could also play either gendfer with exactly the stats they had rolled.

This wasn't so much gender misogyny, instead it was giving the players the option to play the kind of character (male or female) that they wanted. 

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 08:38:02 AM
Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

Whut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

He also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

Beat me to it, G.D.

I like to joke that by the time of the Lord of the Rings, the reason the elves all look so wise and decent is because all the stupid and arrogant ones died.

As the Fellowship departs Rivendell, Elrond refuses to bind them with any oath, save for Frodo to not give up the Ring (for obvious reasons). Some of the Fellowship are a little puzzled by this, but Elrond would've been privy to the insanity caused by Feanor's oath and how it bound his descendants. Some oaths should not be sworn at all.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 27, 2021, 11:24:56 AMIn this perspective, assuming a half-orc NPC is likely to be stupid and cruel, or that an elven NPC will be wise and magically powerful, is the same "injustice" as assuming a female NPC will probably be hyperemotional and ineffective in combat, or assuming an ex-Confederate soldier in a Wild West game is personally racist, or assuming a character in a wheelchair can't possibly make a viable adventurer -- it's all stereotyping. The fact that all these beings are fictional in this context is no excuse: it's the habit of thought that is (presumably) being formed by such scenarios which is being decried, because it's assumed this habit will "leak" into how people treat actual other people in real life.

If this is the issue, then the term used to describe the "race" of the character is irrelevent. If D&D continues to use a race+class character creation system, this will always be a problem.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 27, 2021, 12:17:06 PMIf D&D continues to use a race+class character creation system, this will always be a problem.

Agreed. This might even be seen as another manifestation of the "Feat Problem", wherein once any character ability is explicitly codified as something some characters possess and others don't, the action the "Feat" enhances or facilitates is immediately disincentivized from other characters' options.  Likewise, when a template is defined in terms of a standard set of rules-codified character abilities, by definition any character taking that template is going to be evaluated via consideration of those abilities, and it's precisely the standardization of that ability set which makes the template a useful character-creation and gameplay tool.

What the "real" objection seems to be is that fictional characters designed as elements in a game system are inevitably going to be more regularized and standardized than real people, and so excessive focus on games is going to ruin people's ability to make distinctions among those real people. It's just another version of the "OMG D&D players will try casting spells in real life and become Satanists!" panic.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 10:51:06 AM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 27, 2021, 01:08:39 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 12:37:00 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2021, 11:55:37 PM
Yeah.  I almost feel sorry for the people who knuckle under and change their language because of the whining of the perpetually offended.

To be fair, there are reasons other than SJW appeasement to drop the term "race."

I dropped it for species because I feel its just damned stupid to call an array of options that includes robots, talking animals, embodied spirits, dragons, giants sprites, humanoid insects and humans "races."

Races makes sense if your options are limited to the Middle Earth stans because there actually IS some shared ancestry among the "races of men."

It makes zero sense when your options wouldn't be out of place sharing the Mos Eisley cantina.

And that reason is, when one isn't playing fantasy.

On this I have to call "Bullshit." Race is an utterly anachronistic concept when it comes to fantasy based on the medieval or ancient world.

The notion that "species" is somehow modern is pure ignorance.

Genus and species were being used by Aristotle in 350 BC (species being the Latin translation of the Greek εἶδος) while "race" didn't come into use in the sense of tribe or common ancestry until the 1700's.

For morphologies as divergent as dragons, minotaurs, lizardmen, etc. species is absolutely the correct Medieval term to be using while race in medieval times was used to describe people with a common occupation (miners and cobblers would be races) or of the same generation (i.e. Millenial and Gen-X would be races) and also particular flavors wines (i.e. champagne is a race of wine).

Greetings!

Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes. Evidently most people in the Asian East, such as the Chinese and the Mongols, also used the term "Race". All of these references, ancient, medieval, and pre-modern, use the term "Race" to describe any particular race, tribe, or ethnic grouping. "The Dorian barbarians which invaded Greece, were a savage and militant race"; "The Mongols, as a race, are violent and uncivilized, compared to our own Chinese civilization"; "The Ethiopian race are a gracious and happy people, skilled in gold-working and trade alike". Just some paraphrased examples. Ancient and medieval authors used "Race" routinely to describe particular races and tribes, including themselves, just in general. Romans and Goths, Celts, Spaniards, Greeks, Egyptians, Scythians, Persians, Nubians, Carthaginians, Israelites, Huns, Sarmatians, Libyans, Gauls, Thracians, Samnites, and so on, were all at various times described as separate and distinctive "Races". No one questioned whether all were not human, whether civilized or barbarian, all were known to be humans, embracing different races as a general term to describe them as a people, culture, and civilization. Much in the same ordinary manner used by D&D and normal gamers until well, quite recently, right? *Laughing*

D&D of course adds a mechanical distinction for game purposes, but the game culture usage of the term isn't too different from historical standards used by people for thousands of years. All of this recent pontificating and theorizing about "Races" and issues of "Race" in the game is ideologically driven nonsense, purposely designed and promoted to create drama and change the hobby culture in particular, and the larger culture as a whole.

Cheers, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 27, 2021, 09:37:10 AM
All of these issues with the term "race" and racial abilities can all be easily solved if D&D just switches back to race-as-class. Something I've been trying to get them to do for a dozen years no. Just a selection of classes all balanced with one another. You wouldn't even need a spot on the character sheet for "Kin" or "Background" or "Species" or whatever term people think is least offensive at that point in time.

So then elves can't be priests, and Dwarves can't be thieves, etc...

No, I like race seperate from class, and I'll use the term Race because that's what I've been using for decades and I don't care what some snotty SJWs think about me. They can go play at the "inclusive" table and gnaw each other with critical theory buzzwords and fight over who is a more woke gamer.

Quote from: Brad on January 26, 2021, 11:42:44 AM
"fantasy has this unfortunate obsession with an anti-intellectual sort of ethnography"

What clown wrote this sentence and expected it to be taken seriously? That's rhetorical and the answer of course is a fucking moron who fashions himself as some sort of erudite sophisticate. What the hell is wrong with just reading a book or playing a game and enjoying it and that's it? Why does EVERYTHING need more meaning beyond "it is entertaining"? These are the same sort of retards who watch 80s movies and don't understand the entire appeal is watching Rambo blow up a dude with an explosive arrow, no matter how ridiculous that might be.

Quote from: Omega on January 27, 2021, 04:07:44 AM
Rambo was never "just entertainment" at least not the first two.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 11:29:12 AM
When you're a kid growing up in the 80s, Rambo was 100% about seeing dudes get blown up. I realize Rambo 3 is some sort of commentary on Afghanistan, First Blood is about Vietnam vets, etc., but honestly IDGAF. I just want to see the bad guys get run through with a giant knife.

If you realize that there really is political meaning, but you don't give a fuck - then just ignore the politics and get on with the action. But other people who look and see meaning aren't wrong. If you don't want to hear it, don't read it.

Quote from: Zalman on January 27, 2021, 10:15:06 AM

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 03:10:13 AM
I don't have any books by Robert E. Howard in my Library. In the movie Conan the Destroyer the stupid virgin princess was a white chick that Conan didn't even want, and instead he freed Zula, the last warrior of her tribe, a Nubian played by Grace Slick, and she joined his party and he accepted her without having to be charmed, unlike with the stupid virgin princess.

In Queen of the Black Coast, Conan's greatest lover in Howard's tales, Bêlit, is described as having "dark eyes", and "rich black hair, black as a Stygian night."

R.E. Howard wasn't particularly into the blonde Aryan ideal -- Conan was dark-haired, after all, and Sonja was a redhead -- but he did have considerable prejudice against black people especially. The casting and character of Grace Jones in the movie sequel was a liberal-minded change done for the 1980s film that wasn't present in the original stories of the 1930s. We can see some of Howard's attitudes most blatantly in his letters, for example:

QuoteThere is also a conversation between Howard and Novalyne Price that is remembered in her memoir on Howard.  Howard tells Novalyne,  "[...] I guess you know if a Negro is found on the streets after dark in Coleman, Santa Anna, and several other towns around here, they run him out of town.  Chances are they might tar and feather him."  When Novalyne reacted negatively, Howard returned, "Let me tell you something, girl, that you don't seem to know.  Those people come from a different line.  They have different blood."

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20090827135105/http://www.rehupa.com/romeo_southern.htm

Howard was an excellent writer, and had plenty of positive qualities, but his attitudes on race are pretty clear.

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 08:38:02 AM
Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

Whut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

He also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

Feanor died before the final battle against Melkor/Morgoth. The only interaction between them was in Aman when Feanor slammed his door in Melkor's face.

I think the argument being put forth is that Feanor was "perfect" even in his hubris and fall. (What do we mean by Perfect anyway...) His decisions were bad, even evil, but he was still the most powerful and skilled Eldar, and his sordid history made him a rebel and a renegade and kind of troubled hero.

"We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep. We are threatened with many evils, and treason not least; but one thing is not said: that we shall suffer from cowardice, from cravens or the fear of cravens. Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda."

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2021, 01:47:20 PM
If you realize that there really is political meaning, but you don't give a fuck - then just ignore the politics and get on with the action. But other people who look and see meaning aren't wrong. If you don't want to hear it, don't read it.

For someone who fashions himself as an intellectual, you have serious reading comprehension skills. No one, and I mean NO ONE, watched Rambo in the 80s and cared about that political bullshit. That is all modern day revisionist history. We ignored the politics because it was actually irrelevant. "Other people" = people watching the movies 30 years later and commenting on the internet. I don't read their nonsense because it's pure nonsense, just like I don't read crap like the article mentioned in this thread, only doing so because I wanted to know WTF this entire discussion was about.

TL;DR - No U

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

You're missing the forest for the trees.  Unless you are going to assert that only English and its derivatives use the normal meaning of "race," because they have the word and other languages don't, then of course translators substituted the word "race" for the Spanish "rasa," etc.  The point that undermines your argument is that the translators believed that the word "race" as the translator understood it was an appropriate English synonym for the word they were translating.  Which means that, in their judgement, the word used in the original had a very similar meaning.  To come back now and proclaim that "race" didn't mean the same thing, because it's just the approximate that translators used ignores that translators knew the meaning of both words.  So they felt that the meanings were similar enough to use one for the other!  This is not a case where translators were trying to describe a concept that was foreign to the native speakers (like translating "email" into Anglo-Saxon would require).  So your distinction lacks a difference...

Fëanor follows a common pattern in Tolkien's myths.

• Melkor (greatest among Valar) - falls into evil
  
• Fëanor (greatest among Noldor, and possibly all elves: "For Fëanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and a bright flame was in him.") - falls into evil
  
• Saruman (greatest among Istari) - falls into evil
  
• Ar-Pharazôn ("proudest and most powerful" Numenoran king) - falls into evil
  

Pride is (obviously) often part of it. There's also a thread of "creation" or "crafting" running through some of it. For example, Aulë (the "smith" Valar, associated with creating/creating) came close to falling when he created the dwarves, although he repented. Sauron was a maia of Aulë. Saruman was also a maia of Aulë. Fëanor was a great smith/craftsman.

No real point: just throwing it out there.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 02:34:32 PM
For someone who fashions himself as an intellectual, you have serious reading comprehension skills. No one, and I mean NO ONE, watched Rambo in the 80s and cared about that political bullshit. That is all modern day revisionist history. We ignored the politics because it was actually irrelevant. "Other people" = people watching the movies 30 years later and commenting on the internet. I don't read their nonsense because it's pure nonsense, just like I don't read crap like the article mentioned in this thread, only doing so because I wanted to know WTF this entire discussion was about.

Honestly, Rambo is a prime example of the adventure building advice from the old Feng Shui RPG... "design 2-4 set piece battles then wrap a plot around them."

i.e. when it was actually written, the traumatized Vietnam vet part was just there to justify the action sequences being a story; a paper thin motivation for the protagonist to kick ass and move him from one action sequence to the next.

It was just the 1980's equivalent to the modern "They were special forces in the Gulf/Afghanistan" to sum up in a single sentence why the character is able to kick the asses of every mook in the story without needing some lengthy sequence or explanation for why this seemingly harmless person suddenly transforms into a badass once the inciting incident occurs (the Vietnam War ended just seven years before First Blood was released).

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 27, 2021, 09:37:10 AM
All of these issues with the term "race" and racial abilities can all be easily solved if D&D just switches back to race-as-class.

And then we would have to solve the problem of race-as-class.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:55:54 PM
Honestly, Rambo is a prime example of the adventure building advice from the old Feng Shui RPG... "design 2-4 set piece battles then wrap a plot around them."

i.e. when it was actually written, the traumatized Vietnam vet part was just there to justify the action sequences being a story; a paper thin motivation for the protagonist to kick ass and move him from one action sequence to the next.

It was just the 1980's equivalent to the modern "They were special forces in the Gulf/Afghanistan" to sum up in a single sentence why the character is able to kick the asses of every mook in the story without needing some lengthy sequence or explanation for why this seemingly harmless person suddenly transforms into a badass once the inciting incident occurs (the Vietnam War ended just seven years before First Blood was released).

No disagreement. My favorite 80s movie by far is Commando and the plot/backstory is just a way to explain why Matrix can kill literally hundreds of dudes with rocket launchers, claymores, machine guns, pistols, shotguns, rifles, grenades, machetes, saw blades, knives, and a steam pipe while only suffering from an inconvenient shrapnel wound that doesn't even hinder him. Yes yes, his daughter is kidnapped blah blah blah oh look he is blowing up a small town that's awesome.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

Greetings!

Hello, my friend. Well, Chris, I cannot claim with absolute certainty that "modernistic" scholars involved with translations didn't simply use the term "Race" as you describe--obviously, all of the works we have are from the post-1700's. I have a number of primary source works, such as the Doomsday Book, compiled for William the Conqueror, the Norman King of England. Even it, though, is a translation. The same goes for my works written by Arrian, Thucydides, Herodotus, Polybius, and Caesar. *Laughing* I'm familiar with Latin, but alas, I do not understand much Greek. None the less, however, they all seem to use "Race" in a comprehensive, generalized manner--when reading when they talk about the Scythian race, and their characteristics, likewise with the Ethiopians, the Gauls, Germans, Goths, and more, the meaning is clear and normative. Dorians are particular, and different from Greeks or Spartans in such and such ways. Reading forward, for example, in using D&D books, the reference to "Races" is likewise normative and easily understood.

While the term has not always had a strictly scientific definition--modern scientists of course enjoy making all kinds of particular stipulations--the generalized usage of the term seems to have a long and ancient pedigree. I think it is salient though that even if translated, so many of these ancient authors and commentators, across hundreds and even thousands of years--and through many different cultures and regions--Europe, the Middle East, India, Mongolia, China--all spoke and wrote in a manner that we can assuredly comprehend. Whether it is the Greeks discussing the Scythians, or the ancient Chinese talking about the Mongolians to their north, we know who exactly they are talking about, and learn of their specific characteristics, habits, and mannerisms--particular to them. Modern people screaming about the use of the term "Race" seems so disengaged from what I have always understood it to be, you know what I'm saying? It makes me think of how I have always understood the term--and then, I think of all of these ancient authors, and they all seem to be saying the same consistent things, if I'm making any sense.

Maybe I'm just not grasping what all of the SJW crying is about. Their whole argument seems like nonsense to me. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

Yet you're the one who's doing exactly the same with Aristotle's biological classification scheme. The Greek words he used are sometimes translated as genus and species, but in context and usage they're vastly different from the modern taxonomic terms. His "genera" included reptiles and amphibians -- yes, one "genus" included two whole Linnean classes, which are composed of thousands of modern genera. His "species" included things like cranes, or a whole family of birds.

As I noted earlier, the words can also be translated as form and kind. And they use the kind of loose, pre-modern thinking, poorly defined thinking that allows us to map them to types and races in D&D, like giants/athach or constructs/warforged.

But using species to refer to D&D's race is close to the worst possible choice. Race at least has the virtue of having being vaguely defined, and a long-standing established use in the genre.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 02:50:22 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

You're missing the forest for the trees.  Unless you are going to assert that only English and its derivatives use the normal meaning of "race," because they have the word and other languages don't, then of course translators substituted the word "race" for the Spanish "rasa," etc.  The point that undermines your argument is that the translators believed that the word "race" as the translator understood it was an appropriate English synonym for the word they were translating.  Which means that, in their judgement, the word used in the original had a very similar meaning.  To come back now and proclaim that "race" didn't mean the same thing, because it's just the approximate that translators used ignores that translators knew the meaning of both words.  So they felt that the meanings were similar enough to use one for the other!  This is not a case where translators were trying to describe a concept that was foreign to the native speakers (like translating "email" into Anglo-Saxon would require).  So your distinction lacks a difference...

Greetings!

Excellent, Eirikautha! That's also what I'm getting at. Or attempting to!  ;D *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 08:38:02 AM
Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

Whut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

He also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

We must be talking past each other, because I just read what you wrote and the only possible explanation I can come up with for the words you just strung together is you smoked all the pipeweed in the Shire, inhaled aurung's breath, snorted the essence of at least eight Ringwraiths, and ate an entire crop of Farmer Maggot's mushrooms. What you wrote makes no sense, and completely contradicts itself in multiple places.

Feanor is repeatedly described as the most talented and amazing elf who ever lived, i.e. the epitome of perfection. And the greatest army of elves ever assembled, composed of the greatest heroes in the entire history of Middle-earth, came at his beck and call and undertook an impossible task that required them to forsake... well, basically everything. I can't imagine someone with more privilege. He literally had everything handed to him.

You seem to be defining perfection as some kind of moral stance. Which is an incredibly narrow, and probably very Christian, definition of the term. And privilege by the consequences, which is a very strange interpretation.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 02:34:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2021, 01:47:20 PM
If you realize that there really is political meaning, but you don't give a fuck - then just ignore the politics and get on with the action. But other people who look and see meaning aren't wrong. If you don't want to hear it, don't read it.

For someone who fashions himself as an intellectual, you have serious reading comprehension skills. No one, and I mean NO ONE, watched Rambo in the 80s and cared about that political bullshit. That is all modern day revisionist history. We ignored the politics because it was actually irrelevant. "Other people" = people watching the movies 30 years later and commenting on the internet. I don't read their nonsense because it's pure nonsense, just like I don't read crap like the article mentioned in this thread, only doing so because I wanted to know WTF this entire discussion was about.

TL;DR - No U

All the Rambo movies are deeply political calls to action. Granted, some of those overt political statements come from conservative politics, but that does not mean they aren't political.

If you are getting amped up at the idea of killing evil drug cartel members invading your rural ranch, then you have accepted multiple political messages.

If you are rooting for Rambo in the first movie, you have been convinced of the political message that he didn't do anything wrong. That being an American Veteran is not reason persecute someone. (This previous political message has since been accepted as fact, but it started as a political idea that various woke people had to push) 

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 27, 2021, 01:47:35 PM
Feanor died before the final battle against Melkor/Morgoth. The only interaction between them was in Aman when Feanor slammed his door in Melkor's face.

I think the argument being put forth is that Feanor was "perfect" even in his hubris and fall. (What do we mean by Perfect anyway...) His decisions were bad, even evil, but he was still the most powerful and skilled Eldar, and his sordid history made him a rebel and a renegade and kind of troubled hero.

"We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep. We are threatened with many evils, and treason not least; but one thing is not said: that we shall suffer from cowardice, from cravens or the fear of cravens. Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda."

This.

I always had a soft spot for Feanor. In a lot of ways, he's an analogue for Lucifer, the Morning Star. The most perfect of all angels/elves, but not satisfied with his place, and unwilling to bend to higher authorities. A fall is a tragedy in direct proportion to its height.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 02:50:22 PM
You're missing the forest for the trees.  Unless you are going to assert that only English and its derivatives use the normal meaning of "race," because they have the word and other languages don't, then of course translators substituted the word "race" for the Spanish "rasa," etc.  The point that undermines your argument is that the translators believed that the word "race" as the translator understood it was an appropriate English synonym for the word they were translating.  Which means that, in their judgement, the word used in the original had a very similar meaning.  To come back now and proclaim that "race" didn't mean the same thing, because it's just the approximate that translators used ignores that translators knew the meaning of both words.  So they felt that the meanings were similar enough to use one for the other!  This is not a case where translators were trying to describe a concept that was foreign to the native speakers (like translating "email" into Anglo-Saxon would require).  So your distinction lacks a difference...

Not at all; there's a lot of subjectivity involved in translation. For example, from the Greek; φυλή, γένος, ράτσα, έθνος, and σόι could all be translated as "race", but φυλή can also be translated tribe, γένος as genus, ράτσα as breed, έθνος as nation, and σόι as family. Only the words that could also be translated as genus and family have any genetic context even though all of the above could be translated as race.

And there's a huge difference between Race as 'people with shared genetic ancestry' and Race as 'the nation over there.'

That's not a trivial thing or something that lacks a difference. Again... a genetic human infant is raised by genetic orcs In modern terms the human is still a human because we always mean race genetically these days. But in ancient terms the genetic human would be a member of the orc race because they were raised among the orcs.

And that's just with humans... now throw in dragons, sprites, talking lions, golems and ghosts into the mix and you're really going to say that "race" is the best term medieval society would have for all of those when the terms and definitions of genus and species were known all the way back in 300 BC?

I'm not even arguing against the notion of distinct groupings based on genetics (or whatever passes for it in your fantasy world) with distinct advantages and disadvantages based on their morphology. I'm just arguing that, unless your list is pretty much just the TSR-era playable humans and demi-humans from distinct geographic regions* then Race is damned poor term to use for the category and that Species or Origin or Type or Nature would all be a more historically accurate way to break down a list that including giant winged lizards and beings made of solid rock as options.

* This is another reason why Tolkien's use of race as a descriptor is actually spot on for the period... the Hobbits are defined as much by their region, trade and tribe as any genetic traits they share. It is also why orcs can be both twisted elves and a separate race at the same time.

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 27, 2021, 03:40:05 PM
All the Rambo movies are deeply political calls to action. Granted, some of those overt political statements come from conservative politics, but that does not mean they aren't political.

If you are getting amped up at the idea of killing evil drug cartel members invading your rural ranch, then you have accepted multiple political messages.

If you are rooting for Rambo in the first movie, you have been convinced of the political message that he didn't do anything wrong. That being an American Veteran is not reason persecute someone. (This previous political message has since been accepted as fact, but it started as a political idea that various woke people had to push)

So now killing evil people is political in nature? I guess that means killing orcs in a game is political as well, hence the thread comes full circle and now we're all pushing identity politics and racism if we want to destroy tribes of orcs.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 04:21:34 PMSo now killing evil people is political in nature?

In that the definition of who counts as "evil people" and thus merits killing is almost always heavily politicized, yes.  Even the notion that people can be "evil" in some objective innate sense, as opposed to simply "wants goals or accepts means intolerable and incompatible with ours", usually becomes a political plank once people start arguing about it.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 04:21:34 PM
So now killing evil people is political in nature?

Yes, because evil people dont think that they are evil.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 27, 2021, 03:40:05 PM
All the Rambo movies are deeply political calls to action. Granted, some of those overt political statements come from conservative politics, but that does not mean they aren't political.

If you are getting amped up at the idea of killing evil drug cartel members invading your rural ranch, then you have accepted multiple political messages.

If you are rooting for Rambo in the first movie, you have been convinced of the political message that he didn't do anything wrong. That being an American Veteran is not reason persecute someone. (This previous political message has since been accepted as fact, but it started as a political idea that various woke people had to push)

So now killing evil people is political in nature? I guess that means killing orcs in a game is political as well, hence the thread comes full circle and now we're all pushing identity politics and racism if we want to destroy tribes of orcs.

It's not subtle. You have to suspend your disbelief to believe that situation is plausible enough to enjoy watching. You have to accept that the cartel would/can cross the border to kill one guy. You are accepting that it is OK to know these people are coming and taking care of them yourself with "home defense" as a justification. And overall there is a pro-gun message.

Why does our hero have illegal traps all over his yard? Why didn't he attempt to receive help from local law enforcement? Why didn't he rig the yard to explode and just leave instead of personally gutting a dude? Why didn't he just leave? Those are all political and ethical decisions that movies political messaging gets you to look over or you went in with political beliefs firmly in place.

Just because something agrees with your politics does not mean it is not political.

I wanted to comment a lot about travesties about Tolkien lore spoken in this thread, but alas I lack time to write it all down.

Quote"Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes. Evidently most people in the Asian East, such as the Chinese and the Mongols, also used the term "Race". "

SHARK, dude, Chinese and Mongols could not use term race - as it's English term derived from Italian. Some word could be translated as "race" - but this is well translation with all it's interpretation problems. Word "race" was first noted in English in 1580 and is derived from Frenche rasse (noted first in 1512). Of course word race existed as a you know horse race before, but not as human diversity one.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 07:24:36 PM
I wanted to comment a lot about travesties about Tolkien lore spoken in this thread, but alas I lack time to write it all down.

Quote"Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes. Evidently most people in the Asian East, such as the Chinese and the Mongols, also used the term "Race". "

SHARK, dude, Chinese and Mongols could not use term race - as it's English term derived from Italian. Some word could be translated as "race" - but this is well translation with all it's interpretation problems. Word "race" was first noted in English in 1580 and is derived from Frenche rasse (noted first in 1512). Of course word race existed as a you know horse race before, but not as human diversity one.

Greetings!

Indeed, as you mentioned though, similar terms are found in translation.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 27, 2021, 04:24:08 PMIn that the definition of who counts as "evil people" and thus merits killing is almost always heavily politicized, yes.  Even the notion that people can be "evil" in some objective innate sense, as opposed to simply "wants goals or accepts means intolerable and incompatible with ours", usually becomes a political plank once people start arguing about it.

I'm talking specifically about RPGs that have a race of creatures whose alignment is Evil, e.g., they are born such a way that they are incapable of doing anything but bad stuff. And you have paladins and clerics who can tell you with 100% accuracy that those creatures will in fact do nothing but bad stuff and are irredeemable. So that's not political unless we define politics as being the umbrella under which objective morality sits.

RE: other stuff like Rambo, eh...

Quote from: Shasarak on January 27, 2021, 04:50:31 PMYes, because evil people dont think that they are evil.

Talking about ORCS here! They know they're evil.

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 27, 2021, 05:24:53 PMIt's not subtle. You have to suspend your disbelief to believe that situation is plausible enough to enjoy watching. You have to accept that the cartel would/can cross the border to kill one guy. You are accepting that it is OK to know these people are coming and taking care of them yourself with "home defense" as a justification. And overall there is a pro-gun message.

Why does our hero have illegal traps all over his yard? Why didn't he attempt to receive help from local law enforcement? Why didn't he rig the yard to explode and just leave instead of personally gutting a dude? Why didn't he just leave? Those are all political and ethical decisions that movies political messaging gets you to look over or you went in with political beliefs firmly in place.

Just because something agrees with your politics does not mean it is not political.

70 year old Rambo and 30 year old Rambo have little in common and the younger one was killing the bad guys because they were bad.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 08:28:22 PM70 year old Rambo and 30 year old Rambo have little in common and the younger one was killing the bad guys because they were bad.

Lol

1. Don't treat nam vets bad.

2. Care about Nam MIAs and POWs

3. Support our brave allies the TALIBAN in Afghanistan.

4. You see all the genocide in Asia? We should do something about that

5. Drug cartels are bad, really close, and we should stop them.

Seriously, it's overt political calls to action every movie.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 08:28:22 PM
I'm talking specifically about RPGs that have a race of creatures whose alignment is Evil, e.g., they are born such a way that they are incapable of doing anything but bad stuff. And you have paladins and clerics who can tell you with 100% accuracy that those creatures will in fact do nothing but bad stuff and are irredeemable. So that's not political unless we define politics as being the umbrella under which objective morality sits.

Yahbut. Is a Paladin or Cleric "justified" in killing an Orc that hasn't done anything bad? Even if it's rotten to the core, let's say Bob the Orc, alone in the woods, just eats turnips and never goes out to bother anyone.
And I hate the Detect Alignment ability in general. Like, ding, my spell says you're irredeemably bad, therefore, *Whack!*

I'm no into a dreary exploration of ethics in my Dungeons and Dragons games, but I do like a little more thought put into it than just chasing Orcs around because they're Orcs.

Usually the bad guys are doing something bad, or have done something bad, and not simply sitting there "being" evil.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 08:28:22 PMI'm talking specifically about RPGs that have a race of creatures whose alignment is Evil, e.g., they are born such a way that they are incapable of doing anything but bad stuff. And you have paladins and clerics who can tell you with 100% accuracy that those creatures will in fact do nothing but bad stuff and are irredeemable. So that's not political unless we define politics as being the umbrella under which objective morality sits.

Fair enough, and for my own part I grant the distinction. The essayist Tom Simon wrote a piece I quite like called "The Terminal Orc" where he talks about Tolkien's own difficulties as a Catholic in imagining and portraying a race of thinking beings who were nonetheless wholly irredeemable; you can find the essay at www.bondwine.com.

That said, there are quite a lot of people who do define politics as precisely the business of deciding what will effectively sit under the umbrella of common social morality, because they no longer believe in an objective received morality. That is precisely why SJ advocacy is so fervent among so many of its practitioners: it has assumed the place of traditional religion as a source of spiritual and moral purpose.

Quote from: sureshot on January 26, 2021, 08:25:06 AM
Another hit piece from Wired magazine appraently RACISTS ARE EVERYWHERE in the hobby.

https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/

'
I tried to read that screed all the way through and just couldn't. I got dizzy from shaking my head at utter bullshit navel gazing.

I can tell by the responses to my posts that you guys just need to have a couple of drinks and enjoy meaningless murder and mayhem a la 80s style. The only time a killing is unjustified is when the hero doesn't say something clever.

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2021, 12:08:59 AM
I can tell by the responses to my posts that you guys just need to have a couple of drinks and enjoy meaningless murder and mayhem a la 80s style. The only time a killing is unjustified is when the hero doesn't say something clever.

I tell you what. You play your pretend elf games how you want, and I'll play my pretend elf games how I want.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 27, 2021, 11:08:27 PM

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 08:28:22 PMI'm talking specifically about RPGs that have a race of creatures whose alignment is Evil, e.g., they are born such a way that they are incapable of doing anything but bad stuff. And you have paladins and clerics who can tell you with 100% accuracy that those creatures will in fact do nothing but bad stuff and are irredeemable. So that's not political unless we define politics as being the umbrella under which objective morality sits.

Fair enough, and for my own part I grant the distinction. The essayist Tom Simon wrote a piece I quite like called "The Terminal Orc" where he talks about Tolkien's own difficulties as a Catholic in imagining and portraying a race of thinking beings who were nonetheless wholly irredeemable; you can find the essay at www.bondwine.com.

Long winded, but good esasy.

I  pretty much agree with him. I somtimes think of Tolkien grappling with the idea of Orc morality. I'm pretty satisfied with the idea that they're corrupted elves, and the effort it would take to "redeem" an orc would be as much effort as Morgoth put into corrupting them. Not a very practical endeavor while a band of them are trying to burn down your house.
But, but... the few times we hear orcs in the rings trilogy, they do seem to have some ideas of morality and ethics. Just corrupted and sociopathic views. So it's there, buried deep and twisted.

Quote from: sureshot on January 27, 2021, 08:41:25 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbyDnjISpHM

I think he used to post here before he acquired TDS and drank the SJW Kool-Aid completely.

If hes the same on as on a list I used to moderate, and his postings here suggest yes, then theres been something off kilter for about 2 decades now.

Quote from: Kael on January 27, 2021, 11:13:55 AM
FWIW, in OD&D, the term "race" never appears (it was written in the early '70s, after all.) The original equivalence was "character-types."

Pretty much the term I use too. Mainly because all the IP settings I did writing for had no actual races and instead were either a sort of ambiguous "anything" or were divided by species sub-types within a single large undefined group. And in one I just tossed out the everything and you just create a character. No race/species selection because race/species/assembly/etc was meaningless in the setting and had zero impact on chargen.

Alignment being a quantifiable, semi-permanent thing in D&D has always struck me as dumb; some random Drow grocery shopping probably shouldn't be radiating pure evil, unless they're shopping in a Whole Foods.  Arcana Unearthed tossed alignment wholesale and not only did the system not suffer for it, I think it came out a bit ahead in the bargain.  The one and only thing that I think is a positive for the alignment system is Planescape, the cosmology that arose from nine different afterlives is pretty cool.

That being said, I also have no beef with '<insert group here> is actively antagonistic to humans and a threat'.  You wouldn't want to live near a bunch of orcs in the same way you don't want grizzly bears hanging out by your kid's school, they're dangerous and liable to kill people and not overly interested in talking things out.  They don't have to be inherently evil or stupid for that to be the case, just hostile.  Even among humans there are ample cases throughout history where a given group has gone and wiped out another group without even attempting a peaceful resolution, it's still happening today.  It would be even more common in a world where several intelligent species are competing for resources.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 12:52:26 AM
I tell you what. You play your pretend elf games how you want, and I'll play my pretend elf games how I want.

Agreed and seconded.

The whole thing with Paizo and Wotc removing alignment requires major rewrites of most of the races. Drow in Pathfinder especially in Golarion are not very nice race to put it mildly. The practice Fleshwarping where they take an existing say Elf and change them to what they consider "better and more useful" for the Drow in any case. They simply want to stop having them be evil. Sure go ahead just rewrite the lore for the entire race for Golarion. Sorry as any race that engages in Fleshwarping is not good nor even neutral by any stretch of the imagination.

QuoteIndeed, as you mentioned though, similar terms are found in translation.

Indeed. I mean Pathinder changed race for "ancestry", Agains the Darkmaster to "kin".
I guess ancient Mongolian words can fit any of those three well, or neither.

Also: few corrections about Tolkienian lore from this thread:

QuoteFirst, Tolkien's Elves weren't all light-skinned, only the Vanyar were. They all have Golden hair. Most of you know Haldir, Thranduil, Celeborn, and Galdariel, they were all Vanyar The Teleri had darker skins, and a general tanned appearance. Some of them were also Grey, and were known as the Grey Elves, becuase they were not light or dark, but a combination of both. Some notable Teleri were Elrond's Daughter, a half Teleri, Arwen, and Luthien Tinuviel. The Nolder were the dark elves, actaully the Quenya translation is "Deep Elves". Elrond was part Noldor, Gil-Galad who was slain when defeating Sauron the first time, was also Nolder. Feanor the ancient great king, Feanwe, And Fingolfin, were also Noldor, they had chestnut or dark colored hair, and were not considered "Lily White", although the Noldor did consider themselves the superior among the races of elves.

Well Vanyars were most-light-skinned, but generally all elves, at least all Eldars fits withing light-skinned people, with Teleri being maybe sometimes bit tan.
Neither of elves you mentioned as Vanyars were Vanyars - Haldor was elf of Lorien, which mean he was Sindarin, Silvan elf or maybe descendant of Avari. Thranduil was Sindar, Celeborn was Sindar (grand-nephew of Thingol). Galadriel while she inherited golden-hair of her father, was counted among Noldors - by blood she was 1/4 Vanyar 1/4 Noldor 1/2 Teleri (as her mother Earwena was Teleri). Sindars or Grey Elves have not took their name from being gray but from epesse (honorific name of their leader) - Elwe Singollo - or Elu Thingol in Sindarin language, named that because of light-silver hair - trait of his family among Teleri.


Next ancestry of Arwena and Luthien is only part Telerim. Arwena sort of lacks her clan - as her patrilineal ancestry rises from Tuor - who was man not elf, and Luthien indeed among Sindars.
But Luthien was basically aasimar - half-Sindar, half-angelic spirit, while Arwena oh boi - well she's 1/4 Galadriel who's ancestry we discussed here, then she's 1/4 of Celeborn - full Teleri (Sindar), then Elrond half-elf is son of Earendil half-elf and Elwinga.

So Earendil is son of Tuor (man of house of Hador, but with blood of House of Beor by mother and house of Haleth by grandmother) and Idril (daughter of Turgon - her mother was of Vanyar).
So Elwing parents were Nimloth (Sindar woman and niece to Celeborn) and Dior - first of half-elves who was son of Luthien (her ancestry discussed) and of Beren (man of house of Beor).

So Arwen was wel... house of Hador in patrilineal name (and she later become human after all) and by blood she was all Three (Four including both lines of Teleri) Eldar lines, all three Edain lines and also a Mayar.

Then Noldor were not DARK ELVES. Dark Elves - are Moriquendi - elves that have not seen light of trees - which are a) all Avari (who rejected call of Valar) b) all those lost in travel including mostly Teleri of Sindar and Silvan variety. Also Dark Elf was nickname of Eol, father of Maeglin, brother-in-law of Turgon, famous elven weaponsmith executed for murder of his wife.

Noldors indeed were called by Sindarin - DEEP ELVES, and name Noldor itself mean "Wise Ones" (and is someone spelled as gnomes).
They were of black or auburn hair but still fair skin, with exception of one of Feanor sons that was listed as tanned.

Elrond was part Noldor - but he has blood of all lineages really. Feanor and Finwe indeed were Noldor 200%.

QuoteYou mean the guy who was such an amazing craftsman, that the gods begged him for his greatest creations? And when he turned them down, one of the gods stole them, and then Feanor and his kin went and fucking killed the god to take them back? That ordinary, unprivileged guy?

Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

No not really. Now Feanor was privileged among Noldor but really his gift of craftsmanship was his own, not result of superior education of Noldo royalty (though marriage with daughter of another great smith could helped - and it was sort of morgantic marriage, it was supposedly criticised by some as Feanor's wife was of lower station). But he was also insuferable asshole.

Also you mix the story: Valars begged Feanor for Silmarills only AFTER Melkor killed the trees, and stole the Silmarils (so their begging was futil), and it was not one of begging gods who stole stones, but Melkor. Also Feanor and his kin failed against Melkor, and get their asses handed to them by Melkor each time, till gods get from the west and saved their sorry asses

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 28, 2021, 11:52:09 AM

QuoteYou mean the guy who was such an amazing craftsman, that the gods begged him for his greatest creations? And when he turned them down, one of the gods stole them, and then Feanor and his kin went and fucking killed the god to take them back? That ordinary, unprivileged guy?

Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

No not really. Now Feanor was privileged among Noldor but really his gift of craftsmanship was his own, not result of superior education of Noldo royalty (though marriage with daughter of another great smith could helped - and it was sort of morgantic marriage, it was supposedly criticised by some as Feanor's wife was of lower station). But he was also insuferable asshole.

Also you mix the story: Valars begged Feanor for Silmarills only AFTER Melkor killed the trees, and stole the Silmarils (so their begging was futil), and it was not one of begging gods who stole stones, but Melkor. Also Feanor and his kin failed against Melkor, and get their asses handed to them by Melkor each time, till gods get from the west and saved their sorry asses

Almost none of that contradicts anything I said. I never said Feanor's craftsmanship was the result of privilege, though you actually just made a good case that it was (at the education and opportunity level, not the talent level). I also never said when the Valar begged Feanor for his shinies, nor did I say that the gods that begged were the same as the god that stole. You added some useful details, but while my summary was quick and incomplete (as intended), it wasn't incorrect.

Except Morgoth. You're correct about that. I was thinking of Fingolfin hewing off his foot, rather than killing him. That was a major defeat for Sauron's master. And tossing him beyond the walls of night isn't really death either, but that's a flexible concept when applied to gods anyway. And if you want to be really technical, there's the argument that the Valar aren't gods. Though that has more to do with Tolkien's Christian overlay than the polytheistic sources he draws upon.

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 01:11:02 PM

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 28, 2021, 11:52:09 AM

QuoteYou mean the guy who was such an amazing craftsman, that the gods begged him for his greatest creations? And when he turned them down, one of the gods stole them, and then Feanor and his kin went and fucking killed the god to take them back? That ordinary, unprivileged guy?

Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

No not really. Now Feanor was privileged among Noldor but really his gift of craftsmanship was his own, not result of superior education of Noldo royalty (though marriage with daughter of another great smith could helped - and it was sort of morgantic marriage, it was supposedly criticised by some as Feanor's wife was of lower station). But he was also insuferable asshole.

Also you mix the story: Valars begged Feanor for Silmarills only AFTER Melkor killed the trees, and stole the Silmarils (so their begging was futil), and it was not one of begging gods who stole stones, but Melkor. Also Feanor and his kin failed against Melkor, and get their asses handed to them by Melkor each time, till gods get from the west and saved their sorry asses

Almost none of that contradicts anything I said. I never said Feanor's craftsmanship was the result of privilege, though you actually just made a good case that it was (at the education and opportunity level, not the talent level). I also never said when the Valar begged Feanor for his shinies, nor did I say that the gods that begged were the same as the god that stole. You added some useful details, but while my summary was quick and incomplete (as intended), it wasn't incorrect.

Except Morgoth. You're correct about that. I was thinking of Fingolfin hewing off his foot, rather than killing him. That was a major defeat for Sauron's master. And tossing him beyond the walls of night isn't really death either, but that's a flexible concept when applied to gods anyway. And if you want to be really technical, there's the argument that the Valar aren't gods. Though that has more to do with Tolkien's Christian overlay than the polytheistic sources he draws upon.

That's the strangest thing about The Silmarillion. The Valar come across as a typical pantheon, God of War, God of Smithing, Goddess of Nature, but an over-God plopped on top of them, who is more like the God of the Bible. I expect it's Tolkien wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

I'm curious as to what Tolkien himself would have thought of these debates about elves and orcs and racism. Would he have said that there were elves with African or Asian features? Or we he have made elves unique and not really comparable to any human phenotype?

I prefer to sidestep the issue entirely and give my elves unique phenotypes. For example, making them green plant people like Glorantha or hideous fairies wearing glamor like Discworld.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 01:50:52 PM
That's the strangest thing about The Silmarillion. The Valar come across as a typical pantheon, God of War, God of Smithing, Goddess of Nature, but an over-God plopped on top of them, who is more like the God of the Bible. I expect it's Tolkien wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

  Tolkien more or less admits this in one of the Letters: "[The Valar] are beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted . . . by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity."

For D&D it is less about Tolkien and more about how Gary Gygax was racist and saw no problem making species in his games his version of racial stereotypes. Gary saw Tolkien orcs and projected his stereotypes on them even though Tolkien admits they resembled chav stereotypes (white people)

Gary was also born in 1938 and was a progressive liberal for his time.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 12:52:26 AMI tell you what. You play your pretend elf games how you want, and I'll play my pretend elf games how I want.

Sorry, you must submit to the One True Way. That's just how it is.

Quote from: Valatar on January 28, 2021, 03:11:35 AM
Alignment being a quantifiable, semi-permanent thing in D&D has always struck me as dumb; some random Drow grocery shopping probably shouldn't be radiating pure evil, unless they're shopping in a Whole Foods.

What kind of Drow does their own grocery shopping when there are so many slaves to do it for them?

5e Drow I guess.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 01:50:52 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 01:11:02 PM

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 28, 2021, 11:52:09 AM

QuoteYou mean the guy who was such an amazing craftsman, that the gods begged him for his greatest creations? And when he turned them down, one of the gods stole them, and then Feanor and his kin went and fucking killed the god to take them back? That ordinary, unprivileged guy?

Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

No not really. Now Feanor was privileged among Noldor but really his gift of craftsmanship was his own, not result of superior education of Noldo royalty (though marriage with daughter of another great smith could helped - and it was sort of morgantic marriage, it was supposedly criticised by some as Feanor's wife was of lower station). But he was also insuferable asshole.

Also you mix the story: Valars begged Feanor for Silmarills only AFTER Melkor killed the trees, and stole the Silmarils (so their begging was futil), and it was not one of begging gods who stole stones, but Melkor. Also Feanor and his kin failed against Melkor, and get their asses handed to them by Melkor each time, till gods get from the west and saved their sorry asses

Almost none of that contradicts anything I said. I never said Feanor's craftsmanship was the result of privilege, though you actually just made a good case that it was (at the education and opportunity level, not the talent level). I also never said when the Valar begged Feanor for his shinies, nor did I say that the gods that begged were the same as the god that stole. You added some useful details, but while my summary was quick and incomplete (as intended), it wasn't incorrect.

Except Morgoth. You're correct about that. I was thinking of Fingolfin hewing off his foot, rather than killing him. That was a major defeat for Sauron's master. And tossing him beyond the walls of night isn't really death either, but that's a flexible concept when applied to gods anyway. And if you want to be really technical, there's the argument that the Valar aren't gods. Though that has more to do with Tolkien's Christian overlay than the polytheistic sources he draws upon.

That's the strangest thing about The Silmarillion. The Valar come across as a typical pantheon, God of War, God of Smithing, Goddess of Nature, but an over-God plopped on top of them, who is more like the God of the Bible. I expect it's Tolkien wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

It's not that dissimilar from Narnia. Both have traditional pagan mythological elements, seen through a Christian lens. Aslan isn't any more blatant than Illuvatar.

Which, when it comes down to it, isn't that different from the medical scribes who wrote down the various Celtic legends, like the Mabinogion or the Irish cycles. The monks adapted them to fit into a Christian worldview, which is why we don't have a good idea what the Celtic creation myths were really like, because the only versions that survived have been modified to fit in with Genesis.

Quote from: Shasarak on January 28, 2021, 02:55:04 PM

Quote from: Valatar on January 28, 2021, 03:11:35 AM
Alignment being a quantifiable, semi-permanent thing in D&D has always struck me as dumb; some random Drow grocery shopping probably shouldn't be radiating pure evil, unless they're shopping in a Whole Foods.

What kind of Drow does their own grocery shopping when there are so many slaves to do it for them?

5e Drow I guess.

Drizzt is more enlightened. He even refuses to shop at Waukeenmart, because some of their products are manufactured in Thayvian bloodshops.

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 03:23:54 PMDrizzt is more enlightened. He even refuses to shop at Waukeenmart, because some of their products are manufactured in Thayvian bloodshops.

And he wore a mask to protect himself and others, long before the government told him he had to.  ;D

QuoteExcept Morgoth. You're correct about that. I was thinking of Fingolfin hewing off his foot, rather than killing him.

Still too much - Fingolfin "merely" managed to stab Morgoth's foot several times giving him permanent limp.
His feet were hewn off IIRC only after War of Wrath - hands and feet off, rest bound - off into Void.

QuoteAnd tossing him beyond the walls of night isn't really death either, but that's a flexible concept when applied to gods anyway. And if you want to be really technical, there's the argument that the Valar aren't gods. Though that has more to do with Tolkien's Christian overlay than the polytheistic sources he draws upon.

I mean they are. The terms "gods" within Middle-Earth even in published material leads to Valar.
I mean god is flexible term TBH - if English language shifted bit differently - maybe angels would be called gods, while YHWH would be called AllFather or something.
It's not like inherently One God - Christian term.

But generally - death is flexible term in Middle-Earth as Ainur, Elven and Human souls (maybe I should say spirits about Ainur) are all immortal - so always something remains after destruction of body - Men are just doomed/gifted with inevitable physical death, and their souls return to Eru, Elves souls are bound to Arda, but their bodies can be destroyed and needs recorporation - and Ainurs lacks bodies unless they make some for themselves and they are more clothes than true bodies - disposable easily usually - unless you invest too much power in one and get stucked like Melkor, Sauron and Curunir - with their powers vaslty dimnished if body were to be destroyed as they invested power in physical form.

QuoteThat's the strangest thing about The Silmarillion. The Valar come across as a typical pantheon, God of War, God of Smithing, Goddess of Nature, but an over-God plopped on top of them, who is more like the God of the Bible. I expect it's Tolkien wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

That's not that weird. In Christianity you have One God but also angels and saints serving him. In Greek mythology gods are spawns of Titans, and Titans are derived from CHAOS, in wider Indoeuropean mythology - Gods are also often merely semi-divine - I mean Asgardians are cool, but ultimately they are often race of non-aging super-people that still can be killed by another super-beings, Hindu gods are emanation of One Godhead braman, Ahura Mazda is served by powerful yazatas.

In reconstructed IE mythlogy - Skyfather is source of all lesser gods and their masters.

Idea that there is Primordial OverGod beyond lesser gods is... quite common. Valars differs in this aspect they follow rather Christian morality rather than pagan god morality.

QuoteAll of these issues with the term "race" and racial abilities can all be easily solved if D&D just switches back to race-as-class.

Yeah but all people wanting to play elf barbarians, dwarf warlocks, halfling druids and orc wizards will be angry.
And in-verse elf, halfling, orc and dwarf shall be even more race-sterotyped than in 3,5, with all members of the species folowing the same build.

QuoteSomething I've been trying to get them to do for a dozen years no. Just a selection of classes all balanced with one another. You wouldn't even need a spot on the character sheet for "Kin" or "Background" or "Species" or whatever term people think is least offensive at that point in time.

While "race" term certainly offends those snowflakes - making whole species of intelligent humanoid beings to be one class and one archetype will annoy them even more.
As much as blind they can be - they are not THAT blind.

QuoteIn Queen of the Black Coast, Conan's greatest lover in Howard's tales, Bêlit, is described as having "dark eyes", and "rich black hair, black as a Stygian night."

And she was a Shemite.Which were Hyborian-stand in for Semitic people - Arabs, Babylonians, Syrians, Jews.
So it seems Howard was like modern protestant group that are ultra pro-sionistic - Israel yes, black people no.

QuoteWhut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

Higher you climb, lower you fall. Melkor and Mairon were objectively perfect angelic beings, Melkor literally most perfect in creation - and we can see what happened to them.
Feanor was son of a king, which is a privilege even in society of immortal ubermenschen like Noldors were, he was also most crafted craftsman in history of Arda, probably better than literal Archangel of Crafting, Aule. He was privileged, he was perfect, he was powerful, and he went to special Hell (well special Purgatory) for what he've done.

QuoteHe also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

Melkor is original name of Morgoth - and he was Vala no Maia, originally in line of power or beyond Manwe, who was his brother in Iluvatar's creation.

QuoteI like to joke that by the time of the Lord of the Rings, the reason the elves all look so wise and decent is because all the stupid and arrogant ones died.

That's not exactly true. Primo Feanor was no stupid elf. He was clearly 30 Int in D&D. But having high Int does not mean having low pride.
Pride and jelaousy put him when he ended. Secundo, in fact only few of elven nobility described in Quenta was well deeply flawed like Feanor, mostly - some of his sons, though not all of them, though all finally succumbed to his curse, and his only grandson like a shadow of his ancestor helped unwillingly bring forth danger in form of Rings of Power that allowed Sauron to become a powerful shadow of his former master.

Besides Elrond was basically a kid in those times, Galadriel according to older lore (later ret-conned by Tolkien) was prominent supporter of Feanor due to her own ambitions, took active part in slaughter in Alaquonde despite being daughter of Teleri princess, and was kinda Noldori warlordess, staying in Middle-Earth so long because of shame. And Glorfindel while noble also was part of exiled Noldors.

QuoteSaruman (greatest among Istari) - falls into evil

Saruman was never greatest among Istari, he was always weaker in terms of raw Maiar power and status than Olorin. Olorin was only being in Middle-Earth in Thrid Age that could take Ring and grasp it from Sauron control even if Sauron was actively trying to stop it - (Galadriela, Elrond and other ME Maiars could maybe do it - but only if hidden and allowed to work with Ring long time in secrecy). And Olorin was appointed to Istari as Varda and Manwe proxy.
Difference is Olorin never build a centre of power (as we know from Sauron and Melkor such deed cen temporarily empower person if that person dwells in their place of power - like Galadriel in Lorien could maybe smack Istari around but ONLY in Lorien).

QuotePride is (obviously) often part of it. There's also a thread of "creation" or "crafting" running through some of it. For example, Aulë (the "smith" Valar, associated with creating/creating) came close to falling when he created the dwarves, although he repented. Sauron was a maia of Aulë. Saruman was also a maia of Aulë. Fëanor was a great smith/craftsman.

TBH clearly antiindutrailist believes of Tolkien caused him to make almost all bad things to be derived even from fleshwarping Melkor or master craftsman Aule. Never nutjob ecoterrorists caused by Yavanna, or grim death cultists caused by Mandos.

QuoteI always had a soft spot for Feanor. In a lot of ways, he's an analogue for Lucifer, the Morning Star. The most perfect of all angels/elves, but not satisfied with his place, and unwilling to bend to higher authorities. A fall is a tragedy in direct proportion to its height.

Most of Tolkien fails-from-grace has this prideful luciferian aspect. Melkor, Feanor, Ar-Pharazon. I think only Sauron follows different pattern - as he was tempted and damned because of his love for rigid order and lawfulness (despite ironically being shapeshifting-sorcerer)

QuoteSo now killing evil people is political in nature?

It always was.

QuoteFair enough, and for my own part I grant the distinction. The essayist Tom Simon wrote a piece I quite like called "The Terminal Orc" where he talks about Tolkien's own difficulties as a Catholic in imagining and portraying a race of thinking beings who were nonetheless wholly irredeemable; you can find the essay at www.bondwine.com.

That's what you get when mixing Catholic narrative, with pagan narrative - where killing enemies because they are enemies is just fine, and also for constantly changing their origin.
In first version when Valars have truly god powers and ability to procreate and were less bound by Catholic angelology - Melkor simply made orcs, but later such act of creations becomes impossible for Valars - hence story about Aule and dwarffathers so obviously story had to be changed. And oh boi.

QuoteThe whole thing with Paizo and Wotc removing alignment requires major rewrites of most of the races. Drow in Pathfinder especially in Golarion are not very nice race to put it mildly. The practice Fleshwarping where they take an existing say Elf and change them to what they consider "better and more useful" for the Drow in any case. They simply want to stop having them be evil. Sure go ahead just rewrite the lore for the entire race for Golarion. Sorry as any race that engages in Fleshwarping is not good nor even neutral by any stretch of the imagination.

Well I think there's this thing that drow is elf corrupted by evil, and drow-symptoms are like disease reflecting this. We see elves turned drows simply by being very evil in D&D, and I think drow that would turn good would return to elfish features. Also they are more purple so xD

QuoteI'm curious as to what Tolkien himself would have thought of these debates about elves and orcs and racism. Would he have said that there were elves with African or Asian features? Or we he have made elves unique and not really comparable to any human phenotype?

Tolkien was rather anti-racist at least in practical sense, not necessarily on level of beliefs about various folk. But he also enjoyed diversity of folk, racial groups are also sort of protected and isolationist in his story - like hobbits and woses which are subraces of Men are . And he definitely have aesthetic preference for Northern folk.

QuoteI prefer to sidestep the issue entirely and give my elves unique phenotypes. For example, making them green plant people like Glorantha or hideous fairies wearing glamor like Discworld.

That's quite neat. But then in Arda - elves are the same species as men, so they cannot differs too much.

QuoteFor D&D it is less about Tolkien and more about how Gary Gygax was racist and saw no problem making species in his games his version of racial stereotypes. Gary saw Tolkien orcs and projected his stereotypes on them even though Tolkien admits they resembled chav stereotypes (white people)

OK, but how are Gygaxian orcs based on racial stereotypes. From what I heard he only added them because of Tolkien fans to D&D (as adding Tolkien stuff was not his idea) - and in 1e they were very Tolkien like - LE race breed as cannon fodder by dark lord, slaves to darkness, more than vicious tribal barbarians.

QuoteWhat kind of Drow does their own grocery shopping when there are so many slaves to do it for them?

5e Drow I guess.

Meanwhile: Drizzt do'Urden and whole cult of Elisstrea: 2e*cough*2e.

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 01:50:52 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 01:11:02 PM

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 28, 2021, 11:52:09 AM

QuoteYou mean the guy who was such an amazing craftsman, that the gods begged him for his greatest creations? And when he turned them down, one of the gods stole them, and then Feanor and his kin went and fucking killed the god to take them back? That ordinary, unprivileged guy?

Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

No not really. Now Feanor was privileged among Noldor but really his gift of craftsmanship was his own, not result of superior education of Noldo royalty (though marriage with daughter of another great smith could helped - and it was sort of morgantic marriage, it was supposedly criticised by some as Feanor's wife was of lower station). But he was also insuferable asshole.

Also you mix the story: Valars begged Feanor for Silmarills only AFTER Melkor killed the trees, and stole the Silmarils (so their begging was futil), and it was not one of begging gods who stole stones, but Melkor. Also Feanor and his kin failed against Melkor, and get their asses handed to them by Melkor each time, till gods get from the west and saved their sorry asses

Almost none of that contradicts anything I said. I never said Feanor's craftsmanship was the result of privilege, though you actually just made a good case that it was (at the education and opportunity level, not the talent level). I also never said when the Valar begged Feanor for his shinies, nor did I say that the gods that begged were the same as the god that stole. You added some useful details, but while my summary was quick and incomplete (as intended), it wasn't incorrect.

Except Morgoth. You're correct about that. I was thinking of Fingolfin hewing off his foot, rather than killing him. That was a major defeat for Sauron's master. And tossing him beyond the walls of night isn't really death either, but that's a flexible concept when applied to gods anyway. And if you want to be really technical, there's the argument that the Valar aren't gods. Though that has more to do with Tolkien's Christian overlay than the polytheistic sources he draws upon.

That's the strangest thing about The Silmarillion. The Valar come across as a typical pantheon, God of War, God of Smithing, Goddess of Nature, but an over-God plopped on top of them, who is more like the God of the Bible. I expect it's Tolkien wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

It's not that dissimilar from Narnia. Both have traditional pagan mythological elements, seen through a Christian lens. Aslan isn't any more blatant than Illuvatar.

Which, when it comes down to it, isn't that different from the medical scribes who wrote down the various Celtic legends, like the Mabinogion or the Irish cycles. The monks adapted them to fit into a Christian worldview, which is why we don't have a good idea what the Celtic creation myths were really like, because the only versions that survived have been modified to fit in with Genesis.

I thought Aslan was the Narnian version of Jesus, and the "Emperor Beyond the Sea" was what they called God.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 05:08:15 PM
I thought Aslan was the Narnian version of Jesus, and the "Emperor Beyond the Sea" was what they called God.

   Aslan is the Narnian embodiment of the Son, the "Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea" is the Narnian term for the Father. Iluvatar is God/the Most Holy Trinity, so the Father, Son, and Spirit seen in their Unity instead of their Trinity. Some statements by Tolkien suggest the 'Secret Fire' or 'Flame Imperishable' mentioned in a few places is the Holy Spirit, but aside from that, Tolkien keeps the distinction of the Divine Persons offscreen, as appropriate in a pre-Incarnation/revelation of the Trinity world.

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 27, 2021, 09:25:11 PM

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 08:28:22 PM70 year old Rambo and 30 year old Rambo have little in common and the younger one was killing the bad guys because they were bad.

Lol

Seriously, it's overt political calls to action every movie.

Rambo? Really!?

Hold on now, let me take a look here...

1.   The homeless are people too, and should be treated with human dignity and respect. They have a right to protest against unlawful detention and physical abuse by corrupt law enforcement officials.

2.   A political prisoner's civil rights were violated when he was unlawfully coerced without council present into going on a suicide mission by a corrupt right-wing faction of the U.S. military. They then then betrayed and left him to die when he uncovered that they had knowingly abandoned members of the U.S. military in their past war of imperialist aggression against the country's indigenous people of color.

3.   Bravely supporting an indigenous people's right to self-determination and freedom of expression against an Islamophobic policy of military aggression and systematic racism by Russia's unlawful interference in their country's ability to self-govern.

4.   A group of straight white Christians were made to give up their privilege and experience first-hand the violent oppression of the indigenous people to better understand the real harm of systematic genocide in Asia.

5.   The Human trafficking of young women of color by cisgender men is a real issue that needs to be addressed. This kind of sexual exploitation occurs disproportionately in underprivileged minority groups that are the most vulnerable to sexual predators.


Holy shit! Rhedyn is 100% right.

Political calls to action in every film!

QuoteAslan is the Narnian embodiment of the Son, the "Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea" is the Narnian term for the Father. Iluvatar is God/the Most Holy Trinity, so the Father, Son, and Spirit seen in their Unity instead of their Trinity. Some statements by Tolkien suggest the 'Secret Fire' or 'Flame Imperishable' mentioned in a few places is the Holy Spirit, but aside from that, Tolkien keeps the distinction of the Divine Persons offscreen, as appropriate in a pre-Incarnation/revelation of the Trinity world.

Indeed and dialogue between Finrod Felagund and human doomed-love-interest of his brother quite openly speculates about Incarnation as a way for Eru to enter the Arda which seemed impossible for Finrod.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 28, 2021, 04:48:41 PM

QuoteAnd tossing him beyond the walls of night isn't really death either, but that's a flexible concept when applied to gods anyway. And if you want to be really technical, there's the argument that the Valar aren't gods. Though that has more to do with Tolkien's Christian overlay than the polytheistic sources he draws upon.

I mean they are. The terms "gods" within Middle-Earth even in published material leads to Valar.
I mean god is flexible term TBH - if English language shifted bit differently - maybe angels would be called gods, while YHWH would be called AllFather or something.
It's not like inherently One God - Christian term.

But generally - death is flexible term in Middle-Earth as Ainur, Elven and Human souls (maybe I should say spirits about Ainur) are all immortal - so always something remains after destruction of body - Men are just doomed/gifted with inevitable physical death, and their souls return to Eru, Elves souls are bound to Arda, but their bodies can be destroyed and needs recorporation - and Ainurs lacks bodies unless they make some for themselves and they are more clothes than true bodies - disposable easily usually - unless you invest too much power in one and get stucked like Melkor, Sauron and Curunir - with their powers vaslty dimnished if body were to be destroyed as they invested power in physical form.

That was kind of the whole point when I raised the question -- the Valar are gods, for all practical purposes. But the term is avoided because Tolkien comes from a very Christian perspective, where there can only be one omnipotent god (or three, though the point of the trinity is they're still unitary). Not a pantheon, and certainly not the multiplicity of small gods like the nymphs of Greek myth. It's not, primarily, a matter of fundamental differences. It's a definitional one, one that says more about the definer than the role and nature of the defined. And by avoiding the term, Tolkien is telling us a lot about the lens he uses to view his own little creation.

Out of curiosity, what published material uses the term "gods" to refer to the Valar? I'm massively out of date, since The Silmarillion is the only one of his posthumous works that I've read. I'd be interested in placing it. The terms Tolkien used shifted as his thinking evolved, for instance the drift away from "goblins" after The Hobbit. But such shifts tended to be deliberate, and have meaning, because Tolkien, even beyond basic linguistic concerns, was very careful and precise about the terms he used. I'd expect it would be from an early draft or letter.

And the Glorfindel question, or the two-world nature of elves, doesn't really apply to Morgoth. The Valar (and Maiar) were electively incarnate, and it's not clear they could really be destroyed, though certainly their material forms could be (cf. Sauron). It's a couple steps away from the spirit/soul question, into a more numinous realm.

Edit: @Armchair Gamer's summary of the nature of god and the trinity in Middle-Earth and Narnia is spot on.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 03:20:36 PM
It's not that dissimilar from Narnia. Both have traditional pagan mythological elements, seen through a Christian lens. Aslan isn't any more blatant than Illuvatar.

I thought Aslan was the Narnian version of Jesus, and the "Emperor Beyond the Sea" was what they called God.

Aslan is. Very blatantly so, just like Illuvatar is very blatantly a stand in for the one Christian god.

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 06:26:27 PM
Out of curiosity, what published material uses the term "gods" to refer to the Valar? I'm massively out of date, since The Silmarillion is the only one of his posthumous works that I've read. I'd be interested in placing it. The terms Tolkien used shifted as his thinking evolved, for instance the drift away from "goblins" after The Hobbit. But such shifts tended to be deliberate, and have meaning, because Tolkien, even beyond basic linguistic concerns, was very careful and precise about the terms he used. I'd expect it would be from an early draft or letter.

  It goes back to the earliest forms of the mythology included in The Book of Lost Tales, but the use of the term 'gods' for the Valar is still floating around as late as the drafts of the Ainulindale and Quenta Silmarillion included in Morgoth's Ring and The War of the Jewels. Thus, I wouldn't be surprised if the final scrubbing occurred around the time he was frantically trying to get the Silmarillion ready for publication, or was perhaps even edited by Christopher posthumously.

   But there are even references to created beings as 'gods' in some passages of Scripture, so the use of the term isn't as outre for Tolkien as one might think. There is, of course, an infinite gulf and fundamental difference between Eru/God and the Valar/any lesser thing that might be called a 'god'.

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 03:23:54 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 28, 2021, 02:55:04 PM

Quote from: Valatar on January 28, 2021, 03:11:35 AM
Alignment being a quantifiable, semi-permanent thing in D&D has always struck me as dumb; some random Drow grocery shopping probably shouldn't be radiating pure evil, unless they're shopping in a Whole Foods.

What kind of Drow does their own grocery shopping when there are so many slaves to do it for them?

5e Drow I guess.

Drizzt is more enlightened. He even refuses to shop at Waukeenmart, because some of their products are manufactured in Thayvian bloodshops.

Even the only good Drow never does his own shopping.

QuoteOut of curiosity, what published material uses the term "gods" to refer to the Valar? I'm massively out of date, since The Silmarillion is the only one of his posthumous works that I've read. I'd be interested in placing it. The terms Tolkien used shifted as his thinking evolved, for instance the drift away from "goblins" after The Hobbit. But such shifts tended to be deliberate, and have meaning, because Tolkien, even beyond basic linguistic concerns, was very careful and precise about the terms he used. I'd expect it would be from an early draft or letter.

In Silmarillion it's said Valars were called "gods" by man of Middle-Earth.
For me the Christian thing here is definitely that Valars are bound by Eru's rules, and they are obedient while even with common Overgod or Allfather trope in pagan religions, the lesser deities often did whatever they wanted, and whole system has way way less of clear objective morality included.
Nevertheless as nominalist I have no problem with calling Valars "gods" - words are well just a conventions, true meanings are what matters.

QuoteAnd the Glorfindel question, or the two-world nature of elves, doesn't really apply to Morgoth. The Valar (and Maiar) were electively incarnate, and it's not clear they could really be destroyed, though certainly their material forms could be (cf. Sauron). It's a couple steps away from the spirit/soul question, into a more numinous realm.

Material form of both Ainurs and Children of Iluvatar and other beings like dwarves can be destroyed almost always. That's nature of matter. Even Valar physical form could be destroyed if you had enough guns. Sauron was physically destroyed at least thrice - after fall of Numenor, then killed by Gil-Galad and Anandil, then destroyed as Ring's destruction made him too weak to keep body.
Difference was Ainurs could incarnate on their own will and they were not essentially bound to their bodies (though having bodies cost them power) while Children of Iluvatar were unable to do so - elves needed Mandos powers to get new meatsuits, human souls left Arda.

I love Race as Class and even more, specific classes for specific races. I don't enjoy the idea that any race can be any class because even if there are Orc mages and Elf mages, I want them to be wildly different.

As for SJWs & WotC, they can both fuck off into meaningless oblivion.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 28, 2021, 10:18:10 PM
As for SJWs & WotC, they can both fuck off into meaningless oblivion.

I think we can all agree on that.

As interesting as all the pedantry over who used "race" for what and when throughout history, it's all just masturbatory as regards the original point.

Race is inextricably tied to fantasy through the influence of Tolkien in our time in history.

Species is inextricably linked to scientific classification in our time in history.

One of these terms is going to fit better with fantasy, and one with science fiction. Can you spot which one?

Anyway, warforged are a "race" just like all the other ones. Talking animals? That's not even a thing for a PC.

Terms like "heritage" are just people tip-toeing around the squeaky wheels in the hobby and making themselves look foolish while doing so. If the central issue with "race" is uh.. "species essentialism", then there is no fixing this until we do away with all racial modifiers and differences. For people who are concerned with "race" because it shares three letters with "racism", then might I suggest that they similarly paint over the name of a certain African country on their maps.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 28, 2021, 11:57:11 PMIf the central issue with "race" is uh.. "species essentialism", then there is no fixing this until we do away with all racial modifiers and differences.

Or at least do away with identical-and-obligatory-by-race sets of modifiers and differences. If individuals get to customize the options a particular racial/species/ethnic background makes available, so that no PC of Group X is necessarily imbued with the same X, Y, Z characteristics, then this in principle should suffice. (Barbarians of Lemuria actually does this already; every background option has a list of available boons and flaws from which the PC must choose at least one, but they aren't required to take more than that.)

Whether this is worth the disadvantages this creates (making preset templates more time-consuming to implement, making tactical planning a little trickier, hitting the GM with some extra setting design to fit outlier oddities into the gameworld) is a question each group will have to answer for itself, I think.

Philosophically speaking, is that really addressing the "problem"? The races still have different inherent traits.

QuoteI love Race as Class and even more, specific classes for specific races. I don't enjoy the idea that any race can be any class because even if there are Orc mages and Elf mages, I want them to be wildly different.

There was a game that had tank, archer and mage classes separate for 3 races - elves, mages and dwarves. But I personally have no such desires. Differences between species are IMHO better made on special racial features, or like in Warhammer.

QuotePhilosophically speaking, is that really addressing the "problem"? The races still have different inherent traits.

But you are not stuck with one trait, but you choose like two good traits and one bad trait that are uniquely orcish and elvish but as there is list of 50 each, they do not define each elf and orc.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 29, 2021, 12:53:11 AM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 28, 2021, 11:57:11 PMIf the central issue with "race" is uh.. "species essentialism", then there is no fixing this until we do away with all racial modifiers and differences.

Or at least do away with identical-and-obligatory-by-race sets of modifiers and differences. If individuals get to customize the options a particular racial/species/ethnic background makes available, so that no PC of Group X is necessarily imbued with the same X, Y, Z characteristics, then this in principle should suffice. (Barbarians of Lemuria actually does this already; every background option has a list of available boons and flaws from which the PC must choose at least one, but they aren't required to take more than that.)

Whether this is worth the disadvantages this creates (making preset templates more time-consuming to implement, making tactical planning a little trickier, hitting the GM with some extra setting design to fit outlier oddities into the gameworld) is a question each group will have to answer for itself, I think.

Uh, didn't we have that in 2E onward? Where the various subflavors of elves and dwarves could get different stat modifiers and abilities? PF has alternate racial trait rules as well.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 29, 2021, 08:34:42 AMUh, didn't we have that in 2E onward? Where the various subflavors of elves and dwarves could get different stat modifiers and abilities? PF has alternate racial trait rules as well.

Can individuals of the same subrace still have different modifiers/abilities in 2E? I was never really familiar with that edition.