tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post9114168312191724988..comments2024-03-28T18:12:39.123-05:00Comments on A Knight at the Opera: I Don't Think I'm Going to Allow Elves to be Playable AnymoreDwizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255968459773708115noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-83614879039023645312023-01-03T16:50:15.276-05:002023-01-03T16:50:15.276-05:00While I think the sentiment here is well-intention...While I think the sentiment here is well-intentioned, this line of thinking on fantasy race always feels like it's addressing one problematic mode of worldbuilding by inviting a different, *also* problematic mode of worldbuilding.<br /><br />Saying "all nonhumans are too alien to understand" might feel like an intuitive approach if you want to make it clear these are "species" instead of "races," but it ultimately begs the question of what "normative" human thinking looks like. The whole line of thought that says "elves and dwarves DO have cities and societies, but their behavior and thought is too alien to inhabit as player characters" is really just moving the metric of Otherness from phenotype to neurotypicality. Speaking from the perspective of a mental health worker, if you handed me a list of compulsions and behaviors that made an elf too weird to adventure alongside humans, I'd probably be able to hand you back a DSM-V diagnosis within the day. As the above comment helpfully pointed out, the neurodivergent are still no less people than their peers.<br /><br />I think there's no escaping the fact that a fantasy race (or species, ancestry, what-have-you) with an identifiable culture is A People, and creating an inherently monstrous class of people will always be a deliberate writing choice with inherent baggage. You can make orcs possessed fungal hives or mud-spawned demons to justify their inhuman psychology, but as soon as you've given them a social heirarchy, language, and customs, you've nonetheless taken on the responsibility of writing people.<br /><br />Where I agree isnthat the problem isn't the existence of fantasy creatures with innate differences, which is where people lose the plot a little bit. There's nothing inherently racist about dragonborn breathing fire, or goliaths being big, or halflings being small. In fact, I think the weirder a fantasy race's traits, the better for escaping the way people have come to think of "fantasy race" as equivocal to the real-world conception of race. I just don't think that should make them any less people.<br /><br />Maybe its boring if a dwarf is "just" a short person, but if you make them people who NEED to eat gemstones, you've created a drive that will make them act differently from humans without prescribing psychology or culture. Maybe an elf is a kind of person who can eat flesh to gain memories. Maybe halflings can all talk to woodland critters. Maybe orcs are all grown from magic spawning pits, and they can grow their own backup bodies if they claim a spawning pit of their own. Maybe that doesn't give you any inherently monstrous men to fight, but also, maybe that's fine. You can still have the people in your dungeons be assholes if you want to kill them and take their loot.DropOwlBearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782332760235185081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-1596259722476483932023-01-03T16:48:58.285-05:002023-01-03T16:48:58.285-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.DropOwlBearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782332760235185081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-10873400339284198722022-09-15T14:18:47.453-05:002022-09-15T14:18:47.453-05:00My decision is to go with "Seed".
"...My decision is to go with "Seed". <br />"of the seed of elves" <br />"orcseed" <br />"of gnome and dwarf seed mixed" pdughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09832284495239324375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-3118877501829349892022-07-30T21:34:14.062-05:002022-07-30T21:34:14.062-05:00For all the length of this post, I think you actua...For all the length of this post, I think you actually failed to go deep enough on one topic. "Not Human but still People". You even bring up an excellent example of this in Buffy. Angel is a person but not a human, and possesses non-human powers and weaknesses. Humans and ensouled Vampires are people, soulless Vampires are not.<br />Kara Zor-El isn't human, she is kryptonian, but she is still a person. Sapient AI can be afforded equal status and personhood despite different capabilities inherent to not being a meatbag. The existence of creatures with parity level intellect, with human-like mindsets, and inherently different physiologies is definitely possible in reality so should be just as possible in fiction. Social Darwinism is wrong, the races of humanity are a blend of thousands of overlapping Venn diagrams, but aliens can exist and if they do its unlikely they all have either humanities great throwing arm OR are unpersoned monsters. <br /><br />If Elves were created by the first morning light shining down on a forest, they could still be people and have darkvision. Unlike the Orcs who are not people, oozes who are not people, and humans who are people until they sacrifice that personhood to become a Vampire.<br /><br />Provided the distinction between People and Not-People is defined sharply and explicitly, I dont think there is an issue making that division separate from mentality. It's not like neurotypical thought processes are an indicator of personhood either, autistic, psychopathic (in the clinical sense not the inaccurate pop culture definition), and other neurodivergent people are still just that after all.Ghostyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06829009143815284235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-43330414394276265282022-06-11T13:05:18.720-05:002022-06-11T13:05:18.720-05:00I feel that the racist connotations are more of a ...I feel that the racist connotations are more of a problem in modern versions of D&D where the prevalent means of gaining XP is by killing monsters. In older versions with XP for gold and reaction rolls, not every encounter with a group of orcs must be a violent interaction. With the older editions, if the DM decides his campaign is going to be about colonial forays into orc territory, thats the DM's choice, not the system's. If the players decide to embark on orc genocide, that's the players' choice, not the system's. And if your DM or players are making such choices, perhaps have a conversation with them about why that is or maybe find a new DM or players.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786498942396099197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-63772467195151476562022-03-22T09:42:57.673-05:002022-03-22T09:42:57.673-05:00I dislike the term species applied to entities tha...I dislike the term species applied to entities that are capable of easily interbreeding with humans and so should likely be considered some kind of Hominid. Species itself is a murky concept when comparing closely related organisms ,so I would advance the term 'clade' as used in the Orion's Arm universe project. A clade can be defined by common physical characteristics but can also denote common culture and is as divorced from racist vocabulary and cultural baggage as we are likely to find.KZINhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18425800080424696930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-3731052058511677162022-01-05T22:15:04.367-05:002022-01-05T22:15:04.367-05:00No, that's a very commonly brought up point wi...No, that's a very commonly brought up point with the responses I've gotten to this post, and one that I was aware of even when writing it. At the end of the day, the word "species" just feels like a sci-fi word. It's too 19th and 20th century. But though I've searched far and wide, I just haven't found a good equivalent word. "Kin," "culture," "society," "stock," "lineage," and worst of all, "ancestry" are not actually synonyms. They carry different shades of meaning and the nuance here makes all the difference, because it is EXACTLY this habit of equating "species" and "ancestry" that produces these problems.<br /><br />I am still on the lookout for a "true" synonym for "species" but yeah, I don't think you're overthinking it at all.Dwizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255968459773708115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-25384606361890903662022-01-05T21:49:58.520-05:002022-01-05T21:49:58.520-05:00This has certainly been an interesting read, and h...This has certainly been an interesting read, and has given me some things to consider with the ideas I have running around in my head for a setting. And I admit I was having some similar thoughts to you regarding how our brains link ideas to things we know, and how I wasn't comfortable with how some of the concepts for species were forming in my head.<br /><br />Though as a side-note, although I see your point between species and race, a bugbear (pardon the pun) that seems to be cropping up in my mind whilst reading it is that species in the form it's used here is a relatively modern term, and I find myself trying to find an analogue that both works as a way to describe the differing distinct groups that works within the tropes of a high fantasy setting, without the baggage race does.<br /><br />Maybe I'm overthinking the problem there.Psyferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13184696245060313824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-73446174835265287552021-12-09T13:17:52.772-05:002021-12-09T13:17:52.772-05:00Feels like orcs as a popular concept need either a...Feels like orcs as a popular concept need either a major rollback to the nature-raping colonizers they were in Tolkien, or a hard course-correction in some other direction.<br /><br />I notice a fair few people online characterizing them as big, green, good-natured but slightly blunt-headed himbos, which I think would be a healthier direction to try and take them if writers insist on them being people.Paphvulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17793765634686489221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-4275133805824560242021-12-08T20:04:41.459-05:002021-12-08T20:04:41.459-05:00Anyway, I understand your points and don't wan...Anyway, I understand your points and don't want to stretch the debate beyond the terminology point.Ruprechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00139664977453444000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-27239321880096595952021-12-08T20:01:57.874-05:002021-12-08T20:01:57.874-05:00Barbarians were constantly fighting with civilized...Barbarians were constantly fighting with civilized areas throughout history. Sometimes the barbarians started it, sometimes the civilized area, either way the borderlands between the two seem a good area for low level adventure.Ruprechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00139664977453444000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-19935433446508043382021-12-08T18:52:53.721-05:002021-12-08T18:52:53.721-05:00*Concede
I also hate that I can't edit my com...*Concede<br /><br />I also hate that I can't edit my commentsDwizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255968459773708115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-51121462143011452622021-12-08T18:52:26.953-05:002021-12-08T18:52:26.953-05:00I will coneded that the terminology isn't the ...I will coneded that the terminology isn't the most important thing for me (although I still believe that, despite being "technically" culture-neutral words, they still EVOKE the image of the "primitive savage" cultures in the audience and, thus, there are no "culturally neutral" options for how you flesh out your fantasy monsters).<br /><br />The more important thing to me is that 1) people consistently try to do that exact "savagery vs civilization" thing with orcs which I find a bit problematic when done completely straight, but also 2) that orcs were moved FROM the "nature-destroyer colonizer" role in Tolkien over to the "savage spirit-worshipping natives" role in popular fantasy, AND that it has (seemingly, to me) happened unconsciously. That it reveals just how ingrained those narratives are in most fantasy fans' imaginations. You show them a literal magic Nazi and say, "here, use this in your D&D game" and their first instinct is to go, "right, yes, a magic Aboriginal tribe will make for a great villain!"Dwizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255968459773708115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-29744898933017679432021-12-08T11:04:30.583-05:002021-12-08T11:04:30.583-05:00I hate that I can't edit. But basically it get...I hate that I can't edit. But basically it gets down to these words are the English version of native words. Celts and Germans and Africans didn't say Chief or tribe, they had their own words for these things and the English words are used by English speakers to describe similar things. The same thing simply continues with orcs.Ruprechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00139664977453444000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-77038934628045065652021-12-08T10:56:49.495-05:002021-12-08T10:56:49.495-05:00Orcs are generally bad guys in a campaign. By usin...Orcs are generally bad guys in a campaign. By using terms associated with primitive cultures you imply savagery in clash with civilization. Dukes and Burgemeisters are associated with "civilized" cultures with cities and trade unions and such and give a very different mental image. <br /><br />By using generic terms (Witch doctor is problematic but the others are generic) you avoid making them some counterpart to a specific Earth culture and thus avoid a lot of baggage when applied to bad guys.<br /><br />Lastly inventing new words creates a type of baggage. It creates one more barrier to understanding the world. Glorantha and Tekemal have this problem. If you get it, its great, but there is a lot of extra homework to do before you feel engaged in the campaign world. That is why most choose to simply use fairly well known words in campaign settings. Also, since nobody in the fantasy world is speaking English (or French or whatever) you can consider all of these words translated from Common, so does it really matter in game terms? We do have the option to play in Elvish or Klingon if dedicated enough but that seems like a lot of work.<br />Ruprechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00139664977453444000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-30492862202944930522021-12-08T00:07:08.508-05:002021-12-08T00:07:08.508-05:00Re-reading my comment, I didn't mean to come o...Re-reading my comment, I didn't mean to come off as aggressive. I'll elaborate:<br /><br />It's not necessarily a problem that someone making their D&D world includes some cultures analogous to ancient Celts or tribal Africans or something like that. It's not even that bad to make your orcs inspired by one of those cultures. The problem I'm trying to point out is that almost EVERY fantasy world including orcs does it. That nearly EVERYONE seeking to flesh out their orcs always reaches for that source of inspiration by default. It reveals an unconscious bias towards always thinking of so-called "primitive" peoples as being connected with the savagery of orcs. I argue that the more natural connections we could draw with real-life cultures would be nazis, conquistadors, and various genocidal colonizers, yet people's bias towards equating "violent brute = guy who wears fur armor and worships a totem pole" shows us that racist colonialist propaganda is still affecting our thinking to this day.<br /><br />Let me revisit how I phrased it in the original post: "Why do they never organize into 'duchies' or 'communes'? Why are their leaders never 'burgomeisters' or 'archdeacons' or 'boyars'?" You're 100% correct that the words "tribe," "chieftian," and "shaman" are actually fairly culture-neutral (from an anthropological standpoint), but if you're going to be fleshing them out anyway, why not give orcs something a little more culturally-specific? Compare how people often flesh out dwarves: "key Longbeards have voted to sanction a third-tier Grudge against the rebellious House Siekert and their Patriarch, the Herzog Thandur, for their deception in the High Imperial games of Kriegspiel." Even if you choose to make up fictional words (such as "Moff" from Star Wars), it's better than always reaching for generic words associated with the "primitive" when it comes to orcs. At least Romulans in Star Trek got to be called "Centurions" in certain contexts. If you give them cultural traditions, why must they always be borrowed from things that colonized peoples do and never things that colonizers do? I once read a guy's adventure where his hobgoblins committed ritual cannibalism, which has a long history of being demonized by colonizer cultures as "savage." Meanwhile, I decided my own hobgoblins play lots of chess, since I think it fits well into their lawful-minded military culture.Dwizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255968459773708115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-17435807675281946872021-12-07T16:50:42.679-05:002021-12-07T16:50:42.679-05:00My point is that if every culture was once full of...My point is that if every culture was once full of tribes and chieftains than what is the problem using these terms for Orcs to indicate a similar level of development?Ruprechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00139664977453444000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-46667864731813442252021-12-07T16:49:36.533-05:002021-12-07T16:49:36.533-05:00No it never occurred to me that they are classic e...No it never occurred to me that they are classic examples of colonized people. I've never heard the term used to refer to anyone in pre-modern context.Ruprechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00139664977453444000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-80196837528733293272021-12-07T08:53:10.607-05:002021-12-07T08:53:10.607-05:00Did it not occur to you that "Roman era Celts...Did it not occur to you that "Roman era Celts and Germans" are a classic example of two colonized peoples? Specifically, ones who we know almost everything about from records and narratives passed down to us by their colonizers (the Romans) and those who inherited that legacy (later influential yet biased historians like Petrarch and whatnot)? And ones who we happen to know were strongly characterized by the Romans and their later admirers as "primitive barbarians" in the exact same way that indigenous peoples worldwide have been later?<br /><br />And I could be wrong, but in the historical record, do we also not have a habit of ceasing to refer to Germans as "the Germanic tribes" and their chieftains at riiiight about the point in early to high medieval history when they finally accumulated enough autonomous power + embraced Christianity enough that they both gained some influence over the historical narrative about them in our own heavily-Christianized modern legacy?<br /><br />I dont think there's any way for me to phrase this non-condescensingly so I apologize, but all I see in your comment is two great examples that reinforce my own argument really, really well. The Celts were largely wiped out precisely for being "primitive tribes" and the Germans only stopped getting called that once they gained enough power to be seen as legitimate.Dwizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255968459773708115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-55570792045486741232021-12-07T00:32:48.731-05:002021-12-07T00:32:48.731-05:00Regarding: "tribes" led by "chiefta...Regarding: "tribes" led by "chieftains" and have a "shaman" or a "witch doctor"? <br />Those terms describe the Roman era Celts and Germans. I think pretty much every culture starts with tribes and chieftains. Ruprechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00139664977453444000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-87776528717858533592021-11-05T16:13:47.017-05:002021-11-05T16:13:47.017-05:00I completely agree that what we’re talking about a...I completely agree that what we’re talking about are species, distinct from race and distinct from culture. And it’s frustrating to lose the “flavor” of various species. But the problem is conflating species and culture, and it is a major piece of fundamental design that assumes monolithic species-culture links in factions such as the drow, duergar and orcs, and to a lesser extent to high-elves, wood-elves, dwarfs etc. It does not assume this of humans, or, interestingly, tieflings. <br /><br />There are two game mechanic truisms at play here that need to be addressed, outside of the cultural implications you've discussed: <br />1) Players like to optimize characters for combat - D&D is a very tactical game after all. This means that specific species are the natural picks, and there is a mechanical opportunity cost if you pick a non-optimized species-class pairing. <br />2) Players are human (as you point) out - and are unlikely to play their characters as truly alien. This is further compounded by each DM specific setting. I suspect that very few DMs or players have the acting chops to infuse fey-based NPCs or PCs with that sort of 'otherness' you describe. And what happens if the otherness that you ascribe to elves, for example, is different than how your player thinks about it? <br /><br />This is a long way of saying that elves, dwarfs, etc will always be pointy-eared/short people. Giving them species specific stat bonuses won’t fix this. <br /><br />Now - what about the culture-species conflation – Social Darwinism? <br /><br />If you run a game in a very local area, then you may be able to do this: the bone-breaker orcs in this game are evil. They're raised evil, do evil, eat babies. Did you use a racist trope? Well, as you say, that's on you. World-wide, orcs may be fine - but these orcs lack person-hood because their actions are radically evil. Similarly, elves in this region all get trained using rapiers etc. You can build in CULTURAL bonuses (and then decide if you want these tied to species). <br /><br />But if it comes to +2 to strength - here we get into optimization MECHANICS. There are some players who would never play a goliath wizard because the bonuses are all wrong. And here I'm going to side with WOTC. DnD stories concern exceptional heroes - the super strong barbarian gnome or something. Is it weird? Yeah, it's weird, but that's what's fun. When you as the GM make NPCs, those are likely "typical" examples of the species. The PCs are outside the norm. <br /><br />In sum - if the biggest problem is that gamers cannot role play truly alien intellect and motivation then excluding these species from character creation is a perfectly valid option. It makes sense, and I personally think that would be a lot of fun. <br /><br />As you point out, though, the problems are racist tropes in our games. I’m not sure that NOT allowing any other species in your game automatically fixes this – I suspect that in general it doesn’t. The only way to expunge racist tropes is to admit that they exist, confront them, and try expunge them, all while understanding that no matter how hard we attempt it, we won’t get there without a lot of work. <br /><br />One potential solution is to outline which species are geographically co-located into cultural groups. For example: Culture A in my campaign world is from area X, is 80% human, 10% elf, 5% tiefling, 3% halfling and 2% every other species I include in my game world. Some geographic regions may contain 2 cultures – and that may be a source of conflict the players want to explore. You could go further and divorce stat bonuses, culture-based bonuses and what you might term “weirdness” or “otherness” bonuses. Everyone gets a +2 and +1 to a stat – player chooses (stat bonus). Half Orcs get to fall to 1 HP instead of 0 HP once per day (otherness bonus). Now, when it comes to armor, weapon, tool or language proficiencies, these come from being from a specific place and culture. <br /><br />Thanks for a well written article. From one self-proclaimed SJW to another, it made me think. <br />ASRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020425451839624809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-42482172172785870292021-10-26T15:50:16.834-05:002021-10-26T15:50:16.834-05:00Agreed on both counts! For me it's difficult t...Agreed on both counts! For me it's difficult to imagine that either of the two possibilities you described would have anything less than a seismic effect on society. Neither, taken to its natural conclusion, suggests to me the classic agrarian hamlets of D&D.LloydEaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287477242902477951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-46720950599491287582021-10-25T11:39:34.859-05:002021-10-25T11:39:34.859-05:00Sorry to double post, but I wanted to clarify: the...Sorry to double post, but I wanted to clarify: the zombie issue is a world-building dichotomy and a choice each DM makes. They aren't automatically wrong or banal for choosing either one.<br /><br />If zombies occur spontaneously, they become a natural, persistent threat to humanoids. Each generation must train up their defenders against this on-going threat, hence the rite of passage within every town under siege.<br /><br />If zombies must be created, then they function as automatons, with the ambition of the creator driving them to action (usually violence and control). This is the classic necromancer villain.Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08712569684250055374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-15791852222102132912021-10-25T09:47:10.641-05:002021-10-25T09:47:10.641-05:00Zombies do not represent only the two facets you d...Zombies do not represent only the two facets you describe. In a world where raising the dead is possible, they become a potential source of cheap labor AND they can be killed without moral complications. That makes them like robots/automatons, which are very useful gameplay structures. Remember that it's a game. Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08712569684250055374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6111427000351828107.post-81880807028853401702021-10-23T00:13:53.040-05:002021-10-23T00:13:53.040-05:00Going on a tangent here - this is largely how I fe...Going on a tangent here - this is largely how I feel about undead, especially minor undead, in D&D. It's hard for me to hold the two concepts of "Zombies are horrific mirror images of ourselves" and "every town has a zombie problem, killing them is a rite of passage for adventurers" in my mind at once. It seems like a fundamentally banal, incurious way to play to just admit that this is a part of daily life to be complained about like trafic or cell service. I'll often let players know at the outset of a campaign that undead are not really a fixture of the game world - they should be rare and particularly bizarre. LloydEaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03287477242902477951noreply@blogger.com