The Forge Archives

Quote from: Zak ArntsonTying into the third category, you have races representing an exaggerated aspect of humanity. Does this ties into the suspension of disbelief? Can players can more readily accept a violent barbarian if he's a half-orc? Or an aloof mage if he's an elf? Does it help the social contract if the player constantly stealing from the party is a kender, and expected to do so, rather than a human thief?

I agree!

I suspect this socially contracted suspension of disbelief comes from our tendency towards tribalism.

First of all, note that for most of written history, other cultures are treated as other species rather than as human variants; for example, take a look at The Song of Roland and other epics and tales in the depiction of outsiders.  So, really, on one level a fantasy game with four different races and a fantasy game with four different cultures amounts to the same thing.

(I think that in games such as AD&D, in terms of functionality, race and class and alignment fulfill the same function.  Consider that AD&D once even had an alignment language unifying all members of a specific alignment!)

Also, psychologists have noticed that adolescents go through a stage known informally as the gang stage (I apologize that I can not recall the official term!).

In this stage, adolescents focus more on forming clique cultures with groupthink and normative pressures surprisingly similar to the groupthink and normative pressures of FRPG race cultures.  I might go so far as to suggest that most FRPG races function more like cliques than like cultures.  Perhaps a social psychologist would recognize the interactions of AD&D elves - dwarves - orcs far better than would an anthropologist?

Part of this tribalist/clique mentality includes a pressure towards narrow conformity not found in actual full scale cultures in the real world.  The range of normative behavior is narrower.  This fits in with the idea that, in both adolescent gang stage cliques and many FRPG races, membership identity is proven through following a specific attitude, default emotional state, etc. (for example, dour dwarves and arrogant but sad elves).

This groupthink norming mixed with the tribalist/clique mentality would make it easier for players to accept certain behaviors when those behaviors are justified through membership in the clique which is characterized by them.  Thus, a player with a thief character or a kender character will get away with thieving (without creating player resentment) than will a player with a paladin character or a high elf character.

For purely anecdotal evidence, notice how often AD&D players will justify their characters' behaviors not on the basis of individual characterization but on the basis of race and/or profession and perhaps alignment (these three being the axes within which an AD&D character was defined).

Doctor Xero

P.S. I think this is also true for many SFRPGs and even SF TV series, such as "Star Trek" in its many incarnations, "Babylon 5", etc.

Fantasy races often also serve as masks for old sterotypes.  Many people remarked, in fact, that you can see some of this in the design work and direction of the recent Lord of the Rings movies, and I think fantasy roleplaying offers even more exaggerated examples.

-- the role of the "primitive" is pretty common.  Strong, not as culturally advance, in touch with nature, noble savage stuff, etc.

-- often times you have half-human species that don't fit into any culture, mirroring the situation of mixed-race people in previous times.

-- elves or other high races often take on a feel that is a mixture of celtic (faerie roots) and Asian.  I think the Asian part comes from viewing them as a "once powerful race who's time has passed," which is the classic Colonialist view of the East.

-- from Orcs to Klingons, I don't think there's any doubt why brutish & violent races are often depicted with dark skin.  Whether subconsciously or not, there is a not-so-subtle racism against people of African descent that influences the invention of fantasy humanoids.

-- in general, it's interesting that we have this obsession with other intelligent, humanoid species and that we choose to call them "races."  Definitely comes from earlier ideology that depicted other races as non-human or of a differenct species.

So, I guess I just want to point out that there's a lot of ugliness inbedded in many of these ideas, something that we can't really ignore.  Personally, I have a hard time with a lot of D&D-esque fantasy gaming for exactly this reason.

Quote from: Jonathan Walton
-- from Orcs to Klingons, I don't think there's any doubt why brutish & violent races are often depicted with dark skin.  Whether subconsciously or not, there is a not-so-subtle racism against people of African descent that influences the invention of fantasy humanoids.

BL>  See, I agree with your general point, but I don't think that Orcs are actually Africans.  Let's examine some facts:

Orcs form raiding parties with which to rape and pillage.  The only African invasion of Europe was well-planned and executed by a military force.  Orcs are not military, outside of Tolkein, where they are Nazis.

Orcs are bigger and stronger than "normal humans."  North Africans, who Europeans have historically had contact with, are not larger nor stronger than Europeans.

Orcs favor axes.  Africans use scimitars in the north, and spears in the south (generally.)

Orcs have an honor-bound, clan-based culture with a warrior-based story tradition.  Africans, by and large, do not.

Orcs worship a grim, doomed one-eyed god.  Africans, as far as I know, do not.

Conclusion:  Orcs are not Africans.  Rather, Orcs are Northern Europeans, or some echo of the cultural memory of northern European raiding parties.  Vikings, in other words.

Of course, my (as in, from my fantasy world) Orcs live in the north, and have longboats ;-)

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  I think that Africans are done the even graver insult of *being ignored entirely* in standard fantasy tropes.

AFAICR, Tolkienian orcs are rather more akin to the industrialised British proletariat of the early 20th century... also note how in conventional fantasy, orcish speech is usually rendered in working class british dialect, with the only visible variation being whether it's Northen English (Yorkshire)or Southern English (cockney).

But in conventional fantasy, since "orc" stands in for "bad race", they inveitably bring comparison with how literature has treated any number of ethnic or racial groups as the "bad race", be they Africans, Hispanics, Jews, Gypsies, or whatever.

Ulitmately, in role play this boils down to the intention and communicaiton of the writer of the game world and the intentions of the players.

Ben... you seem to be talking about Orcs in one particular setting, but I can't for the life of me think what it is... I'm sure I've seen orcs based on african tribalism in the past, as well as orcs based on the sicillian mafia, wolf packs and the British army, so any "Orcs are..." statement seems doomed without the qualifier "In this game world."

Frex, my great undeveloped game world is a conventional fantasy version of the American Civil War (of freedom, between the states, etc etc), with african-orc slaves, native american elves, etc. etc. as a tool to talk about the implied racism of fantasy. And also to play an ACW game without getting overwhelmed by grognards...

And is it me, or did D&D gnomes become very Jewish some time in the late 70's? They're small, big nosed, work with jewellery a lot, famed for their sense of humour in the face of adversity...

But lets hold our horses and look at this from the other end of the telescope: many of these works, fantasy & SF, are written as morality plays, or at least with "in-your-face" premise. To write a premise large, one tool is to use characters that embody values, or virtues or flaws. The blesing and curse of fantasy & SF is we can do this wholesale with entire sentient species, without getting the ACLU, NAACP and every decent human being in the world taking us off their kwanzaa lists. So we get the honourable warrior race, the dour miner race, the noble ancient race, the foul barbarian race, the scheming politician race, the wily merchant race. And, to the writer, they are all us, or part of us, or what we want to be, or what we fear we may be. Never mind that, as presented, their societies would collapse. In literature, film & TV, they're rhetorical devices, not studies in realistic sociology.

Quote from: Ben Lehman
Conclusion:  Orcs are not Africans.  Rather, Orcs are Northern Europeans, or some echo of the cultural memory of northern European raiding parties.  Vikings, in other words.

I sorta buy the idea of Orcs as Vikings, but then the unity of tone is hard to explain.  And I disagree with some of you other points.

Firstly, I think you're looking too deeply into history for contacts with Africa.  The 'Darkest Africa' trope is a Victorian construct, but in that regard, the cultural contacts are 19th Century, in Africa and not in Europe.  Or, the cultural contacts that do occur in Europe and the Americas are with slaves.

In the run up to the famouus Zulu wars, Sir Bartle Frere (IIRC) penned articles to the effect that the Zulu king was keeping his warriors in a state of sexual frustrattion, was fostering a warrior cult, and was about to fall upon the innocent collonists in an orgy of rapine and slaughter.  Its also worth noting that the British army at this time was simply not prepared for the psychological impact of melee combat, and found the whole experience highly traumatising.  19th Century travellers were highly impressed with the physicality of the savannah tribes.

And thus most of the tropes you identify DO have a precedent in the colonisation of Africa.  Zulu and others certainly did form war parties, were very often bigger and stronger than the British soldiers who grew up in polluted cities on adulterated food, and were certainly an honour-bound and clan-based warrior tradition (after all, until recently and possibly still, a Masai warrior has to kill lion to become a man).

I'm not sure the one eyed orc god exists out outside of D&D related to orcs, but may be wrong.  I'm also not aware of any primary association of orcs with axes.

Hello,

Some previous Forge discussions about this issue include:

Races and "races" in fantasy literature and RPGs (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8800) (this one didn't take off)
[Arrowflight] Pixes, poisons, and duty (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8528)
Shadow World keywords - races? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8585)
Mike's standard rant #2: species/race/culture (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5223)
Race in heroic fantasy (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4586)
The class issue (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2802) (I think this is kind of important for the current thread)

Best,
Ron

I've enjoyed all the speculations apropos orcs.

Orcs have been used so often in fantasy (they're not really known in folklore by that name, and Tolkien's orcs are more a cross between goblins and the dark elves/dwarves of Norse mythology) that there is really no definitive definition of them.  So I find the speculation fascinating.

However, I started this thread in part because I'm interested in why we use races in FRPGs (and maybe SFRGPs) the way we do.

I think it's far more than simply a legacy of racism.  (Let's not forget that historically most European racism was not pigmentation coded so much as simply hatred of anyone different -- an essentialized xenophobia.)

I think Zak was correct in that it also helps people deal with suspension of disbelief.

I think there's a part of us which enjoys essentializing.  (This is all supposition on my part, not something I've learned in getting my grad degrees.)  I suspect we enjoy saying, "Oh, how German of you!" or "You are ~so~ Lutheran!"

I've known a number of players who enjoy designing their own races so that they can have cultural/racial explanations for the personalities they intend for their player-characters!

I wonder why we do that -- and whether understanding this tendency can help us design better games.

For example, I've noticed that it makes little difference whether I write

Quote"In Generica, the race of Elves all love art and magic, the race of Dwarves all think only of gold, and the race of Orcs all hate learning and desire only conquest, but no one understands the race of Faeries, and the Faeries understand none of the other races."

or whether I write instead

Quote"In Generica, the human tribe the Elvites all love art and magic, the human tribe the Dwarfese all think only of gold, and the human tribe the Orcurians all hate learning and desire only conquest, but no one understands the magical race of Faeries, and they understand none of the human tribes."

Race and culture both essentialize in the same way in terms of how players treat them, really.

Doctor Xero

That seems to be one good way to look at fantasy races, Doc. Only thing you've missed is that fantasy races wear their natures on the outsides of their skin. Elves are ethereal and magical looking, dwarves are small, earthy and hairy, orcs are ugly and violent looking, and faeries are incomprensible.

Quote from: WolfenThat seems to be one good way to look at fantasy races, Doc. Only thing you've missed is that fantasy races wear their natures on the outsides of their skin. Elves are ethereal and magical looking, dwarves are small, earthy and hairy, orcs are ugly and violent looking, and faeries are incomprensible.

You're right!

Could this interest in fantasy races also come, then, from the part of us that wants to be able to judge a book by its cover?

I recall Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's description of Sherlock Holmes' first encounter with Moriarty, in which he stated very specifically that Holmes could tell how brilliant and how coldly--ruthlessly--logical Moriarty was by the shape of his skull and preponderance of forehead (male receding hairline as a physical manifestation of high intelligence?).

Similarly, regardless of whether a barbarian tribe is white-skinned, black-skinned, copper-skinned, or green-skinned, and regardless of whether a barbarian tribe has epicanthic folds or aquiline noses or some other ethnicity-based descriptor, barbarians are almost always described as hairy specifically to link them to animals and thereby to animalistic personalities.

Perhaps by conflating race and culture in FRPGs and SFRPGs one is able to link appearance to cultural norms and thus to personality traits and abilities?

Doctor Xero

I always saw the orcs as being analagous to the way other societies viewed the Mongols and Huns.  Hordes of bloodthirsty barbarians with no respect for anything at all.  I also think there's some Native American infuence on a lot of the modern fantasy elves, particularly the wood elf variety.  Once again, a great empire now in decline fits the way Native Americans are viewed in the mass media.  Usually it seems that the fantasy races that are similar culturally to Africans (or African stereotypes, anyway) are the more "primitive" ones, like lizard men or the sexy cat-people all fantasy heartbreakers have to have.  

Speaking of fantasy heartbreakers, I found one in the discount section of a game store today that had several different human races, all similar to real-world cultures (although with different names for all their kingdoms).  The African-type people had higher strength bonuses (as well as the Viking-type people), the Asians had higher intelligence, etc.  I thought that was interesting in a disturbing way.  I wonder if the racism in it was intentional.

Quote from: Doctor XeroOrcs have been used so often in fantasy (they're not really known in folklore by that name, and Tolkien's orcs are more a cross between goblins and the dark elves/dwarves of Norse mythology) that there is really no definitive definition of them. So I find the speculation fascinating.

Since there is so much discussion concerning orcs in this thread, I thought I'd pop in and provide whatever input I could concerning them.  In my experience, orcs are probably one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted fantasy races from the perspective of authentic folklore.  

One of the aspects of the Roman death god was Orcus who took the form of a man with a pig's head.  Later legends used the term orc to describe horrendous sea monsters with enormous maws and boar-like tusks, obviously taking some of the swine-like aspects from the ancient Roman deity.  (Incidentally, these tales are also the origin of the term Orca applied to killer whales.)  In northern Italy folklore slowly devolved the tales of Orcus into the Orchi and Orchulli.  The Orchi were slow giants with a penchant for the taste of children, while the Orchulli were smaller, smarter, and smellier.  Both retained certain "pig-like" characteristics, most notably the tusks.

Now, this is about as far as I have been able to take the literal term "orc" in my research of folklore and mythology.  But, there are other faery creatures in Celtic lore with remarkable physical similarities to these faeries, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were somehow derivaties of these others.  There is the Fenoderee (also known as Glystn) that comes from Manx and the Isle of Man in the British Isles.  This is a very large helpful hob-like faery with the ears of a pig.  Jimmy Squarefoot, also from the British Isles, is a large muscular faery with the head of a pig that could run over land and sea.  He was so strong that giants used him as a steed.

I think that the trend in modern fantasy games always depicting orcs as evil and "in need of being killed" is a shame.  It is so ingrained that most first-time players of my game Legendary Quest (http://www.legendaryquest.com) who encounter an orc on the road will naturally just attack him without thinking twice about it.

I would be very interested in hearing from those of you that have different folklorish sources concerning orcs and their kindred.  For those of you that are interested in folklore, you can check my source material.  (I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the esteemed Doctor Xero had a few of these):

Orc (Orculli, Orco, Orcus, Orchi)
   A Field Guide to the Little People by Nancy Arrowsmith and George Moorse, pgs. 92-97
   Bulfinch's Mythology, The Age of Chivalry and Legends of Charlemagne by Thomas Bulfinch, pgs. 462-469
   Dictionary of Symbolic & Mythological Animals by J. C. Cooper, pg. 177
   The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker, pg. 742

Orca (Grampus)
   Dictionary of Symbolic & Mythological Animals by J. C. Cooper, pg. 115

Fenoderee
   An Encyclopedia of Fairies  by Katharine Biggs, pg. 170-172

Jimmy Squarefoot
   An Encyclopedia of Fairies  by Katharine Biggs, pg. 242
   A Dictionary of Ghost Lore by Peter Haining, pg. 102-105
   The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits  by Rosemary Ellen Guiley, pg. 182

I do know of a medieval sea monster called an orc, but it doesn't really bear much resemblance to the Tolkein/D&D orcs.  This is where the term Orca to describe killer whales comes from.

I think the reason for orcs, as well as klingons or other "evil" races is to have some irredeemably bad bad guys that the PCs can feel free to slaughter without mercy with no moral consequences of any kind.  They are evil, by killing them you save the innocent lives they would have taken, the only good orc is a dead orc.  I think there has been a big shift in this kind of approach to the influx of zombie games (Dead Meat, All Flesh Must be Eaten, etc.).  I remember always pissing off my gamist players by introducing these kinds of moral questions in the middle of an orc slaughter.  After they loot the orc camp, they find the children they were protecting, or they find these orcs were peaceful farmers or refugees.  Different creative agenda.  They wanted an assurance that orcs were there only to be harvested for gold and experience.

John Kirk wrote:

Quote
I think that the trend in modern fantasy games always depicting orcs as evil and "in need of being killed" is a shame. It is so ingrained that most first-time players of my game Legendary Quest who encounter an orc on the road will naturally just attack him without thinking twice about it.

To me, the idea of treating orcs as more than the enemy or potential cannon fodder is somewhat anachronistic. "Ethnic cleansing" is a much older idea than the basic asumption that all creatures have a right to live. The ideas that "the enemy are people too" and "a mother with a baby should make you sad, even if they are the enemy" were hardly universal in the morals of those who lived some thousands of years ago. Actually, they are not universally accepted now. Yes, these kinds of things are what civilization is about, but I don't really see the point in playing in kinda-ancient settings and trying to apply modern moral values to them. Worst of all, that kind of thinking mostly doesn't work in the context. The idea that "you should save the women and kids" is idiotic if you consider the whole race to be enemies as such. You should make special effort to kill the women and children if you want to get rid of the orc threat once and for all. (Also, to me the idea that "it's okay to kill the men but not the women" is morally quite dubious.)

The other point is escapism. Medieval fantasy is very appealing among other things because it has "simpler" morals. You can have a character who sees black and white instead of grey without him being considered an idiot or a fanatic. "Yes, the enemy are people too. They are still the enemy. Kill the enemy. Then let's discuss complex ethical questions." It's very refreshing.

Admitted, when I personally created orcs for my gaming world, I made them a living (nomad) culture, complete with thinking and feeling individuals. They are still the enemy. (Or they would be if the characters actually met them.) You can talk with them and you can trade with them. Actually some dwarven merchants (those few who know the language) trade with them all the time. They just don't like to make a fuss about it, since orcs are considered the enemy and the goods would loose value if they were identified to be coming from the orcs. To me, that's much more interesting than any "oh but you shouldn't kill dee wittle baby orcsies" -whining, and letting the players (but not the characters) know the situation is a very good way of getting them to think about racism and violence (if you want to make that kinds of statements). "Orc" is a word which means "those who the characters can kill without moral issues". If you don't like the idea, don't call them orcs. "Equal rights for fictional races" is a pointless idea.

In my opinion, confusing character morals and player morals is a way of making sure the players learn nothing from what they are playing and a way of making gameplay less enjoyable. I also consider my players to be sensible people, who already know that racism and violence are not nice. I am not morally superior and I don't need to teach morals to my players.

(About realism: I especially enjoyed having a cultural anthropologist play a hot tempered northern mercenary, since he was able to bring to the game the actual feel of "here we are chopping up living people and considering ourselves normal"; he had a large pool of ideas to draw from. "Wont talk? I'll just cut your ear off." "Hmm, we have an extra prisoner, let's cut his head off and put it on a spike to discourage possible trackers." There's few things like heads on a stick that will make players understand that the gameworld is fun place to visit only if you don't really have to be there. Also btw, I've heard of about a dozen unpublished fantasy worlds where the orcs are treated as people by the game, so unless this is a local phenomenon, I would say the idea is not exactly original.)

I agree with Itse in almost all particulars bar one, but from a slightly different angle I guess.

Yes I agree, pathos for Orcs is misplaced if the purpose of Orcs is to be signpost badguys.  But I disagree that such a "ritual enemy" has been used in a an interesting way, as far as I know.  Because all too often the same works that have totemically evil orcs to be slaughtered without moral consequence also have bizarre modern capitalist economies, high levels of integration among the totemically good (and almost all pale skinned) races, and a surprising proportion of proto-democracies and women in positions of power (Yes Forgotten Realms, I'm looking at you).

If the purpose is to explore, highlight, the kinds and forms of society in which the death of the alien Other does not constitute homicide per se but a public service, then these games fail by being too twee and kitch elsewhere, and I cannot think of any to my mind which succeed (arguably the best I know would be the fascinating Kafer from 2300AD).  If the game is going to explore these things, then they need to be engaged with as a central subject, not relegated to walk-on parts for extras as so many orcs are.  I can see a game written that seeks to explore the practice of Celtic head-hunting and the place of such public homicide displays, but then this would have to be The issues the game explores, not just a bit of backdrop.  There would need to be mechanics addressing it directly; frex, in Medieval Total War, your generals can have a Dread rating that influences the loyalty of provinces they govern.  If you kill 1000+ prisoners on the field, the general can acquire the 'Butcher' vice that substantially increases Dread).

So yes, realism and distasteful subjects in the name of exploration, by all means.  But stock villains identified by birth and who appear as non-human for no reason other than they can be killed without moral consequence, no.

The one thing that I disagree with is that it is "refreshing" to encounter such balck and white morality in fiction... becuase it is so common.  Who's Good and who's Evil in the following pairups?  Spiderman and Dr Octopus?  The Fantastic Four and the Krull?  Battlestar Galactica and the Cylons?  The Rebellion and Empire?  The Federation and the Klingons?  Simplisitic ethnically based or allegiance based morality is so endemic in our media that it broes me to tears, and I find it refresshing to get away from it for a change and do something more interesting.

I think that the "purpose" of having fatasy races in fantasy is that they enable the designer to focus on specific themes more readily. That is, by creating races that embody certain themes and ideas, it is easier to make points about those themes.
To take LoTR (the books not the movie) as an example:
Orcs embody the notion that progress for the sake of progress is bad.
Elves bring life to old and noble traditions which inevitably fade away.
Dwarves live the tension between honor and greed.
Ents embody the power of nature and of living things beyond our ken.
Hobbits show the virtues of simple life, courage, and frienship.

I simplify, of course, for the sake of expediency.

The point is that in Middle Earth, all of the races that Tolkien included served a purpose thematically. Each existed as an expression of some theme or premise.

The problem with a lot of modern fantasy (in RPGs and in fiction--they have become muddled) is that the writer adds races because he thinks that doing so is a requirement. An artifical race is just that: it adds nothing to the setting, confuses premise, and generally adds ambiguity to the game.

That doesn't mean that I don't like non-human races. But I do think that they should serve some thematic purpose in the game. Just as with magic, coolness isn't a good enough reason to include non-humans in your campaign world. There needs to be someting more. IMHO anyway.

Quote from: ItseTo me, the idea of treating orcs as more than the enemy or potential cannon fodder is somewhat anachronistic.

I disagree with your baseline assumption that anachronisms are intrinsically bad.

Technically, it's anachronistic for a film to depict medieval heroes with no warts, blemishes, broken teeth, etc.  It's anachronistic to depict women or blacks or Jews treated with any human decency in most stories set in the past.  If one wants to be anal retentive about it, it's anachronistic to have anyone speaking our current dialects of English in a film set before the mid-20th century.

However, as Gene Roddenberry noted in his first drafts of what became the *Star Trek* series, audiences most often want people with whom they can identify.  He uses the example of a Western film in which Gregory Peck wore a mustache in the authentic style of the setting and elicited only laughter from the audience because it was too incongruous for the audience.

The question is whether the anachronisms serve a dramatic function.

Quote from: contracycleSo yes, realism and distasteful subjects in the name of exploration, by all means.  But stock villains identified by birth and who appear as non-human for no reason other than they can be killed without moral consequence, no.

I agree.  To address Itse's and contracycle's comments together : If I were to attempt a medieval re-creationist campaign, yes, I would have to include racism, sexism, short life spans, carbuncles and crippling illness, and a host of other problems which are alien to modern players and a host of attitudes which be horrifiying to anyone with whom I would wish to associate much less play a  game -- and it would be absurd of me to include magic or any sort of fantastical race when I'm pretending to such a degree of authenticity.

However, most of the time I am not running a campaign for medievalists or other scholars, and I am not running a campaign as an excuse to assign copious amounts of homework to my players before they can be permitted to play their characters.  I am running a campaign for entertainment with some thought and theatre involved.  But not everyone runs campaigns for such reasons.

Mythology/folklore and the fantastical literatures have all had as one common function the presentation of a cleaner and clearer and more intense (whether more virtuous or more horrific varies) story world.  The differences are part of the thematic/mythic function of the story world, and I cope with them through suspension of belief and other audience participation techniques.

Doctor Xero

Quote from: ItseMedieval fantasy is very appealing among other things because it has "simpler" morals.

Quote from: coxcombI think that the "purpose" of having fantasy races in fantasy is that they enable the designer to focus on specific themes more readily.

I would suggest the morals have been more overt rather than "simpler".  As has been noted several times in this and similar threads, one function of fantasy races seems to be the convenience of having social characteristics and ethical tendencies easily recognized by the appearance of the fantasy race in question.

I remember a fantasy story in which the virtuous race was "white as celestial purity", and another fantasy story in which the evil race was "stark white as madness and the corpse".  Both the same denotative pigmentation but with very different connotative colorings as a means of externalizing that race's ethical metaphoric function in the storyline.

I think it's important to remember that, in many Christian philosophies (and other philosophies), a major virtue is the Gift of Discernment, which is the ability to recognize an individual's moral/ethical character and potential for rehabilitation as easily as one recognizes an individual's hair coloring and relative height.  This rare gift was seen as divine by the more spiritually oriented and a powerful sense or tool by the more economically/politically oriented.  In other words, for many centuries the average man or woman has envied and admired those people who can "see" a person's true motivations and character regardless of surface appearance and dissembling.

With most FRPG races, almost anyone has that Gift of Discernment because the race type makes true motivations and character obvious (and unvarying for almost everyone in a particular fantasy race).

Quote from: coxcombThat doesn't mean that I don't like non-human races. But I do think that they should serve some thematic purpose in the game. Just as with magic, coolness isn't a good enough reason to include non-humans in your campaign world. There needs to be someting more. IMHO anyway.

I agree.

What annoys me most about the "orc" type approach from a gaming perspective is that it appeals to and encourages the "nerd machismo" of mad slasher types (as Aaron Allston put it) and power gamers (in addition to my own aesthetic and philosophical dislikes of this approach).  That said, I suppose even mad slashers and power gamers deserve their own games, and if couch potatoes flexing fictional muscles by killing everyone in sight (and then boasting about it afterwards) is part of the gaming group's social contract, I have no authority to tell them they ought do otherwise.

Doctor Xero

"There are two types of people in the world:
those who divide people into types,
and those who don't."
- - Barth's Distinction to Murphy's Law

Quote from: John KirkI would be very interested in hearing from those of you that have different folklorish sources concerning orcs and their kindred.

When he was writing OrkWorld and discussing the process on Gaming Outpost, John Wick commented that the ork was mentioned in Beowulf. I subsequently read Beowulf in modern translation, and did not recognize the word anywhere within it, although I think I found ogre mentioned (if memory serves--it's been a couple years), and that might have been it.

Regarding Tolkien, Orc was suggested to be an anglicization of the elvish Yrch, a rather expressive name for the creature. Yrch was actually the elvish name for goblin. Goblins, in turn, were a race created by the evil powers by twisting and perverting elves into something horrible (and thus the name that sounds like an expression of disgust). In The Hobbit, the creatures are called goblins by the party of primarily dwarfs; in Lord of the Rings they are called orcs fairly consistently, but the strong elvish influence in this group (Aragorn is actually part elven, and has been immersed in the elvish culture of Rivendell) explains a significant part of that. I recall that there is one passage where all three words (goblin, yrch, and orc) are used in close succession to name the same creatures.

In OAD&D, orcs were smaller, not larger, than humans (about the same size as elves), and there is no mention of them having dark skin. I am unfamiliar with AD&D2's treatment of them. I was rather appalled by 3E's presentation of the half-orc as larger than humans, particularly ugly, and dark skinned--in OAD&D, the half-orc player character was presented as indistinguishable on sight from humans, although shorter on average and never stunningly charismatic.

As to Klingons, in the original series they were not dark skinned; they were generally pale and cultured with an agenda of conquest and domination--charicatures of the Soviet Union. It wasn't until Next Generation that they became dark and violent, a different kind of threat for a different kind of audience.

Has anyone considered that the connection between evil and dark skin comes not from "primitive Africa" but from the Middle East? The wars of the middle ages between Islamic efforts to conquer the world and European efforts to install Christian monarchs would certainly have contributed to this fear of dark-skinned peoples. In this connection, Islam swept through northern Africa and across Gibralter into Spain, leading to the Moorish domination there (and the Moors were darker than their eastern brethren, because they were more drawn from Africa), but that created a two-pronged assault on Europe as Middle Eastern powers pushed through Turkey (Asia Minor) toward Greece. Just because the villains are described as "dark skinned" doesn't mean that they're about Africans. I note in this connection that the Calormenes in Narnia are strongly based on Middle Eastern culture, and thus their dark skin is not African but Arabian.

Anyway, these are just some ideas on the subject.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungHas anyone considered that the connection between evil and dark skin comes not from "primitive Africa" but from the Middle East? The wars of the middle ages between Islamic efforts to conquer the world and European efforts to install Christian monarchs would certainly have contributed to this fear of dark-skinned peoples. In this connection, Islam swept through northern Africa and across Gibralter into Spain, leading to the Moorish domination there (and the Moors were darker than their eastern brethren, because they were more drawn from Africa), but that created a two-pronged assault on Europe as Middle Eastern powers pushed through Turkey (Asia Minor) toward Greece. Just because the villains are described as "dark skinned" doesn't mean that they're about Africans.

Excellent point!

The notion of extremely white or extremely dark skin as evidence of something 'unnatural' is found even in whiteskinned cultures which had not had exposure to darkskinned cultures at the time and vice versa.  One theory for the origin of the association of night-black skin with danger is far more practical than racially charged (and therefore less popular in this day and age) : in areas with particularly fierce night predators in the days before electric lighting and flashlights, a black-skinned night predator would be virtually invisible.  Similarly, particularly pale monsters were likely associated with corpses.

Sometimes simple survival factors rather than ulterior racism may explain a common image, however politically dull that might be.

(This is not to pretend that racists have not often co-opted such images to support their racism!)

Doctor Xero

I've been pondering this reply for quite some time, a couple weeks, in fact. I finally feel confident enough to post it, as I believe I've managed to get to the heart of the ideas I've raised or commented on elsewhere regarding these issues.

Quote from: Jonathan Walton-- from Orcs to Klingons, I don't think there's any doubt why brutish & violent races are often depicted with dark skin.  Whether subconsciously or not, there is a not-so-subtle racism against people of African descent that influences the invention of fantasy humanoids.

Black has been associated with danger and evil in western culture for far, far longer than Africans have been sold as slaves, or skin color was even an issue to mankind. Black equals darkness equals night equals danger.

For example, black generally equates to evil in Norse mythology, but the Norse had little concept of "race" or judgements of a man regarding his skin-color, and in the time periods we are talking about, a black-skinned man would have been an oddity, but not considered inferior or a thrall simply because he was black.

So, yes, for me there's a lot of doubt as to why brutish and violent races are depicted as dark-skinned, and it isn't as clear cut as it appears to be to others.

QuoteSo, I guess I just want to point out that there's a lot of ugliness inbedded in many of these ideas, something that we can't really ignore.  Personally, I have a hard time with a lot of D&D-esque fantasy gaming for exactly this reason.

See, now, I can ignore it just fine, because I don't see it -- and when it's "pointed out" to me, vile heathen that I am for being so blind, I just raise an eyebrow think it's bloody ridiculous. I'll try to explain that.

What Jonathan's post made me realize was something I've been trying to think of how to say without the words. The words I finally realized is that it appears the more about history and culture you know, and the more immersed in modern struggles you are, the more you tend to see racism or discrimination in things.

But, I don't think it is real racism. It's standard human connection-making...standard human intellectual processing: looking for patterns. But just as in scientific processes, just because X looks like Z does not mean X is Z. Honestly, I think it's mostly strawmen created by overactive imaginations.

I mean, seriously, gnomes as Jews? Um...ok? I never saw that one coming. Folks writing this stuff are generally unaware of much of these items as issues (mostly because they're all semi-educated midwestern white males), and are just trying to create interesting "stuff" without ulterior meaning.

Of course, the counter is that they're simply expressing subtle cultural behaviors in such...but I find that nonsense, at best, without some sort of exacting proof of such an occurence. Otherwise I see it as nothing more than pattern-making on the part of the viewer, not the author.

I was pointed to the following URL (VDARE.COM (http://www.vdare.com/francis/lotr_racist.htm)) in another discussion, and think it relevant to this discussion.

QuoteYou Can't Make This Stuff Up:
Anti-Racists Say Lord of the Rings too Eurocentric
By Sam Francis

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a self-appointed "watchdog" organization in Montgomery, Alabama that purports to keep a sharp eye out for "racism" and "hate."

The SPLC's website, tolerance.org, last week reprinted an op-ed from Pacific News Service by Andrea Lewis, a San Francisco based writer who has discovered that at least the current film in Peter Jackson's stunning cinematic version of the three-volume novel by J.R.R. Tolkien should really have been named "The Return of the Patriarchy."

There just aren't enough fighting females in the movie for Miss Lewis, but she also doesn't like it because "Almost all of the heroes of the series are manly men who are whiter than white" and "exude a heavenly aura of all that is Eurocentric and good. Who but these courageous Anglo-Saxon souls can save Middle Earth from the dark and evil forces of the world?"

...What Miss Lewis and the SPLC boys who chose to reprint her article like is not "tolerance" and what they oppose is not "hate."

What they oppose is any positive portrayal of white people.

What they like is any production that writes whites out of the picture.

Well, not entirely. Another reason Miss Lewis likes "The Matrix" is that it depicts whites as villains.

"Most of the really bad guys in 'The Matrix'," she gloats, "are Euro," including a Frenchman, two British albino twins and "a rather stuffy and pompous white guy with white beard and white suit who reeks of imperialism."

What she really approves of is any production that not only demotes whites from heroic roles but serves to demonize them in new anti-white stereotypes. Nothing more clearly exposes the SPLC's real anti-white agenda than Miss Lewis' silly article. The "multiculturalism" that obsesses her and the SPLC is just as steeped in hate of whites as any of the goof balls they "investigate" (and maybe a good deal more). It's just hate of a different hue.

The fact is that "Lord of the Rings" is an important, beautiful and entirely healthy movie, more or less faithfully based on an important, beautiful and entirely healthy book, which itself draws from some of the deepest springs of Western culture, the myths and folklore of Northern Europe, and tells an important, beautiful and entirely healthy story that white Western men need to hear.

I'm probably going to be labelled a racist for saying this, but, "damn straight."

I think there's some measure of racism in the full article (I've quoted only the relevant portions), but that last bit is nothing less than right on.

Why? Because it's all about positive role-models. It says to the white american male, "Hey, you can be JUST LIKE THIS! HE is. Now, GO, and DO." Rather than "You must be this tall to ride" or "Bah, you're evil oppressors! See?" Which is precisely and constantly what modern "anti-discrimination" groups spew at nearly every turn, which is nothing but pure discrimination "in reverse."

I think that is what really explains my dislike of the whole "casually discriminatory" criteria which seems to pervade modern discussions of this issue.

And you can also see from the above why I grow less and less sympathetic to the cries of the "discriminated"? All these folks ever seem to do is tear down; they never build up. They focus on the negative for political, self-empowerment reasons which have nothing to do with the betterment of society, and more to do with finding "bad guys" to lynch, or at least holler about the "terrible, awful, wickedness" of.

It's modern witch-hunting, plain and simple, and disguised in the same moralistic, protecting-the-moral-fabric-of-society cloth of the Puritan inquisitors.

That's why I bring it up as well...no matter how you look at these sorts of criticisms, there's no fix which doesn't leave someone discriminated against. It's all negative. There's nothing positive in "pointing out" supposed hidden racism in works of literature and film. The only viable solution is to act as though the racism doesn't exist...and viola, as the Tao even predicts, it's gone.

Racism is real, no doubt. But "revealing it" tends to look a great deal more like a lot of fluff and nonsense based on modern fears and cultural conditioning. After all, if it doesn't matter what we look like, then it doesn't matter what we look like.

Here's my point, and the main reason for brining that article into it: that's what I'm seeing a great deal of -- conincidental evidence of racism being decried as "the real thing," followed both by lots of expressed disappointment at its existance by some and distressed scowling and criticism by others, and lots of hand-wringing about what to do about it.

Look at orcs in this regard: there are claims they're stand-in African men, or at least supporting that view, yet it can clearly be shown from studying Tolkien's works that orcs were meant as a social commentary on the uneducated masses in the civilized world.

Given Tolkien created orcs whole-cloth from nothing, specifically for his work, his development of them is truly the only valid source to examine as to "what they are" and hence "what they mean." Everyone else is just borrowing, and can't really "make" them mean anything else if they borrow orcs as written (evil, violent, dark-skinned, corrupted humanoids).

In Ainur Elmgren's excellent and though-provoking essay, "The Image of the Enemy" (http://www.ainurin.net/image_of_enemy_intro.htm) she mentions a number of letters passed between JRR Tolkien and his son, and which existed as part of his papers.

The content of those letters clearly identifies that orcs were meant as represenational of certain individuals who gloried or found pleasure in the crude, in physicality, in abuse of power, cruelty, and greed.

He doesn't use it to reflect social class so much as the fears of the century, that globalized democracy and the destruction of class boundaries would create countries run by the uncultured, uneducated masses, damaging civilization immensely through the enforcement of their base ideals upon society.

In his letters, he refers to the British media and public as "orc-crowds" in certain cases, where he feels they are acting and reporting basely, in uncivilized, uncompassionate manners...but without reference to actual class.

It is easy to imagine Tolkien would have lumped aristocracy exhibiting such behaviors into that same "orc-crowd" especially in light of letters to his son, in which he notes that British officers are certainly not exempt from being orcs, because such beasts of men come on both sides (he notes, "only in real life are they on both sides").

He also mentions it is easy to see them in Middle-earth because they all look like orcs, but harder in real life, because you never know who is an orc until you observe them...they're in every strata of society, and among every nationality.

So, they're not Africans. Or Germans. Period. Indisputable. A person can point to all the "evidence" they would like, but it's coincidental and casual: just because a turtle shell is "as hard as a rock" does not make it a rock. Orcs are symbolical, certainly, but of corrupted goodness, of the crumbling of civilization by revelry in crude and (especially) unethical behaviors.

Orcs work perfectly fine when they're used as they're supposed to be, but I think "what they're supposed to be" has been muddled considerably, as I'll explain shortly. However, this muddling hasn't helped matters, as their existance and nature are more easily used for the above described criticism and hand-wringing.

Quote from: Doctor XeroCould this interest in fantasy races also come, then, from the part of us that wants to be able to judge a book by its cover?

I think it has far more to do with mythology.
Take the Norse myths -- giants are evil. They are representations of all that is chaotic, terrible, and destructive in nature. They are evil incarnate. That is their function in stories -- easily identified allegories, not an actual race.

It's mythology. I think the main problem with "orcs are evil" comes from a severing of fantasy from its mythological roots -- and by that I mean not simply fantastical events dealing with supernatural entities and events -- but the very loss of inherent cultural and moral meaning in the stories themselves, the symbolic representataions of nature and being which have been utterly and unforgivably stripped from modern fantasy.

"Simulationism by habit" isn't just a thing that happens to gamers, it happens to all fiction readers, who want to "invent" the fantastical world as a place to explore, which exists without subtext as a seperate entity from the underlying story of which the events and beings are simply representational. Writers of fan-fiction are especially prone to this thinking. They're trying to codify an abstract painting, rather than seeing it as a symbolical representation.

So, when Gareth states he is bored by depictions of good vs. evil, I can only shrug and say, "Sure, real life isn't like that, but we're not talking about real life...we're talking about stories, which are symbols on top of the actual meaning. Allegorical representations of events and beliefs."

As such, it doesn't bother me much, because being "like real life" isn't their function -- "being people" isn't their function, either. Gaming itself appears to have lost this completely, and has led to poor fiction which does nothing more than strive "to tell a story" quite literally and with all the t's crossed and i's dotted, with nothing more to it than "guys, some of them funny-looking, go do stuff that sounds cool" and when examined is really bereft of any meaning or importance.

This is the role modern fantasy races have failed to grab...they're nothing more than cultures of people in funny hats existing in an allegorical vaccum in a story -- which, by nature, tend to need allegory to be good stories.

In this sense, orcs do exist to be slaughtered without pause by the heroes, because they are representations  of sadism, cruelty, crudeness, and wickedness -- they are a creature spiritually corrupted by dark forces seeking to dominate all under a reign of fire, blood, and enslavement of the will. They are vicious beings whose only nature is to do what they feel, kept in check by a will greater than their own to which they submit out of fear and weakness. They are representations of what a person, in the medium of a game through their character, must fight and overcome in themselves in order to become a hero.

There is a tendency in children of all races to be somewhat lighter in hair and complexion when very young.  It is obviously more prevalent in "toe-head" caucasian kids, and of course there are many, many glaring exceptions, but this is a general tendency.  As a result, light hair and complexion is associated with youth and harmlessness, while darker tones are seen as more mature.  This can be an attraction, such as the "tall, dark, and handsome" stereotype.  You want a big mature strong protector.  And statistical studies have shown that women prefer dark-haired men in general.  (Oddly, men are the opposite...they prefer light-haired, youthful, harmless women.  But that's a different post on a different forum).  But if it's a stranger, someone different, darkness is seen as dangerous and scary.  People feel more threatened by males with darker hair and skin, even if the same race.

Of course, there's also lots of social, political, and economic causes that contribute.  But we really don't need to get into all that here.  But I think a lot of politics is the result of people trying to rationalize misplaced instincts.

Quote from: greyorm
I'm probably going to be labelled a racist for saying this, but, "damn straight."

Yes, here you go, <staple>.

Quote
I think there's some measure of racism in the full article (I've quoted only the relevant portions), but that last bit is nothing less than right on.

Some?  As is, it was NOT a relentless spewing of racist bile?  Just click Home and see the agenda, notably the article on 'immigration, unsafe at any speed?'.  Keeping America White is the overt message of this site, as exemplified by the credit to: 'Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster (Random House - 1995).'

Disaster?  A whole state built on immigration is a disaster?  Oooooookayyy...

Quote
And you can also see from the above why I grow less and less sympathetic to the cries of the "discriminated"? All these folks ever seem to do is tear down; they never build up. They focus on the negative for political, self-empowerment reasons which have nothing to do with the betterment of society, and more to do with finding "bad guys" to lynch, or at least holler about the "terrible, awful, wickedness" of.

So, how is this different from yuour own criticism?  Here they are identifying where things are done according to racist convention, and where not,. and approving the latter.  I say they are building up... but your argument is that they should stop, that you fail to sympathise... where are YOU building up, rather than venting about the terrible, awful wickedness of it?

Quote
That's why I bring it up as well...no matter how you look at these sorts of criticisms, there's no fix which doesn't leave someone discriminated against. It's all negative. There's nothing positive in "pointing out" supposed hidden racism in works of literature and film. The only viable solution is to act as though the racism doesn't exist...and viola, as the Tao even predicts, it's gone.

I'm afraid that rreall;y is totally, utterly ridiculous.  If you act as if racism doesn't exist.... it CARRIES ON.  You have given your tacit approval that theres nothing wrong, nothing to see here, you're perfectly cool with it.

Discussion of Tolkien snipped as irrlevant; if RPG and other literature stuck religiously to Tolkiens construction, I agree many analogies would not apply.  But it does not, and an analysis of the original inspiration has little to do with actual, later implementations.  While YOU may know that orcs are symbols of the working class, does that necessarily occur to a racist reader?

Quote
So, when Gareth states he is bored by depictions of good vs. evil, I can only shrug and say, "Sure, real life isn't like that, but we're not talking about real life...we're talking about stories, which are symbols on top of the actual meaning. Allegorical representations of events and beliefs."

Actually, we are talking about games.  But aside from that, yes I find them boring, and predictable, and lazy.  To each their own.

Quote
In this sense, orcs do exist to be slaughtered without pause by the heroes, because they are representations  of sadism, cruelty, crudeness, and wickedness -- they are a creature spiritually corrupted by dark forces seeking to dominate all under a reign of fire, blood, and enslavement of the will.

Fine.  Much the same could be said of the Alien... but the Alien fills its role as monster much more completely, much less ambiguously.  What is it that the Alien cannot do that the Orc can?

Quote
Itse wrote:

Quote
To me, the idea of treating orcs as more than the enemy or potential cannon fodder is somewhat anachronistic.

Doctor Xero wrote:

I disagree with your baseline assumption that anachronisms are intrinsically bad.

Well, not always bad but mostly bad, especially if not in any way recognized, IMO. I also wanted to point out that there's nothing intrinsically wrong about signpost badguys, which seems to be something that some people take as a given.

My "agenda" here was to encourage the idea that just because there's "stupid black evil brutes who you are expected to kill on sight" in the game doesn't mean there's something wrong with the game. Okay, it can be about poorly hidden racism and encourage violence as a solution, but it can also be a brilliant and deep and enlightening whole. It's not about what you have but how you use it. Political correctness can be seriously damaging to any art form, and personally, I don't give a shit about it.

Quote from: greyormI've been pondering this reply for quite some time, a couple weeks, in fact. I finally feel confident enough to post it, as I believe I've managed to get to the heart of the ideas I've raised or commented on elsewhere regarding these issues.
---snip!--
in the medium of a game through their character, must fight and overcome in themselves in order to become a hero.

Excellent points!  And exceptionally brave -- even heroic -- to post this, considering the voluble exciteability of the self-appointed thought guardians in these fora who, while few, are loud and "snarky".  (You and I both know there will be those posts condemning you, more often with kneejerk sarcastic quips than with logical rebuttal or any effort to engage you in intelligent discussion.)

I'd like to address one point about racism, however.

Quote from: greyormI mean, seriously, gnomes as Jews? Um...ok? I never saw that one coming. Folks writing this stuff are generally unaware of much of these items as issues (mostly because they're all semi-educated midwestern white males), and are just trying to create interesting "stuff" without ulterior meaning.

Quote from: greyormthat's what I'm seeing a great deal of -- conincidental evidence of racism being decried as "the real thing," followed both by lots of expressed disappointment at its existance by some and distressed scowling and criticism by others, and lots of hand-wringing about what to do about it.

I think you're missing one crucial point :

Regardless of how something once affected its original audience, it may have a different effect upon its modern audience.

Therefore, even though there may be absolutely zero racism in the origin of the image of orcs, even if every legitimate scientific and scholarly inquiry proves that the image of orcs has no racist basis on even the most tangential level for its original audiences,
the average American in the year 2004 doesn't know these scientific and scholarly facts and was born long after those original audiences died off as individuals and, in some cases, as cultures.

So it is not completely untoward to worry about blackskinned orcs accidentally supporting modern racism against Blacks in the racially/politically charged United States, despite the origin of orcs  being racially innocuous.

Does the folkloric/mythological origin of gnomes have anything to do with the Jewish culture?  Not the origin, no.  Has the image been highjacked along the way by racists?  Quite possibly, as in the anti-Semitic image of the Gnomes of Zurich.

In a world in which the most dangerous racists are those who lack the inclination and likely lack the intellectual sophistication to investigate the historical and social roots of the orc and the gnome, their superficial association of orc slaughter with lynching and of gnome disrespectability with a legitimation of anti-Semitism is not an invalid concern.

It may not affect the majority of us who post on these fora, but we are also discussing designing games which might appeal to a far broader audience, and sometimes current responsibility trumps historical roots.

Doctor Xero

Quote from: greyormIn this sense, orcs do exist to be slaughtered without pause by the heroes, because they are representations  of sadism, cruelty, crudeness, and wickedness -- they are a creature spiritually corrupted by dark forces seeking to dominate all under a reign of fire, blood, and enslavement of the will.

Yes!  This reminds me of one function of the monster (individual or race) in the faerie tale according to Bruno Bettelheim and in folklore/mythology in general according to Carl Jung -- as the shadow creature.

In the metaphor of myth and modern fantasy, in the act of rallying my folk to kill off our shadow folk, yes we are denotatively killing off another race, but since that other folk is simply our own shadow side, we are connotatively and allegorically killing off our own nasty, negative, dangerous side.  It is not unlike the trope of having the protagonist fight against a mirror image of herself or himself in which he or she combats and kills/absorbs/reconciles with the id, the shadow side, the negative side.

(For an easy modern pop culture example, look at the Kirk-vs.-Kirk events in the Star Trek episode in which id and superego were severed into two human bodies as the result of the transporter accident, with the only way to regain the adult function i.e. ego requiring these two sides re-merge, with the implication that the adult function or ego is the resulting matrix of superego and id -- heady stuff for a 1960s SF series which masqueraded as an innocuous adventure show!)

Quote from: ItsePolitical correctness can be seriously damaging to any art form, and personally, I don't give a shit about it.

YES!

Doctor Xero

Quote from: pete_darby
Frex, my great undeveloped game world is a conventional fantasy version of the American Civil War (of freedom, between the states, etc etc), with african-orc slaves, native american elves, etc. etc. as a tool to talk about the implied racism of fantasy.
.

I had a similar idea of a game setting that was basically the American West circa 1850-1860, but with natives as elves, orcs as slaves (and sympathetic), dwarves as industrialists, and gnomes and bankers and businessmen.  Then I decided that the racism made me really uncomfortable and abandoned the idea.  

One thing that I like about races is that they let us tackle themes of race and discrimination, without having to make reference to real human races and, potentially, being discriminatory against those races.  Although we can draw connections between fantasy races and "real" races (actually I believe race is a social construct, but lets not go there), these links are not one-to-one, as the discussion in this forum shows.  Therefore by transporting a very sensitive theme like racial discrimination to a fantasy world, we make it safe.  

For example, as a white male, I would find it interesting to explore being an oppressed minority by playing a member of an oppressed fantasy race in a fantasy rpg and I would feel comfortable doing so.  However, I would feel significantly less comfortable playing an African American character in modern setting rpg.  I think that if I were to attempt the latter, the result would come off as racist, despite my best intentions.  But in the former I feel safe, because orcs aren't real.

Quote from: Henriactually I believe race is a social construct,

Agreed!

Quote from: Henribut lets not go there

AGREED!

Quote from: HenriI would find it interesting to explore being an oppressed minority by playing a member of an oppressed fantasy race in a fantasy rpg and I would feel comfortable doing so.  However, I would feel significantly less comfortable playing an African American character in modern setting rpg.  I think that if I were to attempt the latter, the result would come off as racist, despite my best intentions.  But in the former I feel safe, because orcs aren't real.

You remind me of a parallel.

Because I consider sexism to be both ethically absurd and biological fallacious, I have always run campaigns in which female and male characters have complete equality and are utterly indistinguishable outside procreative functions.  I had a female player who asked me to run a campaign in which women were victims of sexism and gender role oppression a bit more like the Medieval European perspective.  She told me that she wanted to play with being a victim of misogyny within a game so that she could experiment in ways she did not dare in our real world.  I had some difficulty at first running such a campaign, but I researched and figured out how to handle a sexist world without losing my lunch, and it turned out quite well -- particularly after she was transformed by a sex-change artifact (random roll but fortuitous one!) and ended up having to cope with misandry and gender role oppression as a male after having experienced misogyny and gender role oppression as a female!

Fantastical races in the right game master's hands can provide a chance to experiment, whether Narrativist or Simulationist, that can be most rewarding.

Doctor Xero

I have no idea how to bring half of this back to the subject of gaming...but I'll try.

Quote from: contracycleSome?  As is, it was NOT a relentless spewing of racist bile?

In the portions I quoted? Well, sure, there's plenty of racist bile in those bits, but it's all directed towards caucasians. Keep in mind, I'm not discussing the politics of the full article, especially because I do see racism in the site, just a few facts it presented, which I quoted -- but we find our gems where we may, and often in the roughest of places.

Thus, keep in mind that I'm quoting bits of the article, not the philosophy of the site it was hosted on, or the political agenda it was written to support. Facts are simply facts.

Note as well, I was given that article by an Astruar woman who was recently kicked off a mailing list for being too liberal, for challenging the list's racist beliefs and undertones. I'm guessing you would label her a racist as well, because she agrees with the overall content of the article? That this anti-white, "too Eurocentric" attitude is, in her words, the work of nutters?

I do note that you are completely unshocked and unfazed by the statements made in the article about caucasians depicted as heroes, or rather how these "anti-racists" believe white men deserve to be depicted as villians.

Are you saying that you agree with Miss Lewis, then? That caucasians are a villianous, imperious people fit only for the role of villians in film and literature, and should never be portrayed as the hero because (for some unexplainable reason) that's just wrong and terrible? That white people suck? That their culture has nothing of value?

I'm sorry, but that's racist, too, Gareth.

And I'm further sorry, but based on the very strong subtext that goes along with articles such as these, that seems to be the overriding opinion of modern equalitists. Where's all the ranting and incensed howling, the endless words devoted to racism that doesn't involve white men? I don't see one of these "watchdog" places complaining about how there's not enough white men in a Spike Lee movie, or in popular asian films like "Crouching Tiger."

Until then, they're hypocrites, pure and simple, waving (however intentionally or unintentionally) the flag of white men as the enemy and white, European culture as somehow corrupt. Because the undercurrent to all the "pointing out of bigotry" is that white men can never be the hero or the focus, because that's "racist" or not "multicultural" in every single instance it occurs.

And I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that multiculturalism meant "Everyone else's culture but mine."

Folks will boo and decry that all they want, but it's nothing more and nothing less than the truth.

Yet, here we are on a gaming board discussing how to handle it in gaming, and coming to no decent conclusions, because any non-human race depicted in any way insults someone somewhere; and gods forbid that white males be in any positions of authority in fictional worlds, because (apparently) that's just "reinforcing racism" rather than "being racism."

QuoteSo, how is this different from yuour own criticism?  Here they are identifying where things are done according to racist convention, and where not,. and approving the latter.  I say they are building up... but your argument is that they should stop, that you fail to sympathise... where are YOU building up, rather than venting about the terrible, awful wickedness of it?

Gareth, how is gleeful enjoyment of the tearing apart and degredation of anyone white not racist? How is dissecting a classic piece of heroic literature, "an important, beautiful and entirely healthy movie, more or less faithfully based on an important, beautiful and entirely healthy book, which itself draws from some of the deepest springs of Western culture, the myths and folklore of Northern Europe, and tells an important, beautiful and entirely healthy story" not racist? How is that, in any way, "building up"?

It's completely trashing a people and culture according to their skin color; destroying an important work of fiction with deep spiritual meaning and heroic character for spurious and ultimately unconstructive reasons. Calling Tolkien's work racist, however subtly, because he specifically wrote a mythology for British Europeans to identify with, is the height of stupidity. Perhaps, Gareth, you'd like me to make Odin or Thor dark-skinned? Just change the whole mythology because it isn't "multicultural" enough? How about we make Jesus not a Jew any longer, since him being a white guy is not PC enough? Or him being a Jew is too controversial?

Where does it stop? What sorts of ridiculous hoops do we all need to jump through to satisfy these sorts of would-be "anti-racists"?

"Oh, look! Racism!" and then "Look, more!"...great, and..? There's always going to be "more"...you can find whatever you're looking for when you look hard enough. So, no, I don't buy for one minute that "identifying instances of racism" is getting anyone anywhere. Being more politically correct as an author or person is not the answer, because you can never be politically correct enough.

In cases like this, the problem doesn't lie in the work, but in the individual viewing it.

QuoteI'm afraid that rreall;y is totally, utterly ridiculous.  If you act as if racism doesn't exist.... it CARRIES ON.  You have given your tacit approval that theres nothing wrong, nothing to see here, you're perfectly cool with it.

As I said, if color doesn't matter, if what we look like doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. You can proclaim the evils of depictions based on skin color, and simply reinforce the prevalent attitudes that race actually does matter, or you can ignore race as irrelevant and treat it as such, thus making it so. You've obviously decided that it does matter, and are reacting to situations as though it does. That, to me, is the height of racism.

After all, if you act as though racism doesn't exist, how can it? If you aren't judging based on the color of a person's skin, if that thought is completely off your radar, then how can there be racism? There can't be. It dies a forgotten death because nobody pays attention to or reacts according to such details.

I was brought up this way. My father always told me that what a person looked like didn't matter, what color their skin was was unimportant. I had no clue what he was even talking about until high school, when I was first exposed to racism.

Yeah, naive of me. But frankly, never having been immersed in a home culture where a person's skin color was important, I never paid it any mind. Call me racist if you want, Gareth, but I'm the one who doesn't see skin color. I don't see racism in the Phantom Menace, in drow and orcs, in gnomes, and so forth.

I'm living proof that acting as though skin color isn't important, actually means it isn't. If you want to keep hollering about how it is, while saying it doesn't matter, and we're all people, fine. I don't see that's going to do anything but reinforce the idea that it does matter.

Like I said, the Tao supports this idea fully -- that problems are often created and sustained by their regulation. Consider the situation of sex crimes...if sex isn't considered a dirty thing, the number of sex crimes which actually occur (according to our definition of such) in that culture goes down considerably. Not "they aren't reported" or "they aren't considered such" but "they don't happen," literally. Ignoring the issue (not the problem) causes it to vanish.

As I said, the problem is internal in cases like these.

QuoteWhile YOU may know that orcs are symbols of the working class, does that necessarily occur to a racist reader?

You reacted pretty strongly to what I wrote. Please read what I wrote, though: I did not say orcs are the working class...I made that distinction from such quite clear. Orcs are the masses -- when a group of people act as a group with vulgar, crude, base behavior, when they become a mob, and especially when they are guided by a will other than their own. Could be aristocrats, the wealthy, the poor, the middle-class, the unemployed, workers, blue-collar, white-collar, anyone.

That you've conflated "masses" with "working class," or "uneducated masses" with "working class" is no reflection on my view of the orc. That said, your following question makes my point for me. "Does it occur to a racist reader?"

Exactly. If orcs are X, but not to a racist reader, it must all be perception, meaning that orcs don't mean anything, and the true responsibility for "racism" lies solely in the lap of the individual, not in the film, literature, or other media in which it is supposedly portrayed or reinforced.

After all, if this guy here doesn't see it, and he over there does, then does it really exist? Or is the perception solely an internal event? Meaning that the individual is predisposed to see racism, and the racist thoughts are their own? How else to rationally explain such an event, where overt and blindingly obvious discrimination (as defined in my post on the recent thread about feminism) is not occuring?

So what does all the above have to do with gaming?

One can write fiction whose elements in one of two modes: allegorical, or simulatory. The former can be disguised as the latter, and often is in good fiction, but the allegory is still easily retrievable with discernment on the part of the reader. Much of the above problem is caused when these two items become muddled (often), usually for political reasons, and allegorical representations are instead created to be, and/or accepted as, simulation.

There is confusion of "what it looks like" with "what it represents" or "what it means."

To avoid this unintentionally, the author or game group must know what they are doing, avoiding this conflict and settling on whether perception is meant as-is, or perception is just a cloak over the real thing.

But as Xero brings up, an outsider may confuse the two items, despite historical roots, despite best intentions of the author -- and it is an unfortunate and common event!

The author or game group can do nothing about this, n o t h i n g, though countless words and criticisms will be expended in chastizing them for "doing it." So what's the author, whether of fiction or game setting, to do when there's nothing he can do?

What I'm doing is calling for greater education of the difference, so as to avoid the nonsense created by those who fail to seperate the allegory from the simulation, or confuse the simulation FOR the allegory. The only way I see to do that is to affect a change in mass culture and thought patterns via education as to the difference.

And that sucks as an answer, because it is untterly beyond your control as an author/creator/individual, but it's the only workable one in existance, because you can't avoid a problem you have no control over -- another person's reaction or internal state.

All you can do is do what you're going to do.

Does that mean I'm supporting racism? Just "be racist...it's ok"?
No, there's a huge difference between ignoring race, and racism. Because your internal attitude is the only thing you have control over, and over whether or not you're being racist -- so you have to do what you're going to do, and if other people accuse you of racism despite this, all you can do is shrug and say, "I'm sorry you see it that way."

EDIT:

Quote from: Doctor XeroIt may not affect the majority of us who post on these fora, but we are also discussing designing games which might appeal to a far broader audience, and sometimes current responsibility trumps historical roots.

I agree about the nature of our responsibility as creators. So here's the question you have to ask yourself: where, as individuals or as authors, does our responsibility for the choices or behaviors of other people begin and end?

Xero...about orcs: Damn right! You've written exactly what I typed out this morning as my response to Gareth about the difference between Alien and the Orc, but I'll post my wording of the same nonetheless.

Quote from: contracycleDiscussion of Tolkien snipped as irrlevant;

If it was irrelevant, I wouldn't have brought it up. Its discussion formed support and required definitions for the point about the mythological, regarding the allegorical function of fictional elements within a narrative structure -- including gaming.

QuoteActually, we are talking about games.

Yes..? And that's what I was talking about, too, you'll note. Orcs, gaming, allegorical representations, better ways to create play utilizing such elements? That was pretty much the focus of my post to which everything else was but supporting premise. So I'm not sure what you're getting at with "actually...etc"?

QuoteFine.  Much the same could be said of the Alien... but the Alien fills its role as monster much more completely, much less ambiguously.  What is it that the Alien cannot do that the Orc can?

The Orc is human, or vaguely so, representing human corruption, rather than a thing or threat from outside which must be survived against. The Orc is a mirror of the dark portion of the human soul, and thus it is not an external threat, but an internal one. The Alien is, by nature, an outsider, an outside force or entity, which seeks to destroy the hero or the hero's culture. The Alien cannot function in the role of the Orc, because it cannot be us.

I appreciate everyone's input in this thread which I had begun.

I would like to ask people to leave the question of whether or not there is an overt or unconscious racism in fantastical races alone for a while (or begin a new thread).

I'm more interested in why[/b] so many of us enjoy having culturally-monolithic fantastical races in our gaming experiences -- what functions the inclusion of races fulfill in terms of narrative, player identification, thematic/metaphoric concern, suspension of disbelief, fidelity to the fantastical genres in literature and/or film, the inclinations of human nature in general, etc.

Might we focus more on the why than on the whether in this thread?  (There's another thread on fantastical races which is more involved in whether they ought be included at all.)

Doctor Xero

[/quote]In the portions I quoted? Well, sure, there's plenty of racist bile in those bits, but it's all directed towards caucasians.[/quote]

Really?  Where?  Or do you mean, any failure to recognise the inherent majesty of caucasians is to be racist toward them?  I see, in the bolded quotes, some really very mild commentary indeed.  The first contains implicit disapproval of the heroic stature given to our heroes, indeed, is that racism?  I can't see how, because Lewis central allegation is that race is part of the symbology of the film.

In none of the quoted, bolded sections does Lewis actually provide an opinion, you'll note.  In the quoted section where she details the ethnicity of the villains in the Matrix, the term 'gloating' is introduced by VDARE as a description of her position.  Is that valid?  Seems to me VDARE are finding what they want to find.  What Lewis does is merely recount... and presumably, they quote this bit because the spiciest and most 'hate-filled' they could find (lol).

VDARES thesis that Lewis disapproves of white people, or the representation of white people in a positive light, is wholly baseless.  And what they spectacularly omit is any remark by Lewis that would undermine the facetious claim they advance: they do not acknowledge that Lewis says: The "Rings" films are like promotional ads for those tired old race and gender paradigms that were all the rage back in author J.R.R. Tolkien's day.", and then go on to castigate her for failing to recognise the historical context in which LOTR was written.  After all, she's just a silly woman, can't be expected to understand what she's blathering on about.

VDARE go on to suggest that the reader "catch her drift" when she recounts the multiethnic composition of the Matrix cast, and claim that: "What they oppose is any positive portrayal of white people. What they like is any production that writes whites out of the picture." While what Lewis SAID was: "Say what you will about the convoluted storyline of the "Matrix" trilogy — at least those films give women and people of color some characters they can relate to."

QuoteThus, keep in mind that I'm quoting bits of the article, not the philosophy of the site it was hosted on, or the political agenda it was written to support. Facts are simply facts.

Did you read Lewis article?  Because I say VDARE have deliberately distorted its content, attributed motive that they sucked out of their thumb, and generally assaulted Lewis while advancing an overtly racist agenda.




They criticise Lewis on the basis that "those "stereotypes" are integral to the complex tale of civilizational struggle that Tolkien was telling, a tale that thoroughly modern multiculturalists would prefer had never seen cold print because it also happens to be the tale of our real civilization."  Well, the British National Party couldn't have put it better: but what they did say at the release of LOTR is that they praised Tolkien for depicting the inevitable race-war brought on by the evils of multiculturalism.  These people clearly are NOT seeing Tolkiens orcs as representative of the proletariat, for one thing.

The article then says: "It's the tale of our real civilization because the kings, warriors and heroes who led us have always been manly men who really were whiter than white, and that just might have had something to do with why they won the struggle against their civilization's enemies, medieval and modern, at all."

So, 'we' we never lead by non-whites... 'we' never had African kingdoms... 'we' never had mesopotamian lords and Chinese Shih... so 'we' must be white Europeans, and Lewis is being castigated for suggesting that perhaps 'we', in the modern world, are not all white.  What a terrible, terrible crime, for which she should clearly be tarred and feathered and run out of town.  Furthermore, VDARE are horribly offended that Lewis might actually approve that: "For once, the major female characters in an action film aren't whimpering and waiting to be rescued by some steroid-laden Schwarzenegger-type.   For once, all of the major characters of color aren't lying in a heap of corpses as the credits start to roll. "  My god, its Political Correctness gone MAAAAAAAD.

QuoteI'm guessing you would label her a racist as well, because she agrees with the overall content of the article?

Of course.

QuoteI do note that you are completely unshocked and unfazed by the statements made in the article about caucasians depicted as heroes, or rather how these "anti-racists" believe white men deserve to be depicted as villians.

Quite right – because now you are distorting what Lewis is saying.  Lewis does not claim that whites 'deserve' to be treated as villains.  She is carrying out a systematic comparison and contrast of the approaches to ethnicity in each film and concludes by saying "To my African American female eyes, the biggest difference between "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix" isn't swords vs. automatic weapons, or low-tech vs. high-tech. It's the patriarchy of the past versus the Rainbow Coalition of the future."  She does not claim that whites SHOULD be villains anywhere – that is a projection, a motive attributed to her.  On the strength of this article, It is a baseless lie.

QuoteAre you saying that you agree with Miss Lewis, then? That caucasians are a villianous, imperious people fit only for the role of villians in film and literature, and should never be portrayed as the hero because (for some unexplainable reason) that's just wrong and terrible? That white people suck? That their culture has nothing of value?

As I have just demonstrated, Lewis does not make this claim at all, anywhere.  By all means see for yourself – Lewis article was linked from VDARE.  And this is exactly where VDARES racist agenda becomes overt: it's a naked attempt at character assassination of someone who approves of multiculturalism.  False motives have been maliciously attributed; she has been selectively quoted (and not very well at that); highly emotive terms are used to draw conclusions about Lewis' personal psychology.  I can certainly say that I agree with Lewis in all particulars and that this in no sense constitutes an opinion that whites are evil, or European culture valueless.

QuoteI'm sorry, but that's racist, too, Gareth.

It might be if that were what Lewis or I were saying, but it is not.

QuoteWhere's all the ranting and incensed howling, the endless words devoted to racism that doesn't involve white men? I don't see one of these "watchdog" places complaining about how there's not enough white men in a Spike Lee movie, or in popular asian films like "Crouching Tiger."

Quite obviously not - for there is not much history of anti-white prejudice in American media or European media more generally.  There is no African equivalent of Friday, the African man conveniently washed up on a desert island to be Robinson Crusoe's personal servant, for example.

QuoteBecause the undercurrent to all the "pointing out of bigotry" is that white men can never be the hero or the focus, because that's "racist" or not "multicultural" in every single instance it occurs.

[
Nonsense I'm afraid; what Lewis quite clearly expressed approval of is that the Matrix did not conform to stereotype as closely as LOTR did.  The allegation that this constitutes the claim that whites can never be the good guys is absurd and malicious.

QuoteAnd I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that multiculturalism meant "Everyone else's culture but mine."  Folks will boo and decry that all they want, but it's nothing more and nothing less than the truth.

Except, it is NOT the truth in any way shape or form.  Its poisonous racist ranting.

QuoteGareth, how is gleeful enjoyment of the tearing apart and degredation of anyone white not racist?

It would be if that were happening, but seeing as it is not happening, the question is moot.

QuoteHow is dissecting a classic piece of heroic literature, "..." not racist? How is that, in any way, "building up"?

I cannot see how dissecting any literature, heroic, classic, or otherwise, constitutes racism.  And the criticism levelled at LOTR is so levelled only to contrast it against the strong (and IMO positive) multiculturalism of the Matrix.  I mean for gods sake, all she said was that she found the latter more satisfying!!

QuotePerhaps, Gareth, you'd like me to make Odin or Thor dark-skinned? Just change the whole mythology because it isn't "multicultural" enough? How about we make Jesus not a Jew any longer, since him being a white guy is not PC enough? Or him being a Jew is too controversial?

That's ridiculous I'm afraid.  As I have already pointed out, Lewis allows that Tolkien was a creature of his period and does not level any criticism at him, or the makers of the film.  There is no suggestion that Tolkien should be changed or that LOTR is a poor film.  As for Jesus, there's a long tradition of people making him look like themselves, so in Africa you certainly find depictions of a black Jesus with African features, and in Scandinavia you find depictions of a very Nordic Jesus.

QuoteAs I said, if color doesn't matter, if what we look like doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. You can proclaim the evils of depictions based on skin color, and simply reinforce the prevalent attitudes that race actually does matter, or you can ignore race as irrelevant and treat it as such, thus making it so. You've obviously decided that it does matter, and are reacting to situations as though it does. That, to me, is the height of racism.

A ridiculous assertion.  Then equally, we should not have doctors, because if we just treat cancer as irrelevant, it will go away.  And if we just ignore crime, it will go away, so clearly the police are redundant.  This is a completely fatuous argument.  Yes of course race *matters*, and racism is certainly a real thing that I believe should be confronted and destroyed.  Your argument depends on exactly the jumping of strange intellectual hoops and searching for it that you decry; if I confront really existing racism, that does not in any way validates the racists claim that people have inherent qualities related directly to their skin colour.

QuoteAfter all, if you act as though racism doesn't exist, how can it?

Uh, very easily.  That's how racism exists – its implicit, approved, and nobody challenges it, so it goes on and on.

QuoteYeah, naive of me. But frankly, never having been immersed in a home culture where a person's skin color was important, I never paid it any mind. Call me racist if you want, Gareth, but I'm the one who doesn't see skin color. I don't see racism in the Phantom Menace, in drow and orcs, in gnomes, and so forth.

Well, I can understand that to an extent.  But I have to say, that saying that you do not apply stereotypes to people based on their colour does not imply that NOBODY ELSE does so.  So while YOU may not have been aware of the offensive caricature in Jar Jar Binks, many other people were.  Its not really legitimate for you to say that just because you are unaware of the history of that trope of parody that therefore you absolutely know that it was unintentional; that is not a given.  That's just an argumentum ad ignorantum; 'because I do not know it, it must be false'.

QuoteLike I said, the Tao supports this idea fully -- that problems are often created and sustained by their regulation. Consider the situation of sex crimes...if sex isn't considered a dirty thing, the number of sex crimes which actually occur (according to our definition of such) in that culture goes down considerably. Not "they aren't reported" or "they aren't considered such" but "they don't happen," literally. Ignoring the issue (not the problem) causes it to vanish.

But you are slipping from 'pretending race does not exist' (which is a contentious issue anyway on good scientific grounds) to 'pretending racism doesn't exist'.  One does not follow from the other.  I agree to a large extent with your claim here as it regards sex crimes, but I think the Taos analysis simplistic and trivial and I allocate the symptom it correctly describes to other causes.

QuoteExactly. If orcs are X, but not to a racist reader, it must all be perception, meaning that orcs don't mean anything, and the true responsibility for "racism" lies solely in the lap of the individual, not in the film, literature, or other media in which it is supposedly portrayed or reinforced.

Well, granted.  But LOTR was not accused of hate speech, but of being Eurocentric.  And that's a legitimate point in my book, because it provides validation for the racists view.  I think that the BNP are being very opportunistic in claiming that Tolkiens vision is that of a race war in the real world: but seeing as we know this perception does exist, and this kind of interpretation, howewer twisted, will be made, it therefore seems a good idea to consciously attempt to undermine it by presenting media in which the counter-point is made.  And therefore, it seems entirely legitimate to me to praise the multiculturalism in the Matrix.  What I cannot see is why doing so in any way constitutes reverse discrimination.

QuoteTo avoid this unintentionally, the author or game group must know what they are doing, avoiding this conflict and settling on whether perception is meant as-is, or perception is just a cloak over the real thing.

I agree completely

QuoteThe author or game group can do nothing about this, n o t h i n g, though countless words and criticisms will be expended in chastizing them for "doing it." So what's the author, whether of fiction or game setting, to do when there's nothing he can do?

No, I completely disagree.  If we know that this can and will happen, then it's rather irresponsible to cater or pander to it, in my view.  What we CAN DO is stop having a race-based dynamic in RPG for no reason but tradition and which provides serious grist for the racist mill in our little subculture.  We can, in other words, take responsibility for our output.

QuoteNo, there's a huge difference between ignoring race, and racism. Because your internal attitude is the only thing you have control over, and over whether or not you're being racist -- so you have to do what you're going to do, and if other people accuse you of racism despite this, all you can do is shrug and say, "I'm sorry you see it that way."

Hmm, actually I have a whole battery of arguments to attack the idea that you can necessarily exert control over your internal attitude, but be that as it may, I agree that there is a huge difference between ignoring race, and racism, but also a huge difference between both of these and ignoring racism.  And I would further contend, that if we are going to normalise the idea – as is the default – that RPG commonly includes race as a central concept, and commonly assigns characteristics and attributes to race, then I cannot see how we can legitimately defend against accusations that this continues to propagate a very high degree of interest in race.  Many RPG's are the very opposite of what you describe as ignoring race, because they make race such a strong feature of play.  Why?  Fair  enough, it may not be maliciously deliberate, it may just be a lazy reproduction of sub-Tolkienesque tropes, but that is not really an adequate response AFAIAC.

Gareth, while I'd love to continue this debate with you, Xero has asked that these matters be moved elsewhere, and I believe we should respect that -- You failed your courtesy roll, man.

Xero, in answer to why -- I'm guessing I was going about more "how" in my responses -- but I think my "why" is lurking in there too, amidst the material about allegory and myth.

So, why do I like other races, why do I want to play them?
For reasons of the Inner Allegory, or the Myth. If I just want to play someone with another personality, I can choose a human any day. But races get used to make thematic statements about the inner world...they're a mythological anchor representing a part in a myth as something other than self.

It's a chance to examine human society, in all its complexity, from the outside. That may explain why I like my non-human races...non-human. When human social issues or traits get ported onto them, or when they aren't anything but humans of a different sort, I become uninterested.

For example, "Native American" elves, or racism between elven groups...big whoop. What can I do there that I can't with...a tribal human? Nothing. Elves have to be more than long-lived and pointy-eared, or long-lived, pointy-eared and evil to gain my interest.

They're immortal, they're spirits of "faerie" and nature, whatever that might mean. Dwarves aren't just grumpy craftsmen or warriors, they're representational of tools, or the art of craft itself. That's way more interesting, and it makes statements that you can't get with just men.

What I'm thinking now is that this doesn't work for some people because of the confusion of allegory for simulation, or even the desire for simulation instead of allegory. Folks who want detailed non-human cultures and psychological profiles on their elves and dwarves, more importantly, who want to be able to experience "what it's like to be an elf." They want to be immersed in the "inhuman's culture."

That doesn't mesh with what I'm talking about, though, because "what it's like to be an elf" doesn't matter at all.

I don't know if that is making sense to anyone but me?

Well, Rev, it's making sense to me.

In reading these posts over the last few days, I had a somewhat shocking realization about all this.

I have never thought of orcs as being dark skinned. Ever.

I've read Tolkien's books several times, and although I've imagined them as brutish, dark was not part of the vision. I thought the pictures in the OAD&D Monster Manual were goofy, but they don't seem dark-skinned there, either. I realize in retrospect that they were dark-skinned (or at least many of them were) in the movie, but it didn't catch my attention at the time.

What makes this the more odd is that I developed a "post fantasy" setting, and ran it several times, in which the orcs were clearly being used as a means of addressing racism, and one that cut close to home. They lived in jungles. They were tribal-based hunter-gatherers. Their technology was primitive. Their religions and morals were very foreign to modern conceptions. They warred among themselves. Humans, elves, and dwarfs were enslaving them. I knew when I put this together that I was using the orcs to address slavery and racism quite directly, and that my players were going to be faced with it rather head on.

Yet never once in all that did I envision orcs as dark skinned or having negroid characteristics. In my mind, they are related to elves, and thus are generally pale. Humans can be dark skinned; none of the other races in that game world have that possibility.

I never described them as such; it didn't occur to me that anyone would picture orcs as dark-skinned. Probably I should address that before it goes to print.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: Doctor XeroI'm more interested in why[/b] so many of us enjoy having culturally-monolithic fantastical races in our gaming experiences -- what functions the inclusion of races fulfill in terms of narrative, player identification, thematic/metaphoric concern, suspension of disbelief, fidelity to the fantastical genres in literature and/or film, the inclinations of human nature in general, etc.  

Well, to the extent that I have fantastical races in my games, it tends to be allegory for real-world cultural and racial issues.  For example, I had a long Star Trek campaign which dealt with Klingon interactions -- and it was clear that the clashes were allegorical for various issues of war and imperialism in the real world.  The same thing was true for my Tolkien-in-the-Old-West games, which were thematically about racism.  As I see it, by exaggerating and changing details, one can examine the issues separate from specific real-world cases.

Quote from: M. J. YoungWell, Rev, it's making sense to me.

In reading these posts over the last few days, I had a somewhat shocking realization about all this.

I have never thought of orcs as being dark skinned. Ever.

I've read Tolkien's books several times, and although I've imagined them as brutish, dark was not part of the vision. I thought the pictures in the OAD&D Monster Manual were goofy, but they don't seem dark-skinned there, either. I realize in retrospect that they were dark-skinned (or at least many of them were) in the movie, but it didn't catch my attention at the time.

Actually, I think orcs are usually depicted as being green, at least in D&D.  So this is very bigoted against green people, IMO.

I realize now I overlooked another possibility, and one which I think influences a lot of players who enjoy playing members of other "races": playing pretend.

There is a joy in being a different creature than human.  In real life, I can be a human all I want, and a strong human is not that different from me, really.  But there's an automatic playing pretend feel to playing a sentient fox, a pookah, an elf, a walking tree, or any other such creature.

I think it's too easy for us to underestimate the sheer power of the joy of playing pretend in one of the few hobbies in which someone over the age of ten years old can play pretend without feeling ridiculous!  (This may be true not only for RPGs but for medieval faire/renaissance faire, amateur theatre, Mardi Gras/New Year's Eve/Hallowe'en costume extravaganzas, and even amateur drag shows!  And you will notice the more flamboyant performances in all of these generally come from the same age groups.)

Doctor Xero

Quote from: Scourge108
Actually, I think orcs are usually depicted as being green, at least in D&D.  So this is very bigoted against green people, IMO.

Going through the editions on my bookshelf 1st - Brown or brownish green with a blue tinge, 2nd - grayish green, 3rd - outright gray.

I tend to blame games workshop for the proliferation of vividly green orcs :)

Well, they were all green in the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series.  When I first saw their picture in the old b&w Monster Manual, I pictured them as being pink like a pig (since they had a pig head).

Quote from: Scourge108Well, they were all green in the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series.  When I first saw their picture in the old b&w Monster Manual, I pictured them as being pink like a pig (since they had a pig head).

FWIW, I always pictured them as being pale though, not in a Caucasian way. Rather, Orcs were pale in a splotchy "Gawd, what happened to your face?" way.
Of course, I don't use them much these days anyway.

Just a thought:
This has become a very heated discussion about racism in fantasy games. I find this sort of ironic, since I tend to like "real world settings"-old west, victorian, prohibition era, interwar years, etc. Race, ethnicity, gender, class, orientation, all that stuff, is an integral part of the settings. Yet, strangely, I don't see gamers who game in these settings having quite the same trauma over the issues that fantasy gamers do. Why is that?

Quote from: komradebobJust a thought:
This has become a very heated discussion about racism in fantasy games. I find this sort of ironic, since I tend to like "real world settings"-old west, victorian, prohibition era, interwar years, etc. Race, ethnicity, gender, class, orientation, all that stuff, is an integral part of the settings. Yet, strangely, I don't see gamers who game in these settings having quite the same trauma over the issues that fantasy gamers do. Why is that?

People are weird?
Seriously though, I'd imagine (no statistics to back this up mind you) that those who game in those historical settings have, for the most part, resolved how they're going to address the race issues of the time in question well before play starts. Historical racism is plainly visible to the early 21st century audience (know-nothings and italian immigrants, for example). In a fantasy setting, it's a little more likely to sneak up on people.

Quote from: Argetlamh

Quote from: komradebobThis has become a very heated discussion about racism in fantasy games. I find this sort of ironic, since I tend to like "real world settings"-old west, victorian, prohibition era, interwar years, etc. Race, ethnicity, gender, class, orientation, all that stuff, is an integral part of the settings. Yet, strangely, I don't see gamers who game in these settings having quite the same trauma over the issues that fantasy gamers do. Why is that?

Seriously though, I'd imagine (no statistics to back this up mind you) that those who game in those historical settings have, for the most part, resolved how they're going to address the race issues of the time in question well before play starts. Historical racism is plainly visible to the early 21st century audience (know-nothings and italian immigrants, for example). In a fantasy setting, it's a little more likely to sneak up on people.

First of all, welcome to the Forge, Argetlamh!!   The local etiquette is to sign with your first name, by the way, though that is a request rather than a requirement.  

As far as other genres, I tend to agree with you.  For example, in my experience, Western RPGs have been totally up-front with the issue of racism.  The Western genre games that I have played in featured this prominently, by features like having black and immigrant as PCs.  These days, there is no controversy in suggesting that the traditional Western genre is racist, and games have to deal with that up-front.  However, as this thread has shown, the question of whether the traditional fantasy genre involves racism is still hotly debated.

Quote from: komradebobJust a thought:
This has become a very heated discussion about racism in fantasy games. I find this sort of ironic, since I tend to like "real world settings"-old west, victorian, prohibition era, interwar years, etc. Race, ethnicity, gender, class, orientation, all that stuff, is an integral part of the settings. Yet, strangely, I don't see gamers who game in these settings having quite the same trauma over the issues that fantasy gamers do. Why is that?

I've found that the extra removal from reality offered by fantasy makes racism within it more obvious for two other reasons not already addressed, both of which come in part from the surefire destructiveness of being labeled a "racist" regardless of whether the charge is legitimate or merely absurd mudslinging libel/slander.

First, the distancing allows people to notice the racism without those social filters which come from guilt over possible participation within a racist social system or come from frustration about current failures to eliminate racism and protect victims of racism.  Social filters also come from a fear of the potency of the label "racist", involving a desire to avoid simplistic blame games and the resulting protocols against discussing such things to avoid implications of blame games.  Listen to people during discussions which touch on real world racism, and one will notice how much people avoid the topic out of an innocent desire to avoid the considerable discomfort concomitant with it.

Second, racism in the real world is historical (and current) fact whereas racism in a fantasy world is, within the limits of verisimilitude and identification issues, allegedly the choice of the designer.  If one runs an accurate game taking place in historical pre-Civil War Alabama, racism in the game earns one praise for historical verisimilitude rather than earning one blame for the existence of racism during that time period.  Historical fact defends one from damning labels.  However, if one runs a fantasy campaign brewed in one's own imagination, racism (or sexism or whatever) is considered one's fault unless one can justify its use in terms of theme, genre, tradition, or somesuch.  Otherwise, one risks the label of "racist" with all the discredit and dismissal it entails, discredit and dismissal which usually negate any hope of ever rebutting the label however spurious (or accurate) it may be.

Doctor Xero

For myself, I've got multiple reasons for including non-human races in my game.

One is purely for the fun of it. I like little short people, and big tall strong people, and stocky wide people with bad tempers (especially the latter as they most resemble me).
Fantasy races give a certain message, I think. I could do a fantasy game with only humans (or one with no humans for that matter) but it would not be the same game. So inclusion of Halflings and Elves and Dwarves, and Giants...says "Hey, here's a game about Halflings and Elves and Dwarves and Giants. Naturally if you don't like those races, you won't want to play it. But if you do like them, then here's something you might like to check out.

A second reason is actually to be a little experimental. I have the delusion that I can take old, tired, cliched fantasy races and do something just a little bit different than usual. So my inclusion of fantasy races is something of an experiment in humanizing them. To make them more "realistic" reflections of different human cultures.

I'm also frankly using them as protective camoflage. With a fantasy race, I can paint in broad strokes, using sterotype as inspiration to define racial, cultural, and societal factors. I can use them to parody reality without (hopefully) being as offensive as I would trying to recreate actual cultures. It is rather difficult to define a culture or society without either using stereotype, or writing a much longer book than I intend to. If I were to try and represent human cultures using sterotype, then I know very well I would be accused of racism.  There isn't a doubt in my mind. I could write up my own culture and I'd be called a racist. I strongly expect, in the tense politically correct climate existing these days, that I may be accused anyway, but at least I'll have a defense. Sadly intent is not an adequate defense for such accusations, as it seems that a person can be labeled a racist in the eyes of the beholder regardless of any personal racist tendencies.

But the biggest reason? I just like them.

One more point regarding komradebob's question:

Portraying blacks (or substitute any real-world racial or ethnic minority) as persecuted or discriminated against in a fantasy world: racist! It's like saying the persecution or discrimination is inevitable -- or worse, that it's in some sense correct. (Such a portrayal might be justifiable, though, if the purpose is explicitly to explore issues of racial equality.)

Portraying blacks as treated with full equality in a fantasy world: racist! It's a way of pretending racism doesn't exist, which is what allows real-world racism to continue.

Not portraying blacks at all in a fantasy world: racist! It's tantamount to claiming that the ethnic groups that are portrayed in the fantasy world are representative of all humans. Or worse, revealing a secret wish that the unrepresented group(s) didn't exist.

The same bind isn't so tight for historical settings, in which the first complaint is nullified as Argetlamh described. Nor for futuristic settings, in which the second complaint is nullified because one can claim to be projecting an optimistic (in that one regard, at least) future.

Note that if one buys into these arguments, the only possible non-racist fantasy RPG play is play that explicitly focuses on issues of race.

As I don't particularly enjoy RPG play that explicitly focuses on issues of race, my choices are to not play or design fantasy games, or play or design them in a manner that some people are going to perceive as racist. So, tough shit.

- Walt

Walt, well freaking said.

Quote from: John Kim
First of all, welcome to the Forge, Argetlamh!!   The local etiquette is to sign with your first name, by the way, though that is a request rather than a requirement.

Of course. Idiot. My name is Dan. I quite unthinking chose the moniker simply because it is the same handle I use on RPGnet. I just hope I can make myself useful around here.  

-Dan Vince

Quote from: madelfI'm also frankly using them as protective camoflage. With a fantasy race, I can paint in broad strokes, using sterotype as inspiration to define racial, cultural, and societal factors. I can use them to parody reality without (hopefully) being as offensive as I would trying to recreate actual cultures. It is rather difficult to define a culture or society without either using stereotype, or writing a much longer book than I intend to. If I were to try and represent human cultures using sterotype, then I know very well I would be accused of racism.  There isn't a doubt in my mind. I could write up my own culture and I'd be called a racist.

OK, here's the key.  You define this as "protective camouflage" -- but I think at least a significant fraction of people here don't consider this to be the blanket protection you claim.  i.e. They see having dumb, evil orcs as being no different in principle than having dumb, evil whites or dumb, evil asians.  None of these three are a priori bad -- but they all raise issues of race and make statements about race.  The issue is, what statement are they making?  In my opinion, that isn't deterministic from simple facts like skin color of the dumb, evil race.  

I see a lot of frustration with this concept.  You would like to have a simple approach -- requiring little effort or rethinking -- such that then you are "safe" from accusations of racism, so you can get on with your game.  Unfortunately, I can't offer that.  Regardless of whether your race has black skin, or pointed ears, or pig noses -- your approach, as you yourself defined it, is stereotypes based on race.  This inherently has a message about real-world racial issues.  What that message is depends on how you handle the material.  

There is no simple formula for message.  For example, take the website Black People Love Us.  I consider it ingenious and informative about race.  But there are people who complain about it simply being racist.  Conversely, I can easily imagine a very similar website which really is racist and horrible.  People will have different opinions, and their opinions will be based on different

Quote from: madelfI strongly expect, in the tense politically correct climate existing these days, that I may be accused anyway, but at least I'll have a defense. Sadly intent is not an adequate defense for such accusations, as it seems that a person can be labeled a racist in the eyes of the beholder regardless of any personal racist tendencies.  

Well, if we had perfect telepathy and could see everything in people's minds, then I'm sure that intent would be an adequate defense.  However, in the real world, pretty much everyone claims to not be racist these days -- even if they display behaviors which others could clearly categorize as racist.  So no, I don't accept that simply typing in the words "I'm not a racist" means that there is no racism in that person's work, even if he genuinely believes that he isn't racist.  

Ultimately, I would say don't worry about what some random person would say about your game.  However, you should think at least a bit about the issue for yourself.  What do you think about race, and what do you think your game says about race?  Do you think that substituting in real-world races for fantasy races would change the message of your game?  If so, why?

My 2 cents:

Do straight, working class, white boys ( like myself) actually benefit from defending the ugly "isms" of the world? Seriously. I don't see where I've ever gotten ahead by any of them existing. Rich white boys, sure; the people with their hands on the levers of power, get hell loads of benefits. Blue collar guys get nothing but misery from one side and empty, bullshit promises and the privilege to be used as thugs and catspaws from the other.  

I'd like to see some design that takes that into account.

Ironically, the people who jump into these debates on the "non-oppressed" side are generally those people that might actually question whether they really do agree with the premises behind the "ism" in question. Inevitably, they end up with a sort of "seige mentality" from which it is imfamously hard to extricate themselves.

The folks that actually do benefit from realworld racism/sexism/etc. must laugh like hell to see people who probably would thrive as allies tearing each other apart.

Robert

Quote from: John Kim
OK, here's the key.  You define this as "protective camouflage" -- but I think at least a significant fraction of people here don't consider this to be the blanket protection you claim.  i.e. They see having dumb, evil orcs as being no different in principle than having dumb, evil whites or dumb, evil asians.  None of these three are a priori bad -- but they all raise issues of race and make statements about race.  The issue is, what statement are they making?  In my opinion, that isn't deterministic from simple facts like skin color of the dumb, evil race.

Just keep in mind, you're talking about a dumb, evil race.
I tend more to the concept of dumb, evil people regardless of race. And of course, who is dumb and evil is often a question of which side you're on. I prefer to play with the gray areas more than the blacks and whites. In my writings, the bad guy is usually quite certain he's the good guy. I figure there are very few people who embrace evil for evil's sake. Certainly not whole societies. But evil acts have been commited on that level in our world, why not in a fictional one.
But good and evil are not the issues I'm talking about regarding fantasy races.

With that out of the way, count me among the people who don't consider my camouflage to be blanket protection. I've got fantasy races in my game that are far more derivitive of real world stereotypes than they are of traditional fantasy races. I intend to acknowledge this fact, in writing, in the book. I am confortably certain that someone somewhere is going to be offended and call me a racist. I'm okay with that really. It's happened before, it probably will again.
What I'm hoping to do by the protective camouflage (probably not the best term for it, but accurate enough for now) is have something to point to and say to these people "Look folks, this is inspired by a stereotype of a culture or race. It is not the race, a representation of the race, or a reflection on the race. It is simply a plot device, a basis for creating a fictional group of beings. So get a life."

To clarify, I'll give an example. (and one that's from a part of my own, mixed, ancestry) There's a race in my setting that is based on a stereotype of the Irish people. They're a basically good-natured and friendly folk, tending toward red hair and short stature, with hot tempers, and a love of fighting. They also have a tendency to partake of more alcoholic beverages than is probably good for them. They are violently divided over religious issues and are engaged in a covert war against the larger nation who governs them. These are my halflings. Although these halflings are indeed based on a very small and narrow stereotype of the Irish, they are not the Irish. I could not in good conscience claim that they are Irish, because they do not reflect the whole of the diverse culture of Ireland, and the Irish people.
I am comfortable with arguing that I am not racist in my depiction of halflings. If I was using this stereotype to actually portray the real people of Ireland, I would not be at all comfortable with making that same claim.

QuoteI see a lot of frustration with this concept.  You would like to have a simple approach -- requiring little effort or rethinking -- such that then you are "safe" from accusations of racism, so you can get on with your game.  Unfortunately, I can't offer that.  Regardless of whether your race has black skin, or pointed ears, or pig noses -- your approach, as you yourself defined it, is stereotypes based on race.  This inherently has a message about real-world racial issues.  What that message is depends on how you handle the material.

It's not about a simple approach, it's about being realistic. I maintain that it is impossible to define a culture within the limited scope of a game book, in any manner other than as a stereotype. Any "purely fictional" culture is going to be influenced by the writer's understanding of real world culture whether intentional or not. It can't be helped, it's the only world we know. I'm just facing that fact with complete honesty and accepting that my fictional world is a parody of our own.
But the important thing to remember is that it is a work of fiction. It's not the real world. There's no deep meaningful statement about our times, or any other. It is what it is. In my world, the humans of the Empire of Hanor look down on the Halflings they rule, considering them a lower class than themselves. That's what the Hanorans do to the Halflings. Now, as it happens, that's actually pretty close to the way England historically looked at Ireland. But if someone looks at my game and sees it as an endorsement of that attitude in the real world...then they're the ones with the problem.
I know what I'm saying, and I'm not making any meaningful statement about real world racial issues (except perhaps that they exist and would be a part of any world with diverse cultures, real or fictional). If someone wants to deal with that issue, look around at the real world. Don't look in my book. My book deals with fictional people and fictional relationships between them.
If people want to read something else into it, then there's very little I can do about it.
 

QuoteSo no, I don't accept that simply typing in the words "I'm not a racist" means that there is no racism in that person's work, even if he genuinely believes that he isn't racist.  

I believe that it does mean exactly that. Another person cannot determine whether or not I am racist. My own, personal feelings in regards to people of other races is the only valid measurement of my racism.
This is why I really don't like the concept of "politically correct". It puts too much weight on people to understand what others want and feel. I can't know what innocent action or comment may upset someone who's culture I am unfamiliar with. I don't feel I'm old, but even appropriate terminology for refering to specific races or cultures has changed in my lifetime. Drastically. Terms that were supposedly the preference when I was growing up are now insults. And I'm expected to keep up with all that.
No. Intent should be the defining issue of racism. If I intend to racially demean or insult you by something I do or say, then I am a racist. If I do not intend to do such a thing then I am not a racist.
If I accept everyone on an equal basis in my own heart and mind, and judge everyone on the basis of that person as an individual, then I am not a racist regardless of how many people are inadvertently offended by my actions or words, and regardless of how many people try and accuse me of being a racist.
You cannot make a person a racist by believing that they are one.

QuoteUltimately, I would say don't worry about what some random person would say about your game.  However, you should think at least a bit about the issue for yourself.  What do you think about race, and what do you think your game says about race?  Do you think that substituting in real-world races for fantasy races would change the message of your game?  If so, why?

What I think about race?
I think it is over-rated. It's a collection of physical traits dependent on region of ancestral origin. Certainly there are physical differences between races. The differences are minimal, but they are there. Skin color, average height & build, hair and eye color...can all be affected by race. Lots of different races mean there are lots of different people, simple as that. If all race was used for is a descriptive reference, wouldn't that be nice? But people being what they are have to make it more than it is. They get proud of it, and defensive about it, and start fights over it. It's almost as bad as religion.
If my game says anything at all about race, I hope that's the message. That there are all kinds of people. Some short, some tall, some with pointed ears...in the end, they're all people. Even if not everyone realizes it yet.

Would the message change if I used real-world races? No.
But I'd bet money that the perceived message probably would. If only because people would be less likely to think of it as a fictional game setting and try to overthink what it's trying to say.

Quote from: madelfWhat I'm hoping to do by the protective camouflage (probably not the best term for it, but accurate enough for now) is have something to point to and say to these people "Look folks, this is inspired by a stereotype of a culture or race. It is not the race, a representation of the race, or a reflection on the race. It is simply a plot device, a basis for creating a fictional group of beings. So get a life."

To clarify, I'll give an example. (and one that's from a part of my own, mixed, ancestry) There's a race in my setting that is based on a stereotype of the Irish people....

I would consider this a silly reason.  If you think that it makes a difference for yourself, then you should change it.  But I wouldn't design for those hypothetical people -- and anyhow chances are they aren't going to be swayed by this sort of name change.  i.e. Making the race in your game short and call them "halflings" instead of "Irish" doesn't change anything, to my mind at least.  It is still fiction, regardless of what name you use for it.  Unless you are claiming that it is an accurate portrayal, I understand it to be allegory rather than attempt at fact.  

Quote from: madelf

Quote from: John KimI see a lot of frustration with this concept.  You would like to have a simple approach -- requiring little effort or rethinking -- such that then you are "safe" from accusations of racism, so you can get on with your game.  Unfortunately, I can't offer that.  Regardless of whether your race has black skin, or pointed ears, or pig noses -- your approach, as you yourself defined it, is stereotypes based on race.  This inherently has a message about real-world racial issues.  What that message is depends on how you handle the material.

It's not about a simple approach, it's about being realistic. I maintain that it is impossible to define a culture within the limited scope of a game book, in any manner other than as a stereotype. Any "purely fictional" culture is going to be influenced by the writer's understanding of real world culture whether intentional or not. It can't be helped, it's the only world we know. I'm just facing that fact with complete honesty and accepting that my fictional world is a parody of our own.
But the important thing to remember is that it is a work of fiction. It's not the real world. There's no deep meaningful statement about our times, or any other.

Well, I agree that regardless of whether it is "fictional" or not, long or short, a work will be influenced by stereotypes.  The question is what you do with those stereotypes.  As for your latter statement, I'm not sure I follow.  Are you saying that fiction by definition cannot have deep meaningful statements, because it isn't real???  If so I completely disagree.  Fiction does have meaning -- just that it's meaning is in theme and allegory and metaphor, rather than presentation of facts.  What I am saying is that a token change of the name or color of a race does little to change the allegory.  

Quote from: madelfWhat I think about race?
I think it is over-rated. It's a collection of physical traits dependent on region of ancestral origin. Certainly there are physical differences between races. The differences are minimal, but they are there. Skin color, average height & build, hair and eye color...can all be affected by race. Lots of different races mean there are lots of different people, simple as that. If all race was used for is a descriptive reference, wouldn't that be nice? But people being what they are have to make it more than it is. They get proud of it, and defensive about it, and start fights over it. It's almost as bad as religion.
If my game says anything at all about race, I hope that's the message.  

OK, here we start to get down to brass tacks.  You would like to convey this message.  Do you think your approach of taking real-world racial stereotypes as the basis for fantasy races helps convey this message?  I'm having a little trouble connecting the approach you describe and the message you would like to convey.  Do you really want it to be a parody, to show how silly racial stereotypes are?  If so, doesn't the "protective camouflage" weaken the force of the point?

Quote from: Walt Freitag
Note that if one buys into these arguments, the only possible non-racist fantasy RPG play is play that explicitly focuses on issues of race.

Oh come on, thats just plain ridiculous.  The simple mechanical fact of inserting race does not inherently make it racist - there is some inspecting of tone and context to be done first, you know.

Quote from: madelfThere's a race in my setting that is based on a stereotype of the Irish people.

...

Quote
They're a basically good-natured and friendly folk, tending toward red hair and short stature, with hot tempers, and a love of fighting.

...

Quote
I am comfortable with arguing that I am not racist in my depiction of halflings. If I was using this stereotype to actually portray the real people of Ireland, I would not be at all comfortable with making that same claim.

But you are clearly expecting your audience to get the comparison, to realise the stereotype.  Its a stereotype, which you know and openly admit.  you are consciously reproducingh that stereiotype, thus perpetuating it in the material culture we inhabit.  So I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on, really,

Now we get to the slighlty more interesting apologetics:

Quote
It's not about a simple approach, it's about being realistic. I maintain that it is impossible to define a culture within the limited scope of a game book, in any manner other than as a stereotype.

Well then, why do it at all?  If you freely admit that you cannot acheive a real cultural description, and that to fit it in you have to botch the job, then why use them at all?  Why not just (horror!) use humans and skip the whole problem of trying to define multiple cultures, concentrating more finely?  It is your decision to introduce this idea, this trope, of the direct relationship between descent and personality characteristics or modes of behaviour.  You are going out of your way to draw this distinction through a particular dramatic device.  And, as an artist is always responsible for their own weak, appeals to ignorance or innocence are pretty much futile.

There is no particular reason you HAVE to have fantasy races.  Thus you CHOSE to have them, and anything your work says or implies about them is your cross to bear.  If the audience does not like what it sees, that is your problem, not theirs.

Quote
Any "purely fictional" culture is going to be influenced by the writer's understanding of real world culture whether intentional or not.

Indeed so.  But then again, your work is not "purely fictional" if it is consiously reproducing a hostile stereotype of the Irish, and relies on the audiences familiarity with that stereotype.  Why not go all the way and call 'em bog-trotters?  This is NOT a wholly fictional construction at all, and so to appeal to artistic license is invalid.

Quote
If people want to read something else into it, then there's very little I can do about it.

Nope, it would seem to me that I'm criticising exactly what you consciously set out to produce, and are subsequently defending.
 

QuoteAnother person cannot determine whether or not I am racist. My own, personal feelings in regards to people of other races is the only valid measurement of my racism.

Nope, your "feelings" are unmeasurable, the only MEASURABLE thing is your behaviour.  Whic is exactly why appeals to wehat your intent was when you did X or Y are at best of very low value and at worst counterproductive.  At best, your self-declared intent probably cannot be conveyed to the bulk of your buyers, who will draw their own concousions from the actual product that ships.

Quote
This is why I really don't like the concept of "politically correct".

The old straw man rides again...

Quote
No. Intent should be the defining issue of racism. If I intend to racially demean or insult you by something I do or say, then I am a racist. If I do not intend to do such a thing then I am not a racist.

Bollocks, I'm afraid.  Because equally, people can quite firmly believe that people are inherently different, of different degrees of perfection, and should live separately and not inter-marry, WITHOUT that implying that they also hate and violate.  It's just rare.  But your self-diagnosed intent is basically valueless special pleading.

Quote
You cannot make a person a racist by believing that they are one.

And you cannot excuse racism by failing to recognise it, if that is what it is.

Quote
If my game says anything at all about race, I hope that's the message. That there are all kinds of people. Some short, some tall, some with pointed ears...in the end, they're all people. Even if not everyone realizes it yet.

Ah, but we also know that if the person is hort and red-headed, they'll be up for a fight and a whiskey afterward, don't we?

QuoteUnless you are claiming that it is an accurate portrayal, I understand it to be allegory rather than attempt at fact.

Unfortunately I don't assume that everyone will be so discerning. I believe the fantasy race "filter" may serve the purpose of slapping the denser reader in the face with the fact that this is not real

QuoteAre you saying that fiction by definition cannot have deep meaningful statements, because it isn't real??? If so I completely disagree. Fiction does have meaning -- just that it's meaning is in theme and allegory and metaphor, rather than presentation of facts. What I am saying is that a token change of the name or color of a race does little to change the allegory.

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that fiction doesn't have to be deeply meaningful simply by it's existence. I suppose it could be argued that if I bother to write it, then it means something, but I strongly disagree that simply because different races exist in my writing that is any indication it is written as a meaningful statement about races or relationships between races. If my meaning is that there simply are different races who have different understandings of themselves and each other, then that's all it means. People may add their own interpretations and theories if they wish, but that has very little to do with my meaning, or lack of the same.

QuoteOK, here we start to get down to brass tacks. You would like to convey this message. Do you think your approach of taking real-world racial stereotypes as the basis for fantasy races helps convey this message? I'm having a little trouble connecting the approach you describe and the message you would like to convey. Do you really want it to be a parody, to show how silly racial stereotypes are? If so, doesn't the "protective camouflage" weaken the force of the point?

What we're getting down to is my point, that people will assume what they will. You want me to have a message, so fine. I offered up my personal belief as a substitute, thinking that if any unintentional racial message is left by my writing it is most likely to be that one. That message is one that I find acceptable to myself. It is not one I have any great drive to convey (at least in this particular work), and it is absolutely not the main (or even a significant) point of what I'm doing.
It is a case of someone seeing something and wanting to believe there is more depth than actually exists. Now, to be clear, I don't have a problem with that. I like writing that inspires people to think about it, to come up with their own interpretations. But in doing that a person must be careful to not project their own invention on that of the author. You are running someone else's writing through the filter of your own experience, beliefs, and desires. That can result in a far different picture than the one that is really there.
I think this is what is happening here. I'm saying that race, real or fictional. means very little to me other than as a means of shorthand (and not a terribly accurate one at that) to describe various traits of differing people. And I'm using fantasy races to try and reinforce the very fact that I am not attempting to make meaningful statements about race with my game. Yet, since you are looking for a message that isn't really there, you find one I'm not really sending.
I'd prefer that  (if they feel they must get a message) it be the message people get from the fictional races in my writing because it's my personal belief, but not because it's what I'm trying to say.

QuoteBut you are clearly expecting your audience to get the comparison, to realise the stereotype. Its a stereotype, which you know and openly admit. you are consciously reproducingh that stereiotype, thus perpetuating it in the material culture we inhabit. So I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on, really,

Clear or not, I'm not expecting my audience to get anything. I'm using an existing stereotype as a template to create a fictional work. Something that has been done (to one extent or another) in every piece of fictional writing ever created. You have to start somewhere. I'm just being honest about where I'm starting. If people can't make the leap of understanding that my creation is not supposed to be an accurate reproduction of an actual people, then there's very little I can do to force them to understand it.

QuoteWell then, why do it at all?

'Cause I want to, durn it.
And what's all this about apologetics? I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm just throwing out my reasoning for public dismemberment.

QuoteIf you freely admit that you cannot acheive a real cultural description, and that to fit it in you have to botch the job, then why use them at all? Why not just (horror!) use humans and skip the whole problem of trying to define multiple cultures, concentrating more finely?

'Cause I'm trying to portray a fictional world, with fictional interaction between fictional nations, over fiction things. If I wanted to write a book about a game centered on a small Irish fishing village I could do it and do it well. I could use actual Irish people, with actual Irish culture, and perfect authenticity. It would also take three times as long to write and be boring as hell when I have no interaction with outsiders because the culture of the neighboring countries wouldn't fit in the 500 page core book.
I mean, come on...I'm not qualified to write about every culture in the world accurately and meaningfully. Do you really expect that should be a requirement for writing something inspired by them? I certainly don't.

QuoteIt is your decision to introduce this idea, this trope, of the direct relationship between descent and personality characteristics or modes of behaviour. You are going out of your way to draw this distinction through a particular dramatic device. And, as an artist is always responsible for their own weak, appeals to ignorance or innocence are pretty much futile.

There is no particular reason you HAVE to have fantasy races. Thus you CHOSE to have them, and anything your work says or implies about them is your cross to bear. If the audience does not like what it sees, that is your problem, not theirs.

Not really. If the audience doesn't like what it sees, it can look elsewhere. My writing is not done with the purpose to offend. If someone chooses to be offended anyway, that is their problem, not mine.

QuoteIndeed so. But then again, your work is not "purely fictional" if it is consiously reproducing a hostile stereotype of the Irish, and relies on the audiences familiarity with that stereotype. Why not go all the way and call 'em bog-trotters? This is NOT a wholly fictional construction at all, and so to appeal to artistic license is invalid.

I used quotations on "purely fictional" because I acknowledge that pure fiction is unattainable. There are only layers of separation from reality.
It does not rely on familiarity with the stereo-type. I person could have never heard of that stereotype and would understand the halflings. My point is that they would not understand the Irish from such a description.
And who says it's a hostile stereotype? It's a stereotype because any effort to define an entire people in a paragraph, or a couple of pages, is doomed to be just that. But hostile?
What's hostile? Friendly? Short, red-headed? Hot tempered? Maybe. The drinking too much? Alright, I'll give you that one. Still, I think the Irish-inspired halflings come across as some pretty cool people in my game. But even so, it's still not being presented as an accurate depiction of the Irish. It's not even necessarily an accurate depiction of all halflings. It's a device. A means to define a fictional people in a way that people can quickly grasp.
That's all it is.

QuoteNope, it would seem to me that I'm criticising exactly what you consciously set out to produce, and are subsequently defending.

Nope. You're criticizing exactly what you believe I consciously set out to produce.

QuoteNope, your "feelings" are unmeasurable, the only MEASURABLE thing is your behaviour. Whic is exactly why appeals to wehat your intent was when you did X or Y are at best of very low value and at worst counterproductive. At best, your self-declared intent probably cannot be conveyed to the bulk of your buyers, who will draw their own concousions from the actual product that ships.

I'll agree with that much. Which is why I am prepared to be misinterpreted. The problem is that I have issues with the concept of racism itself. I believe a person can offend through well-meaning lack of understanding or unfamiliarity. I don't believe a person should be able to be considered a racist through accidental action. It happens all the time, of course. I just don't think it should. It would be nice if a person had to go out of their way to be a racist, but sadly we don't live in an ideal world.

QuoteThe old straw man rides again...

Saddle up!
But seriously, I don't like it. Not because I want to be offensive and get away with it, but because the PC expectation means I have to worry about accidentally offending someone of another race, who I don't know, rather than simply being able to treat them as I would anyone I met.
I believe that is counter productive to the elimination of racism.
I don't expect everyone to agree with that, of course. Some effort should be made to not be an asshat, and I suppose PC is at least a well-meaning effort.

QuoteBollocks, I'm afraid. Because equally, people can quite firmly believe that people are inherently different, of different degrees of perfection, and should live separately and not inter-marry, WITHOUT that implying that they also hate and violate. It's just rare. But your self-diagnosed intent is basically valueless special pleading.

I think we're closer to agreement than you think. I would agree that thinking other races are less perfect and that we shouldn't mix with them is racist. If I believed that I would be a racist. Racism is not restricted to hatred, I think disdain would certainly qualify.
I'm referring to an inner belief in racial equality, yet being labeled a racist simply because of a misunderstanding, or difference in interpretation. It happens all the time. It shouldn't.

QuoteAnd you cannot excuse racism by failing to recognise it, if that is what it is.

And you can perpetuate it by thinking you recognize it where it doesn't exist.

QuoteAh, but we also know that if the person is hort and red-headed, they'll be up for a fight and a whiskey afterward, don't we?

Only if they're a halfling.
Even in my game, a short red-haired person might be something else. They might be a dwarf, or a short human, or a person with a mixed heritage. And there might even be a halfling that isn't typical of the stereotype (like blond, or dark haired, or a teetotaller). Even in a work of fiction defined by stereotypes, there are infinite possibilities. In the game, your halfling character can be anything you want him to be. The defining stereotype is only the way he'll be expected to be by people who don't know him and are ignorant enough to assume that all halflings are identical. Like the stereotype itself, it's a reflection of the real world.  
The important thing to remember is that it's not the real world.

But if we should meet in real life, I'd be up for a whiskey. I'll buy.  I'd rather a lively debate than a fist fight though.
:)

Quote from: madelf
Clear or not, I'm not expecting my audience to get anything.

You are; you sare anticipating they will recognise the cluster of identifying features you have represented.  You demonstrate this by saying that it is an Irish sterotype.

Quote
If people can't make the leap of understanding that my creation is not supposed to be an accurate reproduction of an actual people, then there's very little I can do to force them to understand it.

Thats a red herring though; clearly, you are not engaged in autobiographical or ethnological work, but equally you are communicating with your audience.  If your communication with your audience repeats stereotypes the audience experience as offensive, you will have offended your audience, and appealing to 'fiction' does not help your case.  That only underlines the fact that this sterotype is your deliberate, chosen metaphor when you could have chosen anything.

Quote'Cause I want to, durn it.

Why?  What is it that you get with this technique that you do not get with an all human cast of dramatis personae?  Thats a serious question by the way.

Quote
And what's all this about apologetics? I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm just throwing out my reasoning for public dismemberment.

Apologetics as in the sense of explaining something sympathetically.

Quote
'Cause I'm trying to portray a fictional world, with fictional interaction between fictional nations, over fiction things. If I wanted to write a book about a game centered on a small Irish fishing village I could do it and do it well.

Then I suggest your goals are contradictory and incoherent and arguably conceived in the wrong order.  First question, WHY is this a fictional world?  That is not a starting presumption; what is the particular need to create a world that is fictional?  To construct setting and situation such that they address a premise?  Fictional worlds are a method to get to your goal, they are not the goal themselves.

Quote
I mean, come on...I'm not qualified to write about every culture in the world accurately and meaningfully. Do you really expect that should be a requirement for writing something inspired by them? I certainly don't.

No, I don't either; but why choose to be inspired by a stereotype?  There are many things that could be easily drawn from Irish or any culture that do not depend on negative stereotyping at all.

Quote
Not really. If the audience doesn't like what it sees, it can look elsewhere. My writing is not done with the purpose to offend. If someone chooses to be offended anyway, that is their problem, not mine.

Yes, it can.  But whether your purpose was to offend or not makes little difference.  The fact is, it was printed and shipped and exists as a product in circulation, and if as such it propagates a stereotype people can and will take umbrage.  You are merely trying to offload responsibility for your own creation.  Chris Offili made a painting of the Madonna in elephant dung, without any intent to offend, and yet he was roundly denounced for being offensive anyway.

Quote
What's hostile? Friendly? Short, red-headed? Hot tempered? Maybe. The drinking too much? Alright, I'll give you that one. Still, I think the Irish-inspired halflings come across as some pretty cool people in my game.

That may be only because you are not familiar with the way in which the tropes of red-headed people being dishonest thieves, and the Irish being uncultured barbaric drunks, have been and are still in use to justify the English occupation of Ireland, on the basis that they simply could not be trusted to govern themselves.

Quote
But even so, it's still not being presented as an accurate depiction of the Irish. It's not even necessarily an accurate depiction of all halflings. It's a device. A means to define a fictional people in a way that people can quickly grasp.  That's all it is.

Sure, but seeing as you have gone out of your way to reproduce a real world stereotype, rather than just a thumbnail generalistion of a really wholly fictional people, you cannot escape responsibility for the deliberate perpetuation of this stereotype.

QuoteNope. You're criticizing exactly what you believe I consciously set out to produce.

Not at all.  You said you intended to reproduce the sterotype for easy recognition, and I completely agree that you succeeded.

QuoteI'll agree with that much. Which is why I am prepared to be misinterpreted. The problem is that I have issues with the concept of racism itself. I believe a person can offend through well-meaning lack of understanding or unfamiliarity. I don't believe a person should be able to be considered a racist through accidental action. It happens all the time, of course. I just don't think it should. It would be nice if a person had to go out of their way to be a racist, but sadly we don't live in an ideal world.

I think its a false dichotomy.  Whether you intend to offend is irrelevant.  But equally, identifying a particular behaviour as racist need not imply a moral criticism of the person.  "I didn't realise, I'll fix it" is a perfectly suitable response.

A little while ago, I accidentally did something like this inadvertantly myself.  I asked an African woman I was living with me where she came from, was descended from, in Africa.  But what I had forgotten is that the whole issue of whether Africans or Asians are 'British' is a sore point, and so many people take umbrage at being asked about "where they come from" and deliberately give answers like Birmingham to make the point.

It was an innocent mistake; being descended from a widely travelled family and having travelled myself and inhabited the backpacker community for a while, questions of origin and descent simply don't carry that connotation for me.  It seemed an innocent enough question; but equally, I cannot piously sit on my own ignorance and dismiss a negative response; because most of the time that question IS asked when loaded with a very specific polemical point.  The person who's reacting to me is ALSO innocent, is not deliberately setting out to tar me with a particular brush, but reacts instead on the basis of their own experience.  She can be forgiven for interpreting my question as carrying the same connotations as that question so often does, becuase that is how she has experienced it previously.

And equally, to many readers this halfling steroetype will trigger the response "same old bullshit" regardless of your intent, because your intent doesn't matter at all by comparison to the historical existance of that stereotype.

QuoteBut seriously, I don't like it. Not because I want to be offensive and get away with it, but because the PC expectation means I have to worry about accidentally offending someone of another race, who I don't know, rather than simply being able to treat them as I would anyone I met.

It seems to me its much more politically correct these days to whine about political correctness than anything else.

Quote
I think we're closer to agreement than you think. I would agree that thinking other races are less perfect and that we shouldn't mix with them is racist. If I believed that I would be a racist. Racism is not restricted to hatred, I think disdain would certainly qualify.  I'm referring to an inner belief in racial equality, yet being labeled a racist simply because of a misunderstanding, or difference in interpretation. It happens all the time. It shouldn't.

The point I'm trying to make is that even an innocent reproduction of an existing racist trope is going to cause offence, point blank.  Thats not necessarily your fault in a moral sense; but equally, the fact that it is not your fault in a moral sense does not excuse it from criticism.  And the responsibility for anything your produce still lies with you.  

QuoteOnly if they're a halfling.
...The defining stereotype is only the way he'll be expected to be by people who don't know him and are ignorant enough to assume that all halflings are identical. Like the stereotype itself, it's a reflection of the real world.  

Let us say you did a thing like WW's clans, each noting the opinion of a faction as to the others.  If at that point you said, it is a common stereotype among humans that halflings are red-headed fighting drunks, then you would have identified it as stereotype, and that would be explicit to all readers who could take a position on that.  If instead you give it as the description of halflings when discussing halflings, then you are making the sterotype true in the game world, and it is to that description that the reader will take a position.

Quote
The important thing to remember is that it's not the real world.

Irrelevant.  The product was produced in the real world, and will be read in the real world.  You aknowledge that some effort should be made not to be an asshat; the problem is, that your anonymous buyers may well look at it and think that you spefically went out of your way to be an asshat.

As a suggestion, maybe the specific approach of "pick real-world stereotypes and use them for fantasy races" should be split out into its own thread?  Doctor Xero, what do you think?  

Also, a meta comment to both contracycle and madelf here:  contracycle's last two posts had 15 and 11 quotes, respectively, of one or two sentences each; and madelf's last post had 11 quotes.  The official Etiquette at The Forge is that "line-by-line" replies are discouraged and considered flaming if used often.  I'm not the judge of what a "line-by-line" reply is or when "too often" is, but it seems like we are at least getting close to flaming here.

Hello,

This is to everyone: Review all of John Kim's posts on this thread, take his advice and exhibit your commitment to it, or the thread will be closed.

To Gareth (contracycle): I think you know better than to start treating people like you're doing here. Shape it up, now.

Best,
Ron

QuoteYou are; you sare anticipating they will recognise the cluster of identifying features you have represented.  You demonstrate this by saying that it is an Irish sterotype.

It's a fine line, (and probably a shaky and not relevant one) but I'm not technically anticipating that they will recognize the features, and the game is certainly not dependant on them doing so. However, I'm expecting they probably will recognize it, and therefore I am admitting that as my source. I'm fessing up before I get called on it, if you will. And I intend to do this broadly in the book. As in... "The various fantasy races portrayed in this work are inspired in part by limited stereotypes existing in our own world, but should not be confused with the actual races or cultures they may superficially resemble." I'm not going to go down the line and state the sources, as many of the races embody multiple sources both real and mythological, as well as some I've pulled out of my butt.

QuoteThats a red herring though; clearly, you are not engaged in autobiographical or ethnological work, but equally you are communicating with your audience.  If your communication with your audience repeats stereotypes the audience experience as offensive, you will have offended your audience, and appealing to 'fiction' does not help your case.  That only underlines the fact that this sterotype is your deliberate, chosen metaphor when you could have chosen anything.

Well, that is as may be. And I believe it's something over which I can exert only limited control. I have to base my fictional creation on something. I chose stereotype as I believe it is a valid source. (And note that I'm not talking about negative stereotype. Stereotype can be positive, negative, or neutral. As I see it, the only defining element common to all stereotype is that it is a limited view of something far more comlex. Just to make sure we're not thinking of different meanings for the same term).
Given that starting premise, I could (and I think will, just to be sure) then go further, to state that the very definitions I use to describe the races are, themselves, stereotypes. I can indicate that the world, fictional or otherwise, is not made up of absolutes, but of individuals.
And then if people still want to be offended they will. It's not something I'll loose sleep over.

QuoteWhy?  What is it that you get with this technique that you do not get with an all human cast of dramatis personae?  Thats a serious question by the way.

See the reasons I listed in the first place. They haven't changed. But I'll elaborate.

1) Fantasy races are kewl. They're fun. They're a little bit of "let's pretend" that I like to have in my games. Sometimes. Being the cliches that they are, I think they give a game a sense of not taking itself too seriously, which in turn promotes a lighthearted sense of play. Which makes it that much more interesting to address something less lighthearted within that context. (I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon's style of lighthearted horror. We all may die at any monent, and the world may be about to end, but that doesn't meant you can't joke about it)

2) I think that even though the traditional fantasy races are cliched, I think there is still potential to give them more depth than they often receieve. There is still room to tweak them, and I want to play with that.

3) The protective camoflage actually relates to item 1. Giving the game a lighthearted feel may help to give the idea that the stereotypes used are, like everything else, all in good fun. This item is actually the least of my concerns, even though the most is being made of it.

QuoteApologetics as in the sense of explaining something sympathetically.

Ah, I understand now.

QuoteThen I suggest your goals are contradictory and incoherent and arguably conceived in the wrong order.  First question, WHY is this a fictional world?  That is not a starting presumption; what is the particular need to create a world that is fictional?  To construct setting and situation such that they address a premise?  Fictional worlds are a method to get to your goal, they are not the goal themselves.

You may very well be right, there. I didn't sit down at the start of this and think about why I wanted a fictional world. Didn't have to. I knew I wanted a fictional world. I thought about sticking my fantastic elements into the real world, and it didn't "feel" right to me. So, I tossed the idea aside and went onward.
I guess I just want elements within that world which would not make sense in the real world. I don't want to do alternate history. I want to do fantasy. It may steal from reality as a source of inspiration, but I also want to be able to throw the real world out the window as I please.
I don't know if that makes it valid or not. But it's good enough for me.

QuoteNo, I don't either; but why choose to be inspired by a stereotype?  There are many things that could be easily drawn from Irish or any culture that do not depend on negative stereotyping at all.

"I think what we have here is a lack of communication."
It seems we're seeing the same words and assigning different meanings. As I said above, I don't see stereotype as necessarily negative. It certainly can be, and too often is, but it doesn't have to be.
I would define any elements of a real world culture that I (or anyone else) could display within the limits of a 1000 or 2000 word write-up in a gamebook as stereotypical. There simply is not enough space to do it justice. It would take a sizable book in it's own right to even scratch the surface of a culture with any sort of honesty.
As far as negativity within a stereotype goes, there's negativity in cultures and the relationships between them. People are imperfect. Good or bad,a stereotype is the way a group is perceived from the outside. As long as that is acknowleged as the case, and as being potentially erroneous and almost certainly limited in scope...then I really can't see the major harm.

If I'm contacted by a halfling who is offended by my portrayal of his people, perhaps I'll reconsider. But since I'm not portraying a real person, I think I'm safe in my stubborness.

QuoteYes, it can.  But whether your purpose was to offend or not makes little difference.  The fact is, it was printed and shipped and exists as a product in circulation, and if as such it propagates a stereotype people can and will take umbrage.  You are merely trying to offload responsibility for your own creation.  Chris Offili made a painting of the Madonna in elephant dung, without any intent to offend, and yet he was roundly denounced for being offensive anyway.

o_0
...okay...
Officially not offended by that, but I still have to wonder what he was thinking.

But anyway..
Yes, I understand that people may get offended despite my best intentions. All I can do is act within the edicts of my own conscience and go ahead. Either that or I can go away quietly and hide myself from public view.
What I cannot do is expect to please all of the people, all of the time. So, I'm just going to do what I do, the way I see fit, and let the chips fall where they may. And that'll have to be good enough.

QuoteThat may be only because you are not familiar with the way in which the tropes of red-headed people being dishonest thieves, and the Irish being uncultured barbaric drunks, have been and are still in use to justify the English occupation of Ireland, on the basis that they simply could not be trusted to govern themselves.

I'm well aware of that. The English have viewed the Irish as not much more than marginally human for centuries. And there's a stereotype in itself (as I'm sure not all the English people feel that way). But there's also some facts behind parts of it. The Irish authors I've read acknowlege that alcohol has been the bane of Ireland for most of its modern history. That's not a slap in the face of Irishmen everywhere, it's not racist. It's not anything but a statistic until it is assumed that all the Irish, every man woman and child, are somehow lessened by it.
The red-headed theives I actually hadn't heard about, or if I have I've forgotten it.  But it's still ludicrous. I'm not going to waste my time making sure I never portray a thief with red hair just in case someone makes that warped leap of logic. (But thanks for a good example of accidental "racism")

QuoteSure, but seeing as you have gone out of your way to reproduce a real world stereotype, rather than just a thumbnail generalistion of a really wholly fictional people, you cannot escape responsibility for the deliberate perpetuation of this stereotype.

Again, I don't believe there is such a thing as a wholly fictional people, some are just hiding their sources better than others.
And honestly I don't care if I'm perpetuating a stereotype. I'm borrowing it because I feel it's appropriate to what I'm trying to do, I'm acknowledging that it is a stereotype in both in the real world and within the scope of the fictional work. That's just going to have to be good enough.

QuoteNot at all.  You said you intended to reproduce the sterotype for easy recognition, and I completely agree that you succeeded.

Did I say that? I suppose I might have, but I don't recall it.
And it doesn't really sound like what I'm intending to say.

I believe I did say something about reflecting real world cultures to give a sense of the familiar. That's a little different. I was talking about making things seem more realistic by utilizing existing patterns of culture as a basis for the fictional world.

QuoteI think its a false dichotomy.  Whether you intend to offend is irrelevant.  But equally, identifying a particular behaviour as racist need not imply a moral criticism of the person.  "I didn't realise, I'll fix it" is a perfectly suitable response.

A suitable response, but not one that's available very often. From what I've seen, people rarely suggest calmly and without rancor that you might act differently or use a different term because it's what they prefer. The response to an innocent faux pax is usually met with a bit more hostility than that.
If everyone could express their intent and preferences without accusations of racism, then all would be right with the world. Sadly, they can't in most cases. This is what I mean about it being possible to see racism where it doesn't exist. I'd like people to stop and think before crying racism when it's really only unfamiliarity.

QuoteAnd equally, to many readers this halfling steroetype will trigger the response "same old bullshit" regardless of your intent, because your intent doesn't matter at all by comparison to the historical existance of that stereotype.

I really don't understand why this should be the case.
If this is presented as a stereotype of the halfling people, in the context of a time period when anyone who didn't live in your neighborhood was a practically a different species, and it's pointed out that even fictionally it's only a brief and innaccurate glance at an admirable  and complex people....then how in the hell is that "bullshit"?

Simply because I've acknowledged that stereotypes exist? And included examples of them in my fictional setting to give some realism to the relationships between the fantasy races? I say that is what's bullshit.
I suppose it's better to just have the same old elves and dwarves hate each other just because that's what elves and dwarves do? I suspect you're a little too bright to be satisfied with that tripe.

QuoteIt seems to me its much more politically correct these days to whine about political correctness than anything else.

Could be. Could be.

QuoteThe point I'm trying to make is that even an innocent reproduction of an existing racist trope is going to cause offence, point blank.  Thats not necessarily your fault in a moral sense; but equally, the fact that it is not your fault in a moral sense does not excuse it from criticism.  And the responsibility for anything your produce still lies with you.  

I can accept that. And I think I've actually gotten enough out of this discussion that I can do a better job of presenting things in accordance with my intentions. I think in context, and with the proper treatment, it will work out.

QuoteLet us say you did a thing like WW's clans, each noting the opinion of a faction as to the others.  If at that point you said, it is a common stereotype among humans that halflings are red-headed fighting drunks, then you would have identified it as stereotype, and that would be explicit to all readers who could take a position on that.  If instead you give it as the description of halflings when discussing halflings, then you are making the sterotype true in the game world, and it is to that description that the reader will take a position.

Based on our discussion, I think I may want to reinforce that point a bit more. The WW-based example you give is in-line with my intent, but , as currently written, it may very well not be as apparent as it might be. The descriptions of the fantasy races are very much meant to be broad strokes, or stereotypes, and I'm not opposed to the idea of making that more obvious.

QuoteIrrelevant.  The product was produced in the real world, and will be read in the real world.  You aknowledge that some effort should be made not to be an asshat; the problem is, that your anonymous buyers may well look at it and think that you spefically went out of your way to be an asshat.

I never go out of my way to be an asshat.
It just comes naturally.



Overall, I think has has been a pretty productive discussion.
I'd say you've improved my future product.
Thanks!

Oops.
I didn't see John's post until I had already posted. Must have come on while I was typing.

Sorry.

I'll try and remember for next time.

Reading all the posts, I've noticed a few things.

Yes, this is a difficult topic to discuss.  For one thing, we know simultaneously that the term "racist" has been used as a cheap slander/libel tactic frequently enough to render it suspect yet also that racists nevertheless do exist and often do not recognize (or acknowledge) their own racist behavior.  If you tell me something I've done smacks of racism, does it come from the overuse of that term or from the human blindspots in my own self-perception about racist habits I may have picked up from my culture in innocence?  This confusion makes any discussion which touches on racism semantically complicated and sometimes emotionally/socially painful, IMHO.

Personally, I think that it's erroneous to suggest that fictional races never translate in the reader's/viewer's/player's mind over to real world parallels -- or analogy and allegory (and satire!) would be impossible.  The past twenty years have produced fictional races which reflected anti-Semitism, for example.  I would suggest that oversensitivity and undersensitivity are equally distracting in trying to recognize possible real world parallels.

Why attribute malice where cluelessness explains?  Why attribute racism where cultural coding explains?  But why ignore cruel habits merely because one has never intended the cruelty?  But why ignore racist habits merely because one is not a racist?

An easy real world example : a critic once pointed out that he knew instantly who committed the murder in the film *American Beauty* the moment he noticed that a military man had a thick Southern accent.  In films, a certain type of Southern accent has become code for uncompromising unself-aware bigotry.  Does this mean that everyone who uses that accent means to insult Southerners?  No, it means that people often forget the origin of the code, in this case forgetting the origin of this code for bigot.  I had used this code myself without thinking, and no one was insulted, until I ended up game-mastering a few Southerners -- who understandably took offense.  I realized then that, although I am not a bigot, I had picked up a bigoted code from my culture.  Now that I was aware, I had the choice of continuing that code or not.  I chose not to use it any more, for I consider the loss of an easy marker for bigotry to be minor compared to the unkindness of insulting my Southern players.

Quote from: John KimAs a suggestion, maybe the specific approach of "pick real-world stereotypes and use them for fantasy races" should be split out into its own thread?  Doctor Xero, what do you think?

Maybe that would be a good idea.  I think we all know that no one on the Forge intends racism.  Whether the use of real world stereotypes involves unintended racism might be a topic for another thread.

Doctor Xero

I think that one simple reason people enjoy having different races in their fantasy roleplaying games is the interest in having a "patriotic" membership that is one's unconditional birthright.

Someone once stated that the family (or kin) is the only club from which no one can be excluded.  Admittedly, modern life has demonstrated the naivete of that sentiment (how many parents have abandoned their child for loving someone of an ethnicity/sexuality/religion they dislike?), but the emphasis upon inviolable birthright remains.

In a fantasy world, however, even my membership in a specific creed and/or ethical stance and/or worldview might be my birthright -- I don't belong to the Republican party, I am born a pookah and pookahs always vote Republican and I know all pookahs (and therefore all Republicans) will feel instant kinship with me and I know I can recognize all Republicans on sight because they will all be pookahs.  Or I don't try to find a storm-chasers club which might or might not oust me for petty politics and I don't spend time wondering every time I date whether my potential love interest is a storm-chaser as well -- I simply am born a dwarf and all dwarves are storm-chasers (and therefore I need not justify being a storm-chaser because it is my ontological destiny) and so long as I date only dwarves I will date only storm-chasers.

It's all tribalism, which often comes from the notion that my birth determines for me from whom I can expect loyalty and to whom I am to give loyalty.  This is probably why miscegeneration is a taboo in many FPRGs -- not as a reflection of real world racism but a reflection of the idea that Republicans and Democrats should not intermarry or that geeks and jocks should not date (even though many real world couples have differing political views or differing hobby interests).  I've met many people who are not at all racists who still feel uncomfortable with the thought of their children marrying someone of a different political party!

So I suspect that many FRPG races exist not as parallels with real world races/ethnicities at all but rather as parallels with real world clubs and subcultures.

Quote from: Doctor XeroI suspect this socially contracted suspension of disbelief comes from our tendency towards tribalism.
---snip!--
Also, psychologists have noticed that adolescents go through a stage known informally as the gang stage (I apologize that I can not recall the official term!).
---snip!--
This groupthink norming mixed with the tribalist/clique mentality would make it easier for players to accept certain behaviors when those behaviors are justified through membership in the clique which is characterized by them.  Thus, a player with a thief character or a kender character will get away with thieving (without creating player resentment) than will a player with a paladin character or a high elf character.

Doctor Xero

There is no easy answer to the question of the origin and importance of the non-human character in RPGs, but we've seen any number of hypotheses (from social-mirror theory to mythology theory) posted.  I think FRPGs follow the model for three reasons:

1) Non-human races suspend disbelief from the very beginning, the point of character generation.  If it's possible to be the seventy-third generation descendent of an Angel or a Vanilla Elf (pointy ears, preference for woods, etc), then player horizons are immediately opened wider at the game's start.  More fantastic events or circumstances seem possible from the very start, thus aiding in the 'fantastic' feel of an FRPG

2) Non-human races appeal to common mythic and social stereotypes and roles, aiding in the creation of a 'socially contracted' party and giving players a guide to imagery, culture, and personality which doesn't need to be made explicit.  When five people sit down to play a game together, and they all choose to be vaguely disreputable humans with a tendency towards thievery, the social contract is very difficult to draft – but when you can 'plug in' broad assumptions and roles ('the Dwarf is going to be gruff but honorable') it becomes easier for players to establish foil relationships and a productive party-style relationship.  Thus, they facilitate easy play, especially in 'vanilla' forms.

3) Non-human races allow the narrator or GM to engineer situations in a way easily recognizable to players, and gives them extra circumstances and pre-set relationships to use.  R-maps are hard to do well, let's face it, and having a pre-made 'Dwarves and Elves don't get along' line in there can help greatly.  These relationships are more easily explained and often more colourful because of their feel of being inherent or basic than human relationships, which most people are rather too prosaically familiar with. Thus, they facilitate colorful world and adventure creation by creating new R-web possibilities.

I don't pretend to think I've covered all the bases here, but this is why any FRPG should and usually does include playable non-human races.  Now, to anticipate some objections:

To 1)  Yes, magic and myth and archetypes also play an important part in establishing a world in fantastic – Pendragon is a good example.  But without playable non-humans, the feel inevitably becomes slightly more 'adventures in social history' or 'what if the fantastic stories of yore were true' than that of an entirely separate and fantastic world.

To 2) Yes, this does also serve to limit player creativity to some degree.  But it has been ackowledged in this thread that playing to or directly against a stereotype can be almost as much fun as creating a subtle, deeply-layered brooding personality, and so can playing against a stereotype.  Moreover, that objection fails to realize that stereotypes can serve as a basis for far more fertile character growth than over-complicated or ambitious characters that mirror 'real' personalities.

To 3) A similar objection can be made here, that when things about the world are pre-set or exagerrated in this way, the possibilities for creative narration are limited.  In this case it is more true than in the objection to 2), because the GM can't destroy the players basic assumptions about the world. However, I don't think this objection carries much weight against the use of fantasty-race tropes because it fails to take into account how helpful such restrictions can be as starting points for non-creative genius GMs or time-limited groups of players.

I apologize if I have too closely mirrored other posts, this is a long thread and it's been some time since I read all but the most recent post.

Best,

-Brother Adso

"He tossed the still lighted pipe into the sea. The fire hissed in the waves; the same instant the ship shot by the bubble the sinking pipe made. With slouched hat, Ahab lurchingly paced the planks."
-Moby-Dick

Quote from: Calvin W. 'madelf' CampWhat's hostile? Friendly? Short, red-headed? Hot tempered? Maybe. The drinking too much?

Technically, legally--If you say or clearly imply something about an individual which is not true about that individual and that individual finds offensive, that's hostile.

If you said that someone was an Eagle Scout, and he was not, and he is offended by it, it doesn't legally matter whether you meant it in an offensive matter--you spread scurilous lies about him.

The problem about stereotyping of this sort is that it seems to imply something very generally about a lot of individuals who constitute a group. Thus the group is offended because there are individuals within it to whom the description does not apply.

Your hobbits can be construed as saying "These people represent the Irish, who are all short, hot-headed, and heavy drinkers." It is not at all unreasonable for someone reading your description of the hobbits to say, "Hey, that clearly represents the Irish, and I'm Irish, but I'm not a heavy drinker"--and thus you have offended an individual by characterizing a fantasy race as being a very thinly veiled representation of a real one.

Ever notice those disclaimers about how no one in this book represents any real person living or dead? This is why. Of course, if you make it blatantly obvious who you were representing, you get yourself in trouble. I'll gladly tell you that the characters in my books are composites of several people I know and some I never met, but all characters are still fictional. Now, if I did a clear characterization of some individual and he didn't like it, he could sue me if 1) he could demonstrate that people who knew him would recognize his likeness in the character; 2) there is reason to believe that I was representing him; 3) statements made about him by means of this character were not true; and 4) he is personally offended by them.

Whether you can be sued for promoting a stereotype is probably something not decided. We all hope not; ever since Farenheit 451 we've seen that that way lies madness.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. Young

Quote from: Calvin W. 'madelf' CampWhat's hostile? Friendly? Short, red-headed? Hot tempered? Maybe. The drinking too much?

Technically, legally--If you say or clearly imply something about an individual which is not true about that individual and that individual finds offensive, that's hostile.
-remainder snipped-

I'm not worried about legal implications. The idea of a class action lawsuit by the Irish community over their representation in a role playing game is a little too far-fetched for me to lose sleep over.
:)
And actually a person has to be more than merely offended in order to be taken seriously in a legal action. Even in a slander case, I believe there has to be evidence of some actual harm caused to the person resulting from the things that were said in order to sue for damages. That would be awfully difficult to come up with in a situation like this.

Really I'm not even worried too much about presenting an offensive portrayal by using a stereotype for halflings that resembles a stereotype of the Irish. Particularly after the discussion here. Gareth did a good job of playing devil's advocate and in doing so, gave me some additional ideas on how to make the presentation clearer that the race descriptions are not only based on stereotypes, but also are stereotypes in their own right as well (as in...this is how halflings are perceived, as oppposed to how all halflings actually are). I think with a little tweaking I can get that point across pretty well and at the same time add that much more depth to the setting.

I actually posted a sample from my game in another thread here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10209 to get some feedback on the halfling example just as it stands now. From my own perspective...Even without further tweaking, I think someone would have to make an effort to take offense to it. But outside perspectives can hardly hurt at this stage.

Of course I wouldn't be surprised if it still offended somebody, even after further clarifications, as there are people who simply will be offended at any opportunity. But as long as I'm not ticking off normal, sane individuals...then I'll be perfectly happy.


Further discussions of my personal approach to fantasy races should probably take place in the other thread. I think I've done enough hi-jacking in this one already.

Well, to get back on track :

We've discussed verisimiltude through real world parallels (though not in those words) working through nonhuman races.

We've discussed suspension of disbelief made easier through the exotic effect of nonhuman races.

We've discussed the fantastical effect, both in tradition and as living spiritual/ethical similes (and in mythology/folklore), of the use of nonhuman races.

We've discussed social commentary through nonhuman races.

We've discussed replication of the Medieval conflation of race and culture and international niche through nonhuman races.

We've discussed "playing pretend" through nonhuman races.

Are there any other reasons for nonhuman races in FRPGs (and SFRPGs) that we haven't discussed???

Doctor Xero

Quote from: Doctor Xero
Are there any other reasons for nonhuman races in FRPGs (and SFRPGs) that we haven't discussed???

There are fantasy races as manifesting specific or alternate modes of conciousness. So far as I know, this has only realy been explored in Glorantha from a roleplaying point of view. Here's a snip from an old post of mine on the Glorantha Digest. It begins with a summary of the classic Freudian definitions of Id, Ego and Superego and then discusses how they apply to the three elder races of Glorantha. Note that this isn't a post in support of Freudian analysis - it's just a game.


Id : the, one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is completely unconscious and is the source of psychic energy derived from instinctual needs and drives.

Ego : the, one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality.

Superego : the, one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is only partly conscious, represents internalization of parental conscience and the rules of society, and functions to reward and punish through a system of moral attitudes, conscience, and a sense of guilt.

Supposedly, trolls emphasise the id, mostali the ego and aldryami the
superego. ie :

Trolls are motivated by their instictual desires for food, offspring, social power, etc. Their lack of an ego means that they have no real sense of being a 'part of things', their lot in life is simply necessery in order to get more food, beer, offspring, etc. The only way to prevent them from satisfying their primitive needs is through force, or the threat of it. They have no moral sense (superego), hence the brutal nature of Troll society.

Mostali emphasize the Ego. Their whole purpose and raison d'etre is to work on the world machine - their conception of reality. Their whole lives are dedicated to fullfilling their need to feel usefull. Thier personal needs (id) are of minimal importance and they have no moral sense (superego) whatsoever. They simply do their job, whatever the consequences - forever.

Aldryami emphasize the superego. Their entire lives are dedicated to the protection and service of their mother Aldrya (internalization of parental conscience), and their home forest. Their whole lives are dedicated to the service of their home and people. Their personal desires and needs (id) and sense of individual achievement and possition in the scheme of things (ego) are superfluous to them.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: madelf
Of course I wouldn't be surprised if it still offended somebody, even after further clarifications, as there are people who simply will be offended at any opportunity.

Another straw man.  A stereotype like this is like a brand; you get all the associations carried by the brand, explicitly and implicitly.  You don't get to pick and choose, and what you intended or otherwise is irrelevant.

Edit: I was reminded of an easy enough way to get around this.  Conspiracy X has 'races', or species more precisely, that do not carry any baggage beyond their genre, say and imply nothing about the real world, because they are not based on actual existing human stereotypes.  Greys and Saurians frex my have some 'popular mythology' bases to cover, but simply cannot be construed as a stereotype, offensive or otherwise.

[posted to wrong thread]

I recommend if you want to critique Tolkien, start with his own philosophy, behavior, and commentary on his books. Unlike the Volksfront, Aryan Nations or other white supremacist distortions of Tolkien, unlike the the far-right Zionist "Southern Law Poverty Center's" views on Tolkien, Orcs were not _designed_* as a racist metaphor for any ethnic group. Nor were Dwarves _designed_ to be Jews. Dwarvish culture and history was coupled with a criticism of greed and mineral possessions (the Dwarves of Moria, in their greed, mined too deep).

I have read that Tolkien acknowledged regret at not giving Orcs the freedom of choice and they were influenced by Nazi Germany. (No sources on this one, sorry. Sure, you can file that under rumor.)

What I can give sources on was the use of Orcs as drone soldiers of progress and Tolkiens neo-Luddite philosophy and practice.

His technophiliac detractors say, "And Tolkien wasn't using this manipulation-of-nature theme merely to advance a plot. A kind of twentieth century William Blake, Tolkien despised and distrusted technology in most, if not all, of its forms. He gave up driving and refused to own a television, or use a washing machine. In a letter, he expressed his disgust with the modern world as follows: "There is only one bright spot ... and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations ... But it won't do any good, if it is not universal." It's no defamation to say that Tolkien was a full-fledged Luddite.1.

His neo-luddite admirers say, "In an enlightening letter written to his son, Christopher, in 1943, Tolkien vented his frustration with government and the industrial age, "My political opinions lean more and more to anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)... There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power stations."

. . ."If there is any contemporary reference in my story at all, it is to what seems to me the most widespread assumption of our time: that if a thing can be done, it must be done. This seems to me wholly false."

"Tolkien loved trees, and he was upset with their destruction most of all: "The savage sound of the electric saw is never silent wherever trees are still found growing. Every tree has its enemy, few have an advocate. In all my works, I take the part of trees as against all their enemies."

All this stuff is mainly concerned with the fall, mortality and the machine. By the machine, I intend all use of external devices or even the use of inherent inner powers, with the corrupted motive of dominating and bulldozing the real world. The machine is our more obvious modern form. The enemy in successive forms is always concerned with sheer domination, and so the Lord of Machines... As the servants of the machines are becoming a privileged class, the machines are going to be enormously more powerful. What's their next move?"

1. Source, "The Free Republic" (Agenda: far-right conservative) Attack of the Clones meets the Lord of the Luddites.

2. Source, "The Earth First! Journal" (Agenda: Neo-luddite; Author is a pagan) http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/efj/feature.cfm?ID=159&issue=v22n6

* Certainly the choice of skin color can be debated, esp. the ornamental depictions in _the film_. However, I will leave that discussion for other forums.

Further sources on Tolkien's neo-Ludditism:
http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/05/tolkien2/index.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076507

-------------------------------------------------------------

So the question remains, why create fantasy races?

Fairies originate from a an animistic spiritual viewpoint.

Monsters, however, have very different meanings from culture to culture. One uniting factor is that they serve as a warning. "Monsters, like the dragons that inhabit the vague and unpeopled borders of old maps, do not exist for the purpose of rending and terrifying. They are there to warn us about the unnameable corrosive chaos just over the horizon; their purpose is to turn us back."

I could give an essay on my particular philosophy of why fantasy races are created in mythology and why Tolkien created Orcs in particular which is probably quite controversial.

I'll give a short sample of one of the reasons why monsters are hairy in European mythology- Roman influence. The Romans considered nature to be barbaric (outside of Rome), savage (forest realm/dweller) uncivilized (not citied) and something to be conquered and subdued. The Romans shaved and considered the unshaven uncultured. As they created towns and cities, the outside became the wilderness, which became increasingly feared which was coupled with Celtic psychological warfare. Nature, along with the wild and dynamics (chaos), was feared. The city, law and order became the security of the "citizen" class (city dweller). Nature threatened to reverse this course, nature was an uncontrollable force that threatened to take over. . .

Of course that's a crude representation of mythological studies. I would recommend reading Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Bruno Bettelheim, and Parabola, Chaos and Order, Fall 2003.

In LOTR, however, as in much animistic mythologies, monsters (Orcs) are their to warn us that we are turning against nature. The elves and the Ents serve as ancient wisdom and guardians of the forest. . .

Also, Tom Bombadill has a particular importance that was left out of the movies altogether. . .

You can agree with me on Tolkien or not, you can agree with Tolkien or not. However, it is generally understood by mythologists that monsters serve as cautionary tales.

Unfortunately, fantasy races have not been effectively introduced in most FRPGs.

I've read much discussion on ineffective introduction of fantasy races into FRPGs. Perhaps a discussion is needed of the FRPGs in which _effective_ introduction of fantasy races have occurred. With all of its flaws, the WOD springs to mind although I have not played in it in many years.

Interesting stuff on Tolkien.

I suppose we could apply the same analysis of the Gloranthan races, though to a lesser extent that in that case.

Orcs may have had their ego and superego crippled or excised through the degeneration of their race by Morgoth. The dwarves seem to emphasise the ego over their id and superego. I wouldn't push this so far with the elvish races, plenty of elves seem to have healthy egos although their animal passions and needs seem to be well under controll.

So in Tolkien I'd suggest that orcs are very much creatures of the Id, but not to such an extreme extent as the Trolls of Glorantha. The mostali of Glorantha have no Id or Superego, while Tolkient's dwarves merely emphasize the Ego.

From a theological point of view, which is perhaps more relevent, the Elves seem to exist in an unfallen state. As a species they do not seem to suffer from Orriginal Sin, while the Orcs are at the other extreme of having been utterly corrupted.

There's a theory that, when Satan precipitated the war in heaven that resulted in his fall, the faeries were those angels that took neither side. They were expelled from Heaven, but not banished to Hell and some Maia such as Melian and perhaps Tom Bombadil seem to fit that mould.


Simon Hibbs