The Role of Fantasy Races in FRPGs

[Doctor Xero]

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.

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?

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

[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.

I 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

[Brother Adso]

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

[M. J. Young]

What'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

[madelf]

What'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.

[Doctor Xero]

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

[simon_hibbs]

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

[contracycle]

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.

[Valamir]

[posted to wrong thread]

[Cemendur]

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.

[simon_hibbs]

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