I don't even think this is worth debating. The context of what they were going for were sentient species. I think if Tolkien had referred to them this way, it would still be correct today. We seem to be perpetuating a minor linguistic error made by the great one of fantasy lore.
Except that Tolkien was specific that Men and Elves were Humans. Dwarves (being the creation of Aulë but sanctified by Eru) were a separate species, as were Hobbits (whom no one knows how they arose, least of all themselves). Orks were both Men who had been corrupted by Melkor (since he lacked the ability to create on his own) and lesser Maia spirits who took Orkish form, though both "multiplied after the manner of the Children of Eru". But the fact is only Dwarves and Hobbits weren't Homo Sapiens. Elves, Men, Orks/Half-Orks were subspecies of Homo Sapiens.
In terms of D&D, they're most certainly NOT Homo Sapiens (though Elves might still be, since Half-Elves might be viable). Orks are the creations of malevolent gods like Gruumsh. That was why the term Demi-Human was coined.
After playing D&D as a kid in the 80s I've gotten back into it recently. Today there is a greater consciousness in our world around issues of race. I've read a few articles talking about the racial categories in D&D as being somewhat problematic. That what are referred to as racial characteristics, from ability scores to temperament and more should better be considered as culture.
I don't know, I think that notion is bringing too much of the construct of race in our world into a fantasy setting. What we call race in our world isn't biologically a real thing, its just a socially created category, we are all human. In the world of D&D things are much different all the "races" didn't evolve from the same source. If my memory of lore is correct many of them didn't evolve at all, they are creations of real gods that influence the world. In the very first line of one article ( https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/) it gave a quote "ORCS ARE HUMAN beings who can be slaughtered without conscience or apology." The whole article is largely based off that faulty premise that orcs are a kind of human. Again if memory serves, orcs were created or at least influenced by their god Gruumsh to act in a violent and chaotic manner. They and most other D&D "races" are hardwired for certain behaviors just like us humans in our world are hardwired towards many behaviors such as caring for our young (unlike reptiles) or groupish behavior.
I think an easy fix that avoids upending the character of the D&D game is to simply redefine character and monster categories from different races into different species.
Ultimately as a writer it is your choice how you want your species represented. I personally like to think of the "Races" as templates to be changed as the story needs. In one story I read called "The Rise of the Ranger" had the elves as an off shut of humanity and Orcs as a sophisticated technologically advanced society. While in the Witcher books the conflict came about the MC having to discern the true nature of "monsters". One experiment you can do is to write a "race" against type. Like a violent elf, a clean goblin and a troll going through therapy if you find those stories as new and exciting then enjoy them.
After playing D&D as a kid in the 80s I've gotten back into it recently. Today there is a greater consciousness in our world around issues of race. I've read a few articles talking about the racial categories in D&D as being somewhat problematic. That what are referred to as racial characteristics, from ability scores to temperament and more should better be considered as culture.
I don't know, I think that notion is bringing too much of the construct of race in our world into a fantasy setting. What we call race in our world isn't biologically a real thing, its just a socially created category, we are all human. In the world of D&D things are much different all the "races" didn't evolve from the same source. If my memory of lore is correct many of them didn't evolve at all, they are creations of real gods that influence the world. In the very first line of one article ( https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/) it gave a quote "ORCS ARE HUMAN beings who can be slaughtered without conscience or apology." The whole article is largely based off that faulty premise that orcs are a kind of human. Again if memory serves, orcs were created or at least influenced by their god Gruumsh to act in a violent and chaotic manner. They and most other D&D "races" are hardwired for certain behaviors just like us humans in our world are hardwired towards many behaviors such as caring for our young (unlike reptiles) or groupish behavior.
I think an easy fix that avoids upending the character of the D&D game is to simply redefine character and monster categories from different races into different species.
Ultimately as a writer it is your choice how you want your species represented. I personally like to think of the "Races" as templates to be changed as the story needs. In one story I read called "The Rise of the Ranger" had the elves as an off shut of humanity and Orcs as a sophisticated technologically advanced society. While in the Witcher books the conflict came about the MC having to discern the true nature of "monsters". One experiment you can do is to write a "race" against type. Like a violent elf, a clean goblin and a troll going through therapy if you find those stories as new and exciting then enjoy them.
I have always loved Terry Pratchett's take on trolls, intelligent beings that just need to be cold enough :).
After playing D&D as a kid in the 80s I've gotten back into it recently. Today there is a greater consciousness in our world around issues of race. I've read a few articles talking about the racial categories in D&D as being somewhat problematic. That what are referred to as racial characteristics, from ability scores to temperament and more should better be considered as culture.
I don't know, I think that notion is bringing too much of the construct of race in our world into a fantasy setting. What we call race in our world isn't biologically a real thing, its just a socially created category, we are all human. In the world of D&D things are much different all the "races" didn't evolve from the same source. If my memory of lore is correct many of them didn't evolve at all, they are creations of real gods that influence the world. In the very first line of one article ( https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/) it gave a quote "ORCS ARE HUMAN beings who can be slaughtered without conscience or apology." The whole article is largely based off that faulty premise that orcs are a kind of human. Again if memory serves, orcs were created or at least influenced by their god Gruumsh to act in a violent and chaotic manner. They and most other D&D "races" are hardwired for certain behaviors just like us humans in our world are hardwired towards many behaviors such as caring for our young (unlike reptiles) or groupish behavior.
I think an easy fix that avoids upending the character of the D&D game is to simply redefine character and monster categories from different races into different species.
Ultimately as a writer it is your choice how you want your species represented. I personally like to think of the "Races" as templates to be changed as the story needs. In one story I read called "The Rise of the Ranger" had the elves as an off shut of humanity and Orcs as a sophisticated technologically advanced society. While in the Witcher books the conflict came about the MC having to discern the true nature of "monsters". One experiment you can do is to write a "race" against type. Like a violent elf, a clean goblin and a troll going through therapy if you find those stories as new and exciting then enjoy them.
It is, and I'm 100% okay with anyone running a campaign anyway they want. And going against type is interesting, one of the greatest D&D characters of all time goes against type, Drizzt. I take issue with attempts to rewrite or dictate to others a way of doing things that is one, already established, and two, in ways that people might not fully agree with.
I like the distinction between species and think in line with the real world idea about biology and intellect. That our genes code much of our personality and evolution has shaped much of the direction of our behaviors. The best analogy I've heard used is that of an elephant and its rider, our innate intuitions and behaviors are dominant and our intellect has limited, but vital, ability to sway us.
I'm just not on board with the arguments that article and others like it make and think there are better ways to address racist tropes in the game. I don't want every character to be essentially a variant human only some with scales and some with pointy ears.
Well races imply sentience, which species does not. Also species, whether true to the actual definition or not carries the connotation of animals, which i think goes against your intent here. Honestly all the races are simultaneously races and species, certain groups of elves and humans etc have different genetic evolutions which dont imply the entirety of their races so wheres the line?
language isnt as cut and dry as people seem to wish it to be, people forget that context plays probably the most important part in communication as the context is the intent of whats being said to begin with and lots of that is lost through written or typed stuff so people apply their own context which is informed by their personal experience.
All these conversations do is anger people and separate people in a game where almost all the lore has seemingly intended to do the opposite. Just be a good person and play your stuff with an open mind/Kind heart and youll be fine for the most part. these convos are kind of ridiculous, we're playing make believe games.
Well races imply sentience, which species does not. Also species, whether true to the actual definition or not carries the connotation of animals, which i think goes against your intent here. Honestly all the races are simultaneously races and species, certain groups of elves and humans etc have different genetic evolutions which dont imply the entirety of their races so wheres the line?
Only in our world where there is only one sentient species. In D&D land there are many. And humans ARE a type of animal.
language isnt as cut and dry as people seem to wish it to be, people forget that context plays probably the most important part in communication as the context is the intent of whats being said to begin with and lots of that is lost through written or typed stuff so people apply their own context which is informed by their personal experience.
Yes language is the issue. Race is a word loaded with much baggage and is a mostly meaningless invention, aside from what society has given it. In our world race doesn't actually describe meaningful distinctions between peoples. In the D&D world there are important distinctions between sentient humanoids.
Many people want to make the game more socially aware and inclusive. That requires some sort of changes be made to the game. My idea is that rather than eliminating distinctions between different categories of sentient humanoids, use a more appropriate word. It takes a bit of work on the part of everyone involved.
Quote from 666jss>>All these conversations do is anger people and separate people in a game where almost all the lore has seemingly intended to do the opposite. Just be a good person and play your stuff with an open mind/Kind heart and youll be fine for the most part. these convos are kind of ridiculous, we're playing make believe games.
I agree. As I said though I don't agree with some of the suggestions for changing the game and want to contribute my two cents. My intent is to bring more light than heat, I can't control what others do.
Biologically, the definition of species is creatures that can interbreed with each other. The existence of half-elves and half-orcs proves humans, elves, and orcs are one species, unless perhaps half-elves and half-orcs are infertile hybrids like mules.
I really think attempting to classify D&D races as separate species is an attempt to sidestep a hard question about racism. Whatever orcs are, they are not beasts. There does have to be some moral question about killing them.
Biologically, the definition of species is creatures that can interbreed with each other. The existence of half-elves and half-orcs proves humans, elves, and orcs are one species, unless perhaps half-elves and half-orcs are infertile hybrids like mules.
Interbreed AND produce offspring that aren't infertile. For example horses and donkeys can reproduce to make infertile mules, or tigers and lions.
I really think attempting to classify D&D races as separate species is an attempt to sidestep a hard question about racism. Whatever orcs are, they are not beasts. There does have to be some moral question about killing them.
In my mind fantasy worlds aren't the same as our world, I think people are importing the concerns we have around race into the fantasy world. In our world and in the D&D world, humans are diverse but there isn't any meaningful biological or game mechanic distinction between human ethnicities.
The meme of PCs being murder hobos came about for a reason. Most parties roam from area to area carrying all their stuff on their backs and kill things to solve problems. It seems to me that is a moral issue that people care about and another moral issue people care about is racism. There are games that take place on earth with humans as the only sentient species. Lets address racism in the game, I just don't think the depiction of monstrous races is racism.
Lizardfolk as a PC class are a good example of how I think about it. Their lizard biology not only affects their bodies but their mental states too.
Lizardfolk possess an alien and inscrutable mindset, their desires and thoughts driven by a different set of basic principles than those of warm-blooded creatures. Their dismal swamp homes might lie hundreds of miles from the nearest human settlement, but the gap between their way of thinking and that of the smooth-skins is far greater.
I see the different fantasy races as being biologically distinct and I think the lore backs that up. I'm not of the view that intelligence frees anyone from their biological intuitions. I think its fair to say that viewing the different fantasy races as being fundamentally indistinct does lead to the conclusion that treating them differently by appearance is racist. But I think that is a misunderstanding of the world.
I really think attempting to classify D&D races as separate species is an attempt to sidestep a hard question about racism. Whatever orcs are, they are not beasts. There does have to be some moral question about killing them.
In my mind fantasy worlds aren't the same as our world, I think people are importing the concerns we have around race into the fantasy world. In our world and in the D&D world, humans are diverse but there isn't any meaningful biological or game mechanic distinction between human ethnicities.
What a concept, importing real world concerns into fiction. It isn't as simple as saying, "It's fantasy, so it's not important." Ideas leak in and out. What you portray in fiction can affect people's real-world ideology.
I don't really have a problem with a game that's oriented around killing your enemies. And if it's established that orcs are pretty consistently enemies, then sure, kill them on sight. I mean, if you're at war, and you see someone in an enemy uniform, you don't wait to ask if they want to talk it out first. At the same time, you might want to consider not depicting orcs as incorrigibly bloodthirsty and warlike. Maybe instead do the worldbuilding to explain what material conditions caused humans and orcs to be at war. And have the possibility of an individual orc who defects to the other side and acts more or less "civilized".
I also don't have a problem with murder hobos. If you want to play an evil character, fine. Go around murdering humans and orcs equally.
My party once had an encounter with a group of lizardfolk. We killed the combatants without remorse. But then there were non-combatant elderly and children left. Some in the party wanted to exterminate them. I interceded. That was in character for me. As a non-human druid, I don't have as much bias for the moral value of humans vs. other creatures. If I played a different character, I might have acted differently. It's okay to play characters with biases, but be aware of the ethical significance of that, instead of acting like it doesn't matter.
I think that's a good test of whether you really consider non-human races inhuman and morally irrelevant. Would you kill a child of that race who poses no threat? Even if you consider it just a game, would you play that game? I think it's okay to play a WWII board game as the Axis simply as a game for the challenge of it. But would you want to play an FPS where you shoot unarmed children?
I really think attempting to classify D&D races as separate species is an attempt to sidestep a hard question about racism. Whatever orcs are, they are not beasts. There does have to be some moral question about killing them.
In my mind fantasy worlds aren't the same as our world, I think people are importing the concerns we have around race into the fantasy world. In our world and in the D&D world, humans are diverse but there isn't any meaningful biological or game mechanic distinction between human ethnicities.
What a concept, importing real world concerns into fiction. It isn't as simple as saying, "It's fantasy, so it's not important." Ideas leak in and out. What you portray in fiction can affect people's real-world ideology.
I don't really have a problem with a game that's oriented around killing your enemies. And if it's established that orcs are pretty consistently enemies, then sure, kill them on sight. I mean, if you're at war, and you see someone in an enemy uniform, you don't wait to ask if they want to talk it out first. At the same time, you might want to consider not depicting orcs as incorrigibly bloodthirsty and warlike. Maybe instead do the worldbuilding to explain what material conditions caused humans and orcs to be at war. And have the possibility of an individual orc who defects to the other side and acts more or less "civilized".
I also don't have a problem with murder hobos. If you want to play an evil character, fine. Go around murdering humans and orcs equally.
My party once had an encounter with a group of lizardfolk. We killed the combatants without remorse. But then there were non-combatant elderly and children left. Some in the party wanted to exterminate them. I interceded. That was in character for me. As a non-human druid, I don't have as much bias for the moral value of humans vs. other creatures. If I played a different character, I might have acted differently. It's okay to play characters with biases, but be aware of the ethical significance of that, instead of acting like it doesn't matter.
I think that's a good test of whether you really consider non-human races inhuman and morally irrelevant. Would you kill a child of that race who poses no threat? Even if you consider it just a game, would you play that game? I think it's okay to play a WWII board game as the Axis simply as a game for the challenge of it. But would you want to play an FPS where you shoot unarmed children?
I'm not an expert on D&D lore but I'm pretty sure all that world building around intelligent monstrous species being created to be vicious and cruel is in there. I gave the example of Drizzt before but part of what made him popular was that he was the individual distinct from the rest of the drow. I also played World of Warcraft for a while and played on the Horde side, made up of orcs, trolls, undead, tauren and blood elves. I found their lore way more interesting than the more "civilized" alliance of humans, dwarves, gnomes, night elves and dranei.
And I'm not saying addressing racism isn't important because its fantasy, that's a misunderstanding of my position. I'm disagreeing with some of the ideas and approaches directed at addressing it.
'... and then Jack chopped down what was the world's last beanstalk, adding murder and ecological vandalism to the theft, enticement and trespass charges already mentioned, and all the giant's children didn't have a daddy anymore, but he got away with it and lived happily ever after without so much as a guilty twinge about what he had done. Which proves that you can be excused just about anything if you’re a hero, because no one asks inconvenient questions.' -Susan Sto Helit from Hogfather
So, all Orcs are evil, gotcha, sure sounds like collective punishment, hey, isn't that a war crime? I think the same applied to Goblins until WoTC decided they wanted to market another product and made them PCs. All the race/species/blah blah blah is so people can be murder hobos without having to think about it, period. If each meeting with any sentient being has be weighed by merit and actions then players are forced to think, and most don't want to do that because it smacks of real life. Much easier to tar with a broad brush and throw some dice. Of course I can't blame all the players, the user base of DMs bears a lot of the responsibility for setting up the situation in the first place, but that would be if they were repeating WoTC material in their own Home Brew. And finally, I think WoTC is the big culprit because they create modules that people buy and run that repeats the guilty until proved innocent claptrap of the MM. All so the players have this evil cardboard cutout two dimensional stereotype they don't feel guilty about murdering.
I really think attempting to classify D&D races as separate species is an attempt to sidestep a hard question about racism. Whatever orcs are, they are not beasts. There does have to be some moral question about killing them.
In my mind fantasy worlds aren't the same as our world, I think people are importing the concerns we have around race into the fantasy world. In our world and in the D&D world, humans are diverse but there isn't any meaningful biological or game mechanic distinction between human ethnicities.
What a concept, importing real world concerns into fiction. It isn't as simple as saying, "It's fantasy, so it's not important." Ideas leak in and out. What you portray in fiction can affect people's real-world ideology.
I don't really have a problem with a game that's oriented around killing your enemies. And if it's established that orcs are pretty consistently enemies, then sure, kill them on sight. I mean, if you're at war, and you see someone in an enemy uniform, you don't wait to ask if they want to talk it out first. At the same time, you might want to consider not depicting orcs as incorrigibly bloodthirsty and warlike. Maybe instead do the worldbuilding to explain what material conditions caused humans and orcs to be at war. And have the possibility of an individual orc who defects to the other side and acts more or less "civilized".
I also don't have a problem with murder hobos. If you want to play an evil character, fine. Go around murdering humans and orcs equally.
My party once had an encounter with a group of lizardfolk. We killed the combatants without remorse. But then there were non-combatant elderly and children left. Some in the party wanted to exterminate them. I interceded. That was in character for me. As a non-human druid, I don't have as much bias for the moral value of humans vs. other creatures. If I played a different character, I might have acted differently. It's okay to play characters with biases, but be aware of the ethical significance of that, instead of acting like it doesn't matter.
I think that's a good test of whether you really consider non-human races inhuman and morally irrelevant. Would you kill a child of that race who poses no threat? Even if you consider it just a game, would you play that game? I think it's okay to play a WWII board game as the Axis simply as a game for the challenge of it. But would you want to play an FPS where you shoot unarmed children?
I'm not an expert on D&D lore but I'm pretty sure all that world building around intelligent monstrous species being created to be vicious and cruel is in there.
Sure, and it's kind of a tradition going back at least to Tolkien, but probably further. European folklore has creatures like the jötnar and fomorians that are evil monstrous races. But I think even in folklore it is a metaphor for foreigners, treating people who you perhaps have only encountered in the context of war as having no character other than to make war. That's a naive attitude. In reality most people you fight in a war are for the most part people like you, who would probably rather not fight if they could get what they needed without fighting.
Sure, and it's kind of a tradition going back at least to Tolkien, but probably further. European folklore has creatures like the jötnar and fomorians that are evil monstrous races. But I think even in folklore it is a metaphor for foreigners, treating people who you perhaps have only encountered in the context of war as having no character other than to make war. That's a naive attitude. In reality most people you fight in a war are for the most part people like you, who would probably rather not fight if they could get what they needed without fighting.
Maybe this is where the heart of the disagreement is at, whether the fantasy world is a metaphor for the real world or an alternate reality? I like the escapism and thinking of how other worlds with different evolutions, histories, cosmologies would be different than ours.
'... and then Jack chopped down what was the world's last beanstalk, adding murder and ecological vandalism to the theft, enticement and trespass charges already mentioned, and all the giant's children didn't have a daddy anymore, but he got away with it and lived happily ever after without so much as a guilty twinge about what he had done. Which proves that you can be excused just about anything if you’re a hero, because no one asks inconvenient questions.' -Susan Sto Helit from Hogfather
So, all Orcs are evil, gotcha, sure sounds like collective punishment, hey, isn't that a war crime? I think the same applied to Goblins until WoTC decided they wanted to market another product and made them PCs. All the race/species/blah blah blah is so people can be murder hobos without having to think about it, period. If each meeting with any sentient being has be weighed by merit and actions then players are forced to think, and most don't want to do that because it smacks of real life. Much easier to tar with a broad brush and throw some dice. Of course I can't blame all the players, the user base of DMs bears a lot of the responsibility for setting up the situation in the first place, but that would be if they were repeating WoTC material in their own Home Brew. And finally, I think WoTC is the big culprit because they create modules that people buy and run that repeats the guilty until proved innocent claptrap of the MM. All so the players have this evil cardboard cutout two dimensional stereotype they don't feel guilty about murdering.
The world of D&D doesn't have a state monopoly on violence, it doesn't have a judicial system with courts and lawyers, at least on a global scale. Vigilante justice is the name of the game. What solution is there for stopping PCs murdering bands of violent thugs, more wicked many times over than any real world examples we have today, other than changing crossbows to tazers and magic missiles to stun missiles and setting up courts and jails all throughout the kingdom to house and rehabilitate all those beings who just don't know any better?
Pretty much every campaign I've been a part of has had the PCs going after the monstrous humanoids for things they have done or are doing, not because they are orcs or goblins, etc.
Sure, and it's kind of a tradition going back at least to Tolkien, but probably further. European folklore has creatures like the jötnar and fomorians that are evil monstrous races. But I think even in folklore it is a metaphor for foreigners, treating people who you perhaps have only encountered in the context of war as having no character other than to make war. That's a naive attitude. In reality most people you fight in a war are for the most part people like you, who would probably rather not fight if they could get what they needed without fighting.
Maybe this is where the heart of the disagreement is at, whether the fantasy world is a metaphor for the real world or an alternate reality? I like the escapism and thinking of how other worlds with different evolutions, histories, cosmologies would be different than ours.
Every imaginary world is a metaphor, whether you want it to be or not. There is no escape. Escapism is always partial and imperfect. If we were truly just trying to imagine other possibilities, then fantasy races would be far more alien, to the point of being incomprehensible. The fact that fantasy and even sci-fi use primarily Star Trek style aliens that are basically humans with prosthetics is intentional. We want something like us, so we can play out our human conflicts in an imaginary world.
Now, there are monsters in fantasy that are not metaphors for foreigners or other races. They are instead metaphors for natural forces or dangerous and repressed parts of our own psyche. Slaughter those to your heart's content.
IMO, (bearing full in mind this is a RPG) what's being ignored, in the discussion of "Race", and Races, is the Tenet Of Tolerance. I do not believe either Tolkien or Gygax would have countenanced, for even a moment, the air of intolerance towards others, based merely upon somebody's physical makeup. Tolkien wrote grand stories of races which were stronger, and victorious, against overwhelming odds, because they stood united, against their enemies. These enemies existed, not in racial hatred, but in political difference.
D&D has always been (and, I hope, always will continue to be) a game of tolerance for one another, as we embrace each other's strengths, and help each other overcome our weaknesses, as a tolerant collective.
As to mechanics, in the creation of Characters, there was a point where the originators didn't want the players to cross into the unlimited choices of species. The term "race", was used, to differentiate and separate set characteristics which would embrace the skill sets of a particular class. Being a Gnome, or Elf, makes it far easier to be a Druid, for example. Being a Human or Half-Orc makes it easier to be a Fighter or Barbarian. But if the inclusion of the entire world of species was originally used, our Player's Manuals, from day one, would have been larger than the Encylopedia Brittanica, which was an obvious encumbrance the founding fathers wisely avoided. But I don't think races were set to be seen as Human, rather as equal, and to a large degree separate species, which have special enhanced traits, singular to and of themselves.
Sure, and it's kind of a tradition going back at least to Tolkien, but probably further. European folklore has creatures like the jötnar and fomorians that are evil monstrous races. But I think even in folklore it is a metaphor for foreigners, treating people who you perhaps have only encountered in the context of war as having no character other than to make war. That's a naive attitude. In reality most people you fight in a war are for the most part people like you, who would probably rather not fight if they could get what they needed without fighting.
Maybe this is where the heart of the disagreement is at, whether the fantasy world is a metaphor for the real world or an alternate reality? I like the escapism and thinking of how other worlds with different evolutions, histories, cosmologies would be different than ours.
That's my opinion anyway.
Every imaginary world is a metaphor, whether you want it to be or not. There is no escape. Escapism is always partial and imperfect. If we were truly just trying to imagine other possibilities, then fantasy races would be far more alien, to the point of being incomprehensible. The fact that fantasy and even sci-fi use primarily Star Trek style aliens that are basically humans with prosthetics is intentional. We want something like us, so we can play out our human conflicts in an imaginary world.
Now, there are monsters in fantasy that are not metaphors for foreigners or other races. They are instead metaphors for natural forces or dangerous and repressed parts of our own psyche. Slaughter those to your heart's content.
Sounds more like opinion to me rather than a fact about the world. We can try to change our opinions and views or we can try to change the world, either way changes the way the world appears to us. Essentially I'm saying change your opinion about how "human" orcs are (by changing the language), rather than change the orcs themselves.
it gave a quote "ORCS ARE HUMAN beings who can be slaughtered without conscience or apology." The whole article is largely based off that faulty premise that orcs are a kind of human.
Well, yes, they need to make the distinction between human and person. The moral issue is really that they are people, not human.
Species is a little problematic as a term too, especially if we bring scientific definitions into it. Remember that half-orcs and half-elves don't have to be first generation crosses. That implies they are fertile, not mules. Darrow are (sometimes) elf-dwarf crosses, as a people. Similarly, throughout the years we've had virtually all the PC races interbreed. That, and there's no scientific accounting for magic one way or the other. That all implies that race in D&D is ultimately a social construct, just like in real life. You just have to go deeper to show that to be the case. Really, we only use the term race because Tolkien used it.
Cheetahs are more graceful than grizzly bears which are stronger and hardier. I don't see why its problematic that orcs or goblins have more aggressive, selfish natures than PC species to the point where they are generally destructive to the welfare of others in the world. Can we not call that evil?
No, we can't, because it makes evil arbitrary. Evil requires a knowledge of the distinction between good and evil, and a choice to do otherwise. As they say in ethics, capability limits culpability.
Part of the issue with how we represent races in D&D is that we present culture and biology (or lets say the physical state, since magic can be involved) as one. There are times the published material has pointed out this is flawed, but those are exceptions. It would be better to split these. In real life we make similar errors, so it isn't wrong to say this happens in-world.
One approach would be to give each character a race and an ethnicity. In this case we would be defining ethnicity in terms of cultural identity strictly (and that would be explicit in any related description). Even then, you need to dump the idea of evil races / cultures, and describe them in terms of their values. Some values may be abhorrent to other value-sets, but not objectively evil.
I think a lot of people reject making the system less morally problematic because they feel like that means they have to play moral paragons. That's no more required than it ever was. Really you should just be aware when your character is treating a person as less than a person. It doesn't mean the character has to get that. Or care.
Now I know it was mentioned that sometimes we do just want to just maul things indiscriminately. That's ok. Making the base system not be loaded with something questionable doesn't change that. There are two ways to do that, but both come down to setting out to do that intentionally. One, you agree, in your session 0, that you'll be playing a light-hearted game and you're making a conscious decision to not worry about the moral issues that much. Two, the DM can agree to focus on morally neutral enemies, like non-sentient undead, constructs, and other non-sentient things.
Recognizing the orcs and such are people doesn't change that much. Have you never had a PC kill a human?
I get from this conversation that many feel it is impossible for any group to be considered "Kill on Sight." I think this goes to world building. If your tables world building doesn't include any group with an underlying evil ethos then I guess every situation requires investigation before a group can be attacked. But there are some groups in most world building that are "Kill on Sight" because their underlying ethos is evil. This is the slogan for the Ironborn in GoT:
"We are ironborn. We're not subjects, we're not slaves. We do not plow the field or toil in the mine. We take what is ours."
This is an evil ethos. If they were in my world, they would be considered "Kill on Sight" because of this. Any men riding under an Ironborn banner would be "fair game" for an ambush. Any ship seen sailing under the Ironborn Flag would be treated as a pirate ship.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
it gave a quote "ORCS ARE HUMAN beings who can be slaughtered without conscience or apology." The whole article is largely based off that faulty premise that orcs are a kind of human.
Well, yes, they need to make the distinction between human and person. The moral issue is really that they are people, not human.
Species is a little problematic as a term too, especially if we bring scientific definitions into it. Remember that half-orcs and half-elves don't have to be first generation crosses. That implies they are fertile, not mules. Darrow are (sometimes) elf-dwarf crosses, as a people. Similarly, throughout the years we've had virtually all the PC races interbreed. That, and there's no scientific accounting for magic one way or the other. That all implies that race in D&D is ultimately a social construct, just like in real life. You just have to go deeper to show that to be the case. Really, we only use the term race because Tolkien used it.
Cheetahs are more graceful than grizzly bears which are stronger and hardier. I don't see why its problematic that orcs or goblins have more aggressive, selfish natures than PC species to the point where they are generally destructive to the welfare of others in the world. Can we not call that evil?
No, we can't, because it makes evil arbitrary. Evil requires a knowledge of the distinction between good and evil, and a choice to do otherwise. As they say in ethics, capability limits culpability.
Part of the issue with how we represent races in D&D is that we present culture and biology (or lets say the physical state, since magic can be involved) as one. There are times the published material has pointed out this is flawed, but those are exceptions. It would be better to split these. In real life we make similar errors, so it isn't wrong to say this happens in-world.
One approach would be to give each character a race and an ethnicity. In this case we would be defining ethnicity in terms of cultural identity strictly (and that would be explicit in any related description). Even then, you need to dump the idea of evil races / cultures, and describe them in terms of their values. Some values may be abhorrent to other value-sets, but not objectively evil.
I think a lot of people reject making the system less morally problematic because they feel like that means they have to play moral paragons. That's no more required than it ever was. Really you should just be aware when your character is treating a person as less than a person. It doesn't mean the character has to get that. Or care.
Now I know it was mentioned that sometimes we do just want to just maul things indiscriminately. That's ok. Making the base system not be loaded with something questionable doesn't change that. There are two ways to do that, but both come down to setting out to do that intentionally. One, you agree, in your session 0, that you'll be playing a light-hearted game and you're making a conscious decision to not worry about the moral issues that much. Two, the DM can agree to focus on morally neutral enemies, like non-sentient undead, constructs, and other non-sentient things.
Recognizing the orcs and such are people doesn't change that much. Have you never had a PC kill a human?
That quote about orcs being humans you can slaughter is accurate, it’s the same reason Lucas created droids, or marvel had alien attackers. It feels far better if the enemies getting slaughtered by the humans don’t look like us, and so the writer makes them different but they might as well be humans.
Cheetahs are more graceful than grizzly bears which are stronger and hardier. I don't see why its problematic that orcs or goblins have more aggressive, selfish natures than PC species to the point where they are generally destructive to the welfare of others in the world. Can we not call that evil?
No, we can't, because it makes evil arbitrary. Evil requires a knowledge of the distinction between good and evil, and a choice to do otherwise. As they say in ethics, capability limits culpability... ...Even then, you need to dump the idea of evil races / cultures, and describe them in terms of their values. Some values may be abhorrent to other value-sets, but not objectively evil.
How much of the disagreement has to do with the word evil? I don't think of evil as some sort of objective essence. If a culture or a group of people have a value set that causes them to regularly murder, **** and generally cause destruction rather than being willing to engage peacefully and reciprocally, or at least keep a neutral distance, with the rest of the world I don't have any issue with nominally labeling that group as evil. I guess that standard is arbitrary, but we have to draw a line somewhere don't we?
If orcs took the path that they did in World of Warcraft and people still wanted to kill on sight or in other ways denigrate them then I would call that racist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except that Tolkien was specific that Men and Elves were Humans. Dwarves (being the creation of Aulë but sanctified by Eru) were a separate species, as were Hobbits (whom no one knows how they arose, least of all themselves). Orks were both Men who had been corrupted by Melkor (since he lacked the ability to create on his own) and lesser Maia spirits who took Orkish form, though both "multiplied after the manner of the Children of Eru". But the fact is only Dwarves and Hobbits weren't Homo Sapiens. Elves, Men, Orks/Half-Orks were subspecies of Homo Sapiens.
In terms of D&D, they're most certainly NOT Homo Sapiens (though Elves might still be, since Half-Elves might be viable). Orks are the creations of malevolent gods like Gruumsh. That was why the term Demi-Human was coined.
[REDACTED]
Ultimately as a writer it is your choice how you want your species represented. I personally like to think of the "Races" as templates to be changed as the story needs. In one story I read called "The Rise of the Ranger" had the elves as an off shut of humanity and Orcs as a sophisticated technologically advanced society. While in the Witcher books the conflict came about the MC having to discern the true nature of "monsters". One experiment you can do is to write a "race" against type. Like a violent elf, a clean goblin and a troll going through therapy if you find those stories as new and exciting then enjoy them.
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.
I have always loved Terry Pratchett's take on trolls, intelligent beings that just need to be cold enough :).
It is, and I'm 100% okay with anyone running a campaign anyway they want. And going against type is interesting, one of the greatest D&D characters of all time goes against type, Drizzt. I take issue with attempts to rewrite or dictate to others a way of doing things that is one, already established, and two, in ways that people might not fully agree with.
I like the distinction between species and think in line with the real world idea about biology and intellect. That our genes code much of our personality and evolution has shaped much of the direction of our behaviors. The best analogy I've heard used is that of an elephant and its rider, our innate intuitions and behaviors are dominant and our intellect has limited, but vital, ability to sway us.
I'm just not on board with the arguments that article and others like it make and think there are better ways to address racist tropes in the game. I don't want every character to be essentially a variant human only some with scales and some with pointy ears.
Well races imply sentience, which species does not. Also species, whether true to the actual definition or not carries the connotation of animals, which i think goes against your intent here. Honestly all the races are simultaneously races and species, certain groups of elves and humans etc have different genetic evolutions which dont imply the entirety of their races so wheres the line?
language isnt as cut and dry as people seem to wish it to be, people forget that context plays probably the most important part in communication as the context is the intent of whats being said to begin with and lots of that is lost through written or typed stuff so people apply their own context which is informed by their personal experience.
All these conversations do is anger people and separate people in a game where almost all the lore has seemingly intended to do the opposite. Just be a good person and play your stuff with an open mind/Kind heart and youll be fine for the most part. these convos are kind of ridiculous, we're playing make believe games.
Only in our world where there is only one sentient species. In D&D land there are many. And humans ARE a type of animal.
Yes language is the issue. Race is a word loaded with much baggage and is a mostly meaningless invention, aside from what society has given it. In our world race doesn't actually describe meaningful distinctions between peoples. In the D&D world there are important distinctions between sentient humanoids.
Many people want to make the game more socially aware and inclusive. That requires some sort of changes be made to the game. My idea is that rather than eliminating distinctions between different categories of sentient humanoids, use a more appropriate word. It takes a bit of work on the part of everyone involved.
I agree. As I said though I don't agree with some of the suggestions for changing the game and want to contribute my two cents. My intent is to bring more light than heat, I can't control what others do.
Biologically, the definition of species is creatures that can interbreed with each other. The existence of half-elves and half-orcs proves humans, elves, and orcs are one species, unless perhaps half-elves and half-orcs are infertile hybrids like mules.
I really think attempting to classify D&D races as separate species is an attempt to sidestep a hard question about racism. Whatever orcs are, they are not beasts. There does have to be some moral question about killing them.
Interbreed AND produce offspring that aren't infertile. For example horses and donkeys can reproduce to make infertile mules, or tigers and lions.
In my mind fantasy worlds aren't the same as our world, I think people are importing the concerns we have around race into the fantasy world. In our world and in the D&D world, humans are diverse but there isn't any meaningful biological or game mechanic distinction between human ethnicities.
The meme of PCs being murder hobos came about for a reason. Most parties roam from area to area carrying all their stuff on their backs and kill things to solve problems. It seems to me that is a moral issue that people care about and another moral issue people care about is racism. There are games that take place on earth with humans as the only sentient species. Lets address racism in the game, I just don't think the depiction of monstrous races is racism.
Lizardfolk as a PC class are a good example of how I think about it. Their lizard biology not only affects their bodies but their mental states too.
I see the different fantasy races as being biologically distinct and I think the lore backs that up. I'm not of the view that intelligence frees anyone from their biological intuitions. I think its fair to say that viewing the different fantasy races as being fundamentally indistinct does lead to the conclusion that treating them differently by appearance is racist. But I think that is a misunderstanding of the world.
What a concept, importing real world concerns into fiction. It isn't as simple as saying, "It's fantasy, so it's not important." Ideas leak in and out. What you portray in fiction can affect people's real-world ideology.
I don't really have a problem with a game that's oriented around killing your enemies. And if it's established that orcs are pretty consistently enemies, then sure, kill them on sight. I mean, if you're at war, and you see someone in an enemy uniform, you don't wait to ask if they want to talk it out first. At the same time, you might want to consider not depicting orcs as incorrigibly bloodthirsty and warlike. Maybe instead do the worldbuilding to explain what material conditions caused humans and orcs to be at war. And have the possibility of an individual orc who defects to the other side and acts more or less "civilized".
I also don't have a problem with murder hobos. If you want to play an evil character, fine. Go around murdering humans and orcs equally.
My party once had an encounter with a group of lizardfolk. We killed the combatants without remorse. But then there were non-combatant elderly and children left. Some in the party wanted to exterminate them. I interceded. That was in character for me. As a non-human druid, I don't have as much bias for the moral value of humans vs. other creatures. If I played a different character, I might have acted differently. It's okay to play characters with biases, but be aware of the ethical significance of that, instead of acting like it doesn't matter.
I think that's a good test of whether you really consider non-human races inhuman and morally irrelevant. Would you kill a child of that race who poses no threat? Even if you consider it just a game, would you play that game? I think it's okay to play a WWII board game as the Axis simply as a game for the challenge of it. But would you want to play an FPS where you shoot unarmed children?
I'm not an expert on D&D lore but I'm pretty sure all that world building around intelligent monstrous species being created to be vicious and cruel is in there. I gave the example of Drizzt before but part of what made him popular was that he was the individual distinct from the rest of the drow. I also played World of Warcraft for a while and played on the Horde side, made up of orcs, trolls, undead, tauren and blood elves. I found their lore way more interesting than the more "civilized" alliance of humans, dwarves, gnomes, night elves and dranei.
And I'm not saying addressing racism isn't important because its fantasy, that's a misunderstanding of my position. I'm disagreeing with some of the ideas and approaches directed at addressing it.
'... and then Jack chopped down what was the world's last beanstalk, adding murder and ecological vandalism to the theft, enticement and trespass charges already mentioned, and all the giant's children didn't have a daddy anymore, but he got away with it and lived happily ever after without so much as a guilty twinge about what he had done. Which proves that you can be excused just about anything if you’re a hero, because no one asks inconvenient questions.' -Susan Sto Helit from Hogfather
So, all Orcs are evil, gotcha, sure sounds like collective punishment, hey, isn't that a war crime? I think the same applied to Goblins until WoTC decided they wanted to market another product and made them PCs. All the race/species/blah blah blah is so people can be murder hobos without having to think about it, period. If each meeting with any sentient being has be weighed by merit and actions then players are forced to think, and most don't want to do that because it smacks of real life. Much easier to tar with a broad brush and throw some dice. Of course I can't blame all the players, the user base of DMs bears a lot of the responsibility for setting up the situation in the first place, but that would be if they were repeating WoTC material in their own Home Brew. And finally, I think WoTC is the big culprit because they create modules that people buy and run that repeats the guilty until proved innocent claptrap of the MM. All so the players have this evil cardboard cutout two dimensional stereotype they don't feel guilty about murdering.
Sure, and it's kind of a tradition going back at least to Tolkien, but probably further. European folklore has creatures like the jötnar and fomorians that are evil monstrous races. But I think even in folklore it is a metaphor for foreigners, treating people who you perhaps have only encountered in the context of war as having no character other than to make war. That's a naive attitude. In reality most people you fight in a war are for the most part people like you, who would probably rather not fight if they could get what they needed without fighting.
Maybe this is where the heart of the disagreement is at, whether the fantasy world is a metaphor for the real world or an alternate reality? I like the escapism and thinking of how other worlds with different evolutions, histories, cosmologies would be different than ours.
The world of D&D doesn't have a state monopoly on violence, it doesn't have a judicial system with courts and lawyers, at least on a global scale. Vigilante justice is the name of the game. What solution is there for stopping PCs murdering bands of violent thugs, more wicked many times over than any real world examples we have today, other than changing crossbows to tazers and magic missiles to stun missiles and setting up courts and jails all throughout the kingdom to house and rehabilitate all those beings who just don't know any better?
Pretty much every campaign I've been a part of has had the PCs going after the monstrous humanoids for things they have done or are doing, not because they are orcs or goblins, etc.
Every imaginary world is a metaphor, whether you want it to be or not. There is no escape. Escapism is always partial and imperfect. If we were truly just trying to imagine other possibilities, then fantasy races would be far more alien, to the point of being incomprehensible. The fact that fantasy and even sci-fi use primarily Star Trek style aliens that are basically humans with prosthetics is intentional. We want something like us, so we can play out our human conflicts in an imaginary world.
Now, there are monsters in fantasy that are not metaphors for foreigners or other races. They are instead metaphors for natural forces or dangerous and repressed parts of our own psyche. Slaughter those to your heart's content.
IMO, (bearing full in mind this is a RPG) what's being ignored, in the discussion of "Race", and Races, is the Tenet Of Tolerance. I do not believe either Tolkien or Gygax would have countenanced, for even a moment, the air of intolerance towards others, based merely upon somebody's physical makeup. Tolkien wrote grand stories of races which were stronger, and victorious, against overwhelming odds, because they stood united, against their enemies. These enemies existed, not in racial hatred, but in political difference.
D&D has always been (and, I hope, always will continue to be) a game of tolerance for one another, as we embrace each other's strengths, and help each other overcome our weaknesses, as a tolerant collective.
As to mechanics, in the creation of Characters, there was a point where the originators didn't want the players to cross into the unlimited choices of species. The term "race", was used, to differentiate and separate set characteristics which would embrace the skill sets of a particular class. Being a Gnome, or Elf, makes it far easier to be a Druid, for example. Being a Human or Half-Orc makes it easier to be a Fighter or Barbarian. But if the inclusion of the entire world of species was originally used, our Player's Manuals, from day one, would have been larger than the Encylopedia Brittanica, which was an obvious encumbrance the founding fathers wisely avoided. But I don't think races were set to be seen as Human, rather as equal, and to a large degree separate species, which have special enhanced traits, singular to and of themselves.
Sounds more like opinion to me rather than a fact about the world. We can try to change our opinions and views or we can try to change the world, either way changes the way the world appears to us. Essentially I'm saying change your opinion about how "human" orcs are (by changing the language), rather than change the orcs themselves.
Well, yes, they need to make the distinction between human and person. The moral issue is really that they are people, not human.
Species is a little problematic as a term too, especially if we bring scientific definitions into it. Remember that half-orcs and half-elves don't have to be first generation crosses. That implies they are fertile, not mules. Darrow are (sometimes) elf-dwarf crosses, as a people. Similarly, throughout the years we've had virtually all the PC races interbreed. That, and there's no scientific accounting for magic one way or the other. That all implies that race in D&D is ultimately a social construct, just like in real life. You just have to go deeper to show that to be the case. Really, we only use the term race because Tolkien used it.
No, we can't, because it makes evil arbitrary. Evil requires a knowledge of the distinction between good and evil, and a choice to do otherwise. As they say in ethics, capability limits culpability.
Part of the issue with how we represent races in D&D is that we present culture and biology (or lets say the physical state, since magic can be involved) as one. There are times the published material has pointed out this is flawed, but those are exceptions. It would be better to split these. In real life we make similar errors, so it isn't wrong to say this happens in-world.
One approach would be to give each character a race and an ethnicity. In this case we would be defining ethnicity in terms of cultural identity strictly (and that would be explicit in any related description). Even then, you need to dump the idea of evil races / cultures, and describe them in terms of their values. Some values may be abhorrent to other value-sets, but not objectively evil.
I think a lot of people reject making the system less morally problematic because they feel like that means they have to play moral paragons. That's no more required than it ever was. Really you should just be aware when your character is treating a person as less than a person. It doesn't mean the character has to get that. Or care.
Now I know it was mentioned that sometimes we do just want to just maul things indiscriminately. That's ok. Making the base system not be loaded with something questionable doesn't change that. There are two ways to do that, but both come down to setting out to do that intentionally. One, you agree, in your session 0, that you'll be playing a light-hearted game and you're making a conscious decision to not worry about the moral issues that much. Two, the DM can agree to focus on morally neutral enemies, like non-sentient undead, constructs, and other non-sentient things.
Recognizing the orcs and such are people doesn't change that much. Have you never had a PC kill a human?
I get from this conversation that many feel it is impossible for any group to be considered "Kill on Sight." I think this goes to world building. If your tables world building doesn't include any group with an underlying evil ethos then I guess every situation requires investigation before a group can be attacked. But there are some groups in most world building that are "Kill on Sight" because their underlying ethos is evil. This is the slogan for the Ironborn in GoT:
"We are ironborn. We're not subjects, we're not slaves. We do not plow the field or toil in the mine. We take what is ours."
This is an evil ethos. If they were in my world, they would be considered "Kill on Sight" because of this. Any men riding under an Ironborn banner would be "fair game" for an ambush. Any ship seen sailing under the Ironborn Flag would be treated as a pirate ship.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
That quote about orcs being humans you can slaughter is accurate, it’s the same reason Lucas created droids, or marvel had alien attackers. It feels far better if the enemies getting slaughtered by the humans don’t look like us, and so the writer makes them different but they might as well be humans.
How much of the disagreement has to do with the word evil? I don't think of evil as some sort of objective essence. If a culture or a group of people have a value set that causes them to regularly murder, **** and generally cause destruction rather than being willing to engage peacefully and reciprocally, or at least keep a neutral distance, with the rest of the world I don't have any issue with nominally labeling that group as evil. I guess that standard is arbitrary, but we have to draw a line somewhere don't we?
If orcs took the path that they did in World of Warcraft and people still wanted to kill on sight or in other ways denigrate them then I would call that racist.