The Gaming Den

It's a game. Who the hell cares what nuts who want to push the crazy can do with it? They can manage to do it with anything you can propose. It's like worrying that Harry Potter will teach children that adoption is just like slavery.

ishy wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:and the use of rape to exert dominance or satisfy desire is common amongst orcs, especially in raids."

Personally, I do not want every scene involving orcs to include rape.

Neither do I (see my Bastards and Bloodlines review), but it was kind of part the general "they basically live as iron age humans actually did, just in shittier territory, and with the lens of time, that looks evil" thing that was implied in the whole thing.

The similarities between D&D racism and real world racism are real and bad. A lot of this comes from Tolkien, who as a white guy from South Africa basically couldn't help himself from using racially charged language to describe villains. But like with HP Lovecraft's descriptions of vile negresses, the fact that it's historically explicable should not and does not make it socially acceptable.

There is an active D&D contingent on Stormfront. The fact that they can carry on with their vile hate speech while changing so little of the source material should give us pause. Certainly it gave Tolkien pause, it genuinely upset him how little difference there seemed to be between his own" anti-Nazi" work and actual Nazi propaganda. If Tolkien could find the similarities disconcerting in the forties, why should we not change things in the here and now?

-Username17

Scrivener wrote:Just to be clear. People have done evil stuff. Really evil stuff where they they justify the systematic enslavement and murder of a race of peoples. This is a bad thing that goes on today. I feel calling a species of make believe monsters an obvious stand in for a race of real humans is offensive and trivialises the reality of the situation.

If your system can't handle someone bringing in a system of morality that it wasn't set up to accommodate, then it sucks, and needs to be replaced.

Scrivener wrote:But what I find offensive and confusing is that people find orcs to be a clear analog of a real racial group.

A few Seconds of googling:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t557530/

A few more seconds of googling:
http://www.chimpout.com/forum/showthrea ... n-disguise
http://[EDITED].net/forum/showthread ... gers-Human

This image was made as a racist joke by someone, maybe a troll, maybe a stormfronter:

The caption reminded me of looting versus finding during Katrina. I think the Daily Show really brought this to my attention, but here's a new article discussing the issue:

Black People "Loot" Food … White People "Find" Food.

Scrivener wrote:The Picts from Conan are an offensive racial stereotype. Orcs aren't, unless there are a whole bunch of stereotypes I'm unaware of.

There's even "Orcs are black people" in other games, not just DnD. Warhammer 40K, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, probably more.

I'm more shocked that you've never even heard of this than anything else.

DSMatticus wrote: But fundamentally, you need to remember that racists actually believe that some of the cosmetic variants of human that exist on this planet are inherently evil and inferior. And when you introduce a race in your setting that is basically a cosmetic variant of human and declare that it is inherently evil and inferior, you're telling them that this is a fantasy world in which they're right.

Personally I think it's more racist to assign orcs intelligence and charisma penalties if you're going to draw any parellel to racism. If anything, making them pure evil makes it seems less racist in my mind, because they actually seem more like a fantasy race rather than a real world race. If you make them act like humans but are in fact, dumber, uglier and have barbaric cultures that are utterly incapable of forming basic civilization, that seems far more racist.

I've always felt better about orcs the more different they are. It's one of the reasons I don't like the modern RPG redeemable orc and prefer the hard-coded sociopath orc. The modernized orc just draws way too many parallels to black people than I'm comfortable with. I'm just waiting for some game world to have orcs living in slums and ghettos in big human cities. Modern orcs don't even feel like a monster race anymore, especially given some of the attempts to make half-orcs into children born of romances and not rape. They seem a direct parallel to black people now, only with the total racist undertones that they are stupid and uglier than the "real" human and the only way they ever establish civilization is with the white man's help.

Okay, when I first made my argument I realized I was way too hasty after doing the Google to get corroborating evidence. I not only realized that I was using an idiosyncratic definition of sociopathy but I realized that sociopathy isn't even very well defined.

So. Let's start from square one again. Are we using the medical definition or sociopathy (which is Antisocial Personality disorder) or a colloquial one? If we're using the medical definition of APD, which subtype are we talking about? Which traits are we emphasizing? Because, like, I could see a constructed race that fits the medical criteria for APD but actually has a structurally stronger society than that of humans without resorting to special pleading.

If we're defining sociopathy as 'lack of empathy', we need to be more specific. Why does this race have a lack of empathy? Is it extreme selfishness (like I was stating)? Is it lack of social imagination? Is it solipsism? Is it impulsiveness? Is it sadism? What?

Lokathor wrote:

Scrivener wrote:The Picts from Conan are an offensive racial stereotype. Orcs aren't, unless there are a whole bunch of stereotypes I'm unaware of.

There's even "Orcs are black people" in other games, not just DnD. Warhammer 40K, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, probably more.

I'm more shocked that you've never even heard of this than anything else.

Actually, 40K Orks are working-class Englishmen.

Cyberzombie wrote:If anything, making them pure evil makes it seems less racist in my mind, because they actually seem more like a fantasy race rather than a real world race.

ARGH

TOLKEIN

STORMFRONT

Tolkein's orcs are inherently evil. The Stormfront crowd looks at that and says, "oh, so they're [the types of minorities I don't like]?" Because that is the actual Stormfront world view - that minorities are despicable beast men who can't be a part of civilized society. It is not less racist to set up your world so that is in complete accord with the world view of racists. That would be the opposite of less.

Now, in the real world, the racists are wrong about minorities, and they are wrong to make those sorts of comparisons. But that is what they believe, and having humans in green bodypaint who are inherently evil is declaring that this is a fantasy world in which the racist approach to race relations is 100% correct.

That is all very uncomfortable. But it's also something the genre is in the middle of abandoning - orcs are increasingly a protagonist race, and you don't really get anything out of declaring them to be kill-on-sight. It's not like people have problems stabbing the cult of baby-kicking if they aren't green. You don't need evil races for evil villains.

I think it's a mistake to continue to use the words 'good' and 'evil' to refer to the alignments of 'Good' and 'Evil' - the disagreements about what good and evil are in reality tend to obscure people's understanding of what the D&D cosmic forces are.

That said, I'm very pleased that they brought back the good ol' nine-state configuration. The 4th Ed. compromise was an abomination, combining the worst aspects of the possible options, and nicely demonstrated why sometimes a compromise is worse than continued conflict.

One thing I noticed with barbarian tribes and stuff is that, if they aren't literally evil, then players will usually try to negotiate with them, since there's no fear of divine retribution and such. Which calls to question, why didn't the NPCs already try negotiating with each other? Further compounded by that 90% of a given RPG's mechanical support is going ot be for combat - the reasons NPCs aren't diplomancing each other is that NPCs can't perform GM fellatio, rather than a fluff reason that's backed by mechanics. 3x3 alignment and "orcs are literally evil" start to look like loose threads in a shoddily made sweater when you tug at them.

ORCS ARE BLACK PEOPLE AND ALL ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE PALADINS

Occluded Sun wrote: That said, I'm very pleased that they brought back the good ol' nine-state configuration. The 4th Ed. compromise was an abomination, combining the worst aspects of the possible options, and nicely demonstrated why sometimes a compromise is worse than continued conflict.

Explain. Because eliminating 4 entirely bullshit categories that aren't really distinguishable from other categories looks like a win to me, regardless of how bad 4e was mechanically.

Under this new version of the 9 box, I can't meaningfully tell most of the 'alignments' apart. CG jettisons everything but acting out their own conscience. NG solely focuses on helping the needs of others. If a CG person's conscience tells them they should help others.... what the fuck is the difference? Same with LN. If their 'code of traditions' includes community service what the fuck do I need any of these three boxes for? And I still want a fucking explanation on how conforming to social expectations is a meaningful example of Good or Law, let alone both simultaneously.

So, this seems to boil down to two possibilities:

1. Let's make a game with clearly designated white hats and black hats so we can conveniently vanquish the forces of darkness in four hours with Doritos. We'll call it something catchy, like "Dungeons & Dragons."

2. Tolkien = BAD! Twilight = GOOD! Ahem... Let's make a Middle Ages + Magic simulator where conflicts arise over complex socio-political issues that would be quickly resolved in a universe where you can make magical infinite food-makers, provide custom demi-planes for radical splinter groups trying to find a "promised land," and all sapient races are intrinsically intelligent and reasonable. We'll call it, "Oprah Winfrey Presents: Fantasyland."

While group 2 could generally use group 1's product as a rough framework to inspire their own games, or even look for products that better match their desires, it's apparently far more important to save the world from D&D's corrupting influence.

Perhaps a more artistic Denner could make an anti-D&D comic called "Conspicuously White Dungeons" that ends in the main character yelling, "I don't want to be Galadriel anymore! I want to be Debbie!"

Voss wrote:Explain. Because eliminating 4 entirely bullshit categories that aren't really distinguishable from other categories looks like a win to me, regardless of how bad 4e was mechanically.

But they were quite distinguishable, if perhaps poorly explained. My favorite explanation is as follows:

Alignments are objective. Right and wrong are not.
Good: Will act to prevent harm to others even at personal cost.
Evil: Will seek personal benefit even if it causes harm to others.
Law: General, universal, and consistent trump specific, local, and inconsistent.
Chaos: Specific, local, and inconsistent trump general, universal, and consistent.

The 4E system abolished the dual-axes for a single axis, but tried to combine the concepts of the two along that one. Which is stupid, offensively insulting, and entirely eliminated the utility of the system.

Under this new version of the 9 box, I can't meaningfully tell most of the 'alignments' apart. CG jettisons everything but acting out their own conscience. NG solely focuses on helping the needs of others. If a CG person's conscience tells them they should help others.... what the fuck is the difference?

Chaotic people resist and resent systematic thinking and behavior in favor of spontaneity and situation-specific responses. Lawful (really Ordered) people love systematic thinking and behavior but dislike situation-specific responses; they crave consistency. Neutral people don't particularly care either way.

Same with LN. If their 'code of traditions' includes community service what the fuck do I need any of these three boxes for?

Because the alignments aren't about what characters do. They're about why they do those things - their motivations, not their actions. An action in itself, especially without its context, can't be said to be Good, Evil, Ordered, or Chaotic.

And I still want a fucking explanation on how conforming to social expectations is a meaningful example of Good or Law, let alone both simultaneously.

It's not necessarily either. Conforming to a standard is more Lawful than Chaotic, though. Even then it can be complicated.

Wait, you're arguing that the 9 alignment system has utility? Feel free to justify that.

I'm still not clear on how stupid and offensively insulting it is to eliminate NE, NG and fold parts of lawful into lawful good and evil, and parts of chaotic into good and chaotic evil, when you do half of that anyway (NG and NE are missing from the model you just presented).

Chaotic people resist and resent systematic thinking and behavior in favor of spontaneity and situation-specific responses. Lawful (really Ordered) people love systematic thinking and behavior but dislike situation-specific responses; they crave consistency. Neutral people don't particularly care either way.

That is not what it says. At all. Every single word you wrote is fill-in for what you think the old alignments mean, and irrelevant to what the 5e version actually says.

Anyway, alignment as motivation is hard to justify under any version of the alignment system, to the point that I'd call it pure bullshit. At best they've been the actions that are typically expected of someone of that alignment.
Having said that, it is still obvious that you're wrong. 'help others according to their need' is an action. There is zero motivation in that sentence. Are they doing it for acclaim? Because they feel guilty? So the can have sex with the farmer's daughter? You don't know, because it doesn't address motivation

5E Alignment chart wrote: Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

So Walter White is NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, and NE. Frank Castle is LG, NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, and CE. 007 is LG, NG, CG, LN, N, CN, and LE.

Anyone who follows orders, or has any personal code of ethics is both LN and LE. Anyone who values their own freedom and is willing to fight for is is both CN, CG, and LN. Sociopaths are CG, N, CN, and NE.

Exactly.

And salarymen are LG and N. And possibly CG or NG if they give a bum $5 occasionally. Probably LN, and LE.

CE is pretty much just mental problems of some kind, or twisted magic.

Dropping it entirely or just copy pasting the 4e version would have been better than this. Or something like Good Celestials, Evil Demons and fuck you.

Whenever I seen one of these discussions crop up, I have to shake my head.

If you're looking for a vehicle for examining the intricate, nuanced, and subjective nature of morals and ethics, I promise you that D&D is absolutely NOT that vehicle.
If you try to think about D&D alignment beyond the super-simple and horribly cliched hat colors that it is, then you're trying too hard.

So, why do people insist on trying to make D&D alignment something that can actually stand up to this type of scrutiny?

If you're going with hat colors, you only need two: black and white. And really, you don't need to hard-code those in, people will figure them out on their own.

I don't think alignments offer much to the game experience - and I think that's what most people are saying.

Having 'evil orcs because they were created by their evil god' is wrong on a few levels. First of all, it instills a setting conceit that isn't appropriate for most games - D&D is a tool set and 'home campaigns' with a variety of gods (or even a lack of active gods completely) is the norm. If the justification doesn't hold water in most games, then DMs are forced to come up with another.

Secondly, there isn't really any reason that Gruumsh (or whatever God they're using) should be evil. If he is the protector of the people he's created, what's so evil about that? How is that not the exact same as Corellon Laretheon (sp?)? The Elven Gods are 'good' because the people that worship them are 'good'. The Orc Gods are 'evil' because the people that worship them are 'evil'. Elves are 'good' because they kill 'evil' orcs on sight. Orcs are 'evil' because they kill 'good' elves on sight. If they perform the same actions and the presumed justification is opposite alignments... It makes my head hurt.

Alignment has been used as a kludge to keep players from murder-hoboing beyond the tolerance of the GM (you can't burn down the village...you're lawful good, you guys!). If any action can be justified with any alignment, it doesn't even work in that regard. It tends to be nonsensical and doesn't introduce any 'interesting' moral quandaries - certainly no more than if you didn't have them.

The 'value' to alignments is that PCs don't have to ask 'is it okay to kill this guy?' I'd suggest that most games would be more interesting if the villains did things that justified killing them. Rather than killing them because they have 'evil' on their shirt, make sure they're going something heinous. One major improvement that offers to many games is a 'running clock'. If the orcs have captured a dozen villagers and they're probably going to feast on one each day for the next fortnight, the PCs have an incentive to try to be quick... If the orcs just happened to stroll to close to the village and someone is afraid that they'll eventually become a problem... Well, I'd say anyone that stops to think about the moral implications isn't wrong.

You don't have to do any frame-flipping or special pleading to paint Gruumsh as evil. Even in 3.5E literature that doesn't explicitly frame him as the butt-monkey in the Moradin/C. Latheron conflict, Gruumsh is: violently racist and rejects alliances above and beyond the dwarf/elf, does nothing for the welfare of individual orcs, promotes social darwinism, does not give a flying fuck about what his priesthood does, and encourages factionalism. The only racial deity that is more of an obstacle to the progress of their supposedly chosen people than Gruumsh is Lloth. Yes, even moreso than batshit insane deities of cosmic horrors like the Great Mother (beholders) and Ilsensine (mind flayers).

And really, blaming the societal and political problems of orcs on Gruumsh works better than blaming their psychology or physiology. Aside from the fact that it's much cooler to end the orc wars by stabbing their mad God in the face, that setup creates more conflict and adventure hooks.

Stinktopus wrote:So, this seems to boil down to two possibilities:

1. Let's make a game with clearly designated white hats and black hats so we can conveniently vanquish the forces of darkness in four hours with Doritos. We'll call it something catchy, like "Dungeons & Dragons."

2. Tolkien = BAD! Twilight = GOOD! Ahem... Let's make a Middle Ages + Magic simulator where conflicts arise over complex socio-political issues that would be quickly resolved in a universe where you can make magical infinite food-makers, provide custom demi-planes for radical splinter groups trying to find a "promised land," and all sapient races are intrinsically intelligent and reasonable. We'll call it, "Oprah Winfrey Presents: Fantasyland."

While group 2 could generally use group 1's product as a rough framework to inspire their own games, or even look for products that better match their desires, it's apparently far more important to save the world from D&D's corrupting influence.

Perhaps a more artistic Denner could make an anti-D&D comic called "Conspicuously White Dungeons" that ends in the main character yelling, "I don't want to be Galadriel anymore! I want to be Debbie!"

Here is a very simple question, and before I bother taking you seriously you're going to have to answer it: is race the only way you can think of to simply and clearly designate the setting's white hats and black hats?

If you answer yes, you're probably a racist. I don't mean that in the way "hey, we're having an argument about racism on the internet and you disagree with me so you're a racist," I mean that in the "hey, you just admitted that the only way you can think of to tell bad guys from good guys is the color of their skin."

If you answer no, then you're admitting that the dichotomy constructed in your post is false, and there are in fact trivial ways to satisfy point 1 that do not involve inherently evil orcs or your hyperbolicly described required complexity. You should apologize for your fuck up, which I will assume it is, because the alternative is that you are a liar and your pants are on fire.

Now, both of those answers are obviously bad for you. But unlike your's, the dichotomy I've dropped in your lap is a true one and you either have to man up and pick one or lamely try and weasel out of it. Hint: you should not let my antagonistic attitude cause you to double down and answer yes. You should answer no and agree that the cult of babykickers are obviously blackhats regardless of their racial makeup because they kick babies.

Aside: did you seriously drop a "it's Tolkein or Twilight, and you can have your stupid sparkly vampires" barb into this conversation? That's what my eyes are telling me, but I can't actually bring myself to believe them.

ACOS wrote:Whenever I seen one of these discussions crop up, I have to shake my head.

If you're looking for a vehicle for examining the intricate, nuanced, and subjective nature of morals and ethics, I promise you that D&D is absolutely NOT that vehicle.
If you try to think about D&D alignment beyond the super-simple and horribly cliched hat colors that it is, then you're trying too hard.

So, why do people insist on trying to make D&D alignment something that can actually stand up to this type of scrutiny?

Honestly I'm not. Particularly not in this case. I'm actively baffled that it doesn't even manage to handle green dot/red dot correctly. CE is an unthinking red dot, which while terribly boring, is at least simple.

But, by the definitions provided, Orcs are CE, NE, TN, LN and LG simultaneously. They're obviously being cast as unthinkingly violent, want what they can take, have their own traditions, don't care about moral arguments and act according to society's expectations. Not just their own societies, but LG societies: orcs as unthinking brutes who kill people totally fits with their expectations.

That they are ruled by an evil god is something you can work with. You can free them, reeducate them, whatever, or you can still just fight them if that is all you want to do. That they're just innately evil just hacks conflict off at the end. See red dot, kill red dot is the only story.