Races and racism in the AD&D game
Preston
Lorenzo Gatti wrote:
>
> I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about different races of player characters.
<snip>
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I agree with you somewhat, but I
think that racial differences are part of what makes the game
interesting. IMC we have eliminated level limits for different races.
Racism is also part of relations with NPC races as well. I play upon
these racist preconceptions IMC. IMC the party has once had to ally
with Lizardmen, and another time with Kobolds to accomplish thier
mission. They became friends with these other races even though it has
resulted in some bad public relations back in town.
I agree that the game is racist, but playing on that racism can be
interesting and rewarding in and of itself.
P
Lorenzo Gatti
Humans are different from others and privileged; they are generic and as various as real world men and they are assumed to rule the world.
Demihumans are, for the most part, mindlessly copied from Tolkien and usually designed to show some exaggerated, or even comical, human personality trait (kenders and tinker gnomes come to mind).
Other humanoids and monsters are seriously impaired as player characters (not so when they are enemies), as if their players should be punished for their aberrant choice (for example in Skills & Powers, p. 37 of the hardcover printing of July 1995, you read that "generally, players may not customize these unusual races, and they receive zero character points for selecting a non-standard race").
The level limits and class choice restrictions, which are missing for humans, are the worst problem: they imply that humans are good at everything while demihumans and humanoids have serious cultural and intellectual deficiencies, which no individual can overcome; not even an exceptional hero like a PC.
This is a racist mindset: judging a whole group instead of single persons, stopping at assumptions and first impressions with no desire to communicate and understand other people.
Let's move this issue to the real world with an example (which is a provocation and doesn't reflect my opinions):
Europeans are the pinnacle of human evolution, so they have neither class restrictions nor level limits;
Africans are strong enough to reach 16th level as fighters (but they cannot be paladins: they aren't noble enough to be interested), 10th level as thieves, 12th level as clerics (druids or shamans, since they are uncivilized), 9th level as wizards (where could they learn?);
Asians can reach 15th level as fighters (traditional martial arts) and psionicists (meditation-oriented religions); 8th level as clerics or wizards (no strong tradition or disposition);
and so on.
You can see that imposing level limits and forbidden classes implies a lot of opinions about the different races: which ones have an advanced religion or an advanced culture; which ones are fierce or coward; which ones are stupid and antisocial, or sophisticated and cohesive.
The arrogance and close-mindedness of believing, on the basis of prejudice, that every individual of the same race is doomed to have the same shortcomings is obvious.
The result is that each nonhuman race there is forced along a preferred path; at the same time some special classes like the paladin are reserved to humans (because they are more enlightened? More Lawful Good? More deserving?).
This problem is worsened by the mechanical advantages of different races, which make them very well suited for some typical character classes (the elf archer or ranger, the dwarf or minotaur warrior, the Irda wizard (from Dragonlance), the halfling thief), and badly unsuited for less stereotypical ones (the dwarf wizard, the gnome warrior, the kender wizard (from Dragonlance: not even a single one in thousands of years of sorcery)).
Human characters, instead, don't have such limiting specializations and can be successful in any character class.
The less game-mechanical descriptions and assumptions of the rules about the different nonhuman races are often carefully biased toward such stereotypical roles, while (PHB, p. 32 in the hardcover printing of May 1996) "Humans have only one special ability: They [capitalized in the PHB] can be of any character class and rise to any level in any class" and "Humans are also more social and tolerant than most other races" so that "Because of these abilities and tendencies, humans have become significant powers within the world and often rule empires that other races (because of their racial tendencies) would find difficult to manage."
So, according to the official AD&D game rules, the natural destiny of other races is to be dominated by humans because of their natural superiority.
This reminds me of countless colonial wars and invasions done (allegedly) to bring civilization to savages; of the British and Roman empires; of Native American reserves; of slavery; etc.
More of the same in the DMG (p. 20 ff. in the hardcover printing of April 1995).
Let's start with an absolute truth: "All nonhuman races are limited to some extent." So they are inferior to humans and imperfect.
For example, "Halflings, despite their ties to nature, lack the devotion and physical will to be druids."
Why are there class and level restrictions? "In the AD&D game, humans are more motivated by ambition and the desire for power than the demihuman races are."
The objective of these rules is to preserve the balance of power, assuming that players always choose optimally powerful races over interesting races or, God forbid, interesting individuals: "If the only special advantage humans have is given to all the races, who will want to play a human?" "Why play a 20th-level human paladin [a random class and level choice, I suppose <g>] when you could play a 20th-level elf paladin and have all the abilities of elves and paladins?"
The domination of humans over the rest of the world is also jeopardized, if you are perverted enough to remove these rules: "All things considered, humans could have a very bad time of it." "Given their extremely long lifespans, demihumans without limitations would quickly reach levels of power far beyond anything attainable by humans." Which are supposed to be the best, it seems. It would be a shame if "Human heroes would be feeble compared to the heroes of elves and dwarves."
But the paragraph about creating "new", "unusual" and "nonstandard" PC races is even worse; the standard humans and demihumans together are privileged over such personal designs.
It is absolutely obvious that "Almost any sort of creature can be a fighter. None (except humans) can be paladins." "No nonstandard creature can be a druid, as this is a human belief system."
Real adventurers come from standard races, hence the severe level and class limits and the other disadvantages: "these races are often unsuited to adventuring." "It is unusual enough that a member of the race has become a player character at all!"
And not all races are acceptable; apart from power considerations, "The race must be cooperative and willing to interact with the human world."
It is usually held as a character creation principle that in a typical campaign *PCs* must be cooperative and willing to interact with *the rest of the PC party*; but if every exotic character is a stereotyped specimen of his race and everybody else is a human this reduces to considering the compatibility of races instead of individuals.
Last but not least, "expect NPCs to have strong negative feelings about unusual player character races, even to the point of bigotry and hatred. These reactions will make life more difficult for the player character, but they are the price the player pays for his unusual choice."
It seems that "bigotry and hatred" are a good (Lawful Good?) and normal behaviour towards someone unusual, and that players that must "pay the price" of their originality deserve it for being evil.
What can be done to remove these racist elements from one's game, without removing the choice of different races and without adversely affecting game balance and "optimization" risks?
As seen above, in the standard AD&D rules the unacceptable restrictions to character races (and the roleplaying disadvantages they are supposed to have) try to compensate the advantages of some races over others: they end up having something more and something less than humans.
Actually balancing the different races this way is difficult: in Skills & Powers dwarves, elves and gnomes get 45 Character Points to buy racial abilities, while half orcs and half ogres get only 15 and the worst level limits and class restrictions (are they discouraged for being supposed to be evil?).
And in the Dragonlance campaign setting (both Dragonlance Adventures and Tales of the Lance) Qualinesti or Silvanesti elves and Irda ogres are superior races with almost no mechanical restriction, while humans are plain and weak.
There is little hope for improvements in the 3rd edition of the rules.
From the anticipations I hear, there will be fewer limits to class choice, multi-classing and level advancement; but humans will still be better at learning and equally good in every class, while demihumans will have penalties for straying from their narrow range of preferred classes.
The solution I suggest is:
1. Removing all class and level limits to all races (you might have guessed this) and allowing unlimited multi-classing and dual-classing to every character, thus offering the same class choices to all.
The only exceptions to this openness must come from personal reasons of one single character, or from the explicitly racist behaviour of NPCs.
As an example of the former, a player might be unable to explain how his good orc paladin, brought up in a bloodthirsty horde, started his profession and found a suitable religion to support him, and how said heroic paladin managed to put up with the daily atrocities of war and pillage before leaving the horde and becoming a PC.
As an example of the latter, the Solamnic Knights (a fighting order of noble humans, similar to paladins as a character class, from the Dragonlance campaign setting) might perhaps, if in dire need or as a reward, accept exceptional elves and commoners among their ranks, maybe even women; but a redeemed draconian or goblin who asks to join is likely to be considered a spy no matter what good will he shows.
2. Balancing different races through benefits only, i.e. giving some more abilities to humans and/or less abilities to others so that all races become equally appealing.
No unmotivated and annoying distrust, disrespect or "bigotry and hatred" would be required to discourage powerful races, nor would class and level limits.
This is good because such obviously unmotivated hindrances are often disliked and ignored by players; when they are enforced, they might be perceived as arbitrary acts on the DM's part against the player, causing resentment and grudges on one side and restraint or loss of control on the other side.
A character with less abilities and less artificial problems can be equally powerful and balanced as one following the standard PHB rules, but more enjoyable by the player and the DM; its balance is more reliable, since it will be too weak if the player doesn't play "well" instead of too powerful if the DM doesn't actively strike it.
If you wonder what racial abilities you can give humans without transforming them in a fantasy race, consider absolutely neutral advantages like ability score bonuses, combat bonuses, more hit points, or maybe something natural (like natural AC or saving throw bonuses or some interpretations of infravision) inherited from demihuman ancestors, or extraordinary magical effects like sleep spell resistance (these would apply to single characters, not to the average human).
3. Letting players choose the "racial" abilities of their characters from a large list (the same, or almost the same, for all races) instead of having such abilities depend on race.
This, of course, promotes the creation of individuals instead of instances of a type: every character would be different, and saying that a character is, for example, an "elf" would mean little more than saying it has pointed ears etc. without defining all there is to know about it.
Decoupling the cultural and social aspects of a race from the special powers would also force even immature players to choose a race for their characters on the grounds of good motives only (for example belonging to some cult or organization, being a relative of someone of that race, coming from a certain region or being involved in some current or historical event), while getting all the mechanical advantages the DM allows without the race depending on them.
Skills & Powers gives a good starting point for this kind of restructuring: for each race there is a list of abilities (from the PHB or new) with a price in "Character Points" (CPs) and you have a limited CP budget to buy them, just enough to recreate the standard packages in the PHB but with added options.
I have begun merging these lists into a general one, altering or removing some abilities that have different prices or quality for different races and some silly, overpowered or overpriced ones (a 5% bonus to all XP (obviously a human special ability), +2 bonuses to nonweapon proficiencies that cost far less, and so on).
I would like to hear how races are dealt with in your AD&D campaigns, and how you feel about the standard rules.
I hope to have shown why, on a moral basis, class restrictions, level limits etc. are a very bad thing and how, with limited effort, they can be removed from one's AD&D game.
---------------------------------
Lorenzo Gatti
e-mail: lorenz...@libero.it
I am concerned about the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about different races of player characters, but I am more concerned about getting a girlfriend.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Interesting and well written post, BTW.
:-)
Now, onto my reply...
Lorenzo Gatti <lorenz...@libero.it> wrote in message
news:3919330E...@libero.it...
> I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about
different races of player characters. On the basis of mere prejudice, most
races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of
enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority inescapable, by
forbidding individual variance between characters of the same race.
>
I don't see anywhere in The Books where it defines exactly why this
race is that way and that race is this way. As I remember it, they just say
things like "Typically, elves do/are this way". I don't quite understand
what and where you are getting this. But anyway...
(ps: I play/use 1st edtion or the off-shoot game, Skills&Powers series; or
Basic D&D....NOT 2nd ed)
>
> Humans are different from others and privileged; they are generic and as
various as real world men and they are assumed to rule the world.
>
Yes. This is typically true in a lot of AD&D campaigns. As it is a
game, and we are human, it is FAR easier to base our rules around ourselves.
> Demihumans are, for the most part, mindlessly copied from Tolkien and
usually designed to show some exaggerated, or even comical, human
personality trait (kenders and tinker gnomes come to mind).
>
They are generic for a reason: they are ment to be easily 'changable'
from one DM's campaign to another. If each race was more or less detailed
as hell, it would be more work for the DM who wants to change the way that
particular race is in his world. Generi-cizing the races makes it easier to
add/subtract from the race to suit ones personal campaign needs.
Some, your kender and tinker gnome examples, races do have exaggerated
human personality traits. Uh, what's wrong with that? There is nothing
wrong with it, it's just there to provide different role-playing
opportunities and to add a little flavour to a specific campaign world.
> Other humanoids and monsters are seriously impaired as player characters
(not so when they are enemies), as if their players should be punished for
their aberrant choice (for example in Skills & Powers, p. 37 of the
hardcover printing of July 1995, you read that "generally, players may not
customize these unusual races, and they receive zero character points for
selecting a non-standard race").
>
My guess is that they had Real Life restrictions: only x number of pages
(128 I think), and if they detailed the more non-standard races (re:
'monster' races), as much as they did the standard races, they would have
had to add at least another dozen pages. To top it off, a lot of people
don't use non-standard races in there campaigns...or at least not more than
one or two. So, TSR didn't spend more $$$ and time developing 12 pages of
stuff that 80% of the users won't use. (that's just an example 80%..just for
sake of argument).
> The level limits and class choice restrictions, which are missing for
humans, are the worst problem: they imply that humans are good at everything
while demihumans and humanoids have serious cultural and intellectual
deficiencies, which no individual can overcome; not even an exceptional hero
like a PC.
>
Level/Class restrictions are not 'missing' from humans any more than the
natural ability to detect secret doors is 'missing' from humans. ;) Why do
elves get that when humans don't? Hell, there are a LOT of things, when all
races are compared, that humans *don't* get. How come you aren't saying
that every race in AD&D is "racist" against humans?
The AD&D rules imply that humans have the special ability to choose any
class and attain any level in that class...just as the rules imply that
elves have the special ability to resist magical charm and sleep
spells...and that halflings have the special ability to move silently when
alone...etc. It is simply a racial ability that humans have that other
races don't...unless the DM changes that, of course. It's a game mechanic,
more or less.
> This is a racist mindset: judging a whole group instead of single persons,
stopping at assumptions and first impressions with no desire to communicate
and understand other people.
>
Judging a whole group instead of single persons isn't racist...it's
stereotyping. The human mind uses stereotyping all the time...it's how we
survive. There is NOTHING wrong with stereotyping...as long as you are
completely open to trying to understand and give the other person(s) a
chance to show you what they are like. If you see a large, strong looking
guy, with gang-related tatoos, 'colors', etc coming toward you in the dead
of night, it is your stereotyping that makes you think about your safety.
If he then passes right by you with a nod and a "Hiya" as he walks by, good.
However, if he steps in front of you and says "Give me your wallet", at
least you have thought about your safety enough to have already prepared for
this situation somehow.
> Let's move this issue to the real world with an example (which is a
provocation and doesn't reflect my opinions):
>
> Europeans are the pinnacle of human evolution, so they have neither class
restrictions nor level limits;
> Africans are strong enough to reach 16th level as fighters (but they
cannot be paladins: they aren't noble enough to be interested), 10th level
as thieves, 12th level as clerics (druids or shamans, since they are
uncivilized), 9th level as wizards (where could they learn?);
> Asians can reach 15th level as fighters (traditional martial arts) and
psionicists (meditation-oriented religions); 8th level as clerics or wizards
(no strong tradition or disposition);
> and so on.
>
> You can see that imposing level limits and forbidden classes implies a lot
of opinions about the different races: which ones have an advanced religion
or an advanced culture; which ones are fierce or coward; which ones are
stupid and antisocial, or sophisticated and cohesive.
>
Actually, it implies that the game designers were thinking about game
balance when they were writing the game. How would you rationalize, then,
humans being *anything* other than pathetic slaves to the other races?
After all, a dwarf, for example, as a few *hundred* years to master
fighting...whereas a human only has a few dozen?
Yes, the rules imply opinions about different races...that's to make
them different from humans. That's the point. And for some reason you
think this is bad?
> The arrogance and close-mindedness of believing, on the basis of
prejudice, that every individual of the same race is doomed to have the same
shortcomings is obvious.
>
Like the human shortcoming of not being able to see in the dark? Or
not being able to detect secret doors as well as elves? Or not haveing 90%
resistance to sleep or charm? Or not getting the +1 to hit with swords, like
elves do? Or not getting +1 on Con like a half-orc does? Or....the list goes
on and on.
> The result is that each nonhuman race there is forced along a preferred
path; at the same time some special classes like the paladin are reserved to
humans (because they are more enlightened? More Lawful Good? More
deserving?).
>
No, because (from what I remember), in all the 'normal' mythologies that
we have, there wern't many (if any) stories of, say, dwarves who fit the
AD&D version of a Paladin. IIRC, the class of paladin was based mostly on
"Charlemains(?) Knights" and of the Arthurian legends of the Knights of the
Round Table.
> This problem is worsened by the mechanical advantages of different races,
which make them very well suited for some typical character classes (the elf
archer or ranger, the dwarf or minotaur warrior, the Irda wizard (from
Dragonlance), the halfling thief), and badly unsuited for less stereotypical
ones (the dwarf wizard, the gnome warrior, the kender wizard (from
Dragonlance: not even a single one in thousands of years of sorcery)).
>
And you think this is a *bad* thing??
> Human characters, instead, don't have such limiting specializations and
can be successful in any character class.
>
Correct. But they also don't have all the nifty advantages/bonuses that
the non-humans do.
> The less game-mechanical descriptions and assumptions of the rules about
the different nonhuman races are often carefully biased toward such
stereotypical roles, while (PHB, p. 32 in the hardcover printing of May
1996) "Humans have only one special ability: They [capitalized in the PHB]
can be of any character class and rise to any level in any class" and
"Humans are also more social and tolerant than most other races" so that
"Because of these abilities and tendencies, humans have become significant
powers within the world and often rule empires that other races (because of
their racial tendencies) would find difficult to manage."
>
> So, according to the official AD&D game rules, the natural destiny of
other races is to be dominated by humans because of their natural
superiority.
>
Not "superiority". Dwarves are dwarves. Read the description of them.
Elves are elves. Read the description of them. The fact is that the
demi-humans, have, if you will, less "free-will". Dwarves will be dwarves,
and elves will be elves. This reminds me of the age-old story of the frog
and the scorpion (you know, scorpion wants to get accross the river, the
frog doesn't trust him...etc..etc...?) "It's in my nature". The reason (in
AD&D) that humans tend to dominate is that they have the special ability to
be 'mold-less' when born. A dwarf, on the other hand, is "pre-wired" for
certain things (affinity for metal and the earth; sense of duty/loyalty;
sense of honor/pride; etc). That is why AD&D says "...more social and
tolerant...". Overall, humans, because of there very 'generic' nature, more
or less get along with everyone (except, it seems, other humans...;-)
> This reminds me of countless colonial wars and invasions done (allegedly)
to bring civilization to savages; of the British and Roman empires; of
Native American reserves; of slavery; etc.
>
Uh, we are talking about a fantasy game here, not real life. There are
simply too many factors to take into account to make that kind of analogy,
IMHO. Magic, 1,000 year old lifespans, *proof* that _several_ gods
exist...and grant noticable powers to their followers, etc.
> More of the same in the DMG (p. 20 ff. in the hardcover printing of April
1995).
> Let's start with an absolute truth: "All nonhuman races are limited to
some extent." So they are inferior to humans and imperfect.
>
No, they are limited to some extent. Humans could likewise be said to
be limited to some extent. Non-gamers, from my experience, tend to think of
dwarves, gnomes, elves, etc. and nigh-powerful faerry folk. Read some
'typical' mythologies. The DMG was simply saying that in the AD&D system,
they are not nigh-powerful...they are "mortal", just like humans.
> For example, "Halflings, despite their ties to nature, lack the devotion
and physical will to be druids."
>
Ok. So what's your point?
> Why are there class and level restrictions? "In the AD&D game, humans are
more motivated by ambition and the desire for power than the demihuman races
are."
>
> The objective of these rules is to preserve the balance of power, assuming
that players always choose optimally powerful races over interesting races
or, God forbid, interesting individuals: "If the only special advantage
humans have is given to all the races, who will want to play a human?" "Why
play a 20th-level human paladin [a random class and level choice, I suppose
<g>] when you could play a 20th-level elf paladin and have all the abilities
of elves and paladins?"
>
Game mechanics. Pure and simple. Personally, I *like* this kind of game
balance. But there are many others who don't. *shrug* To each his/her own.
<<<snip stuff>>>>
I think you are missing the point: the AD&D game is, by it's rules,
*humanocentric*. It is SUPPOSED to give humans an ever so slight advantage.
Any DM can change this in seconds..."In my world, Dwarves are the dominant
species." Was that hard?
> What can be done to remove these racist elements from one's game, without
removing the choice of different races and without adversely affecting game
balance and "optimization" risks?
>
I just don't see the need. I don't see any racist elements mainly
because we are dealing with a *game* that is using *imaginary races*.
If I say that "i=10" and "k=25", am I being "racist" against "i" because
I made "k" have a higher number? Of course not! I'm simply stating that,
according to my rules, "i" has a lesser value than "k".
<<<snip>>>>
It's 5am and I don't have time to write any more about this.
Knock yourself out.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Ian R Malcomson
>I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about
>different races of player characters.
Remember, this game we play draws on fantasy stereotyping and, given
that we are humans (and thus relate to the human race better), we need
those stereotypes in place in order to understand what are, essentially,
alien life-forms.
Some of the points you raise regarding the human/non-human balance are
relevant, of course, but the comments alluding to racism are not. For
example, humans cannot possess infravision - would you see that as a
piece of racism directed against the fantasy humans of the AD&D game?
The game mechanics defining the different races of the game are there
for two reasons: (1) to provide a level of balance, however artificial
the systems providing that balance may be; and (2) to provide players
with some kind of basis allowing them to create characters belonging to
non-human species for which we have no inherent experience of outside
fantasy literature and games. Without those definitions, we would be
prone to treating elves as simply pointy-eared humans with a handful of
extraordinary powers. To avoid that, the game makes broad assumptions
regarding the basic nature of the races.
Of course, these stereotypes may not fit with a given campaign world
view - the elven races of Toril, Oerth, Athas, and Krynn all differ from
one another to a greater or lesser extent - but it is the duty of the
world in question to redefine the races to suit the setting, not for the
basic rules.
It is not "arrogance and close-mindedness", and every member of a given
race will not possess the same shortcomings. They will, however,
possess a given set of shortcomings and advantages that boil down to
their intrinsic, alien nature. Taking a real-world example (as with
yours, this is merely provocation):
Mongols developed a set of very effective, mounted combat skills against
which, in their time, few could stand against. These skills were a
product of their upbringing, of being trained in them almost from birth,
and of their environment. That same, harsh environment prevented
Mongols from developing the necessary establishments in order to
research and develop magical skills - their nomadic, survivalist culture
simply had no room to develop skills not directly pertaining to
survival. They did, however, develop a deep spirituality, believing
that those things available to them in their environment that allowed
them to survive were gifts from their gods. Thus, Mongols may be
fighters (no limit), priests (shamans, 8th-level limit - religion is
respected, but neither wholly embraced nor given the time to develop
beyond that level necessary to properly respect the gods), and thieves
(special). Mongols cannot advance as single-classed thieves beyond 6th-
level, since the profession of thief means little to their culture.
However, the skills possessed by thieves are often incorporated into
their fighting and raiding arts, thus they may multi-class as
fighter/thieves to any level. Mongols, for reasons already stated,
cannot be wizards. Mongols automatically gain the Animal Handling
(Horse) and Riding (Horse) NWPs. Additionally, their Riding NWP
increases by +1 for every 3 levels of experience gained. Finally,
Mongols suffer only half of any penalty due to fighting from horseback,
including mounted archery.
Now, this is a stereotypical view of a Mongol, and is perfectly adequate
for gaming purposes. If the campaign milieu drew heavily on Mongol
resources, obviously this view would become irrelevant, and would need
to be replaced with a more expansive set of descriptions and rules. It
would also not be applicable to a Mongol character that was not brought
up within a Mongol society.
--
Ian R Malcomson
"So you thought you'd like to go to the show?
To feel the warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow..." - 20 years young
Domicus/Ian R Malcomson Website: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
Varsil Savai
<lorenz...@libero.it> wrote:
>I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules
>about different races of player characters. On the basis of mere
>prejudice, most races are described as spiritually inferior; the
>usual AD&D policy of enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this
>inferiority inescapable, by forbidding individual variance between
>characters of the same race.
Mmm... flamebait. But, what the hell, lets hold off for a moment...
>Humans are different from others and privileged; they are generic and
>as various as real world men and they are assumed to rule the world.
>Demihumans are, for the most part, mindlessly copied from Tolkien
>and usually designed to show some exaggerated, or even comical, human
>personality trait (kenders and tinker gnomes come to mind).
Ok, thus far we've established that the game has some roots in
Tolkien, and some campaign-specific stuff...
>Other humanoids and monsters are seriously impaired as player
>characters (not so when they are enemies), as if their players should
>be punished for their aberrant choice (for example in Skills &
>Powers, p. 37 of the hardcover printing of July 1995, you read that
>"generally, players may not customize these unusual races, and they
>receive zero character points for selecting a non-standard race").
I don't believe the goal is to punish players... you'll need to
defend that... Yep, I'll agree that they're on a more limited
footing...
>The level limits and class choice restrictions, which are missing for
>humans, are the worst problem: they imply that humans are good at
>everything while demihumans and humanoids have serious cultural and
>intellectual deficiencies, which no individual can overcome; not even
>an exceptional hero like a PC.
>This is a racist mindset: judging a whole group instead of single
>persons, stopping at assumptions and first impressions with no desire
>to communicate and understand other people.
This is a simplification for reasons that the rules have to fit within
a reasonable amount of media. IE, it's assumed that you can take a
general statement about elves and how they differ from humans, and go
on to generate specific, unique examples of elves.
>Let's move this issue to the real world with an example (which is a
>provocation and doesn't reflect my opinions).
Yep, it's definately provocative... wish it applied (see below).
>Europeans are the pinnacle of human evolution, so they have neither
>class restrictions nor level limits;
>Africans are strong enough to reach 16th level as fighters (but they
>cannot be paladins: they aren't noble enough to be interested), 10th
>level as thieves, 12th level as clerics (druids or shamans, since
>they are uncivilized), 9th level as wizards (where could they learn?);
>Asians can reach 15th level as fighters (traditional martial arts) and
>psionicists (meditation-oriented religions); 8th level as clerics or
>wizards (no strong tradition or disposition);
>and so on.
Nahh, see, this is a pretty crappy example, cause in our world, we
don't actually differ enough to serve as an example. I mean, if
dolphins were intelligent, then we might... Point is, the only thing
that example does is set up an analogy that doesn't work and attempts
to add a lot of emotional content to the equation (and emotional
content which doesn't belong in the conversation).
>You can see that imposing level limits and forbidden classes implies a
>lot of opinions about the different races: which ones have an
>advanced religion or an advanced culture; which ones are fierce or
>coward; which ones are stupid and antisocial, or sophisticated and
>cohesive.
It doesn't apply anything. It says rather specifically "This race is
not like this race." And unlike the racial theories from our world
(zany stuff measuring people's skulls and so forth), the ones implied
are dead-on correct, as part of the assumption of your campaign world.
A given race is _not_ human, and so can be either superior or
inferior.
>The arrogance and close-mindedness of believing, on the basis of
>prejudice, that every individual of the same race is doomed to have
>the same shortcomings is obvious.
Depends on the setting. It's fully possible that each and every orc
is born evil, raised evil, and dies evil. In a world with gods, this
is even _likely_, if said creature's race is affected by godly
machinations. In a world like that, being an evil orc, or a dumb
half-ogre may be the same as being a short kobold...
>The result is that each nonhuman race there is forced along a
>preferred path; at the same time some special classes like the
>paladin are reserved to humans (because they are more enlightened?
>More Lawful Good? More deserving?).
Laugh... you're assuming that it has to be a good reason (IE, that
having paladins is necessarily an indicator of preferred status).
Maybe they're the only race foolish enough to generate that specific
concept. Hell, back to the gods thing...
>This problem is worsened by the mechanical advantages of different
>races, which make them very well suited for some typical character
>classes (the elf archer or ranger, the dwarf or minotaur warrior, the
>Irda wizard (from Dragonlance), the halfling thief), and badly
>unsuited for less stereotypical ones (the dwarf wizard, the gnome
>warrior, the kender wizard (from Dragonlance: not even a single one
>in thousands of years of sorcery))
>Human characters, instead, don't have such limiting specializations
>and can be successful in any character class.
Ahh, I see... the mechanical advantages of different races... IE,
the fact that ogres are strong, kobolds are weak, and cyclops' only
have one eye. Stuff _inherent_ to the race... Yep, I'm afraid that
as a human, I'd be disadvantaged in a Top Ballista based adventure,
cause I couldn't be a skyknight (because I can't fly). Yep, lets
strip out those mechanical advantages/disadvantages, and have a bunch
of humans in dwarf/elf/gnome/orc/green slime/red dragon suits...
>The less game-mechanical descriptions and assumptions of the rules
>about the different nonhuman races are often carefully biased toward
>such stereotypical roles, while (PHB, p. 32 in the hardcover printing
>of May 1996) "Humans have only one special ability: They [capitalized
>in the PHB] can be of any character class and rise to any level in
>any class" and "Humans are also more social and tolerant than most
>other races" so that "Because of these abilities and tendencies,
>humans have become significant powers within the world and often rule
>empires that other races (because of their racial tendencies) would
>find difficult to manage."
Again, based on the setting, this may very well be because of specific
differences inherent in the species. If this is the case in your
campaign setting, then it's effectively a fact of nature (like
gravity). Yep, stuff goes down. How unfair.
>So, according to the official AD&D game rules, the natural destiny of
>other races is to be dominated by humans because of their natural
>superiority.
>This reminds me of countless colonial wars and invasions done
>(allegedly) to bring civilization to savages; of the British and
>Roman empires; of Native American reserves; of slavery; etc.
Well, ok... all this shows is that you have an interesting
imagination. The status of humans in D&D has nothing to do with the
colonial wars and invasions of various cultures...
>More of the same in the DMG (p. 20 ff. in the hardcover printing of
>April 1995).
>Let's start with an absolute truth: "All nonhuman races are limited to
>some extent." So they are inferior to humans and imperfect.
>For example, "Halflings, despite their ties to nature, lack the
>devotion and physical will to be druids."
Depends how you define 'inferior'. Seems to me that humans are
limited to some extent as well. They don't get infravision (which
everyone else gets), they don't get any bonuses with weapons, secret
doors, saving throws, etc. Yep, those hefty limitations.
>Why are there class and level restrictions? "In the AD&D game, humans
>are more motivated by ambition and the desire for power than the
>demihuman races are."
If that's what the setting says, then that's why it is :).
>The objective of these rules is to preserve the balance of power,
>assuming that players always choose optimally powerful races over
>interesting races or, God forbid, interesting individuals: "If the
>only special advantage humans have is given to all the races, who
>will want to play a human?" "Why play a 20th-level human paladin [a
> random class and level choice, I suppose <g>] when you could play a
>20th-level elf paladin and have all the abilities of elves and
>paladins?"
Is there something wrong with rules to create balanced game mechanics?
Why is a rule specifically to create balance such an inherently bad
thing? I mean, whenever there's a conflict, people point to a rule
they dislike and say "It's only for balance". Welcome to a rules set.
Everything is for balance, and balance _is_ important.
>The domination of humans over the rest of the world is also
>jeopardized, if you are perverted enough to remove these rules: "All
>things considered, humans could have a very bad time of it." "Given
>their extremely long lifespans, demihumans without limitations would
>quickly reach levels of power far beyond anything attainable by
>humans." Which are supposed to be the best, it seems. It would be a
>shame if "Human heroes would be feeble compared to the heroes of
>elves and dwarves."
Yep, it'd violate one of the basic premises of the campaign setting.
IE, that humans are the main race because X.
>But the paragraph about creating "new", "unusual" and "nonstandard" PC
>races is even worse; the standard humans and demihumans together are
>privileged over such personal designs.
>It is absolutely obvious that "Almost any sort of creature can be a
>fighter. None (except humans) can be paladins." "No nonstandard
>creature can be a druid, as this is a human belief system."
>Real adventurers come from standard races, hence the severe level and
>class limits and the other disadvantages: "these races are often
>unsuited to adventuring." "It is unusual enough that a member of the
>race has become a player character at all!"
Again, campaign setting...
>And not all races are acceptable; apart from power considerations,
>"The race must be cooperative and willing to interact with the human
>world."
>It is usually held as a character creation principle that in a typical
>campaign *PCs* must be cooperative and willing to interact with *the
>rest of the PC party*; but if every exotic character is a stereotyped
>specimen of his race and everybody else is a human this reduces to
>considering the compatibility of races instead of individuals.
I believe that specific rule died out in later books (IE, book of
humanoids). It's still a good idea, sucks when you get killed by
guards as you approach a human settlement.
>Last but not least, "expect NPCs to have strong negative feelings
>about unusual player character races, even to the point of bigotry
>and hatred. These reactions will make life more difficult for the
>player character, but they are the price the player pays for his
>unusual choice."
>It seems that "bigotry and hatred" are a good (Lawful Good?) and
>normal behaviour towards someone unusual, and that players that must
>"pay the price" of their originality deserve it for being evil.
First, the average city dweller is not a strict lawful good. In fact,
most of them won't be. Second, the "price" you pay isn't for
originality, it's for choosing something that is, to most of the
world, considered a dangerous and unusual creature. It's as if you
chose to play a bear in a modern campaign. You can wander into town,
and even if you don't eat/maul anyone, you can still expect to be shot
(with anaesthetic if you're lucky), and dragged back into the
wilderness...
>What can be done to remove these racist elements from one's game,
>without removing the choice of different races and without adversely
>affecting game balance and "optimization" risks?
Do tell.
>As seen above, in the standard AD&D rules the unacceptable
>restrictions to character races (and the roleplaying disadvantages
>they are supposed to have) try to compensate the advantages of some
>races over others: they end up having something more and something
>less than humans.
>Actually balancing the different races this way is difficult: in
>Skills & Powers dwarves, elves and gnomes get 45 Character Points to
>buy racial abilities, while half orcs and half ogres get only 15 and
>the worst level limits and class restrictions (are they discouraged
>for being supposed to be evil?).
>And in the Dragonlance campaign setting (both Dragonlance Adventures
>and Tales of the Lance) Qualinesti or Silvanesti elves and Irda ogres
>are superior races with almost no mechanical restriction, while
>humans are plain and weak.
Yep, this is all campaign setting... Your point?
>There is little hope for improvements in the 3rd edition of the rules.
>From the anticipations I hear, there will be fewer limits to class
>choice, multi-classing and level advancement; but humans will still
>be better at learning and equally good in every class, while
>demihumans will have penalties for straying from their narrow range
>of preferred classes.
>The solution I suggest is:
>1. Removing all class and level limits to all races (you might have
>guessed this) and allowing unlimited multi-classing and dual-classing
>to every character, thus offering the same class choices to all.
>The only exceptions to this openness must come from personal reasons
>of one single character, or from the explicitly racist behaviour of
>NPCs.
>As an example of the former, a player might be unable to explain how
>his good orc paladin, brought up in a bloodthirsty horde, started his
>profession and found a suitable religion to support him, and how said
>heroic paladin managed to put up with the daily atrocities of war and
>pillage before leaving the horde and becoming a PC.
>As an example of the latter, the Solamnic Knights (a fighting order of
>noble humans, similar to paladins as a character class, from the
>Dragonlance campaign setting) might perhaps, if in dire need or as a
>reward, accept exceptional elves and commoners among their ranks,
>maybe even women; but a redeemed draconian or goblin who asks to join
>is likely to be considered a spy no matter what good will he shows.
So, what you're saying... is to build a new campaign setting with a
different set of elves/dwarves/etc., where everyone is reasonably
open...
>2. Balancing different races through benefits only, i.e. giving some
>more abilities to humans and/or less abilities to others so that all
>races become equally appealing.
>No unmotivated and annoying distrust, disrespect or "bigotry and
>hatred" would be required to discourage powerful races, nor would
>class and level limits.
Ok... that's just a simple question of the setting. I think you miss
that the 'bigotry and hatred' are not necessarily serving a role of
balance, but instead serving a role of maintaining a 'feel' in the
setting (IE, it's hard to have superstitious peasants who hardly bat
an eyelash when an ogre walks down the street :).
>This is good because such obviously unmotivated hindrances are often
>disliked and ignored by players; when they are enforced, they might
>be perceived as arbitrary acts on the DM's part against the player,
>causing resentment and grudges on one side and restraint or loss of
>control on the other side.
MB you need a new group? :)
>A character with less abilities and less artificial problems can be
>equally powerful and balanced as one following the standard PHB
>rules, but more enjoyable by the player and the DM; its balance is
>more reliable, since it will be too weak if the player doesn't play
>"well" instead of too powerful if the DM doesn't actively strike it.
>If you wonder what racial abilities you can give humans without
>transforming them in a fantasy race, consider absolutely neutral
>advantages like ability score bonuses, combat bonuses, more hit
>points, or maybe something natural (like natural AC or saving throw
>bonuses or some interpretations of infravision) inherited from
>demihuman ancestors, or extraordinary magical effects like sleep
>spell resistance (these would apply to single characters, not to the
>average human).
Ok, campaign setting thing (IE, different races from the implied
setting in the book).
>3. Letting players choose the "racial" abilities of their characters
>from a large list (the same, or almost the same, for all races)
>instead of having such abilities depend on race.
>This, of course, promotes the creation of individuals instead of
>instances of a type: every character would be different, and saying
>that a character is, for example, an "elf" would mean little more
>than saying it has pointed ears etc. without defining all there is to
>know about it.
Yep... it makes it hard to have any real distinctions. Sure, you say
you're an ogre, but it's purely cosmetic. Your system would strip the
races of any individuality... Why not just make one race, and have
them vary widely within the species?
>Decoupling the cultural and social aspects of a race from the special
>powers would also force even immature players to choose a race for
>their characters on the grounds of good motives only (for example
>belonging to some cult or organization, being a relative of someone
>of that race, coming from a certain region or being involved in some
>current or historical event), while getting all the mechanical
>advantages the DM allows without the race depending on them.
I think it'd cause a lot of players to choose a race for their
characters on the grounds of random selection. As in, "Well, it
doesn't _really_ matter anymore... they're all the same... hand me
the D20..."
>Skills & Powers gives a good starting point for this kind of
>restructuring: for each race there is a list of abilities (from the
>PHB or new) with a price in "Character Points" (CPs) and you have a
>limited CP budget to buy them, just enough to recreate the standard
>packages in the PHB but with added options.
>I have begun merging these lists into a general one, altering or
>removing some abilities that have different prices or quality for
>different races and some silly, overpowered or overpriced ones (a 5%
>bonus to all XP (obviously a human special ability), +2 bonuses to
>nonweapon proficiencies that cost far less, and so on).
>I would like to hear how races are dealt with in your AD&D campaigns,
>and how you feel about the standard rules.
>I hope to have shown why, on a moral basis, class restrictions, level
>limits etc. are a very bad thing and how, with limited effort, they
>can be removed from one's AD&D game.
Sorry, but the 'moral' basis is a load of horse manure. Take a step
back, realize that this is a _game_, and does not reflect any of the
real-world events you've implied it does. The differences are an
attempt to keep the society from being too homogeneous. Yeah, they
mean that some things are better than others. So? :)
>---------------------------------
>Lorenzo Gatti
>e-mail: lorenz...@libero.it
>I am concerned about the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules
>about different races of player characters, but I am more concerned
>about getting a girlfriend.
----------------------------------------------------
Consider yourself flamed.
I have erected a spamblocker. Simply remove the
#$% characters if you feel the need to email me.
Chris Simpson
Lorenzo Gatti wrote:
> I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about different races of player characters. On the basis of mere prejudice, most races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority inescapable, by forbidding individual variance between characters of the same race.
>
Big time snip... I agree %1,000.. In 3rd addition level limits and class restrictions will be lifted :) :) :) .
David R. Klassen
stereotyping of mythological game races (along the stereotypical lines created
by generations of myth) will make one any more inclined to racist behavior in
real life any more than I believe playing hours of Doom or Quake make one more
inclined to run around a school with a shotgun blowing away classmates and
teachers.
Now, onto the specifics --
Lorenzo Gatti wrote:
>
> Humans are different from others and privileged;
Define privileged.
> they are generic and as various as real world men and they are assumed to rule the world.
Ah, OK, so this is their priviledge - to be able to be any class and
unrestricted
in class level advancement. Did you skip over the priviledges of the other
races? Ability score modifiers, various combat bonunes, seeing in the dark,
detection abilities, magic/poison resistances, etc. If all is right with the
game design then all should be somewhat "balanced". To me, it looks OK.
> Demihumans are, for the most part, mindlessly copied from Tolkien
> and usually designed to show some exaggerated, or even comical, human
> personality trait (kenders and tinker gnomes come to mind).
Copied from *several* sources and, ultimately, from the collective mind
and mythologies of mostly European cultures. These fairy creatures, along
with most pagan gods, *do* represent some kind of exageration of human -
take a trait, stretch it beyond the human norm and call it a Bugaboo.
And remember, these were fairy creatures, not living, breathing races
coexisting with humans. They are myth. D&D just takes that myth and
give it life - but it is still a creature of myth and, to be recognizable
as a fantasy element, must contain those mythic traits.
> Other humanoids and monsters are seriously impaired as player characters
No, just different.
> The level limits and class choice restrictions, which are missing for humans,
> are the worst problem: they imply that humans are good at everything while
This is the "ability" of humans - open-endedness. This is because humans
are not creatures of myth, have no mythic elelments to uphold and must
match "reality" more in order to help Willing Suspension of Disbelief (WSD).
> demihumans and humanoids have serious cultural and intellectual deficiencies,
Differences - they have as many advantages as disadvantages.
> which no individual can overcome; not even an exceptional hero like a PC.
Ahhhh....no. Anything is possible with a PC, subject to DM approval.
> Let's move this issue to the real world with an example
Let's not. This is D&D, not the real world. Such comparisons are ineffectual
at best, and just plain wrong at worst. Now, if you want to make comparisons
to real world *mythic* conditions, feel free.
> You can see that imposing level limits and forbidden classes implies a
> lot of opinions about the different races: which ones have an advanced
> religion or an advanced culture; which ones are fierce or coward; which
> ones are stupid and antisocial, or sophisticated and cohesive.
Yes. Based on their mythic descriptions.
> The arrogance and close-mindedness of believing, on the basis of
> prejudice, that every individual of the same race is doomed to have
> the same shortcomings is obvious.
Were they real beings, yes. But since they come from mythic description,
I see nothing wrong with this. If you are assuming that doing this will
in some way limit my ability to see other real-world races as anything other
than stereotypic and charicature, then you are severely underestimating
peoples' abilties to separate fantasy from reality.
> The result is that each nonhuman race there is forced along a preferred path;
Based upon the mythic descriptions of that race. There were NO knightly
dwarves in any culture's mythology that I can think of, thus, no dwarven
Paladins
in the game. Elves in ALL cultural mythologies I know of live and breath
magic, thus they are inclined in the game to be mages. However, myth tends
to overexaggerate the abilites to such an extent that if they were so portrayed
in the game, especially as full cultural races instead of a small mythic
enclave,
they would entirely dominate the world. Would this be a bias against humans?
Thus, while on one hand they are made closer to their mythic descriptions, they
must contain some limitations to balance them as just one race in a world of
many.
> Human characters, instead, don't have such limiting specializations and
> can be successful in any character class.
This is their ability. Without this, the longer lived races would completely
dominate the world and all game balance, and any semblance of a world of several
races, would be gone. Primordial elves would have wiped out all other competing
races LONG ago.
> printing of May 1996) "Humans have only one special ability: They [capitalized
> in the PHB] can be of any character class and rise to any level in any class"
> and "Humans are also more social and tolerant than most other races" so that
> "Because of these abilities and tendencies, humans have become significant
> powers within the world and often rule empires that other races (because of
> their racial tendencies) would find difficult to manage."
Exactly. Read this as "Game balance".
> So, according to the official AD&D game rules, the natural destiny of
> other races is to be dominated by humans because of their natural superiority.
Now that's one huge logical leap!
> Let's start with an absolute truth: "All nonhuman races are limited to some
> extent." So they are inferior to humans and imperfect.
Limited does not mean inferior.
> The objective of these rules is to preserve the balance of power, assuming
> that players always choose optimally powerful races over interesting races
It's more than that. The balance is necessary for WSD. If there were no
balances, why aren't the elves ruling everybody else? Why aren't elves at a
base of 10th level? Afterall, their starting age is well over 100 years old!
If their wasn't a balance of power, there is no WSD that there could ever be
human, orcish, dwarvish, halfing, etc. kingdoms.
> The domination of humans over the rest of the world is also jeopardized,
> if you are perverted enough to remove these rules: "All things considered,
> humans could have a very bad time of it." "Given their extremely long lifespans,
> demihumans without limitations would quickly reach levels of power far beyond
> anything attainable by humans." Which are supposed to be the best, it seems. It
> would be a shame if "Human heroes would be feeble compared to the heroes of elves and dwarves."
But that's what the *world* would be like - not just the PC's in it! You have
to consider the consequences to the world at large with game balance issues,
too.
> And not all races are acceptable; apart from power considerations, "The race
> must be cooperative and willing to interact with the human world."
This is assuming that the non-standard race is going to be run in a standard
campagin where most of the other PC's are human/demi-human. If you want to
run an all hobgoblin campaign, go ahead.
> It is usually held as a character creation principle that in a typical campaign
> *PCs* must be cooperative and willing to interact with *the rest of the PC party*;
Ahhh...yeah... In fact, this is a *requiremnt* for my games. No party, no
game.
I don't want to just DM 5-6 individuals about in the world.
> but if every exotic character is a stereotyped specimen of his race and
> everybody else is a human this reduces to considering the compatibility of
> races instead of individuals.
PC's don't have to conform to the base standard in all areas. However, most
humans in the world will assume that all orcs are cruel creatures bent only on
dominating those around them. If you want to play an orc, go ahead...
> Last but not least, "expect NPCs to have strong negative feelings about
> unusual player character races, even to the point of bigotry and hatred.
> These reactions will make life more difficult for the player character, but
> they are the price the player pays for his unusual choice."
> It seems that "bigotry and hatred" are a good (Lawful Good?) and normal behaviour
> towards someone unusual, and that players that must "pay the price" of their
> originality deserve it for being evil.
Well...yeah... If you play an evil being, expect to be treated as an evil
being.
If you play a creature who is of a known evil race, expect to be treated as
one of that race. You can't expect even LG folks to have 22nd century
enlightenment.
> What can be done to remove these racist elements from one's game, without
> removing the choice of different races and without adversely affecting game
> balance and "optimization" risks?
Take away all disadvantages and advantages making race merely cosmetic. You can
have "pointy-eared human", "short, bearded humans", "short humans with furry
feet",
"tall, orange skinned humans with fangs", "pig-nosed humans with tusks", etc.
Afterall, in the real world, this is really all that separates the various races
of humans, right, cosmetic differences.
> Actually balancing the different races this way is difficult: in Skills & Powers
> dwarves, elves and gnomes get 45 Character Points to buy racial abilities, while
> half orcs and half ogres get only 15 and the worst level limits and class
> restrictions (are they discouraged for being supposed to be evil?).
Ah, how many Character Points do humans get? If zero, then aren't humans really
the ones getting the short end of the stick? And this is compensated by being
able to be any class and any level.
> advancement; but humans will still be better at learning and equally good
> in every class, while demihumans will have penalties for straying from their
> narrow range of preferred classes.
WSD. The various races come from our mythic heritage and thus must mostly match
that mythic description or else you just get the Star Trek standard of humans
with different noses.
> 1. Removing all class and level limits to all races
Then the average elf becomes at least a 7th level being merely due to
their age advantage. You have to keep the world-at-large in mind when
making these kinds of changes!
> As an example of the former, a player might be unable to explain how...
If a player can't explain a character concept, no matter *what* is it, then
it's a no-go in my campaign no matter what.
> 2. Balancing different races through benefits only, i.e. giving some more abilities
> to humans and/or less abilities to others so that all races become equally appealing.
What ability could you give to humans that still obeys WSD? We all know what
humans can and can't do. The other races abilities (advantages and
disadvantages)
are the tweaks from this norm based on their mythic descriptions.
> No unmotivated and annoying distrust, disrespect or "bigotry and hatred" would be
> required to discourage powerful races, nor would class and level limits.
It's just creature nature to distrust what is different.
> This is good because such obviously unmotivated hindrances are often disliked
Hardly unmotivated! Orcs are draconic beings who belive it is their right to
take what the want from others around them; the strong rule the weak serve.
So, when an orc crosses my farm or enters my tavern, I'm going to keep my
crossbow handy until he proves otherwise.
> they might be perceived as arbitrary acts on the DM's part against the player,
> causing resentment and grudges on one side and restraint or loss of control
> on the other side.
This is a clear case of 'buyer beware'. You've been wared ahead of time that
your character will be traveling in human population centers, the rest of the
party are humans and half-elves; if you want to create a gnoll PC and make him
LG, fine, but to everyone else, he's a gnoll. Deal with it.
> If you wonder what racial abilities you can give humans without transforming them
> in a fantasy race, consider absolutely neutral advantages like ability score bonuses,
> combat bonuses, more hit points, or maybe something natural (like natural AC or
But ALL of the rules for these things are *based* on the human norm. Giving
humans these as advantages is just resetting the scale. That is, giving all
human
a base THAC0 of 19 instead of 20 is exactly the same as giving all other races
a -1 to-hit and keeping the human base THAC0 at 20. Since the scales have
already
been set (and presumably balanced), giving any of these disrupts that balance.
> 3. Letting players choose the "racial" abilities of their characters from a
> large list (the same, or almost the same, for all races) instead of having
> such abilities depend on race.
Define race...
> This, of course, promotes the creation of individuals instead of instances of
> a type: every character would be different, and saying that a character is, for
> example, an "elf" would mean little more than saying it has pointed ears etc.
> without defining all there is to know about it.
And thus we end up with merely cosmetically different humans with random magical
powers. There would be effectively only two races, humans, and super-humans.
> I would like to hear how races are dealt with in your AD&D campaigns, and
> how you feel about the standard rules.
I treat them as the embodiment of the mythic brought down to realistic
levels of power so as to make viable, yet not dominating, species in the world.
I think the standard rules do a fine job of define a race by culture, cosmetics,
and base ability/power that unify the species into a coherent whole. A whole
that for the most part preserves their mythic nature.
As for "non-standard" races, think on this: orcs, goblins, etc. were really
only intended to be monsters - the embodiment of the mythic "evil spirit"
meant only to be a hinderance to humanity and never really meant to be
true cultural "races".
> I hope to have shown why, on a moral basis, class restrictions, level limits
> etc. are a very bad thing and how, with limited effort, they can be removed
> from one's AD&D game.
The ONLY *moral* basis your thesis has is one which comes from a position that
it is wrong to stereotype/prejudge real people in the real world and that, by
extension, if we shouldn't do it in the game as it might somehow desensitize
us to a real issue. My firm belief is that arguements like this are just
so much hooey. Quake didn't make kids think it was OK to blow away other
people; AD&D races being stereotyped is not going to destroy civil rights.
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
Beau Yarbrough
Lorenzo Gatti <lorenz...@libero.it> wrote:
In my current 2E campaign, the players have encountered customized
humanoids time and again, and will soon be encountering many more. I
don't use S&P, but rather the Complete Book of Humanoids. But I throw
even those rules out the window when it suits the campaign. Taking a
page from 3E, the players are soon going to be dogged (so to speak) by
a CE gnoll ranger who is articulate, smarter than they are, and
extremely cunning. Yeah, he's evil, but so is everyone working for his
master.
We're playing in Mystara, where culture supercedes traditionally race
and alignment boundaries. One of the main antagonist groups in Mystara
are Lawful Neutral/Evil elves.
I absolutely agree that every campaign shouldn't feature automatically
good races and bad races, but there's a value in it for beginning
players. For others, though, shifting races to a more neutral stance
and having them behave, for better or worse, with all the complexity of
real-world humans makes the most sense. That orc king may indeed be a
fair-minded guy (if a bit rough when push comes to shove) and that
dwarf lord may be a real SOB you wouldn't want to leave alone with your
daughter.
Part of the problem is that every time TSR (not WotC) wanted to show a
more morally complex/culturally diverse group of demihumans, they made
them a new monster. Dwarves aren't evil; duergar and derro are! Elves
are good and sweet, unless they're Valley Elves or the Drow. These
groups (with the probable exception of Drow) shouldn't get their own
monster entries, but should be detailed as a different cultural group
for a given campaign setting.
Finally, I think it's absolutely possible to have non-stereotypical
kender and tinker gnomes, once the goofiest players pry their hands off
of them. The players in my campaign have met the Mystaran equivalent of
a tinker gnome, and had no idea. Gus isn't a cartoon character, he's as
complex as any other NPC.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bennet...@mindspring.com
Lorenzo Gatti wrote in message <3919330E...@libero.it>...
>I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about
different races of player characters. On the basis of mere prejudice, most
races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of
enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority inescapable, by
forbidding individual variance between characters of the same race.
>
Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A class action suit by
all the demihumans and humanoids out there? At least this isn't from UCLA
Berkley. I'm going to play my blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed Nordic
Arayan Paladin to the frigging hilt from now on!
Ciao,
Paul
Neil Alexander
Bennet...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<8fcfbc$dki$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>different races of player characters. On the basis of mere prejudice, most
>races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of
>enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority inescapable, by
>forbidding individual variance between characters of the same race.
>>
>Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A class action suit by
>all the demihumans and humanoids out there? At least this isn't from UCLA
>Berkley. I'm going to play my blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed Nordic
>Arayan Paladin to the frigging hilt from now on!
>
And I'm just as liberal as you, but I agree. In order to save elven rights,
I will have to knee-cap all those pesky humans out there.
ECCE (playing an elf currently)
Bryan J. Maloney
<Bennet...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I'm a bleeding heart, knee jerk liberal, but this takes the cake! Jesus
> Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A class action suit by
> all the demihumans and humanoids out there? At least this isn't from UCLA
> Berkley. I'm going to play my blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed Nordic
> Arayan Paladin to the frigging hilt from now on!
Remember, the goblins and orcs are inferior races, anyway.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
David R. Klassen
>
> I absolutely agree that every campaign shouldn't feature automatically
> good races and bad races, but there's a value in it for beginning
mirroring of high fantasy and myth. There is no such thing as a Good
orc in Tolkien; there is no such thing as a good troll in Germanic myth.
Does that take away from the heroic element? So why is it only
for "beginners" if one follows this route in their game?
> players. For others, though, shifting races to a more neutral stance
> and having them behave, for better or worse, with all the complexity of
> real-world humans makes the most sense. That orc king may indeed be a
Note - real world *humans*. Why is it any less valid to have truly
Evil orcs, giants, trolls, etc.?
> Part of the problem is that every time TSR (not WotC) wanted to show a
> more morally complex/culturally diverse group of demihumans, they made
> them a new monster. Dwarves aren't evil; duergar and derro are! Elves
Maybe because it paralleled mythology...?
> Finally, I think it's absolutely possible to have non-stereotypical
> kender and tinker gnomes, once the goofiest players pry their hands off
It's possible, as a PC or special NPC to certainly be non-stereotypical.
The stereotype exists as a measure of the average being.
> of them. The players in my campaign have met the Mystaran equivalent of
> a tinker gnome, and had no idea. Gus isn't a cartoon character, he's as
> complex as any other NPC.
And what you so condescendingly call "cartoon" other of us call
"myth" and "high fantasy".
Beau Yarbrough
"David R. Klassen" <kla...@rowan.edu> wrote:
> My, that's rather condescending.
I didn't intend it to be. Take it in the context of all my comments and
relax.
> How about the value being a truer
> mirroring of high fantasy and myth. There is no such thing as a Good
> orc in Tolkien; there is no such thing as a good troll in Germanic
myth.
> Does that take away from the heroic element?
No. But I didn't say that to begin with.
> So why is it only
> for "beginners" if one follows this route in their game?
I'm not calling you names and I'm not coming over to your house and
taunting you. What's got you so bent out of joint about me stating my
experience that many, even most, groups eventually move away from the
classic/standard/basic depictions?
> Note - real world *humans*. Why is it any less valid to have truly
> Evil orcs, giants, trolls, etc.?
It's not. The original poster wanted to have more choices than
automatically evil/less-talented members of a given race. My post even
specifically mentioned an evil gnoll ranger, whom I would argue is as
valid as any character concept.
> > Part of the problem is that every time TSR (not WotC) wanted to
show a
> > more morally complex/culturally diverse group of demihumans, they
made
> > them a new monster. Dwarves aren't evil; duergar and derro are!
Elves
> Maybe because it paralleled mythology...?
There were Monster Manuals in mythology? Wow.
And you could model different cultures of elves, dwarves, et cetera,
without new Monster Manual entries. Hell, that's what TSR did with
their HR books.
> > Finally, I think it's absolutely possible to have non-stereotypical
> > kender and tinker gnomes, once the goofiest players pry their hands
off
> It's possible, as a PC or special NPC to certainly be non-
stereotypical.
> The stereotype exists as a measure of the average being.
We're not in disagreement.
> > of them. The players in my campaign have met the Mystaran
equivalent of
> > a tinker gnome, and had no idea. Gus isn't a cartoon character,
he's as
> > complex as any other NPC.
> And what you so condescendingly call "cartoon" other of us call
> "myth" and "high fantasy".
Please unclench. If you haven't seen cartoonish portrayals of standard
AD&D character races, lucky you. But not even the worst fantasy writers
would lay claim to a lot of character portrayals out there.
Jerry Love
news:8fcddu$p54$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3919330E...@libero.it>,
> Lorenzo Gatti <lorenz...@libero.it> wrote:
>
> In my current 2E campaign, the players have encountered customized
> humanoids time and again, and will soon be encountering many more. I
> don't use S&P, but rather the Complete Book of Humanoids. But I throw
> even those rules out the window when it suits the campaign. Taking a
> page from 3E, the players are soon going to be dogged (so to speak) by
> a CE gnoll ranger who is articulate, smarter than they are, and
> extremely cunning. Yeah, he's evil, but so is everyone working for his
> master.
I once used a Flind ranger (NG as required by class).....
No point, just thought I'd put that in.
BTW wouldn't this be more interesting as a discussion of racisim between the
DnD races (Elvish snubbing of Humans and such?)
Jerry
Beau Yarbrough
"Jerry Love" <sp...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I once used a Flind ranger (NG as required by class).....
I'm not a fan of the flinds, who I think should just be a culturally
different group of gnolls. I like a lot about them, though; that gnoll
ranger the players will have as their nemesis will use flind bars.
> BTW wouldn't this be more interesting as a discussion of racisim
between the
> DnD races (Elvish snubbing of Humans and such?)
Who DON'T the elves snub? Hmmm. Is there a race in D&D that doesn't
look down on someone else?
AWL
different races of player characters. On the basis of > mere prejudice, most
races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of
enforcing stereotypes with rules
> makes this inferiority inescapable, by forbidding individual variance
between characters of the same race.
belief that the rules represent "racism" against elves and whatnot>
Prehaps the solution here is to make faerie folk aware of the slander being
done to them. Organize the demi-humans. Rise up, brothers! When the NAADH
hears about this, they'll be up in arms. Between a class action suit from
the NAADH, a million-elf march on the WOTC building, a halfling pride rally,
and a letter writing campaign from dwarves and gnomes everywhere, I think
they'll get the point and end 25 years of anti-demi-human racism!
I'm sorry, but I'm rather dissapointed that you seem to have devoted so much
time to this percieved injustice to imaginary fey creatures and folk of the
woods and caverns. Mayhap you should put this kind of fervor into
combatting a problem that exists in objective reality?
--
-Andrew
"If they are black magicians, how will you harry them? If they are not,
there is no evil in them. Croms Devils! Let men worship what Gods they
will."
-"Conan the Conquerer"
Duane Vanderpol
different races of player characters.
Don't be.
> On the basis of mere prejudice, most races are described as spiritually
inferior; the usual AD&D policy of enforcing stereotypes with rules makes
this inferiority inescapable, by forbidding individual variance between
characters of the same race.
Inferior? I don't know where you're getting that unless you're talking
about monster races which are typically _defined_ as evil. Of course
there's individual variance between characters of the same race. With the
exception of a few dubiously talented players who can make ANY class/race
seem an equally dull copy of every character they've played before I've
never seen two characters alike.
> Humans are different from others and privileged; they are generic and as
various as real world men and they are assumed to rule the world.
There's a VERY good reason for humans being "generic" (though "ruling
the world" is quite specious - numerical superiority of one race in a game
SETTING does not make it racist). Non-human races are not merely humans
wrapped in unusual skin. They are basically considered to be somewhere just
shy of being Martians or the Things from Dimension X. That is, they do not
think quite like humans do - they have different physicality, possess innate
powers that humans do not, have different ways of living, generally are much
longer lived, etc. all of which affects how and why they do things. We, the
players of the game, are obviously human so we can only really pretend to
fully comprehend how non-humans would think. In order to better portray
non-humans in the way they ought to be, humans are presented as a baseline,
a reference point which is modified and added to in order to present races
which are not human.
This isn't _racism_, it's game design. It would be boring indeed if
NON-humans DID behave just like humans wrapped in unusual skin. The fact
that all character races aren't exactly the same in all game-related aspects
to humans doesn't make it racist.
Besides, if anything it's my experience that most players tend to
consider _demi_humans to be SUPERIOR to humans because of their many
additional powers.
> Demihumans are, for the most part, mindlessly copied from Tolkien and
usually designed to show some exaggerated, or even comical, human
personality trait (kenders and tinker gnomes come to mind).
Copied from Tolkien, eh? You don't actually read much in this newsgroup
do you? I believe the debate continues to rage on even now and suffice it
to say it's patently untrue - or at _best_ HIGHLY debatable.
As for exaggerating human physical or personality traits I suggest you
look up a few words like "metaphor" and "allegory" and maybe study a little
literature. Does setting up a _completely_ _fictitious_ race as fodder for
comic relief REALLY comprise racism? Are you suggesting that ANY
_fictitious_ race that is described as having racial traits and abilities
that are not _equivalent_ to humanity constitutes real-world racism?
Or maybe you are intimating that Dwarves and Elves are thinly disguised
derogatory depictions of real-world races of humanity? THAT, I suppose,
could constitute racism - from a very ridiculous point of view. Ridiculous
because it would make borderline skinheads of Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson,
every other contributor to the creation and perpetuation of D&D, Tolkien and
all other fantasy authors who have used Dwarves and Elves in their stories
for decades, not to mention the real-world peoples upon whose myths and
stories modern fantasy has been based and adapted from.
> Other humanoids and monsters are seriously impaired as player characters
(not so when they are enemies), as if their players should be punished for
their aberrant choice (for example in Skills & Powers, p. 37 of the
hardcover printing of July 1995, you read that "generally, players may not
customize these unusual races, and they receive zero character points for
selecting a non-standard race").
And that's racism...? That's the same as telling Rosa Parks to sit in
the back of the bus? It's as bad as hanging a sign in your shop window:
"Hiring - Irish need not apply"? It's one step closer to herding Jews &
Gypsies into death camps?
> The level limits and class choice restrictions, which are missing for
humans, are the worst problem: they imply that humans are good at everything
while demihumans and humanoids have serious cultural and intellectual
deficiencies, which no individual can overcome; not even an exceptional hero
like a PC.
> This is a racist mindset: judging a whole group instead of single persons,
stopping at assumptions and first impressions with no desire to communicate
and understand other people.
>
> Let's move this issue to the real world with an example (which is a
provocation and doesn't reflect my opinions):
[snip]
Let's not. It's clear to me you do not distinguish between fantasy and
reality; between a game peopled by fictitious creatures similar to, but not
human, and the advocation of oppression or persecution of people in the real
world based on their skin color or ethnicity.
Racism is a SERIOUS real-world issue and you _cheapen_ it by attempting
to draw this kind of parallel. If one should so choose D&D is an excellent
medium for exploring issues of racism because one could, within the game,
treat a non-human race in the same manner as a real-world race suffering
from oppression through racism and bigotry. But, simply because races are
treated _differently_ within the game for purposes of _having_ racial
differentiation within the game doesn't make it in the least racist.
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.
Patrick Emerton
>
> In article <3919330E...@libero.it>,
> Lorenzo Gatti <lorenz...@libero.it> wrote:
>
> In my current 2E campaign, the players have encountered customized
> humanoids time and again, and will soon be encountering many more. I
> don't use S&P, but rather the Complete Book of Humanoids. But I throw
> even those rules out the window when it suits the campaign. Taking a
> page from 3E, the players are soon going to be dogged (so to speak) by
> a CE gnoll ranger who is articulate, smarter than they are, and
> extremely cunning. Yeah, he's evil, but so is everyone working for his
> master.
>
> and alignment boundaries. One of the main antagonist groups in Mystara
> are Lawful Neutral/Evil elves.
>
> good races and bad races, but there's a value in it for beginning
> and having them behave, for better or worse, with all the complexity of
> real-world humans makes the most sense. That orc king may indeed be a
> dwarf lord may be a real SOB you wouldn't want to leave alone with your
> daughter.
I agree 100% (though even standard orcish kings should be reasonably
fair-minded, shouldn't they, being _lawful_ evil).
> Part of the problem is that every time TSR (not WotC) wanted to show a
> more morally complex/culturally diverse group of demihumans, they made
> them a new monster. Dwarves aren't evil; duergar and derro are! Elves
> are good and sweet, unless they're Valley Elves or the Drow. These
> groups (with the probable exception of Drow) shouldn't get their own
> monster entries, but should be detailed as a different cultural group
> for a given campaign setting.
I think that you've identified a more serious contribution to the
problematic treatment of races by AD&D than the original poster
did - alignment. And I think you've also better identified the
nature of the problem. It's not so much that AD&D involves the
immoral treatment of fantasy people, but that the presentation
of the races tends to hinder the effective development of an
interesting world that is morally and culturally subtle.
As various other threads on this newsgroup seem to me
to demonstrate, alignment is an ongoing problem for AD&D: the
mechanic is an attempt to weld descriptions of personality and
behaviour, and moral judgement, into a single conceptual framework,
and that's like mixing oil and water - it just don't work!
So no matter how interesting or complex your Gnoll Ranger is, the
CE alignment labels him as nothing but sword-fodder for your PCs,
while the character's rampant racism and bigotry in so regarding
him is shielded by the label of lawful goodness
(apologies if this is not actually true of your gaming group - but
I think that something like this is common in many AD&D games).
In my opinion the best solution is to in fact abolish alignment
altogether, to treat Detect Evil as Detect Enemy, and to treat
Know Alignment as Know Religion. Then your Gnoll becomes a
fierce warrior and tracker, indifferent to the welfare of any
others (except perhaps his family and some others in his tribe),
brutal and violent though perhaps not without personal honour -
not too different to (say) a viking or mediaeval European knight
(who are treated in most games as CG or even LG) except that
his loyalties lie in different directions.
On the other hand, if alignment is to be retained, then it should
be treated merely as description, without connotations of moral
judgement. The possibility of quite reasonable evil characters
is then opened up (eg we can put a lot of mercenaries, vikings
and hack-and-slash PCs in the alignment box they _should_ be
in), the number of good individuals would be substantially reduced
(it has always struck me as odd that a game that is generally
set in a period of earth's history that was far more brutal
than our own seems to contain so many more people with a committment
to life, love and beauty) and players will no longer have to look only
to non-humans to find people and cultures with radically different
personalities and aspirations.
The principal basis of the original poster's objection seems to
me to be unsustainable, for the reasons others have pointed out:
as soon as mechanical differences between the races are abolished,
they all just become humans in funny suits. But _any_ mechanical
variation will automatically result in stereotyping various races
to various classes.
For example, the original post canvassed the possibility of stat
mods for various races: but a bonus to one stat automatically
favours the associated class, for that race, and the matching
stat penalties will make other classes less attractive. The
most obvious way to treat ogres, say, is to give a STR bonus and
a CHA (& maybe INT/DEX ) penalty, but this automatically tips
ogres towards fighters and away from bards. Likewise, infravision
favours rogues (who benefit most from nightsight, I would say),
the elven weapon bonuses favours archers, etc.
I'm also not sure that AD&D contains the mechanical resources to
balance the races via balanced mechanical variation, while permitting
significant variation. Other game systems tend to have more elements
of character design to tweak in various directions.
Patrick Emerton
Duane Vanderpol
news:8nnS4.609$vt4.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> BTW wouldn't this be more interesting as a discussion of racisim between
the
> DnD races (Elvish snubbing of Humans and such?)
Yeah, it would be. But, since the original poster is effictively
calling me & others practicing racists because we follow the book and refuse
to let humans multi-class and limit demi-human level advancement I think the
discussion would at least be lost on him.
Patrick Emerton
>
> "Lorenzo Gatti" <lorenz...@libero.it> wrote in message
> news:3919330E...@libero.it...
<snip>
> > Demihumans are, for the most part, mindlessly copied from Tolkien and
> usually designed to show some exaggerated, or even comical, human
> personality trait (kenders and tinker gnomes come to mind).
>
> Copied from Tolkien, eh? You don't actually read much in this newsgroup
> do you? I believe the debate continues to rage on even now and suffice it
> to say it's patently untrue - or at _best_ HIGHLY debatable.
I think it's the case that Tolkein was the first author to
present elves, dwarves etc as culturally and linguistically
distinct groups of (quasi-)humans, as opposed to random
faeries living at the bottoms of gardens or mines or whatever -
a major transformation in presentation of the concept of fairies
which is integral to FRP.
> Or maybe you are intimating that Dwarves and Elves are thinly disguised
> derogatory depictions of real-world races of humanity? THAT, I suppose,
> could constitute racism - from a very ridiculous point of view. Ridiculous
> because it would make borderline skinheads of Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson,
> every other contributor to the creation and perpetuation of D&D, Tolkien and
> all other fantasy authors who have used Dwarves and Elves in their stories
> for decades, not to mention the real-world peoples upon whose myths and
> stories modern fantasy has been based and adapted from.
Well, I think Tolkein's racism and extreme conservatism are pretty
well known - it's no coincidence that Numenoreans (and 'good'
lesser people like those from Rohan) are fair, while the wicked
people and the orcs are dark and tend to have non-European noses,
eyes etc.
Likewise, it's not much disputed that Wagner was a rabid anti-Semite,
and I don't think its absurd to see some of those views manifested
in the characters of Alberich and Mime.
This doesn't make it impossible to enjoy Tolkein or Wagner - I've
just re-read LOTR, I listen to the Ring Cycle compulsively, and
I think of myself as a pretty liberal guy (by Australian standards,
so I'm probably pretty far to the left by US standards) - but
this does require divorcing the art from its origins. Personally,
I find this easier to do by changing in a number of respects
the way AD&D handles race, culture, religion and morality,
as I have outline in another post to this thread.
Patrick Emerton
Bronsius Mogath
>
> Lorenzo Gatti wrote in message <3919330E...@libero.it>...
> >I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about
> different races of player characters. On the basis of mere prejudice, most
> races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of
> enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority inescapable, by
> forbidding individual variance between characters of the same race.
> >
> I'm a bleeding heart, knee jerk liberal, but this takes the cake! Jesus
> Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A class action suit by
> all the demihumans and humanoids out there? At least this isn't from UCLA
> Berkley. I'm going to play my blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed Nordic
> Arayan Paladin to the frigging hilt from now on!
>
> Ciao,
> Paul
>
I was WAITING for this kind of post. I'm surprised that this never came up
before. Racism in a game. Ahahahahahah! A GAME! Ahahahahahahah!!! A GAME
you play with DICE!! I wonder if people actually THINK before they start
to type?
Hahahah!!
Tim Fitzmaurice
>
> Who DON'T the elves snub? Hmmm. Is there a race in D&D that doesn't
> look down on someone else?
Fremlins???
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
David R. Klassen
>
> I agree 100% (though even standard orcish kings should be reasonably
> fair-minded, shouldn't they, being _lawful_ evil).
the being believes it can achieve personal happiness best through the
use of social structures.
> immoral treatment of fantasy people, but that the presentation
> of the races tends to hinder the effective development of an
> interesting world that is morally and culturally subtle.
That's sorta the point of fantasy/myth. You have various creatures
that are well-defined usually as some exagerated-trait version of
humanity and with a particular point-of-view on the world around
them. Well, actually, in myth non-human beings are usually little
more than creatures with well-defined places/attitudes. This translates
into AD&D as cultures with general alignments. If you want evil elves,
you make a new type of elf; one is distinguishable from the good elves.
> and that's like mixing oil and water - it just don't work!
Alignments work.
> So no matter how interesting or complex your Gnoll Ranger is, the
> CE alignment labels him as nothing but sword-fodder for your PCs,
First of all, a PC of any race can be of whatever alignment the player
wishes - PC's are the exceptional beings. Second, to be a Ranger,
it *couldn't* be CE. Third, any PC's who attack a non-threatening
being of *any* race are certainly not in the Good range of alignment.
> while the character's rampant racism and bigotry in so regarding
> him is shielded by the label of lawful goodness
It could not be. The LG townsfolk would be VERY wary, and may
be a bit overzealous in an attempt to protect themselves (afterall,
they *know* all gnolls are savage beasts only out for their own
self-interests), they would not act rashly by killing a lone
being. This would not be LG.
> In my opinion the best solution is to in fact abolish alignment
> altogether, to treat Detect Evil as Detect Enemy, and to treat
Why?
> Know Alignment as Know Religion. Then your Gnoll becomes a
> fierce warrior and tracker, indifferent to the welfare of any
> others (except perhaps his family and some others in his tribe),
> brutal and violent though perhaps not without personal honour -
This sounds CE to me.
> not too different to (say) a viking or mediaeval European knight
> (who are treated in most games as CG or even LG) except that
> his loyalties lie in different directions.
No; Idealized Vikings and European knights are treated as Good. Most
historically accurate ones would fall into the N or E bins.
I think you have some misconceptions on what alignment is...
> On the other hand, if alignment is to be retained, then it should
> be treated merely as description, without connotations of moral
That's mostly what it is. It is a shorthand notation that sums up
what a being believes is right and wrong and how they view the
universe around them. However, there are some morals attached
to it due to the lable names being based on idealized western philosophy.
> judgement. The possibility of quite reasonable evil characters
> is then opened up (eg we can put a lot of mercenaries, vikings
> and hack-and-slash PCs in the alignment box they _should_ be
Ahhh...why can't we do this already? I mean, the current rules
are all in place to be able to properly bin beings. Granted, they
are a little unclear in parts, but a careful reading of them
shows that they work just the way you are proposing to "change" them.
> in), the number of good individuals would be substantially reduced
Not necessarily. You just have to make sure your LG folks really
*are* LG.
WargamerGMW
about
> different races of player characters. On the basis of mere prejudice,
most
> races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of
> enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority inescapable,
by
> forbidding individual variance between characters of the same race.
> >
Jesus
> Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A class action suit
by
> all the demihumans and humanoids out there? At least this isn't from
UCLA
> Berkley. I'm going to play my blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed
Nordic
> Arayan Paladin to the frigging hilt from now on!
>
> Ciao,
> Paul
>
>
Bravo, SIR! As a long time GAME player (this IS a game) and a mixed
race/multi-ethnic conservative (well, all the neo-nazis I work with call
me a liberal but the liberal fringe element here sees me as a
conservative of the first water, go figure...) I agree. It's ROLE
PLAYING (as in FRPG) we are talking about.
Oh, and FWIW, I PREFER playing Dwarf characters. Fighter,
Fighter-Thief, even had a Dwarven cleric back in the days before
Basic/AD&D. I enjoy working with both the parameters of the rules and
my own individualization of my characters.
Gracias.
--
Glenn Wilson, Miniatures Gamer. Past gamer in Board War Games
and Computer War Games. Triple Threat Wargamer - that means I can
Lose equally well in SF/Fantasy/Historical games! Prefer Starguard,
Matchlock Americas Skirmish but plays most any era you own!
Henry Link
about different races of player characters. On the basis of mere
prejudice, most races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual
AD&D policy of enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority
inescapable, by forbidding individual variance between characters of
the same race.
OK, here it goes... Either you are a troll (and a good one to engender
this much response), or I will put your discussion in one particular
category...
... the famous "you people are thinking on this WAAAY to hard"
category. It's kind of like reading pro-communist undertones out of
the TV show "Sesame Street."
Trying to debate that the difference in Races in D&D stem from racist
tendencies in the creators is very far-fetched. It is explicitly
stated in the rulebooks that
"Although humans are treated as a single race in the AD&D game, they
come in all the varieties we know on Earth. A human PC can have
whatever racial characteristics the DM allows."
and
"Humans are also more social and tolerant than most other races,
accepting the company of elves, dwarves, and the like with noticeably
less complaint. Because of these abilities and tendencies, humans have
become significant powers within the world and often rule empires that
other races (because of their racial tendencies) would find difficult
to manage."
Therefore, Humans are HUMAN. All varieties we know on earth. You, me,
Ethiopian, Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Amerindian, etc. etc.
The difference between D&D races and real-life ethnic backgrounds is
that the D&D races are supposed to be REAL RACES. A closer analogy
would not be different breeds of domestic dog (which are all _canis
canis_, I believe) but the better analogy would be Horses and mules -
they produce nonreproductive Donkeys. There are similarities,
obviously enough between elves and humans and orcs to reproduce, but
different enough to be a separate _species_.
As to cultural intolerance, that concept has been around, and in my
opinion will continue to be around until there are no more humans (or
until we discover a hostile alien intelligence who wants to wipe us
out, in which case the color of skin of the person next to you in the
foxhole doesn't matter much, does it?)
OK, that's enough. I refer back to the refrain: "you people are
thinking on this WAAAY to hard."
--
"C'mon, August!"
-Henry
john v verkuilen
>I would like to hear how races are dealt with in your AD&D campaigns, and how you feel about the standard rules.
>I hope to have shown why, on a moral basis, class restrictions, level limits etc. are a very bad thing and how, with limited effort, they can be removed from one's AD&D game.
(Oh God preserve us from moralists....)
As to how I deal with them in my campaign, well races aren't really races in
our words, they're different species in a world where the fundamental laws of
the universe don't necessarily work like ours do. Therefore there's nothing
at all wrong with making one group inherently superior to another in certain
areas of endeavor. This is true in our world. After all, you don't see
chimpanzees writing books on tensor calculus and I think it's fair to assume
that left to their own devices they wouldn't, ever. So dwarves not being
mages doesn't bother me.
That said, IMC, anyone CAN become anything, though culturally or biologically
it may be very hard to do so. So there are dwarven mages, though they are
quite rare and suffer high rates of spell failure (5% per point of saving
throw bonus due to Con). Nor do I use level limits.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
A legal King Crimson bootleg from the Aug. 2-4, 1996, Mexico City shows:
http://drm.goestoeleven.com/wm/dgm/default.htm.
john v verkuilen
>Lorenzo Gatti wrote in message <3919330E...@libero.it>...
>>I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about
>different races of player characters. On the basis of mere prejudice, most
>races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of
>enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority inescapable, by
>forbidding individual variance between characters of the same race.
>>
>I'm a bleeding heart, knee jerk liberal, but this takes the cake! Jesus
>Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A class action suit by
>all the demihumans and humanoids out there? At least this isn't from UCLA
>Berkley. I'm going to play my blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed Nordic
>Arayan Paladin to the frigging hilt from now on!
My thoughts exactly. (Though I'm not so sure I'm a liberal anymore.)
Time to mandate AD&D sensitivity training. :)
Michael Scott Brown
> Yeah, it would be. But, since the original poster is effictively
> calling me & others practicing racists because we follow the book and
refuse
> to let humans multi-class and limit demi-human level advancement I think
the
> discussion would at least be lost on him.
Yup. Being silly isn't racism. :)
-Michael
john v verkuilen
>I agree 100% (though even standard orcish kings should be reasonably
>fair-minded, shouldn't they, being _lawful_ evil).
Since when has the law been fair? Just checking....
>In my opinion the best solution is to in fact abolish alignment
>altogether, to treat Detect Evil as Detect Enemy, and to treat
>Know Alignment as Know Religion.
I use Detect Evil as "Detect Supernatural Influence," with Know Alignment
providing more detailed information of "Know Basic Morals." Many low
grade, i.e., low level, evil people won't show up at all on Detect Evil.
Know Alignment will allow a Wisdom check (the target gets a save) to provide
the caster with a basic insight into how "trustworthy" or "humane" or whatever
descriptors I feel like using at the time the target is.
IMC, Alignment refers to one's supernatural connections; the vast majority of
people have no alignment whatsoever. In general, to have any supernatural
connections you have to seek them out consciously by becoming more than a
nominal worshipper of particular powers, though sometimes powers will "touch"
you even though you didn't want it. (The God of Slaughter is infamous for
this.) Spells cast by priest on you by push you in the direction of that
power, particulary if you're not previously committed. Certain life
conditions will also have influence. When you are about to die, Death comes
to you if you do not have a guide.
Then your Gnoll becomes a
>fierce warrior and tracker, indifferent to the welfare of any
>others (except perhaps his family and some others in his tribe),
>brutal and violent though perhaps not without personal honour -
>not too different to (say) a viking or mediaeval European knight
>(who are treated in most games as CG or even LG) except that
>his loyalties lie in different directions.
Definitely. Now if a ranger has some supernatural talents, he's getting them
from somewhere which might have "alignment" considerations.
kurt63
>cake! Jesus Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A
>class action suit by all the demihumans and humanoids out
>there?
I've heard lots of people demanding the end of the race limits
in D&D, right here in this newsgroup. From what I hear about 3rd-
ed, I'd say they won their suit.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Michael Scott Brown
> Racism is a SERIOUS real-world issue and you _cheapen_ it by
attempting
> to draw this kind of parallel.
<applause>
Well said, brother.
-Michael
Crucible
experiences in race relationships.
Currently we are embroiled in an AL-QADIM campaign. The weird thing about
Al-Qadim is that all the races are treated equally. I have yet to go to a
city that treats dwarves, elves, etc. any differently than anyone else.
The only exception seems to be for outlanders. If a "normal" setting Wizard
wanders into Al-Qadim, they consider him "un-enlightened" and do their best
to keep him from hurting himself.
It's a weird dynamic overall... playing in a world with no real racism. I
have to say... as idyllic as it might sound, not having race to consider
makes the world less interesting. An elf is a dwarf is a halfling. They're
all pretty much the same except for their shape, infravision, and how high
they can climb in their class.
Now you have to find whole other reasons to pick on one another :-)
-Crucible
Andrew Tellez
Crucible wrote:
>
> Currently we are embroiled in an AL-QADIM campaign. The weird thing about
> Al-Qadim is that all the races are treated equally. I have yet to go to a
> city that treats dwarves, elves, etc. any differently than anyone else.
>
> The only exception seems to be for outlanders. If a "normal" setting Wizard
> wanders into Al-Qadim, they consider him "un-enlightened" and do their best
> to keep him from hurting himself.
>
> It's a weird dynamic overall... playing in a world with no real racism. I
> have to say... as idyllic as it might sound, not having race to consider
> makes the world less interesting. An elf is a dwarf is a halfling. They're
> all pretty much the same except for their shape, infravision, and how high
> they can climb in their class.
Al-Qadim is more concerned with culture than race. While an elf and an
orc from the same region will likely get along, they may have serious
disagreements with elves or orcs from another region. (The Pearl Cities
versus the League of the Pantheon, for example.) And these differences
are nothing compared to the differences with the unenlightened. In
general, though, social tension in Al-Qadim comes from station
difference and birth culture, rather than from race.
From a rules standpoint, some of the racial advantages are removed, like
attack bonuses versus some races. Multiclassing is also strongly
discouraged. (I've forbidden it, and replaced it with modified
dual-classing rules for everyone.)
Overall, though, Al-Qadim has as much cultural, economic, social, and
religious tension as any other setting. Racial tension would be
redundant.
john v verkuilen
>Al-Qadim is more concerned with culture than race. While an elf and an
>orc from the same region will likely get along, they may have serious
>disagreements with elves or orcs from another region.
This was one of the areas I found weakest in Al Qadim, which I think is
overall one of the best designed settings TSR ever made (minus some nits here
and there). I just find it implausible that the very long lifespans of elves
and dwarves relative to humans wouldn't make them different.
Andrew Tellez
john v verkuilen wrote:
>
> Andrew Tellez <no...@gwu.edu> writes:
>
> >Al-Qadim is more concerned with culture than race. While an elf and an
> >orc from the same region will likely get along, they may have serious
> >disagreements with elves or orcs from another region.
>
> This was one of the areas I found weakest in Al Qadim, which I think is
> overall one of the best designed settings TSR ever made (minus some nits here
> and there). I just find it implausible that the very long lifespans of elves
> and dwarves relative to humans wouldn't make them different.
The effects of lifespan are seldom considered in published settings.
After all, what is ancient history to a human is recent history to an
elf or dwarf. Al-Qadim takes some accounting of this, by mentioning
that the long-lived races are often chosen as judges and such, due to
their accumulated wisdom. (Odd, though, that humans get wiser faster
than elves.)
The interesting part, though, is that the Grand Caliph is only the 18
such ruler. Enlightenment is only 18 human generations old. If we
assume that each Grand Caliph rules for an average of 25 years, then
Enlightenment is but 450 years old. (Somewhere else they mention about
500 years, so this seems okay.) Elves, among others, can live beyond
500 years.
Further, Enlightenment expanded over the whole of Zakhara, and much of
it was only Enlightened recently. (The Ruined Kindoms, Ajayib, etc.)
There are younger beings in these areas that predate Enlightenment.
This is where the effects of lifespan should be felt, and aren't. The
"elder" races don't have the attitudes that should go with a being of
such age. (Not that they do in many other settings, either.) This is
easily rectified, though, and produces some interesting results. (My
group is currently suspicious of the "elven conspiracy" that they think
is in Jumlat. Just because the vizier is an elven sorcerer who appears
to be in late middle age, and has unquestionably vile habits, doesn't
mean that the elves who regularly meet with him for "cultural" reasons
are in a conspiracy, does it?)
Ian R Malcomson
>(Oh God preserve us from moralists....)
Unlikely. Remember the Ten Commandments? :-)
--
Ian R Malcomson
"So you thought you'd like to go to the show?
To feel the warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow..." - 20 years young
Domicus/Ian R Malcomson Website: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
Robert Baldwin
Maloney) wrote:
>In article <8fcfbc$dki$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
><Bennet...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm a bleeding heart, knee jerk liberal, but this takes the cake! Jesus
>> Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A class action suit by
>> all the demihumans and humanoids out there? At least this isn't from UCLA
>> Berkley. I'm going to play my blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed Nordic
>> Arayan Paladin to the frigging hilt from now on!
>
>Remember, the goblins and orcs are inferior races, anyway.
True, but only until they are compared to kobolds. ;-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
<p.em...@law.monash.edu.au> wrote:
<snip>
>Well, I think Tolkein's racism and extreme conservatism are pretty
>well known -
Really? Care to provide some evidence for that claim? JRRT was a
devout Catholic, but unles that meets your standard for "racist" I'll
want some proof.
it's no coincidence that Numenoreans (and 'good'
>lesser people like those from Rohan) are fair, while the wicked
>people and the orcs are dark and tend to have non-European noses,
>eyes etc.
Yeah. The lack of coincidence being the intent to write in the
Northern-European folklore style.
>Likewise, it's not much disputed that Wagner was a rabid anti-Semite,
>and I don't think its absurd to see some of those views manifested
>in the characters of Alberich and Mime.
<shrug> Wagner was a raving loon. A brilliant composer, but a loon
nontheless.
Walt Smith
Chris Simpson <Chr...@mho.net> wrote:
> Big time snip... I agree %1,000.. In 3rd addition level limits and
> class restrictions will be lifted :) :) :) .
Will the setting have Elven fighters wandering around who have
500 years worth of experience points? Ouch, Don't mess with them
long-lived races...<G>
Walt Smith
--
Firelock on DALNet
A'koss
"Walt Smith" <fire...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8fg3cb$s60$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3919693D...@mho.net>,
> Chris Simpson <Chr...@mho.net> wrote:
> > Big time snip... I agree %1,000.. In 3rd addition level limits and
> > class restrictions will be lifted :) :) :) .
>
> Will the setting have Elven fighters wandering around who have
> 500 years worth of experience points? Ouch, Don't mess with them
> long-lived races...<G>
The long lived races have no advantage in 3e, experience is handled quite
differently now. Even in 2e, attrition will take care those who continue to
adventure year after year. Eventually your luck runs out. Plus, powerful
people attract powerful enemies who want what you got.
A'koss!
matt johns
the harsh and terrible racism directed at something that never
has existed?!
I mean sheesh.
If you wanna play by the book fine, if you don't fine. Really
unless you're playing in your little white hooded outfit I don't
see how this possibly makes you a racist...
matt
Varsil Savai
Baldwin) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 18:20:35 -0400, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J.
>Maloney) wrote:
>
>>In article <8fcfbc$dki$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>><Bennet...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a bleeding heart, knee jerk liberal, but this takes the cake! Jesus
>>> Hallelujah Christ! What is your proposed remedy? A class action suit by
>>> all the demihumans and humanoids out there? At least this isn't from UCLA
>>> Berkley. I'm going to play my blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed Nordic
>>> Arayan Paladin to the frigging hilt from now on!
>>
>>Remember, the goblins and orcs are inferior races, anyway.
>
>True, but only until they are compared to kobolds. ;-)
>
Heh, IMC, the goblins and orcs of a particular forest both know that a
certain (slowly growing) portion of the forest is "DO NOT ENTER". The
reason? Kobolds...
Remember, no one makes a tripwire that activates a hail of poisoned
ballista bolts like kobolds :).
----------------------------------------------------
Consider yourself flamed.
I have erected a spamblocker. Simply remove the
#$% characters if you feel the need to email me.
Kodiak
In article <h_oS4.46954$x4.15...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Duane Vanderpol" <dua...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Racism is a SERIOUS real-world issue and you _cheapen_ it by attempting
People who whine about racism are the same people who whine about crime and
rape: they're people who have never experienced it.
Once you experience racism first-hand, either by observation or by being
discriminated against, then you begin to understand what racism is... and you
stop posting things like "because the PG says all elveses like trees, Gary
Gygax must have hated black people"
Whatever...
Besides, if you're looking for problems with AD&D's treatment of races or
problems with the writers, you don't have to resort to making things up.
-----
Kodiak
Kodiak
In article <391A2327...@law.monash.edu.au>, Patrick Emerton <p.em...@law.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> Well, I think Tolkein's racism and extreme conservatism are pretty
> lesser people like those from Rohan) are fair, while the wicked
> people and the orcs are dark and tend to have non-European noses,
> eyes etc.
And your source for this "common knowledge" is? Beyond some guy's little
interpretational paper?
-----
Kodiak
WargamerGMW
<snip>
> I've heard lots of people demanding the end of the race limits
> in D&D, right here in this newsgroup. From what I hear about 3rd-
> ed, I'd say they won their suit.
>
AND, this kind of stuff is EXACTLY why I am selling off all my D&D/AD&D
stuff and no longer play the GAME - some people think it should reflect
(their perception) of real life, not (the DM's) perception of the
campaign.
Gracias.
--
Glenn Wilson, Miniatures Gamer. Past gamer in Board War Games
and Computer War Games. Triple Threat Wargamer - that means I can
Lose equally well in SF/Fantasy/Historical games! Prefer Starguard,
Matchlock Americas Skirmish but plays most any era you own!
WargamerGMW
ja...@uiuc.edu (john v verkuilen) wrote:
<snip>
>
> As to how I deal with them in my campaign, well races aren't really
races in
> our words, they're different species in a world where the fundamental
laws of
> the universe don't necessarily work like ours do. Therefore there's
nothing
> at all wrong with making one group inherently superior to another in
certain
> areas of endeavor. This is true in our world. After all, you don't
see
> chimpanzees writing books on tensor calculus and I think it's fair to
assume
> that left to their own devices they wouldn't, ever. So dwarves not
being
> mages doesn't bother me.
>
As a dwarf fanatic (most of my personal PC's) I have to say, in
character of course, "So what there are no Dwarf Mages - less culture
breakers, less lose screws to cause cave-ins practicing their dangerous
and unreliable 'spells', and less trouble makers. Gruuumpfh!"
I enjoy having to depend on my skills as a Dwarf (Yes I have played
human mages, got an old Original D&D lady up to the teens in level
before putting her on semi-retirement status. She was not particularly
overwhelming as a character (high stat was IN at 13, IIRC) but played
with a GREAT group of players so she contributed her best and survived.
> That said, IMC, anyone CAN become anything, though culturally or
biologically
> it may be very hard to do so. So there are dwarven mages, though they
are
> quite rare and suffer high rates of spell failure (5% per point of
saving
> throw bonus due to Con). Nor do I use level limits.
>
While not to my tastes, sounds like a good system, assuming the limits
are reflective of the racial differences...
Walt Smith
"A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
> The long lived races have no advantage in 3e, experience is handled
> quite differently now. Even in 2e, attrition will take care those who
> continue to adventure year after year. Eventually your luck runs out.
I'll have to see the 3e exp system.
On the surface, there's little logic to the idea that "long lived
races have no advantage". Sure, attrition will catch up with everyone
eventually, but humans get a near 100% attrition rate from aging
before their first century is up *in addition* to all the other ways
a hero can die. If you compare 1000 human heroes to 1000 elven heroes,
about the only guaranteed attrition statistic you can predict is that
all the humans are going to be dead 500 years from now. Even if the
elves suffer a 99% attrition rate, that still leaves the elven king
with ten more 500-year veterans than the human king will have.
> Plus, powerful people attract powerful enemies who want what you got.
I think the 600 year old 30+/30+/30+ level elven fighter/mage/thief
would be a great candidate for the "powerful enemy" in the above
sentence. <G>
What's so different about the 3e exp system, that it helps prevent
this problem? Did they change the level breakpoints?
Walt Smith
--
Firelock on DALNet
Walt Smith
Ian R Malcomson <i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >(Oh God preserve us from moralists....)
>
> Unlikely. Remember the Ten Commandments? :-)
>
"I've got some good news, and some bad news. I managed to talk him
down to ten, but adultery is still in."
- Moses, coming down from the mount (various)
Dark Grue
"Andrew Tellez" <no...@gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:391B289B...@gwu.edu...
> (My group is currently suspicious of the "elven conspiracy" that they
think
> is in Jumlat. Just because the vizier is an elven sorcerer who appears
> to be in late middle age, and has unquestionably vile habits, doesn't
> mean that the elves who regularly meet with him for "cultural" reasons
> are in a conspiracy, does it?)
Well, gee, the idea of yet *another* conspiracy amuses me, and it could
hardly complicate the political mixmaster you've made of Jumlat any more
than it already is! =)
An besides Elves *are* sneaky! Dem pointy-eared wizzies, sneaking about the
place, holding der sneaky whisper-whisper meets. Acting all high and mighty
like dey be better than us common men! It's obviously a conspiracy!
Not to be trusted, those Jumlat elves. Vizier conspirator Elves? You just
kill dem on sight!
Don' even get me started on vizier conspirator space Elves...
-DG.
--
David G. Hesprich, CISSP, GCIA, TIP #245 | It is dark. You might be
eaten
dark...@iname.com | by a grue.
http://www.gue-tech.org/darkgrue/ |
BlakGard
>>rules about different races of player characters.
>I was WAITING for this kind of post. I'm surprised that this never
>came up before.
What makes you think it hasn't?
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Michael Scott Brown
> On the surface, there's little logic to the idea that "long lived
> races have no advantage".
Bah. You are wrongly dismissing the relevance of attrition through
*adventuring*. Adventuring is *dangerous*. The more one adventures, the
more one is exposed to that pesky part, being killed. How long you live
while farming and singing to your daisies has no bearing on this; if you
undertake the activities that grant you enough experience to matter towards
you career, then you're subject to the reaper the same as any "mortal" race.
Long life is and advantage for "strategic" efforts that take a long
time, but not for gaining levels. Other demihuman perks are more relevant
to this, such as enhanced senses and resistances.
Once you factor in the low birthrates of the long-lived, and take a
realistic look at attrition rates towards higher levels, it becomes easily
apparent that every elf isn't going to be 20th level, nor will there be
hordes of them compared to humans.
*Think*! How many adventurers die just at 1st level?
> What's so different about the 3e exp system, that it helps prevent
> this problem? Did they change the level breakpoints?
They changed everything, including the incorporation of a mechanic to
base the reward on actual challenge; thus 10th level characters don't get
much progress out of orc-bashing.
Perhaps you should read Noah's site?
-Michael
Beau Yarbrough
varsil#$%@home.com (Varsil Savai) wrote:
> Heh, IMC, the goblins and orcs of a particular forest both know that a
> certain (slowly growing) portion of the forest is "DO NOT ENTER". The
> reason? Kobolds...
>
> Remember, no one makes a tripwire that activates a hail of poisoned
> ballista bolts like kobolds :).
Damn straight. I'm halfway through making a kobold-built dungeon and
I'm worried that it'll be too difficult for low-to-mid level PCs ...
Andrew Tellez
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> Long life is and advantage for "strategic" efforts that take a long
> time, but not for gaining levels. Other demihuman perks are more relevant
> to this, such as enhanced senses and resistances.
The only way that longer lifespan gives regular XP in 2e is via the
individual awards for spellcasters. (I don't know if 3e will have a
similar mechanic.) Others must put themselves at risk for XP, and
create the opportunity for attrition. All this really means, though, is
that you can have a living, breathing, ancient powerful spellcaster,
instead of an undead, shambling, ancient powerful spellcaster. And
shorter-lived spellcasters can achieve similar results with magic.
So, lack of level limits allows for extremely old and powerful members
of a group (spellcasters) that already has the potential to be extremely
old and powerful.
> Once you factor in the low birthrates of the long-lived, and take a
> realistic look at attrition rates towards higher levels, it becomes easily
> apparent that every elf isn't going to be 20th level, nor will there be
> hordes of them compared to humans.
The lower birth rates and overall smaller populations mean that there
are often better, safer, carreer options available.
Reasonably, I'd expect orcs and such, with higher birth rates, more
brutal society, and generally more thuggish attitudes, to be of
generally higher level, rather than the longer-lived, more civilized
races.
> *Think*! How many adventurers die just at 1st level?
And how many more retire early after making enough to live comfortably
for the rest of their lives? And how many more get their fill of
adventure and settle down?
> > What's so different about the 3e exp system, that it helps prevent
> > this problem? Did they change the level breakpoints?
>
> They changed everything, including the incorporation of a mechanic to
> base the reward on actual challenge; thus 10th level characters don't get
> much progress out of orc-bashing.
Also, since making magic items now costs XP rather than awarding it, you
can't both live forever and go up in level with a combination of
gardening and potion brewing.
john v verkuilen
>In article <3919693D...@mho.net>,
> Chris Simpson <Chr...@mho.net> wrote:
>> Big time snip... I agree %1,000.. In 3rd addition level limits and
>> class restrictions will be lifted :) :) :) .
>Will the setting have Elven fighters wandering around who have
>500 years worth of experience points? Ouch, Don't mess with them
>long-lived races...<G>
Remember, few elves will wander around the whole time just fighting. Also,
they have to survive that long. Even if you're very high level, the
possibility of death in any given year isn't trivial, especially when you
compound it over many years. If the probability is .001 of getting killed
in a year, you stand 50/50 odds after 692 years. This probability is surely
too low. If the probability is .01, you stand 50/50 odds after 69 years.
Also you have to look at opportunity. There probably isn't something around
every doorstep waiting to be killed.
The upshot is that while elves and dwarves will be nasty--expect very
experienced elves or dwarves to be, oh, 10th or so level--they don't have to
be overwhelming.
Also just because PCs don't have level limits doesn't mean everyone else in
your world doesn't. For instance, IMC, while it is possible to go up a few
levels for just about anyone that practices, when the big XP doubling rates
start kicking in many people find better things to do with their time. You
know, stuff like having a family, making a regular living, etc.
m@ng
<8fgvq0$qvb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Walt Smith <fire...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[Re: long-living elves reaching humongously high levels]
>What's so different about the 3e exp system, that it helps prevent
>this problem? Did they change the level breakpoints?
Well, for one, the XP charts don't flatten out at "name" level anymore.
Second, speculation is that PCs will get a flat XP award of about 100XP
at all levels for defeating an "equal" opponent. At first level you'll
need to overcome only ten or so "significant" challenges to rise to
second level. By 20th level this will be 200 "equal" opponents to get
to 21st level, with a total of 2,100 such victories since 1st level.
That 30/30/30 level elf will have had 40,950 such victories, with a
total of 4,095,000XP.
The details may very well be different than the above, but the gist is
probably the same. Just living a long time is not a guarantee of
reaching high levels because it gets increasingly difficult to find
sufficient challenges in the required numbers. You don't live very long
being a professional dragonslayer, especially since dragons get
class-levels too, live even longer than elves, and have a steady diet of
would-be dragonslayers...
--
morp...@newsguy.com
"Patience is for those who aren't on fire." - Attribution Lost
Bronsius Mogath
> >>I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D
> >>rules about different races of player characters.
>
> >I was WAITING for this kind of post. I'm surprised that this never
> >came up before.
>
> What makes you think it hasn't?
>
Ok, maybe it has, but I've never seen anything. It's still ridiculous.
Regards,
Mogath
\
john v verkuilen
>> That said, IMC, anyone CAN become anything, though culturally or
>biologically
>> it may be very hard to do so. So there are dwarven mages, though they
>are
>> quite rare and suffer high rates of spell failure (5% per point of
>saving
>> throw bonus due to Con). Nor do I use level limits.
>>
>While not to my tastes, sounds like a good system, assuming the limits
>are reflective of the racial differences...
Not sure what you mean as it seems you got me backwards. I don't use level
limits or class limits. Some races have a very hard time learning certain
skills however. For instance, any race that gets a Con bonus vs. magic
suffers spell failure. It is POSSIBLE to become a dwarven mage, but if your
Con is at all good, you stand a decent chance of blowing your spell every
time you try to cast. (Elves suffer the same problem with respect to
Conjuration, Necromancy, and most priest spells, but the failure is based on
Wisdom.)
The bottom line: Anyone can become anything and go to any level. They may
never be very good at it, though.
john v verkuilen
>>>I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D
>>>rules about different races of player characters.
>>I was WAITING for this kind of post. I'm surprised that this never
>>came up before.
>What makes you think it hasn't?
Oh, it has. Trust me, it has. More than once. Until the plague of political
correctness dies out it will again.
Patrick Emerton
I don't think the original poster was arguing that the game's
authors, or players, are racist, but rather (and in my view more
plausibly) that the game embodies thinking of a racist orientation.
Patrick Emerton
Duane Vanderpol
news:391F728E...@law.monash.edu.au...
>
> I don't think the original poster was arguing that the game's
> authors, or players, are racist, but rather (and in my view more
> plausibly) that the game embodies thinking of a racist orientation.
Uh huh. Try that one on someone in real life. "I'm writing a sequel to
The Turner Diaries - but I'm not a racist." It's POSSIBLE that it's true,
but who's gonna believe you? Who would undertake such a project that was
not a racist?
No, the original author made it pretty clear that he thought the
treatment of races in the game was equivalent to racism in real life. Maybe
not neo-nazi racist but people do not make distinctions anymore in matters
of racism. And the original poster does not make a distinction between the
rules of a fantasy roleplaying game and serious real-world issues. If he
was attempting in any way, shape or form to make a subtler point (such as
you seem to credit him with) he did a piss poor job of it.
I'll say it again - racism is a serious real-world issue and discussion
of it is cheapened by attempting to draw such pathetic parallels to what is
clearly mere fantasy.
There is room to discuss in-game race relations as well as use real
world parallels IN the game, but declaring the game itself as racist for how
it treats _fantasy_ races only shows the depth of the sickness that is
Political Correctness.
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Alea jacta est. In omnia paratus. Ars gratia artis.
Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte
particularly in less... serious contexts. I do not, however feel that
discussing the issue in the context of fantasy gaming is inappropriate or
somehow 'cheapens' the issue: I think that fantasy, like any other aspect of
our culture, can and sometimes does embody racist attitudes, and that it is
important to address this, with an eye to eliminating such racism.
The debt Ad&D owes to Tolkien is obvious, and it gets it's take on different
races pretty much straight from him. His books are brilliant, but they have
dated in some respects, most notably in terms of Tolkien's background
assumptions about how race and ethnicity operate. The idea that bloodlines
become polluted and diminished with time is all through Tolkien's writing,
and grows out of, I suspect, the genetic thinking of the day, which led in
its most extreme forms to the Eugenics movement.
The idea of different fantasy races with different capacities/strengths/etc.
is by itself nothing racist, I don't believe. In Sci-fi, we don't imagine
that an Alien race that is similar to a human in some respects must be
identical in every respect; it seems fair to make generalisations about the
different capacities of two different species. The case in fantasy seems
very parallel. What gets people all anxious about these sort of
generalisations when applied to human 'races' is that they have,
historically, almost always been used for racist purposes: to attempt to
demonstrate that white folk are smarter than everyone else, usually.
The treatment of fantasy races in AD&D is not, in my eyes, racist in most
respects. What does make me somewhat uncomfortable is the treatment of the
so-called 'humanoid' races, which are supposed to be evil, apparently just
by virtue of their genetics. Tolkien, of course, went further, making his
Orcs a debased and corrupted form of elves, evil by their very nature
(again, contemporary genetic thought here showing through). Roleplaying
systems of more recent origin tend to shy away from this sort of thing --
Earthdawn being a good example: Orcs in earthdawn are a playable race like
elves. Unfair stereotypes based on ancestry seem to be the essence of
racism, and AD&D's cardboard, black-and-white (meant in the cliched sense)
approach to the humanoid races does, in that light, seem somewhat racist.
My personal strategy is to make a clear distinction between race and
culture. While Orc's in a campaign world may all be 'evil', it should be
unclear how much of this is because they are raised in an evil culture, and
how much is the result of some sort of innate tendancy. I think it is always
valuable to develop one's 'villains' into well-rounded characters, and Orcs
and such should be no exception. Defeating players' expectations is usually
a very good thing, and having the various AD&D races defy their stereotypes
from time to time is probably a good idea on both storytelling and on
ideological grounds.
Patrick Emerton
>
> Racism is such a sensitive topic, it's difficult to discuss it sensibly,
> particularly in less... serious contexts. I do not, however feel that
> discussing the issue in the context of fantasy gaming is inappropriate or
> somehow 'cheapens' the issue: I think that fantasy, like any other aspect of
> our culture, can and sometimes does embody racist attitudes, and that it is
> important to address this, with an eye to eliminating such racism.
<snip sensible, measured comments>
I agree entirely with what you say, and with your comments on
Tolkein (which I also put, in an abbreviated form, in an earlier post,
and which met with a hostile response from other members of this
newsgroup).
Patrick Emerton
PJS
Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eugen...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:z_4U4.48512$nB3.2...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
> The debt Ad&D owes to Tolkien is obvious, and it gets it's take on
different
> races pretty much straight from him. His books are brilliant, but they
have
> dated in some respects, most notably in terms of Tolkien's background
> assumptions about how race and ethnicity operate. The idea that bloodlines
> become polluted and diminished with time is all through Tolkien's writing,
> and grows out of, I suspect, the genetic thinking of the day, which led in
> its most extreme forms to the Eugenics movement.
There's nothing to say Tolkien believed that; only that the Dunedain and
perhaps the Elves believed it - and wasn't it a sort of racism that led to
the kin-strife in Gondor?
--
I've got a new sig now.
Varsil Savai
The racist attitude is that the different D&D races (and you should
note that the D&D term 'race' does NOT equal modern use... it's more
like different species) are somehow inherently different, and that
they might be better at one thing than another...
Hmm... well, seems to me that different species are _likely_ to be
inherently different, and better at one thing than another. I mean,
my cat has vastly better night vision than I do... but has, as yet,
failed to learn to speak.
Frankly, I think pointing to D&D and saying "racist" fails utterly,
because it is merely a game system, and any analogy between it and RL
makes little or no sense.
Basic point: RL races are one group, biologically different from each
other only very slightly. D&D races, on the other hand, are unique
creatures, similar only in body shape. An orc is to a human about as
much as a halfling is to an elf... or an ogre... or a troll... and so
forth.
So... if you think you're superior to your dog, cat, gerbil, garden
slug, gastric bacteria, and so forth, and that these differences are
likely genetic in origin, then you're expressing about as much racism
as the D&D rules do.
resi...@my-deja.com
> So... if you think you're superior to your dog, cat, gerbil, garden
> slug, gastric bacteria, and so forth, and that these differences are
> likely genetic in origin, then you're expressing about as much racism
> as the D&D rules do.
HEY! That Gastric Bacteria is just as much a person as you are!
How would you like it if you had to sit an a hot pool of hydrochloric
acid and half digested food, constantly squashed by mucous lined
stomach walls...? It's an outrage!!! I demand equal right for
microorganisms.
Duane Vanderpol
news:z_4U4.48512$nB3.2...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
>
> particularly in less... serious contexts.
Then perhaps you should stop doing it and find a more serious context.
> I do not, however feel that
> discussing the issue in the context of fantasy gaming is inappropriate or
> somehow 'cheapens' the issue:
Exactly. However, labelling the game _itself_ as racist does.
> I think that fantasy, like any other aspect of
> our culture, can and sometimes does embody racist attitudes, and that it
is
> important to address this, with an eye to eliminating such racism.
No, it may be important for YOU to address them in your game since you
insist that they exist. Myself, I have better things to do than obsess
about the mere possibility that someone may harbor racist attitudes and
rooting out every possible shade of racism whether it exists or not.
> The debt Ad&D owes to Tolkien is obvious, and it gets it's take on
different
> races pretty much straight from him.
[snip]
Uh huh. A perusal of past (and even present) discussion threads ought
to prove how silly an assertion that is.
> The idea of different fantasy races with different
capacities/strengths/etc.
> is by itself nothing racist, I don't believe.
[snip]
Well, that's what we have here. So, what's your argument again?
> What gets people all anxious about these sort of
> generalisations when applied to human 'races' is that they have,
> historically, almost always been used for racist purposes: to attempt to
> demonstrate that white folk are smarter than everyone else, usually.
News flash for you: YOU are the one attempting to apply these fictional
generalizations to the human race. Note, please, that in the game Humans
are identical - white, black, Asian, Arabic, Slavic, Latino, etc. The game
makes no distinction concerning _Human_ races. That is just about as
politically correct as you can possibly get and frankly should satisfy you
entirely. It is the fictional, NON-human (but humanoid in general shape)
species that you insist are stand-ins for real-world races of humans that
are treated differently. The racism is therefore not in the game itself,
but in your insistence upon how the game is to be interpreted.
I do not draw the parallels you do and I am convinced none were
intended - in fact, I am convinced none exist but what you insist on imbuing
the game with.
> The treatment of fantasy races in AD&D is not, in my eyes, racist in most
> respects. What does make me somewhat uncomfortable is the treatment of the
> so-called 'humanoid' races, which are supposed to be evil, apparently just
> by virtue of their genetics. Tolkien, of course, went further, making his
> Orcs a debased and corrupted form of elves, evil by their very nature
> (again, contemporary genetic thought here showing through).
[snip]
Psst... It's a work of fiction which means he can make up what he likes.
Again, the racism only appears in your interpretation. You're not proving
that the work itself is racist, was intended to be racist, should be
interpreted as racist, or was even written by an author who was racist.
> Unfair stereotypes based on ancestry seem to be the essence of
> racism, and AD&D's cardboard, black-and-white (meant in the cliched sense)
> approach to the humanoid races does, in that light, seem somewhat racist.
The essence of racism is either the belief that race is the primary
determinant of human [!] traits and capabilities, and that racial
differences produce an inherently superior race [among humans...], or the
practicing of prejudice and discrimination based on said racial differences.
AD&D's non-human races can only be interpreted as racist depictions if you
insist that those fictional treatments are meant to be direct, derogatory
comparisons to real-world humans.
Brett Evill
>
>
>Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eugen...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
>news:z_4U4.48512$nB3.2...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
>> The idea that bloodlines
>> become polluted and diminished with time is all through Tolkien's writing,
>> and grows out of, I suspect, the genetic thinking of the day, which led in
>> its most extreme forms to the Eugenics movement.
I'm not sure that Tolkien was influenced by contemporary biology: a horror of
'miscegenation' was common in his time and before. You can find it and the
assumption that Northern Europeans were racially superior in writings from
before the discovery of genes was widely known.
Don't forget Tolkien's childhood in South Africa: before formal apartheit, but
in about the period in which M K Gandhi, a lawyer, was thrown out of
first-class railway compartments because of his race.
>There's nothing to say Tolkien believed that; only that the Dunedain and
>perhaps the Elves believed it
Their life-spans actually shortened as the Numenoreans mingled with lesser
races.
Regards,
--
Brett Evill
(The opinions expressed above are not those of the Bureau of Transport
Economics, the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services, or the
Australian Commonwealth Government.)
David R. Klassen
>
> The debt Ad&D owes to Tolkien is obvious, and it gets it's take on different
> become polluted and diminished with time is all through Tolkien's writing,
> and grows out of, I suspect, the genetic thinking of the day, which led in
> its most extreme forms to the Eugenics movement.
the stuff about bloodlines.
> The idea of different fantasy races with different capacities/strengths/etc.
> is by itself nothing racist, I don't believe. In Sci-fi, we don't imagine
Mainly because the "races" are really different *species*.
> The treatment of fantasy races in AD&D is not, in my eyes, racist in most
> respects. What does make me somewhat uncomfortable is the treatment of the
> so-called 'humanoid' races, which are supposed to be evil, apparently just
> by virtue of their genetics.
No. By virture of the inhernet spirits within them. Based on the descriptions
of the beings as realted to us down through time through myth and legend. AD&D
just turns these fairy spirits into viable living races for game purposes.
No genetics needed, thank you.
> Tolkien, of course, went further, making his
> Orcs a debased and corrupted form of elves, evil by their very nature
> (again, contemporary genetic thought here showing through). Roleplaying
No. Magic and spirit again - no genetics needed. The idea was that Morgoth,
being a power lesser than Eru could not *create* but could use his evil
magics to *corrupt* a creation. Elves into orcs, ents into trolls.
> elves. Unfair stereotypes based on ancestry seem to be the essence of
> racism, and AD&D's cardboard, black-and-white (meant in the cliched sense)
> approach to the humanoid races does, in that light, seem somewhat racist.
But you have to remember the context. All of the non-human races are some
form of made-playable form of spirit/fairy creature from myth and legend.
These spirits could be inherently good *or* evil. Those that were evil
are translated as such. And in a game where true Good and Evil exist, this
is not all that far-fetched an idea. The *only* way this could be even
perceived as "racist" is if you could say the designers were attempting to
draw veiled parallels between the fantasy "races" and real life human races.
> valuable to develop one's 'villains' into well-rounded characters, and Orcs
> and such should be no exception. Defeating players' expectations is usually
A particular NPC orc perhaps. But not the 30-50 orcs they find in a cavern
system which has been raiding locals' farms, no. Alignment is the system
which is supposed to make the catagorization easy.
> a very good thing, and having the various AD&D races defy their stereotypes
> from time to time is probably a good idea on both storytelling and on
> ideological grounds.
From time to time, sure. Always? No thanks.
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte
> > discussing the issue in the context of fantasy gaming is inappropriate
or
> > somehow 'cheapens' the issue:
>
> Exactly. However, labelling the game _itself_ as racist does.
>
would calling it racist cheapen the issue? If you admit that a fantasy game
could potentially be racist in some fashion or other, how is discussion of
whether a particular game is (or is not) inappropriate?
> > I think that fantasy, like any other aspect of
> > our culture, can and sometimes does embody racist attitudes, and that it
> is
> > important to address this, with an eye to eliminating such racism.
>
> No, it may be important for YOU to address them in your game since you
> insist that they exist. Myself, I have better things to do than obsess
> about the mere possibility that someone may harbor racist attitudes and
> rooting out every possible shade of racism whether it exists or not.
Insist? I don't recall insisting on anything. I said that certain aspects of
the game concerned me somewhat. I certainly don't 'obsess' about it -- but
since I'm in the process of working out a campaign world, and assigning
different fantasy races to different cultures, the issue is on my mind.
>
> > The debt Ad&D owes to Tolkien is obvious, and it gets it's take on
> different
> > races pretty much straight from him.
> [snip]
>
> Uh huh. A perusal of past (and even present) discussion threads ought
> to prove how silly an assertion that is.
Yeah, whatever. You, and other members of this mailing list are entitled to
your opinion, and I'm familiar with the arguments that purport to show D&D's
lack of debt to Tolkien. I don't find them at all convincing, so I will
persist in talking as if Tolkien was a major inspiration for D&D (which he
obviously was). Including the D&D races.
>
> > The idea of different fantasy races with different
> capacities/strengths/etc.
> > is by itself nothing racist, I don't believe.
> [snip]
>
> Well, that's what we have here. So, what's your argument again?
How sad. It's polite to wait until someone actually finishes the argument
before jumping in and asking "where is it?" Is it so difficult to actually
respond in a calm and reasoned fashion, without getting in rhetorical cheap
shots?
>
> > What gets people all anxious about these sort of
> > generalisations when applied to human 'races' is that they have,
> > historically, almost always been used for racist purposes: to attempt to
> > demonstrate that white folk are smarter than everyone else, usually.
>
> News flash for you: YOU are the one attempting to apply these
fictional
> generalizations to the human race. Note, please, that in the game Humans
> are identical - white, black, Asian, Arabic, Slavic, Latino, etc. The
game
> makes no distinction concerning _Human_ races. That is just about as
> politically correct as you can possibly get and frankly should satisfy you
> entirely. It is the fictional, NON-human (but humanoid in general shape)
> species that you insist are stand-ins for real-world races of humans that
> are treated differently. The racism is therefore not in the game itself,
> but in your insistence upon how the game is to be interpreted.
> I do not draw the parallels you do and I am convinced none were
> intended - in fact, I am convinced none exist but what you insist on
imbuing
> the game with.
As politically correct as you can possibly get? Really? Imagine if AD&D gave
different stat bonuses and penalties to different human ethnicities! That
would be such an obvious case of racism (although not necessarily very
HARMFUL racism) that it would have gotten D&D into a million times more
trouble than they ever had from including demons and devils. Not doing THAT
hardly qualifies a game as "politically correct as you can possibly get".
The parallel that can be drawn between fantasy races and human ethnicities
is obvious enough that it is commonly drawn by people encountering the game,
in my experience. And since you cannot possibly know (nor can I) what
Tolkien and the designers intended in making fantasy races integral parts of
their game world, your being "convinced" that none were intended is hardly
impressive. And regardless of the intentions of the authors, what matters is
what people get out of the text, generally speaking. The text is enough, I
think to raise some concern.
You seem to be generally overestimating the scope of my complaint. I am not
arguing that including different races in a work of fantasy is necessarily,
or even likely racist. I am arguing that some aspects of the presentation of
the fantasy races in Tolkien and D&D are concerning, in that they can easily
be construed as being mildly racist.
>
> > The treatment of fantasy races in AD&D is not, in my eyes, racist in
most
> > respects. What does make me somewhat uncomfortable is the treatment of
the
> > so-called 'humanoid' races, which are supposed to be evil, apparently
just
> > by virtue of their genetics. Tolkien, of course, went further, making
his
> > Orcs a debased and corrupted form of elves, evil by their very nature
> > (again, contemporary genetic thought here showing through).
> [snip]
>
> Psst... It's a work of fiction which means he can make up what he
likes.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I hadn't realised. I am, after all,
pretty darn stupid.
> Again, the racism only appears in your interpretation. You're not proving
> that the work itself is racist, was intended to be racist, should be
> interpreted as racist, or was even written by an author who was racist.
If aspects of a work strongly suggest a racist metaphor, then can't the work
easily be interpreted as racist? Regardless of the intentions of the
authors? Nietzsche was adopted by the Nazis, regardless of what his
intentions were, because much of what he wrote lent itself to a certain sort
of interpretation. If a work lends itself to being interpreted in a racist
fashion, that, to me, is worthy of concern. Note that I'm just saying:
concern. Not banning, or burning, or disparagement. I just think that
certain aspects of D&D need to be handled with sensitivity and caution.
That's all.
>
> > Unfair stereotypes based on ancestry seem to be the essence of
> > racism, and AD&D's cardboard, black-and-white (meant in the cliched
sense)
> > approach to the humanoid races does, in that light, seem somewhat
racist.
>
> The essence of racism is either the belief that race is the primary
> determinant of human [!] traits and capabilities, and that racial
> differences produce an inherently superior race [among humans...], or the
> practicing of prejudice and discrimination based on said racial
differences.
> AD&D's non-human races can only be interpreted as racist depictions if you
> insist that those fictional treatments are meant to be direct, derogatory
> comparisons to real-world humans.
How about if such comparisons are perfectly obvious possibilities, such that
they can be easily made? They will certainly be made by a racist, and taken
seriously. It doesn't matter what was 'meant' by the authors, what matters
is what the readers get out of it. Writing a racist work by accident doesn't
make it not-racist, if people read it as BEING racist.
Eugene
Walt Smith
lately for this ng as I would have liked.
In article <ucm41MDv$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa04>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> Walt Smith <fire...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8fgvq0
> > On the surface, there's little logic to the idea that "long lived
> > races have no advantage".
>
> Bah. You are wrongly dismissing the relevance of attrition through
> *adventuring*. Adventuring is *dangerous*. The more one adventures,
> the more one is exposed to that pesky part, being killed.
While this is true, it dismisses the age-related attrition effects
on the human population - not just to life itself, but also to
physical capability.
Want to run some numbers? Let's see...we need comparative birth
rates, average age to begin adventuring/retire from adventuring,
fatality rates as a function of level (is annual mortality higher
for low level people and tapers off, or does it remain a constant
high rate throughout active careers?), advancement rates as a function
of current level (and possibly chosen level of risk)...put it in the
right spreadsheet, we can get some population data to play with.
That's a lot of assumptions to work with, about half will be guesswork.
What kind of numbers do you like?
> How long you live while farming and singing to your daisies has no
> bearing on this; if you undertake the activities that grant you
> enough experience to matter towards you career, then you're subject
> to the reaper the same as any "mortal" race.
Incorrect: the "mortal" races are *more* suceptible. That's why we
call them "mortal". No matter how careful a human is, his
grandchildren are dust before his elven sidekick starts getting
grey hairs.
> Once you factor in the low birthrates of the long-lived, and take a
> realistic look at attrition rates towards higher levels, it becomes
> easily apparent that every elf isn't going to be 20th level, nor will
> there be hordes of them compared to humans.
I thought the whole point of being high level was to be worth hordes
of lesser heroes. <G>
What are you basing your attrition rates at high levels upon? I only
have one attrition rate statistic, the 99.99999% human death rate
from aging before their second century.
> *Think*! How many adventurers die just at 1st level?
I'd guess similar percentages of humans, elves, and dwarves. There
are more humans, who die in larger (but still proportional) numbers.
It's possible that the racial advantages of elves and dwarves reduce
their death rates at low levels. Personal experience is against this,
but I don't claim that the behavior of my players reflects the
experience of the race as a whole. I'm sure I'm not the only one
to see an Elf think a pack of Ghouls will be easy opponents, since
they won't paralyze him easily.
The higher human birthrate would indicate more human adventurers,
with more every year. It should be largely balanced by the *much*
shorter adventuring careers of each individual human.
> > What's so different about the 3e exp system, that it helps prevent
> > this problem? Did they change the level breakpoints?
>
> They changed everything, including the incorporation of a
> mechanic to base the reward on actual challenge; thus 10th level
> characters don't get much progress out of orc-bashing.
I recall a similar, though perhaps little-used mechanic from 1st ed
AD&D.
Patience is then the key. Have 200 encounters with low-risk foes
worth a tenth as much experience, rather than one high-risk
encounter. The strategic thinking of the long-lived, remember?
> Perhaps you should read Noah's site?
Perhaps. I've missed the URL, could you point me to it?
The sensible retirement of high-level characters interests me, I like
it when setting and game mechanics encourage and develop it.
Walt Smith
--
Firelock on DALNet
David R. Klassen
>
> Yeah, whatever. You, and other members of this mailing list are entitled to
> your opinion, and I'm familiar with the arguments that purport to show D&D's
> lack of debt to Tolkien. I don't find them at all convincing, so I will
> persist in talking as if Tolkien was a major inspiration for D&D (which he
> obviously was). Including the D&D races.
and legend. He just filtered them a bit.
> As politically correct as you can possibly get? Really? Imagine if AD&D gave
> different stat bonuses and penalties to different human ethnicities! That
> would be such an obvious case of racism (although not necessarily very
No more than giving different stat/ability bonuses to the sub-races of
elves or dwarves. For example, there are six major sub-races of human
in the World of Greyhawk: Flan, Baklunish, Suel, Oerid, Rhenee, and the
"savages" of Hepmonaland. One can say that the Suel, a pale skinned
race, gets a +1 INT and a -1 CHA; the Flan, a brown skinned, straight-black-
haired race get a +1 DEX and -1 WIS (I don't rememeber the actual mods...).
One can also try to make parallels between the Suel and northern European
and the Flan and Amerindians. Does this mean that one is racist and believes
that northern Europeans are intellectually superior to Amerindians? NO!
It means that the Suel are, on average, more intelligent than the Flan.
Period. These races are NOT stand-ins for real human races; parallels
are roughly drawn for cosmetic visualizations *only*.
> The parallel that can be drawn between fantasy races and human ethnicities
> is obvious enough that it is commonly drawn by people encountering the game,
Perhaps I'm slow... What are the human ethnicity parallels for orc, dwarf,
elf, gnome, troll, gnoll and ogre, for example? I'm at a loss to see the
"obvious" connections.
> what people get out of the text, generally speaking. The text is enough, I
> think to raise some concern.
Again, I see nothing in the text to show these "obvious" parallels.
> or even likely racist. I am arguing that some aspects of the presentation of
> the fantasy races in Tolkien and D&D are concerning, in that they can easily
> be construed as being mildly racist.
ONLY if the "obvious" parallels you describe truly exist. I don't see them.
And even in the case of the various human sub-races of Greyhawk, Gygax made
it plain that these are NOT just the standard human ethnicities; they are
Greyhawk ethnicities.
> If aspects of a work strongly suggest a racist metaphor, then can't the work
> easily be interpreted as racist? Regardless of the intentions of the authors?
However, I still fail to see how the AD&D races (i.e. species) parallel human
ethnic races.
> How about if such comparisons are perfectly obvious possibilities, such that
> they can be easily made? They will certainly be made by a racist, and taken
> seriously. It doesn't matter what was 'meant' by the authors, what matters
> is what the readers get out of it. Writing a racist work by accident doesn't
> make it not-racist, if people read it as BEING racist.
Please point out these obvious comparisons.
Andrew Tellez
Walt Smith wrote:
> In article <ucm41MDv$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa04>,
> "Michael Scott Brown" <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Bah. You are wrongly dismissing the relevance of attrition through
> > *adventuring*. Adventuring is *dangerous*. The more one adventures,
> > the more one is exposed to that pesky part, being killed.
>
> Want to run some numbers?
Good, I like numbers. I don't necessarily have all of them, but I'll
tell you where to find them. :)
> Let's see...we need comparative birth rates, average age to begin > adventuring/retire from adventuring,
These are available in the various racial handbooks. I don't have the
ones for elves or dwarves, perhaps someone could oblige? Average age to
start adventuring is in the PHB as well. Average age of retirement
isn't specified, though we can assume either the first or second
category of age penalties.
> fatality rates as a function of level (is annual mortality higher
> for low level people and tapers off, or does it remain a constant
> high rate throughout active careers?), advancement rates as a function
> of current level (and possibly chosen level of risk)...put it in the
> right spreadsheet, we can get some population data to play with.
High Level Campaigns says that there are 1/10 the number of members of
level N as of level N-1. With 2e's uneven XP charts, though, it might
be better to either do it as a function of earned XP, or just pick one
class for analysis.
> > bearing on this; if you undertake the activities that grant you
> > enough experience to matter towards you career, then you're subject
> > to the reaper the same as any "mortal" race.
>
> Incorrect: the "mortal" races are *more* suceptible. That's why we
> call them "mortal". No matter how careful a human is, his
> grandchildren are dust before his elven sidekick starts getting
> grey hairs.
He means that the chances of death through kinetic energy overdoses and
such are the same in a given fight, no matter your default life
expectancy.
> It's possible that the racial advantages of elves and dwarves reduce
> their death rates at low levels.
It's unlikely. The racial averages for the improved stats aren't high
enough to confer bonuses on all, or most, members of the race. The
other advantages don't really help in general circumstances.
> The higher human birthrate would indicate more human adventurers,
> with more every year. It should be largely balanced by the *much*
> shorter adventuring careers of each individual human.
From an actuarial perspective, humans and everyone else adventure for
about the same amount of time. They accumulate skills (XP) at an equal
rate, so only the die-hard power freaks are going to keep going once
they have "enough" of whatever they're adventuring for.
> > They changed everything, including the incorporation of a
> > mechanic to base the reward on actual challenge; thus 10th level
> > characters don't get much progress out of orc-bashing.
>
> I recall a similar, though perhaps little-used mechanic from 1st ed
> AD&D.
More importantly, it appears that creating magic items will cost XP
rather than provide it. Thus, the 1e/2e "brew your way to long life and
high level" option for mages and priests is taken away. This is the big
opportunity for ultra-high-level demihumans; spellcasters who keep going
up, even in semi-retirement.
> > Perhaps you should read Noah's site?
>
> Perhaps. I've missed the URL, could you point me to it?
Walt Smith
Andrew Tellez <no...@gwu.edu> wrote:
> Good, I like numbers. I don't necessarily have all of them, but I'll
> tell you where to find them. :)
Hoo-hoo, collaborative number crunching for entertainment! Ladies
and gentlemen, Andrew and I are well on our way to Nerdvana...<G>
> <Walt Smith:>
> > Let's see...we need comparative birth rates, average age to begin >
adventuring/retire from adventuring,
>
> These are available in the various racial handbooks. I don't have
> the ones for elves or dwarves, perhaps someone could oblige?
> Average age to start adventuring is in the PHB as well. Average age
> of retirement isn't specified, though we can assume either the first
> or second category of age penalties.
That sounds like a good baseline. Should we extend it for the
priestly and mage classes, as they get bonuses rather than
penalties? Or would they retire from active adventuring as well,
concentrating more on running temples or heading mage's guilds?
> High Level Campaigns says that there are 1/10 the number of members of
> level N as of level N-1. With 2e's uneven XP charts, though, it might
> be better to either do it as a function of earned XP, or just pick one
> class for analysis.
I think we could do it as a function of earned exp, the spreadsheet
shouldn't be that much more complicated. Fatality rate assumptions
will be critical, though...I think we'll have to do it with a range
of assumptions, so instead of saying "You're wrong!" we can say
"For you to be right, this would probably have to be true."
> > <Walt Smith>:
> > Incorrect: the "mortal" races are *more* suceptible. That's why we
> > call them "mortal". No matter how careful a human is, his
> > grandchildren are dust before his elven sidekick starts getting
> > grey hairs.
>
> He means that the chances of death through kinetic energy overdoses
> and such are the same in a given fight, no matter your default life
> expectancy.
I think that would be true, taken as it stands. However, I think it
possible that the average long-lived creature would take a more
patient and careful view of things, and might set different levels of
chosen risk. If a human is going to make it, they (comparatively)
have to make it *right now*. An elf can afford to be more patient.
> <walt:>
> > It's possible that the racial advantages of elves and dwarves reduce
> > their death rates at low levels.
>
> It's unlikely. The racial averages for the improved stats aren't high
> enough to confer bonuses on all, or most, members of the race. The
> other advantages don't really help in general circumstances.
When working with big numbers, small factors can be significant.
I was thinking of Dwarven resistances, Elven combat bonuses,
and their respective night-sight capabilities. Of course, dwarven
grudge-bearing and elven frivolity (if one's campaign has such things)
might cancel these benefits out, or they may be inconsequential as
you say.
> <walt:>
> > The higher human birthrate would indicate more human adventurers,
> > with more every year. It should be largely balanced by the *much*
> > shorter adventuring careers of each individual human.
>
> From an actuarial perspective, humans and everyone else adventure for
> about the same amount of time. They accumulate skills (XP) at an
> equal rate, so only the die-hard power freaks are going to keep
> going once they have "enough" of whatever they're adventuring for.
I'm thinking that this is true for Elves who adventure *with* humans.
What of those who adventure with other elves? They may take a less
energetic path, with slower growth but lesser risk. They can gain
experience at a tenth a human's pace and still come out ahead.
(30-year human career vs 500+-year elven career, ballpark guess,
don't have my DMG to hand).
> More importantly, it appears that creating magic items will cost XP
> rather than provide it. Thus, the 1e/2e "brew your way to long life
> and high level" option for mages and priests is taken away. This is
> the big opportunity for ultra-high-level demihumans; spellcasters who
> keep going up, even in semi-retirement.
Ah-hah, as the saying goes.
I always treated exp gained from making magic items as an abstraction
of the research a semi-retired Mage was up to. I can see how this
rule in 3e would make a big difference, especially since Mages and
Priests are the classes most likely to attain immortality (or at
least undead persistence).
> http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/
Thank you, I'll look it over.
setnaffa
his email address), a country than can't keep a government for a
year in a row, would dare to come up with a troll of this
calibre about the greatest game ever written, the best fantasy
author, and post it here . . .
Of course, I find many worthless things interesting...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
PJS
Brett Evill <BEv...@nospicedham.email.dot.gov.au> wrote in message
news:8ftefr$9b...@cook.dotrs.gov.au...
> In article <958498446.13780.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, PJS
wrote...
> >
> >
> >Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eugen...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> >news:z_4U4.48512$nB3.2...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
>
bloodlines
> >> become polluted and diminished with time is all through Tolkien's
writing,
> >> and grows out of, I suspect, the genetic thinking of the day, which led
in
> >> its most extreme forms to the Eugenics movement.
>
of
> 'miscegenation' was common in his time and before. You can find it and the
> assumption that Northern Europeans were racially superior in writings from
> before the discovery of genes was widely known.
>
> Don't forget Tolkien's childhood in South Africa: before formal apartheit,
but
> in about the period in which M K Gandhi, a lawyer, was thrown out of
> first-class railway compartments because of his race.
>
> >There's nothing to say Tolkien believed that; only that the Dunedain and
> >perhaps the Elves believed it
>
> Their life-spans actually shortened as the Numenoreans mingled with lesser
> races.
Their lifespans shortened also as they disobeyed the Valar and came to fear
death more. The above also misses the point that the lifespan of the royal
houses was inherited from the Elves and Melian, a Maia.
Staffan Johansson
>
> I think that would be true, taken as it stands. However, I think it
> possible that the average long-lived creature would take a more
> patient and careful view of things, and might set different levels of
> chosen risk. If a human is going to make it, they (comparatively)
> have to make it *right now*. An elf can afford to be more patient.
And if they take less risk, they would get less XP in proportion to the
risk.
Just for the sake of the argument, let's assume that an average
adventure (human-style) delivers 400 XP (I think I picked this number up
on the Living GH mailing list, but that may be biased for a campaign
where you play only a few times a year and thus want more XP per session
to feel character growth - regardless, it's a nice number to use) and
has a 5% mortality rate (totally taken out of thin air, but it works for
the example).
An elf would then go on an adventure that gave 40 XP, and had a 0.5%
mortality rate. To get the same XP as the human, he'd have to go on ten
adventures. The cumulative probabilty of dying is then 4.89% - very
close to the same as a human. Slightly less, but not enough to provide
elves with such a large number of high-level characters as to cancel out
humanity's vastly larger numbers.
Oh, and just as an expansion of this example: over the course of 4000
XP, the human goes on ten adventures and has a cumulative mortality rate
of 40.1%. The elf goes on 100 adventures and has a mortality rate of
39.4%. Over 40,000 XP, the mortality rates are 99.41% for humans and
99.33% for the elves.
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
http://www.crosswinds.net/~baloosj
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Walt Smith
Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> An elf would then go on an adventure that gave 40 XP, and had a 0.5%
> mortality rate. To get the same XP as the human, he'd have to go on
> ten adventures. The cumulative probabilty of dying is then 4.89% -
> very close to the same as a human. Slightly less, but not enough to
> provide elves with such a large number of high-level characters as to
> cancel out humanity's vastly larger numbers.
"Mostly Dead" vs "Completely Dead"? How are we rounding that off?
A 0.5% mortality rate may mean that the risk level is so low that the
worst Mr. Pointy-Ears is going to get is a flesh wound, and that's
on a bad day. One hundred adventures from now, he's gotten five
such flesh wounds...and five humans are dead.
Now, such a conservative character may be tedious as anything to
actually *play*.
Duane Vanderpol
> > > I do not, however feel that
> > > discussing the issue in the context of fantasy gaming is inappropriate
> or
> > > somehow 'cheapens' the issue:
> >
> > Exactly. However, labelling the game _itself_ as racist does.
> >
> Really? Is it impossible that any fantasy game could be racist? If one
was,
> would calling it racist cheapen the issue? If you admit that a fantasy
game
> could potentially be racist in some fashion or other, how is discussion of
> whether a particular game is (or is not) inappropriate?
It is not impossible that any fantasy game could be racist and I did not
say so. I've been saying that THIS one is not racist. Simply because you
choose to see racism where none exists doesn't make it racist. The supposed
racist aspects of the game that have been described could only exist if the
fictional races were meant to be seen as directly representational (not
merely incidentally so) of characteristics of real-world races. You have
not yet proven that is the case, using (if I am understanding your arguments
correctly) only the example of Tolkien and an unproven accusation of racism
on HIS part and then asserting that his tremendous influence on the game...
taints it, I suppose you'd say.
Since the game is not racist (except in your estimation) it DOES cheapen
the issue of racism in the real world to compare it to a FANTASY world where
it exists only if you want it to.
That said, the differences of the various races in the game CAN be used
as fodder for addressing issues of racism should one so choose. Parables
about racism in the real world could be played out - but only by first
making the assumption that individual races WILL stand in for real world
races or will portray aspects of real world racism.
*D&D, being fictional, is able to assume that certain creatures are
inherently evil or inherently good - without expecting that such assumptions
imply a thing about the real world - and then freely violate the conventions
of absolute good and evil when it comes to Player Characters or simply
playing out an interesting story.
> > > The debt Ad&D owes to Tolkien is obvious, and it gets it's take on
> > different
> > > races pretty much straight from him.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Uh huh. A perusal of past (and even present) discussion threads
ought
> > to prove how silly an assertion that is.
>
> Yeah, whatever. You, and other members of this mailing list are entitled
to
> your opinion, and I'm familiar with the arguments that purport to show
D&D's
> lack of debt to Tolkien. I don't find them at all convincing, so I will
> persist in talking as if Tolkien was a major inspiration for D&D (which he
> obviously was). Including the D&D races.
Then you defy accepted fact for no reason. Tolkien did have an
influence but not as heavy as you claim. Why would Gygax, et. al. insist to
the contrary for 25 years? What could they possibly have to gain by lying
about such a superficial thing as who was their greatest influence in
creating the game?
> How sad. It's polite to wait until someone actually finishes the argument
> before jumping in and asking "where is it?" Is it so difficult to actually
> respond in a calm and reasoned fashion, without getting in rhetorical
cheap
> shots?
You have further support for your point of view? I'd love to hear it.
Particularly anything that establishes clearly that Tolkien was racist since
it was Lord of the Rings that got me interested in fantasy in the first
place. I'd lose a serious measure of respect for him if it were true.
I am a little confused as to why you'd have left out important points
before now though.
> The parallel that can be drawn between fantasy races and human ethnicities
> is obvious enough that it is commonly drawn by people encountering the
game,
> in my experience.
I, on the other hand, have never even _heard_ of someone who made such
an improbable leap of logic until this thread opened up.
> And since you cannot possibly know (nor can I) what
> Tolkien and the designers intended in making fantasy races integral parts
of
> their game world, your being "convinced" that none were intended is hardly
> impressive.
And your being convinced otherwise is then equally unimpressive.
> And regardless of the intentions of the authors, what matters is
> what people get out of the text, generally speaking. The text is enough, I
> think to raise some concern.
Oh vomitization. This is the truly heinous edge of Political
Correctness - noone is allowed to be offended. Doesn't matter if there's
not a grain of real discrimination, you only have to perceive it (and you
don't have to be accurate or sensible in your perception either). Doesn't
have to actually BE there - only has to be perceived.
> You seem to be generally overestimating the scope of my complaint. I am
not
> arguing that including different races in a work of fantasy is
necessarily,
> or even likely racist. I am arguing that some aspects of the presentation
of
> the fantasy races in Tolkien and D&D are concerning, in that they can
easily
> be construed as being mildly racist.
They could be construed as such but that _doesn't_ mean they are. Just
because they can be perceived as offensive is NOT sufficient reason to label
it as racist. When you've proved it I'll be interested to hear it because
I'll be interested in seeing to it that it's eliminated. However, as it
stands you are tilting at windmills - not giants.
> > Psst... It's a work of fiction which means he can make up what he
> likes.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out to me. I hadn't realised. I am, after all,
> pretty darn stupid.
Ah. Victimization now too. I did not make such a tactless accusation
and in all but VERY few cases would not. I would appreciate it if you
wouldn't imply that I did.
> If aspects of a work strongly suggest a racist metaphor, then can't the
work
> easily be interpreted as racist?
Yes, but there is no _strong_ suggestion of such.
> If a work lends itself to being interpreted in a racist
> fashion, that, to me, is worthy of concern. Note that I'm just saying:
> concern. Not banning, or burning, or disparagement. I just think that
> certain aspects of D&D need to be handled with sensitivity and caution.
> That's all.
Fair enough. Be as concerned as you like. When you can prove your
interpretations of racism I'll be around to listen.
> > The essence of racism is either the belief that race is the primary
> > determinant of human [!] traits and capabilities, and that racial
> > differences produce an inherently superior race [among humans...], or
the
> > practicing of prejudice and discrimination based on said racial
> differences.
> > AD&D's non-human races can only be interpreted as racist depictions if
you
> > insist that those fictional treatments are meant to be direct,
derogatory
> > comparisons to real-world humans.
>
> How about if such comparisons are perfectly obvious possibilities, such
that
> they can be easily made? They will certainly be made by a racist, and
taken
> seriously. It doesn't matter what was 'meant' by the authors, what matters
> is what the readers get out of it. Writing a racist work by accident
doesn't
> make it not-racist, if people read it as BEING racist.
That's where you're wrong. Racism does not spring into existence
through the mere perception of it regardless of whether that perception is
right or wrong. If the perception of racism is indeed incorrect then
logically the racism does not exist.
Patrick Emerton
>
> Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, whatever. You, and other members of this mailing list are entitled to
> > your opinion, and I'm familiar with the arguments that purport to show D&D's
> > lack of debt to Tolkien. I don't find them at all convincing, so I will
> > persist in talking as if Tolkien was a major inspiration for D&D (which he
> > obviously was). Including the D&D races.
> and legend. He just filtered them a bit.
>
> > different stat bonuses and penalties to different human ethnicities! That
> > would be such an obvious case of racism (although not necessarily very
> elves or dwarves. For example, there are six major sub-races of human
> in the World of Greyhawk: Flan, Baklunish, Suel, Oerid, Rhenee, and the
> "savages" of Hepmonaland. One can say that the Suel, a pale skinned
> race, gets a +1 INT and a -1 CHA; the Flan, a brown skinned, straight-black-
> haired race get a +1 DEX and -1 WIS (I don't rememeber the actual mods...).
> One can also try to make parallels between the Suel and northern European
> and the Flan and Amerindians. Does this mean that one is racist and believes
> that northern Europeans are intellectually superior to Amerindians? NO!
> It means that the Suel are, on average, more intelligent than the Flan.
> Period. These races are NOT stand-ins for real human races; parallels
> are roughly drawn for cosmetic visualizations *only*.
>
> > is obvious enough that it is commonly drawn by people encountering the game,
> elf, gnome, troll, gnoll and ogre, for example? I'm at a loss to see the
> "obvious" connections.
>
> > think to raise some concern.
>
> > the fantasy races in Tolkien and D&D are concerning, in that they can easily
> > be construed as being mildly racist.
> And even in the case of the various human sub-races of Greyhawk, Gygax made
> it plain that these are NOT just the standard human ethnicities; they are
> Greyhawk ethnicities.
>
> > easily be interpreted as racist? Regardless of the intentions of the authors?
> ethnic races.
>
> > they can be easily made? They will certainly be made by a racist, and taken
> > seriously. It doesn't matter what was 'meant' by the authors, what matters
> > is what the readers get out of it. Writing a racist work by accident doesn't
> > make it not-racist, if people read it as BEING racist.
>
Orcs in Tolkein's writing are described in terms suggesting a generally
Turkic or Asian appearance, consistent with racial supremacist hate
literature and popular literature of his day. They are swarthy,
their eyes are described in terms suggesting epicanthic folds, they
speak a language that is contrasted with Elvish (which is spefically
likened by Tolkein to Latin) as being gutteral, and they wield
scimitars.
Tolkein was a conservative Englishman during the height of the Empire.
Are you really suggesting that his views on racial matters were the same
as those of contemporary liberal Americans (and Australians), despite
the overwhelming evidence of his writings, with their unremitting
obsessing about bloodlines, purity of stock, and the supremacy of
an (approximately) north-western European people?
Patrick Emerton
Patrick Emerton
>
> "Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte" <eugen...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> news:PtCU4.51409$nB3.2...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
<snip>
<snip>
I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or not. Like you,
my interest in fantasy was (and continues to be) heavily
influenced by LOTR. I also love Wagner's music, and the Ring
Cycle in particular. But this doesn't change that the fact
that Wagner was a rabid anti-Semite, and that one can see
elements of his views about race in his works (eg the characters
of Alberich and Mime).
Likewise in Tolkein. Tolkein was a conservative Catholic writing
in a time when the Catholic church was still hostile to basic
all social and political developments post the French Revolution.
Tolkein's work incorporates traditional mythology (eg fairies, magic
etc), Christian mythology (especially the Fall, which is repeated
again and again: Noldor, Numenor, Denethor in Gondor etc), and
contemporary English views about race and Empire (Britain at the time
ruled India, large parts of Africa and the Carribean, and sundry
other territories also, mostly justified by the doctrine of
'the White Man's burden' of bringing civilisation to other people).
LOTR's treatment of fairies, and of the fall, is novel in many ways,
but one obvious way is its integration of these ideas with the
contemporary doctrines of race and bloodline. Thus, the fall of
the Numenoreans is compounded by their mixing with lesser people,
and only a pureblood (Aragorn) can restore them (BTW, I'm surprised
that such a monarchic view of politics and society should be as
popular as it is among Americans!). Likewise, the various sorts
of fairy (elf, dwarf, troll and so on) are presented as (more-or-less)
human people, with their own blood lines, racial temperament (an
idea of little currency now, but a great deal of currency in Tolkein's
day) and so on.
Of course LOTR is just a story. So is Wagner's ring cycle. Still,
there's a reason they don't listen to Wagner (very much - his music
has been played there, somewhat controversially) in Israel, and
just as Wagner's views can be seen in his work, so can Tolkein's
views, typical of a conservative Englishman of his Era, be seen in his.
Don't forget, Bertrand Russell, the premier English (and I would suggest
world) thinker of the period, despite being a radical democrat and
socialist, was still (for a period) an advocate of eugenics!
It was a culture in which racist ways of thinking were deeply ingrained.
Patrick Emerton
Patrick Emerton
>
> Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte wrote:
> >
> > become polluted and diminished with time is all through Tolkien's writing,
> > and grows out of, I suspect, the genetic thinking of the day, which led in
> > its most extreme forms to the Eugenics movement.
> the stuff about bloodlines.
<snip the rest>
Race, ethnicity and bloodline are not concepts occuring in myth and
legend, unless by 'myth and legend' you mean the pseudo-biology
of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.
Medieval noble families concerned themselves with legitimacy of
heirs (this marks a change from eg the Romans, who were quite
keen on adoption), but not with purity of race. Race entered
European thinking in modern times, as part of the ideological
apparatus surrounding Empire and African slavery, and began being
cast into scientific form in the 18th century, but being fully
realised in that form only in the 19th (thus, if one reads Locke,
one sees that his disparaging view of Native Americans is based
on judgements about the merits of culture - and especially economic
activity - not biology).
It's possible (I'm not a Tolkein biographer) that Tolkein merely
'borrowed' the conceptual framework of his day so as to add a
structure to his writings. But it seems to me that the better
view, given what one knows of his other dispositions (Catholic,
conservative) is that, like other's of his time, he accepted
and endorsed the racist thinking that leant legitimacy to
an Empire that many Britains supported.
Patrick Emerton
Patrick Emerton
>
> I find it interesting that a fellow from Italy (or at least by
> his email address), a country than can't keep a government for a
> year in a row, would dare to come up with a troll of this
> calibre about the greatest game ever written, the best fantasy
> author, and post it here . . .
>
> Of course, I find many worthless things interesting...
Being an Italian, perhaps he has a better grasp of the
thinking of a Catholic European of Tolkein's era than
most of the Americans responding to his post . . .
Patrick Emerton
Heli Kinnunen
Patrick Emerton <p.em...@law.monash.edu.au> wrote:
<snip>
>Orcs in Tolkein's writing are described in terms suggesting a generally
>Turkic or Asian appearance, consistent with racial supremacist hate
>literature and popular literature of his day. They are swarthy,
>their eyes are described in terms suggesting epicanthic folds, they
>speak a language that is contrasted with Elvish (which is spefically
>likened by Tolkein to Latin) as being gutteral, and they wield
>scimitars.
Elven languages weren't based on Latin; Sindarin was based on Welsh language,
and Noldor drew lots of concepts from Finnish language (even up to the point
where certain words were 'borrowed'). Orcish language was a mixture of
Norwegian and Swedish (again, if you speak either language, you'll find
lots of familiar words). And swarthy, hostile creatures can be found from
mythology. How come we have to look at *real* human races for 'inspiration'?
Tolkien studied mythology like a fanatic; he even learned Finnish well-enough
to read Kalevala in the original language (and I must point out that the
out-dated language of Kalevala is causing problems to some Finns nowdays!).
>Tolkein was a conservative Englishman during the height of the Empire.
>Are you really suggesting that his views on racial matters were the same
>as those of contemporary liberal Americans (and Australians), despite
>the overwhelming evidence of his writings, with their unremitting
>obsessing about bloodlines, purity of stock, and the supremacy of
>an (approximately) north-western European people?
A world where gods and godlike creatures are *very* real, and interfere with
the lives of the lesser beings, be they immortal or mortal -- that's bound
to be *very* different from ours. Orcs were twisted by an evil god-like
being; he also corrupted other creatures by using sheer will. Morgoth wasn't
a 'just a bit grouchy and misunderstood guy'; his mere presence was taintful.
Similiar creatures can be found from real world mythology; the supremacy
of a Race X (in case of Kalevala, people of Kaleva versus the people of
Pohjola) is also a common theme. Purity of bloodline (aka weakening
generations) is also in the aforementioned book; same theme can be found
from other mythologies (see Greek and Central American legends; time of
gold, silver, etc).
And I would love to challenge that claim about 'contemporary liberal
Americans and Australians'. Tolkien was born 1892, and he died 1973. How
'liberal' the world was during those years? I'm sure that Aboriginals of
Australia were allowed to teach the traditional ways to their children,
and no one would even *think* of separating them from their legal families;
in USA, I'm pretty sure that same thing happened to their natives? And
black people were allowed to vote, and there were no white-clad guys in
funny pointy hats burning crosses? (And that was sarcasm, for those who
didn't catch the clue.)
Are you perhaps claiming that there weren't any liberals in England,
and they had, for some reason, stacked into Australia and USA? (I'm still
sarcastic.)
And, are *we* nowdays obsessed with 'purity of stock and bloodline' --
see some of the writings about intelligence, genes, genetical engineering
and so on. Are *we* any better than the earlier generations? (I stopped
being sarcastic.)
However, we are talking about a *freaking* roleplaying game here! You can
explore the morality, and the shades of black, grey and white as much as
you like in your games, but some of us want the fairy-tales of the past,
where evil was so evil that even a mere glance of an evil critter killed
all the flowers and good is so good that it makes your teeth hurt. There
isn't any of that sort of evilness or goodness in the real world, but what
the HELL is wrong with having one such dream once per week with a group of
buddies? When the game is over, we go back to the real world where things
are be more complex and often just different shades of black. (This isn't
sarcasm, but just a pendant comment of no real importance.)
Go on and make orcs as complex creatures of good-evil-neutrality as you like,
and correct them for your games, but don't you come to tell me that I am *so*
wrong for wanting to have a Tool Of Ultimate Evil Which Is Going To Spawn
Until There Is No Room For Anything Else. And how I must be racist because
my orcs look like Members of Race X -- there is a limited amount of appearances
a human mind can conjure up, and if I stick Features Z, Y and G on it, then
I will hear that it offends the members of Race J, K and L. And if I make
the orc as a shapeless lump which waddles around, then I am offending snails
or making fun of people who have a weight-problem. (We are now back to
sarcasm.)
Sheehs. Go back to design your campaigns and deal with the problem as you like.
Seeing boogeymen lurking between the pages of AD&D is so.. so BADD!
(More bad attitude and an intentional bad pun.)
--
Heli Kinnunen (dar...@cc.jyu.fi)
URL: http://www.jyu.fi/~darkelf/index.html
Patrick Emerton
<snip sarcasm>
I meant 'contemporary with us', not with Tolkein. Your comments
merely strengthen the contention being put by myself and Eugene,
that Tolkein was influenced by the views of his day.
>
> And, are *we* nowdays obsessed with 'purity of stock and bloodline' --
> see some of the writings about intelligence, genes, genetical engineering
> and so on. Are *we* any better than the earlier generations? (I stopped
> being sarcastic.)
I agree entirely - the new eugenics, and the new laissez-faire
(at least in English-speaking coutnries) suggest a return to
the 19th century. But contemporaryn eugenics (I mean gene
technology, evolutionary psychology etc which passes as real
science, not obvious pseudo-science like 'The Bell Curve')
tends not to have the overtly racial flavour of the 19th century.
My feeling on reading this thread is that Americans (who have
lived in a multi-racial society since 1492) have trouble understanding
the mindset of someone like Tolkein, who I'm sure (just as an
example) would have been opposed to Commonwealth immigration in
the 1960s.
> However, we are talking about a *freaking* roleplaying game here! You can
> explore the morality, and the shades of black, grey and white as much as
> you like in your games, but some of us want the fairy-tales of the past,
> where evil was so evil that even a mere glance of an evil critter killed
> all the flowers and good is so good that it makes your teeth hurt. There
> isn't any of that sort of evilness or goodness in the real world, but what
> the HELL is wrong with having one such dream once per week with a group of
> buddies? When the game is over, we go back to the real world where things
> are be more complex and often just different shades of black. (This isn't
> sarcasm, but just a pendant comment of no real importance.)
>
> Go on and make orcs as complex creatures of good-evil-neutrality as you like,
> and correct them for your games, but don't you come to tell me that I am *so*
> wrong for wanting to have a Tool Of Ultimate Evil Which Is Going To Spawn
> Until There Is No Room For Anything Else. And how I must be racist because
> my orcs look like Members of Race X -- there is a limited amount of appearances
> a human mind can conjure up, and if I stick Features Z, Y and G on it, then
> I will hear that it offends the members of Race J, K and L. And if I make
> the orc as a shapeless lump which waddles around, then I am offending snails
> or making fun of people who have a weight-problem. (We are now back to
> sarcasm.)
No one said you should or shouldn't do anything. I asserted, and
Eugene at least suggested, that it's not coincidental that
in Tolkein Orcs, and the evil men (Southrons, Easterlings etc)
are brown or black, whereas Numenoreans and Elves are fair-skinned.
I think that Tolkein modelled the ultimate evil on African and
Asian peoples because he was a racist. In this respect he
reflected the views of a conservative (perhaps) majority of his
place and time.
> Sheehs. Go back to design your campaigns and deal with the problem as you like.
> Seeing boogeymen lurking between the pages of AD&D is so.. so BADD!
> (More bad attitude and an intentional bad pun.)
It's not about boogeyman. Rather, one poster made an interesting
and reasonably subtle post, identifying a strand of racial thought
in the fantasy mythos (especially its Tolkein form, but I think
eg REH had some strange views about race also) and indicating its
existence in the AD&D game. Not very controversial, I would have
thought, as a piece of literary criticism. Next people will be
denying the existence of Christian themes in the game . . .
Patrick Emerton
Heli Kinnunen
Patrick Emerton <p.em...@law.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Heli Kinnunen wrote:
>>
>> In article <392392F1...@law.monash.edu.au>,
>> Patrick Emerton <p.em...@law.monash.edu.au> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> >Tolkein was a conservative Englishman during the height of the Empire.
>> >Are you really suggesting that his views on racial matters were the same
>> >as those of contemporary liberal Americans (and Australians), despite
>> >the overwhelming evidence of his writings, with their unremitting
>> >obsessing about bloodlines, purity of stock, and the supremacy of
>> >an (approximately) north-western European people?
>>
>>A world where gods and godlike creatures are *very* real, and interfere with
>>the lives of the lesser beings, be they immortal or mortal -- that's bound
>>to be *very* different from ours. Orcs were twisted by an evil god-like
>>being; he also corrupted other creatures by using sheer will. Morgoth wasn't
>>a 'just a bit grouchy and misunderstood guy'; his mere presence was taintful.
>>Similiar creatures can be found from real world mythology; the supremacy
>>of a Race X (in case of Kalevala, people of Kaleva versus the people of
>>Pohjola) is also a common theme. Purity of bloodline (aka weakening
>>generations) is also in the aforementioned book; same theme can be found
>>from other mythologies (see Greek and Central American legends; time of
>>gold, silver, etc).
>>
>> And I would love to challenge that claim about 'contemporary liberal
>> Americans and Australians'.
>
><snip sarcasm>
>
>I meant 'contemporary with us', not with Tolkein. Your comments
>merely strengthen the contention being put by myself and Eugene,
>that Tolkein was influenced by the views of his day.
And you deny that the myths contain similiar themes? See above; Tolkien was
a fanatical student of mythology -- he put his stories together from the
materials found from myths, and some of those myths were centuries or millenias
old. Denying this is *blindness*, IMHO. Have you read Tolkien's autobiography,
for example? See above for examples of 'race weakening as time passes'.
>I agree entirely - the new eugenics, and the new laissez-faire
>(at least in English-speaking coutnries) suggest a return to
>the 19th century. But contemporaryn eugenics (I mean gene
>technology, evolutionary psychology etc which passes as real
>science, not obvious pseudo-science like 'The Bell Curve')
>tends not to have the overtly racial flavour of the 19th century.
No? We just create a new 'race' of 'inferiors'? This time it is not your skin,
but your blood? Databases of genes can take the place of skin color.
(Btw, 'Island City' series/pilot movie is a perfect example of this...
apparently future worlds won't have rubber-thingies and sex for fun...)
>My feeling on reading this thread is that Americans (who have
>lived in a multi-racial society since 1492) have trouble understanding
>the mindset of someone like Tolkein, who I'm sure (just as an
>example) would have been opposed to Commonwealth immigration in
>the 1960s.
Would he? Read his autobiography or letters which were published, before you
say anything for sure. Maybe you can find your answer then; didn't you
say in one post that you hadn't read those? Or do confuse names?
>No one said you should or shouldn't do anything. I asserted, and
>Eugene at least suggested, that it's not coincidental that
>in Tolkein Orcs, and the evil men (Southrons, Easterlings etc)
>are brown or black, whereas Numenoreans and Elves are fair-skinned.
>I think that Tolkein modelled the ultimate evil on African and
>Asian peoples because he was a racist. In this respect he
>reflected the views of a conservative (perhaps) majority of his
>place and time.
Black is a color of mourning, sorrow, death; in Japan, white fills that
niche. Evil creatures have been depicted as black in folklore for centuries.
In our ancient oral tradition, 'mörkö' is a black, hairy creature which stole
babies. Pohjola was described to be dark and cold place.
On the other hand, Black Numenoreans were like Dunadan, and they committed
the worst crimes in Middle-earth (the Witchking, for example, was a Black
Numenorean and became a Ringwraith after he fell into the promises of Sauron,
who was wearing a fair elven disguise at that time). Despite the name, they
weren't black, pale-skinned and fair to behold. 'Black' in their name means
the dark dealings, fear of death and corruption.
Ghan-buri-Ghan and his tribe of primitive hunters were mostly neutral, and
feared by the neighboring people; however, Aragorn made a promise that they
would be able to live in peace in their forest, and no one would be allowed
to go in and hurt them (IIRC). They assisted him in the war.
Gollum was a hobbit, but he became corrupted by the power of the evil artifact.
Come to think about it, if it weren't this malicious creature, the war would
have been lost.
There were dwarves who were corrupted by the power of greed when they saw
the Silmarils.
Elves were Morgoth's favorite targets for corruption; read Silmarillion
for details.
We know that Sauron had tribes of Southrons and Easterlings serving him,
but we don't know if they *all* worshipped him, do we? What if only *outcasts*
were serving the Lidless Eye? What if they were *forced* to his army?
Didn't Aragorn tell them to go back and live in peace after the war?
Kind of merciful of him, if they had been bad in an inheritant way? Doesn't
it suggest that they were charmed by the power of evil Maiar and now that
he had been defeated, they were free to act upon their own will? Note that
Southrons and Easterlings *did* live *very* close to Mordor. Why would
the evil demigod go to the west, where he would attract plenty of attention,
because the elves lived in the west areas of Middle-earth, and knew Sauron
all too well? Wouldn't it be handier to corrupt those who live close by?
An another question; are the people in books allowed to be racist? If an
average Joe the Villager thinks that Easterlings are all thieves and
troublemakers, are heroes thinking the same way as well?
This is starting to feel like the controversy over the language used by
Jar-Jar Binks in SW:tPM; we know that his race had one very goofy specimen,
and by using that knowledge we judge the whole freakin' imaginary race and
tag the creators racist because his language follows the tonal pattern
of a real world language. The story focuses on the actions of one specimen,
and others get less spotlight; if we want a gaming example, we could look
at the actions of one dwarf in my campaign, and judge all dwarves as
constantly-drunken louts who shout Clangedding even while sneaking, ride
boars and get killed in a stupid way, because of utter stupidity and
recklessness.
>It's not about boogeyman. Rather, one poster made an interesting
>and reasonably subtle post, identifying a strand of racial thought
>in the fantasy mythos (especially its Tolkein form, but I think
>eg REH had some strange views about race also) and indicating its
>existence in the AD&D game. Not very controversial, I would have
>thought, as a piece of literary criticism. Next people will be
>denying the existence of Christian themes in the game . . .
Sticks to Snakes, Water Walking, Resurrection, Heal, Cure Diseases,
Cure Blindness... yeah, those *can* be found from Christian mythos.
Guess what, I can find them from the myths of my country, too.
And from the myths of others. Of course, there are demons, devils,
paladins, holy swords and whatnot, but frankly, the first lesson every
folklorist learns is: mythology is one huge pile of tangled webs, and
everything is connected in weird ways. There aren't any neat catalogs
of deities, like you can see in 'Faiths & Avatars' or 'Legend & Lore';
you have to shift through piles and piles of recorded, written, carved,
whatnot stuff, and get a headache from it. In one legend the creatures
which are eating the moon (thus explaining the phases) are animals,
in the second they are slim humanoids which also steal babies and
in the third one, it is a man spreading tar on the surface of the moon.
Yet they are called the same thing.
Anyway, this is starting to turn into a rant and so I shall stop, now.
The Wraith
wrote:
>
>High Level Campaigns says that there are 1/10 the number of members of
>level N as of level N-1.
That figure would be 1/2, not 1/10.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Arivne
Patrick Emerton wrote:
>
<snip arguments about whether J.R.R. Tolkien and LotR were racist>
>
> Likewise in Tolkein. Tolkein was a conservative Catholic writing
> in a time when the Catholic church was still hostile to basic
> all social and political developments post the French Revolution.
> Tolkein's work incorporates traditional mythology (eg fairies, magic
> etc), Christian mythology (especially the Fall, which is repeated
> again and again: Noldor, Numenor, Denethor in Gondor etc), and
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> contemporary English views about race and Empire (Britain at the time
> ruled India, large parts of Africa and the Carribean, and sundry
> other territories also, mostly justified by the doctrine of
> 'the White Man's burden' of bringing civilisation to other people).
>
<snip>
>
> Patrick Emerton
The story of Númenor was based on the myth of Atlantis, which is not
Christian in origin.
See the following (Search for "atlantis"):
http://www.xenthenia.com/tolkienist/humans/sinking.shtml
Taken from the Less Frequently Asked Questions about Tolkien (LessFAQ)
http://tolkien.sweeetnet.com/downloads/texts/booklist.txt
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6581/double_rainbow4.html
Arivne
The Wraith
wrote:
>In article <3923A4B9...@law.monash.edu.au>,
>Patrick Emerton <p.em...@law.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>I agree entirely - the new eugenics, and the new laissez-faire
>>(at least in English-speaking coutnries) suggest a return to
>>the 19th century. But contemporaryn eugenics (I mean gene
>>technology, evolutionary psychology etc which passes as real
>>science, not obvious pseudo-science like 'The Bell Curve')
>>tends not to have the overtly racial flavour of the 19th century.
>
>No? We just create a new 'race' of 'inferiors'? This time it is not your skin,
>but your blood? Databases of genes can take the place of skin color.
A person who does not have the gene for, say, sickle-cell anaemia is,
in that aspect and generally *if* all else is equal, superior than a
person who does. That's simple fact, not racism.
While we are at it, there are advantages and disadvantages rightly
associated with particular races and ethnicity. For example, those of
negroid races in general are more resistant to sunburn than those of
caucaloid races (though, of course, there are ethnic exceptions - the
Australian aboriginals and the Indians are both dark-skinned
caucaloids). Also, both Native Americans and Australian aboriginals
have been noted to suffer more greatly than Europeans from the effects
of alcohol, physiologically speaking. (Hardly surprising. I doubt
Europeans would fare terribly well against the intoxicants once
favoured by the Australian aboriginals.)
It is when we start attributing characteristics to those of particular
races that do not really display such characteristics that we start
encountering racism. For example, I have seen no credible evidence
that dark-skinned people are less intelligent than light-skinned
people, so to claim that this is so would be racist.
Getting back to the point, genetic biology is nothing more than an
analysis of facts. There is nothing racist about facts.
>An another question; are the people in books allowed to be racist? If an
>average Joe the Villager thinks that Easterlings are all thieves and
>troublemakers, are heroes thinking the same way as well?
And even if they are, is the portrayal of racism racist? I don't
believe so. Our games portray murder and thievery all the time (at
least by NPCs), but that doesn't mean that we condone murder or
thievery. The portrayal of racism in the game can be used to either
condone or condemn it, or neither - it might simply be a fact of the
game setting. I used to run a campaign in which slavery was a major
factor of the setting, and while the PCs in general opposed the idea
of slavery, I used the game to demonstrate the difficulties involved
in overcoming slavery in a society in which it has become
institutionalised.
In an earlier campaign, a player made a conscious decision to play a
racist character. After the campaign was over (after two years playign
the character), he said that the experience had helped him to
understand racism a lot better. He still abhors it - even moreso, for
his understanding - but he felt he understood it better.
David R. Klassen
>
> Likewise in Tolkein. Tolkein was a conservative Catholic writing
> in a time when the Catholic church was still hostile to basic
> all social and political developments post the French Revolution.
> Tolkein's work incorporates traditional mythology (eg fairies, magic
> etc), Christian mythology (especially the Fall, which is repeated
> again and again: Noldor, Numenor, Denethor in Gondor etc), and
> ruled India, large parts of Africa and the Carribean, and sundry
> other territories also, mostly justified by the doctrine of
> 'the White Man's burden' of bringing civilisation to other people).
alegory, the Christian elements are clearly there - I agree with
you there. However, I still fail to see the inherent racism.
The orcs are a spiritual *and* physical warping of elves. Their
fair skin turned dark; their tall and strait stature bent. The
idea of light=good, dark=evil is VERY old and I'd be hard pressed
to call anyone who uses it a racist. The eye shapes of elves and
orcs are the same. The language issue is merely one of sounds -
gutteral sounds feel harsher to our ears so the harsh life of the
orc is reflected in the sounds of his language.
> contemporary doctrines of race and bloodline. Thus, the fall of
> the Numenoreans is compounded by their mixing with lesser people,
Again, bloodlines are a common legendary aspect from as far back as
ancient Egypt and probably further back. Anywhere you have a group
of people claiming divine-right-of-rule because they are descended
from gods you get this. And note, the "lesser" people whith whom
the mix were still paralleled to northern-Europeans. If anything
you might draw a parallel between Numenor and Britain so the lesser
folk would be continental Europeans.
David R. Klassen
>
> Race, ethnicity and bloodline are not concepts occuring in myth and
> legend, unless by 'myth and legend' you mean the pseudo-biology
> of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.
It is this tie which makes them "worthy" of being the hero or the king.
Historically, anywhere you have a group claiming some sort of
divine right of kings, you have concern over "bloodlines". This
goes as far back as ancient Egypt and the pharohs. Oh, and
Gilgamesh - is that older?
Andrew Tellez
Walt Smith wrote:
>
> In article <39231B65...@gwu.edu>,
> Andrew Tellez <no...@gwu.edu> wrote:
> > <Walt Smith:>
> > > Let's see...we need comparative birth rates, average age to begin >
> adventuring/retire from adventuring,
> >
> > These are available in the various racial handbooks. I don't have
> > the ones for elves or dwarves, perhaps someone could oblige?
> > Average age to start adventuring is in the PHB as well. Average age
> > of retirement isn't specified, though we can assume either the first
> > or second category of age penalties.
>
> That sounds like a good baseline. Should we extend it for the
> priestly and mage classes, as they get bonuses rather than
> penalties? Or would they retire from active adventuring as well,
> concentrating more on running temples or heading mage's guilds?
While priests and mages get prime requisite bonuses by those points, the
cumulative loss of physical stats is still a problem. Recall that this
is how the game models the physical effects of aging. Other effects,
such as failing eyesight, aren't modelled, but should reasonably be
taken into consideration.
Given the decline in physical capability, and the [probably] increasing
time demands of research and social responsibility, I'd say that the end
of the second age category is a good upper bound for spellcasters.
Having said that, though, I think we may want to stick to fighters or
thieves for the first analysis. Spellcasters can puff themselves up and
skew the model quite badly, and using magic, the shorter-lived races
just need more potions to live as long as the longer lived races. (300
year old human wizard with an 18 year old body, permanent Enhanced
Strength, Cat's Grace, and Friends?)
> > High Level Campaigns says that there are 1/10 the number of members of
> > level N as of level N-1. With 2e's uneven XP charts, though, it might
> > be better to either do it as a function of earned XP, or just pick one
> > class for analysis.
>
> I think we could do it as a function of earned exp, the spreadsheet
> shouldn't be that much more complicated. Fatality rate assumptions
> will be critical, though...I think we'll have to do it with a range
> of assumptions, so instead of saying "You're wrong!" we can say
> "For you to be right, this would probably have to be true."
I see you've left me the first set of assumptions? :)
First, let's look at the ways adventurers can die. Loss of HP, failed
saving throws, failed ability checks, stat or level draining, disease,
and poison. Some attacks can fall into more than one category.
Now, all of these except for ability checks (and maybe disease) are less
likely to occur to higher level characters. Maybe we should take some
"standard" means of death to use in examples?
> I think that would be true, taken as it stands. However, I think it
> possible that the average long-lived creature would take a more
> patient and careful view of things, and might set different levels of
> chosen risk. If a human is going to make it, they (comparatively)
> have to make it *right now*. An elf can afford to be more patient.
While an elf or dwarf might allow more time to elapse between fights,
the fights are just as deadly. For example, travelling through the
Troll Wood is the same regardless of species.
> > <walt:>
> > > It's possible that the racial advantages of elves and dwarves reduce
> > > their death rates at low levels.
> >
> > It's unlikely. The racial averages for the improved stats aren't high
> > enough to confer bonuses on all, or most, members of the race. The
> > other advantages don't really help in general circumstances.
>
> When working with big numbers, small factors can be significant.
>
> I was thinking of Dwarven resistances, Elven combat bonuses,
> and their respective night-sight capabilities. Of course, dwarven
Dwarven resistance isn't usually that high, though we can see its
effects once we choose some methods of death to compare it to. The
elven combat bonus is harder to determine. It might have an effect, but
how could we tell how much of an effect it has? Similarly, the dwarf
combat bonus against giants is noteworthy (the dwarf may spend more time
fighting giants and giant-kin because of it) and the elf stealth ability
is useful, but how do we account for it? These skills won't be useful
in most cases, but one could reasonably say that the elves and dwarves
tend toward those situations where their skills are useful.
> I'm thinking that this is true for Elves who adventure *with* humans.
> What of those who adventure with other elves? They may take a less
> energetic path, with slower growth but lesser risk. They can gain
> experience at a tenth a human's pace and still come out ahead.
> (30-year human career vs 500+-year elven career, ballpark guess,
> don't have my DMG to hand).
You'll want to check your PHB again. Elves don't live that long. :)
We should use the base maximum lifespan, not the upper bound, to compare
relative aging.
PJS
Patrick Emerton <p.em...@law.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:392392F1...@law.monash.edu.au...
> Orcs in Tolkein's writing are described in terms suggesting a generally
> Turkic
There is no "Turkic" appearance; someone from Kirghizia doesn't look much
like someone from Istanbul.
----------
> or Asian appearance, consistent with racial supremacist hate
> literature and popular literature of his day. They are swarthy,
> their eyes are described in terms suggesting epicanthic folds,
They are described as having eyes that "slant" which is ambiguous in this
respect.
----------
> they
> speak a language that is contrasted with Elvish (which is spefically
> likened by Tolkein to Latin) as being gutteral, and they wield
> scimitars.
But the Arabs and (Ottoman/Sejuk) Turks who used scimitars don't have
epicanthic folds . . .
----------
> Tolkein was a conservative Englishman during the height of the Empire.
LOTR was published in the 1950s, hardly the height of the Empire.
----------
> Are you really suggesting that his views on racial matters were the same
> as those of contemporary liberal Americans (and Australians), despite
> the overwhelming evidence of his writings, with their unremitting
> obsessing about bloodlines, purity of stock, and the supremacy of
> an (approximately) north-western European people?
Balderdash.
PJS
> My feeling on reading this thread is that Americans (who have
> lived in a multi-racial society since 1492) have trouble understanding
> the mindset of someone like Tolkein, who I'm sure (just as an
> example) would have been opposed to Commonwealth immigration in
> the 1960s.
Since he lived until 1973, it should have been easy enough to find out.
PJS
> Tolkein was a conservative Catholic writing
> in a time when the Catholic church was still hostile to basic
> all social and political developments post the French Revolution.
Or was he?
-----------
> Tolkein's work incorporates traditional mythology (eg fairies, magic
> etc), Christian mythology (especially the Fall, which is repeated
> again and again: Noldor, Numenor, Denethor in Gondor etc), and
> contemporary English views about race and Empire (Britain at the time
> ruled India, large parts of Africa and the Carribean, and sundry
> other territories also, mostly justified by the doctrine of
> 'the White Man's burden' of bringing civilisation to other people).
However, Akallabeth seems to be anti-imperialist; when the Numenoreans start
conquering people and taking up racial supermacist ideas this is taken to be
unequivocally a bad thing and part of what leads to their downfall. And no
doubt the Haradrim (allies of the Elves against Morgoth, in the First Age
presumably) wouldn't have been susceptible to Sauron's influence if they
hadn't been enemies of in the first place.
-----------
> LOTR's treatment of fairies, and of the fall, is novel in many ways,
> contemporary doctrines of race and bloodline. Thus, the fall of
> the Numenoreans is compounded by their mixing with lesser people,
No: you're missing the difference between the line of Elendil who is
descended from a minor *goddess* for ****'s sake, and the Numenoreans
generally - when the people of Gondor start thinking in racial terms, not
wanting the king to marry an inferior from Rhovanion (blonde Nordic types
are thought inferior here, you will note...) the result is more disaster in
the form of the Kin-Strife.
-----------
> and only a pureblood (Aragorn) can restore them (BTW, I'm surprised
> that such a monarchic view of politics and society should be as
> popular as it is among Americans!). Likewise, the various sorts
> of fairy (elf, dwarf, troll and so on) are presented as (more-or-less)
> human people, with their own blood lines, racial temperament (an
> idea of little currency now, but a great deal of currency in Tolkein's
> day) and so on.
>
> Of course LOTR is just a story. So is Wagner's ring cycle. Still,
> there's a reason they don't listen to Wagner (very much - his music
> has been played there, somewhat controversially) in Israel, and
> just as Wagner's views can be seen in his work, so can Tolkein's
> views, typical of a conservative Englishman of his Era, be seen in his.
>
> Don't forget, Bertrand Russell, the premier English (and I would suggest
> world) thinker of the period, despite being a radical democrat and
> socialist, was still (for a period) an advocate of eugenics!
----------
Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean racial eugenics.
Wayne Shaw
>elves suffer a 99% attrition rate, that still leaves the elven king
>with ten more 500-year veterans than the human king will have.
Not necessarily. An evaluation by the life insurance industry some
years ago seemed to show that even if age was a nonissue, almost
everyone would die by misadventure within 300 years. Given that the
part of the populace in classed professions is exposed to much greater
hazards than that, the number of very high level quasi-immortals may
be negliable.
Brett Evill
>
>A person who does not have the gene for, say, sickle-cell anaemia is,
>in that aspect and generally *if* all else is equal, superior than a
>person who does.
Except in places where malaria is common, in which situation a heterozygote is
superior to either kind of homozygote.
Regards,
--
Brett Evill
(The opinions expressed above are not those of the Bureau of Transport
Economics, the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services, or the
Australian Commonwealth Government.)
Brett Evill
>
>The story of Númenor was based on the myth of Atlantis, which is not
>Christian in origin.
This is certainly borne out by Tolkien using 'Atalante' as one of the names of
Numenor. But although the origin is not Christian, there was a Christianised
version in the sunken land of Lyonesse, which name is echoed in Tolkien's
'Westernesse'.
The Wraith
(Brett Evill) wrote:
>In article <3923d683....@news.ozemail.com.au>, The Wraith wrote...
>>
>>A person who does not have the gene for, say, sickle-cell anaemia is,
>>in that aspect and generally *if* all else is equal, superior than a
>>person who does.
>
>Except in places where malaria is common, in which situation a heterozygote is
>superior to either kind of homozygote.
Hmm. I wasn't aware of that aspect of that particular genetic
characteristic. Anyway, you get the idea - a gene for a desirable
characteristic does make a person superior to someone who does not
have it, all else being equal.
grimb...@my-deja.com
Lorenzo Gatti <lorenz...@libero.it> wrote:
> I am concerned with the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about different races of player characters. On the basis of mere prejudice, most races are described as spiritually inferior; the usual AD&D policy of enforcing stereotypes with rules makes this inferiority inescapable, by forbidding individual variance between characters of the same race.
Since when are they described as spiritually inferior? Mere Prejudice?
>
> Humans are different from others and privileged; they are generic and as various as real world men and they are assumed to rule the world.
yes and from that general assumption you have a humanocentric veiwpoint
not a racist viewpoint.
> Demihumans are, for the most part, mindlessly copied from Tolkien and usually designed to show some exaggerated, or even comical, human personality trait (kenders and tinker gnomes come to mind).
Like often occours in mythology.
> Other humanoids and monsters are seriously impaired as player characters (not so when they are enemies), as if their players should be punished for their aberrant choice (for example in Skills & Powers, p. 37 of the hardcover printing of July 1995, you read that "generally, players may not customize these unusual races, and they receive zero character points for selecting a non-standard race").
Why yes, it is a game. At the simplest level some pieces are better then
other pieces. How come the pawn can only move 1 space ... why that is
enfocring a rigid and inflexible social structure that stomps on the
masses.
>
> The level limits and class choice restrictions, which are missing for humans, are the worst problem: they imply that humans are good at everything while demihumans and humanoids have serious cultural and intellectual deficiencies, which no individual can overcome; not even an exceptional hero like a PC.
No it sayas that humans are capable of being good at many different
things and the other non-human races aren't the same as humans since they
are clearly not human. Would you expect a silicate based sand nomad from
Tellox 5 to have all the same aptitiudes and capabilities as a human in a
sci-fi game?
> This is a racist mindset: judging a whole group instead of single persons, stopping at assumptions and first impressions with no desire to communicate and understand other people.
Communicate with who? All the down trodden halflings, orcs, dwarves and
elves?
>
> Let's move this issue to the real world with an example (which is a provocation and doesn't reflect my opinions):
>
> Europeans are the pinnacle of human evolution, so they have neither class restrictions nor level limits;
> Africans are strong enough to reach 16th level as fighters (but they cannot be paladins: they aren't noble enough to be interested), 10th level as thieves, 12th level as clerics (druids or shamans, since they are uncivilized), 9th level as wizards (where could they learn?);
> Asians can reach 15th level as fighters (traditional martial arts) and psionicists (meditation-oriented religions); 8th level as clerics or wizards (no strong tradition or disposition);
> and so on.
Not the same thing at all you are comparing different ethinic groups of
humans not different species with truely different physical make ups and
capabilities.
>
> You can see that imposing level limits and forbidden classes implies a lot of opinions about the different races: which ones have an advanced religion or an advanced culture; which ones are fierce or coward; which ones are stupid and antisocial, or sophisticated and cohesive.
>
> The arrogance and close-mindedness of believing, on the basis of prejudice, that every individual of the same race is doomed to have the same shortcomings is obvious.
if that were true all members of nonhuman races would be assigned the
same ability score for each attribute for all members of a race, They are
not.
>
> The result is that each nonhuman race there is forced along a preferred path; at the same time some special classes like the paladin are reserved to humans (because they are more enlightened? More Lawful Good? More deserving?).
Each ficitional non-humn race is pushed along a preffered path to a minor
degree, so we can all understand and identify them since they are
inherenntly fictional and there is lots of room for disagrement if they
are left undefined.
No the paladins as presented in current rules as members of specific
relegions and cultures that place a different emphasis on different
roles, duties and beliefs.
>
> This problem is worsened by the mechanical advantages of different races, which make them very well suited for some typical character classes (the elf archer or ranger, the dwarf or minotaur warrior, the Irda wizard (from Dragonlance), the halfling thief), and badly unsuited for less stereotypical ones (the dwarf wizard, the gnome warrior, the kender wizard (from Dragonlance: not even a single one in thousands of years of sorcery)).
worsened? Since they are nonhumans they don't have human bodies.
> Human characters, instead, don't have such limiting specializations and can be successful in any character class.
Excpet of course humans don't have infravision and i can't help but think
that gives a decided advantage to all thieves and most other characters.
>
> The less game-mechanical descriptions and assumptions of the rules about the different nonhuman races are often carefully biased toward such stereotypical roles, while (PHB, p. 32 in the hardcover printing of May 1996) "Humans have only one special ability: They [capitalized in the PHB] can be of any character class and rise to any level in any class" and "Humans are also more social and tolerant than most other races" so that "Because of these abilities and tendencies, humans have become significant powers within the world and often rule empires that other races (because of their racial tendencies) would find difficult to manage."
>
> So, according to the official AD&D game rules, the natural destiny of other races is to be dominated by humans because of their natural superiority.
just like a vast array of mythological source and fiction.
or more likely the ruels want to have a humanocentric world so it is
easier to visualize for us humans.
> This reminds me of countless colonial wars and invasions done (allegedly) to bring civilization to savages; of the British and Roman empires; of Native American reserves; of slavery; etc.
yes. People can be terrible to each other, i shudder to think how
terrible they really would be to true nonhumans. But the ruels don't
enforce or advocate this view they are even a bit skewed away from this.
>
> More of the same in the DMG (p. 20 ff. in the hardcover printing of April 1995).
> Let's start with an absolute truth: "All nonhuman races are limited to some extent." So they are inferior to humans and imperfect.
> For example, "Halflings, despite their ties to nature, lack the devotion and physical will to be druids."
>
> Why are there class and level restrictions? "In the AD&D game, humans are more motivated by ambition and the desire for power than the demihuman races are."
A simple statement , maybe too simple, but it is a ficitonal reality and
it can be defined by such simple statements.
>
> The objective of these rules is to preserve the balance of power, assuming that players always choose optimally powerful races over interesting races or, God forbid, interesting individuals: "If the only special advantage humans have is given to all the races, who will want to play a human?" "Why play a 20th-level human paladin [a random class and level choice, I suppose <g>] when you could play a 20th-level elf paladin and have all the abilities of elves and paladins?"
why not indeed? if you were in an ethnically balanced, lovey dovie
everyone gets along world you would be a chump to play a human. (or a
good roleplayer)
>
> The domination of humans over the rest of the world is also jeopardized, if you are perverted enough to remove these rules: "All things considered, humans could have a very bad time of it." "Given their extremely long lifespans, demihumans without limitations would quickly reach levels of power far beyond anything attainable by humans." Which are supposed to be the best, it seems. It would be a shame if "Human heroes would be feeble compared to the heroes of elves and dwarves."
>
> But the paragraph about creating "new", "unusual" and "nonstandard" PC races is even worse; the standard humans and demihumans together are privileged over such personal designs.
> It is absolutely obvious that "Almost any sort of creature can be a fighter. None (except humans) can be paladins." "No nonstandard creature can be a druid, as this is a human belief system."
> Real adventurers come from standard races, hence the severe level and class limits and the other disadvantages: "these races are often unsuited to adventuring." "It is unusual enough that a member of the race has become a player character at all!"
>
> And not all races are acceptable; apart from power considerations, "The race must be cooperative and willing to interact with the human world."
> It is usually held as a character creation principle that in a typical campaign *PCs* must be cooperative and willing to interact with *the rest of the PC party*; but if every exotic character is a stereotyped specimen of his race and everybody else is a human this reduces to considering the compatibility of races instead of individuals.
>
> Last but not least, "expect NPCs to have strong negative feelings about unusual player character races, even to the point of bigotry and hatred. These reactions will make life more difficult for the player character, but they are the price the player pays for his unusual choice."
> It seems that "bigotry and hatred" are a good (Lawful Good?) and normal behaviour towards someone unusual, and that players that must "pay the price" of their originality deserve it for being evil.
Never heard of xenophobia? People are not always kind to strangers,
outsiders or other creatures. Of course how a good charcter deals with
this and an evil charcter deal with this are two different stories aren't
they?
>
> What can be done to remove these racist elements from one's game, without removing the choice of different races and without adversely affecting game balance and "optimization" risks?
>
>
<<< snipped well thought out stuff, read the original post if you wan to
read it >>>
> I would like to hear how races are dealt with in your AD&D campaigns, and how you feel about the standard rules.
> I hope to have shown why, on a moral basis, class restrictions, level limits etc. are a very bad thing and how, with limited effort, they can be removed from one's AD&D game.
I treat the nonhuman races as nonhuman. They can be almost as alien as
something from another world, heck sometimes they are from another world
aren't they?
Yes remove them if you want but it is important to understand what you
are doing. Do you want players to play nonhuman races or people in funny
costumes?
>
> ---------------------------------
> Lorenzo Gatti
> e-mail: lorenz...@libero.it
> I am concerned about the racist attitude underlying most AD&D rules about different races of player characters, but I am more concerned about getting a girlfriend.
Bennet...@mindspring.com
Dark Grue wrote in message ...
>Well, gee, the idea of yet *another* conspiracy amuses me, and it could
>hardly complicate the political mixmaster you've made of Jumlat any more
>than it already is! =)
>
>An besides Elves *are* sneaky! Dem pointy-eared wizzies, sneaking about the
>place, holding der sneaky whisper-whisper meets. Acting all high and mighty
>like dey be better than us common men! It's obviously a conspiracy!
>
>Not to be trusted, those Jumlat elves. Vizier conspirator Elves? You just
>kill dem on sight!
>
>Don' even get me started on vizier conspirator space Elves...
Yeah, going around on black flying carpets, faking UFOs, taking up our
arquebuses +5. . . :) I think I can see a campaign concept forming. *EG*
Ciao,
Paul