| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Dec 2022 : 20:27:34
|
quote:
Next we won't be able to use the word monster for Dragons, Demons and such because it is deemed derogatory.
Orcs and drow used to be monsters. Categorically evil. Hated, murderous, destructive, dangerous creatures. They killed, enslaved, and sacrificed others to satiate inhuman lusts and service dark powers. But D&D eventually "humanized" them.
Plenty of other monsters have become "humanized". Including varieties of half-fiends, giant-kin, dragons, goblinoids, and many others.
I've seen many threads at Candlekeep and other places where people argue passionately in defense of these "humanized" monsters. They accuse the Old Ways of being racist, hateful, hurtful, insensitive, barbaric. They point to the struggles of these "humanized" monsters to suppress monstrous urges and gain acceptance in the world.
But I've said it before: if you humanize all your monsters then the PCs will have nothing left to fight and kill except other humans. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 29 Dec 2022 20:34:16 |
 |
|
|
Scars Unseen
Acolyte
Japan
16 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2022 : 21:41:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Next we won't be able to use the word monster for Dragons, Demons and such because it is deemed derogatory.
Orcs and drow used to be monsters. Categorically evil. Hated, murderous, destructive, dangerous creatures. They killed, enslaved, and sacrificed others to satiate inhuman lusts and service dark powers. But D&D eventually "humanized" them.
Plenty of other monsters have become "humanized". Including varieties of half-fiends, giant-kin, dragons, goblinoids, and many others.
I've seen many threads at Candlekeep and other places where people argue passionately in defense of these "humanized" monsters. They accuse the Old Ways of being racist, hateful, hurtful, insensitive, barbaric. They point to the struggles of these "humanized" monsters to suppress monstrous urges and gain acceptance in the world.
But I've said it before: if you humanize all your monsters then the PCs will have nothing left to fight and kill except other humans.
To be fair, I find humanized enemies more interesting. It forces you to consider issues like xenophobia and territorial aggression on both sides of the fence instead of simply labeling one side as good and the other as evil. It paves the way for more complex story and campaign writing, and to me at least, that's a win all around.
I'm less fond of the recent attempt to whitewash the actions and perceptions of both the formerly "evil" and the former outcasts. That 1D&D playtest documents with the race revisions is a good example. Without prior context, you wouldn't be faulted in believing that Gruumsh was a largely benevolent, if war focused, deity, and that his chosen warriors were simply eager young orcs hoping to prove themselves in battle. And now tieflings are shifted from being pariahs unfairly saddled with the reputation of their heritage to being fully accepted for who they are. It all seems unearned, for the orcs and for those who discriminated against the tieflings.
|
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2022 : 21:43:55
|
| Orcs and drow always had splinter cultures and faiths in Ed's Realms. He created Eilistraee for his own campaign, and I guess the Ondonti were part of his Realms too. If someone wants a "kill without thinking" campaign, there are plenty of monsters out there that aren't just humans with funny looks (because that's what humanoid races are in the end). On top of that, I'm pretty sure that people can indeed kill other people without thinking too much about it, when said other people threaten their lives and resources. I don't understand why monsters having a brain and different cultures is a problem for the "kill without thinking" campaign style. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2022 : 22:50:15
|
| Just regarding the word choice mentioned of using "kind".... and I didn't see the survey, so not sure what all the options are/were.... I could maybe see that.... it still sounds wrong to my ear though, especially since people might use that in other ways (example, "What kind of warrior is this? He's a weakling and afraid".... response: "I'm an elf kind"). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Scots Dragon
Seeker
United Kingdom
86 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2023 : 20:56:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just regarding the word choice mentioned of using "kind".... and I didn't see the survey, so not sure what all the options are/were.... I could maybe see that.... it still sounds wrong to my ear though, especially since people might use that in other ways (example, "What kind of warrior is this? He's a weakling and afraid".... response: "I'm an elf kind").
I mean, nobody says, 'I'm an elf race.'
Just saying, 'I'm an elf' is sufficient regardless of whatever terminology you use.
Personally I like ancestry. |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2023 : 23:38:57
|
I find odd that many people (here and in other places) think "species" is an sci-fi like term, when this term (used to refer to living organisms, I mean) dates from the middle ages (attested at least in one source from 1560), while terms like "ancestry" and "lineage" are more modern.
In my case, I feel is a good change. It makes more sense to me than race. But, perhaps it's because my native tongue is Spanish, and there "race" means something closer to the English term "breed". |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 01 Jan 2023 23:40:06 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2023 : 00:44:44
|
Most words can trace their origin back to some past era, but what matters is the current use. Species is a Taxonomy term that comes with LOTS of implications that kinda crap all over immersion. I've already made an example in the thread: if there are species, then there are genera, families, orders, etc... And one can easily wonder how the various species are related, how they evolved (did they even evolve? Is there evolution in D&D? From how random things are, I'd say hardly, but the question now arises), how do their phisiology and anatomy differ, etc... All of this is very basic knowledge and very basic questions. Inviting science in a setting (the generic D&D framework) that is built by haphazardly stacking tropes on top of each other, can lead people to form doubts, and since the setting doesn't even provide the possibility to attempt a coherent answer, it's necessary to work harder to suspend disbelief. When you design make-believe stuff, your goal is to make people ask the questions that you WANT them to ask; you don't want their mind wandering off to ask about stuff that you don't plan on answering, or that can't be answered with your current framework. There are tons of tools to achieve that, and choice of words is one. Words that pose a risk of people asking unwanted questions, thus pulling them out of the story, are a very trivial design flaw, and I honestly can't fathom why WotC went for the Taxonomy option.
If race isn't a good term, there are tons other terms that can be used. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 02 Jan 2023 00:52:54 |
|
|
|
Athreeren
Learned Scribe
129 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2023 : 20:33:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scars Unseen
And now tieflings are shifted from being pariahs unfairly saddled with the reputation of their heritage to being fully accepted for who they are.
If that's true that's unfortunate. I understand that it would be bad for escapism if all the possible characters who look like a player were affected by the same discrimination than in the real world, but stories about discrimination are important, and that was the purpose served by tieflings. They were perfect for that, since fiends are by definition evil (and thus discrimination against them would be warranted), tieflings share their blood and look like them, but they don't have to be evil. So racism would be understandable but not justified, and you are free to tell interesting stories about that during your game. A real missed opportunity. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2382 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2023 : 21:24:31
|
It's simply a matter of the target audience. If that's the tumblr crowd, "You can play a were-aardvark tulpa if you want! Stats are the same." is a perfectly sensible approach.
Calling it "D&D something" would be, of course, false advertising, but in a legal way.
So, nothing unexpected. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Divinity
Seeker
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2023 : 16:25:16
|
I read a little while ago that Tolkien is actually one of the few popular authors to use the words 'race' and 'species' properly and I've tried to follow suit in my own setting.
In my own setting, I use "species" to separate beings that are different enough to not be able to mate together. Certain species may have shared ancestors but they've separated enough to become different species and cannot make half-breeds.
I use 'race' within a species. Races of a certain species can produce half-breeds. For example, my Undlim race (halfling-like) and Roma race (human-like) are part of the Yoma species and can reproduce together, but the Dorkin and Eld (who share ancestors with the Yoma) have separated enough to become their own species. Within the Dorkin species, the Dwevar and Jotūn are races that can interbreed. They all descended from the Hūl.
Then within races, there are 'ethnicities' of that race which tend to be regional.
There are a few cases where I use sub-species and sub-race but they're special circumstances that involve technicalities within godly duties.
D&D can't really do this well though because they allow almost anything to interbreed. But for me it works well to provide clarification between the words used. |
- Craig Vincent
My Faerūn Continent Map |
Edited by - Divinity on 10 Jan 2023 16:29:39 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2023 : 23:13:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Divinity
I read a little while ago that Tolkien is actually one of the few popular authors to use the words 'race' and 'species' properly and I've tried to follow suit in my own setting.
In my own setting, I use "species" to separate beings that are different enough to not be able to mate together. Certain species may have shared ancestors but they've separated enough to become different species and cannot make half-breeds.
That's not exactly correct. There are real-world animals of different (but related) species that can produce half-breeds. Donkeys and horses produce mules, lions and tigers can produce ligers, and some fish can have half-breeds, too. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2023 : 23:42:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just regarding the word choice mentioned of using "kind".... and I didn't see the survey, so not sure what all the options are/were.... I could maybe see that.... it still sounds wrong to my ear though, especially since people might use that in other ways (example, "What kind of warrior is this? He's a weakling and afraid".... response: "I'm an elf kind").
I mean, nobody says, 'I'm an elf race.'
Just saying, 'I'm an elf' is sufficient regardless of whatever terminology you use.
Personally I like ancestry.
Yeah, but nobody would say "What race of warrior is this? He's a weakling and afraid.", unless they truly mean that the person is some "other" kind of being. I guess I didn't say it well, but "kind" really has different connotations when used in different ways. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 10 Jan 2023 23:44:15 |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2023 : 03:44:59
|
| Not sure what you mean by "these people" but I'm a person not affected by this who still thinks it's a good idea. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2023 : 04:08:12
|
| By "these people", I mean anyone incapable of distinguishing between reality and fiction. Any insinuation or blatant declaration that having all (or, at the very least, a firm majority of) Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, et cetera, be evil is equivalent to some sort of real-world prejudice is bonkers. Full stop. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2023 : 04:27:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
By "these people", I mean anyone incapable of distinguishing between reality and fiction. Any insinuation or blatant declaration that having all (or, at the very least, a firm majority of) Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, et cetera, be evil is equivalent to some sort of real-world prejudice is bonkers. Full stop.
What does that have to do with the original topic? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2023 : 09:59:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
By "these people", I mean anyone incapable of distinguishing between reality and fiction. Any insinuation or blatant declaration that having all (or, at the very least, a firm majority of) Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, et cetera, be evil is equivalent to some sort of real-world prejudice is bonkers. Full stop.
What does that have to do with the original topic?
Because, aside from altering terminology in a game based on fantasy, WOTC has made comments about Orcs and various monstrous races being "problematic"; as a result, they're retooling them (and other monsters, I believe) to no longer exist as primarily evil. WOTC didn't enact these changes on a whim and the two topics are obviously connected. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2023 : 11:22:49
|
There are some compelling arguments otherwise.
And as noted before, just because you, personally, don't think there's an issue, doesn't mean that no one at all thinks there's an issue there -- obviously, enough people think so that WotC has chosen to make changes.
But really, is it so game-breaking to say "generally evil" instead of "always evil"? If you don't like it, just ignore it.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2023 : 12:10:01
|
| And, it's not just WotC that thinks it's problematic. Paizo recently updated their rules so you aren't required to follow the Ability boosts for the race, but rather give every race the inherent two free boosts that the Human Ancestry gets. If a lot of fans and two of biggest companies in TTRPGs think their a problem, maybe you're in the minority. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2023 : 13:08:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There are some compelling arguments otherwise.
Compelling arguments concerning what, exactly?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And as noted before, just because you, personally, don't think there's an issue, doesn't mean that no one at all thinks there's an issue there -- obviously, enough people think so that WotC has chosen to make changes.
Enough people cannot keep the two (i.e., fantasy and reality) separate. Agreed. Or...do you believe the sentiment that "Folks who play their monstrous races as unambiguously evil are bigoted." has merit? That seems like the true issue at the heart of this matter (i.e., the question being posed as opposed to your particular take on it, Wooly). Oh, money, too.
By way, I'm skeptical as to how many individuals bellyaching actually play D&D as opposed to hopping on the latest bandwagon and, as a result, WOTC is eager to avoid any whiff of bad press that could even hint that they themselves are prejudiced...prejudiced because of fictional beings. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Scots Dragon
Seeker
United Kingdom
86 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 02:15:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Next we won't be able to use the word monster for Dragons, Demons and such because it is deemed derogatory.
Orcs and drow used to be monsters. Categorically evil. Hated, murderous, destructive, dangerous creatures. They killed, enslaved, and sacrificed others to satiate inhuman lusts and service dark powers. But D&D eventually "humanized" them.
I mean, the first non-evil drow appeared in D3 Vault of the Drow, with numerous examples in the city of Erelhei-Cinlu. Various rebels against the Spider Queen, including a male renegade of good-leaning alignment who was about to be sacrificed. This was published in the same year as the first source which introduced the drow, the Against the Giants modules.
Some AD&D 2e-era Greyhawk modules present lawful neutral orcs who worship Luthic and lean matriarchal instead of the vicious Gruumsh-led patriarchy. The Ondontis have been a part of the Realms for years, with a few groups of other orcs who largely live peacefully.
This whole idea that monsters always are and always were evil is pretty ahistorical and it shows a degree of 'maybe you didn't actually read the books you're claiming to cite'.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with any of this. If you're having your players fight monsters 'because they're automatically evil', that's pretty lazy. Giving your adversaries motivations, even if those motivations are transparently selfish or greedy or what have you, that indicate a conscious choice is more interesting. It also opens up options for situations that aren't as they initially appear.
A bunch of orcs have begun raiding a town... because that town has been clearing out the various prey animals that the orcs tend to rely on for hunting. And the people of the town have been exaggerating the misdeeds of the orcs to paint them as more evil than they are so that passing adventurers and mercenaries will be driven to wipe them out.
When in fact the townsfolk themselves are closer to the villains. |
Edited by - Scots Dragon on 18 Jan 2023 02:19:39 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 03:12:43
|
What's strangest (IMO), is that people are acting like humans don't kill other humans who happen to be their enemies (for whatever reason) all the times, and often with little to no remorse. Or like humans aren't super quick to label out-groupers as evil and to dehumanize them, regardless of the truth. Moreover, in a life or death situation (like being attacked), people have 3 reactions: they flee, they freeze (usually leads to severe PTSD if they survive), or they fight the other until they can flee, or until the other is dead. Morality flies straight out of the window in all 3 cases.
That's to say you can have a hack'n'slash campaign while using only humans, which means you can do that with other sentient races, without feeling the need to label them as evil a priori. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 18 Jan 2023 06:24:06 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2023 : 23:39:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
And, it's not just WotC that thinks it's problematic. Paizo recently updated their rules so you aren't required to follow the Ability boosts for the race, but rather give every race the inherent two free boosts that the Human Ancestry gets. If a lot of fans and two of biggest companies in TTRPGs think their a problem, maybe you're in the minority.
Which was a silly idea and took from humans the reason to be a human. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Scots Dragon
Seeker
United Kingdom
86 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2023 : 13:51:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
And, it's not just WotC that thinks it's problematic. Paizo recently updated their rules so you aren't required to follow the Ability boosts for the race, but rather give every race the inherent two free boosts that the Human Ancestry gets. If a lot of fans and two of biggest companies in TTRPGs think their a problem, maybe you're in the minority.
Which was a silly idea and took from humans the reason to be a human.
Yeah because human has no inherent value outside of its two free ability boosts, which is despite every other ancestry also getting at least one free ability boost.
Certainly they don't have options that allow for bonus skills or a free general feat. And they don't have any benefits in any of their first-level ancestry feats, like extra skills, extra class feats, extra general feats, extra cantrips, or extra bonuses when working with others as options.
There really is no reason to be human any more in Pathfinder 2e. |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 14:53:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
If you're having your players fight monsters 'because they're automatically evil', that's pretty lazy.
Lazy or not...who cares? At its heart, this hobby is about escapism and "shortcuts" in one area for the sake of entertainment does not preclude "depth" in another (nor does treating monsters like humans in funny suits mean your game is automatically a meaningful exploration of social issues). Furthermore - and here's the part so many seem to be missing or plainly dodging - if you have monsters who are all or mostly evil, you yourself are not some sort of real-life racist and no amount of shifting the focus is going to change that. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Athreeren
Learned Scribe
129 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 16:33:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
Furthermore - and here's the part so many seem to be missing or plainly dodging - if you have monsters who are all or mostly evil, you yourself are not some sort of real-life racist and no amount of shifting the focus is going to change that.
And this requires a definition of inherently evil that doesn't negate free-will (nobody has any issues with killing zombies or non-sentient robots, but that severely limits the number of stories you can tell). If the creatures are born evil and nothing can be done to make them different, you have a setting where it's morally justified to kill babies, which should at least raise an eyebrow. If the culture is one that perverts everyone, then you might want to think about what makes it so compelling that no one is going to question it, even if you attempt to proselitise the monsters. And in any case, if the adventurers are the ones killing everyone in sight, how are they not the baddies?
Even if the rules of the games tell you that a given species or culture is "pure evil", you cannot take their word for it, because that is a statement for any similar culture in the real world, and the previous conclusions should hold here too. When we consider that such statements have been made about real cultures (followed by parodies of such cultures becoming short hand for evil tribes, and that stereotype became the template based on which species such as orcs were imagined), I think it's better to have the game circumvent this issue in the first place. |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 17:33:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Athreeren
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
Furthermore - and here's the part so many seem to be missing or plainly dodging - if you have monsters who are all or mostly evil, you yourself are not some sort of real-life racist and no amount of shifting the focus is going to change that.
And this requires a definition of inherently evil that doesn't negate free-will (nobody has any issues with killing zombies or non-sentient robots, but that severely limits the number of stories you can tell). If the creatures are born evil and nothing can be done to make them different, you have a setting where it's morally justified to kill babies, which should at least raise an eyebrow. If the culture is one that perverts everyone, then you might want to think about what makes it so compelling that no one is going to question it, even if you attempt to proselitise the monsters. And in any case, if the adventurers are the ones killing everyone in sight, how are they not the baddies?
Even if the rules of the games tell you that a given species or culture is "pure evil", you cannot take their word for it, because that is a statement for any similar culture in the real world, and the previous conclusions should hold here too. When we consider that such statements have been made about real cultures (followed by parodies of such cultures becoming short hand for evil tribes, and that stereotype became the template based on which species such as orcs were imagined), I think it's better to have the game circumvent this issue in the first place.
*sigh*
DM: "Yes, the goblinoids are overwhelmingly evil: a scourge of civilization."
Players: "Okay. We're ready to play."
There. See? Not so hard. No need to jump down the rabbit hole. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 18:01:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
Furthermore - and here's the part so many seem to be missing or plainly dodging - if you have monsters who are all or mostly evil, you yourself are not some sort of real-life racist and no amount of shifting the focus is going to change that.
Only people who conflate writers with their characters are able to believe that including evil races in your game automatically makes you racist. And I say this as someone who really dislikes the idea of "racial alignment", especially given that fantasy races tend to ultimately be humans with funny looks and comically exaggerated aspects of normal human behaviors/worldviews. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 20 Jan 2023 18:01:28 |
|
|
|
Athreeren
Learned Scribe
129 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2023 : 19:57:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
*sigh*
DM: "Yes, the goblinoids are overwhelmingly evil: a scourge of civilization."
Players: "Okay. We're ready to play."
There. See? Not so hard. No need to jump down the rabbit hole.
This reminds me of my experience playing Icewind Dale 2. You start as a team of mercenaries hired to protect Targos. You find some goblins trying to tunnel in, and you kill them: that's normal. Then the goblin army attempts a full assault on the town: of course you're going to protect the town! The next plot point regards retaking a bridge. There is a lot of creatures to kill, but the strategic importance of the bridge is clear and everyone in the Ten Town is going to be killed if the heroes don't succeed. So the mission is entirely justified within the context of the war, although we may wonder why it's always up to the heroes to do everything themselves, especially considering the size of the army posted there. And because the heroes are the only ones allowed to do anything in this coalition, they are also the force sent to rescue two scouts from enemy territory. This involves killing hundreds of goblinoids who are living in their fortress, far away from humans. Yes, they are the ones sending all those armies toward Ten Towns, but at this point I am starting to wonder what the end goal of this war is for the humans. And the more the story progresses, the further we get from Targos and any justification to kill anyone who gets in our way - not that it will stop us. They're there, they're attacking, and they represent XP. Why are they still attacking heroes who have single-handedly defeated whole armies and their strongest leaders? Unclear, I guess they suddenly got tired of living. In any case, there is no option given to ask for their surrender. By the end of the game, your group of six (or one even) has killed thousands of enemies, and everyone among the few bystanders we still meet that far away is congratulating them for how good they are at being murder hoboes. The whole thing is grotesque, the world does not feel real at all.
It's hard to care about the world when hordes of monsters throw themselves at enemies to die, and so little is done to explain where they come from or their goals. They're here, they're evil, and they must be killed. At this point it's even tempting to hide for a bit, let them win, and see them die as they have fulfilled their purpose and they are incapable of doing anything further to survive, so we can rebuild after them. Because for them to survive, that would require imagining a functioning evil society, and if you look too closely, you realise that everyone who gets the society running is basically doing the same thing as their good equivalent. And if there's no way to evilly grow crops (not even sacrificing innocents to their evil gods, since everybody has been killed at this point), how are they different from the farmers we were trying to protect in the first place? And why should we care which side has won? |
|
|
|
Outlaw Pope
Acolyte
43 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2023 : 11:48:47
|
I have just always felt that most of this stuff already existed - at least in the context of FR's product line. A lot of villainous individuals had more human or flawed ideas. Many of the monsters have implied opportunities to "leave the dark" but are just bound up in their societies. There is an Orog (orc) paladin /of Torm/ in the court and company of Queen Zaranda, there is an entire goddess who exists solely as the metaphysical hope for Drow escaping their dark gods, there are deities like Ilmater who encourage compassion for anyone and anything to the point even many monsterous races leave those priests alone because they know they will get free healing from them. An entire subrace of Orcs who were raised and molded by Eldath. A LN priest of Oghma in Skullport who is a Mindflayer.
I have always seen the "alignment" things are general guidelines of how these things usually are but as far as mortals are concerned they have entire free form and will to change or be different. But the battle of metaphysical alignment made literal in the mortal realm sees Chaos, Law, Good, and Evil smashing into each other and thus the world is very much a mess. Which is why there is high adventure.
But that is probably because DnD pre 3e had actual writers and newer products were made by smaller and smaller teams of constantly shifting people. You eventually get people who do not even have anything to do with DnD and especially subsettings like the realms who do not care or even know about how this stuff existed and you just get someone on staff either wanting to simplify stuff to appeal to "current socio-political matters" as to make stuff clean or some guy in corporate who thinks they can use it to generate controversy for free advertisement while "looking good".
But yeah, I do not think it's a "new concept" - its always been there without big red letters or genericized rewrites that sanitize any conflict. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Moving On From 'Race' in One D&D
