Poink's page

This very much depends on the nature of the government. Even well developed governments could have drastically different reactions. An autocratic government would likely deal with this in a heavy-handed way (think USSR, etc). A government that upholds due process would likely, as has been suggested, investigate the matter, collect facts, build a case. A theocracy, especially a good-aligned one, could react any number of ways depending on the zealotry of the populace and/or leaders and their approach to due process. I would not automatically assume that governments are rational entities. The list goes on.

Key factors in my eyes:

- Due process (yes, no, maybe?)
- Religious devotion/zealotry (how much, how little?)
- Available resources (tribe versus freaking uber-country)
- Militarism (how heavy handed with the swords and bows?)
- Intelligence (every government needs eyes and ears; who are they?)
- Attitude towards magic (bad juju or the coolest thing?)

Others are probably applicable as well. I would also keep in mind the closeness of the connection between a given religious group and the government, since they may be able to heavily influence the actions of each other if they share power, or may even be enemies. What happens if a church of Iomadae finds out about this? Can they comfortably report this, or do they send in their own gals and guys?

This kind of stuff seems right up the inquisitor's dark, brooding alley.

I have a theory as to how potions, scrolls, and other item-based magic stuff operates. In my setting, I am surprisingly fairly close to Cuup's interpretation of magic in its different forms. There is, however, some important distinctions.

This raw sort of energy that Cuup defines as arcane magic is also the foundation for all things in every plane as expressed by a deity or deities during the formation of that plane (note that this is homebrew). The Material Plane is the most "confused" of the bunch in that it was molded by an either exceedingly brilliant and diverse deity or an amalgamation of multiple deities, and this has resulted in a large amount of latent "essence".

Essence is what arcane spellcasters tap into/manipulate to form, destroy, alter, etc. Magic items came about when certain individuals discovered that, with proper preparation and execution, the latent Essence of materials can be extracted, manipulated, and embedded into other objects. This is why I heavily prefer the talismanic crafting system variant rules. Alchemists derive their abilities from their ability to concentrate and alter these passive essences in both living and nonliving materials.

Speech/writing also has a way of affecting Essence in that it is a manifest application of the mindscape, a semi-plane of thought and consciousness that can serve, in basic terms, as a manipulator of Essence. This is most apparent among deities, who's power largely originates from their massive consciousness and the intensity of their thoughts, and thus they can speak and write things into existence.

EDIT: A point that I forgot to include that is critical to any of the users mentioned above; precision is the key factor whenever you hope to manipulate Essence. This is why spells and such can fail so easily at times. The web of reality is very good in most cases at maintaining balance.

Hey everyone!

I'm looking for some suggestions to make a homebrew city called Amoch interesting to visit and explore. It's in a heavily agricultural temperate region with a population in the thousands. I have been running this game with a slightly Roman theme when it comes to the national government, the Regency, so I want to keep that theme going to some extent. The party will likely, in part or as a whole, will most likely be visiting at least a church of Iomedae, a magic supplier/shop (with no gold on hand, just items to barter, in a talismanic component crafting system), and, of course, a tavern/inn.

It's not much to go on, but I would love to hear all of your ideas. Any idea that can help to flesh out a city and its inhabitants is welcome. The more detail the better.

There are a number of problems here. First, the article I wrote wasn't making an argument from statistical inference, therefor, it has nothing to do with correlation versus causation. Nowhere do I chart some sort of statistical relationship between orc skin color and racism in tabletop games. I take it as fact that we live in a society where racism is deeply embedded into our culture, and from there I launch an analysis of correspondence between fantasy race as it is made intelligible through "real world" racist discourse.

So, all this concern over causality and statistical inference is very misplaced.

Actually, correlation versus causation plays a part in other forms of logical analysis, not just statistical inference. You clearly try to prove the idea that there is a problem with these tabletop games in that they infer an evil mindset just from the race (and, as you apply it to real-world racism, their skin color), in this case orcs. So, if A equals race/skin color, and B equals "evilness," you are trying to say "in tabletop games, these races are depicted as evil because of their skin color." In other words, A equals B. However, your basis is incorrect in that A does not equal B (skin color is not the reason for evilness), but it is the C, or unknown, variable. See other reasons in my original post.

One thing that is interesting is that you say you believe that our culture is deeply imbedded with racism. This, to me, means that you may already be quite biased on the issue of the prevalence of racism, since you already take it for granted in such a wide scope. If that is the case, then a more objective viewer may not interpret the skin color of these evil beings, the orcs, as being any sort of indicator of a negative portrayal of a specific race. They just are not looking for racism in everything, nor do they expect racism in everything.

Second, I never "attempt to delve into the psyche of anyone and examine their 'subconscious.'" In fact, I think I pointed avoid discussing anything remotely close to the psychological or moral make up of Tolkien, or the writers of table-top games. I don't attempt to delve the psyche of others for two reasons. First, it is usually and unproductive venture, as it individualizes the problem. The racism of the 1950s is not simply in the mind of Tolkien, and therefor any attempt to talk about racism of the 1950s would require us to go beyond Tolkien. Second, discussions over whether someone is "really" a racist through psychoanalysis (or whatnot), is such a needless discussion, and distracts from the subject of racism.

I believe that if you attempt to portray a personal creation of a creator in any way that is contrary to their explicit intent, and then claim that is what they really "meant" to do on a conscious/subconscious level, then you are trying to examine them. You do, in fact, say that orcs in Tolkien's world are a "racial allegory," when he explicitly stated that they are not. There was no hidden racial meaning in his orcs. And when referring to Gygax's depiction, you wrote

Whether conscious of it or not, this depiction of orcs depends, as much as Tolkien's orcs, on the articulation of inferiority through racialist discourse. That is to say, orc descriptions are articulated through racism that organizes bodies hierarchically by characteristics such as skin and hair color.

[...]

However, there is something deeper to this "lack of offense." These "extra" descriptions go beyond the skin to justify, not describe. They "make up" the reasons to justify racism. The predominantly white roleplay consumer struggles to see the racism inherent to these kinds of descriptions because we never have to struggle against their authoritative powers. We are white, and therefor we easily rebuke the assignment of moral depravity based on skin color.

Here you state that this was at least a subconscious translation on Gygax's part to portray evilness as a result of race(ism), when there really is no justification in doing so. As I said before, A does not equal B, and it is clear to me you are examining them, just not as directly as some others.

To Bombadil: I did not read your post til after I wrote this, but forgive me for my claim. I somehow got the notion that you were trying to make the point that AD's lack of consideration on the part of the individual in the evil army would be portraying the entire army as doing what they did because they were of a certain race, and would thus be undesirable because of its racist portrayal. I got very confused. :(

Again, misrepresentation of another person's comments, where did I say you must highlight good guys in the bad army, that's you jumping to conclusions. Show individuality, maybe one barbarian doesn't like the killing, but does it to feed his family back home, while the guy next to him enjoys spilling blood, those are very different individuals.

It has Nothing to do with overall impact on the army as a whole, again another jump to conclusions, and to suggest that members of an army don't still retain individuality in thought is foolish, some dudes get brainwashed, but not even close to all of them

So, then it is okay for him to have an army of bad guys in general, as long as he portrays that not all of the individuals in that army are of the same mindset? Or, as you put it, showcase their "individuality"? That is not only highly unusual to expect that, but unnecessary. If you only wish to consider the color of the skin of the people in his army to real-life people as related to the actions they perform, you can do that, but you will be missing the trees for the forest. He does not need to do that, and I would not diminish his work in any way for not doing that. Isn't it the job of the individual, the reader, to draw conclusions that make sense? To say that the author's work would either be of low-quality or racist for not portraying the ideals/thoughts/motivations of some individuals in a predominantly evil army that happens to have some attribute that is somewhat similar to a real-life race is nonsensical. But, as the Burger King slogan goes, have it your way.

It doesn't hurt that Tolkein & Gygax are dead and can't defend their work (which doesn't seem to matter anyway because they'd either be called liars or subconscious racists). Nothing stops the armchair quarterbacks from saying whatever they want, with the occasional, out-of-context statement to back up their opinions.

I agree, and what is even worse is that we (as in those who do not agree that they/their works were racist) have to defend them, and that even if they express a direct opinion on the subject, they are then considered to not be "in-tune" with their own subconscious, or just flat liars of the first degree. Really, there should be no room for controversy after a statement like that, unless there is blaring evidence to the contrary somewhere down the line. See Clinton, Bill & Lewinsky, Monica or LBJ, Secret Service agent.

AD: I got irritated as well, but I guess my Craft(Theory) check roll turned out to be better. :)

Your comments really are the basis for my post.

My two cents...

I believe that the primary issue at hand here is the issue of correlation versus causation. In the article, the author states that there is a correlation between the skin colors of the various orc groups, among other things, and racism in the tabletop games and in Tolkien's work. She basically states that, because of the fact that the orc races have dark skin tones, they are representative of real-life races, and thus any of the generalizations, stereotypes, et cetera that is attached to those orc races applies somewhat to real-life races, thus implying racism.

The problem with that claim is a commonly known logical fallacy known as the third-variable problem, which basically means that when someone claims that variable A equals variable B, they do not sufficiently consider the third, unknown variable C, which could equal B. The points brought by AD and mplindustries are pointing out this very issue by offering alternative causes, and stronger causes then the ones presented in the article in my opinion. This is especially true with the Tolkien issue, since the fact that Tolkien himself (who, if I am not mistaken is THE primary authority on his own motivations) denied any sort of correlation between his depictions and real-life races. Other valid points include ones that suggest that orcs are depicted in the way that they are due to mythological influences (especially with Tolkien, who was VERY heavily influenced by various mythologies), and the point concerning the role that darkness has on our perceptions of good and evil. None of these points were considered at all in the article, or any other alternatives for that matter, and thus imply author bias towards their own mostly unsupported conclusion.

There are also other issues; For one, the attempt to delve into the psyche of anyone and examine their "subconscious" is arrogant in my opinion, unless you have an extensive, personal knowledge of that person. I don't believe any of us here, regardless of our credentials, can legitimately say that Tolkien, or any other creator of these fictional races, were wrong in saying that they were not racist. We can say that their works may imply otherwise, but if they directly state that those works are not racist, then they are not, unless you would like to prove that they are liars, in which case, good luck with really proving their intent. And if you believe that one can be racist without intent.... well, then you are questioning their ability to control their own mental faculties (that is, they write and proofread endlessly on the very same concept and still are not able to realize what they mean), which in that case, I may make the same argument against you.

One final thing; Is it really right to say that negatively depicting fantastical, fictional beings that are colored in a certain way that is similar (but not identical) to a real-life, flesh and blood, intelligent being has a significant impact on the actual way we treat or think about the real-life person in front of us? In my opinion, intelligence is an extremely effective screen for making such nonsensical assertions, since only a crazy or very unintelligent person would assert the orc in any person. What is funny is that that would also be a a third variable logical fallacy, that is, if you were to think that a real-life person of a certain color was an orc because they looked like the depiction of an orc. Are we not doing the exact same thing, except in reverse?