| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if someone is basing evaluations of individuals on the racial groups they belong to, even if statistically the issue is true for the relative groups it is still racist. It may not be racist to say orcs in general are less intelligent than humans, it is racist to say this particular orc is less intelligent than all humans based solely on the fact that it is an orc.
That is pretty much the definition of racism, making assumptions about individuals based solely on the race they belong to.
More generally, with your definition of racism, you're mixing race and species (in the same way the game language does admittedly.)
That's because, originally, race meant species. So when a lot of early texts talked about the African race, they really meant that they considered Africans to be an entirely different species from Europeans. That definition of "race" remains in use today in a lot of contexts, including game systems where you can choose what species to play.
Thus, the origin of the term "the human race."
Why I have to think of Edward James... ähm Admiral Adamas speech in front of the UN (min 2:53) youtube
Does it make a difference if the range is more extreme?
Elves, for example, have a baseline 12 Int. Ogres have a base 6 Int. That's a spread of 6 points. It's certainly correct to say that ogres in general are less intelligent than elves. There will be some crossover, where particularly smart ogres are smarter than really dumb elves, but you'd pretty much be an idiot yourself to bet on it in any particular case.
Not really if there exists the possibility that the assumption is wrong. It doesn't matter if 95% of all ogres are dumber than all elves. You might be playing the odds, but you'd still be acting in a prejudicial manner.
And does this only apply to mental characteristics? Would it also be racist to assume that the ogre is stronger? Or just bigger?
Since there are some human PC barbarians with strengths greater than the average ogre, yeah, still prejudicial.
More generally, with your definition of racism, you're mixing race and species (in the same way the game language does admittedly.)
Racism is about making assumptions about members of the human species based on somewhat arbitrary, usually visual, criteria. It doesn't apply to making assumptions about individuals of different species.
The game uses the word race, that is what we should stick with. You may personally dislike the book's use of the word race to describe the difference between a human and halfling. But as long as we are using that term for the game, let's not get too hung up. When the book says a LE person condemns others based on their race, it means the game term.
I'm not being racist when I assume that a particular tiger is a carnivore or a particular deer is an herbivore, based solely on their species.
At some point here we either condemn everyone to LE or to Stupid Good.
Of course everyone in the game world who knows anything about them is going to assume that a randomly met ogre is going to be both dumber and stronger than a randomly met elf. They're also going to assume the ogre more likely to attack without provocation. We're talking basic survival skills here.
The Stupid Good people would assume everyone was just like any other human (or whatever they should be using as a baseline) until proven otherwise. Or until they got killed by something they mistakenly assumed would be reasonable.
Actual good people would assume the ogre was dumber, stronger and more evil, but would be open to changing their minds given some evidence
I wouldn't use 'actual good' there, since it kind of implies that 'stupid good' is not really good at all (well, the assumption of universality of your world view, which is called ethnocentrism I believe, is kind of a jerk move, but still..). "Cautious Good" might be more appropriate.
I kind understand the general point though. If you saw a soldier of a nation that has traditionally been an enemy of your home land (lets assume they are not actively at war in this case) wandering around your territory, you need to be cautious. It is like a Roman finding a large group of heavily armed Celts. They might not mean any harm, but it would be very easy for things to go sour, and being unprepared for that would be a mistake.
Overall, this is why I tried to approach this moral quandary from the perspective that this was a member of a group that was know for raiding innocents. The fact that he said 'he was an orc' is a bit troubling, but the actual execution was fairly much within reason considering the relatively weak hold of any central authority (thus making the prisoner the responsibility of the party)
Alignment exists because the designers of DnD wanted to be able to play a fantasy game where good and evil and objective, real elements of the game.
So, alignment kinda represents the mechanical aspect of that.
I think this is one of those places where the hatred trait need not necessarily be the same as the hatred emotion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Racism may be immoral but it is not inherently evil. Acting on your racism like committing genocide is evil. Being discriminatory is not.
I completely disagree with this. Racism is inherently evil. It's even marked as one of the defining traits of lawful evil. And unless it's primarily a lawful trait (which I find unlikely) then it's an evil trait.
That doesn't mean anyone who is racist is an evil character. Most people have both good and bad habits and traits. You can be racist but still be a good character - the racist acts are evil acts, but (depending on severity of course) not nearly enough to change their alignments if they're otherwise kind people.
That said, there IS a difference between racism between humans and racism between different sentient species.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, there IS a difference between racism between humans and racism between different sentient species.
No, there's not.
Most racism between humans has always been under the assumption that another group has been inherently inferior just because of what they are. For awhile, humans even considered other races of humans to be different, and lesser, species. Even today, there are arguments that some humans (particularly those of African or Middle Eastern descent) are inherently a certain way just because of what race they are. Some modern racists do even go ahead and argue that African-descended people are not actually human. They do the same with Asians and people from the Middle East.
How that is in other way different than saying that another species is in any way inferior just because of what they are, I cannot see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Buuullllllllllllllcrap. Big, huge, steaming piles of pure unadulterated bullcrap.I think the biggest problem with all of these alignment dicussions is that people tend to judge action based on their onw experience/moral etc.
But Pathfinder isn't the Earth!
A Paladin of Immodae rides into a a small town, showing who he is.
He approaches the house of a local woman and drag her onto the street. Then he says "This is the evil witch of Blackwood, she's guilty of murdering innocent people" and then he behead her.In this situtation in Golarion (and most other D&D Worlds too) no one of the villagers will raise their voice, try to intervene or try to attack the Paladin. Also this act is not evil!
And your answer isn't?^^
For me the gods in Golarion (and their churches) have similar influence to the common folk like the christian church in medival europe.
If in this time a priest accused a women of witchcraft there was no real hearing or needed proof, the priest speaks in the name of god and so his words are right.
Same goes for the Paladin in my example, he is, in some way, a priest of his god, so he will speak the word of his god (at least this is what normal townsfolks will beleive).My suggestion to such situations is not to judge it from our point of view, but from the "world you play in"-point-of-view.
@Liam Warner:
Of course if the Paladin wouldn't be a Paladin and only impersonating one, this act is in fact evil.And for the "I don't recall the gods acting that directly they empower priests and paladins": All divine spellcasters get their powers from their gods and if they violate their gods teachings/principles they will loose this powers, that the rule part.
For the normal townsfolk on the other side, they know about this from the tales and stories. And what do you think, which story will prevail, the one of the priest who slaugthered an innocent and remain his power or the one where a priest violated his gods...
Sorry, 'might makes right' or 'smite makes right' is bull. Killing someone without cause is in no way good. Saying 'I am good therefore everything I do is good' is such a ridiculous statement I can't even begin to comprehend it ... that kind of utter arrogance is just incomprehensible.
Frankly, such a world would not be a 'world I play in' because it SUCKS. Any world where that's how it works, or back to the OP, any world where creatures are 'born evil', is such a total immersion-breaker for me that I simply wouldn't play. The real world sucks, so why would I want to play in a world that sucks just as much if not more?
Golarion, or any D&D/PF world, is NOT the real world. Real world history did NOT occur there, and it is incomprehensible to me that a world with magic, extant gods, other races, monsters, alternate planes, etc etc would be nothing more than a mirror of the real world.
The Stupid Good people would assume everyone was just like any other human (or whatever they should be using as a baseline) until proven otherwise.
Except, of course, this may actually be the case in their world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Racism has no connection to alignment. Period. It is a philosophy or life style yes but it is not one connected to good or evil until such time as one uses it as motivation that brings about deeds that are good or evil. Hitler used fear and racism to bring about a dark chapter of history. In the US racism brought political gains for politicians. But on the other end racism brought about civil right movements across the world that many say improved the world. Take it how u want.
*vomits*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, there IS a difference between racism between humans and racism between different sentient species.No, there's not.
Most racism between humans has always been under the assumption that another group has been inherently inferior just because of what they are. For awhile, humans even considered other races of humans to be different, and lesser, species.
Yeah, I know. The difference though comes into play when it's a world where there are major tanglible differences making certain species (in the game world called races) genetically dispositioned towards evil or destructive or dangerous behaviour.
It's a bit more like how humans treat other apes (who are also sentient beings of different species, albeit less intelligent than, say, a dwarf, cornugon or wyvern).
I'm not saying species-based discrimination isn't evil, but I don't think we can properly compare or equate treating ogres and wyverns differently with how racist structures work within a human society.
I was wondering how racism fits in with alignments, specifically in a scenario. Is it always considered an evil act, or is it more of a gray area?
Cruelty and Oppression is defined as evil in D&D/Pathfinder. Racism usually leads to these things. Racism on its own may not lead to these things however. Racism can be a form of fear. A human who watched elves drag her father away in chains at a young age may grow to fear or mistrust anyone who is an elf. It's likely misplaced prejudice but it's not inherently evil (in some cases it may be a form of accidental victimization).
However, when cruelty or oppression come into it, then it becomes evil. Which is why racism quickly leads to evil. If you deny the same rights and freedoms to someone else, you are oppressing them. So if the young human grew up and opened a business and refused to hire elves even if they were qualified and did nothing to her, she would be acting evil.
It's a subtle evil. One that most people could excuse. If I was an elf, I would be angry, but I might be sympathetic or even sad for her, when I found out the root of her prejudice being a fear of elves because of a traumatic event in her past that led to the hatred of elves. I might take it upon myself to show her that "elf" is not synonymous with "ruins my life".
In the first scenario, there was a group of mostly CG adventurers attacking an orc camp. The orcs were known to have attacked stolen from a nearby town, and their leader was rumored to be a demon. After killing most of the group and interrogating another, the party began to deliberate whether or not to let him go. As they argued, the CG cleric killed the bound prisoner. His reasoning was partly so that the orcs wouldn't gain information about them, and partly because the prisoner was an orc.
Since the cleric's motivations for his actions were partially based on keeping his companions safe, I don't see that as an evil act. But what about the other part of his argument?
He did good and evil. Killing is evil. Protecting others is good. In most cases this would be just acting Neutral like normal people. However, oppression is also evil, and if you wouldn't have killed a human for the same reasons as you have killed the orc, you've both killed and delivered cruel oppression. Net result evil.
|
Or perhaps the DM isn't trying to trick the players, but actually trying to set up a world where "monsterous" races don't simply exist to raid towns and get killed by adventuring parties.don't we all game to kill monsters get gold and level up?
all i'm saying is if the DM 'constantly' makes the monsters 'good' to throw off the players, he's just messing with the players and taking the fun of it all
I WOULD HATE GAMING IN THAT WORLD - IT'S CALLED DEEP SPACE NINE
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, there IS a difference between racism between humans and racism between different sentient species.No, there's not.
Most racism between humans has always been under the assumption that another group has been inherently inferior just because of what they are. For awhile, humans even considered other races of humans to be different, and lesser, species. Even today, there are arguments that some humans (particularly those of African or Middle Eastern descent) are inherently a certain way just because of what race they are. Some modern racists do even go ahead and argue that African-descended people are not actually human. They do the same with Asians and people from the Middle East.
How that is in other way different than saying that another species is in any way inferior just because of what they are, I cannot see.
So arguing that orcs aren't actually human is racist? :) Because they're not. Elves aren't either.
The difference is that in fiction those differences are actually real and often obvious, while in reality the differences aren't.
Before I respond to the fallacy, let me respond to what you're actually saying.
African Americans have, of all of the races, the highest percentage of their population in prison, and it's been estimated by some that up to 94% of the male African American population has been arrested at some point.
African American children, in school, typically have the lowest test scores on average when you divide the results racially.
Both of those facts are true, and you can confirm they exist in reality just by checking out the relevant government studies. What you are arguing is that, because they are true, it's okay to say African American males are mostly criminals and African Americans as a group are ignorant. Despite the fact every study of them shows that they're not and suggests societal and systemic biases are causing the racial disparity. But those studies do not change reality, even as much as I would dearly love them to.
I have enjoyed your posts, but I have seriously cringed at what you've been arguing and had hoped you would not use such an argument with me... because you've been using real-world arguments to justify racism against fellow humans to defend your arguments and try to prove your point. I do not believe you have been doing it intentionally, but that doesn't change that you have been doing it. I am not saying you are a racist... I am just saying you do not realize the implications of what you have been saying.
As for my post: Your reply was entirely fallacious, in that it tried to counter a point I did not even make. I was pointing out how thinking another group is lesser is what fuels racism and pointing out various ways people do it in real life; the thinking towards orcs is slightly different in what is said, but ultimately the same at its base. It is the argument that they are lesser that is the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then they're far off from any PF/D&D game world.
The Stupid Good people would assume everyone was just like any other human (or whatever they should be using as a baseline) until proven otherwise.
Except, of course, this may actually be the case in their world.
Obviously not, because they've made a PF game world where that is the case. Logically, you cannot be 'far off' from any such world when you're playing in one. Is it traditional? No. Does everybody like or care about traditional? No.
And there's no houseruling involved. No rules are being changed, merely fluff. Unless some monster has a mechanic that dictates its behavior, it's behavior is purely flavor and is mutable as desired.
Sorry, 'might makes right' or 'smite makes right' is bull. Killing someone without cause is in no way good. Saying 'I am good therefore everything I do is good' is such a ridiculous statement I can't even begin to comprehend it ... that kind of utter arrogance is just incomprehensible.
Frankly, such a world would not be a 'world I play in' because it SUCKS. Any world where that's how it works, or back to the OP, any world where creatures are 'born evil', is such a total immersion-breaker for me that I simply wouldn't play. The real world sucks, so why would I want to play in a world that sucks just as much if not more?
Golarion, or any D&D/PF world, is NOT the real world. Real world history did NOT occur there, and it is incomprehensible to me that a world with magic, extant gods, other races, monsters, alternate planes, etc etc would be nothing more than a mirror of the real world.
Sorry but I never said in my example that he simply kills the woman because "might makes right". He kills this witch because he (or his church) found evidence and by this she was sentenced to death. The only thing I want to show here is that he don't have to (of course if asked he can) present this evidence to the townsfolk.
As servants of the good (aka a good god like Immodea) are trustworthy and living by the highest human ideals normal townsfolk will assume that he will not simply kill a woman without a good reason. THAT is what it's about. It's not about "Might makes right" etc.Of course Golarion isn't the real world and there are differences but normal human behaviour should be the same, otherwise it would be difficult to play in it as a human player^^
The only thing I wanted to point out here is, to judge a situation not from your modern point of view but from your characters (and the worl he's living in) point of view. Dont play "Bob from New York with a Sword in a Fantasy World" play (and behaive) like Redgar, Knight of the Sword Order of Taldor!
For the "born evil" part:
Sure not every Drow is born evil, but most of them are evil. So assuming that the drow in front of you is evil and dealing with him based on this until proven otherwise is totally understandable.
I'm from Germany, believe me I know what it means to be judged because of the actions others of your fellow countrymen (anmd I don't like it!). ;)
Do orcs see better in the dark than humans?
Then they're far off from any PF/D&D game world. In the example I gave, if a random ogre is likely to be just as friendly, smart and no stronger than a random elf, that's not a world I've ever gamed in.
I'm not sure anyone has said anything about the probability of such a thing being high (you're "likely" implication). Instead I think people have been saying that the probability might not actually be 0. In that case, if a person kills an ogre that they just saw without any reason to suspect it is dangerous other than it is an ogre, then that is an evil act (assuming of course that the probability is not in fact 0). That doesn't mean one has to act simple-minded about it, see below.
But yes, in a game world with no significant differences between sapient species, you would be correct. They should expect everyone to be just like a human. Of course, I'd question why have multiple species if they're all going to be the same.
You seem to imply that characters shouldn't be cautious around humans. I find that a little strange, given that most BBEG in most modules/AP tend to be humans. Humans are probably the most dangerous "monsters" in most campaign settings. So, yes, when a character comes across a random ogre, for example, they should treat it like come across a random human, cautiously.
Do orcs see better in the dark than humans?
They have darkvision. They see massively better in the dark than humans.
On the other hand, humans have a better attribute setup.
As servants of the good (aka a good god like Immodea) are trustworthy and living by the highest human ideals normal townsfolk will assume that he will not simply kill a woman without a good reason. THAT is what it's about. It's not about "Might makes right" etc.
More likely the townsfolk saw some heavily armed guy come into town, grab a woman and say that he has the right to kill her, and they don't interfere, not because they believe he has the right, but instead because he is a heavily armed guy intent on killing someone. Most people are going to put their head down and try to stay out of his sites, for fear that he might "detect evil in them too and kill them".
Whether the guy is in fact an actual paladin or a murderous poser is something that the townsfolk probably have no way to know.
For the "born evil" part:
Sure not every Drow is born evil, but most of them are evil. So assuming that the drow in front of you is evil and dealing with him based on this until proven otherwise is totally understandable.
When you saying, "dealing with", what do you mean. If your character kills them before they get the chance to say or do anything, how exactly are you going to be proven otherwise until perhaps it is too late (say a paladin falling for example)?
Do orcs see better in the dark than humans?They have darkvision. They see massively better in the dark than humans.
On the other hand, humans have a better attribute setup.
Well up to 60 ft, after that they are just as blind as your average human.
When you saying, "dealing with",what do you mean.
First of all: Attack on sight.
If I face someone who's kind is known as enemy of humankind, as dark sorcerers and tricksters, I will hit as fast and as hard as I can and don't introduce myself first.If a Paladin did this and killed the group of good aligned drows before they can say anything.. so be it, I will not let him fall because of this. (But I will make him regret^^ "...we...came..in..peace...*ough").
As the chance for a one-shot-kill is very low (especially at higher levels) they will have enough chances to convice the paladin their intentions are good.
One Part of the "Falling of a Paladin" is "willingly", this means he have to be 100% aware that he's doing an evil act, not guessing/maybe etc.
Well up to 60 ft, after that they are just as blind as your average human.
More blind. -2 to Wis means slightly worse Perception modifiers.
When you saying, "dealing with",what do you mean.First of all: Attack on sight.
If I face someone who's kind is known as enemy of humankind, as dark sorcerers and tricksters, I will hit as fast and as hard as I can and don't introduce myself first.
If a Paladin did this and killed the group of good aligned drows before they can say anything.. so be it, I will not let him fall because of this. (But I will make him regret^^ "...we...came..in..peace...*ough").As the chance for a one-shot-kill is very low (especially at higher levels) they will have enough chances to convice the paladin their intentions are good.
One Part of the "Falling of a Paladin" is "willingly", this means he have to be 100% aware that he's doing an evil act, not guessing/maybe etc.
I would say the paladin would still have to atone, though. The reason is the part in the paladin code about acting with honor and punishing those who threaten or harm innocents. In this case, it would be the paladin harming innocents.
Edit: To clarify my position a bit...
The above judgement assumes the paladin attacked first. If the paladin was attacked, then cutting them down where they stood would not require an atonement spell. After all, at that point, the paladin is defending themselves, which is not a violation of their code. That applies no matter the alignment of their attacker, even if said attacker is a good-aligned outsider.
This generally made the players who played paladins a bit more cautious about just attacking anyone they came across, but also meant they didn't hesitate to give it their all if they were attacked.
Racism has no connection to alignment. Period. It is a philosophy or life style yes but it is not one connected to good or evil until such time as one uses it as motivation that brings about deeds that are good or evil. Hitler used fear and racism to bring about a dark chapter of history. In the US racism brought political gains for politicians. But on the other end racism brought about civil right movements across the world that many say improved the world. Take it how u want."Hitler's not so bad. After all, he did kill Hitler."
.. Holy crap, he DID!!!
Do orcs see better in the dark than humans?They have darkvision. They see massively better in the dark than humans.
On the other hand, humans have a better attribute setup.
If an orc says that humans can't see as well in the dark, is that racist?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an orc says that humans can't see as well in the dark, is that racist?Do orcs see better in the dark than humans?They have darkvision. They see massively better in the dark than humans.
On the other hand, humans have a better attribute setup.
I know where you're going with this. I had stated much earlier in this thread that I don't believe racism should be addressed much by the game at all. This entire thread demonstrates several reasons why.
Pretty much, it depends on entirely why the orc is saying that. If the orc is just saying it to point out an obvious tactical advantage or simple face, it's not racist. If the orc is saying it to suggest they are superior, then it is most definitely racist.
If you want to see the major problems with the argument you are about to make, read this post and then note that much of the argument being made on the issue of differences between orcs and humans is being made to justify humans killing orcs. I don't think I need to point out where arguing justification to kill another race falls on the racism line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all: Attack on sight.
If I face someone who's kind is known as enemy of humankind, as dark sorcerers and tricksters, I will hit as fast and as hard as I can and don't introduce myself first.
If a Paladin did this and killed the group of good aligned drows before they can say anything.. so be it, I will not let him fall because of this. (But I will make him regret^^ "...we...came..in..peace...*ough").As the chance for a one-shot-kill is very low (especially at higher levels) they will have enough chances to convice the paladin their intentions are good.
One Part of the "Falling of a Paladin" is "willingly", this means he have to be 100% aware that he's doing an evil act, not guessing/maybe etc.
And if I was gaming in your group I wouldn't pee in your cheerios, but you'd be sure that I wouldn't play a paladin because your concept of "good" doesn't quite jive with mine. Attacking a group of beings that could potentially be non-evil, based solely on members of their race being usually evil is wrong/immoral in my mind. Justifying the attack after the fact because they attempted to defend themselves from a murderous attacker and didn't just lay down their arms and put themselves at the mercy of someone that has been shown to be willing to kill without provocation is equally immoral in my view.
So yeah, I'll play a ranger and give a big f-u to anyone that doesn't like me not running down and murdering every "monster" the party comes across.
But you told me that it would be prejudicial to assume the ogre would be dumber or stronger, since there's a slim possibility it wouldn't be.
So in order not to be prejudiced, you'd have assume they would all be the same, which is what labeled "Stupid Good"
And then Zhayne said, "They've made a world where that's the case."
Right to assume the ogre MUST BE is prejudicial. To not even be open to the possibility that is the case is prejudicial.
I'm sorry. Sure the BBEGs are often human. And there are plenty of dangerous humans around. Bandits and evil overlords and the like. But the vast majority of human (and elves and dwarves and halflings and many other generally neutral or good aligned species) are not likely to attack unprovoked, while those "monstrous" species that tend towards evil alignments are far more likely to.
Well I don't know what you mean by "vast majority", but the orc entry has:
Organization solitary, gang (2–4), squad (11–20 plus 2 sergeants of 3rd level and 1 leader of 3rd–6th level), or band (30–100 plus 150% noncombatants plus 1 sergeant of 3rd level per 10 adults, 1 lieutenant of 5th level per 20 adults, and 1 leader of 7th level per 30 adults)
A band has "plus 150% non-combatants" which would put it at roughly 60% of the population are considered non-combatants. A clear majority. maybe not a "vast" one though.
You're back in "There are some rare exceptions, so we must act like the general rule doesn't exist" territory.
Who said that? I said that if you are using the general rule as your sole basis of making judgments, you are prejudicial. Nobody has said you could use it as a partial basis (well unless you work for NPR, lol). Back slowly away from the strawman.
That's not going to happen. That's not how people work. It's a survival trait.
Either that kind of racism isn't evil or nearly everybody in the game world is evil. For assuming that creatures of a race that is generally evil and destructive are more likely to be so than those a race that generally isn't.
Being cautious is understandable, not being open to the possibility of the individual being different from the general rule is not. That is being blinded by fear, irrational.
So arguing that orcs aren't actually human is racist? :) Because they're not. Elves aren't either.
The difference is that in fiction those differences are actually real and often obvious, while in reality the differences aren't.
*snip*
What you are arguing is that, because they are true, it's okay to say African American males are mostly criminals and African Americans as a group are ignorant. Despite the fact every study of them shows that they're not and suggests societal and systemic biases are causing the racial disparity.
*snip*
See the difference here? In the RPG world, the results may very well NOT be because of racistic structures but rather stuff like demonic influence (drow elves) or being of a species that is simply very far from the human experience yet still sentient (wyvern) or being made from evilness itself (yoguloth). We treat sentient (even sapient!) species very different from our own in the real world too, and while I'm quick to admit our treatment of apes, dolphins and similar creatures is far from what it should be, it's not the same thing as racism.
So they are not comparable. Yeah, when it comes to something like half-orcs or half-elves being treated badly in human society I can agree that they're similar - but comparing the continuous oppression of African Americans to not trusting wyverns or drow as much as humans by default, that's a very far stretch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is treating drow poorly due to their heritage closer to treated african-americans poorly or treating dolphins poorly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So arguing that orcs aren't actually human is racist? :) Because they're not. Elves aren't either.
The difference is that in fiction those differences are actually real and often obvious, while in reality the differences aren't.
*snip*
What you are arguing is that, because they are true, it's okay to say African American males are mostly criminals and African Americans as a group are ignorant. Despite the fact every study of them shows that they're not and suggests societal and systemic biases are causing the racial disparity.
*snip*See the difference here? In the RPG world, the results may very well NOT be because of racistic structures but rather stuff like demonic influence (drow elves) or being of a species that is simply very far from the human experience yet still sentient (wyvern) or being made from evilness itself (yoguloth). We treat sentient (even sapient!) species very different from our own in the real world too, and while I'm quick to admit our treatment of apes, dolphins and similar creatures is far from what it should be, it's not the same thing as racism.
So they are not comparable. Yeah, when it comes to something like half-orcs or half-elves being treated badly in human society I can agree that they're similar - but comparing the continuous oppression of African Americans to not trusting wyverns or drow as much as humans by default, that's a very far stretch.
Except for one problem: In real life, there was a point where the various races were viewed as different species of humanity.
So, it's not that different because we can point to a historical time where the fantasy scenario was actually real for people. And, yes, there was the belief Africans were being influenced by demons at the same time.
Part of the problem of trying to separate the fantasy racism from real-world racism is how ridiculous a lot of the real-world racism truly was. You're going to have to search for something truly bizarre and out of this world to find something that wasn't, at some point, a wide-spread belief that was viewed as being reality. And I don't think you're going to find it in Pathfinder.
Besides, the write-up of orcs in the core rulebook makes it pretty clear that there are racist social structures towards orcs and, by extension, half-orcs. In fact, here's the PRD statements:
Half-orcs are monstrosities, their tragic births the result of perversion and violence—or at least, that's how other races see them. It's true that half-orcs are rarely the result of loving unions, and as such are usually forced to grow up hard and fast, constantly fighting for protection or to make names for themselves. Feared, distrusted, and spat upon, half-orcs still consistently manage to surprise their detractors with great deeds and unexpected wisdom—though sometimes it's easier just to crack a few skulls.
Society: Unlike half-elves, where at least part of society's discrimination is born out of jealousy or attraction, half-orcs get the worst of both worlds: physically weaker than their orc kin, they also tend to be feared or attacked outright by the legions of humans who don't bother making the distinction between full orcs and halfbloods. Still, while not exactly accepted, half-orcs in civilized societies tend to be valued for their martial prowess, and orc leaders have actually been known to spawn them intentionally, as the halfbreeds regularly make up for their lack of physical strength with increased cunning and aggression, making them natural chieftains and strategic advisors.
Alignment & Religion: Forced to live either among brutish orcs or as lonely outcasts in civilized lands, most half-orcs are bitter, violent, and reclusive. Evil comes easily to them, but they are not evil by nature—rather, most half-orcs are chaotic neutral, having been taught by long experience that there's no point doing anything but that which directly benefits themselves.
Note the parts I bolded. Congrats... those are symptoms of discriminatory social standards.
Now, before you note that it's mostly true on the birth issue... read the first part again. The first part is written as though it's always true. And then implies that it might not be, but will always be viewed as being such.
So, pretty much, we have a case where the core rules themselves, under the write-up for half-orcs, establishes that there is a societal and potentially system bias against them because of the fact they resemble their orcish parent, which would only be possible if there were a societal and system bias against the orcs.
Ultimately, the core rules themselves support the idea that humans are actually being racist, to the point that even half-orcs are being discriminated against on a large scale. And that's using RAW and not going into the Golarion setting (where, given what I've on here, it apparently gets even worse).
I could go on, too; I only focused on one race. In just the PRD alone I have quite a few more I can bring up. And I suspect if I pulled up the Golarion material, it would only get worse... after all, I hear that halflings are having a lot of "fun" in one empire.
Is treating drow poorly due to their heritage closer to treated african-americans poorly or treating dolphins poorly?And by "heritage" you mean "99% of the Drow seen on the surface are part of an invasion, overt or covert" (Most of the rest are Drizzt clones. Those you kill on sight.)
Actually, I doubt the vast majority of the non-elven surface population of Golarion would know a Drow by sight, but elves would be, at the very least suspicious. And again, justifiably so.
More like treating a citizen of a country you're at war with poorly. They might be a defector or just an innocent idiot, but they might also be a spy or an assassin or saboteur. Treat them as such until proven otherwise.
Which doesn't mean kill on sight.
So I'm going to mark that as closer to treating african-americans poorly than treating dolphins poorly.