Except that as I've said again and again it really does make a difference if those ridiculous ideas are actually true.
(Not, as I've also said again and again, 100% true with no exceptions at all.)
Orcs are probably your best case, because of half-orcs and because orcs are among the closest to humans in many ways. Just dumber, tougher and even more violent. They don't have the demonic/magic influence of drow and their not as far off as some other races. OTOH, ASFAIK every orc society yet described in Golarion is essentially CE. Similarly in other major game worlds.
Your average Joe's knowledge of orcs is likely not to extend beyond tales (or personal experience) of orcs raiding the village. Of course he's prejudiced. Much like the English were prejudiced against Vikings. With good reason.In settings where that isn't true, prejudices would be different. Particularly if the closest orc society was known to be peaceful and/or friendly.
I pointed out earlier the problem with the problem with this is that, in reality, to a degree the ridiculous ideas are true because they're enforced. So saying it is more okay when the differences actually exist has a pretty bad implication for how to treat real people.
And I just showed the ridiculous ideas related to half-orcs are somewhat true because they're enforced, with the exception that in this case there is actually a different species involved. So saying that it's different on an inherent level isn't necessarily true because there are cases where it's not.
From what I read of the drow, a lot of their problems are also socially enforced, both by them and by outside parties. But it makes it quite clear their issue stems from their society, not from inherent evil.
Hobgoblins appear to have the same issue; they train their young in the mindset they have from a very, very early age.
Goblins? Okay, I'll admit they're pretty much permanently cracked. Even if they are good, they're still going to be insane; they have some kind of species-wide insanity going on. Good-aligned city might be able to tame a tribe of them and get them to do some tasks, but that insanity isn't going anywhere.
Ogres? Oh, yeah, those are pretty much cracked as well. From their write-up, it's pretty clear they might also have some kind of genetic insanity going on.
Demons? Living embodiments of evil; you're cracked if you trust them without a dose of caution the size of the Pacific Ocean.
I'm not arguing that all races suffer from racism; calling goblins insane firebugs who are barely above vermin... whether I like it or not, their write-up makes it pretty clear that's exactly what they are. So, yes, I do agree there are races where thinking they're evil as soon as you see them is pretty justified.
But, note what I said about society... there are races where that evil isn't inherent. Where it's made quite clear that societal mechanisms are the issue, even if it's their own society.
That is the problem with part of this discussion; there has been this thread of all-or-nothing running through it as far as representing both sides when the game write-ups themselves support a mixture of the two.
And from what I've seen of Golarion, that setting takes the bad side of the write-ups and then takes them to the next level. Just my impression of what I've read so far.
Oh, and to note: The idea the Average Joe would discriminate out of ignorance backs up my bit about societal mechanisms. Ignorance is a societal mechanism in action; otherwise, there's at least one civil war where some of the best generals would have been on the other side.
Except for one problem: In real life, there was a point where the various races were viewed as different species of humanity.
Did any of them have Darkvision?
Except for one problem: In real life, there was a point where the various races were viewed as different species of humanity.Did any of them have Darkvision?
According to medical science, in reality about half of humanity has some type of Darkvision. They just need to give their eyes proper time to adjust.
So, yes.
|
Except for one problem: In real life, there was a point where the various races were viewed as different species of humanity.Did any of them have Darkvision?According to medical science, in reality about half of humanity has some type of Darkvision. They just need to give their eyes proper time to adjust.
So, yes.
I see beter in the dark than anyone i know, still far from darkvision. lowlight maybe. then again i am blinded by much light
|
Scratching Riftwar off my to-read list then.Really? Eh, your choice and all that. I like them (the setting was invented to begin with for the house-ruled OD&D game of Feist and his game group, if memory serves).
Nothing against anyone else enjoying them, I just know I'd be miserable reading them now that I know it employs certain tropes I absolutely hate. Same reason I duck out of certain campaigns.
Just for the record, I'm long off the "Always evil" argument, I'm now defending the "It is not racism to expect members of a given species to act as their species usually acts, whether that's due to innate traits or just species wide cultural conditioning." That still doesn't include kill on sight and one should modify those expectations if an individual gives reason to.
But if the the last dozen ogres I've offered a friendly handshake to have tried to kill me, I'm going to remember that and be more cautious with the next one. But I'm not going to overgeneralize that and stop offering handshakes to humans because only a small minority have tried to kill me when I've done so.
Yes, I will treat different species differently, because experience teaches me that they will behave differently. Doing anything else is close to suicidally stupid. Or taken in the other direction: overly paranoid and likely to cut you off from some who might be willing to help.
Ah! I see the issue is that I had misinterpreted one of your earlier posts and was dealing with the wrong argument.
I owe you a massive apology for my statements. I have definitely been a jerk with them, even though I did not intend to be.
Nothing against anyone else enjoying them, I just know I'd be miserable reading them now that I know it employs certain tropes I absolutely hate. Same reason I duck out of certain campaigns.Scratching Riftwar off my to-read list then.Really? Eh, your choice and all that. I like them (the setting was invented to begin with for the house-ruled OD&D game of Feist and his game group, if memory serves).
To be fair to the series, that trope is pretty much absent from the series until that point (which Imho starts going downhill around those books as well). There are examples of "good" dragonlords, lizardfolk, goblins, etc, and the "Dark Elves" are racially identical to normal elves, and culture is explicitly held as the reason for them being evil. The Pantathion Serpent folk are held as the only race to fall into the trope you despise.
|
|
Nothing against anyone else enjoying them, I just know I'd be miserable reading them now that I know it employs certain tropes I absolutely hate. Same reason I duck out of certain campaigns.Scratching Riftwar off my to-read list then.Really? Eh, your choice and all that. I like them (the setting was invented to begin with for the house-ruled OD&D game of Feist and his game group, if memory serves).
The pantathians are more demons than "other race"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for one problem: In real life, there was a point where the various races were viewed as different species of humanity.
And that was a bad thing to do. However, with the standard PF assumptions, they ARE different species. I know not everyone plays in golarion and you may have a home world where everything is completely different, but in a world
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.
No, it wasn't actually real, because there's a vast difference by people _believing_ someone is influenced by demons, and them _actually being_ influenced by demons. Or actually being a big raving demon, which can be the case in pathfinder.
Just like religion in a world where the gods walk the earth are different to real-world religion, even if people believe gods have walked the earth in real life, so is racism in a world where races include demons and dragons different from real-world racism, even if people have believed humans to be influenced by demons. Witch-hunts in real world where a horrible thing, but hunting down an evil pathfinder witch is completely different.
And of course, I'm not saying it's a good thing to kill ogres on sight or enslave them or whatever. I'm saying you can't compare real-world discrimination of humans with discrimination of species which are inherently and easily provable very different in key aspects - like schimpanzees or dolphins or ogres. That doesn't mean they are to be treated however we want, or that individual exceptions might not exist, but we know for a fact that ogres are different than humans in many ways and if a group of 10 humans close in on the village, people will be curious, and if a group of 10 ogres close in on the village, people will run and hide.
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...
So, we should treat dolphins exactly the same way as humans too? Because otherwise it's racist, because we might in the future determine determine they are the same species as us?
Take Wyverns as an example, because they are sentient, quite intelligent (same as orcs, only 5% less likely to make an int check than the average foot soldier) and not evil by default yet are a race/species that I think most other races should be wary of:
Wyverns are nasty, brutish, and violent reptilian beasts akin to more powerful dragons. They are always aggressive and impatient, and are quick to resort to force in order to accomplish their goals. For this reason, dragons generally look down upon wyverns, considering their distant cousins nothing more than primitive savages with a distinct lack of style or wit. In most cases, this generalization is spot-on. Although far from animalistic in intellect, and capable of speech, most wyverns simply can't be bothered with the subtlety of diplomacy, and prefer to fight first and parley later, and even then only if faced with a foe they can neither defeat nor flee from.
I find it completely unreasonable to state it evil to act differently when you see a wyvern close in on you as when you see an elf close in on you. Yes, there might be individual exceptions to the general traits among wyverns, but having racial prejudices against a race which we know for a fact has "brutish and violent" as a "mostly spot-on generalization" I would not state as evil.
Now, enslaving wyverns is a completely different thing and is definately evil, and I generally think attacking them on sight is too unless there are special circumstances (see this thread)
EDIT:
And yes, you're right on half-orcs. And I agree it's bad that there is such racism towards half-orcs, just because one of their parents is evil. And I even noted so in the post you quoted.
But as you also quoted right there, orcs themselves are brutish. Orcs are by the rules in fact stated that they (although of course individual exceptions might exist) are evil and destructive. To quote: "As a culture, orcs are violent and aggressive, with the strongest ruling the rest through fear and brutality. They take what they want by force, and think nothing of slaughtering or enslaving entire villages when they can get away with it.". So the societal bias against orcs has a very sound basis, unlike the racial structures in real life which has a basis of upholding a system of white supremacy.
Is treating drow poorly due to their heritage closer to treated african-americans poorly or treating dolphins poorly?
It's not so much their heritage as their make-up as a species and the fact that at least in golarion, what separates drow and elves is that drow where corrupted by Rovagug, the god of destruction, or that an elf has done very evil acts (I think in golarion, if an elf does certain evil acts it can become a drow).
That is not comparable with racism against PoC in the real world, because while people might have incorrectly believed otherwise, real world PoC's are not corrupted by a god of destruction.
And I'm not saying it's okay to enslave drow - just like how I don't think it's okay how we enslave dolphins - but when a bunch of golarion drow show up at your village you can be very much sure that hiding or bringing your weapons is the only response that will save your life.
Except for one problem: In real life, there was a point where the various races were viewed as different species of humanity.And that was a bad thing to do. However, with the standard PF assumptions, they ARE different species. I know not everyone plays in golarion and you may have a home world where everything is completely different, but in a world
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.No, it wasn't actually real, because there's a vast difference by people _believing_ someone is influenced by demons, and them _actually being_ influenced by demons. Or actually being a big raving demon, which can be the case in pathfinder.
Just like religion in a world where the gods walk the earth are different to real-world religion, even if people believe gods have walked the earth in real life, so is racism in a world where races include demons and dragons different from real-world racism, even if people have believed humans to be influenced by demons. Witch-hunts in real world where a horrible thing, but hunting down an evil pathfinder witch is completely different.
And of course, I'm not saying it's a good thing to kill ogres on sight or enslave them or whatever. I'm saying you can't compare real-world discrimination of humans with discrimination of species which are inherently and easily provable very different in key aspects - like schimpanzees or dolphins or ogres. That doesn't mean they are to be treated however we want, or that individual exceptions might not exist, but we know for a fact that ogres are different than humans in many ways and if a group of 10 humans close in on the village, people will be curious, and if a group of 10 ogres close in on the village, people will run and hide.
Part of the problem of trying to separate the fantasy racism from real-world...
I don't play Golarion much; I actually am just sticking to the core rulebooks on this. The main reason is because the core rulebooks and Golarion differ on several areas, so I am sticking to the set of rules that are more broad and which people are generally more likely to follow. A campaign world that is just the core rules plopped down is going to run differently than Golarion because of the differences I refer to.
One of those differences is in how monsters are treated.
So, I generally am not using Golarion because that setting only applies to a few people. And I must admit it is pretty amazing how much information that Paizo allows you access to. Still going ahead and buying their products instead of just relying on the free information online.
I am not saying that every race in Pathfinder is a victim of racism; that is why I did not counter your wyvern example. But at the same time, some are. Some are also victims of their own culture, which in turn helps reinforce the discrimination against them. And, in turn, helps created the very problem that they cannot escape their culture because everyone enforces their cultural standards.
It is that same scenario you see a lot in real life; even without realizing it, some cultures have an issue where everyone enforces the cultural standards, even if they are discriminatory. That is why I brought up the half-orcs; everyone enforces their situation.
The argument that half-orcs are beastial in appearance doesn't hold up; the catfolk are more beastial, yet their write-ups and entries indicate most races (including humans) have absolutely no problems with them. Ratfolk are literally bipedal rats, a rodent that humans are well-known for having problems with, and yet their write-up indicates that the only race they have any problems with are halflings, and even then it's not all of the time. Tengus also have no problems in general, except they're humanoid crows and generally like to steal stuff (and this is by their own write-up).
Overall, it seems humans don't have any issue with a beastial appearance, given that they get along just fine with the beast races. Which means it's not the beastial appearance, but the fact that it's an orcish appearance that is the issue.
My argument is not that most of the judgments of other species is racism; my argument is that some of those judgments are, and that racism for humans operates the same exact way in the fantasy world as it does in real life. Just take a look at Half-Orcs, then note how similar the treatment of them is to treatment people have received in real life. It's the same mechanism... just being applied to someone who is partly a different species and with slightly different results.
You say we can't compare the two... then tell me why it is the racism written into the core rules is so much like racism that exists in real life. It's like saying we can't compare a sword in game to a sword in real life. Just because it is presented slightly differently in the game does not mean it was not based on reality.
Oh, and just so you know... if we judged dolphins by human morality and used modern knowledge of them, dolphins wouldn't be allowed to survive. Recent observations of dolphin behavior note they pretty much embody some of humanity's worst actions, without all of the pesky morality that gets in the way of humans performing those actions. Under the alignment system, they would definitely be one of the evil races.
I don't play Golarion much; I actually am just sticking to the core rulebooks on this. The main reason is because the core rulebooks and Golarion differ on several areas, so I am sticking to the set of rules that are more broad and which people are generally more likely to follow. A campaign world that is just the core rules plopped down is going to run differently than Golarion because of the differences I refer to.
Actually, a campaign world that is just the core rules plopped down will not run at all, because it will lack an actual setting. The rules will state that orcs exist and are evil, but there won't be any place they exist since the rules don't provide locales.
One of those differences is in how monsters are treated.
Not really. The core rules are pretty much the same as golarion in most aspects when it comes to that, except the monsters lack history. The core rules state that most species are of their bestiary-stated alignment, but that exceptions may exist - with the difference of non-intelligent beings and outsiders (regardless of intelligence).
Now, you could of course come up with a world where that isn't the case, where orcs generally are not bloodthirsty and aggressive (say like the Elder Scrolls setting), but that's not just plopping down the core rules, it's changing the core rules. I tend to do that a fair bit with kobolds, I've always felt they where more neutral but paranoid and territorial (and having very different norms when it comes to stuff like eating sentient beings) more than outright malicious so in my games they're neutral. But that's not using the core rules as opposed to Golarion, that's changing the core rules because I don't like them.
I am not saying that every race in Pathfinder is a victim of racism; that is why I did not counter your wyvern example. But at the same time, some are. Some are also victims of their own culture, which in turn helps reinforce the discrimination against them.
So why make a difference between orcs and wyverns, and what makes it less speciest/racist to discriminate against (default neutral) wyverns than (default evil) orcs? Because often, it seems to end up in a "orcs look a lot like humans, wyverns (or other creature) do not". Which in my opinion is a very clear case of specieism.
Orcs and wyverns are actually very similar in their makeup in the core rules. Both have intelligence 7, both are aggressive and territorial, and both prove a common threat to humans and other "civilized" races. The main differences is that 1. wyverns tend to do far less evil acts (or tend to do far more good acts), hence the difference in alignment, and 2. that wyverns look a lot less like humans.
So which of those are the reason it's more okay to discriminate against wyverns than orcs (which was the race mentioned in the OP)?
It's a lot different when it comes to non-evil, non-aggressive races like half-orcs and dwarves - and I've stated that (though I don't think half-orc is really properly a race, but I guess that's semantics). When it comes to racial discrimination and racism within humanoid societies against groups like half-elves, half-orcs and dwarves, yeah, that's kind of similar to real-world racism.
The argument that half-orcs are beastial in appearance doesn't hold up; the catfolk are more beastial, yet their write-ups and entries indicate most races (including humans) have absolutely no problems with them.
I have said absolutely nothing about them looking bestial. I'm saying half-orcs face discrimination because their parents belong to a species noted for being bloodthirsty pillagers (and by the rules, this isn't just some prejudice against orcs - it's actually what orcs are). I agree with you that systemical discrimination of certain races within humanoid societies is pretty similar to real-world racism (say, how elves are treated in the Dragon Age world), but discrimination of other species based on their make up is not the same thing in a world where the differences are huge and measurable and some species constantly prove a danger to other species (such as the OP's mentioned orcs and my example of wyverns, or for that matter black dragons or cornugons).
You say we can't compare the two... then tell me why it is the racism written into the core rules is so much like racism that exists in real life. It's like saying we can't compare a sword in game to a sword in real life. Just because it is presented slightly differently in the game does not mean it was not based on reality.
Not so much that we can't compare them (we are comparing them in this discussion), more that they're very different. And it's not like comparing swords, it's more like comparing prayers. A priest praying in real life and a cleric casting Prayer in Pathfinder are very different because one is acting on superstition and faith and one is acting on provable facts. Real-world inquisition killing marginalized women as witches is not the same thing as Pathfinder inquisitors finding actual evil witches and killing them.
The core rule book says the typical alignment of orcs is CE, but also states that non outsider alignments are fluid
We also are not given reasons for why they are CE...it could just as easily be a result of cultural upbringing and environment as any sort of genetic inclination for Chaotic Evil.
let us bash orc and goblin skulls in, please...
otherwise DEEP SPACE NINE
But that's a good thing! Certainly not as good as the game becoming Voyager, but still a good thing.
The core rule book says the typical alignment of orcs is CE, but also states that non outsider alignments are fluid
We also are not given reasons for why they are CE...it could just as easily be a result of cultural upbringing and environment as any sort of genetic inclination for Chaotic Evil.
Which brings us back around to the 'nature vs nurture' argument, which is completely a table issue, not a rules issue.
Actually, a campaign world that is just the core rules plopped down will not run at all, because it will lack an actual setting. The rules will state that orcs exist and are evil, but there won't be any place they exist since the rules don't provide locales.
Two words: Gamemastery Guide.
Locales are not absent from the core rules.
Not really. The core rules are pretty much the same as golarion in most aspects when it comes to that, except the monsters lack history. The core rules state that most species are of their bestiary-stated alignment, but that exceptions may exist - with the difference of non-intelligent beings and outsiders (regardless of intelligence).
Now, you could of course come up with a world where that isn't the case, where orcs generally are not bloodthirsty and aggressive (say like the Elder Scrolls setting), but that's not just plopping down the core rules, it's changing the core rules. I tend to do that a fair bit with kobolds, I've always felt they where more neutral but paranoid and territorial (and having very different norms when it comes to stuff like eating sentient beings) more than outright malicious so in my games they're neutral. But that's not using the core rules as opposed to Golarion, that's changing the core rules because I don't like them.
I was unaware the core rules included a section on humans using halflings as slave. Golarion certainly features that.
One of the main problems with arguing that Golarion doesn't have differences between it and the main rules is the fact that I can sit here all day and pick out nations that are examples of differences. The core rules are written under the assumption of a certain uniformity of species; any changes from that are campaign or setting-specific changes that are actually not part of the core rules. Golarion specifically features a greater range than the core rules do, with additional material and rules added on to help extend that lack of uniformity. As a result, it's going to play far differently, as core rules don't have humans enslaving halflings in any text but Golarion features it in one of its major nations.
Unless, of course, you can provide examples from within the core rules that humans do enslave halflings.
So why make a difference between orcs and wyverns, and what makes it less speciest/racist to discriminate against (default neutral) wyverns than (default evil) orcs? Because often, it seems to end up in a "orcs look a lot like humans, wyverns (or other creature) do not". Which in my opinion is a very clear case of specieism.
Orcs and wyverns are actually very similar in their makeup in the core rules. Both have intelligence 7, both are aggressive and territorial, and both prove a common threat to humans and other "civilized" races. The main differences is that 1. wyverns tend to do far less evil acts (or tend to do far more good acts), hence the difference in alignment, and 2. that wyverns look a lot less like humans.
So which of those are the reason it's more okay to discriminate against wyverns than orcs (which was the race mentioned in the OP)?
It's a lot different when it comes to non-evil, non-aggressive races like half-orcs and dwarves - and I've stated that (though I don't think half-orc is really properly a race, but I guess that's semantics). When it comes to racial discrimination and racism within humanoid societies against groups like half-elves, half-orcs and dwarves, yeah, that's kind of similar to real-world racism.
The difference? Orcs have a demonstratable society issue, as the half-orcs show, that causes their problems. Wyverns, as written up, simply are always the way they are for their personality and there's no demonstrated societal reason as to why.
If orcs were inherently that way, the half-orc entry wouldn't go so far out of its way to point out that half-orcs are so orc-like in how they act because of how society treats them; they would be more aggressive in general just because of the orcish ancestry. But the write-up makes it clear that it's a societal issue.
The societal issue is backed when you pick up ARG, the write-up on orcs backs the societal issue bit by focusing on just how horrible their society is, going on to show that most are chaotic evil simply because it's a basic survival necessity within their culture. It even makes it clear that this societal setup sometimes forces orcs to adventure just to avoid dying in their own culture. Add that to the portion of the write-up for half-orcs that indicates some half-orcs are products of loving couples, and it is even more obvious the problem is definitely societal.
Now, note I am not advocating against killing them when necessary to protect others; I'm just pointing out they're in a situation where, for the most part, trying to change their society for the better isn't going to work so well for them when they're so massively hated.
I have said absolutely nothing about them looking bestial. I'm saying half-orcs face discrimination because their parents belong to a species noted for being bloodthirsty pillagers (and by the rules, this isn't just some prejudice against orcs - it's actually what orcs are). I agree with you that systemical discrimination of certain races within humanoid societies is pretty similar to real-world racism (say, how elves are treated in the Dragon Age world), but discrimination of other species based on their make up is not the same thing in a world where the differences are huge and measurable and some species constantly prove a danger to other species (such as the OP's mentioned orcs and my example of wyverns, or for that matter black dragons or cornugons).
I apologize; I had misread what you said. It happens, sadly. As much as I try to be otherwise, I am sadly still human. Still working on ascending to godhood, but the waiting period to get a hearing on the matter is rather lengthy.
The problem with arguing measurable differences is that it falls into a trap that is actually fueling some real life racism. Let me demonstrate:
If a race consistently demonstrated the lowest rates of academic excellence, the highest rate of convictions for crimes, the highest ratio of violent crimes, and the highest ratio of arrests... and all of this was not only measurable, but already measured... would you say that group is inherently less intelligent and more violent than the others?
The group I'm describing is African Americans.
We know what is causing the measurable problem: Societal bias. But that doesn't change the fact the items I mentioned above are measurable, regularly tracked, and used by a number of people to justify a dim view of African Americans. And that dim view, in turn, reinforces the same bias that creates the problem.
Thus, why I am focusing on a society-based argument instead of measurable difference; the society-based argument avoids the unfortunate implications of measurable difference arguments.
Not so much that we can't compare them (we are comparing them in this discussion), more that they're very different. And it's not like comparing swords, it's more like comparing prayers. A priest praying in real life and a cleric casting Prayer in Pathfinder are very different because one is acting on superstition and faith and one is acting on provable facts. Real-world inquisition killing marginalized women as witches is not the same thing as Pathfinder inquisitors finding actual evil witches and killing them.
The only reason I find them comparable is that they use the same underlying mechanics. Does the racism against someone because they are assumed to be brutish really matter if it's a different race or humanity or happens to be a different species? Does it really matter if the deity is more likely to pop in and say hello when you pray? That is why I am saying it's not different; at it's core, it's the same thing, just applied based on the differing circumstances.
Also, I put the following bit about the Inquisition in a spoiler, since it's kinda off-topic. Pathfinder Inquisitors have absolutely nothing to do with the real-life Inquisitors.
That is not to say the Inquisition was some kind of good thing; in hindsight, and given the particular inspiration the Inquisition gave for tactics taken during a later war, what it was actually for was potentially far worse.
The Inquisition was actually hunting Jews.
let us bash orc and goblin skulls in, please...
otherwise DEEP SPACE NINE
And what does not bashing an orc head in have to do with a racism-based war, a holy prophet on a mission from the gods, multiple attempted genocides and assassinations, allies turning on each other and even attacking each other, and finally a war among the gods themselves?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two words: Gamemastery Guide.Locales are not absent from the core rules.
The GMG gives tools for creating locales, they don't give locales. But I guess we're going a bit of topic, so nevermind xD
I was unaware the core rules included a section on humans using halflings as slave. Golarion certainly features that.
Ah, I understood "how monsters are treated" as "how the rules/setting treat monsters", rather than "how people in the setting treat each other".
One of the main problems with arguing that Golarion doesn't have differences between it and the main rules is the fact that I can sit here all day and pick out nations that are examples of differences.
Yeah, it was a misunderstanding. I thought you meant that for example orcs being really evil in golarion was a golarion-specific thing and stood in contrast to the core rules.
The difference? Orcs have a demonstratable society issue, as the half-orcs show, that causes their problems. Wyverns, as written up, simply are always the way they are for their personality and there's no demonstrated societal reason as to why.
Huh? That half-orcs are not inherently evil does not mean that orcs aren't (see how tieflings differ from demons). And the absense of statements about the origin of wyvern's hostileness is not proof that it's not societal.
Tieflings are often also shunned. Does this mean that the cause of problems for Glabrezu's is that society discriminates against demons?If a race consistently demonstrated the lowest rates of academic excellence, the highest rate of convictions for crimes, the highest ratio of violent crimes, and the highest ratio of arrests... and all of this was not only measurable, but already measured... would you say that group is inherently less intelligent and more violent than the others?
The very point I'm making is that you can't equal these things that way. In the real world cases, the differences are based in a racist structure wherein people are all part of the same society, and one group systemically oppresses and exploits another group.
In the pathfinder case, some species are clearly stated as being basically rotten through the core. The species live separately and engage each other much more like different nations engage each other in real life, and some of these groups live by killing and raiding peaceful villages. We're not talking about having a few more percent of your demographic having been arrested (not to bring up how racist structures affect law enforcement and how race intersects with class), we're talking the vast majority of the population being chaotic evil. And them being chaotic evil hasn't been determined by humans who benefit from the exploitation of orcs - it's been determined by those that created the species (paizo).
It might very well be that it's due to societal reasons, and I'm not saying it's okay to kill orc (or wyvern) babies. But you can't equalize a human farmer assuming the approaching orcs will attack their farm with a white farmer assuming the approaching black people will attack their farm.
If the description of orcs had been "on average, they're slightly more likely to be violent than an average human" it had been one thing, but they're described this way: "orcs are violent and aggressive // they take what they want by force, and think nothing of slaughtering or enslaving entire villages when they can get away with it".
This isn't written by some anti-orc elven scholar, it's written by those creating the race and determining it's traits. Yes, there might be exceptions. But the average farmer can't count on the approaching orcs being those rare exceptions, and that's not at all the same thing as what PoC face in the real world.
Does the racism against someone because they are assumed to be brutish really matter if it's a different race or humanity or happens to be a different species?
Not so much whether they're a different species (my first post was kind of unclear on that) but that they're part of certain specific species that are quite different from humans and pose a danger to humans.
When it's humans discriminating elves or dwarves or halflings or whatever, it's similar.When it's humans discriminating against orcs, wyverns, cornugons or other species who's trademarks are extreme violence - that's a completely different thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what does not bashing an orc head in have to do with a racism-based war, a holy prophet on a mission from the gods, multiple attempted genocides and assassinations, allies turning on each other and even attacking each other, and finally a war among the gods themselves?let us bash orc and goblin skulls in, please...
otherwise DEEP SPACE NINE
sounds like 'not bashing orc head' means 'more interesting game'.
Two words: Gamemastery Guide.Locales are not absent from the core rules.
The GMG gives tools for creating locales, they don't give locales. But I guess we're going a bit of topic, so nevermind xD
I was unaware the core rules included a section on humans using halflings as slave. Golarion certainly features that.Ah, I understood "how monsters are treated" as "how the rules/setting treat monsters", rather than "how people in the setting treat each other".
One of the main problems with arguing that Golarion doesn't have differences between it and the main rules is the fact that I can sit here all day and pick out nations that are examples of differences.Yeah, it was a misunderstanding. I thought you meant that for example orcs being really evil in golarion was a golarion-specific thing and stood in contrast to the core rules.
My fault. I was not clear enough, and I apologize for that.
Huh? That half-orcs are not inherently evil does not mean that orcs aren't (see how tieflings differ from demons). And the absense of statements about the origin of wyvern's hostileness is not proof that it's not societal.
Tieflings are often also shunned. Does this mean that the cause of problems for Glabrezu's is that society discriminates against demons?
That's a good point, and one I cannot argue against.
The very point I'm making is that you can't equal these things that way. In the real world cases, the differences are based in a racist structure wherein people are all part of the same society, and one group systemically oppresses and exploits another group.In the pathfinder case, some species are clearly stated as being basically rotten through the core. The species live separately and engage each other much more like different nations engage each other in real life, and some of these groups live by killing and raiding peaceful villages. We're not talking about having a few more percent of your demographic having been arrested (not to bring up how racist structures affect law enforcement and how race intersects with class), we're talking the vast majority of the population being chaotic evil. And them being chaotic evil hasn't been determined by humans who benefit from the exploitation of orcs - it's been determined by those that created the species (paizo).
It might very well be that it's due to societal reasons, and I'm not saying it's okay to kill orc (or wyvern) babies. But you can't equalize a human farmer assuming the approaching orcs will attack their farm with a white farmer assuming the approaching black people will attack their farm.
If the description of orcs had been "on average, they're slightly more likely to be violent than an average human" it had been one thing, but they're described this way: "orcs are violent and aggressive // they take what they want by force, and think nothing of slaughtering or enslaving entire villages when they can get away with it".
This isn't written by some anti-orc elven scholar, it's written by those creating the race and determining it's traits. Yes, there might be exceptions. But the average farmer can't count on the approaching orcs being those rare exceptions, and that's not at all the same thing as what PoC face in the real world.
Ah! I think I see the point at which our disagreement lies.
I am not equalizing them.
The real-world racism case, your chances of getting killed by those who commit crimes is very low. The fantasy case? Your chances of your entire village being burned to the ground and the people in it slaughtered tends to be quite high. I am merely saying the essential mechanics of how the racism actually acts in humans is the same in both cases; the scenarios are just very different and the outcomes are different.
To put it in a game mechanics way...
The essential mechanics behind any roll using a d20 is the same; you roll the die to get the results, then add on modifiers. However, the roll for an attack and the roll for using a skill turn out to have quite different outcomes, even though they maintain certain characteristics that show the underlying mechanic that they share. I am saying the essential mechanics of humans being racist are, at their core, that d20 roll; the massive differences between the real life and fantasy scenarios are the modifiers and outcome.
Not so much whether they're a different species (my first post was kind of unclear on that) but that they're part of certain specific species that are quite different from humans and pose a danger to humans.
When it's humans discriminating elves or dwarves or halflings or whatever, it's similar.
When it's humans discriminating against orcs, wyverns, cornugons or other species who's trademarks are extreme violence - that's a completely different thing.
On this, we may have to agree to disagree. I see the essential core element as being the same across the board, while you see it as different due to the details involved. I don't think either of us is wrong; I just think we're approaching the same thing from different angles and coming to different conclusions as a result.
It's the old problem of blind men describing an elephant.
I was unaware the core rules included a section on humans using halflings as slave. Golarion certainly features that.The hard copy books are packed away at the moment, but I believe the PRD comes straight out of the CRB.
Obviously there's less detail there than in the setting material, but the basic concept is core.
Oops. I was wrong on that.
how i like to do it. a given species doesn't have a preset alignment from birth. however, one's alignment can be influenced by their background, either positively or negatively. for example, many orcs in a given large tribe in a particular region might raid other settlements because their chieftan is a bloodthirsty young hothead whom oppresses them. but even the chieftan, has a chance to overcome his bloodlust, no matter how small the chance or how long it takes.
killing that chieftan could help liberate a variety of intimidated orcs, which is great boon to the freedom of the oppressed orcish males, but doing so could de motivate and hinder the beta orcs so accustomed to a harsh chieftan. and they still might raid out of the compulsive habit derived from their history
doesn't mean the orcs or the chieftan themselves were evil. just that there was a greedy and bloodthirsty chieftan that perfected the art of raiding and ingrained it into these orcs, whether or not they approve
it's like the majority of German soldiers in WWII, they either had to fight for their Ruler Reluctantly, or they were killed as one of the ethnic groups they were forced to persecute. they weren't fighting because they wanted to, they were merely following orders out of fear for a mad leader.
becoming voyager...../pukeBut that's a good thing! Certainly not as good as the game becoming Voyager, but still a good thing.let us bash orc and goblin skulls in, please...
otherwise DEEP SPACE NINE
Having the reset button get hit after every single battle would make things pretty boring. No levelling up because experience and character development get erased, and any loot the party finds is either lost or forgotten about.
|
*On the note of humans, elves, and dwarves, I'd like to say the Drow and Duegar are a waste of space. There's no need for a seperate "evil" version of elves and dwarves if elves and dwarves have free will and are capable of right and wrong just as humans are. Nobody calls evil humans "dark humans," why do we need dark elves and dark dwarves?
Actually, that's what the Dark Folk are. And Grimlocks . . . er, sorta
|
And what does not bashing an orc head in have to do with a racism-based war, a holy prophet on a mission from the gods, multiple attempted genocides and assassinations, allies turning on each other and even attacking each other, and finally a war among the gods themselves?let us bash orc and goblin skulls in, please...
otherwise DEEP SPACE NINE
you speak funny... take off that annoying headband of +6 everything!!
|
|
sounds like 'not bashing orc head' means 'more interesting game'.And what does not bashing an orc head in have to do with a racism-based war, a holy prophet on a mission from the gods, multiple attempted genocides and assassinations, allies turning on each other and even attacking each other, and finally a war among the gods themselves?let us bash orc and goblin skulls in, please...
otherwise DEEP SPACE NINE
*bile rising*
|
|
Having the reset button get hit after every single battle would make things pretty boring. No levelling up because experience and character development get erased, and any loot the party finds is either lost or forgotten about.becoming voyager...../pukeBut that's a good thing! Certainly not as good as the game becoming Voyager, but still a good thing.let us bash orc and goblin skulls in, please...
otherwise DEEP SPACE NINE
LOL! so true! also never shooting photon torpedoes at the aliens and having fondue with them on every show would be awesome hey?
|
|
Pathfinder and most fantasy RPG's are populated by races that are cariactures. Such cariactures do not exist in real life of Earth as we know it, despite the brainwashing we all receive through media. To apply the concept of "racism" in the face of a caricature is an oxymoron. "Racism" is a concept we apply to relations with people on Earth and has little application when entire races in a fantasy setting are defined as being "evil" or "good".
+1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I SHUDDER AT THAT LAST COMMENT - (i.e. some people would like Golarion to have that 'GOOD OLD VOYAGER FEEL'?????)
*vomits*
Every campaign would benefit from the inclusion of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's quite the core of the disagreement, at least from my point of view. I'm certainly willing to concede that the basic psychological mechanism is similar, but it's the following implication of : And therefore it's racism and therefore evil.
Which I'm not sure you've put quite so bluntly, but others have. Unless they were all referring only to the "kill on sight" version, which I don't think is true, but can't be sure without digging through the thread again checking for context.
I've pretty heavily implied its racism... but I've also noted that racism can actually be based on things that actually exist. And that there's a lot of cases where it's not racism because describing them in that way is, under all of the writing about them in the core rules, actually the core of who they are.
Saying orc society is bloodthirsty, savage, and one that encourages orcs to beat up on everyone weaker than themselves? That's entirely true. Saying it leaves orcs in a situation where they have to raid settlements on occasion (rate of frequency varies massively) just to survive? That is also true. Saying at least two player races hate orcs on sight and a third treats orcs and half-orcs poorly because of that, even when the orc or half-orc getting treated that way may have repeatedly demonstrated they are not like their savage kin? That's RAW, and that's a demonstration of racism in the setting.
Racism being evil? Also RAW.
Does someone having racist tendencies make them evil? No. Alignment is the sum total of their actions in life. And even in real life, there are plenty of tales and records of people who were openly racist saving the life of someone they were racist against because it was the right thing to do. Being racist did not make them evil; saving that life anyway probably demonstrates someone who is generally good-aligned.
So, while it operates on the same basic mechanisms, I see a lot in RAW that suggests it's just as complicated as in real life. Which puts it beyond the purview of the alignment system, as the alignment system was designed for a black-and-white morality and this is an area that, even in RAW, is pretty much the shining example of greyness.
Which goes back to my first post, where I said I don't think it should really be dealt with in-depth at all. Because, really, it doesn't fit the alignment system. It is far too complicated a subject, and even more so when you get into the issue of a setting that mixes intelligent beings who are literally the living embodiment of evil with intelligent beings who are evil because, by all hints, their society is just so horrible it almost can't produce anything else at all. And then you add written-in discrimination against player races by other player races on top of it.
To be honest, just figuring out how much of the different problems between the various intelligent species in the core ruleset is based on racism, how much is based on societal issues, and how much is based on people describing the creatures accurately is something that would require a college-level dissertation just to properly discuss. And that's before you get into the history that Golarion adds.
you speak funny... take off that annoying headband of +6 everything!!And what does not bashing an orc head in have to do with a racism-based war, a holy prophet on a mission from the gods, multiple attempted genocides and assassinations, allies turning on each other and even attacking each other, and finally a war among the gods themselves?let us bash orc and goblin skulls in, please...
otherwise DEEP SPACE NINE
What I was describing was the plotline of DS9.
Throughout all of that, you have the captain of the station firing on allies, using weapons of mass destruction to poison entire planets, and even arranging an assassination to trick another race into joining the war on his side.
Oh, and then there's all of the time travel. They did almost as much of that as Kirk did.
Yeah, it was a slow start, but once things got moving... let's just say that, by the end, you come to truly understand how the Federation became one of the dominant powers in the galaxy and the lengths they will go to make certain they maintain that status. The entire show was pretty much one giant middle finger raised to Gene Roddenberry's idea of humanity living in some kind of futuristic utopia.
And, because of your comment about the hat, I added something to my profile :P