I should have stopped reading right there. Really, I should. You're not offended, so anyone else's reaction to the contrary must be faked. It couldn't possibly be an honest reaction.Your post has offended me.
I take offense at your taking of offense ;)
Seriously, though, you can't help being offended by something. You can only help whether you show your reaction or not.
Usually.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a big, big difference between having characters be racist/sexist/genocidal/whatever, and saying "this racist/sexist/genocidal characters is a Paragon of Good under the Totally Objective Alignment System of my world".
The first one represents the views of a fictional character. The second one strongly implies that the author/GM endorses those views.
No, it does not.
It might just mean that the GM is trying to reconcile prejudices similar to those which existed in the real world with having Good characters who suffer from these prejudices.
Unless we decide that all generations of humans before us had it wrong and we have it right and Good people can only be those who subscribe to our very own notions of morality.
In which case, the CRB's take on alignment should be reworded to state that Good characters never suffer from prejudices and in fact always fight against them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just add that being offended is emotional. You're reacting emotionally, not responding rationally. What's important when you're offended is to take the time to move to the second part of that last sentence. Knee-jerk reactions in text-based conversations aren't usually the best response.
What I find funny is just how racist books like Lord of the Rings and Willow are.
Like the dwarves won't go and get help from the elves because elves are pansy fairies or something. In willow, you've got the human calling the short guy a racist name, constantly.
What I find funny is just how racist books like Lord of the Rings and Willow are.
Like the dwarves won't go and get help from the elves because elves are pansy fairies or something. In willow, you've got the human calling the short guy a racist name, constantly.
If you're strictly referring to the fact that dwarves don't like high elves and vice versa, I'm not sure what your problem is because that's pretty standard fair for the entire genre. If you really mean how "white-washed" the films were
I also must bring up the fact that:
A) The LotR and The Hobbit were deliberately constructed from a flawed, ignorant worldview (Hobbits being the most ignorant of the world of all the races)
B) In the The Silmarillion, which acts as the objective history of Middle Earth and it's people, Tolkien describes the races of Middle Earth as a much more ethnicaly diverse group than was pictured in the films.
Numenoreans (and by extension, Aragorn) would be more analogous to Egyptians, and among the elves you had a number of distinct cultures that may have looked as different from eachother as a Germanic and Latino person might.
Numenoreans were from Atlantis, if the Eldarin translation is taken into account.
If you're strictly referring to the fact that dwarves don't like high elves and vice versa, I'm not sure what your problem is because that's pretty standard fair for the entire genre.
Kinda am. Its just amuses me how racist the 'standard' is, and most people don't even bat an eye. I mean, like the party comes across a den of goblins, and goes on the attack. Cause goblins are 'monsters'.
Tell me about it...
Kinda am. Its just amuses me how racist the 'standard' is, and most people don't even bat an eye. I mean, like the party comes across a den of goblins, and goes on the attack. Cause goblins are 'monsters'.
If you're strictly referring to the fact that dwarves don't like high elves and vice versa, I'm not sure what your problem is because that's pretty standard fair for the entire genre.
But how racist is it when those squabbles are based on philosophical differences?
Speaking to the general, elves and dwarves are spiritual opposites: one is focused on looking back, the other forward. One is naturalistic, the other industrious. One is peaceful, the other war-like. They could both be human cultures and they would still constantly be fighting, but then there are actual physical differences between the races that separate them even further, as opposites to the purely cosmetic differences between human "races".
As for the goblin bit, consider this:
Let's say two human kingdoms, we'll call them the Reds and the Blues, are at war. They have been for as long as anyone can remember. It's a bloody, violent conflict stretching back thousands of years. One day, while a troop of Blues are out in the wilderness of their territory, they happen upon a troop of Reds—immediately identifiable by their uniforms—sitting around
a fire unaware, but armed.
The Blues have found armed enemy Reds in their territory. They could easily neutralize them and stop the threat they pose. Do you expect them to attack, or should they try to "talk first"?
I'll just add that being offended is emotional. You're reacting emotionally, not responding rationally. What's important when you're offended is to take the time to move to the second part of that last sentence. Knee-jerk reactions in text-based conversations aren't usually the best response.
Offense is often dictated by social norms and most people in a community have an idea of what is offensive. And I don't think it needs to just be an emotional reaction. With good reason and logic you can point out offensive behavior. When people refuse to follow rules, order can break down and thus using logic you can establish when someone or something is deemed "offensive".
Furthermore one can be offensive and yet not have offended anyone. For instance a woman walks in a room and two men start speaking really nasty about her to each other in a foreign language and she has no idea.
Another example would be for workers spitting on a burger that is going to be served.
In both examples what they are doing of offensive. Now I have no emotional reaction to it, it's not my burger. But I realize this goes beyond our social contract and deem this behavior offensive.
So I would argue that saying people "choose" to be offended is willfull ignorance of a social contract.
So in summary, do not fart and say "you choose to smell it".
-MD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Blues have found armed enemy Reds in their territory. They could easily neutralize them and stop the threat they pose. Do you expect them to attack, or should they try to "talk first"?
False dilemma.
Assuming they have the men for it, they should surround and immediately rush upon them with weapons drawn before the reds can get a chance to (draw their) arm themselves. You take them prisoner and learn why the hell they are in your area. Killing them outright seems a pretty short-sighted decision. Intel is always more valuable than a handful of dead enemies.
As for the goblin bit, consider this:
Let's say two human kingdoms, we'll call them the Reds and the Blues, are at war. They have been for as long as anyone can remember. It's a bloody, violent conflict stretching back thousands of years. One day, while a troop of Blues are out in the wilderness of their territory, they happen upon a troop of Reds—immediately identifiable by their uniforms—sitting around a fire unaware, but armed.
The Blues have found armed enemy Reds in their territory. They could easily neutralize them and stop the threat they pose. Do you expect them to attack, or should they try to "talk first"?
Definitely shoot.
Talking puts you in situations like this.
|
The Blues have found armed enemy Reds in their territory. They could easily neutralize them and stop the threat they pose. Do you expect them to attack, or should they try to "talk first"?False dilemma.
Assuming they have the men for it, they should surround and immediately rush upon them with weapons drawn before the reds can get a chance to (draw their) arm themselves. You take them prisoner and learn why the hell they are in your area. Killing them outright seems a pretty short-sighted decision. Intel is always more valuable than a handful of dead enemies.
To point out the other obvious, there is a huge difference between wearing the uniform of an opposing army and sharing his race. Furthermore, there's been no concerted effort (in most settings) by an army of goblins to make a push on a major human settlement. For the bulk of the world, the only things they'll know about goblins come from their limited experience with the small bands in their area.
Always Chaotic Evil races are not only distasteful, they make no damn sense whatsoever. I'll give the evil outsiders a pass, in particular demons for being A) powerful outsiders and B) existing on the infinite planes of the abyss. However, any species - particularly one as physically weak as goblins - would not survive in a analogous earth ecology.
It isn't supposed to be a dilemma (even though your solution, presman, depends entirely on the ratio of numbers). I am not arguing the merits of having all-evil races (which wasn't even what I was suggesting in my post, if you read carefully). I'm not even arguing the merits of shoot-first-ask-question-later. I referred to goblins merely because that was the race used as reference by the post I responded to.
I am merely equating two fantasy races at war with two human nations at war. Entering a cave and seeing a room full of armed orcs/goblins/gnolls/drow elicits the sort of responses no different than a group of American Revolutionaries walking into a cave and seeing a bunch of armed Redcoats.
Kill them. Subdue them and interrogate them. Regardless of the specifics, you acted aggressively based on the their appearance. That appearance associates them with a history, culture, and mindset that is for whatever reason violently opposed to your own.
So no, I don't think PCs should feel bad about killing orcs/goblins/gnolls/drow in settings where orcs/goblins/gnolls/drow are at war with humans/elves/dwarves, and it shouldn't be considered racism or "speciesism". It's war. It should only be considered either of those things when the setting establishes that orcs/goblins/gnolls/drow are coexisting to the same degree as two neighboring human countries that likewise aren't at war.
To point out the other obvious, there is a huge difference between wearing the uniform of an opposing army and sharing his race.
I dispute that, although like the use of goblins in the example, this is yet another nitpick that sidesteps my point completely.
"Race" is the real world does not mean the same thing as race in fantasy worlds. Whereas real world "race" is a cultural distinction that developed based on a biological myth (that "races" were different beyond the purely aesthetic), races in fantasy realms are analogous to different cultures that are physically and mentally very different, at least, that's how the rules present them.
I would go so far as to say that a character's race, in certain settings, may do even better to describe their mentality than a uniform, since humans are inherently the same without their clothes, while elves and orcs are not.