How Typical Is Stereotypical? Another Look At Monster Characters
Armor clanked as the four paladins strode into the cell where the Orcish prisoner was chained. The first of them, a grizzled man with long gray hair and a beard, raised his torch.
Armor clanked as the four paladins strode into the cell where the Orcish prisoner was chained. The first of them, a grizzled man with long gray hair and a beard, raised his torch.
"You will tell us what the war chief plans to do in the hills of Hobad," the elderly champion demanded. "Where are his troops deployed? How has he secured his train of supply? Does he intend to attack the citadel there?"
The orc stirred, and slowly lifted his head. His eyelids sagged with pain and fatigue.
"I am a knight of the holy order of Reva," the orc said, speaking the Common tongue with the accent of an educated nobleman. "Though bound by my honor and my service to the light, I am under no obligation to betray my people to their foes." His sullen stare rested on his interrogator, and then his chin sank once more to his breast.
"Let us take him to the dungeon," Trevor, the youngest of the paladins, hissed. His expression intensified with fanatic devotion. "Let the rack reveal what his so-called 'honor' will not."
"Torture is not our way," murmured Ruthger, the gray-haired knight. "Still. . . he is an orc, and orcs have never shown themselves to be trustworthy. They are a savage race, and cruel. It would do no good to show this one mercy, and his silence may imperil many of our own people."
The paladin Hector frowned. Could his companions truly be so blind? The orcs had demonstrated an increasing level of organization under their new war chief, and the prisoner before them had dressed and behaved as a paladin of the noblest tradition. Surely the goddess Reva would have smote him for blasphemy if his faith had not been genuine. . .
"Let us summon Nicodemus," Hector said. "I would test the truth of this prisoner's claim. If he is a knight of Reva, as he says, we cannot leave him shackled to the wall like a beast, or a common criminal."
"An orc serving Reva?" Trevor exclaimed. "Impossible! It is some new devilry of the war chief."
"By the Holy Light of our Lord Auraman, I sense no devilry in him," Hector answered.
"We should not trouble the Arch-Mage. . ." Ruthger began, but his voice trailed off as he considered Hector's words. He sighed.
Hector exchanged glances with Lyta, and saw from her creased brow that she shared his doubts. "No, Hector is right," Lyta insisted. "My Lord Ruthger, allow me to call the Arch-Mage Nicodemus. If this is some trick of magic, he will know it. If it is not. . ." the Lady paladin looked over at the prisoner. "If the orc speaks the truth, then we must treat him as we would any captured knight of a civilized realm."
How often do your PCs have these sorts of discussions? Are orcs and other humanoid races merely "monsters" in your campaigns, serving as cannon fodder to be slain and robbed without a second thought? If so, you may find that abolishing traditional fantasy stereotypes gives you more freedom as a GM. From Ogres to Gnolls to Orcs to Goblins to Kobolds, the humanoid races of the fantasy genre offer numerous opportunities for novel and interesting role-play. The negative stereotypes accorded to humanoids provide cheap villains for hack'n'slash, but can also generate increased interest among players who encounter a group of humanoids which isn't what they were expecting. Causing your PCs to receive aid--be it healing, combat assistance, or rescue from incarceration--from a group of ogres or goblins can be a great deal of fun. The more intolerant the PCs are of these creatures, the more fun the encounter can be.
Playing Monstrous Races Against Type
We fantasy gamers tend to take for granted that ages-old feuds exist between elves and dwarves, elves and orcs, dwarves and goblins, and so on. These racial rivalries probably have their origins in Tolkien, but have without question been crystallized by D&D and its many rivals and imitators. The Orcish race in particular is Tolkien's creation. For whatever reason, however, the fantasy gaming portrayal of orcs departs from Tolkien by taking orcs out of their specific context. In the context of Tolkien's world, the orcs are creations of Morgoth: they are essentially elves who have been perverted into a bestial mockery of their true forms. In fantasy gaming systems, the orcs became a "cannon fodder" race of evil savages bent on wanton destruction, but without any reason for being the way they are.
Consideration of the dynamics of a fantasy world suggests this attitude is simplistic because it is based on assumptions that are by now very cliche. We might understand a typical fantasy-world denizen's dislike of a violent, technologically primitive race that subsists by raiding civilized areas. We should try to remember, though, our attitudes as players and gamemasters need not reflect the attitudes of a quasi-medieval mindset. I think the majority of the gaming community knows primitive people are not inferior to civilized folk in any way but technological advancement.
In the course of gaming in several fantasy role-playing systems, I have come to believe that any "monstrous" race possessing game statistics comparable to a human's should be divorced from any judgmental stereotype, whether positive or negative. In a system that categorizes race by a typical alignment, I think the most commonly encountered sentient races should be typified as "usually neutral." There is no compelling reason to believe centaurs are inherently good-natured any more than there is reason to suppose orcs are fundamentally evil, violent savages. As a GM, try to view every race from its own perspective instead of from your own perspective as a human. You might see that, from its own point of view, a raiding tribe of Orcs is merely trying to survive in a hostile and uncertain world.
You might ask: "Won't messing with classic stereotypes disrupt the dynamics of high fantasy, where everyone has valid reasons to hate orcs?" I would say: only if you want it to. I would also add you don't need to make this attitude immediately obvious to your players. It's often more interesting if you don't!
When playing with a system that uses alignment, it's important to remember alignment is not a descriptor of racial tolerance. One could play a paladin who believes in serving the greater good through the force of law, but who views certain races as inherently threatening both to law and the promotion of the greater good. It is possible entities of good alignment may enter into conflict. Under the right circumstances, they might even kill each other and view their actions as justifiable. To use a literary example from The Hobbit, the humans, elves, and dwarves in the Battle of Five Armies all seem to have represented good (or at the least, non-evil) forces motivated to fight each other from greed, territoriality, and conflicting perceptions of "right."
The use of alignment-based and other judgmental stereotypes is not necessary to the preservation of racial rivalry. Orcs might raid human territory. Orcs might be racially intolerant of humans and especially elves. Neither one of these attributes requires the average orc to be evil.
On the other hand, a non-judgmental, perspective-based approach to sentient races offers a huge amount of flexibility to the GM. What do the PCs do if they encounter a group of Orcish paladins? The principles of competent role-playing would seem to indicate that only evil-aligned characters could simply murder these paladins and loot their possessions.
If you find it interesting, as a GM you can challenge the racial intolerance of certain PCs over time: the initially orc-hating ranger who becomes a stalwart ally of the Orcish race through consistent contact with good and honorable orcs is a fascinating character.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of a perspective-based approach is it allows you, the GM, to develop entire groups of these races who don't fit the stereotype. Begin with an unusual character: a good example is the orc war chief Thrall from Warcraft 3, who was raised by humans and trained in their tactics. It's easy to imagine how a character such as Thrall, the leader of his people, would have a profound impact on the Orcish race over time. In a generation or two, the orcs might become much better organized, with a highly disciplined army and the beginnings of a true national government. One of my own fantasy campaigns features an Orcish Empire that serves as a counterpoint to the dominant human nation. To combat the heavy cavalry tactics of the humans, I had the orcs develop pike-and-musket tactics; as the human army emphasizes the heroic cavalier, the Orcish force emphasizes the disciplined infantryman. Not only does this Orcish Empire lend an unusual flavor to my campaign world, in the long run it creates a dilemma for the high-level, good-aligned characters inevitably drawn to take sides in the human/Orcish conflict. Neither nation is wholly good, but neither nation is easy to categorize as evil; there are paladins on both sides; and which side is the "right" one is a matter of character perception, not the orcs' racial listing in the Monster Manual.
A perspective-based approach also frees the GM from having to reserve demi-human races as good guys or friendly neutrals. Everybody knows Drow make terrifying foes, but how many of your players tend to quake with fear at the approach of high elves? A series of tense encounters with a grim, intolerant, greedy party of high elf NPCs could change your players' perception of elves as white-hat good guys in a session or two. If you rely less on these stereotypes, your players will rely less on automatic reactions ("Kill 'em! They're orcs!" or "We can trust these guys; they're centaurs"), and that's a good thing.
Monster Characters
Once you start thinking from the perspective of each race, you're likely to develop interesting characters to be heroes, villains, and principal actors for your players to encounter. If your NPCs are well-crafted, your players may want to build monster characters of their own. I encourage my players to do that. Just remember we're talking about races with game statistics more or less comparable to a human's, and races that are relatively common in your campaign world!
From the standpoint of system mechanics, it is often easy to allow the creation of "monster" PCs (and NPCs). Some systems, such as GURPS and Palladium, have built-in rules for creating PCs from a wide diversity of races. Either system can be customized to add new races without too much effort.
In D&D 3d Ed, the Dungeon Master's Guide devotes a section to non-standard PC races and how to balance them against the ones in the Player's Handbook. In addition to crunching the numbers of the racial attribute modifiers, you'll want to give some thought to a monster race's preferred class. Don't automatically say, "barbarian"! In my example above, where the orcs have a well-developed Empire of their own, the orcs' preferred class is fighter. Taking a cue from the dog-headed kobolds of previous D&D editions and the kobold commandos of the Baldur's Gate video games, I designated the kobolds' preferred class as rogue. Since I was converting the game setting from Palladium, I transformed Siembieda's wolfen into forest-dwelling gnolls and decided their favored class would be the ranger (emphasizing the two-weapon style in D&D 3.5).
What's important to remember is, the greater a monster character's power level is above that of a 1st-level character of a standard race, the more the introduction of such a character will unbalance the system you're using. In GURPS, you can simply compensate by allowing higher-point characters (though this leads to a higher-powered campaign); in Palladium or D&D, you should exercise greater caution when adding new races of extreme power level. In the process of converting my campaign world from Palladium to 3d Ed D&D, my players and I agreed the attribute modifiers for an ogre character should be less than those derived from 3d Ed rules (for example, we reduced the +10 STR modifier to +6 STR). This allowed for a more balanced race that was playable as a first-level character, without an experience penalty, and which "felt" more in keeping with the Palladium power level of an ogre. I correspondingly reduced the power levels of orc and gnoll characters so ogres wouldn't seem too small and puny.
When using the D&D system, remember also that large-sized characters will have certain advantages over medium- and small-sized characters. The AC penalty will not compensate for such things as the increased damage of large-sized weapons! While it's good to try to make the attribute modifiers compensate for racial advantages, you may find other compensation is needed. In my campaign, magic armor didn't re-size to fit any user, and large-sized weapons and armor were both rare and expensive. These restrictions meant large-sized characters had a damage-dice advantage at lower levels, but at higher levels were increasingly restricted in the kinds of gear they were able to find and buy. Their medium- and small-sized companions were able to amass a much greater wealth of gear, and thus the power levels of the characters eventually balanced out.
Caveat Magister Ludi (Let the GameMaster Beware)!
As a final note, I would like to emphasize what I am NOT advocating. I am not advocating the abandonment of all sentient monster stereotypes. Specific modes of behavior are essential to the portrayal of many fantasy races: all dragons are greedy, all demons are evil. It's almost impossible for me to envision a benevolent mind flayer or a wicked Kirin. I'm not suggesting flavorful and world-specific races such as Drow should be watered down past the point of distinctiveness--though a city or society of good-aligned Drow trying to conceal its existence in the midst of the cruel cities of the Underdark might be very amusing. I'm not advocating an end to all villainy. Instead, I am suggesting commonly encountered sentient races should be no more or less prone to villainy than humans are. If you need easy monsters for low-level encounters, you can still use orcs, goblins, ogres, or gnolls; my point is you can just as easily use humans, elves, dwarves, or halflings.
As I am not advocating the wholesale abandonment of monster stereotypes, neither am I advocating the adoption of all monsters for play as characters. Despite some stories I have heard to the contrary, it is my belief monsters such as dragons make very poor PCs (excepting characters who work long and hard for such status, such as the Dragon Disciple prestige class in Tome and Blood). Powerful monsters unbalance most systems when they are permitted as PCs.
Try taking a few humanoid races in your game setting and re-evaluating the assumptions made about them. Play them against type a little, even if it's only to introduce a "lost tribe" that seems to have very little in common with the rest of its race. It's my belief a more flexible conception of sentient races leads to more fun and better play.
- Login to post comments
Great article describing something that I think few GMs would think of or take into account. As well as the players... yesterday I started down this path when my characters encountered a High Elf that nearly killed their cleric, then a drow that healed them. They were confused before the session was 5 minutes underway, but it did clear up.
I hope many players and GMs read this, thus creating greater knowledge and awareness.
Well...yes...and no.
I mean, yes it is interesting to get rid of the stereotypes and racial tensions. But it's also interesting to have them. Think about LotR, and how many people are impressed by Aragorn's party merely because a Human, an Elf, and a Dwarf are actually _cooperating_. And how cool would it be to play a Dwarf who is, say, raised by a benevolent elvish religious order (because, say, his village was destroyed and he somehow survived with no one to take care of him) and who quests for acceptance in his society where he has been ridiculed?
Basically, the racial stereotypes are good from two directions. Firstly, they are an indication of the basic way to play the race to make it more interesting. And if you have one race that is horribly dignified and one that is a bunch of mischievous pranksters, you're _going_ to have racial strife. Maybe elves and dwarves should get along, but ancient grudges are fun and introduce an excellent tension no matter what.
The other great thing about set racial tendencies (a decent word, because they aren't exactly stereotypes) is a character's ability to overcome them. The example of the good drow is perfect; a drow is saving us, what's she up to...and eventually the individual character can set up a reputation that differs from the racial profile. Now THAT'S a story worth telling.
Iridilate: I'm not advocating getting rid of the tensions. Only the stereotypes.
This is a very good point, not to mention very well written Cocytus. I have never agreed with the sterotypes imposed on monsterous races such as orcs and giants. Ever sense the days of early 2nd Ed when most people were still using the 1st Ed books I was using friendly, albeit rather stupid, fire giants and things like that.
In my opinion any intelligent race will have as varied individuals as any other. Now stereotypes do come from somewhere and most examples of a race do fit the stereotype to a certian extent but there is no reason you won't find an orc paladin or a firbolg thief, etc., etc., you get my point.
As an example I am running a rendition of Dragon Mountian, in d20 D&D of course, and the group has been hearing rumors of an army of orcs and goblinoids in the mountians from the paladins of Tempos. Instantly they got the image of orc hordes flooding into the lowlands. In reality what they are up against is an army roughly equal in strength, organisation and firepower equal to General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in 1863.
They're screwed.
They're screwed because they are blinded by stereotypes. They rerally ought to know better but they can't seem to help falling into the fantasy mentality that all goblins and orcs and such are barbarian morons. Orcs are equally as smart as humans and most people forget that fact.
You know, the Savage Species handbook went into this kind of thing. Kind of. There's a whole section talking about different world types when it comes to the treatment of monsters and other "evil" beings, and one of the suggestions is where the general public's mindset is much more open. Sure, Orcs are often evil, but are they always, and if they are peaceful right now, they should be at least given a chance. Maybe they can be reformed, or are not evil at all. That sort of thing. Of course, with this type of world, you could have the intriguing scenario of Paladins fighting each other, one side saying "We must be fair and give them a chance to change their ways" and the other saying "They are evil and MUST be destroyed!", kind of like the example in the article. Hmm... I have a campaign to write.
This article was a good read.
It's nice to see an article that is lengthy enough to have meat, makes its points in a clear and concise manner, and talks about something relevant to the tabletop gaming hobby. Well-written and well said.
someone sees my ideas the same way, weird...
honestly, I believe that you should take the feel of the race and throw it differently. As an example, my boy Theophenes is a short minotaur who fihgts with his bare hands and uses the flame of a warriors fist. "Primitive" and "Stupid" are not the same thing. I've also got an orc shaman who's 83, has a beard, plays war drums, composes poetry, uses a kitana and wears runes around his neck.
Also, toy with the really dark guys turned good. A demon that's good? Might not work, but how 'bout half demon? Didn't you ever read the comic book where Satan's son goes around kicking the rear of other demons? I don't think it that hard. Maybe the demon has selfish reasons for doing good. Maybe our little devil has a love interest. Maybe you could have an undead king, who wishes for him and his people to die in battle. Maybe you want an all-seeing, omnipotent deity, but make him a drunken party animal who slips out deadely prophecies and curses at bar mitzvahs. Yes, I know, I'm a sick, sick, man. Buh bye now!!!! Bookaya!!
Hello Cocytus,
This is a good article. Here are my thoughts on it:
(1) In a sophisticated fantasy campaign, there should arise the same sort of tensions that arise in real life. In this case racial stereotyping. In real life, as in fantasy settings, stereotyping is often wrong for an individual, but there is often a core of recognizable truth in a stereotype. Its the tension between these truths that leads to differences in opinion in these matters and which can make a campaign interesting. A tolerant character might be willing to treat a creature as an individual, however another character might emphasize past behaviour of a race as indicators of how they will behave in future.
(2) I believe that in a fantasy setting, the vast majority of people of all races will be intolerant of each other. Again this mirrors real life. In the real world, the differences between groups of people are often insignificant, but they still manage to generate endless amounts of stereotyping and hatred. Tolerance on the other hand is the product of sophisticated and late developing thinking. Really racially tolerant societies did not develop on earth until the emergence of stable rich democracies in the late 20th century. How can we expect the inhabitants of a savage, primitive, unstable fantasy world to accept these attributes. In a fantasy world, I believe the DM should play most NPCs and reaces as basically intolerant, while reserving tolerant attitudes to exceptional individuals, or perhaps to a particular culture or society that has undergone a period of peaceful coexistence.
(3) In some fantasy settings there is a case for pure evil and pure good. But I find these cases less interesting since it provides less choices for a character. I prefer to use such creatures sparingly.
(4) Rather than think of creatures in terms of good and evil, it may be easier to role play them if we think in terms of 'interests'. For example, a mind flayer needs to devour intelligent brains in order to survive. Its 'interests' run directly contra to the majority of thinking species. Therefore they will always be hated and feared.
(5) Now we get into the really interesting bit. THE NATURE OF GOOD AND EVIL ! no less. To a mindflayer its actions are not evil. It exists in order to survive. it may even experience enjoyment during the process. To humans it is a brain sucking evil monster. Both points of view are valid. To protect themselves, the humans might commit genocide against mindflayers to the youngest child. Now who is evil ? both. neither. their interests conflict. I have my own view on these moral ambiguities, based on the principles of self defence and proportionate response, but in any case they make for a jolly interesting campaign!
The thing about orcs, and other evil demihumans in D&D, is that they don't get a choice about morality. What a lot of people these days don't understand (and little wonder, given how old these games are now), is that the original D&D material, especially AD&D, was really its own fantasy milieu. It described a world where heroes start out ridiculously weak and end up ridiculously strong. Where there are only 9 moral outlooks. Where the ultimate limit on your lifespan is your constitution score. And where some races can literally be born irredeemably and irrevocably evil. It wasn't just a stereotype, it was a design decision.
Now, was it a popular design decision? Obviously not. D&D has never been labeled "The Fantasy Game of Roleplaying in Gary Gygax's Imagination." I think nearly every GM has adapted the rules to his or her own idea of an entertaining fantasy setting, whether it came out of a box, a book, or purely one's own imagination. When you do this, or rather, did this, though, you would really also have to think about the fundamental assumptions about the world made in the rules. Unfortunately, ever since Gygax was pried away from his creation (or technically, partially his creation, with much credit due to Arneson and others), the D&D property has been developed by other hands. While many of these people are quite creative and talented, most of them seem to have little understanding about the pre-existing focus and balance of the game. And this misunderstanding is communicated to the current generation of gamers.
So, why are orcs and such evil? Well, Tolkein is a big source of inspiration for D&D. In Tolkein, orcs are actually twisted remnants of elves, consigned to evil by an evil god. This notion that a being can be so constructed as to be incapable of making a moral choice is actually a fantastic concept in itself; that is to say, something that would really only be possible in fantasy. Actually, though, it's not very far removed from what used to be common thinking among most people in the real world. Not so very long ago, anyone you asked would tell you that Native Americans, or Africans, or any other less-technologically advanced people were 'incapable' of a wide variety of qualities, ranging from morality to intellectual pursuits. Even today, you could ask many christians, for example, whether an atheist could be considered 'good' and receive 'no' as a response.
In D&D, though, and D&D-influenced games, I suspect the reason that orcs are evil is more one of necessity than idea theft. After all, Paladins are Good, right? And Orcs are Evil. It is good for Paladins to kill Orcs, because Orcs are irredeemably evil. If Orcs were not evil, or irredeemably evil, then Paladins couldn't kill them carelessly. If Orcs have a moral choice, then they really should be available as a player character race. If you open this door, then soon you come to the proposition that any species with 2 brain cells to rub together ought to be available to players, and then you just have RIFTS, and you can see where this leads... ;)
On the other hand, I don't think that the concept of irrevocably evil races is so rosy either. If killing an evil being in a straight-up fight is considered good because the end result is destroying evil, then doesn't that open the door to less savory forms of behavior? Torture, assassination, infanticide, all-out genocide? Where do you stop, and what arguments do you present as to why?
First of all, I'd like to thank those who have posted so far for their feedback and encouragement.
Secondly, I'd like to address something that I think I might not have expressed in the clearest terms possible: one of the assumptions of my article is that racial *tension* is not only present in an average fantasy campaign world, but desirable. The tension creates drama, without which the plots in such a world might become very tedious indeed. The tension sets the stage for the characters to make their own choices against the backdrop of the attitudes of nearly everyone else (i.e., the "common folk") in the setting. Good role-players may decide to play their characters in keeping with the prevailing attitudes, or against them; in either case, I think you tend to see some thoughtful and interesting play.
Third, I'd like to address Chogokin's articulate post with a rebuttal. I will do this in my next post.
"What a lot of people these days don't understand (and little wonder, given how old these games are now), is that the original D&D material, especially AD&D, was really its own fantasy milieu."
Well, sir, I've been playing the game since 1979. I was admittedly a wee bairn at the time, but I think the past few decades have given me ample time to reflect upon the nature of D&D and its profound influence on the role-playing world.
"It described a world where heroes start out ridiculously weak and end up ridiculously strong. Where there are only 9 moral outlooks. Where the ultimate limit on your lifespan is your constitution score."
I would say that it remains thus. The primary difference, I would argue, is one of degree.
"And where some races can literally be born irredeemably and irrevocably evil."
You may note that I have conceded this point already. Where my opinion evidently differs from yours is with regard to where that line should be drawn.
"It wasn't just a stereotype, it was a design decision."
I am not sure that I can admit this statement as fact. If the wholesale and uncritical inclusion of Tolkien's archetypes may be said to be a design decision, then I suppose it is. But the archetypes found in D&D are drawn haphazardly from fiction (especially Tolkien, Leiber, and Moorcock) and mythology. Sometimes the rationale behind a given race's description in the original Monster Manual was self-evident (as with the orcish race); in many other cases, it was not (as with the centaurs).
If these archetypes were, as you say, "design decisions," then I hope to develop my opinion that they were bad ones.
"Now, was it a popular design decision? Obviously not."
I would argue that quite the reverse is true. Very, very rarely in my time as a D&D player have I seen a campaign depart radically, or even much at all, from the archetypes established by the AD&D designers.
"Unfortunately, ever since Gygax was pried away from his creation (or technically, partially his creation, with much credit due to Arneson and others), the D&D property has been developed by other hands. While many of these people are quite creative and talented, most of them seem to have little understanding about the pre-existing focus and balance of the game. And this misunderstanding is communicated to the current generation of gamers."
So the conception of the milieu by those who use it cannot evolve? Any change in this conception must necessarily arise from a 'misunderstanding'? I strongly disagree. Over nearly 25 years of play, I think one begins to appreciate what is good about a system or milieu and what is not so good. If a new generation of gamers evaluates the milieu and finds it wanting, who is to say that they are objectively wrong to do so?
Let's take the dungeon crawl by way of example. The AD&D designers, Gygax in particular, introduced this classic role-playing concept in the modules they wrote for the system. This entertaining concept became the standard conceit of fantasy role-play, and indeed remains so to a large degree: the authors of the 3d Ed Dungeon Master's Guide acknowledge as much. Yet, as entertaining as a good and well-conceived dungeon crawl can be, there are an increasing number of players--of all ages and persuasions--who find that it is only entertaining to a certain point. Beyond that point, it simply becomes hackneyed.
This is part of what I mean when I mention 'assumptions that are by now very cliche.' A number of us have been there and done that, many, many times over again. After a while, the notions that all orcs are evil and that it is perfectly ok, as the authors of a GURPS supplement put it, to murder people and rob them so long as you do this underground, start to seem strange. Worse, they become boring, and that is the cardinal sin of any game.
"This notion that a being can be so constructed as to be incapable of making a moral choice is actually a fantastic concept in itself; that is to say, something that would really only be possible in fantasy. Actually, though, it's not very far removed from what used to be common thinking among most people in the real world."
This very important point is something that I address in my article. To reiterate, the notion that such a view is plausible for fictitious people IN the setting does not mean that it must be adopted by real-life players OF the setting. Why? Because I find the idea that any human being is incapable of moral choice to be as ludicrous as it is repugnant. Where one may take the view that an entire race has committed itself to a negative moral choice--for example, in the case of the Drow--I think the labeling of that entire race with a negatively stereotypical alignment is appropriate. Otherwise, as a fan of history and a person living in the 21st century, I don't see the need for it, whether in fantasy or in reality. I used the orcs as my primary example because I feel that the removal of their race from the context of Tolkien deprives them from thier rationale as a 'bad guy' race. If we say that the entire orcish race has made a negative moral choice, the next question is 'why?' That's a question that D&D has never been able to answer to my satisfaction. Hence the article.
"In D&D, though, and D&D-influenced games, I suspect the reason that orcs are evil is more one of necessity than idea theft."
Why is it necessary, in a world containing demons, undead, mind flayers, and other thoroughly evil races, to add a handful of minor villains? I don't think that it is. Again, I think the conception of the humanoid races is half-baked at best and thoughtless at worst. I have a lot more fun allowing them to be more complicated characters than petty bandits, temple guards, and the like.
"If you open this door, then soon you come to the proposition that any species with 2 brain cells to rub together ought to be available to players, and then you just have RIFTS, and you can see where this leads... ;)"
There are two points here. The first concerns the proliferation of character races. With regard to that, I disagree. I don't think that adding a half-dozen or so more options to the mix necessarily invites an explosion of wanky character concepts. One need only consider the number of races available to begin with: does the inclusion of dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, half-elves, and half-orcs vitiate the integrity of the milieu? Obviously not. Furthermore, one begins to wonder, if a Dwarf can be Chaotic Evil (like Kurgan from Baldur's Gate 2), why cannot a half-orc be Lawful Good? The designers of 3d Ed were forced to concede this point in the Paladin class description in the Player's Handbook. Well, if a half-orc can be good, why cannot an orc?
The second point regards RIFTS. Your statement is interpretable in a number of ways: were I more perverse and contentious, I might suggest that you are saying that we would open the door to a thoughtful and original setting that is enjoyed by players all over the world. However, I assume that by use of this example, you mean to say that we would open the general high fantasy world setting to a wanky self-parody in which Pixie Clerics flit about in company with Vampire Paladins. To this I respond that I have already tried to address this point: it is my opinion that only races *with game statistics comparable to a human's* make worthy PCs, and that some races are suited to villainous roles by their very nature as fantastic creatures.
Furthermore, I point to Palladium, the fantasy system designed by the same author as RIFTS, and GURPS, designed in a very different mold altogether. Both of these systems allow the creation and play of humanoid characters from the get-go, and in practice neither one suffers from the flood of annoying character archetypes against which you have warned.
"On the other hand, I don't think that the concept of irrevocably evil races is so rosy either. If killing an evil being in a straight-up fight is considered good because the end result is destroying evil, then doesn't that open the door to less savory forms of behavior?"
Here you speak to one of my deepest problems with the D&D milieu. It is my firm opinion that, as flawed as the D&D alignment system is (Palladium's is *much* better, as such things go), a character of good alignment simply cannot cross certain boundaries. Even as a Chaotic Good character, I have argued violently with other "good" characters who wished to torture a goblin for information--solely on the basis of the fact that his is an "evil" race. I feel a rant about alignment coming on, and perhaps may submit it to the kindly editor here. For now, I will say only that to become what you behold is emphatically *not* to take the moral high road. Forgive me my pretentiousness in quoting Nietzsche: "Battle not with monsters, lest in doing so you become a monster yourself. And if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
When I am a player, Paladins are my preferred class. I like the sense of being heroic, protecting the weak, and doing the right thing. Vanquishing the legions of the dead and the minions of Hell gives me great satisfaction. But it's a simple pleasure. In a world where good and evil are not always so sharply defined, the paladin's task is more complex--and potentially far more rewarding. That, among other reasons, is why I force my players to rely less on their meta-gamed knowledge of the Monster Manual and their decades-old conception of "Gygax's original intent," and more on the actual behavior of the creatures they encounter.
I apologize to all for the length of this post, and to you in particular for dissecting your ideas in such detail. I have tried to restrain my natural impulse to nit-pick and split hairs, and to keep my remarks germane to the discussion.
It's interesting to me that the Monster Manual itself allows for astereotypical monster "characters". I'm saying characters because it takes a bit more thought to make someone astereotypical than any run-of-the-mill monster.
(Disclaimer: I don't actually have a Monster Manual. Everything I'm saying is based on the Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerun. I'm just assuming that it would be in the Manual too.)
At the end of the "Reading the Entries" section, there is a spot for Alignment. It gives three options for describing a species alignment: Always, Usually, and Often.
The Always descriptor is mostly reserved for undead, outsiders, elementals, and other beings with no control over their outlook on life (or unlife). "The creature is born with the given alignment. ... It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or one-in-a-milion exceptions."
"Usually: The majority (more than 50%)of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin." If I'm not mistaken, this is how the Manual describes orcs' alingment. Usually chaotic evil. According to the rulebook, up to 49% of orcs could be of the other eight alignments.
Which means that orcish paladins are entirely feasable. They're incredibly rare because all of the orcish gods are either NE or CE (see FR Campaign setting).
Lastly, there's the Often case. Exceptions are even more common (norm being 40-50% of population). These tend to be possible PC races (elves, dwarves, aarakocra, alaghi, planetouched).
I would think that "evil" races are considered evil because their cultures include the worship of evil deities, and they are forced to commit evil acts against their neighbors in order to survive. Most orcish communites are in the mountains and other inhospitable lands. Since the "goodly" races have the better land, they raid their farms and caravans for goods. And since the PCs, will be of the "goodly" races, opinions will be biased.
I'm sorry Cocytus, but I have to.
GURPS was written by Steve Jackson.
RIFTS was written by Kevin Siembieda.
They're not the same guy.
Sorry, I had to.
Steve Jackson, in my humble opinion, is one of the best minds in the gaming industry and was the first to create a truly universal RPG system in GURPS. Kevin Siembieda has good ideas but when put in print they are convoluted at best, this includes the Paladium system as well as world design.
I am, obviously, a Steve jackson fan and not real big on the whole Palladium thing, so I had to point out that totally insignifigant point on your post. And I didn't think it was too long at all, I enjoyed it allmost as much as original article.
Ashaqua,
The same is true with most of the settings besides Forgotten Realms. I like the spin you put on the concept but keep this in mind, the worship of a diety grows from the beliefs of it's followers and the diety is molded to fit that, not the other way around, despite what the christians would have us believe.
EateroftheDead:
Whoops! I see what you mean. This sentence of mine was confusing:
"Furthermore, I point to Palladium, the fantasy system designed by the same author as RIFTS, and GURPS, designed in a very different mold altogether."
I should've stated it differently. I would re-write it as follows:
"Furthermore, I point to Palladium, the fantasy system designed by the same author as RIFTS. I also point to Steve Jackson Games' GURPS, designed in a very different mold altogether. "
Sorry about the unclear writing. I do know they're wildly different authors. =)
As for Palladium, I agree that it's far from perfect...the book is poorly organized, and the system has many flaws. However, I prefer its class system to D&D's, and I greatly prefer its alignment system, which is far more logical and specific than its D&D equivalent.
Great article, and great discussion. Let me put in my two cents here. The idea of a whole race being "evil by nature" disgusts me. Unless we're talking about demons or creatures artificially created by a Dark God or other such as abound in Fantasy, the Alignment entries in the Monster Manuals should be taken with a grain of salt. "Killing them is justified, they are evil!" is a notion that I have come across often. Of course, player have the right to have their characters believe all kinds of things. Their racism towards non-human races might be pure hate propaganda, or it may be partially based in fact since humans/elves/dwarves often come into conflict with orcs, ogres, gnolls, drow or what-have-you. When those races return the deeply ingrained hatred and kill all humans on sight or take them as slaves, there's probably not much a player character can do to break the pattern. It is the GM's choice to provide food for thought by breaking the cliche. But I have met players and GMs who told me frankly that any attempt of my character to talk to or befriend members of evil race XY was doomed to fail as they're "evil by birth, it says so in the Monster Manual". That is a very sad thing. But a line is hard to draw. While I guess everyone can agree that a sadistic drow torturer is more evil than an orc warrior who slays peasants, and a mindflayer's alien mindset and its need to devour the brains of other sentients makes it unlikely that it can ever be redeemed in the eyes of other races, where do we draw the line between "scourging the land of evil creatures" and "murdering goblins because they raided the farm"?
My main problem is the Detect Evil spell and the Paladin class ability of the same name. The existence of Detect Evil (and Detect Chaos, Law, Good, Neutral) and weapons that do extra damage against certain alignments takes the purely mechanistic alignment system from the level of the game rules into the game world. If I can use a spell to label a creature Good or Evil, we are suddenly faced with moral absolutes. There may be degrees of evil: from weak emanation to strong wickedness, but when do you cross the line from "a bit naughty and selfish" to "evil to the core"?. If a Lawful Good character starts to torture a drow for information, is he still good?
Unfortunately, I have met a couple of players (many of them ran paladins) who used Detect Evil as a substitute for moral choice. If they got a *ping*, out came the sword and they killed the offender. If they could not determine if someone was "good" enough to be up to their standards, they didn't lift a finger to help them.
I started giving them ambiguous readings on the lines of: His aura is a bit smudged, darkgrey so to speak, but you feel no obvious "evil taint". It worked to get them thinking, but so far I only did that in regard to human NPCs and non-human races that were clearly neutral and merely defending their territory. I'm uncertain if the players will buy it when it comes to gnolls or orcs that have previously killed someone. Help or comments are appreciated.
To clearify: When I wrote "gnolls or orcs that have previously killed someone" I didn't mean cases where the gnolls clearly committed murder for fun or to rob, maim and devour humans. I think I draw the line there, thanks. (On the other hand, what about PCs who casually maim and kill gnoll children after they've slaughtered the parents? If the gnoll cubs are unable to defend themselves?) I meant cases in which the gnolls or orcs might have killed humans, but either in self-defense, or because of having been mislead by false information and used as pawns to start a rampant fear and paranoia in the human populace so that warmongering nobles have an easier time raising taxes and positioning military forces as a prelude to a war with a neighboring country.
I'd have no problem as a GM to hold the orcs to the same standards as humans, but the damn Detect Evil ability forces me to make an absolute choice as to their "evil taint or not".
Excellent, excellent points here, Memehunter. Let me attempt to address them one at a time:
"My main problem is the Detect Evil spell and the Paladin class ability of the same name...Unfortunately, I have met a couple of players (many of them ran paladins) who used Detect Evil as a substitute for moral choice...If they could not determine if someone was "good" enough to be up to their standards, they didn't lift a finger to help them...I started giving them ambiguous readings...It worked to get them thinking, but so far I only did that in regard to human NPCs and non-human races that were clearly neutral and merely defending their territory. I'm uncertain if the players will buy it when it comes to gnolls or orcs that have previously killed someone."
There are many ways to handle this.
--The first you have used already. The target just doesn't detect evil. I allude to this in my "short story" introduction to the article; Hector has used his Detect Evil power on the prisoner, and doesn't get a "ping." Since the orc is dressed as a paladin and claims to be a servant of a good and holy deity, the human paladins are at a loss with regard to what to do with him. Don't let your players browbeat you about this. If you say the orcs/gnolls/savage human tribesmen don't detect evil, then they don't. The characters must then decide where that leaves them...if they know these NPCs have killed "innocent" people, they may decide to administer justice on their own. But see below for my thoughts on that.
--Make items of undetectable alignment more common. In a civilized land where paladins, clerics, and others can detect thoughts and alignments, you have to figure that there are a large number of people who are interested in beating the system. Thieves, spies, evil infiltrators in good temples, and many others will have reason to use items that render their thoughts, auras, and alignments undetectable. Get your PCs used to encountering these items. Occasionally, you might even have a good-aligned person wearing such a thing. Maybe she simply wants her privacy. Maybe she's a spy in an evil temple. Who knows? The point is that using such a device does not guarantee the evil nature of the individual using it, just as the possession of a radar detector in our society does not mean that the owner habitually breaks the law by speeding. We can say: usually it does. But it doesn't always, and therefore your good-aligned characters will have to be careful about making accusations against people they can't read.
--A friend of mine who ran a short D&D campaign put a severe cramp in the style of the "radar paladins" in our group by having a lot of monsters, magic items, and even unholy locations register evil so strongly that the paladin detecting it became physically ill. He allowed a Fort Save to overcome the worst effects, but even a successful save rendered the paladin weaker for a period through temporary stat penalties. I kid you not: do this a few times, and your paladins won't be so damned detect-happy.
"If they got a *ping*, out came the sword and they killed the offender."
Look, you're the DM. Ask yourself: can they really get away with this? Maybe a Chaotic Good character could administer vigilante justice like this whenever he felt like it...*maybe*. But a paladin is *Lawful* Good. She must enforce the law, not flout it because she's found a potential criminal. Do your paladins have legal enforcement powers in the locales where they are administering such instant "justice"? If not, they are not behaving in a Lawful manner. If so, you can complicate the issue by introducing neutral and even evil NPCs whom the paladins cannot lawfully slay, such as a nobleperson of superior rank. By the law of the land, say, a nobleperson cannot be executed or even imprisoned without a trial of his peers. In such cases, the paladin PCs would have to build a case against the NPC, and do it carefully, lest they wind up on the wrong side of the law themselves.
Paladins who violate their alignment by being non-good or unlawful should be punished by the loss of their class status. This is a nasty consequence, and you should always give a PC warning before you do it. Say, "Bob, are you really sure you want to slay this Necromancer in the street? You're an alien here, and he's a tax-paying citizen of the local baron. Killing him yourself would be illegal, and might cost you paladin status. Before you put your Holy sword through his throat, do you wish to continue?"
With respect to PCs who wish to administer vigilante justice in the wilderness, you're often going to have to let them get away with it. But you have recourse in the gods of the land. What if the gnolls in question were devout worshippers of a nature goddess with both good and neutral worshippers? She might be sore wroth with the PCs for slaughtering one of her congregations simply because they felt they had a right to do so. She might plague them with her divine disfavor, or she might even appeal to the party's own gods. There's nothing like displeasure from on high to snap paladins and clerics into line. If that seems too severe, try making a powerful, well-known, and good-aligned NPC be upset with the PCs for their actions. If the local wizard, famous for his good and benevolent ways, comes out to berate the party for murdering his gnollish minions, they'll have to think twice about doing such a thing again. Even if they try to argue the question of the gnolls' "innocence" with the NPC, I think you'll have made your point that the administration of justice at sword-point is not always viewed as just by all observers. Your players will have second thoughts about it the next time.
"If a Lawful Good character starts to torture a drow for information, is he still good?"
That's a ruling for the DM. In my campaigns, the answer is "absolutely not." To become what you behold, in this instance, is to *become evil*. Let the Drow sneer at the paladin for his "weakness". Let the Drow taunt the paladin by saying, "In the Underdark, they'd have had the information you seek in a trice!" That's part of the burden of being a paladin...you must always uphold the law, and you must be absolutely pure of heart. If the agents of good resort to the methods of evil, then they have failed to champion their own cause. I will pull aside the player of any character who engages in physical torture, regardless of his motives, and let him know that his alignment has traversed a grade in the "evil" direction. If he was good before, I will tell him that the character is now neutral. I will downgrade a neutral character who consistently engages in physical torture to evil.
Psychological torture is a different story, and should be handled on a case-by-case scenario. I allow Paladins to engage in "good cop, bad cop" tactics because in most cases these methods do no permanent harm to the person being interrogated. But psychological torture can be just as nasty as physical torture. If the DM feels that the characters are being cruel or are inflicting a severe level of trauma, then it's no different from physical torture, in my opinion.
As a final note, you should make it very clear to your players what you expect from good-aligned characters. This is best done at the beginning of a campaign, but it's never to late to have a short conference before the game where you express your feelings that certain behaviors are out of line with your expectations of good alignment. If your players have some advance notice that specific behavior will not be considered "good" by you, then they'll be less likely to argue with you when you assess in-game consequences and penalties. Communication is key. I think most people are quite reasonable, given the chance. But it's not fair to spring a strict view of alignment on dyed-in-the-wool hack'n'slashers without at least giving them some warning of your change in perspective on character behavior.
One thing to consider when having deviant communities and cultures in a fantasy world is what role do the gods play. If the orcs were created by an evil and chaotic god to wreck havoc upon the world, then he might get annoyed by the peaceful orc commune that decided to abandon the ways of violence and seek peace through meditation and farming.
Likewise, the elvish god who created the elves to live in harmony with nature, might get a bit wrathful about the elvish mining and industrial complex pouring toxins into the local rivers. The less active or powerful the world's gods, the more likely such 'pockets' of non-stereotypical cultures are likely to develop.
Mark Harm - Marketing Director
Rampant Mouse Medieval Latex Weaponry
www.rampantmouse.com
Well, Mark, I'm sorry to be monopolizing the discussion here, but...
Ashaqua brought up the same point a few posts above, and I agree completely with EateroftheDead's succinct answer.
The rejoinder that "humanoids can't be good because their gods won't let them" is, in my estimation, no answer at all. Take a moment to consider how many deities are available to human worshippers in any of the standard D&D settings, and compare that number to the number of deities available to *any* non-human race. Why, of all the races, do humans alone have deities that permit them any moral choice? I think the answer is self-evident: because the designers of the setting had stereotypes in mind for those races, and crafted the deities to fit those stereotypes. I think the limited Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms "pantheons" available to non-human characters are every bit as cliche as the racial stereotypes themselves.
I could go on, but I'd be getting into a whole other (if tangential) subject altogether. Thanks for getting me thinking about it, though, because there's room for an entire article on the subject of fantasy cosmogony.
I don't think its no answer at all, Cocytus.
If, in your campaign world, a certain non human race was created by a specific god, and
If that god had some particular purpose in mind when creating them, then
If you are going to declare that certain groups of that non human race have abandoned that purpose, you really ought to at least have some explanation.
Did they abandon their god? Who do they worship now? Did all of them abandon the god? What do the worshippers of the original god think about this? What do they think about the worshippers of the original god?
With humans, you usually have some sort of explanation. For example, god such and such created humans, but humans were a flawed creation, and after a particular event they abandoned that god, except for this one group right here. The rest of them started worshipping these other gods, and now they all fight.
A similar explanation, in miniature, might be worth while in justifying the lawful good paladin's order of orcs. What was the original god like? Why did they abandon him/her? What event caused this? How do they relate to orc society?
Of course, not all of this may be worth pursuing for many races in one game. But, if you're an author of fiction, these are important, and investigating just one race might be fun for a campaign. A campaign in which the characters get embroiled in a conflict between the orcish hordes, and a group of orcs who have somehow learned the merits of peaceful meditation might be worthwhile. There's certainly room for a fun book there. Maybe make one of the characters an orc paladin, and give him some sort of rage penalty, such that he fears and hates his own orcish nature. There's certainly options, but the actions of the original diety are definitely part of a legitimate world.
I appreciate that, Cadfan, and I thank you for your thoughtful and interesting post.
Perhaps I did not express myself well. "No answer at all" is an overstatement of my position. I will attempt to clarify:
When considering the nature of a fantasy world, one typically makes assumptions about its inhabitants. While one can assume that all (or the majority of) humanoids are evil by nature, it is my opinion that this assumption is hackneyed. I've been down that road, and I believe I know where it leads.
Similarly, one can assume that the gods of a world have a certain nature. We can assume that certain races are evil because they have evil gods. Or we can assume that certain gods are only worshipped by certain races, whether through divine kinship or moral affinity.
I personally don't think that those assumptions are all that interesting anymore, because they're the assumptions that I've been playing with for so many years. Why not assume that all gods are worshipped by all intelligent species, to some degree or another? If your world features real, tangible gods whose display of power can be seen by all, doesn't it make sense that even (or perhaps especially) sentients who were afraid of that god's wrath would pay that god some kind of homage? Remember, in many real-life mythologies, some gods (Hecate, Tezcatlipoca, Kali, and so on) were as much worshipped out of fear as from any other form of regard. Though the clergy will be close to the deity's alignment or ethos, good people might pay tribute to evil gods and vice versa.
When you reverse engineer the gods from your conception of a sentient race, you seem likely to reinforce any stereotypes you were working from. While the interesting possibilities you mention do exist, I simply wonder why you should restrict yourself to that sort of model from the beginning. You can, but you don't have to. That's what I was trying to say.
Excellent article, Cocytus. In my experience (which I by no means am claiming is authorative, but it is my own), sentient races most easily avoid stereotypes by having well-defined cultures, and NPCs who are individuals. The conflict that typically arises in long-running games is not "good" versus "evil," but culture versus culture.
Example: Happy, singy Disney-fied cleric of good and light (think Pfiffany from Nodwick) and party slay a bunch of orc warriors. Cleric breaks down and cries when they find cavern of orc women and children hiding. Remaining male orc spits on cleric's pity and leaves with remaining band.
Two years later, cleric confronts orc, now a mighty leader because of his ability to unite peoples. Both sides have to join together against a common enemy. Cleric has learned how, in the orcish culture of htis world, it is important that she show strength and fearlessness. While in her culture, it was important to show love and forgiveness, she has learned she functions better if she respects the traditions of the orcish tradition when in their company. The "evil" race taught the member of the "good" race something about her own assumptions.
I think that your take on the gods, above, is interesting. However, I think that also one should think of the religious wars that we face in our own world. To many people, their god and his/her/its power is manifest and tangible. Yet they are willing to kill those who worship another god, even if it goes against the teachings of their god. An important thing, to me, to remember is that most sentient beings are going to act with free will. Some people have said that human beings were created to worship and glorify one of the gods in our modern society; do all humans do so? I think that it really depends, more than deity or race, on the power structures in place over people.
I hope this makes sense...I'm at work and kind of addle-brained.
Alright, a few thoughts:
1. Gods can change. Zeus was a gracious man, but he also slept with anyone or thing. Hades, god of the underworld, made multiple attempts to please his bride Persephone when she spent time in the underworld. Poseidon was generous and intelligent, but also at times greedy and selfish. In truth, maybe your gods can be complex NPCs all their own.
2. Yes, these are grand ideas for fiction writers to play with. I am. Bookaya!! (a word that should be in usage...use it or else!)
3. Here's a campaign plot or maybe just a subplot: Recreate the spanish inquisition against some orcs. Make Paladins the bad guys. Yeah, a holy war where the orcs are harmless. No one will probably see it coming. Let's face it. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (one 42th of a point for reference...bonus points for what 42 really is.... :p ....)
Now, some questions:
1. What is a gnoll? (I'm young and play mostly computer RPGs....educate me please!)
2. Eaterofthedead, what did us Christians do to you? I don't mean to sound rude, but do you now of one religion that beleives they formed their deity? I'm not wishing to pick a fight, I am saying that rather I don't unerstand, or you have got something very buggy in your head. I think it's the first. Please reply to my post, as I am sincerely desring to know what you're talking about.
3. As well as gnolls, what are firbolgs? (like I said earlier, I'm severely clueless.Help MEEE!!!!!)
Questioningly yours,
Theo
First, Lilith:
Interesting post. Without going too much into it (there really is a whole other topic here), all I want to say is that just because everybody worships the same gods and acknowledges that they all exist does *not* mean that everybody agrees on how those gods should be worshipped. From an academic perspective, we can view Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a religious continuum. You can argue that they all have different interpretations of how to worship the same God: most Muslims certainly argue that case (Jews and Christians might disagree, but let us table that issue for the purpose of this discussion). Does a shared religious heritage keep them from murdering each other? Obviously not. This same dynamic can be preserved in a fantasy setting, with very interesting results.
Second, Theo: Let me give it a shot.
"Gods can change."
True, but your examples are all drawn from the more static gods in mythology. Zeus may have angled for the hand of "golden-sandaled Hera" in the initial lottery with his brothers Hades and Poseidon, but his philandering nature seems to have been a fairly constant aspect of his personality thereafter. It's hard to blame the guy; he was raised by nymphs.
For a better look at god-persona evolution, you need look no further than what we call the Old Testament, which tracks Yahweh/El-Elohim's investigation of his/its own divine self. Still better examples can be found in Norse mythology: Odin in particular changes a great deal over time.
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!"
That's our chief weapon: surprise.
"...bonus points for what 42 really is"
The Great Answer and the Great Question cannot co-exist in the same space-time continuum.
"Bookaya!! (a word that should be in usage...use it or else!)"
I have what I believe is a better word: **frumple** (apologies for that obscure reference)
"What is a gnoll?"
Gnolls are seven-foot-tall, dog-headed humanoids. They are mostly evil, as described in the Monster Manuals of every edition of D&D. You fight them in a memorable sequence of the original Baldur's Gate PC game. If you have not played the Baldur's Gate series for the PC (*not* to be confused with the Diablo II-style Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series for the Xbox), I highly recommend them.
Gnolls bear a strong resemblance to Kevin Siembieda's Wolfen from the Palladium RPG, though, as noted, Siembieda does not saddle them with the same alignment stereotype.
If gnolls have a mythological origin, I am unaware of it.
"Eaterofthedead, what did us Christians do to you?"
Well, I am not Eaterofthedead, though I do seem to agree with a lot of the things he(?) says. This is a complex question, Theo, but I ask you to think about it. The answer is not that hard to understand. In general terms, one may say that a religion's teachings are often at odds with the practices of its followers. In more specific terms, it should be easy for you to understand that not all self-described Christians are so tolerant and open-minded as yourself. When people label a group, they tend to remember the negative actions of a small extreme more than the benevolent actions of a more moderate majority. But let us not get bogged down in religious discussions here. I, for one, am here to discuss fantasy (and other sorts of) gaming: these things are by definition "not real." If you wish a detailed explanation of Eater's religious views, or mine, or anyone else's, consider the method of private e-mail.
"I don't mean to sound rude, but do you now of one religion that beleives they formed their deity?"
Again, I am not Eater, so I don't know what he had in mind. However, I believe I agree from an academic standpoint: the precepts and divine personality of a religious sect tend to reflect the beliefs of its devotees. If one person claims to experience the presence of the divine directly, we may choose to believe that person or not. But that belief or disbelief is a separate question from the personality of the divinity as portrayed by that sect.
Neil Gaiman's _Sandman_ graphic novels explore the concept of a universe in which the gods are literally created by those who believe in them. If you have not read these, I recommend them highly.
"what are firbolgs?"
Firbolgs are giants. They have their origins in Irish mythology, if I am not mistaken, and are mythological representations of a historical wave of invaders in Ireland's distant past. I don't know much more than that, but I do know that Warcraft 3 incorporated an amusing variant, the "furbolg," which was sort of an owlbear-cum-firbolg, as a neutral race.
Cheers.
Obviously, we're getting pretty far afield here. The whole religious question started as an investigation into its reinforcement of or justification for fantasy stereotypes. I would welcome further discussion in that vein, and apologize for going on the wild tangent above.
"If you knew the answer and the question, you would not exist, for they cannot exist."
"Get me a frog. Boy will I see THEM in a new light!!!"
Okay then....FRUMPLE! Hate to say it but bookaya sounds better, more poetic, y'know?
Anyquack, thanks for the Christmas reading list, Cocytus and I hereby apologize for the gaming communities worldwide for anything he "Christian" churches have don to any of you. I myself am a person who des not think D&D or anything else you guys play has much to do with Satan, excluding the marketing division.....*shudders in fear*.......Marketing must die!!!!!! DIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!
But seriously, I don't buy that you've sold your souls. Your social lives, maybe, but y'all argue too well to lose your souls. Thanx for the info on the other two things, cocytus, I have one last thing to bug y'all about:
Is there any of these monster guides online? I only ask because I have no money, and I doubt I'm geetin anything along those lines for Christmas.
Sorry if I got a little annoyed or rude, but I'm just tired of Christian-bashing. You think gamers as pimply, sickly, little geeks who exert erotic fantasyies about elves all the dancing day is cheap, you should try being pinned as a gospel music loving, suit and tie wearing, angel in a white suit. Or being thought of as part of the "religious right". I get bashed by total strangers who believe that they have to have a thirty minute debate on how much of a jerk God must be to let people suffer if He exists just because I sad "God bless you".
I am a Christian.
I like Led Zeppelin.
I like Christian Heavy Metal.
I am only 16 years old, but I am almost sarcastic as Luis Black.
I have way, way, too much time on my hands.
I really am sorry if I, or any other Christian, poked and jabbed at you nice folks because of "believing the preacher, not the Bible".
May God bless you as much as he has blessed me, and may you forgive my poor spelling. And my jumping off of topic. I think I just took it the wrong way. Sorry Eater, not tryin' to make ya look bad, just struck a chord in me, ya know what I mean?
Devoutly(and rather poilitely apoletically) yours,
Theophenes
I would like to recnat there:
" for the Christmas reading list, Cocytus and I apologize" in the statement above was meant to be " for the Christmas reading list, Cocytus. I apologize".
Sorry my grammar needs work. Spend some of the week thinkng in french grammar tenses.
Ingrammatically yours,
Theophenes
Heh... Eater of the dead said :
'The same is true with most of the settings besides Forgotten Realms. I like the spin you put on the concept but keep this in mind, the worship of a diety grows from the beliefs of it's followers and the diety is molded to fit that, not the other way around, despite what the christians would have us believe.'
This is an interesting concept, widely used in fantasy settings, and a view generally held by atheists. Believers, such as Theophenes, and myself, and presumably npc's in fantasy games, do not see it that way. They see their god as immutable (unchanging), omnicient, and omnipotent. Eater is expressing his view, which is fine, but its no more likely to be the truth than anyone else's view.
An even more interesting thought just came to me. Is it possible for a Monotheistic religion such as Islam, or Christianity to exist in a fantasy setting ? After all, the other gods manifest themselves strongly in the form of their clerics. It is surely useless denying their existence ? Does anyone have any thoughts on this ?
Yes. GURPS Fantasy incorporates fantasy versions of both Christianity and Islam into the Yrth setting.
I have developed a setting of my own in which everyone acknowledges the existence of the gods, but people of different religions disagree about what they are. The monotheists worship the creator god, and say that the other gods are angels or devils (according to their alignments). The polytheists worship the gods, and say that the creator god is dead. And the atheists claim that the gods are not gods at all, just powerful aliens.
The last half-dozen posts or so indicate to me that there is plenty of room for fantasy cosmology to be a topic unto itself.
Mohammed-
Pretty much all of the early judeo descended religions were somewhat polytheistic at first. They felt that other gods were very, very bad, of course, but they believed in the existance of other supernatural beings besides their own deities, and they occasionally referred to these beings as gods. As such, I'd expect they could be incorporated in that form into a fantasy game quite easily.
"This is an interesting concept, widely used in fantasy settings, and a view generally held by atheists."
Just to point out- I've never, ever met an atheist who believed that, and I am an atheist myself. Every atheist I have ever met simply did not believe in the existance of any gods. I have, however, read many fantasy authors who utilized that as a plot device. Those authors might be atheists for all I know, but I don't think they believed in the religions in the fantasy world's they made up.
Cocytus, Thanks for that solution. It neatly solves the problem. The Monotheists will believe that their creator god is the 'One True God' and all other supernatural beings are of a lesser stature.
Cadfan17, sorry I was generalizing about atheists. I meant only to say that I have come across the belief that mankind basically creates its own Gods from its own imagination, and I've always assumed that this was an atheistic belief, but you're quite right, I don't actually know how widely held it is.
Cadfan17, On your other point about early judeo descended religions being somewhat polytheistic. I agree about early Judaism which saw its God as the God of Israel rather than the God of all people. However, I think Christianity was Monotheistic from the start, to the best of my knowledge. And I assure you, as a Muslim, that the most basic belief in Islam is that there is only one God.
HAH ! I just thought of another interesting problem for Monotheists in a fantasy setting ! If they believe that there is only One true God, then he must have created all races including Orcs and other generally evil acting races. If he made them intrinsically evil, then surely he is behaving with great cruelty to them? The question is do they have souls ? and can they be saved ? Can there be such a thing as a born again Orc ? I see endless possibilities for religious debate and happy schism !
As you guys may have worked out by now. My favorite character to play, is the Cleric !
:=)
"If they believe that there is only One true God, then he must have created all races including Orcs and other generally evil acting races. If he made them intrinsically evil, then surely he is behaving with great cruelty to them? The question is do they have souls ? and can they be saved ? Can there be such a thing as a born again Orc ?"
Well, that feeds right back to my article, Mohammed. This question is one reason why I built my campaign around two important assumptions:
A) Most sentient races are not inherently evil.
B) No *race* has its own particular god or pantheon; all sentients acknowledge the existence of the gods, even if they cannot agree precisely on what the gods are (as noted above).
Can monotheism spread to the Orcs? In my setting, it has done so. Because the Great Church of the primary monotheistic nation neglected to send evangelists to the Orcs, the Orcish nation received only a garbled version of monotheism from captive paladins. A cult spread among the Orc soldiers that the creator god was not only still alive, but that he had named the Orcs as his Chosen People and would lead them to victory over the elves and humans. The monotheist clerics call this cult "shadow monotheism" and view it as heresy. The predominantly polytheistic Orcs, for their part, tolerate the cult because it inspires great valor in the Orcish soldiers.
And yes, religious factionalism not only (in my opinion) lends credibility to the setting, it can provide numerous plot ideas and generally be a great deal of fun. =)
Mohammed,
as to your question:
"I meant only to say that I have come across the belief that mankind basically creates its own Gods from its own imagination, and I've always assumed that this was an atheistic belief, but you're quite right, I don't actually know how widely held it is."
Not only is this theory (not a belief) it widely held among deists, agnostics, philosophers, anthropologists, atheists and anyone who studies religions in their cultural-historical background, there is a lot of evidence pointing to it that it is true. People, cultures, churches, prophets and politicians shape and alter the belief-image of their god(s) to their own ends, reflecting the predominant cultural paradigm.
Now, lest you think this is just atheist propaganda (actually I consider myself an agnostic Humanist) and stop reading, let me clarify the definitions here:
1) One the one hand, we have a _belief system_ about a monotheistic god figure (or a pantheon, or animistic spirits) as propagated to every new generation through the teachings of parents and the Church, re-inforced through rituals, political and social pressure (orthodoxy, Inquisition, religious fanatism). Over time, this belief system grows up like a shell around the original core teachings of a faith, and may completely overwhelm and reshape them into something new. Splinter-sects or whole new denominations invariable spring from it. A faith in the hands of people becomes a political tool, to enforce social cohesion by demarcating your own group/tribe/nation against the other "heretics" and "unbelievers", or, in worst cases, a means of oppression. When we talk about Christianity (which one?), Islam (which version?), Mosaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Animism, etc, they're all _belief systems_, codified over centuries, man-made faiths.
Look at all those gods with anthropomorphical features, how they changed, and yet people believed in them. Look at the Bible for examples of "divine drift" against the historical background. Yaweh started out in the minds of people as a wrathful tribal god, big on smiting and killing all those who were not of the "chosen people" but protecting, doing miracles and leading his folk to the promised land. Once the Israelites had settled down, the whole belief structure became more complex but also more rigid. Later, Christianity splintered from it but quickly mutated from the teachings of Jesus into a more codified faith (borrowing lots of ideas from other faiths along the way) and fell prey to the vice of religious intolerance once its Church became a state power.
Sadly, many monotheisms and their followers are utterly intolerant of other religions, because they need to pretend to have the One Single Truth, overwise what's the point of declaring all other god figures deceivers and devils? (Interestingly, no monotheism has ever claimed that the *other* gods are simply inventions of *their* believers... such skepticism would open the door to questions by the faithful how exactly one could be sure that one's god was the only real one..? It would be a bummer, now, if is turned out you had worshipped the wrong divine being all that time, no?)
2) On the other hand, there may actually *be* a God (or Gods), creator of the universe, worshipped in many lands under many names. But if God is transcendent, his existance is a matter of faith and thus can never be factually proven to the unbeliever, and His (or Her) true nature is likely undescribable and ineffable to the limited human mind, to *any* human mind, even to a prophet. If we knew Him, we would know the will of God. Therefore, I will not discuss this point further. Period.
Now, to get back to the topic of D&D and similar fictional worlds and pantheons...
[quote] "If they believe that there is only One true God, then he must have created all races including Orcs and other generally evil acting races. If he made them intrinsically evil, then surely he is behaving with great cruelty to them? The question is do they have souls ? and can they be saved ? Can there be such a thing as a born again Orc?"
It depends on if you have a monistic or dualistic monotheism. Under a monistic worldview, the Creator will be believed to have created "all races including Orcs and other generally evil acting races", simply because if not he then who did it? Therefore, it would not be compulsory for orcs to be intrinsically evil, unless that was their place in the order of things. In that case... well, they're screwed. A monistic god contains within him both Good and Evil and all things between, he is Creator-Preserver-Destroyer evenhandedly. So he would be entirely contend to people the world with "good" races to worship him, and evil races to keep the worshippers on their toes. No-one expects him to be merciful. It is interesting to note that the faith of Moses and Abraham originally started out as monistic.
Under a dualistic worldview you basically have two antipodal powers: Good vs Evil, Light vs Dark, Male vs Female, Female vs Male, Order vs Chaos, God vs the Devil. The trouble with this is, once you get two powers that struggle with each other, then God is in essence no longer almighty. If God was almighty, omniscient etc, how could The Devil resist him? Some faiths get around this by making one side less powerful than the other, in fact the Bad Guy may be nothing more than a nasty troublemaker, a former subordinate of the Creator (e.g. the rebel angel Luzifer). Thus the universe was created in perfection and beauty, only to be later perverted by an evil spirit.
If both sides are equally strong and equally important to the working and explanation of the universe, they can never overcome each other permanently. Often, both powers come from the same womb, are born from the "cosmic egg" or similar unified source, or are born when a "Primal One" splits into two (or more) forms - this is called "the breaking of the one into the manifold" in cosmological mythology. This may sound like a polytheism, but those powers can be emanations of the same principle. Just think of the Christian Holy Trinity of God, The Son & and Holy Ghost, or the Hinduistic Trinity of Brahma-Vishnu-Krishna.
Finally, if you slip into a strong dualism, where the whole universe becomes a battleground for the the divine forces of Good and Light vs. the demonic forces of Darkness and Vice. One such view is found in the kabbalistic principle of the ten Sefiroth. Another is Manichaeism, a version of Gnosticism founded by Mani, that spread from the Persian empire and India to China and Europe. Both Good and Evil are independent of each other in this case, but it is said when the material world and mankind were created, they mixed with each other. Salvation could only come by 'gnosis' (knowledge) and revelation and by joining the cosmic fight on the side of the divine. (This idea is quite often borrowed by fantasy authors, most notably Michael Moorcock in his Eternal Champion books.)
In the Middle Ages, gnosticism deteriorated into a deeply pessimistic view. In light of the corruption of the Christian Church and the popes, "heretic" sects like the Katharer in the 12th century and the Waldenser taught that the material world had been created by Satan, who claimed to be the Christian god, while the true Pancreator existed apart from the world. Angel souls had been forced into mortal bodies by the Devil when he created Adam and Eve. The Katharer, Albigenser and other sects were deeply faithful, their members strove to lead virtuous lifes, to abstain from sex and wordly possessions. They were hunted down as devil worshippers and wiped out by the Inquisition when their influence started to spread from southern France throughout Europe.
But... this has become a rather longer posting than what I originally intended, I am sorry.
Now, I think the first and most important thing a GM has to deceide for his world is: Since we are talking about a Fantasy setting here, do the god(s) regularly intervene in matters of faith and politics? Do the faithful have proof as to their existance? In that case every race, human, elf, orc, whatever, may rightly claim to be the Chosen Ones, even if their individual gods tell them to eradicate each other. Is there a higher cosmological structure that divides the world into Good and Evil (and Neutrality)? Are immortal souls part of the parcel, or is creation by a god (in contrast to just having crawled from the forest) not neccessarily proof that the race has souls?
You may get a world were human clerics of different faiths rouse their faithful into wars over some (to outsiders) trivial point of disagreement, while the non-humans are left on the sidelines: "Yes, orcs are evil, as they worship Urtz the Unsaintly, but really, at least they do not dare to befoul our most sacred teachings about Lugh the Lightbringer! Death to heretics!" This way well bring a less religious-minded race (dwarves, elves, gnomes, orcs) to a position of power in the game world in the long run, if they can avoid wasting their ressources in religious wars and instead keep to ancestor-worship. They might start a secular state where clerics are forbidden to preach, and instead anatomists and healers are encouraged to find cures without the help of meddlesome gods. They might sell weapons to the crusading humans and wait until the humans are devasted by war, and then move in.
Hmmmmm.............
Er.......
OK, this has gotten way out of hand. This philosophical debate is a little out of my league.
On a more interesting note, who would like to see an Orcish tribal chieftain/ Southern Baptist preacher? I think it would be interesting, and I bet one of you could pull it off.
Devoutly (By The TRUE WoRD Of Da LAAAHHWWWDD ALMIGHTY! AMEN!!) and with a bad fake Southern Baptist accent,
Theopehenes
Thanks for the Religious Tour Memehunter. I enjoyed it.
To get back to the fantasy world setting, I've always been against Gods that intervene in a clear, provable way. Surely this is a negation of faith and means that everyone would be a believer. The whole world would be defined by religion and all races would be mere puppets or proxies in a cosmic war. I find this a very boring scenario. Indeed, even good and evil has little meaning when your god is telling you what to do. Good becomes what is desiredby the deity, and evil becomes everything else.
So, in my campaigns, the Gods (if they exist at all) never intervene directly in a provable way. Clerical powers are not granted directly by the deity (although priests may believe that they are). Instead these powers are generated by the sheer belief and willpower of the priest, coupled with an innate talent that lies buried in certain talented individuals unless released by various priestly processes and disciplines. Hence, every priest will not be able to perform magic even if he has great belief in his deity. A few will be blessed by the talent, as well as belief, and they will be regarded as especially close to the deity by people .
Notice, that this system allows a great amount of flexibility in behaviour for a priest, even in the same religion. For example, you could have a saintly hermit capable of doing magic and providing free healing to the poor. In the same religion you could have a murderous inquisitor, fanatically convinced of the justice of his methods and capable of great miracles.
The Gods should be a mystery, else what scope for wisdom.
Sorry this just bugged me.
YHWH is the right word.
YaHWeH was created when they were translating the word by adding the greek vowels from God to the original Hebrew name YHWH. There isn't a known pronunciation. It was forgotten over time, as no one used it as a matter of fear and reverence.
If I am wrong about that in any way, please tell me. I'll check my sources on this info.
Second, you botched the first reference. "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!" was a cheap ripoff of Monty Python.
Third, "frumple" was a reference I coud not track down. So, in the prestigious wrods of my Great-Grandpapa Koosalagoopagoop III, "HUH???"
Peculiarly yours,
Theo
Very well.
'YHWH'/'YHVH' is the correct set of Hebrew letters, yes. It's true that Hebrew had no vowels when the OT books were collected, but I think most people acknowledge that the pronunciation of the words was understood. Greek, similarly, had no vowels at first because they weren't deemed necessary.
As you are doubtless aware, another popular rendering of YHVH is "Yehovah."
In many places in the OT (such as Genesis), what we translate as 'God' actually reads 'Elohim', which literally translates 'the gods'. A few scholars who feel...charitable...to the biblical apologists have suggested that 'Elohim' is a shorter way to write 'El-Elohim', which means something such as 'the god of gods'.
Both names, in my opinion, are appropriate designators for the Judeo-Christian God. This is a subject unto itself, and really has no place here, however. If you want more information, you can e-mail me as always.
"Second, you botched the first reference."
My dear Theo, I did nothing of the kind. I wrote:
"That's our chief weapon: surprise." If you are a true aficionado of that particular episode of MPFC, you will note that this is the phrase that immediately follows the exclamation "nobody expects...!"
Say what you will about me: the moment I miss a Monty Python reference as obvious as that one, you may pronounce me legally dead.
"Third, "frumple" was a reference I coud not track down."
That's ok. It's on the web, but I shall elucidate for you:
It's a reference to the video game StarControl 2, which came out some time in '91 or '92. You can download a port of it at http://sc2.sourceforge.net/ if you're interested.
The word **frumple** is used by Orz, apparently an extradimensional being or beings. Orz's speech is so foreign that the translation computer cannot accurately render its speech: the result is a lot of silly best-fit words marked by asterisks.
The pertinent quote is as follows:
"I am say best word *frumple*. Maybe you do not know.
*Frumple* be *round* and yet *lumpy*. So bad!!!"
But the thing is, a lot of people WANT to play stereotypical characters. As a DM you shouldn't not let them play what they want to.
"But the thing is, a lot of people WANT to play stereotypical characters. As a DM you shouldn't not let them play what they want to."
Not the point at all, old bean, not the point at all. The point is to give everybody more freedom, GM and players alike. It's the stereotypes that I find restrictive; I'm not trying to force my view of (for example) the Orcish race down the throat of a player who wants to play an Orc.
If you want to play a stereotype, there's plenty of room to do so. A player in my last campaign played a stereotypical Dwarf, and had a great time. Yes, there's a reason these archetypes appear in our games. But it's been done before (and before, and before, and before). When I talk about breaking out of stereotypes, I'm just pointing a finger to a wider spectrum of possibilities.
On the topic of playing against type, I've never found it to be particularly successful in D&D. Part of this is the design limitations of the alignment system, which has not only story implications, but design implications as well.
I think the worst aspects are for story reasons though. Part of the degree of freedom a player has comes from her ability to know the setting, to anticipate reactions according to the logic of the world, rather than looking always to the GM to spoonfeed the cues to her, lest she make a mistaken assumption. If the GM is spoonfeeding cues, then this means the player has less control.
The biggest window into that world is through the players themselves. If your world has dwarves that are greedy, but the player is making her dwarf into Mother Theresa, then this portrayal will ultimately overplay and undercut the foundation of relations in your setting.
I saw it happen in one of my own games when I relented to allow a player to play a "good" duergar. Eventually, we ended up dipping into the Underdark and encountering the duergar as a villian, which led to problems in players wondering how to resolve this unintentional distraction from the real story, which was much more simple, and much more enjoyable.
Look, this ain't Shakespeare, and these aren't Oscar performances. It's not up to the players to supply all the drama in an adventure - at some point, they should encounter an external story that is more interesting than their own interior monologue, or else something is wrong. Typically among the players with the greatest desire to be RP "Artistes" they ALWAYS look to the basic PHB, close it, and then say "What else is there?" They do it with every new game, and they do it with new editions and rewrites of the existing ones. It's its own cliche.
Is it really that much better to have an Orcish florist? A good Drow? How does having these in the party affect their reputation in the rest of the world?
You raised a point in your article, Cocytus about most people trusting centaurs because, if they run into a centaur, nine times out of ten, the centaur they'll meet is one of the good guys.
I don't know if this was the fault of Gygax or one of his ilk, but in the Monster Manual it clearly says that centaurs are 'chaotic good'. This annoys me, because, if you look back on the ancient Greek myths from which the centaur springs from, they are far from chaotic good. They're always drunken and rowdy, abduct attractive young maidens and ravish them (exactly how, I'm not sure, the mechanics of it are mind-boggling), turn up at weddings uninvited, enjoy getting into fights, and murder people with poisoned arrows. I'd say they're better suited to a chaotic nuetral alignment, and, when I play them as NPCs, they usually are. So, whenever PCs in my campaign encounter centaurs, they know that they're reckless, quick to quarrel drunkards who are generally not nice people to be around.
"I've never found it to be particularly successful in D&D."
I have. Hence the article.
"Part of this is the design limitations of the alignment system, which has not only story implications, but design implications as well."
No argument there.
"I think the worst aspects are for story reasons though. Part of the degree of freedom a player has comes from her ability to know the setting, to anticipate reactions according to the logic of the world..."
I'm assuming that the players have played a fantasy RPG before, and that their expectations could use a little confounding.
"Eventually, we ended up dipping into the Underdark and encountering the duergar as a villian..."
I don't mean to be rude, but hadn't you given any though to that problem when you said, "yes, you may play a Duergar"? If you're going to let a PC play against type, but you intend to use the rest of the race according to type, and you haven't given any structure to the PC's relationship with the rest of the group, then, yes, you're going to have problems. But your anecdote suggests to me that you were focused on different elements of the game.
"...which led to problems in players wondering how to resolve this unintentional distraction from the real story, which was much more simple, and much more enjoyable."
That's really a matter of personal perspective, isn't it? Some people like simple, "we're the heroes and everybody else is dead" grindfests or dungeon crawls. Others like the sense that the world they're experiencing is real, mutable, and impacted by the actions of the players.
"Look, this ain't Shakespeare, and these aren't Oscar performances."
Ah, yes, Nephandus, thank you. Without you, I might go around mistaking everything in my life for high art.
Save it. You say it's only a game? Good. That means we are free to make of it what *we* will. If we are pretentious about it, does that mean we aren't having fun? Of course not. It may not suit you personally, but then it doesn't need to.
"at some point, they should encounter an external story that is more interesting than their own interior monologue, or else something is wrong."
Why, yes! An adventure should be a story. Very good. What if the story is about a misfit? What if not every decision in the story is obviously "right"?
If you are trying to tell me that a moral conundrum cannot add anything to a heroic and action-filled story, then you're wrong.
"Typically among the players with the greatest desire to be RP "Artistes" they ALWAYS look to the basic PHB, close it, and then say "What else is there?" They do it with every new game, and they do it with new editions and rewrites of the existing ones. It's its own cliche."
Damn them for having imaginations and wanting to exert their own personalities on their characters! Personally, I think all players should be indulged to some degree. It's called "having fun." In a movie, it might be inexcusable, or at best a little thin: but I thought you said this was just a game?
"Is it really that much better to have an Orcish florist?"
Ah, yes, the reductio ad absurdum. How nice of you.
It should be patently obvious to you that I have had some success with characters who weren't typical - that, in fact, these characters (NPCs, for what it's worth) helped foster situations and entire plotlines that my players are still talking about a year later. They couldn't remember the name of the evil cleric they killed in the catacombs of the capital, but they all remembered the half-orc ranger they met on the road there (and some of them were even trying to help him with his love life dozens of sessions afterward).
"A good Drow?"
There's a cliche in itself - one reason why I warned against it. But it *did* work for the Forgotten Realms writers in the character of Drizzt Do'Urden, one of the most oft-copied characters in the history of the game. No, Nephandus, let me preempt you: Forgotten Realms fantasy fiction isn't high art, and it isn't even very good fantasy. But when a character resonates with a lot of people like that, there's a reason. In this case, it was because Drizzt was both cool and intriguing.
"How does having these in the party affect their reputation in the rest of the world?"
It should have an impact. I think the potential answers to this question can be loads of fun. If your players don't think so, or if you don't, then back to Tolkien with you. There's plenty of room for all of us in this hobby.
Finally, someone who agrees with me. Drizzt Do'Urden is a knob! I had to ban him from all discussions within my gaming group, because the idea of a 'good drow' is so cliched now, it's almost childish. Every time we were really getting into the game, some git would pop up and say "Oh, That's just what Drizzt would do. I remember I read once..."
SHUT UP!
At this point, I would produce my crossbow and intentionally miss the apple perched on top of his head! :-)!
Yeah right as if youcould hit it if you wanted ; )
Personnaly, I find Drizzt and most of the other characters of that series to be interesting and entertaining.
As one of my friends put it during Shadowrun some 10 years ago.
"Hey I'm a regular human 24/7 most days. Why shouldn't I try to play odd characters?"
Of course a misfit that doesn't fit the campaign or the party isn't much fun to have around but why not have an introspective orc or an artistically inclined lizardman or a diplomatic Wookie for that matter.
My mistake Neph. ante up.
We once had a lizardman monk who was quite cool. He was sombre and kindly, and wiser than all other members of the party, and the player came out with some really profound things when he spoke as him. Unfortunately, he was killed in a freak accident when some enterprising halfling decided he would attempt to shoot an apple off his head, and his crossbow misfired.
Just kidding!
He was smacked in the back of the head by a gnoll's greatclub. Not quite as original, true, but he's dead now, so there's no helping it.
While I'm at it I've never really liked the fact that most RPG's categorize whole people or nationalities.
I mean, an evil race? That doesn't make sense. Even Nazi germany wasn't all evil. During the occupation of Belgium and France some of the soldiers and officers were quite decent people. They just happened to be on the "wrong" side of the war and their rulers were despots and wackos so...
Anywho, I can't imagine a civilization or ethnic group surviving for more than a few generation if:
1 - All the females are raped and abused
2 - If all children are mistreated and not cared for
3 - If everyone has to constantly be on their guard to the point of paranoia
4 - No relationship other than domination or manipulation exists.
Basically Evil leads to self destruction for a nation.
So basically: drows are under a theocratic dictatorship and can actually see themselves as "Uber elves". That wouldn't necessarily mean they are all evil towards one another just to any non-drow.
Orcs hate everyone that isn't orc and see the other races as responsible for the harsh life they must live. They are volatile, quick tempered, but many should be honorable warriors (kind of like a klingon).
Reptile and Insectile races tend to see mammals as food, that's why we don't like em.
Large humanoïds see us as vermin or food or, if they are good, inconsequential.
So why not play an "unsual" character. It's up to the GM and player to make it fit and create a nice story about it.
It's like playing an altruistic Purulu in GURPS Space.
Now, if every one isn't soo evil after all, then it becomes harder to justify massacres like I don't know. "These goblins scrounging for food in these caverns have stolen our last sheep. Let's killem all! They're evil anyway."
Oh crap i'm rambling again.
I have to agree with you, Sam. I always had the orcs pinned down in the 'noble savages' vein of the Warcraft series, as opposed to Tolkien's 'bestial monsters' idea.
However, I think you have to have some races which are ALWAYS up to no good. However, it might not be their fault. In my campaign, for example, there's a race of hideous rat-men, known as skaven. (Those Warhammer fans out there will recognise that I have wickedly plagiarised this, but bear with me) The skaven dwell in the Underdark, where they are always plotting, usually with the help of their allies, the drow, to bring about the apocalypse, so that they and their children can dwell in a paradise (for them anyway) of eternal darkness and decay. However, the reasoning behind this is not just because they're monsters, but instead, because of their religion.
The skaven in my campaign are fanatically zealous to their demonic god, Raddrak the Unspeakable One. It is this devotion to Raddrak's warped and psychotic dogma that earns the skaven a reputation for being evil and deranged. Much like the Nazi soldiers in WWII, the skaven are simply obeying the orders of their dark god, for what they have been lead to believe is the greater good.
Recently, I purchased the Oriental Adventures Handbook, discovered the rules for the nezumi, and simply altered them a bit to make the skaven of my campaign world, and thus, allowed skaven as PCs. The players seemed to take to this idea, and we soon had a good few skaven PCs on our hands, some with very interesting backstories, as well as some interesting character development, but that's another story...
First, or rather second, since I have posted before. I actually like most of the article and think a lot of it is just plain fun. I’ve used monster NPC’s before – leveling them up, playing them smart (ie Yusdrayal the Kobald leader), though I’m not sure if that is playing against type in my campaign. It’s an interesting challenge to have monsters with classes – but it’s important, I think – to let players understand that this is the New Math, and that this is normal in this world.
Nephandus:
Part of the degree of freedom a player has comes from her ability to know the setting, to anticipate reactions according to the logic of the world..."
Cocytus:
I'm assuming that the players have played a fantasy RPG before, and that their expectations could use a little confounding.
Nephandus:
Yes and no. Unless it is a key element of the game – a “fish out of water campaign,” players should not find elements of the system or setting to be counterintuitive. This is their interface, their playing field.
If, in this setting (as in Earthdawn) Orcs and other sentient critters pretty much all play from the same page, then everyone on the group needs to be aware of that before they play. I’m careful that I don’t let metagame prejudices built from other gaming or fantasy lit conventions to color player reactions in my own games. If the characters know the world (as opposed to the players), I’m not going to “surprise” anyone with information that should be common knowledge to their character, simply to throw them off.
Nephandus:
"Eventually, we ended up dipping into the Underdark and encountering the duergar as a villian..."
Cocytus:
but hadn't you given any though to that problem when you said, "yes, you may play a Duergar"? If you're going to let a PC play against type, but you intend to use the rest of the race according to type…
Nephandus:
Absolutely Right! In fairness, the problems cropped up mainly due to the new DM taking over (we swapped), and introducing the Duergar as a villain, making the PC’s appear foolish for allowing them into their party – when they had done so in good faith to the player, going with the flow. The DM was a dork to use them as a villain without accounting for his character, the players’ decisions, and the rest of the race. The result was very manipulative.
But you know what? Regardless of all that, I found his Duergar stuff to be selfish spotlight grabbing, even when he was playing it when I was DMing.
Nephandus:
"...which led to problems in players wondering how to resolve this unintentional distraction from the real story, which was much more simple, and much more enjoyable."
Cocytus:
That's really a matter of personal perspective, isn't it? Some people like simple, "we're the heroes and everybody else is dead" grindfests or dungeon crawls. Others like the sense that the world they're experiencing is real, mutable, and impacted by the actions of the players.
Nephandus:
And you lambaste me for reduction ad absurdium? Well, to be more accurate, you’ve offered the Either/Or Fallacy.
It depends on the game really, and on the setting. There’s lot’s of room for moral conundrum without playing against type in a game where your players aren’t expecting the possibility. Again, I offer Earthdawn as an example of a setting where there isn’t necessarily a “type”. But D&D, according to the books the players bought, does have “types”. If the players and DM decide together to change that, then great. But I tend to think it is somewhat bullyish to fiddle with the parameters like that on a player group without clueing them in.
Cocytus:
Damn them for having imaginations and wanting to exert their own personalities on their characters! Personally, I think all players should be indulged to some degree. It's called "having fun."
Nephandus:
Well, by definition, gaming is indulgence. But when you start getting “special characters” in the group, the indulgence you afford the one player begins to infringe on the other players. There’s lots of room to give personalities to characters without necessarily getting into special abilities that go hand in hand with monsters in the party. Come on, you want to be a thespian? Great! But tell me how that means you must be a Duergar, or a Centaur, or a Kobald. How is being that fictional character more “creative” than being an elf, or even a human in that fantasy milieu?
Basically, I agree with most of your article and do a fair amount of it myself. I’m not saying that you’ve blown it either – evidently things worked out just fine for you. But I have seen a lot of people attempt it clumsily (and I’ve been playing nearly as long as you have) with the result being a monster character that overplayed the exception to the convention, undercutting the dynamics of the setting, or spotlight hogging.
"I actually like most of the article and think a lot of it is just plain fun."
Thanks. I respect you; I am intimidated by you; I am sure you are a cracking good GM; and I dreaded this response for several days. Got all shirty on you, there; sorry about that.
"...but it’s important, I think – to let players understand that this is the New Math, and that this is normal in this world."
As you say: yes and no. I like to inform my players, for example, that orcs in my campaign world are not quite what they might expect. But I'm not above throwing them the odd Elvish curve-ball here and there.
"If the characters know the world (as opposed to the players), I’m not going to “surprise” anyone with information that should be common knowledge to their character, simply to throw them off."
That's only fair. The only surprises I offer (in this regard) are with individual NPCs, not entire races.
"But you know what? Regardless of all that, I found his Duergar stuff to be selfish spotlight grabbing, even when he was playing it when I was DMing."
That's too bad, but I see where it comes into play. For the record, I favor monster characters as NPCs, and have had few requests for PCs to emulate them. I mostly included the last section in the knowledge that some (mostly immature role-players, and I mean that in the kindest possible way) players would want to play monster themselves.
"And you lambaste me for reduction ad absurdium?"
Yeah, well; I'm a jerk sometimes.
"Well, to be more accurate, you’ve offered the Either/Or Fallacy."
And I always think clearly! [hic!]
"But I tend to think it is somewhat bullyish to fiddle with the parameters like that on a player group without clueing them in."
Again, the point is more to explode stereotypes than to be a big fat bully. For what it's worth, they have some warning in the gazeteer. Do all of them read it? No.... [sob]
"But when you start getting “special characters” in the group, the indulgence you afford the one player begins to infringe on the other players."
Too true, too true. I try to cater to each player individually. I have been accused of being a sexist because I bend over backwards to keep my women players returning to the table. Though there is some truth to this charge, I *do* try to offer something a little special to everyone, sooner or later.
"Great! But tell me how that means you must be a Duergar, or a Centaur, or a Kobald. "
Ha! Good point. But in my campaign, kobolds are a "normal" playable race...the Palladium influence creeping in from a former campaign, I reckon.
"But I have seen a lot of people attempt it clumsily (and I’ve been playing nearly as long as you have) with the result being a monster character that overplayed the exception to the convention, undercutting the dynamics of the setting, or spotlight hogging."
That's no good at all, and I can see why you would not like it. All I wanted to do, with this cherished theme of mine, was to indicate that maybe the listings in the Monster Manual were a little to simplistic for interesting gaming...
Cocytus sayeth:
Thanks. I respect you; I am intimidated by you; I am sure you are a cracking good GM; and I dreaded this response for several days. Got all shirty on you, there; sorry about that.
Spaketh Nephandus:
No problem - who doesn't get crusty on a BBS now and then. In fairness, I could have emphasised my agreements more - but I was rushed for time, and it made it seem like a total dismissal, which it was not.
I am a pretty good DM, I think - though I am secure enough now in my ways to want to choose my players. I won't keep playing in a game situation that I know just isn't working out. Honestly, I'd rather not play than do something that's just going to stress me out, arguing about how to play - very tedious.
I haven't played for a couple years now though, not since I moved.
Skaven, huh? Where the hell were they in 40k? Answer me that mr smarty pants.
Man, I have had WAY too much caffine for my own well being. It's good thing I'm kept isolated or I might do some real harm. My handlers all know how to deal with me but they're not much for conversation.
The skaven didn't pop up in the frankly rather crappy game Warhammer 40K, which is just as well really, seeing as how nice they look in Warhammer.
I like 40k alot more than I like regular Warhammer. Just preference I suppose.
Always found 40K overly complex, and a bit up its own arse to tell you the truth. For me, Warhammer all the time.
The revised edition that came out a few years back streamlined the whole thing alot and made it more playable. Unfortunately they wrote out the Squat.
Lovely article and just what the doctor ordered, I've been using monsters as characters for years now, and to good effect. I've just introduced Eberron to the group with it's distinctive flare and intrigue, the group loved it but the game came to a sudden end at the hands of a particularly nasty vampire the group should have left well enough alone. I suppose that's my point, my group were given a multitude of warnings both from the Black Lanterns (Sharn's secret service) and the underworld contacts like the Boromar clan to steer clear, but they still tried to take out the bad guy. The truth of the matter is that the Vampire is a Crown agent (if any of you played the Whispers of a vampires blade scenario, I simply had Lucan rejoin his former comrades after 'surviving'). As a valued crown agent the vampire was pretty much untouchable, and inspite of his feeding habits too valuable to the Black Lanterns for him to be messed with, hence a very unpleasant end for the group.
On the plus side the new game has started in sharn and the group are all playing young Githyanki, abandoonned in Sharn's catacombs to 'come of age' gather the power to return as Gith Knights. Should prove very interesting turning the prejudice everyone else has to monsters on the party...
I find this article very interesting. I think that one facet of this that we haven't yet covered adaquately here is actually one of the most glaring:
Elves are asthetically pleasing to most, and orcs aren't. This goes along with the mindset that it's more acceptable to step on a cockroach repeatedly until it croaks, than to crush a butterfly dead in one blow. Cockroaches are ugly, "vile" things, after all, just like orcs. It's alright to kill them. Butterflies are pretty and delicate things, like elves. It's not alright to kill them.
An insect is an insect, people. A cockroach has as much right to live as the butterfly.
Here's a riddle for you to ponder:
Assume that there is a species which has a very corrupt society, where the only way to make yourself "better" in the eyes of others is through squashing anyone who gets in the way of your path to greatness, using deadly force if necessary, or simply ruining the lives of others, but they are very beautiful beings, with very pale skin (a sign of beauty in midieval times, since only the wealthy could afford to stay inside enough to not get a tan).
Assume that there is a species which has an overall peaceful, quiet society, where you better yourself in the eyes of others through acts of kindness and charity, but these beings are very ugly, and have much darker skin than the aforementioned beautiful race (this could be either a deep tan, or "black" skin, depending on how far you and your players are comfortable going with this idea).
Which would you rather play as? An evil beauty? Or an ugly saint? Which do you think would be more quickly accepted by an average adventuring group that knows nothing of these races?
A better question: If these races are at war with one another, which side would your current characters be more likely to choose, assuming that the majority of the party is of the "good" alignment? Would they choose the beautiful creatures without a thought, simply because they are charming and beautiful and MUST be good, or will they take the time to give the ugly ones a chance to prove their moral worth?
-
I'm not a rare flower
Nor am I a shiny treasure box
I'm just your average gamer girl
Who has a bit of power
I GM for the boys
I write up a set of rules
To make sure they keep a reign
On all their spiffy toys
Keep in mind, though, that roaches invade your house and eat/contaminate your food. I've yet to see butterflies that do that...
A valid point, I admit. I was, however, just using the analogy on an asthetic level. I couldn't think of any "harmless" bugs off the top of my head.
*thinks*
*floating candle appears over head*
Okay...
How about snails?
Most gardeners would say that they're a nuisance, but as far as I know, their favorite meals are the leaves of harmful, "ugly" weeds, not your precious dragonsnaps. Now, I know many a kid who finds a sadistic joy in smashing, salting, and/or burning snails and/or slugs for the sake of it, wether they're in their backyard or they're out in the woods. I know very few who would ever consider harming a butterfly.
Is this right? What if the snails were out in the woods, rather than your backyard? Would it still be right to go out camping and sprinkle salt on any of them that you see? If the snails were orcs and you were an adventurer, I'll bet my Monster Manual II that the majority of you would kill any orc that got too close to your campsite (too close being close enough for you to notice, and close enough that you don't have to leave the light of the fire to fight them).
Snails just want to survive. So do orcs. Let them.
Ooooh! "Floating candle" moment! What about a plot that involves relocating a tribe of troublesome orcs to a location where they won't bother anyone, without killing any of them? I'd like to see a party pull THAT one off, especially if the orcs are resistant to leaving.
-
I'm not a rare flower
Nor am I a shiny treasure box
I'm just your average gamer girl
Who has a bit of power
I GM for the boys
I write up a set of rules
To make sure they keep a reign
On all their spiffy toys
I personally think it sick to just crush, salt or otherwise molest snails...but I may be on my own here.
Heck, there are those who hunt butterflies and pin them in cases...I don't think that's very friendly...
What about a plot that involves relocating a tribe of troublesome orcs to a location where they won't bother anyone, without killing any of them? I'd like to see a party pull THAT one off, especially if the orcs are resistant to leaving.
This actually happened in one of my campaigns!
I personally think it sick to just crush, salt or otherwise molest snails...but I may be on my own here.
No, you're not....young kids who burn snails for fun need some sort of help really. The whole magnifying-glass-and-ants thing is warped as well....but some people think it's 'normal'. Go figure.
I totally agree with both of you on that. It really sickens me when my classmates are laughing about how that one time they went on a boyscout camping trip, everyone was picking up banana slugs and tossing them into the campfire. I'm not squeamish or anything, I can detail some pretty "out there" blood magic rituals (complete with virgin sacrifces) that I made up off the top of my head without batting an eyelid, but torturing/killing helpless animals that can't even fight back or scream or anything, just for the sake of torture (wether out of pure malicious glee at the snail's suffering, or at the suffering of the ONE senstive kid -- you know, the one that you HAVE to hate and torment in order to be with the "in" crowd -- in the vicinity), now THAT is sick.
(I was that one kid. I think that's probably one of the reasons why I hate humans as a species.)
-
I'm not a rare flower
Nor am I a shiny treasure box
I'm just your average gamer girl
Who has a bit of power
I GM for the boys
I write up a set of rules
To make sure they keep a reign
On all their spiffy toys