28th October, 2013 - Human!

[Maur]

Willpell, race is not ethnicity. They might seem to be based on similar things (blood/looks), but in fact are not (identity/culture), and in effect they do not overlap.

It feels like splitting hairs to me to say that race was unimportant while ethnic discrimination was prevalent, especially as it doesn't discredit the argument that in a medieval fantasy setting the characters would very likely dislike members of other races, as the Goblins are most certainly of a disparate ethnicity to Minmax and Forgath.

The distinction between ethnicity and race probably didn't even exist until fairly recently. To a medieval Italian, there would be little that a Norseman, a Russian, a non-Moorish Spaniard, a Briton and a Greek would have had in common which would distinguish them from a Nubian or (arguably) a Semite.

Except actual historical writings and official documents tell us that Greeks and Romans and Hungarians and Russians and Persians all recorded and considered race very important. The Greek city-states were divided along race lines alongside but separate to the class and religion lines, The Egyptians in Alexandria sent petitions to Rome against according black Africans the same local-political stature as part white Africans i.e. Ptolemy's crowd, Romans considered Black a racial epitaph, they had a slur that meant "African" which they used on dark skinned - but "actually white" - political contenders. History is full of examples from two and three thousand years ago, let alone only five or six hundred.

Huh. What does your second sentence means? That the various city states were inhabited by different races? Ie: Athenians were of different from Thebans? And what does >separate to< means? It is totally confusing.

In general, that is not my understanding. What writings do you mean? What petitions? What slur?

[Owlbear]

Race is just an arbitrary collection of phenottpical differences.

In regards to the topic: maybe the reason she knocked him down was because she scored a critical hit?

[Elvors]

You don't necessarily need a crit for that. After all, she used the strength of her tail to fling her entire upper torso at him; that gives a rather nice punch.
Plus a punch to the chin is rather likely to fell the opponent.

None of that is D&D mechanics. In that case, freebie hit because the opponent is taken by surprise (and would not even defend if he saw it coming).

BTW on the race thing: Her expression of "Humans!" is, as has been written, on the same level as "men!" (or "women", depending on opportunity).
No racial slur involved.

[Master TMO]

Knocked down, not out. There's a difference. I've been knocked down by a paintball, and I'm not a little guy. Hit me in the hollow of my throat. And Minmax is obviously still conscious in the background.

Are you minmaxed for fighting? Do you have the strength of a Giant? Do you know 38 ways to kill a man with your finger? Why do you compare yourself to MinMax?

Far more so than a paintball is, I assure you. The point is that anyone can be knocked down fairly easily in the right circumstances - it doesn't take a Mike Tyson to do it. Tyson himself could be knocked down pretty easily if he wasn't expecting it, as I'd argue Minmax wasn't here. And even if he thought it possible, he wasn't defending himself. And if you want to say he was defending himself, leaning backward from the punch would have been a reasonable start. Then Kin connected and finished pushing him over.

There, I've covered all the contradictory bases: He wasn't expecting it; He was expecting it but wasn't defending himself; and He was defending himself.

[YardMeat]

BTW on the race thing: Her expression of "Humans!" is, as has been written, on the same level as "men!" (or "women", depending on opportunity).
No racial slur involved.

"Men!" or "Women!" in the same context would be a sexist slur. How is this not a racial slur?

[Changes_everything]

BTW on the race thing: Her expression of "Humans!" is, as has been written, on the same level as "men!" (or "women", depending on opportunity).
No racial slur involved.

"Men!" or "Women!" in the same context would be a sexist slur. How is this not a racial slur?

By means of sexism and racism as a concept, as something that is despicable, something you have to be cautious of, not really existing in their world - because that's a modern phenomenon.

[YardMeat]

By means of sexism and racism as a concept, as something that is despicable, something you have to be cautious of, not really existing in their world - because that's a modern phenomenon.

But Goblins is not historical fiction. It is a fantasy setting. Racism and sexism obviously exist in the setting, so debating about when it originated in our world is a moot point.

On a side note, I've had this come up in D&D games before when I played a good character that despised slavery. My DM actually penalized my XP and claimed that opposition to slavery is an entirely modern concept

[RedwoodElf]

By means of sexism and racism as a concept, as something that is despicable, something you have to be cautious of, not really existing in their world - because that's a modern phenomenon.

But Goblins is not historical fiction. It is a fantasy setting. Racism and sexism obviously exist in the setting, so debating about when it originated in our world is a moot point.

On a side note, I've had this come up in D&D games before when I played a good character that despised slavery. My DM actually penalized my XP and claimed that opposition to slavery is an entirely modern concept

Watch out, agreeing with me can get you in trouble.

In a medieval setting, 400 or more years prior to the political movements that killed slavery (representative republic style governments, the concept of "all men being born/created equal") only certain heretical sects of christianity were anti slavery (The Catholic church had no "offical" stance against it, and generally treated slavery as a matter for the secular governments, not religion, though they did have active campaigns to convert pagan slaves to christianity)

Your DM was partially correct in that the society as a whole in a medieval setting wasn't anti slavery, but individuals, particularly those of CHAOTIC GOOD alignment, could be against it. Lawfuls would consider it as part of the order of society, unless they were, for example, a Paladin or cleric dedicated to a Deity who was against slavery.

Penalizing your XP however is a bit too far...so long as you roleplayed being a character with a specific anti slavery background (an escaped slave, for example, or someone whose love has been kidnapped and sold into slavery, etc)

[YardMeat]

In a medieval setting, 400 or more years prior to the political movements that killed slavery (representative republic style governments, the concept of "all men being born/created equal") only certain heretical sects of christianity were anti slavery (The Catholic church had no "offical" stance against it, and generally treated slavery as a matter for the secular governments, not religion, though they did have active campaigns to convert pagan slaves to christianity)

Your DM was partially correct in that the society as a whole in a medieval setting wasn't anti slavery, but individuals, particularly those of CHAOTIC GOOD alignment, could be against it. Lawfuls would consider it as part of the order of society, unless they were, for example, a Paladin or cleric dedicated to a Deity who was against slavery.

I have no problem admitting that he was partially correct. Anti-slavery views certainly were not mainstream. However, to say that they didn't exist at all seems extreme. Obviously there were slaves that were anti-slavery, and there is no reason to believe that there were no sympathetic non-slaves. Plus it is a long stretch to say, "there weren't abolitionists in medieval Europe, so you can't play an abolitionist in a setting that is loosely based on a fantasy version of medieval Europe."

Nearly every D&D game out there is going to have some decidedly modern interpretations of sex, so why not of slavery and race?

Penalizing your XP however is a bit too far...so long as you roleplayed being a character with a specific anti slavery background (an escaped slave, for example, or someone whose love has been kidnapped and sold into slavery, etc)

Yeah, the character was a chaotic good ex-slave. I pointed out that we also had a outspokenly feminist warrior in the group that he did not seem to have a problem with.

[Maur]

BTW on the race thing: Her expression of "Humans!" is, as has been written, on the same level as "men!" (or "women", depending on opportunity).
No racial slur involved.

"Men!" or "Women!" in the same context would be a sexist slur. How is this not a racial slur?

Because its sexist slur not racist slur, therefore it is not racist slur?

By means of sexism and racism as a concept, as something that is despicable, something you have to be cautious of, not really existing in their world - because that's a modern phenomenon.

But Goblins is not historical fiction. It is a fantasy setting. Racism and sexism obviously exist in the setting, so debating about when it originated in our world is a moot point.

But not all fantasy settings are parallel to Earth history. Take Middle-Earth, for example, no racism nor sexism there...

Oh waaait...

[Unlucky-for-Some]

well not much sexism, certainly... but the racism thing is interesting. If every member of a race is demonstrably evil, is it in fact a racist slur to attribute evil to members of that race? While certainly there are examples of elves and dwarves holding questionable opinions about each other that might be expressed in racist terms, orcs pretty much genuinely seem to deserve every epithet they are given by the other races. So is it racist if it's true? Obviously it can be a lot clearer in a fantasy world since it is possible to have separate races where these sorts of differences are real rather than imagined.

[kida]

Can you be racist against other species?
Are you racists because you say all gold fish has only 30 seconds memory?

[AvalonXQ]

I tried to determine if I could withdraw my pledge for the GAR Kickstarter, because I no longer like these characters enough to want to play with them. It is too late as the pledges have already been collected; I will probably give the game to a friend who doesn't read the comic and likes the game mechanics.

[RedwoodElf]

Can you be racist against other species?
Are you racists because you say all gold fish has only 30 seconds memory?

A common strawman, by the way. Racism and Species-ism aren't the same. Until a Goldfish is able to manifest some sign of an IQ higher than the average chicken, commenting on their intelligence isn't any form of -ism at all. Saying a rock is just a mindless lump of minerals isn't an ism either, at least until the rock starts writing or otherwise communicating, natually.

[RocketScientist]

political commentary

Don't do that. This is your only unofficial warning. Politics are off limits outside of the Controversy forum. -RS

[willpell]

well not much sexism, certainly... but the racism thing is interesting. If every member of a race is demonstrably evil, is it in fact a racist slur to attribute evil to members of that race?

Yes, this is pretty much the definition of racism. They have Detect Evil spells that "prove" someone deserved to be killed without a trial (especially given that nobody but divine mages understands how these spells work, so a person can claim to be a paladin, squint funny at the mark, and claim to have detected evil, and none of the surrounding peasants will have a Spellcraft check capable of detecting the farce). We have books like "The Bell Curve" and flawed pseudo-science studies, paid for by "think tanks" and "charitable organizations" with an interest in proving a certain social class "undesireable". There's not really much of a difference. (Maybe a *little* bit of one, when you get into things like actual Demons and Devils whose existence might be empowered by the mere thinking of bad thoughts; as far as we can tell, such do not exist in our world, but again the average D&D peasant has only a cleric's word that they exist in his either.)

While certainly there are examples of elves and dwarves holding questionable opinions about each other that might be expressed in racist terms, orcs pretty much genuinely seem to deserve every epithet they are given by the other races.

Actually very few non-Tolkien portrayals of Orcs cleave to the stereotype he established for them (Warhammer Fantasy is the only other one I can think of). In most modern works, Orcs are just another sentient species which humans discriminate against, simply because they're ugly and live in the wilderness. Often times they're driven into accepting the patronage of demons or Evil gods because nobody else will have them, but they start out as just "people" of a slightly different sort; few authors besides Tolkien (and, in imitation of him, Gygax et al) have tried to claim that evil is "in their blood" and inevitable. The presence of half-orc characters instantly suggests that this "taint" is mostly the product of ignorant supposition and prejudice.

A better example of the same principle you're getting at might be the chromatic dragons. There's fairly strong evidence to suggest that these are just naturally vicious alpha-predators with inherent destructive and covetous urges. But then, human beings have some of the same urges too; at most, the orc and the dragon and evn the demon are just exagerrations of the same tendencies. If human beings can be redeemed, maybe every other species of creature could be too. Certainly, methods such as the "Sanctify the Wicked" spell in Book of Exalted Deeds exist when can transform Evil creatures into Good ones, and they work on anything other than an Outsider (such as a demon). So no, orcs need not be evil, neither need even dragons. And there is at least one published NPC which is a Demon (specifically a Succubus) who not only became Good, but took Paladin levels! So someone at Wizards of the Coast decided at one point that it was possible for even the literal embodiment of Chaotic Evil to become Lawful Good, just by deciding to.

So is it racist if it's true?

That depends on whether truth can ever be objectively verified. Which is probably even harder in a world of epic-level Rakshasha illusionists and gods of deception than in the real world (though not by much, given the implications of quantum physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the one who wishes to commit what is objectively an atrocity.

[Unlucky-for-Some]

Actually very few non-Tolkien portrayals of Orcs cleave to the stereotype he established for them (Warhammer Fantasy is the only other one I can think of). In most modern works, Orcs are just another sentient species which humans discriminate against, simply because they're ugly and live in the wilderness. Often times they're driven into accepting the patronage of demons or Evil gods because nobody else will have them, but they start out as just "people" of a slightly different sort; few authors besides Tolkien (and, in imitation of him, Gygax et al) have tried to claim that evil is "in their blood" and inevitable.

Agreed, but then Tolkien's orcs were more of a plot element than a race in many regards. We were at no time asked to regard them as just a bunch of guys that for some reason the forces of Gondor et al had decided they didn't like. They were dyed in the wool bad guys.

The presence of half-orc characters instantly suggests that this "taint" is mostly the product of ignorant supposition and prejudice.

It was a taint "in the blood" with Tolkien - the few half-orcs we see are all bad guys too. Whereas in D&D they became much more into allowing choices for players who wanted to play misunderstood loners and outcasts, hence half-orcs and the LEGIONS of those who abandoned the evil of below and embraced the goodness of the surface, yet kept all the cool imagery of their people, and therefore became truly unique tragic heroes

A better example of the same principle you're getting at might be the chromatic dragons. There's fairly strong evidence to suggest that these are just naturally vicious alpha-predators with inherent destructive and covetous urges. But then, human beings have some of the same urges too; at most, the orc and the dragon and evn the demon are just exagerrations of the same tendencies. If human beings can be redeemed, maybe every other species of creature could be too. Certainly, methods such as the "Sanctify the Wicked" spell in Book of Exalted Deeds exist when can transform Evil creatures into Good ones, and they work on anything other than an Outsider (such as a demon). So no, orcs need not be evil, neither need even dragons. And there is at least one published NPC which is a Demon (specifically a Succubus) who not only became Good, but took Paladin levels! So someone at Wizards of the Coast decided at one point that it was possible for even the literal embodiment of Chaotic Evil to become Lawful Good, just by deciding to.

That's a very interesting example. I've never heard of that Paladin Succubus NPC. But of course the fact that WotC can just decide whatever they like for the sake of the story (or of selling another supplement ) is part of the problem with using their stuff in such discussions as this. They aren't really all that interested in being consistent. They could put out a scenario tomorrow that Orcus is actually a Lawful Good 5th column agent of Pelor if they want to. Tolkien at least is always consistent. His orcs are always bad. His dragons are always bad. The only ones who people even consider could be rescued from badness are those who didn't start out bad (Gollum, Wormtoungue, Saruman) and even then none of them are saved. Nobody ever talks about trying to talk Sauron over, or trying to redeem an orc.

[RedwoodElf]

a bunch of political crap

Don't do that. This is your only unofficial warning. Politics are off limits outside of the Controversy forum. -RS

Say what? Care to elaborate on which Goblins-and-D&D relevant post you are referring to?

In psychology, this is known as "projection" - Note how apparently everyone ELSE can have discussions of Slavery in the Middle ages vis a vis Dungeons and dragons, ditto racism, and yet for some reason, I mention some historically relevant information about why it makes sense in a middle ages context, you try to turn it into some Uber-political argument.

The truth is the truth, and has no politics. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you won't spend all your time searching for some reason to silence perfectly relevant discussions about Dungeons and Dragons, and medieval society, in a forum about a webcomic set in a medieval society in Dungeons and Dragons.

I didn't go into a long winded wall-of-text discussion of the various stages of Medieval attitudes about slavery and racism and the various stages it went through, because very rarely is anyone interested in things like the Magna Carta and how it influenced the mindset of society.

Seriously, get a grip. If it's OK for everyone ELSE to bring up Slavery, Racism, Sexism, etc, then accurate replies about the ongoing discussion aren't some political witch-hunt, however much you seem to want to make it one.

[willpell]

stuff I actually agree with, but still....

Dude, take it from one who knows from experience: no matter how right you are, picking a fight with the Mods is a losing proposition. They're not required to acknowledge when you have a point; if they decide they want to tell you to shut up, backtalking at them is not likely to accomplish much other than getting yourself gagged or booted. I say this as someone who was banned from Controversy within about a month of joining the forum. You will not win this; I advise you do not try.

[AntMac]

Huh. What does your second sentence means? That the various city states were inhabited by different races? Ie: Athenians were of different from Thebans? And what does >separate to< means? It is totally confusing.

In general, that is not my understanding. What writings do you mean? What petitions? What slur?

I am old, my friend, and have a retentive memory for things but not specifics, so no, I can't quote you chapter and verse. However, anyone who has read Gibbon and through him Tacitus and Livy and Plutarch will remember them making comment about peoples' race. So I can tell you for instance that Gibbon mentions Tacitus referring to events before the first Roman-Jewish war, and the Alexandrians petitioning Caesar Augustus (Whom had recently ended up the ruler of the Med, and consequently the Ruler of Egypt) to allow them to adhere to their long-standing local customs, part of which was keeping the Black traders from inland from holding the local franchise, and specifically because they were Black and had no history shared with Greece or Rome. From memory they couched the terms of their complaint in specific racial attitudes.
The Greek city states Held as Law that only actual Greeks could be voters, and being non Greek, i.e. Barbari, was a disqualification. They allowed non-citizens to live among them, but they divided them by race. Everyone in their states was already divided by income, to be a voter you needed to own a male slave and a certain amount of arable land. And certainly divided by religion, one had to swear a testament to be allowed to give evidence in court, and people who did not adhere to the Greek religions could not swear testament. So they held at least three distinctions of people, race, religion, wealth.
You could be a poor Greek = no vote. A black fella who was a member of the local religion = no vote but allowed to give testimony. Or a Pagan black ( or Persian ) fella = no vote and no recourse to law.

[YardMeat]

Can you be racist against other species?
Are you racists because you say all gold fish has only 30 seconds memory?

Actually, the whole thing about goldfish having a 30 second memory isn't true, but it wouldn't be "racist" even if it were. If it were objectively demonstrable that goldfish had a 30 second memory, saying so would be no more racist than saying that people of African descent have more melanin in their skin than people of European descent do.

If, on the other hand, goldfish were a sentient species, capable of self-aware individual thought and actions and capable of communicating their individuality to our own species, that is a different story. Let's say that the stereotype of these sentient goldfish was still that they had a poor memory, but that any educated, well-informed person had no excuse for not knowing that there were plenty of goldfish with a good memory. Let's say that I was aware of this fact and, even though every goldfish I had personally met in my limited experience had a bad memory, I had a goldfish friend named Greg who seemed to have an excellent memory. On day, under extreme pressure, Greg does something totally out of character and forgets a piece of important information. If I were to then look at Greg and say, "Psh, you goldfish and your terrible memory" that would be something akin to racism. I'm sure we would call it something else, but racism is the closest parallel.

[RedwoodElf]

stuff I actually agree with, but still....

Dude, take it from one who knows from experience: no matter how right you are, picking a fight with the Mods is a losing proposition. They're not required to acknowledge when you have a point; if they decide they want to tell you to shut up, backtalking at them is not likely to accomplish much other than getting yourself gagged or booted. I say this as someone who was banned from Controversy within about a month of joining the forum. You will not win this; I advise you do not try.

OK, OK...if they want to roleplay Cotton Mather on the forums, it's none of my business after all...but they should avoid tossing out random unsubstantiated accusations anyway...it's bad practice.

As for the "Slavery in the middle ages" thing, there were actually TWO forms of slavery in the Feudalistic system.

The first was the classic "Chains and brands" slaves who were actually CALLED "slaves", the kind of slavery that had been around for at least 20,000 years, ever since Chief Imagreedybastard marched his spearmen into the tribe of chief Heyleaveusalone and killed the warriors and kidnapped the women and children because he wanted someone to wash his socks.

The second was the Peasant. Peasants "belonged" to the land, so when lord Overshoulderboulderholder marched his knights into Count DeMoney's county and took over a few villages, the peasants in those villages weren't allowed to move to another village, they had to work for whoever owned the land.

[SeeAMoose]

a bunch of political crap

Don't do that. This is your only unofficial warning. Politics are off limits outside of the Controversy forum. -RS

Say what? Care to elaborate on which Goblins-and-D&D relevant post you are referring to?

In psychology, this is known as "projection" - Note how apparently everyone ELSE can have discussions of Slavery in the Middle ages vis a vis Dungeons and dragons, ditto racism, and yet for some reason, I mention some historically relevant information about why it makes sense in a middle ages context, you try to turn it into some Uber-political argument.

The truth is the truth, and has no politics. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you won't spend all your time searching for some reason to silence perfectly relevant discussions about Dungeons and Dragons, and medieval society, in a forum about a webcomic set in a medieval society in Dungeons and Dragons.

I didn't go into a long winded wall-of-text discussion of the various stages of Medieval attitudes about slavery and racism and the various stages it went through, because very rarely is anyone interested in things like the Magna Carta and how it influenced the mindset of society.

Seriously, get a grip. If it's OK for everyone ELSE to bring up Slavery, Racism, Sexism, etc, then accurate replies about the ongoing discussion aren't some political witch-hunt, however much you seem to want to make it one.

stuff I actually agree with, but still....

Dude, take it from one who knows from experience: no matter how right you are, picking a fight with the Mods is a losing proposition. They're not required to acknowledge when you have a point; if they decide they want to tell you to shut up, backtalking at them is not likely to accomplish much other than getting yourself gagged or booted. I say this as someone who was banned from Controversy within about a month of joining the forum. You will not win this; I advise you do not try.

OK, OK...if they want to roleplay Cotton Mather on the forums, it's none of my business after all...but they should avoid tossing out random unsubstantiated accusations anyway...it's bad practice.

As for the "Slavery in the middle ages" thing, there were actually TWO forms of slavery in the Feudalistic system.

The first was the classic "Chains and brands" slaves who were actually CALLED "slaves", the kind of slavery that had been around for at least 20,000 years, ever since Chief Imagreedybastard marched his spearmen into the tribe of chief Heyleaveusalone and killed the warriors and kidnapped the women and children because he wanted someone to wash his socks.

The second was the Peasant. Peasants "belonged" to the land, so when lord Overshoulderboulderholder marched his knights into Count DeMoney's county and took over a few villages, the peasants in those villages weren't allowed to move to another village, they had to work for whoever owned the land.

My apologies for the confusion, RS was not referring to the ongoing discussion of slavery, racism and sexism. She was referring to the following: this post where you tried to make a historical discussion about slavery and racism and their impact on a D&D fantasy setting into a discussion about current political environments that in no way relate to the comic or the setting.

► Show Spoiler

Slavery is the far more ancient practice. It could be argued that as Slavery weakened with the concept of Liberty (in the democratic republic sense), racism strengthened. Now that racism is weakening, Non-discriminatory Slavery is now starting to make a comeback, enslaving people to the state, rather than individual "masters" - Slavery is the essence of socialism, after all. A system where people are expected to work with no compensation, any fruits of their labors being confiscated (hello I.R.S.) and their "Masters" (an all powerful government in this case) deign to give them the bare essentials (Food stamps, government housing, IRS managed "Health care" where your future ability to generate income for the state will be the deciding factor in whether you get that lifesaving operation or are told to "Just take a pain pill" to quote Emperor Barry.

Don't do that. This is your only unofficial warning. Politics are off limits outside of the Controversy forum. -RS

Granted, RS should have been more specific about which post she was referring to and should not have been impolite or referred to your post as "political crap", for that you have my apologies.

However, that does not mean that you were unfairly targeted. RS was absolutely right to single out your post to direct you to the Controversy subforum, multiple forumites noted that your post was inappropriate for this thread and any other post that was even remotely out of place was a response to your initial post. You were not continuing with the ongoing discussion, you were making highly partisan and inflammatory statements that had no place in this part of the forum. As active as you are in Controversy and the forum as a whole, you should know better by now. In the future, please keep your political comments to the Controversy subforum.

► Show Spoiler

And willpell, really? That's what you took from us giving you multiple opportunities to behave appropriately before your ban? Please remember that you were told what the rules were multiple times and repeatedly ignored them deciding that they shouldn't apply to you. Despite that you were only banished from the part of the forum where your misbehavior was most pronounced. I would remind you that many of the same rules that apply to controversy also apply to the main forum, and trying to start controversial discussions outside of Controversy to get around the ban is not acceptable.

Normally I would address something in this via pm's or more limited

Please do continue the conversation about how the history of racism and slavery should influence a fantasy setting like D&D, it has been a very fascinating read thus far!

[Simon]

So.... has anyone seen the sneak peek panel Thunt posted on his twitter?

► Show Spoiler

A sad-looking Forgath with a Minmax who apparantly smacked his own head/face palmed (possibly because he realised how stupid his action was.

(Spoilered because I'm talking about the image).

[Changes_everything]

So.... has anyone seen the sneak peek panel Thunt posted on his twitter?

► Show Spoiler

A sad-looking Forgath with a Minmax who apparantly smacked his own head/face palmed (possibly because he realised how stupid his action was.

(Spoilered because I'm talking about the image).

I think

► Show Spoiler

Minmax is not facepalming but crying, sitting on the floor with his back against a wall.