OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread

[Jasdoif]

No, actually, they call it "being human". Humans hate randomness and will see patterns in it all the time--you've probably done it yourself, for example, when playing a computer game or buying lottery tickets.

There's the also the question of how you'd distinguish the absence of a pattern from the presence of an unrecognized pattern.

[Unoriginal]

The dwarves of The Hobbit are pretty neutral, actually -- they want to kill a dragon and reclaim its treasure because it's theirs and not for any altruistic reasons. Thorin is heroic at moments, but he also gets nasty when the elves and men turn up to ask if they can also have their rightful share. And there are some even nastier dwarves in The Silmarillion.

And Tolkien's Dwarves also aren't that tought in a fight, aren't very courageous either, and aren't boisterous "beer beer beer and more beer" party guys, being instead pretty polite fellows, if having some troubles with respecting boundaries and tending to be kind of blunt when displeased.

The modern stereotypes for fantasy species aren't that close form Tolkien's writings. No one remember when Gimli sneak attacked two orcs to save Eomer at Helm's Deep, acting so stealthily not even Aragorn could see him. And no one remember how he deliberately avoided fighting the human allies of Saruman because he thought they were too big for him.

My recollection is that he isn't specifically against the men getting some treasure (part of it was theirs after all, and they did, you know, kill the dragon), but he is absolutely not going to give anything to the elves, who outright hindered him and didnt do anything about the dragon at all. He also doesn't appreciate being told at swordpoint (elven swordpoint no less) to give up anything. I think Thorin has a bit of a reputation for having been more outrageous than he actually was there.

Nah, Thorin was 100% against giving up anything to anyone.

One could ask "why didn't Bilbo just say 'come on, Thorin, just give them my part, it's more than enough', because it would have been smarter than the Arkenstone stuff", but I think at this point the Dwarf was really unwilling to even consider it.

[SaintRidley]

You know what they call seeing patterns where there are none? Madness. Authors are not behooved to self-censor for the sake of mad people.

The foundation of literature is unintentional messages. But we cannot argue that authors have to be responsible for subtext, because subtext is subjective. Authors should only be responsible for what they actually produce, not what people think that they produced. Down that way madness lies.

Just because an author didn't intend it doesn't mean the author didn't produce it.

[Keltest]

Nah, Thorin was 100% against giving up anything to anyone.

One could ask "why didn't Bilbo just say 'come on, Thorin, just give them my part, it's more than enough', because it would have been smarter than the Arkenstone stuff", but I think at this point the Dwarf was really unwilling to even consider it.

Heres the thing. he flat out said he was willing to talk, but not at sword point and not to the elves. The men from Laketown didn't have the ability to dismiss the elves, who were basically there to rob the dwarves by force.

[woweedd]

Ok, to everyone in this thread saying that dragons are inherently evil from birth so it's OK to slaughter them, please watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk
I'd hope you all can make the connection.

[theNater]

No, actually, they call it "being human". Humans hate randomness and will see patterns in it all the time--you've probably done it yourself, for example, when playing a computer game or buying lottery tickets.

I was going to go with seeing shapes in stars(constellations), ink blots(Rorschach tests), and clouds(I don't know a specific name for this one); but yeah, it's pretty much a standard feature of the human psyche.

...subtext is subjective.

While it is true that no two humans will find exactly the same patterns in all works, there are broad tendencies among groups. Careful authors can take advantage of these tendencies to communicate more effectively with most people in their chosen audience, while less careful authors sometimes find even the target audience deeply misunderstanding their work.

[Unoriginal]

Ok, to everyone in this thread saying that dragons are inherently evil from birth so it's OK to slaughter them, please watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk
I'd hope you all can make the connection.

I don't understand what this video is supposed to prove.

If you are criticizing the outside-of-the-work rationale as to why include something to the story or not, then "diegetic arguments" are meaningless. If you are criticizing the in-universe functioning on the story, then the "diegetic arguments" are relevant.

If someone says "I'm disturbed by the graphic representation of an elf being horrifically killed by a goblin", the "I'm disturbed by" addresses the outside-of the-work reaction the person felt, and the "an elf being horrifically killed by a goblin" addresses to the in-universe events. If someone else point out "The elf was stabbed in the back after selling his city to the invading army, it wasn't really horrific", then it's addressing the in-universe events and the different perceptions people had of those.


If someone says "I don't like the implications of D&D saying that dragons are evil and should be exterminated just because they're dragons", then it's relevant to point out "actually, D&D says that dragons are evil and should be stopped because they're actively commiting evil acts and will continue unless stopped."

If someone says "I don't like the implications of D&D saying that baby dragons are evil at birth despite them just being babies", then it's relevant to point out "actually, dragons are born with the sapience and maturity comparable to those of adult humanoids, so the only thing that makes them 'babies' is their age."

[Elkins]

Realistically, any interesting and popular villain experiences pressure to become a hero. Comic books are full of it.

Yep, and the converse is true as well. Given enough time, someone will always want to write a Squeaky-Clean Hero Goes Dark! plot arc.

Fictional characters are both toys and tools; human beings like to tinker with both.

[Riftwolf]

As a practical matter, it is only non-optimal if the DM chooses to indulge in a little DM-versus-PC fun. These issues go away if the DM sets a casual "let's have fun" tone and the players learn to trust they will not get screwed over.

Really now, if the PCs just let the orcs who surrendered go or let the hatchlings live, is the DM going to ding them? Is the DM to torture them with irate villagers complaining about missing cows some day down the road, after the PCs saved the village from likely being completely flattened?

I'd would love L-O-V-E it if more games had mercy options. I'd love it if mercy sometimes bit you in the backside. I'd love it if it had unexpected benefits. I'd love it if Death Incarnate PC was a choice, rather than the default. I'd love it if merciless and remorseless killing earn you bad reputation and negative consequences, rather than gold and xp.

[woweedd]

I don't understand what this video is supposed to prove.

If you are criticizing the outside-of-the-work rationale as to why include something to the story or not, then "diegetic arguments" are meaningless. If you are criticizing the in-universe functioning on the story, then the "diegetic arguments" are relevant.

If someone says "I'm disturbed by the graphic representation of an elf being horrifically killed by a goblin", the "I'm disturbed by" addresses the outside-of the-work reaction the person felt, and the "an elf being horrifically killed by a goblin" addresses to the in-universe events. If someone else point out "The elf was stabbed in the back after selling his city to the invading army, it wasn't really horrific", then it's addressing the in-universe events and the different perceptions people had of those.


If someone says "I don't like the implications of D&D saying that dragons are evil and should be exterminated just because they're dragons", then it's relevant to point out "actually, D&D says that dragons are evil and should be stopped because they're actively commiting evil acts and will continue unless stopped."

If someone says "I don't like the implications of D&D saying that baby dragons are evil at birth despite them just being babies", then it's relevant to point out "actually, dragons are born with the sapience and maturity comparable to those of adult humanoids, so the only thing that makes them 'babies' is their age."

Yes but the point is, why? This world doe snot exist. It is fictional. Why did they write all dragons of a certain type to do Evil things on automatic? Why did they write newborn dragons to be both intelligent and evil from birth? I mean, if they really wanted to just have less powerful versions of dragons around for people to fight, then why not just offer optional rules for "sizing-down" dragons and not even bring age into it? See,that's the point the video's making. You can't argue :"That's the way the setting works." because it just raises the further question "Why did they make it work that way?" Speaking as someone who aspires to being an author, you need to THINK about what your art is SAYING, even if your art is a tabletop game. As Rich himself once put it,

[...]no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism.

[Unoriginal]

Yes but the point is, why? This world doe snot exist. It is fictional. Why did they write all dragons of a certain type to do Evil things on automatic? Why did they write newborn dragons to be both intelligent and evil from birth? I mean, if they really wanted to just have less powerful versions of dragons around for people to fight, then why not just offer optional rules for "sizing-down" dragons and not even bring age into it? See,that's the point the video's making. You can't argue :"That's the way the setting works." because it just raises the further question "Why did they make it work that way?" Speaking as someone who aspires to being an author, you need to THINK about what your art is SAYING, even if your art is a tabletop game.

Maybe it's to explore the idea of where does the Evil Dragon Overlord come from. Maybe it's to explore the concept that for any dragon that survives long enough to threaten whole regions, quite a lot of them get stopped before this stage. Maybe it's to explore the concept of a being that's malevolent from day one, and such contrasting this with real world humans, who are not. Maybe it's saying that beings who do commit harmful acts on purpose should be stopped

Maybe it's to see if humans can deal with non-humanoid beings as if they were non-humanoid, instead of slapping human values and concepts on them.

[Elkins]

You can't argue :"That's the way the setting works." because it just raises the further question "Why did they make it work that way?"

Which in turn leads to an even further question: "Regardless of the actual reasons why the creators made that decision, what effect does it in fact have on the fictional work?"

I don't think, for example, that many creators consciously make decisions with the intent to make their works less challenging, less confronting, less thoughtful, or less meaningful. That doesn't mean, however, that such cannot be the end result.

[The Extinguisher]

I'd actually argue that the quote doesn't go far enough. There is no such thing as petty escapism with literature. All works have something to say about real life, whether it's explicit and purposefully put there by the author, or implicitly as a result of the authors values and believes. In fact it might even be more important to look at that escapism, because you get far more insight into how the author thinks the world should be by looking how they created that world to be. What assumptions about our world do they question? What do they ignore? What do they accept without pause?

You don't get an out to real world implications just because you don't want to think about it.

D&D is certainly not exempt to this.

[Kish]

Maybe it's to see if humans can deal with non-humanoid beings as if they were non-humanoid, instead of slapping human values and concepts on them.

"They're all born evil" does not add depth or complexity. It does not show impressive writing skill, moral range, or challenge to engage with--as Elkins mentioned, "treat this creature that isn't like me as an abomination that must be smote" is a horrifyingly easy default for humans.

It means less of all these things.

[woweedd]

Maybe it's to explore the idea of where does the Evil Dragon Overlord come from. Maybe it's to explore the concept that for any dragon that survives long enough to threaten whole regions, quite a lot of them get stopped before this stage. Maybe it's to explore the concept of a being that's malevolent from day one, and such contrasting this with real world humans, who are not. Maybe it's saying that beings who do commit harmful acts on purpose should be stopped

Maybe it's to see if humans can deal with non-humanoid beings as if they were non-humanoid, instead of slapping human values and concepts on them.

Yes, but you can't divorce non-humanoid creatures for human values in fiction because humans, with human values, worte those non-human creatures. Non-Humanoid creatures in fiction cannot be divorced form our values because WE cannot be divorced from our values.

[woweedd]

"They're all born evil" does not add depth or complexity. It does not show impressive writing skill, moral range, or challenge to engage with--as Elkins mentioned, "treat this creature that isn't like me as an abomination that must be smote" is a horrifyingly easy default for humans.

It means less of all these things.

This is also a very good point.

[Unoriginal]

"They're all born evil" does not add depth or complexity. It does not show impressive writing skill, moral range, or challenge to engage with--as Elkins mentioned, "treat this creature that isn't like me as an abomination that must be smote" is a horrifyingly easy default for humans.

It means less of all these things.

So you consider that fictional beings that have certain negative human traits -such as hatred, impulsive violence, greed, sadism, desire to control others, close-minded dogmatism- up to eleven as a way to explore those traits are just waste of written words?

Yes, but you can't divorce non-humanoid creatures for human values in fiction because humans, with human values, worte those non-human creatures. Non-Humanoid creatures in fiction cannot be divorced form our values because WE cannot be divorced from our values.

That's pretty reductionist.

[Kish]

I detect a moving goalpost. This started with it being okay to kill infant red dragons because they act just like human bandits. It took a pass through "treating nonhumans as nonhuman" and now suddenly it's about exploring the darkest aspects of the human psyche as embodied in an entire nonhuman species. For this single goalpost location, I'm wondering 1) what's the value of using an entire species to explore this negative trait instead of a specific character, 2) can it possibly outweigh the irony of "correct dogma is that this species is horrendously dogmatic." For the moving goalpost, I'm wondering 3) why must there be some value to racial morality, even if some of the proposals for what that value might be are mutually contradictory?

[woweedd]

I detect a moving goalpost. This started with it being okay to kill infant red dragons because they act just like human bandits. It took a pass through "treating nonhumans as nonhuman" and now suddenly it's about exploring the darkest aspects of the human psyche as embodied in an entire nonhuman species. For this single goalpost location, I'm wondering 1) what's the value of using an entire species to explore this negative trait instead of a specific character, 2) can it possibly outweigh the irony of "correct dogma is that this species is horrendously dogmatic." For the moving goalpost, I'm wondering 3) why must there be some value to racial morality, even if some of the proposals for what that value might be are mutually contradictory?

True. Personally, in my opinion, if you're just gonna use non-humans as a stand-in for a twisted real-world ideology, I see no reason why you can't just use humans.

[Elkins]

1) what's the value of using an entire species to explore this negative trait instead of a specific character[?]

A similar value to the oxycodone I just swallowed to tamp down my neuralgia, perhaps. And with very similar dangers and downsides and side-effects, as well.

Because the conflict between our passion for tribal violence and our deep capacity for empathy is an uncomfortable part of the human condition. And it hurts. And sometimes from that pain, great works of art like the Iliad are born.

But at other times...well, who really likes pain? Or thinking too hard, for that matter? Always evil fantasy species all too often serve as a nice, soothing anaesthetic. They make all that nasty discomfort go away. And if they also reduce far too many works in the genre to so much meaningless pablum, what of it? At least even those with no teeth can now have something to swallow down on those long tedious airplane rides.

[Unoriginal]

I detect a moving goalpost. This started with it being okay to kill infant red dragons because they act just like human bandits. It took a pass through "treating nonhumans as nonhuman" and now suddenly it's about exploring the darkest aspects of the human psyche as embodied in an entire nonhuman species. For this single goalpost location, I'm wondering 1) what's the value of using an entire species to explore this negative trait instead of a specific character, 2) can it possibly outweigh the irony of "correct dogma is that this species is horrendously dogmatic." For the moving goalpost, I'm wondering 3) why must there be some value to racial morality, even if some of the proposals for what that value might be are mutually contradictory?

I may like discussing ideas, but I'd rather not have people on the internet insisting that I'm promoting racist ideologies, and I take being called intellectually dishonest as a sign that continuing this discussion would have no purpose. Still, here is one last post on this subject.

No, it's not a "moving goalpost". First of all, "moving the goalposts" does not apply to defending an idea, it applies to asking another question when the first one is answered in a manner that you disapprove of.
Ex.

-"what have you ever done for me?"
-"I fixed your car for free"
-"Yeah? What have you done for me recently"

Second, my position concerning the dragon baby, that I've conserved through the whole argument, is "if a being in a story has mental faculties and maturity similar to an human bandit, and is doing actions just as horrible as an human bandit, why should they be dealt with differently than the human bandit by people in the story just because the way their age work is different than humans?"

My "maybe..." answers were response to the question "why would an author portray beings as inherently evil from birth?", which as being a different point of the debate demanded an appropriately different reflection.

As for the question I asked you concerning a species serving as embodiment or metaphors for one trait taken to the extreme, it was me asking for precision regarding your assertion that making a species evil was making the story worse. It was not about my previous statements.

Now, to answer your wonderings, 1) I for one does not see the issue with using theoretical absolute when using fiction to explore a philosophical idea, as being confronted to an absolute is often a good way to start a reflection on the non-absolute -the same way being confronted to the extreme can help thinking about the moderate. 2) I don't see how the irony, if irony there is, needs to be "outweigh". Irony does not mean valueless, and nor is an idea valueless because its author does not uphold it.

I believe that there is value in imagining and exploring through fiction possibilities and situations that I don't think are present in human beings.

A similar value to the oxycodone I just swallowed to tamp down my neuralgia, perhaps. And with very similar dangers and downsides and side-effects, as well.

Because the conflict between our passion for tribal violence and our deep capacity for empathy is an uncomfortable part of the human condition. And it hurts. And sometimes from that pain, great works of art like the Iliad are born.

Ah, yes. Because nothing says "conflict between our passion for tribal violence and our deep capacity for empathy" like the story of a war leader (killed and pillaged because he preferred a short life and a glorious fame rather than a long, fulfilling life and being forgotten after death) who got angry that a more powerful war leader took the woman he raped, caused the deaths of dozens of his allies without a second thought and then of his lover by refusing to help, and then went on a rampage against people who were defending their countries and families from invaders.

But at other times...well, who really likes pain? Or thinking too hard, for that matter? Always evil fantasy species all too often serve as a nice, soothing anaesthetic. They make all that nasty discomfort go away. And if they also reduce far too many works in the genre to so much meaningless pablum, what of it? At least even those with no teeth can now have something to swallow down on those long tedious airplane rides.

Why not be more elitist and insulting, next time?

In any case, as I said, this is my final post on the subject. I'm considering making it my final post on the forum, but it'll probably not be the case.

[Elkins]

Unoriginal,

There is no rule of thumb that cannot be broken by a talented artist. If you have a story to tell that uses non-human evil sapients in a way that adds meaning or challenge or beauty or any other Good Thing to your work of art, then more power to you! Go, write, create!

Just because a cliche or trope is very often used in a way that winds up making works less challenging and meaningful by no means necessitates that your use of it will do the same. It might mean that you might want to look carefully at your use of it to make sure that you're not falling into a trap that has ensnared other artists in the past, but it absolutely doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't use it.

Go ahead and create something beautiful with your non-human fantasy species. If it works as you intend, then it will speak for itself.

ETA, because I see Unoriginal and I cross-posted: Unoriginal, I in no way meant to insult your work. I have never seen your work. If you've really never encountered fantasy fiction (or played in a fantasy RPG, for that matter) that uses always evil species as a means of alleviating audience discomfort and thereby dumbing down the story, I really don't know what to tell you. There's a lot of weak genre fiction, and a lot of poor games, that do precisely that. There is also a lot of reader response to this very comic that seems rooted in precisely the same dynamic. If your work does not in fact use the trope that way, then I am not talking about you.

[Jasdoif]

For this single goalpost location, I'm wondering 1) what's the value of using an entire species to explore this negative trait instead of a specific character, 2) can it possibly outweigh the irony of "correct dogma is that this species is horrendously dogmatic."

To be entirety fair on the generality, if the intent is to explore how protagonists/players deal with social/cultural traits wildly different from their own, approaching it as a species trait would have excellent features for focusing on it: an innate trait makes it clear that "maybe they could choose not to be that way" isn't a viable option, compared to an individual or voluntary group membership; and a distinct species makes it clear when the trait is likely to come up, compared an individual or subsets of another species.

At the same time, handling such a thing poorly is going to be awkward at best, since the magnification relies on distortion that could result in a satire or parody pretty easily; it's certainly inappropriate for dropping in without commentary for, say, dragons in the default setting for a game with "dragons" in its title.

[Unoriginal]

On another topic, do you guys think it's fair to describe Andi as being under the Dunning-Kruger effect?

[danielxcutter]

I'd would love L-O-V-E it if more games had mercy options. I'd love it if mercy sometimes bit you in the backside. I'd love it if it had unexpected benefits. I'd love it if Death Incarnate PC was a choice, rather than the default. I'd love it if merciless and remorseless killing earn you bad reputation and negative consequences, rather than gold and xp.

Then you're going to enjoy Undertale.

[8BitNinja]

You know what they call seeing patterns where there are none? Madness. Authors are not behooved to self-censor for the sake of mad people.

The foundation of literature is unintentional messages. But we cannot argue that authors have to be responsible for subtext, because subtext is subjective. Authors should only be responsible for what they actually produce, not what people think that they produced. Down that way madness lies.

I know a guy named Ernest Hemingway who wrote a book about an old guy fishing in Cuba. Everyone thought it was about Jesus.

Like you said, people take works of fiction out of context. The South Park episode titled The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs explores this amazingly. Of course, don't watch it if you are easily offended.

For those who don't know, that is actually what the episode is called. Don't worry, it makes sense in context.

[JumboWheat01]

Then you're going to enjoy Undertale.

That's one thing I love about that game. I mean, I try to talk down opponents in games that let me do so, but still more often than not it ends in a fight.

[The Extinguisher]

I know a guy named Ernest Hemingway who wrote a book about an old guy fishing in Cuba. Everyone thought it was about Jesus.

Like you said, people take works of fiction out of context. The South Park episode titled The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs explores this amazingly. Of course, don't watch it if you are easily offended.

For those who don't know, that is actually what the episode is called. Don't worry, it makes sense in context.

The author of a text has no executive authority over the meaning of that text. Thier interpretation is just one of many, and while it may have more insight then others, is no more inherently valid.

The idea that author intent is the most important thing has been used to defend many works saying awful things, implicitly or explicitly. "I was just joking" doesn't excuse hurtful actions.

[Unoriginal]

The author of a text has no executive authority over the meaning of that text. Thier interpretation is just one of many, and while it may have more insight then others, is no more inherently valid.

The idea that author intent is the most important thing has been used to defend many works saying awful things, implicitly or explicitly. "I was just joking" doesn't excuse hurtful actions.

What are you talking about? If you consider the concept of "death of the author" as always valid, then a work cannot inherently be saying awful things unless it does so literally. After all, interpreting it as saying awful things is just an interpretation of many.

[8BitNinja]

I'd would love L-O-V-E it if more games had mercy options. I'd love it if mercy sometimes bit you in the backside. I'd love it if it had unexpected benefits. I'd love it if Death Incarnate PC was a choice, rather than the default. I'd love it if merciless and remorseless killing earn you bad reputation and negative consequences, rather than gold and xp.

Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 3?