Fantasy Tropes/Cliches that Annoy You

[Bohandas]

Regarding the dark elf racial allegory thing, that was actually one of the main gags in the first part of South Park: The Stick of Truth, that the supposedly 'good' kingdom opposing the dark elves kind of more closely resembled a redneck hate group, to the point of being led by a "grand wizard" played by Eric Cartman

[BRC]

Consider that despite gaming's idiotic use of the term "race", Orcs aren't a race (which is an artificial distinction within homo sapiens sapiens based mainly on superficial factors such as skin color, geographic ancestry, etc). It would be far more accurate in most settings to describe Orcs as a different species or subspecies.

Consider also that Orcs might well have a separate culture, and that despite the onerous efforts of identity politics to assert otherwise, race and culture are very different things and in no way intrinsically linked. Seeing a score of armed Orcs and being worried is no more "racist" than someone in Eastern Europe several centuries ago seeing a score of armed Mongols and being worried.

Oh, that point has been very much considered, it's also basically my central point.

Consider Bears. In the real world, if you see a Bear, you can make some pretty safe assumptions that it's dangerous, and that it will behave in certain ways. In a fantasy setting, you can make similar assumptions about Owlbears, and nobody is complaining about that. That's because Bears and Owlbears are both non-sentient.

Orcs, on the other hand, ARE sentient, and we really only have one sentient species that we regularly interact with. It doesn't help that most Fantasy races are basically Humans. If you had some truly alien sentient species, then MAYBE that could fly, but we don't.
Racists don't consider the people they're prejudiced against to be really "Human" either. In a fantasy world, they're correct.

In the real world, Racists will spout nonsense pseudo-science about certain groups of people being biologically different. In a fantasy world, that is LITERALLY True.


Same with your point about Mongolians. "But in a Fantasy World, the Racist is Right" is literally the point I'm making.


Consider this. You're an eastern european commoner of some sort.

You see a bunch of Mongolian Horsemen riding towards your village, shooting arrows and screaming. "Ah! They're Going to Attack Us!" you say. This is correct, and not racist. If you saw a longship full of fair-haired norsemen rowing towards shore, brandishing weapons and blowing war horns you would have basically the same response.
The key to that response isn't that the people you're seeing are Norse or Mongolian, it's that they're very clearly a raiding party.

If you were approached by, say, three Mongolian Horsemen approach, unarmed, saddlebags laden with furs, and saying "Hello, we would like to sell you these furs", and your response is to say "AH! SOUND THE ALARM! THEY'RE GOING TO ATTACK US!"

That would be Racist. Explainable, sure, but Racist none the less.

But, most fantasy settings don't have room for Orcish Fur Traders. All people interact with are Orcish Raiders, and while race and culture ARE distinct in the real world, in fantasy settings they might as well be one in the same. All Orcs are part of Orcish culture, which is totally centered around warfare and raiding.

TLDR:

In the real world, Race and Culture are distinct, and neither is a good indicator of somebody's intentions or character. Somebody who judges people based on their race and/or culture is considered a Racist. I hope I'm not being controversial when I say Racism is Bad.

In Fantasy Worlds, Race and Culture are often all but inseparable, with different cultures often being portrayed as inherently biologically distinct, and Both are often excellent indicators of somebody's character.

To a Racist, the Real world and the Fantasy world follow the exact same rules.

[GeometryGuru]

I really get angry at names with around 5 friggin apostrophes in a name. I get that you are trying to make the name sound fantastical and interesting, but all you are doing is making my eyes hurt.

Also unchecked magical abilities. I understand that by making magical abilities vague you can do anything with it. A literal "pulling out of the butt" of any magic. However then you have wizards walking around with abilities that could DESTROY THE WORLD. Like, what? Why haven't they taken over yet? What are they doing?

[Scripten]

However then you have wizards walking around with abilities that could DESTROY THE WORLD. Like, what? Why haven't they taken over yet? What are they doing?

The only exception to this is when those wizards know barely more than the reader about how magic works. (As in, magic is literally incomprehensible, not because it is a contrived situation where nobody knows anything because reasons.)

[VoxRationis]

Dear God, It's Not The 1600s. Can We Please Stop Capitalizing Everything?

I find it interesting that people get all up in arms to defend the personhood of orcs and drow, but seldom creatures like aboleths or mind flayers or even lizardfolk, which are also commonly described as having intrinsically different mindsets than humans. And these are all sentient creatures, much like orcs. I guess that humanoid body plan really helps sell the "we're just misunderstood" thing.

What gets me, though, is the idea that it is imperative that this myriad of biologically distinct species must have identical psychologies. When you consider it through the lens of world-building rather than attempting to identify racism in all things, it actually rather strains credulity that a dozen or more different biological species, whether they developed through evolution or were created by a grab bag of ideologically motivated deities, should all have identical inherent mental characteristics (including patterns of behavior that we subjectively ascribe to morality) and capabilities. Certainly, it is not the case that all cursorial animals run at the same speed, or in the same way. Indeed, it is rarely even questioned that the physical characteristics of the different fantasy races should be different. I think most people who aren't married to certain gamist stat generation methods would find the idea laughable that the halfling and kobold should be of the same physique as the dwarf or orc. But certain people find it far more likely that all these minds should work the same way and at the same capacity.

[Max_Killjoy]

Oh, that point has been very much considered, it's also basically my central point.

Consider Bears. In the real world, if you see a Bear, you can make some pretty safe assumptions that it's dangerous, and that it will behave in certain ways. In a fantasy setting, you can make similar assumptions about Owlbears, and nobody is complaining about that. That's because Bears and Owlbears are both non-sentient.

Orcs, on the other hand, ARE sentient, and we really only have one sentient species that we regularly interact with. It doesn't help that most Fantasy races are basically Humans. If you had some truly alien sentient species, then MAYBE that could fly, but we don't.
Racists don't consider the people they're prejudiced against to be really "Human" either. In a fantasy world, they're correct.

In the real world, Racists will spout nonsense pseudo-science about certain groups of people being biologically different. In a fantasy world, that is LITERALLY True.


Same with your point about Mongolians. "But in a Fantasy World, the Racist is Right" is literally the point I'm making.


Consider this. You're an eastern european commoner of some sort.

You see a bunch of Mongolian Horsemen riding towards your village, shooting arrows and screaming. "Ah! They're Going to Attack Us!" you say. This is correct, and not racist. If you saw a longship full of fair-haired norsemen rowing towards shore, brandishing weapons and blowing war horns you would have basically the same response.
The key to that response isn't that the people you're seeing are Norse or Mongolian, it's that they're very clearly a raiding party.

If you were approached by, say, three Mongolian Horsemen approach, unarmed, saddlebags laden with furs, and saying "Hello, we would like to sell you these furs", and your response is to say "AH! SOUND THE ALARM! THEY'RE GOING TO ATTACK US!"

That would be Racist. Explainable, sure, but Racist none the less.

But, most fantasy settings don't have room for Orcish Fur Traders. All people interact with are Orcish Raiders, and while race and culture ARE distinct in the real world, in fantasy settings they might as well be one in the same. All Orcs are part of Orcish culture, which is totally centered around warfare and raiding.

TLDR:

In the real world, Race and Culture are distinct, and neither is a good indicator of somebody's intentions or character. Somebody who judges people based on their race and/or culture is considered a Racist. I hope I'm not being controversial when I say Racism is Bad.

In Fantasy Worlds, Race and Culture are often all but inseparable, with different cultures often being portrayed as inherently biologically distinct, and Both are often excellent indicators of somebody's character.

To a Racist, the Real world and the Fantasy world follow the exact same rules.

1) They're still wrong about the real world, and to me that's the larger issue by far.
2) They then take the extra step of treating people unjustly, unfairly, and poorly -- that mistaken notion of inherent difference becomes the "reason" to treat other people terribly

To be clear, I actually agree with the line (used to be in someone's sig), "Orcs are people".

[Cosi]

I find it interesting that people get all up in arms to defend the personhood of orcs and drow, but seldom creatures like aboleths or mind flayers or even lizardfolk, which are also commonly described as having intrinsically different mindsets than humans. And these are all sentient creatures, much like orcs. I guess that humanoid body plan really helps sell the "we're just misunderstood" thing.

As far as the Lizardfolk go, I think it's just that there are less examples of Lizardfolk in fiction.

Mind Flayers, and to a lesser extent Aboleths, are a different issue. Mind Flayers have to eat people to survive. That's a biological incompatibility with "being a good person" that isn't there with Orcs. It doesn't matter that the Mind Flayer is a sentient being capable of making ethical choices, because for it to survive it has to murder people.

[Amaril]

Here's one thing. A lot of the time, when this conversation happens, people make the point "well, if you want an inherently evil group of enemies for players to fight and kill without having to think or feel bad, just use demons or something". My question is, how is that any different? How is saying something like "demons are the embodied concept of evil, incapable of anything else, therefore okay to kill" different from something like "orcs were created by an evil god to exterminate humanity, they can't do anything else, it's ok to kill them"? Even the most evil of demons are usually portrayed as capable of speech, complex thought, and generally behaving as people, so what is it that makes it okay to call demons inherently evil but not orcs?

Thinking about it, is it really even okay to kill something like a mind flayer? I mean, yeah, they have to eat sapient beings to survive, but that's not something they chose--it wasn't their decision to be born a mind flayer. When you kill one, you're killing a fellow sapient being that's been forced to attack you by circumstances beyond its control. Should that really be guilt-free?

(I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'm genuinely curious to hear people's thoughts on these questions.)

[2D8HP]

Lame! Lame! LAME!

What's all this nonsense 'bout no "always evil races"

When I'm the DM, most anything that is not a human dirt farmer is monstrous (and they are as well, when the Druids tell them the harvest demands a sacrifice):

Dwarves are underground dwellers who make cursed items (The Ring des Nibelungen),

Elves are child stealing near demons ( the "Fair Folk").

When in doubt, just assume that they're going to torture and kill you.

Goblins?

Steal your cattle, and poison your wells in the night.

Kings?

Take your crops, and maybe your children for their wars.

Gods/Goddesses?

Out of spite they turn you into spider or a tree, and make you suffer eternally.

Best to stay in the fields you know, keep your head low and escape "the high ones" notice.

Failing that?

Grab some iron, and cut the bastards!


The Giant has a rather different take:

Sorry I missed this in my earlier post

the inapplicability as satire (again I have to wonder why anyone gives a crap about whether it's fair to depict monsters are evil in fantasy games)

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me
Rich Burlew

....about 83% of statistics on the internet are made up on the spot...

@Segev,

I'm going to remember that gem (but it's actually 84% )

[BRC]

Here's one thing. A lot of the time, when this conversation happens, people make the point "well, if you want an inherently evil group of enemies for players to fight and kill without having to think or feel bad, just use demons or something". My question is, how is that any different? How is saying something like "demons are the embodied concept of evil, incapable of anything else, therefore okay to kill" different from something like "orcs were created by an evil god to exterminate humanity, they can't do anything else, it's ok to kill them"? Even the most evil of demons are usually portrayed as capable of speech, complex thought, and generally behaving as people, so what is it that makes it okay to call demons inherently evil but not orcs?

Thinking about it, is it really even okay to kill something like a mind flayer? I mean, yeah, they have to eat sapient beings to survive, but that's not something they chose--it wasn't their decision to be born a mind flayer. When you kill one, you're killing a fellow sapient being that's been forced to attack you by circumstances beyond its control. Should that really be guilt-free?

(I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'm genuinely curious to hear people's thoughts on these questions.)

The thing is, in most fantasy settings, orcs are NOT explicitly created by an evil god to kill exterminate humanity. Or, if they are, it's a minor background detail, and they're played as basically just Humans But Always Evil.

Consider the following paragraph

"The Galta are a savage, brutish people. They're strength is matched only by their cruelty. Unwilling to build a civilization of their own, they come to steal the fruits of ours, cutting down innocent farmers and valiant knights alike."

Are the Galta Monster Manual standard Orcs, or just a culture of evil barbarian Humans? It could honestly go either way, but if they're Orcs, and the presentation is that all Orcs are Inherently evil, you've got a problem, because Orcs are basically just a race\culture of Humans, and so it's an easy jump to "Some races\cultures of Humans are inherently evil"

Demons, Mind Flayers, heck even Lizardfolk become less problematic because they're more Alien, so it's harder to make that jump, especially if, like Mind Flayers, the evil things they do are things that a human COULDN'T do.

Orcs come to your house, attack you, and take your stuff. From there, one can say "Huh, Some groups of People want nothing but to come to my house, attack me, and take my stuff".

Mind Flayers turn your friends into thralls with their psychic powers, then have their thralls kidnap you so they can eat your brains. You can't really make that jump without entering crazy conspiracy theory territory, or seeing it as an allegory for reality television.

[Lord Raziere]

Here's one thing. A lot of the time, when this conversation happens, people make the point "well, if you want an inherently evil group of enemies for players to fight and kill without having to think or feel bad, just use demons or something". My question is, how is that any different? How is saying something like "demons are the embodied concept of evil, incapable of anything else, therefore okay to kill" different from something like "orcs were created by an evil god to exterminate humanity, they can't do anything else, it's ok to kill them"? Even the most evil of demons are usually portrayed as capable of speech, complex thought, and generally behaving as people, so what is it that makes it okay to call demons inherently evil but not orcs?

Thinking about it, is it really even okay to kill something like a mind flayer? I mean, yeah, they have to eat sapient beings to survive, but that's not something they chose--it wasn't their decision to be born a mind flayer. When you kill one, you're killing a fellow sapient being that's been forced to attack you by circumstances beyond its control. Should that really be guilt-free?

(I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'm genuinely curious to hear people's thoughts on these questions.)

My solution is:
kill human bandits and not care. its their decision to be jerks who try and rob from people by force, this is not a modern society where people end up in fair jails where your taken care of to an extent. I mean lets face it, considering medieval justice, killing the bandits might be the merciful option rather than letting them face whatever torture they get in a dungeon and I don't the mean the adventuring kind. As well whatever gruesome form of execution the nobles came up with to entertain themselves and the commoners, the guillotine was considered a step up for being so humane by executing the person so quickly, cleanly and painlessly in comparison. when was that invented? the French Revolution.

I'm an adventurer out in the wilderness with more power than most people ever get in their lives, I don't have the luxury of always following the law when survival is on the line, and if someone's first response of seeing someone after so long out in the wilderness is to attack me, thats their fault not mine. while if innocent people are in danger like in a caravan of merchants who just sell stuff, its a combat situation, you either suck it up and kill the attackers before they kill the people that are defenseless and didn't do anything wrong or your not much of an adventurer at all.

because if an adventurer is needed, that generally means proper authorities can't do anything about it. no need for inherent evils, because its a lawless, wild place I'm in where people who choose to be evil inhabit to take advantage of people anyways. You either get smart and judge people by their actions and take precautions or your dead. given the genre, you'll never find a shortage of people willing to do evil anyways. I may be against chaotic evil races, but don't mistake that for softness. Adventuring is not for soft people.

[Max_Killjoy]

Here's one thing. A lot of the time, when this conversation happens, people make the point "well, if you want an inherently evil group of enemies for players to fight and kill without having to think or feel bad, just use demons or something". My question is, how is that any different? How is saying something like "demons are the embodied concept of evil, incapable of anything else, therefore okay to kill" different from something like "orcs were created by an evil god to exterminate humanity, they can't do anything else, it's ok to kill them"? Even the most evil of demons are usually portrayed as capable of speech, complex thought, and generally behaving as people, so what is it that makes it okay to call demons inherently evil but not orcs?

Thinking about it, is it really even okay to kill something like a mind flayer? I mean, yeah, they have to eat sapient beings to survive, but that's not something they chose--it wasn't their decision to be born a mind flayer. When you kill one, you're killing a fellow sapient being that's been forced to attack you by circumstances beyond its control. Should that really be guilt-free?

(I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'm genuinely curious to hear people's thoughts on these questions.)

The mind flayer, at least, is different because they MUST eat their fellow sentient beings to survive.

If some species in a setting MUST inflict pain and suffering and death on other sentient species to survive, then people belonging to those other sentient species are more than justified in making sure that said species doesn't survive. The Broo of Glorantha infamy -- there'd be no moral quandary whatsoever in imposing extinction on them.

[Tinkerer]

Here's one thing. A lot of the time, when this conversation happens, people make the point "well, if you want an inherently evil group of enemies for players to fight and kill without having to think or feel bad, just use demons or something". My question is, how is that any different? How is saying something like "demons are the embodied concept of evil, incapable of anything else, therefore okay to kill" different from something like "orcs were created by an evil god to exterminate humanity, they can't do anything else, it's ok to kill them"? Even the most evil of demons are usually portrayed as capable of speech, complex thought, and generally behaving as people, so what is it that makes it okay to call demons inherently evil but not orcs?

Thinking about it, is it really even okay to kill something like a mind flayer? I mean, yeah, they have to eat sapient beings to survive, but that's not something they chose--it wasn't their decision to be born a mind flayer. When you kill one, you're killing a fellow sapient being that's been forced to attack you by circumstances beyond its control. Should that really be guilt-free?

(I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'm genuinely curious to hear people's thoughts on these questions.)

Well less on the mind flayer and more on the demons but supernatural creatures in my campaigns have much less of a option in the matter. Mystic energy isn't quite so neutral in my worlds and most creatures born from it have much less of an option in how they proceed. Think more like vampires (in some settings) or robots than truly free willed beings. In the unlikely event that one does change it results in either the creatures death or a rebirth. Much like in Dragonlance if a chromatic dragon undergoes a personality shift to good they literally change species into a metallic dragon.

On the mind flayer front are you going to lay down and die? It's not forced to attack you, it only has to do that if it wants to survive. You're not forced to kill it, you only have to do that if you want to survive.

[Scripten]

That kind of questioning, Amaril, is a fantasy tropes that doesn't annoy me at all.

Here's one thing. A lot of the time, when this conversation happens, people make the point "well, if you want an inherently evil group of enemies for players to fight and kill without having to think or feel bad, just use demons or something". My question is, how is that any different? How is saying something like "demons are the embodied concept of evil, incapable of anything else, therefore okay to kill" different from something like "orcs were created by an evil god to exterminate humanity, they can't do anything else, it's ok to kill them"? Even the most evil of demons are usually portrayed as capable of speech, complex thought, and generally behaving as people, so what is it that makes it okay to call demons inherently evil but not orcs?

I'd say the big thing with Orcs, Drow, and the like (specifically in D&D) is that they embody certain traits that cause people in the real world to go, "Huh, those traits are also used to describe certain living people based on demographic. You're kind of playing on that when you use those traits for these explicitly-designated evil species/races." I mean, in 5E, which is generally fairly good about this concept, you still have Drow and Orcs described as "humanoid", where Demons and Devils are fiends and things like Mind Flayers are aberrations. The latter three creatures are also completely alien to real world humans, or life in general.

I like to think of it as adjacent to the idea of the uncanny valley. You look at a Drow or Orc and you can see, even beyond just the physical characteristics, some amount of various parts of humanity in them and the fluff reinforces that to a certain extent. With Devils and Demons, you get a lot less of that, because they are inhuman through and through. At least, when we're talking specifically about D&D and when they do a good job portraying it.

Other Fantasy settings are better or worse about how they handle this. And for the record I actually consider D&D's transgressions to be fairly minor, though my homebrew settings usually portray orcs and goblinoids as more complex creatures than the default.

FAKE EDIT: Ninja'd very nicely by BRC

[Lemmy]

Even though I hate the "X race is always Y alignment" trope, the idea that having an always evil humanoid race leads to IRL racism is... Well... Idiotic. About as idiotic as the old "playing violent videogames make you violent" and "listening to heavy metal makes you a degenerate".

Here's the thing... In the real world, we only have ONE sapient species (bla bla dolphins and chimpanzees bla bla whatever). And said species has very little genetic diversity, all things considered. There is no evidence that any "race" is more (or less) likely to have certain mental faculties, AFAIK.

But in a fantasy world with a bunch of different sapient species, that might not be the case. Maybe orcs ARE predisposed to the behavioral pattern we call "Evil". Acknowledging that said fact is true in a fictional world doesn't mean I think the same can be true of different human ethinicities in the real world.

Honestly, the person screaming about how "drow/orc/whatever are a clear stand-in for X ethinicity" sounds A LOT more racist (and hypocritical) than the person saying she just doesn't see it.

[Segev]

In A fantasy World, if you see certain types of people (like Orcs) walking towards you, the correct action is to prepare yourself for a fight, because Orcs are Violent and Cruel. Fantasy presents a world where Racism is correct. Where the racist instinct of judging somebody's character by their appearance alone will serve you pretty well most of the time.

It's pattern recognition. If you see a bunch of guys wearing baggy pants with their boxers exposed to mid-hip, clustered together on a street corner you're approaching, are you going to avoid being "racist" by walking right by them with a smile and a wave, coming within arm's reach, or are you going to consider re-routing to stay out of their notice?And before you get indignant about MY "racist stereotype," please note that I described clothing and behavior, and that I've seen people of all skin colors dressed like that at various times.

In the real world, if somebody said " <insert ethnicity here> are inherently less intelligent than <other ethnicity>", you would assume them to be Racist, and you would be right.

This is a sticky topic, because if it is true, whether it's racist or not is irrelevant. Truth is all that matters. It isn't true, IRL, so far as I know, so any assumptions of such are based on bad or incomplete data forming poor patterns. Racism of that sort is thus not helpful.

In a fantasy world, you can say "Orcs are inherently less intelligent than Humans", and be pretty much correct. After all, they have that -4 penalty to intelligence.

And yet, even if true, it can still be racist to refuse to even let an orc have a shot at an intellectual opportunity; a level 1 orc can still have up to a 14 int. Sure, he's a super-genius by his race's standards, but he's also at the high end for HUMAN intelligence, and above-average compared to even the most intellectually-gifted elven races. Heck, level adjustment aside, an orc with maxed out Int is a perfectly viable wizard. He just needs to get int-boosting items before he hits level 9 to avoid being spell-level-blocked.

However, if you're having to make snap judgments and can't use anything else, assuming the elf is likely smarter than the orc is usually going to be correct. (And that the orc is stronger than the elf, by the same token.)

Consider also that Orcs might well have a separate culture, and that despite the onerous efforts of identity politics to assert otherwise, race and culture are very different things and in no way intrinsically linked. Seeing a score of armed Orcs and being worried is no more "racist" than someone in Eastern Europe several centuries ago seeing a score of armed Mongols and being worried.

This is by far the most crucial point to understand.

There's nothing but subjective experience. There is no objective. There can't be. Particularly not for something as inherently subjective as the meaning of literature or art.

Untrue. If this were so, science could not be performed. I reject the notion that there is no objective reality whole-heartedly, and, were your claim true, there would be literally nothing you could do to prove it to me. So any proof you could render unto me would have to rely on my premise of objective reality being a thing being true. Which requires you to prove a paradox, for you to prove yourself right.

You can't just magic away social, economic, political, and historic context by ignoring it. By way of analogy, suppose someone broken your legs. Would it be right to expect you to perform just as well as someone whose legs weren't broken in a marathon or other athletic competition?

Nobody's "magicking away" anything. Are you suggesting that, if my legs were broken, I should be allowed to compete in the Olympics in such a way that I had an advantage to overcome that?

Such a suggestion is nonsense. If I wish to participate in a marathon with broken legs, then I can try, but it's going to be a miserable performance. That doesn't mean that the rules of a marathon must be changed to accommodate me.

If I had been denied, through whatever institutional problem you care to invent, sufficient education to be able to tell the difference between brain matter and muscle tissue, would you want to go to a hospital which arranged hiring proceedures to take my disadvantage into account such that I have equal chance to be hired as the neurosurgeon who has performed successful operations dozens of times? Would you be as willing to go under the knife for brain surgery done by this hypothetical me as done by that far better qualified man?

Merit and ability are all that matter. If I WANT to be a neurosurgeon, it doesn't matter how unfair my past has been; I still have to overcome that and meet the same bars. If I literally cannot meet them...tough. Such is life.

I know you're getting at institutional racism that prevents discriminated-against groups from having education sufficient to pass entrance exams into, say, college pre-med programs. The trouble is that you're trying to address the injustice at the wrong place. You don't fix it by saying, "Because his skin is a different color than the privileged group's, he has lower standards to get in so he has a "chance" to do what he wants." That will fail. That's insulting to those - of any race - who can meet the standards, and only encouraging those who cannot to waste time before they likely fail out. Unless you keep lowering standards all the way to the point they're hired for a job they're not qualified to do.

The correct procedure is to handle deficiencies in education. Create programs to help those who can't pass the entrance exams due to lack of prior educational opportunity. Help them get to the point they can meet the same standards.

And do it for ANYBODY who can't pass the exams but wants to try to learn what they're missing. Regardless of skin color or other phenotypical traits.

That, my friend, is color-blindness.

You would think if the "this is racist" interpretation was so bad, there might be some other interpretation that rested on anything more substantial than repeated insistence that minorities are the real racists for daring to be offended that the game asserts that the things racists say are literally true.

Except the game makes no assertion of the sort. The game talks about orcs, drow, dwarves, goblins, gnomes, giants, lizardmen, and gnolls.

It doesn't talk about real-world races, and unless you can find something more than superficial ties to claim that a given race "represents" a real-world human phenotype (rather than a real-world human culture), you have no ground to stand on.

Consider this. You're an eastern european commoner of some sort.

You see a bunch of Mongolian Horsemen riding towards your village, shooting arrows and screaming. "Ah! They're Going to Attack Us!" you say. This is correct, and not racist. If you saw a longship full of fair-haired norsemen rowing towards shore, brandishing weapons and blowing war horns you would have basically the same response.
The key to that response isn't that the people you're seeing are Norse or Mongolian, it's that they're very clearly a raiding party.

If you were approached by, say, three Mongolian Horsemen approach, unarmed, saddlebags laden with furs, and saying "Hello, we would like to sell you these furs", and your response is to say "AH! SOUND THE ALARM! THEY'RE GOING TO ATTACK US!"

That would be Racist. Explainable, sure, but Racist none the less.

The trouble you have here is that you're assuming it's safe to allow those Mongolian horsemen within speaking distance. The majority of the time when this is done, the Mongolians whip out weapons and charge when it's too late for you to defend yourself.

I doubt you can find examples of "kill the orcs!" stories where the orcs send an emissary, making clear signs of peaceful intent, and the emissary and his group are summarily slaughtered...and that's treated as good/acceptable/right. Even in the most bitterly fought wars, while it's RISKY to be an emissary, there are expectations that such will be honored enough to at least get within communication range. Accidents happen. Mistakes happen. But peaceful approach even between bitter enemies is generally possible, as long as nobody has taken pains to make treating with them too dangerous.

But, most fantasy settings don't have room for Orcish Fur Traders. All people interact with are Orcish Raiders, and while race and culture ARE distinct in the real world, in fantasy settings they might as well be one in the same. All Orcs are part of Orcish culture, which is totally centered around warfare and raiding.

I can guarantee you that most people who saw Orcish Fur Traders would not immediately assume they had to roll initiative, unless the orcs were brandishing weapons.

You just don't get "fur traders" and "raiders" in the same regions from the same cultures as a general rule without it being known, at least, that both are possible. Business doesn't tend to be good enough for the "fur traders" where this isn't the case.

To a Racist, the Real world and the Fantasy world follow the exact same rules.

BINGO!

Which is why saying that the fantasy world is recommending racism in the real world is the attitude of a racist. Even if they're a well-meaning racist who thinks they're speaking out against it, their attitude is such that they're encouraging it. Their outlook is rooted in it.

Also unchecked magical abilities. I understand that by making magical abilities vague you can do anything with it. A literal "pulling out of the butt" of any magic. However then you have wizards walking around with abilities that could DESTROY THE WORLD. Like, what? Why haven't they taken over yet? What are they doing?

I like Brandon Sanderson's Law: The degree to which an author can use magic to solve problems in his story is proportional to how well-defined the rules and limits of said magic are in his works/setting.

@Segev,

I'm going to remember that gem (but it's actually 84% )

You're welcome! Just remember to make it up on the spot every time.

Honestly, the person screaming about how "drow/orc/whatever are a clear stand-in for X ethinicity" sounds A LOT more racist (and hypocritical) than the person saying she just doesn't see it.

Agreed.

[BRC]

Even though I hate the "X race is always Y alignment" trope, the idea that having an always evil humanoid race leads to IRL racism is... Well... Idiotic. About as idiotic as the old "playing violent videogames make you violent" and "listening to heavy metal makes you a degenerate".

Here's the thing... In the real world, we only have ONE sapient species (bla bla dolphins and chimpanzees bla bla whatever). And said species has very little genetic diversity, all things considered. There is no evidence that any "race" is more (or less) likely to have certain mental faculties, AFAIK.

But in a fantasy world with a bunch of different sapient species, that might not be the case. Maybe orcs ARE predisposed to the behavioral pattern we call "Evil". Acknowledging that said fact is true in a fictional world doesn't mean I think the same can be true of different human ethinicities in the real world.

There are a couple angles to consider.

First, is that of somebody who already views the world in terms of racial stereotype. A fantastical world with always-evil races reflects and reinforces their existing viewpoint: that some groups of people are inherently inferior/evil. It's not a matter of them being unable to separate the fantasy world from reality so much as it is them not realizing that "Always Evil Races" is something that's supposed to be Fantastical.

Consider Chickens
You're not an expert in Chickens, but you know a bit about them. They can't fly, people raise them for eggs, meat, and feathers, and they'll eat grain.
If you see a fantasy world where chickens can't fly, eat grain, and are raised for eggs, meat, and feathers, that will reinforce your pre-existing notions of what a Chicken is, just the same as if somebody told you some things about Chickens. You can be aware that THESE chickens exist in a fantasy world, but they're following the same rules as real-world chickens.

If you're already predisposed to seeing racial/cultural groups as inherently different, with some being inherently immoral or inferior, and you see a world where that is reflected back to you, they just call certain groups of people Orcs or Goblins, then yes, that will reinforce that viewpoint about how the world works.

And it's not just hardcore racists who would be vulnerable to this. Racism, especially in the form of stereotype, is pretty deeply ingrained into Western society and culture. Evil Orcs won't make anybody a racist by themselves, but they will reinforce a viewpoint that "Some People are Inherently Evil, and it's Right to Kill Them", that you could be picking up from Television, the internet, or your racist uncle over thanksgiving. I don't think D&D has been churning out a generation of bigots or anything, but it could reinforce an existing viewpoint.

The other angle is a player who is uncomfortable with the idea of an "Always-Evil" Race. They're down for fighting Orcs, but they need a solid reason beyond "They're Orcs".
If a player spends a decent amount of time in their life thinking about how Racists are Wrong, then they probably won't enjoy playing in a fantasy world where The Racists are Right.

Dragons=Cool
Wizards=Cool
"Some People are genetically predisposed to evil, a genocide would make the world a better place"=Not Cool.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's nothing but subjective experience. There is no objective. There can't be. Particularly not for something as inherently subjective as the meaning of literature or art.

Untrue. If this were so, science could not be performed. I reject the notion that there is no objective reality whole-heartedly, and, were your claim true, there would be literally nothing you could do to prove it to me. So any proof you could render unto me would have to rely on my premise of objective reality being a thing being true. Which requires you to prove a paradox, for you to prove yourself right.

Exactly.

If there were no objective reality, then we could not be having a conversation via this medium, which is based a long series of empirical study of how the world we live in works at a fundamental level.

[Segev]

Y'know, I think we're getting a little lost in the weeds, here.

I agree that "always evil" races are not good. I think so because they're (a) boring and (b) nonsensical, unless they're overtly supernatural (e.g. demons and devils). There are always exceptions.

But those exceptions are not adherents to the culture of the rest of "their people," and probably resent being lumped in with "their people." The half-orc raised by humans who loves his mother and hates the rapist who fathered him on her and wants to protect his town from further depradations? He almost certainly considers himself to be part of this human culture. Not part of the orcish culture.

It's just as racist to assume that the half-orc and the human, both "adopted" by an orc tribe, will have the half-orc naturally be a fit for tribal culture. Don't get me wrong: the human, with his lower native constitution and strength, will have to work harder (and probably push himself to the higher end of his own racial abilities in those stats). He may also have clearer thoughts and insights than all but the smarter of his orcish brethren. But it's only racism that would prevent him from being given that chance.

Half-orcs being maligned as "doubtless going to turn evil the moment our backs are turned" are always portrayed as victims in fiction where it turns up.


If a racist is going to look at "orcs" and conflate them with a real-world race, there's nothing you can do to prevent that. Even trying to protest hard that #NotAllOrcs isn't going to sway him.

So don't worry about it. Write your story about the characters you have. Write your cultures as you like. Tie them to race or do not; we have real-world cultures with greater representation of certain races, too; it's a geographical truth. (It's part of WHY we conflate race and culture so easily.)

If you're going to look for racism being portrayed, you'll find it. Even if it's not there. Screaming at others who like what you see as racist works doesn't make them racists. Even if they refuse to agree with you.

[Max_Killjoy]

There are a couple angles to consider.

First, is that of somebody who already views the world in terms of racial stereotype. A fantastical world with always-evil races reflects and reinforces their existing viewpoint: that some groups of people are inherently inferior/evil. It's not a matter of them being unable to separate the fantasy world from reality so much as it is them not realizing that "Always Evil Races" is something that's supposed to be Fantastical.

Consider Chickens
You're not an expert in Chickens, but you know a bit about them. They can't fly, people raise them for eggs, meat, and feathers, and they'll eat grain.
If you see a fantasy world where chickens can't fly, eat grain, and are raised for eggs, meat, and feathers, that will reinforce your pre-existing notions of what a Chicken is, just the same as if somebody told you some things about Chickens. You can be aware that THESE chickens exist in a fantasy world, but they're following the same rules as real-world chickens.

If you're already predisposed to seeing racial/cultural groups as inherently different, with some being inherently immoral or inferior, and you see a world where that is reflected back to you, they just call certain groups of people Orcs or Goblins, then yes, that will reinforce that viewpoint about how the world works.

At the end of the day, is the writer responsible for how idiots (bigots, etc) will misinterpret the fiction? Is there a line beyond which the writer can reasonably say "Reading this as pro-stupid allegory would require a bigger idiot than it's fair to me to have to worry about"?

(Not rhetorical questions.)

And it's not just hardcore racists who would be vulnerable to this. Racism, especially in the form of stereotype, is pretty deeply ingrained into American society and culture. Evil Orcs won't make anybody a racist by themselves, but they will reinforce a viewpoint that "Some People are Inherently Evil, and it's Right to Kill Them", that you could be picking up from Television, the internet, or your racist uncle over thanksgiving. I don't think D&D has been churning out a generation of bigots or anything, but it could reinforce an existing viewpoint.

I'd put in an aside of noting the difference between "some peoples as groups are inherently evil and it's right to kill them", and "some specific persons are evil, and killing them can become the least-bad choice".

(Because "people" is both "more than one person" and "a sizeable group of people sharing an identifier".)

The other angle is a player who is uncomfortable with the idea of an "Always-Evil" Race. They're down for fighting Orcs, but they need a solid reason beyond "They're Orcs".
If a player spends a decent amount of time in their life thinking about how Racists are Wrong, then they probably won't enjoy playing in a fantasy world where The Racists are Right.

Dragons=Cool
Wizards=Cool
"Some People are genetically predisposed to evil, a genocide would make the world a better place"=Not Cool.

Note that my examples were things like mind flayers and broo, that must do evil unto others in order to survive -- which is different from "predisposed to evil".

Even if a species like orcs were somehow predisposed toward doing evil, it would be unjust to prejudge each individual orc, or to wipe them out and remove the choice to not be/do evil from all extant and future orcs.

[Cosi]

Untrue. If this were so, science could not be performed. I reject the notion that there is no objective reality whole-heartedly, and, were your claim true, there would be literally nothing you could do to prove it to me. So any proof you could render unto me would have to rely on my premise of objective reality being a thing being true. Which requires you to prove a paradox, for you to prove yourself right.

There is an objective reality. But it is not something you have access to. Any data you receive is filtered, both implicitly and explicitly by various processes (conscious or non-conscious) before it gets to anything that could be recognized as "you". We don't believe in science because it is objectively correct, we believe in it because it is a better model than other models. To paraphrase, any concept of "objective reality" went out the window when you developed a central nervous system.

Nobody's "magicking away" anything. Are you suggesting that, if my legs were broken, I should be allowed to compete in the Olympics in such a way that I had an advantage to overcome that?

No, I'm saying that if we measured your Olympic performance, it would be worse than others not because you lack ability, but because your legs are broken. Should we correct that somehow? It depends on what we want. There's no objectively correct answer there, and when you consider social organization rather than athletic competition, the answer becomes dramatically less clear.

The correct procedure is to handle deficiencies in education. Create programs to help those who can't pass the entrance exams due to lack of prior educational opportunity. Help them get to the point they can meet the same standards.

And deficiencies in admission rates aren't a deficiency in education because...

[BRC]

At the end of the day, is the writer responsible for how idiots (bigots, etc) will misinterpret the fiction? Is there a line beyond which the writer can reasonably say "Reading this as pro-stupid allegory would require a bigger idiot than it's fair to me to have to worry about"?

(Not rhetorical questions.)

"Responsible", no. Not unless the writing is clearly intended as allegory.

But, 1) it's lazy writing. You can make villains and evildoers without inventing an entire demographic that serves no narrative purpose besides being acceptable targets for heroic slaughter, and 2) It feeds into and reinforces existing cultural trends that DO have negative impacts in the real world. A drop in the bucket, sure, but it's there.

I'd put in an aside of noting the difference between "some peoples as groups are inherently evil and it's right to kill them", and "some specific persons are evil, and killing them can become the least-bad choice".

(Because "people" is both "more than one person" and "a sizeable group of people sharing an identifier".)

Yeah, there's a difference between "An Enemy" and "Always Evil".

An Enemy is a justifiable target, killing (or at least inflicting violence on them) is justified by their choices or their circumstances. A group of Bandits are an Enemy. They're trying to kill you, they may have killed before, they are motivated by base greed, they have made their choices.

But, if you present Orcs as a race consisting solely of murderous raiders, where every Orc has either made that choice, or will INEVITABLY make that choice, because they're All Chaotic Evil, you have crossed the line.

And even if you don't explicitly say "All Orcs are Evil", if every orc the audience encounters is Evil, they'll reach that conclusion on their own.

Note that my examples were things like mind flayers and broo, that must do evil unto others in order to survive -- which is different from "predisposed to evil".

Right.

Basically, there are two acceptable methods in my book

1) Treat them like what they are, basically just Humans. If you want them to be the enemy, give a reason that isn't just "They're Orcs".
Or
2) They are distinctly Inhuman, not just in terms of "They don't look Human and are Stronger/Stupider than Humans", but that they are Impossibly inhuman. The harder it would be to imagine that role being filled by a Human, the better.

An Orc can be replaced with a Big, Strong, Dumb Human. A Mind flayer or a Dragon, not so much.

[Max_Killjoy]

There is an objective reality. But it is not something you have access to. Any data you receive is filtered, both implicitly and explicitly by various processes (conscious or non-conscious) before it gets to anything that could be recognized as "you". We don't believe in science because it is objectively correct, we believe in it because it is a better model than other models. To paraphrase, any concept of "objective reality" went out the window when you developed a central nervous system.

Postmodernism strikes again.

[Scripten]

Postmodernism strikes again.

That's not what postmodernism means nor is Cosi's post anything more than a statement of fact. Unless you claim to have access to omnipotence? Reality without the filter of interpretation or senses requires it.

As in, literally. There are precious few things that can be observed without affecting them, and I'm not just talking about collapsing waveforms.

[Astofel]

But those exceptions are not adherents to the culture of the rest of "their people," and probably resent being lumped in with "their people." The half-orc raised by humans who loves his mother and hates the rapist who fathered him on her and wants to protect his town from further depradations? He almost certainly considers himself to be part of this human culture. Not part of the orcish culture.

The implicit assumption here is that orcs only have one 'culture', which to me doesn't make sense. In most fantasy settings, you'll see humans spread far and wide with a variety of cultures, but the other races all have more or less the same culture. This is basically the Elfland/Dwarfland trope but even when the elves and dwarves come from two different locations they still manage to share the same culture. Sometimes this is justifiable, the long lifespans of elves mean that for them not much time has passed since the two groups split so the culture hasn't evolved much. It's when you apply this to races with more human-length lifespans, like orcs, that this falls apart.

For my part, I have no issues with orcs having 'less intelligence' than other races. They're genetically distinct from the other races, it make sense that their brains work in such a way that it takes them longer to learn some things. I do take issue with every orc in the world sharing the same (evil) culture. If the orcs who live in the Plains of Examplia are evil raiders who rape and pillage every village they come across, sure. But maybe the orcs who live in the Mountains of Secondaria are nice people who are wise in the ways of the world, and people make pilgrimage to see them and ask them for advice. It's when a fantasy world makes the claim, implicit or explicit, that all orcs have the same (usually evil) culture, and they have this culture because they are orcs, that it starts to become a racist way of thinking, at least to me.

[Segev]

There is an objective reality. But it is not something you have access to. Any data you receive is filtered, both implicitly and explicitly by various processes (conscious or non-conscious) before it gets to anything that could be recognized as "you". We don't believe in science because it is objectively correct, we believe in it because it is a better model than other models. To paraphrase, any concept of "objective reality" went out the window when you developed a central nervous system.

Even if my ability to perceive objective reality is imperfect, I can make up for poor resolution with repeated tests. The notion that objective reality cannot be meaningfully measured and observed is a waste of time, because if that's true, then how do I know you're even typing at me, and why should I care that you're on this forum?

No, I'm saying that if we measured your Olympic performance, it would be worse than others not because you lack ability, but because your legs are broken. Should we correct that somehow? It depends on what we want. There's no objectively correct answer there, and when you consider social organization rather than athletic competition, the answer becomes dramatically less clear.

We want the best athletes we can get. If my legs are broken, I certainly lack the ability to use them. If this is something correctable (by healing, physical therapy, and then training), great! I should get on that if I want to perform better in Olympic marathon-running.

We want the best performance we can get. That should be all we want, at the point where we're bothering to test for anything like "admission" or "hiring" or whatnot.

Make those standards and hold to them rigidly, and then let the preparation for those tests be where people work to "fix" things.

And deficiencies in admission rates aren't a deficiency in education because...

Too many ways I can interpret what you're getting at, so it's likely I'll address a point other than what you meant to make. Still, I shall try:

Deficiencies in admission rates could reflect deficiencies in education leading up to the admission exams. All we can do to fix that is provide opportunities for those who have not gotten as good an education prior to now to improve to the point where they can meet the standards of the admission exams.

If Mowgli came in from the jungle as an 18-year-old, you wouldn't toss him into college and then expect him to catch up. At least, not if you cared about more than appearing to be "giving him a chance" while not actually bothering. No, you'd take the time to teach him to speak, to read, to do all the basics, then work him up through all the education he'd need to be able to keep up in college.

You do nobody any favors by changing the standards to "give them a chance" at higher education when they have not yet actually obtained a basis of secondary or even primary education. You put them in classes that are at a level they're ready for, and then help them work their way up.

And again? This works regardless of race. You don't have to say, "Oh, he's Martian, and everybody knows Martians have a horrid education system, so we'll admit him if he gets 50% of what we expect Earthlings to get on this test." Especially since you're just inviting that poor Martian to fail because he doesn't know how to do the required things to learn the material taught, yet. He needs to be able to meet the standards of your admissions exam to be sure to have the basis of knowledge and skill to actually make use of the education offered.

If you haven't yet learned algebra, it does you no good to be put into an advanced calculus class. "Oh, he's Martian, and they don't learn algebra, so we won't require him to pass that part of the test," isn't doing him any favors when the college classes start with advanced calculus.

[Segev]

The implicit assumption here is that orcs only have one 'culture', which to me doesn't make sense.

Ah! Here we reach one of those fantasy (and sci-fi) tropes that bugs me! Planets of Hats!

This race has only one culture. So their whole planet is monocultured in the same way.

That is irksome. Understandable, but irksome. It's hard to write a lot of different cultures. Having to write a lot of different cultures for each of a lot of different races would be enormous amounts of work! Far more than most fantasy writers want to go to to tell their specific story that probably won't touch on most of them.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not what postmodernism means nor is Cosi's post anything more than a statement of fact. Unless you claim to have access to omnipotence? Reality without the filter of interpretation or senses requires it.

As in, literally. There are precious few things that can be observed without affecting them, and I'm not just talking about collapsing waveforms.

Postmodernism - "an academic movement in philosophy that evolved as a reaction to modernism. Postmodernism holds that reality cannot be known nor can it be described objectively."

"a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power."

"For the post modernists there can be no single reality or privileged view of reality or even concept of what reality is for there is no single objective or truthful way in which to verify any claims about a singular phenomena to be called “reality.” Thus in postmodernism there is a reality for each group of speakers that chooses to use the word and accept that usage of it. In post modernist thinking ,there being multiple groups of speakers and multiple ideas about what constitutes the real ,the result is multiple realities existing at the same time."


I reject in its entirety the notion that what we take in with our senses is fundamentally disconnected from what's really going on. For starters, the survival burden of bad information would consign any species with such senses to the dustbin of evolutionary failure.

I reject in its entirety the notion that we cannot observe things (quantum scale aside) without affecting them.

[Segev]

I reject in its entirety the notion that we cannot observe things (quantum scale aside) without affecting them.

I would phrase it that we are perfectly capable of observing things while changing them sufficiently little that our observations provide meaningful knowledge about them. Quantum scale aside.

The key is that our observations remain meaningful for most things, even if we do change them by some amount.


Other than that, I fully agree with the rest of the post from which I drew that quote.

[BRC]

Ah! Here we reach one of those fantasy (and sci-fi) tropes that bugs me! Planets of Hats!

This race has only one culture. So their whole planet is monocultured in the same way.

That is irksome. Understandable, but irksome. It's hard to write a lot of different cultures. Having to write a lot of different cultures for each of a lot of different races would be enormous amounts of work! Far more than most fantasy writers want to go to to tell their specific story that probably won't touch on most of them.

I think that's a side-effect of the whole "Race as Culture" thing.

We view the real world as a bunch of different Cultures and Subcultures. Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, ect.

When people build a Fantasy World, they imagine it it much the same way, as a collection of Cultures. However, they then tie some of those cultures to specific Races, which then leads us to the whole "Biologically predetermined Traits" thing. The different Races are a stand-in for different Cultures (Not necessarily real world ones), which leads to things that make sense as Cultural traits being presented as indistinguishable from Biological traits.

There is one Dwarven Culture, let's call it "Kaz". The people of Kaz care about Mining and Craftsmanship. 99% of Dwarves are from Kaz, and 99% of Kaz's long-term population are Dwarves.
Which traits are Kazian (Cultural) and which traits are Dwarven (Biological) therefore become all but indistinguishable.

The way to solve this is to either have multiple Dwarven cultures (And don't label them as different subraces, like Hill Dwarves vs Mountain Dwarves), or to have a Multiracial society. There are lots of Humans and Gnomes living in Kaz, who ALSO care about Craftsmanship and Mining. There are a lot of Dwarves who live outside Kaz, and they don't care about Mining at all.