Assignment: Creating a D&D Character
indistinguishablefrom.media.mit.edu
indistinguishablefrom.media.mit.edu
Really? Let's say that the DM chose to run a game with mermaids in it. Would anyone question the (theoretically) superior swimming ability of mermaids? Let's see how a similar statement reads:
Mermaids are good at swimming not because of some essential genetic racial qualities, but because they are raised in a culture that values swimming and passes on a certain set of traditional practices around it.
It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
Edit: And if you're going to deride D&D for that, why not praise it for its lack of sexism (I'm talking about the stats system, not the art here)? The higher amount of testosterone in a man's body makes it much easier for him to gain muscle, but the D&D stat system allows both male and female characters "equal opportunity", so to speak, by not adding or subtracting stats based on gender choice.
In all seriousness though, Tolkien's worldview was more medieval than colonial. The north/south, high/low dynamic is a different dimension than the relationship between Europe and North Africa. It's altitude rather than longitude. Putting everything in relationship to the heavens is a touchstone of medieval culture.
Twisted (cf the article's 'ugly') things were considered a visual metaphor for evil by Dante. Dante imagined that beings who were living out their function/purpose with excellence were rooted in the ground but pointed at the stars [ie 'straight]. Men and women who succumbed to temptation were pointed at the stars by design but through concupiscence [getting caught up/busy; becoming obsessed/addicted], such 'crooked' people were turned inward on themselves and could no longer appreciate the things above them.
It's not reality. It's a fantasy world. Additionally, it's a literary fantasy world. Real-world concepts of race don't apply.
If you think it's a terrible concept, by all means play a different game, build your own world, whatever. But just because the author doesn't like D&D doesn't mean it's wrong.
But I'm struggling to come up with what genetic characteristics about D&D dwarves you assume would make them inherently good at building things. There's nothing obvious that I'm aware of.
https://medium.com/@increment/the-first-female-gamers-c784fb... (this is a long but fascinating article)
Replace "race" with "species" and all is solved.
This happened in the context of sci-fi when The Phantom Menace came out. I remember reading criticisms of both the Gungans[1] and the Trade Federation aliens as weakly veiled racial stereotypes.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jar_Jar_Binks#Allegations_of_ra...
Except for the orc problem (ie, sentient beings we are free to kill), I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having fantasy races with very broad physical and social similarities. Humans are distinctly weird in a lot of ways if you step back and think about it.
D&D is hardly the only or even first offender in this regard (it's a common and much talked issue in the larger Fantasy/RPG milieu).
Games and game worlds can and have been designed differently but this is how D&D is. There's definitely space for critical commentary, but complaining about it or calling it "evil" is like complaining about the physics in a "Transformers" movie. If you want an accurate simulation of reality, there's reality. Or GURPS.
Other games have both "races" and cultures, which makes things a bit clearer.
D&D "race" isn't exactly like "race" in the real world, but I don't think its an incorrect use of the term so much as deliberate, context-specific jargon because there is no existing readily recognized term that exactly captures D&D race (which isn't species -- though some D&D races are also distinct species from some or all of the other D&D races -- since there are D&D races which both can produce fertile offspring and do voluntarily produce offspring together) and "race" is the nearest readily recognized term.
> Other games have both "races" and cultures, which makes things a bit clearer.
D&D has both races and cultures (and in some settings in some versions of the rules, the latter also can have game mechanical effects), though only the former is somewhat "generic" across different game worlds, and the latter is gameworld specific.
It's just a game, but it can also be so much more than just a game...
...Really?
This type of thought coming from MIT makes me question my sanity.
> If you read Tolkein, it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the tall pale people from the north are good and the dark ugly people from the south are bad. This reproduces the attitudes of the colonial era in which Tolkein came of age and its one of the worst aspects of his legacy (and that of many other contemporary and prior fantasy writers).
It seems rather par for the course. And it makes sense. In both fantasy and sci-fi, inhuman species are often caricatured by their "race" and usually don't get enough time to flesh out three-dimensional characters. Because it's hard to imagine completely alien societies with personalities that span as full as range as humanity's.
It's really a joke, but hysterically brilliant.
(Edit - including a snippet of the 'commentary' below):
ZINN: You’ve spoken to me before about Mordor’s lack of access to the mineral wealth that the Dwarves control.
CHOMSKY: If we’re going to get into the socio-economic reasons why certain structures develop in certain cultures… it’s mainly geographical. We have Orcs in Mordor — trapped, with no mineral resources — hemmed in by the Ash Mountains, where the “free peoples” of Middle Earth can put a city, like Osgiliath, and effectively keep the border closed.
ZINN: Don’t forget the Black Gate. The Black Gate, which, as Tolkien points out, was built by Gondor. And now we jump to the Orcs chopping down the trees in Isengard.
CHOMSKY: A terrible thing the Orcs do here, isn’t it? They destroy nature. But again, what have we seen, time and time again?
ZINN: The Orcs have no resources. They’re desperate.
CHOMSKY: Desperate people driven to do desperate things.
ZINN: Desperate to compete with the economic powerhouses of Rohan and Gondor.
Just as a lot of the tropes of classical Athenian Theatre are alien to us nowadays doesn't mean its not great art.
Specifically to race in fantasy, I agree that LoTR wasn't really the place for that. However, D&D is actually the perfect place- RPG sourcebooks are expected to worldbuild, and describe fantasy worlds in detail. So it's a useful thing to think of when exploring an RPG.
"Dwarves are good at building things not because of some essential genetic racial qualities, but because they are raised in a culture that values building and passes on a certain set of traditional practices around it."
Dwarves (and Elves) can also see in the dark and can live for many hundreds of years. In many ways a character's race is a set of advantages derived from genetic qualities.
This isn't race in a human racial sense. The word "race" is used, when biologically speaking it should likely be species.
these all seem true to me these all seem racist to me these all seem reasonable given the fantasy aspect of D&D and what I am used to from stories
It's a fairly common criticism of fantasy—that entire races and ethnic groups are pretty commonly stereotyped.
I think it's a shame GURPS is relatively less known in the world!
This author is, frankly, an idiot. To suggest that ethics and morals are orthogonal, or that each is well-described by a three-point linear system... is utterly absurd. It's such a ridiculously bad roleplaying mechanic that those roleplaying games that are more about roleplaying a character than incrementing a number have no such mechanism.
Given that the author seems to value not straitjacketing a character and celebrating individuality, it's very, very odd that the alignment system should be lauded.
Seriously though, few role-playing games have an alignment system, especially the ones that promote themselves as being more about roleplay than levelling.
I remember one story about a guy whose group played 'evil' D&D characters, and one of them pointed out that what their characters were doing was 'naughty', but not actually 'evil'. So they tried out playing actual 'evil' characters. I can't remember all the examples he gave, but one of their plots was the kidnapping and raping of a princess. He said that campaign didn't last very long and his group found it pretty disturbing. I guess the point of this anecdote is that a lot of evil characters get played that aren't really 'evil' or close to it.
Alignment systems might help roleplaying neophytes, but if you've been around the block once or twice, they really are quite limiting. Is that noble warrior 'good' because he works tirelessly and selflessly to promote the cause of his kindred? Is he 'evil' because he knowingly and tirelessly oppresses others to do so? Is he 'neutral' because he can't be placed unequivocably in either camp? Why not just let him be a complex character on his own?
Have a look.
A Chaotic Neutral character is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions.[citation needed] Although Chaotic Neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be free. Chaotic Neutrals are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; it may have a specific goal in mind, but its methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.[citation needed] If a Chaotic Neutral joins a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with its own at the moment, but it invariably resents taking orders and can be very selfish in its pursuit of personal goals.
A subset of Chaotic Neutral is: "strongly Chaotic Neutral", describing a character who behaves chaotically to the point of appearing insane. Characters of this type may regularly change their appearance and attitudes for the sake of change, and intentionally disrupt organizations for the sole reason of disrupting a lawful institution.[citation needed] This includes the Xaositects from the Planescape setting, and Hennet from the third edition Player's Handbook. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Chaotic Neutral was mistakenly assumed to refer to this subset.
A classless system like Runequest is much better to express the wide range of possible fantasy trope characters (trope=young boy knows nothing, explorers the world, becomes famous, has powerful enemies, and saves the world by defeating them)
Even more interesting would be a career based system like Traveller, with the restriction of maximum homeworld techlevel 8. So you could start promising with good education and social standing, go to a medical school, but decide to become criminal after school, go into jail to learn even more skills, and start your role playing at career at best age of 29 or 33. Or you can even continue pre game careers, and start as an old wise man, who knows a lot, but where age already took its toll to strength, constitution and agility.
Some games offer much wider ranges of tropes for characters then D&D.
A balancing rule is, that older characters earn less experience, and therefor younger learn faster by adventure.
Anyway, Traveller was unusual in that it used age in a slightly meaningful way, but it definitely got away from the trope of all PCs being young and/or inexperienced.
And Tl:9 of course offers the first future techs, e.g. fusion reactors. Tl:A reliable interstellar travel and automatic factories, and huge progress in the high times of big trade empires spanning years of FTL travel, and the collapse of civilization, technology and dark ages, when ever those empires fall.
Living at Tl:F and being wealthy could buy you a lot of years, before you need to worry about age. But I was restricting my idea of a "better" assignment to Tl:8. So you can imagine every career path here and now, e.g. odd ones you never want to live in real life like the doctor who works for crime syndicate (above example), but that is fun in a role playing game, or would make a good trope in a novel or film.
Anyway, Traveller is the least futuristic science fiction setting ever (maybe). In game mechanic terms you have to start rolling for age-related characteristic effects starting at age 34 - you could lose strength, dexterity or endurance. At older ages you could lose intelligence too. But overall it assumes human lifespans more or less like they are today.
I think at imperial tech level's life extending drugs where not uncommon for the well off - depends on how you build the traveller universe.