Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jun 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Sordak
>the creator of drizzt
Well yeah, he clearly knows what hes talking about. Drizzt is the modern hamlet.

If someones prime achievement is ruining the "good dark elf" trope forever, then im not gonna take his advice on how to write evil races seriously.

He doesn't need to be a genius writer to notice a general trend. I mostly used the quote because it neatly summarised what I was trying to say.


Originally Posted by Sordak
By your logic you cannot use any humanoid creature as a stand in for evil to create a better story.

Problem is not with human-like characters being evil, problem is with them being evil by nature rather than by choice/nurture.

Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Let's hope Larian doesn't go too far into this. Evil creatures need to be evil, they don't need to be sensitive bad people. A band of orcs is not a band of angry pussies. They will kill without remorse and they will rape without caring about their actions. These are the very principles of evil. Of course, they can still erase evil altogether, with only 6 options: LG LN NG N CG CN. Because you know, evil doesn't exist in imaginary worlds, only nazis and far right white men are evil...

Last edited by Nyanko; 28/06/20 03:22 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Valerie
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I do not know if it´s really that surreal and unrealistic.

I mean, the entire Inca´s religious beliefs were based on human sacrifices of the lower caste. They even have the Capacocha, where even noble families sacrifice his children because they were the best and pure.

The Karankawa and the Aztecs were known to practice cannibalism: warriors would eat a strip of flesh from enemies they had slain in combat. That was a symbol of status.

I'm just going to ignore these particular examples, since I just don't know enough about these cultures, but...

Originally Posted by _Vic_
It´s not so strange the existence of entire civilizations that has "evil" practices that are tolerated and even encouraged by their society or social group in the real world.
It would be weird if there is not in a fantasy world.

You do not even have to search much about their motivations: The ethical and moral values of their society are what could be considered "Evil" by the standards of most other communities.

The Drow are much closer to what you describe as an evil society, however, I have an issue even with that, because I have a hard time seeing a society built on making everyone as miserable as possible survive long term without frequent revolutions, without everyone being inherently evil and predisposed to violence.
.

As stated before, the Actecs, Incas, Celts, Karankawa, the Huns, the Mongols... even the Vikings or the Roman empire (Wich was built on conquest, pillage and slavery, but they were very good at assimilating cultures, public works and bureaucracy) beg to differ.
They simply focus their violence on other cultures or countries or slaves so those empires last for a long time.

You have a hard time believe it because you simply disregarded the examples of long-lasting societies that uphold behaviour that is considered "evil" in modern standards, as you said before.
And of course, there are people inside a society that do not comply to the standards, but the majority do not see it as awful because it´s not bad behaviour in his society to treat slaves or minorities as possessions, easily discarded, for example.

And if that happened in the real world in ancient times, why not in a (more or less) medieval fantasy setting?

Also, I agree with the notion of Orcs, White walkers, and other humanoid creatures being a metaphor about the beast vs the man, chaos vs civilization, etc more than creatures themselves so the ones you found are inherently evil because they depict an idea, not a race or a society.

Of course, there´s always the narrative that uses a particular individual that goes against the tenants of his evil society and represents the triumph of individualism and free will; that´s a good trope too. Plenty of characters use that.



Last edited by _Vic_; 28/06/20 05:12 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Hoping Larian has been given artistic freedom of the "Woketards" of the Coast not to ham-fist insert immersion breaking present day politics into the game. If companions are based around feminist tropes like Amiri and Valerie (both oppressed by the patriarchy and subverted expectations forced upon them) in Pathfinder: Kingmaker licensed from Paizo, my love-affair with Larian would be diminished.

Originally Posted by Valerie

Originally Posted by Sordak
By your logic you cannot use any humanoid creature as a stand in for evil to create a better story.

Problem is not with human-like characters being evil, problem is with them being evil by nature rather than by choice/nurture.

I find your bias for "human-like" creatures to be problematic. Is humanoid shape a prerequisite for being worthy of the kind of moral nuance, consideration and supremacy you ascribe to humans? Isn't the next cause therefore, when you realize the slippery slope you're created for yourself, to purge every conceivable offence, to make every race and everything bland as Communism, squashing true diversity?

Sounds to me you're making it a problem cause your ideology tells you so, and frankly, probably just as much because it makes you feel good to smite others with the powers granted by said ideology haha. Narcissism role-playing as virtue is the biggest LARPG-scene ever! The gist of the matter is that you find orcs and what not, to be an analogy for black/colored people which in turn is synonymous with being oppressed/without agency and in need of protection. To my mind this is a kind of *incredibly* patronizing and racist thinking you would almost have to consider yourself an enlightened, morally superior, "anti"-racist to conceptualize.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
I´m sure the idea of nature vs nurture was discussed by philosophers for centuries since the helenos greek polis, far before the works of Marx and Engels.

That said, even if I disagree with @Valerie, I think you are seeing the ghost of communism here because there´s nothing that screams communism in what the user Valerie said. Sounds like you are trying to bring a discussion about politics from elsewhere to this thread where we´re discussing other things.

Last edited by _Vic_; 28/06/20 06:05 AM.
Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Why can't a fictional race be evil by nature? and why can't it be evil by nature without people complaining about some fake link to a RL minority?

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
you probably ought to play more of kingmaker.
i actually dont think Amiri or valeria are particular bad.
Amiri obviously carries a grudge, but shes also a paizo character. you can also tell her to stfu.

Valeria also gets (unless you cheese it hard) bitchslapt by her former mentor and eventually develops a bit of a better perception of things after getting the scar.
the only thing in that regard pathfinder has is the whole threesome relationship thing, but its not like that isnt shown to not work out at all when you meet the characters.
So eh.

I know a lot of people like to shit on owlcats characters, but most "flaws" these characters have are not meant to be endorsements, they are meant to be flaws, which is what makes characters interresting and non static

Joined: Jun 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Sordak

I know a lot of people like to shit on owlcats characters, but most "flaws" these characters have are not meant to be endorsements, they are meant to be flaws, which is what makes characters interresting and non static


They are meant to normalize mental illnesses, and break the notion of the traditional family. This is not a new concept. Just repeat the same message until it eventually becomes the "truth".


Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
and then theres the option to not do that in the game.

Joined: Jun 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by Valerie
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I do not know if it´s really that surreal and unrealistic.

I mean, the entire Inca´s religious beliefs were based on human sacrifices of the lower caste. They even have the Capacocha, where even noble families sacrifice his children because they were the best and pure.

The Karankawa and the Aztecs were known to practice cannibalism: warriors would eat a strip of flesh from enemies they had slain in combat. That was a symbol of status.

I'm just going to ignore these particular examples, since I just don't know enough about these cultures, but...

Originally Posted by _Vic_
It´s not so strange the existence of entire civilizations that has "evil" practices that are tolerated and even encouraged by their society or social group in the real world.
It would be weird if there is not in a fantasy world.

You do not even have to search much about their motivations: The ethical and moral values of their society are what could be considered "Evil" by the standards of most other communities.

The Drow are much closer to what you describe as an evil society, however, I have an issue even with that, because I have a hard time seeing a society built on making everyone as miserable as possible survive long term without frequent revolutions, without everyone being inherently evil and predisposed to violence.
.

As stated before, the Actecs, Incas, Celts, Karankawa, the Huns, the Mongols... even the Vikings or the Roman empire (Wich was built on conquest, pillage and slavery, but they were very good at assimilating cultures, public works and bureaucracy) beg to differ.
They simply focus their violence on other cultures or countries or slaves so those empires last for a long time.

You have a hard time believe it because you simply disregarded the examples of long-lasting societies that uphold behaviour that is considered "evil" in modern standards, as you said before.
And of course, there are people inside a society that do not comply to the standards, but the majority do not see it as awful because it´s not bad behaviour in his society to treat slaves or minorities as possessions, easily discarded, for example.

And if that happened in the real world in ancient times, why not in a (more or less) medieval fantasy setting?


...using the word ignore was a mistake in my previous post, let's pretend I didn't.

The problem with using those societies as LOOK AT THEM, THEY WERE EVIL is that we have few to none primary sources on those. It's why I decided to focus on the Nazis in my previous post. From all of those, knowing most about vikings, let's look at those a bit (but only a little bit, since my actual knowledge is very surface level)
Most accounts of these societies we have are from opposing cultures who had everything to gain from villainising them. English for Vikings, Romans for Celts, Chinese for Mongols, Spaniards for the South American societies. As for vikings, calling it a 'viking culture' is a misnomer, since viking was a thing to do, a job. Most old Danes, Norse, Swedes, etc. were mostly farmers and traders, much like other cultures of their time in Europe. Viking was happening because they were trying to find a better place to live, since the Scandinavian peninsula is not the most hospitable place to live.

But because unlike the English and the French, they didn't keep a whole lot of written records, the modern perception of them is twisted, since the English and the French did keep records, encountered all 3 groups of the Scandinavian societies (vikings/raiders, traders, farmers), and because they really did not want them there, mostly focused on the 'violent brutes' part when talking about them, to justify fighting to drive them away. So ultimately, I pretty much disagree with the notion that there were 'evil' (evil is such a loaded word too) societies. Societies with some harmful traditions, habits, or bad leaders? Definitely. Most societies fall under that. But none of them were evil.

Same (or close enough) applies to the other societies you mentioned.

Well, except for Romans, but outside of their imperialist desires, and occasional nutty ceasar, I don't see why are you calling them evil.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Pretty sure I never called them evil societies even once (Feel free to find a quote where I said so) It´s you the only one that said that I do.

I always said that they condone behaviours that are considered evil in most societies in modern times. Those societies are the product of their times like our societies are the product of the era we are living in.

And there are plenty of historical recounts and archaeological findings that prove the existence of State-condoned human sacrifices, ritual cannibalism, slavery and many more practices that are considered taboo in modern times.


That said, apply modern morals to a fantasy medieval word is pointless. I expect people in Faerun behave more like renaissance people and less than Modern millennials or car salesman, for example.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
I think that we as the player will get to determine how evil we want to be in the game. Our choice of race and background might give us more options in how we approach a situation but one of the joys of mortality is free will, we choose what we want to do. Obviously we might be 'encouraged' by our new best friend the tadpole but it's ultimately up to us how evil we want to be and whether we want to justify it to ourselves or anyone else.


Evil always finds a way.
Joined: Jun 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Pretty sure I never called them evil societies even once (Feel free to find a quote where I said so) It´s you the only one that said that I do.

Fair enough, I suppose I assumed because that's what the topic is supposedly about.

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I always said that they condone behaviours that are considered evil in most societies in modern times. Those societies are the product of their times like our societies are the product of the era we are living in.

And there are plenty of historical recounts and archaeological findings that prove the existence of State-condoned human sacrifices, ritual cannibalism, slavery and many more practices that are considered taboo in modern times.

Only fault I can really find with this is when the fantasy setting forgoes the more nuanced take and goes straight for the 'these things make the society as a whole evil' (or rather, they do these because they are evil), orcs are not written as raiders because they've been driven to the harsh edges of society and they have families to feed, but because they are violent savages, drow (and others) are not slavers because the ruling class is unwilling to compensate their own to work the fields and would rather enslave others for cheap/free labour, but because we need them to be evil, and how to easier to show that than, oh yeah, slavery. (yeah, these have been come up with in 5 seconds, I'm sure and actual writer could do better).

And while yes, there has been added nuance to those, the legacy of it is still alive, and WotC are trying to have a look at it and a think about it. I am curious what will come of it.

Originally Posted by _Vic_
That said, apply modern morals to a fantasy medieval word is pointless. I expect people in Faerun behave more like renaissance people and less than Modern millennials or car salesman, for example.


They are not really medieval people in most fantasy though. Like, I'm sure there is fantasy that's very gritty and medieval-but-magic, but most high fantasy is just modern people's wouldn't-it-be-cool-if, settings that resemble those times, but have been twisted by popular perception. And the criticism of glorification of harmful stereotypes and behaviour can very much be applied to the latter.

sneaky you, removing and rewriting the post after I started to reply xP

Joined: Jun 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Valerie

Originally Posted by Sordak
By your logic you cannot use any humanoid creature as a stand in for evil to create a better story.

Problem is not with human-like characters being evil, problem is with them being evil by nature rather than by choice/nurture.

I find your bias for "human-like" creatures to be problematic. Is humanoid shape a prerequisite for being worthy of the kind of moral nuance, consideration and supremacy you ascribe to humans? Isn't the next cause therefore, when you realize the slippery slope you're created for yourself, to purge every conceivable offence, to make every race and everything bland as Communism, squashing true diversity?

[Linked Image]

I specifically used human-like instead of humanoid to refer to behaviours, because vast majority of fiction writes their non-humans as humans in rubber suits, maybe with a specific behavioural hat on. Because most fiction writers are not writing about actually alien beings, but ones that are used as a stand-in for parts human condition, used in an exaggerated way.

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I´m sure the idea of nature vs nurture was discussed by philosophers for centuries since the helenos greek polis, far before the works of Marx and Engels.

That said, even if I disagree with @Valerie, I think you are seeing the ghost of communism here because there´s nothing that screams communism in what the user Valerie said. Sounds like you are trying to bring a discussion about politics from elsewhere to this thread where we´re discussing other things.

Amusingly, enough, their overblown reaction did not land far from my actual political leanings, I'm the worst stereotype of my kind.
[Linked Image]
although I'm sure they know little to nothing of what those beliefs actually contain

Joined: Apr 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2020
Not to get into real world politics or religion, because this is a fantasy game. But when Tolkien portrayed Orcs, they weren't about beasts vs humans. Nor were they some underhanded attempt to be racist about about non white ethnicities. Tolkien based Orcs and Goblins on fallen Angels and Demons, and his Elves on Angels of God. That's why they were portrayed as so evil, and Elves as so good.

Last edited by Merlex; 28/06/20 03:19 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I think @sordak @dethridge @nyanko are right. This is stupid decision on WotC's part. Orcs are not real. Drow are not real. They are not fictionalized representations of real peoples. This decision creates more problems that it solves and it solves nothing.

It would have better by far to say in the past some artwork has suggested links between these imaginary races and real world peoples and WotC will ensure that no artwork make this mistake again.

And to be clear, I am writing from a left perspective. I would never use a word like 'woketard'. This is a decision so bad that it alienate D&D fans left right and center.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Merlex
Not to get into real world politics or religion, because this is a fantasy game. But when Tolkien portrayed Orcs, they weren't about beasts vs humans. Nor were they some underhanded attempt to be racist about about non white ethnicities. Tolkien based Orcs and Goblins on fallen Angels and Demons, and his Elves on Angels of God. That's why they were portrayed as so evil, and Elves as so good.


This. Tolkein had the same view of evil that Augustine did. Evil is the corruption of the good. And evil is a real supernatural force that alters one's (very real) immoral soul. People who think that is view is too simple are really saying they disagree with this theological pov.

It's a game. You pretend to take on a moral code that is different from one you hold in real life . . . You can think Tolkein in wrong and still play a lawful good paladin.

Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
This decision creates more problems that it solves and it solves nothing.



This. And while you are coming "from a left perspective", I am coming from a "right perspective". Firm handshake.

Joined: Jan 2018
W
veteran
Offline
veteran
W
Joined: Jan 2018
Originally Posted by Merlex
Not to get into real world politics or religion, because this is a fantasy game. But when Tolkien portrayed Orcs, they weren't about beasts vs humans. Nor were they some underhanded attempt to be racist about about non white ethnicities. Tolkien based Orcs and Goblins on fallen Angels and Demons, and his Elves on Angels of God. That's why they were portrayed as so evil, and Elves as so good.


Elves in Tolkien have nothing to do with angels. The Wizards are angels, Sauron is a fallen angel. And I don’t mean inspired by angels. The Judeo-Christian God exists in Tolkien, though is only just barely mentioned outside of the Silmarillion. So Gandalf is an actual angel of God and Sauron is a lieutenant to Satan.

Tolkien’s elves are personifications of the highest human qualities.

“The Elves represent, as it were, the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men.” -Tolkien, letter 181

So if orcs represent a subversion, it would be of that. Not angels.

Interestingly enough, Tolkien himself agonized about the very subject matter of this topic. He went through several iterations of an origin for the orcs, trying to decide if they had free will, if they could be Saved (Tolkien was very Catholic after all) and what it meant for a race to be evil. Tolkien, though certainly subject to all of the implicit racial biases of the culture and time he grew up in, was profoundly against Nazi ideology and only denounced racial pseudoscientific theories.

So, it’s a complex issue. I think it is worth it for WotC to look into their lore and re-examine the validity of some of their tropes. Goblins, Orcs, Gnolls, Drow and the like don’t need to be inherently evil. In fact, the FR setting is arguably more compelling if they aren’t. So why keep them that way?

There will still be evil monsters to fight; plenty of illithids, lichs, beholders, and demons. But for more mundane, non-eldritch entities, we can have good and bad goblins the same way we have good and bad people.

Last edited by Warlocke; 29/06/20 04:58 AM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
Only it isnt.
Tolkien is afterall not the final arbiter of fantasy and while his personal cahtolic leanings certainly remind me of modern ideological leanings which are basically just as religious, what we need to understand is that some things are created with one purpose or another.

Tolkien was a christian, christians did afterall try to convert imaginary dog headed people in india.

That doesnt mean that you cannot have any dehumanized Evil Races that specifically are a stand in of a NON EMPHATIC threat.
They could stand for a natural desaster or they could, much like the Orcs in LOTR in many ways did, stand for an ideology, rather than the people belieivng in the ideology.

TL;DR while youre correct, youre also not making much of a point in the debate to be had.

WOTC arent very christian are they. And by their own religion, they are just, ironically, pushing negative stereotypes from fantasy races unto minorities.
By the logic that "If theres a negative stereotype associated with a fantasy race that also was at some point attributed to a human ethnic group, those two things must be connected"
That of course is bullshit.

But thats where this entire debate stems from and why i think WOTC approach is not only wrongheaded but actually wrong by their own standards.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5