The Politics of Tabletop RPGs

[The Narrator]

like the Flan (from Greyhawk) who had matrilineal property ownership (property passed to the first born daughter), which meant men married into their wives' houses.

Click to shrink...

Historically, it's been entirely possible for societies to have both matrilineal inheritance and extreme misogyny. Oftentimes the father chose the daughter's husband, and thus his heir. You saw matrilineal inheritance in Ancient Greece, for example, which is why so many stories end with the hero marrying the king's daughter and inheriting the kingdom. These stories mostly coming from the same city-state where women were treated famously poorly even by Ancient Greek standards, and the legend of the first trial in the justice system ended with a verdict that killing your mother is actually okay because women don't count as real parents.

I'm guessing this is leftovers from Tolkein's "evil races", but EGG did not progress much beyond Tolkein's initial take.

Click to shrink...

Gygax did progress beyond Tolkein's take, but in the direction of worse rather than better. While there's certainly racism in Tolkien's writing (his description of half-orcs sounds suspiciously like Asian people), he stopped short of endorsing genocide and eventually became uncomfortable with the implication that a whole species could be born evil with no recourse, later deciding that it would be better if orcs just appeared fully formed through magic and were never children. Whereas Gygax took the idea of an "evil race" and doubled down on it, endorsing killing children of those races as good and just while gleefully quoting a genocidal racist. Gygax took some potentially-racist concepts from Tolkien and made them more racist. This is in addition to lots of other racist and sexist attitudes that he'd expressed throughout his lifetime.

Gygax was an awful human being in a number of ways, and having invented a game that was, after decades of revision and help from other people, eventually made into something playable doesn't change that.

 

[earthboy]

If you would like to read the parts of my post you did not bother to quote, you will find I addressed both of these points directly.

Click to shrink...

I see you repeating that everyone is a rando, but that's not actually evidence -- you're just repeating your (unfounded, incorrect) opinion.

You can 'directly' be wrong about who was allowed to dispense justice, and you can say it any number of times, but your (unfounded, incorrect) opinion will remain wrong no matter how many times -- and no matter how 'directly' -- you repeat that (unfounded, incorrect) opinion.

Again, in your game you can do what you want, but right now you're trying to tell me how to run my game, and you're trying to tell the game's author how to run his game -- you are wrong, and your actions are wrong when you try to impose your opinion on everyone's games.

Killing prisoners is Wrong, Actually.

Click to shrink...

In this case you are wrong, actually.

I'm not really sure what's the point in trying to make Gygax seem reasonable in his comments about murdering surrendered prisoners.
Accepting that the guy has some fairly problematic views does not damn a hobby that moved past him decades ago.

Click to shrink...

Because D&D monsters aren't regular soldiers in the military of a signatory state which obey the rules of modern warfare.

D&D monsters often aren't even citizens of any state.

In a setting like Eberron where monsters *ARE* citizens, taking prisoners would usually be correct -- but not all settings are so modern, and imposing modern morality on pre-modern scenarios feels wrong.

Gygax was an awful human being in a number of ways, and having invented a game that was, after decades of revision and help from other people, eventually made into something playable doesn't change that.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm not here to defend EGG as a person, but I do see a bunch of these complaints NOT being made in good faith, and I would strongly prefer that all complaints against people be made in good faith.

 

[RiverDelta]

In a setting like Eberron where monsters *ARE* citizens, taking prisoners would usually be correct -- but not all settings are so modern, and imposing modern morality on pre-modern scenarios feels wrong.

Click to shrink...

I'm assuming it's good, though, if an adventuring party in Greyhawk or whatever does take prisoners?

Like, it's not international law, but it's probably a nice thing to do?

 

[Azel]

@earthboy, I'm all for exploring and depicting historical settings with all the warts they had, which includes misogyny, torture and a general disregard for the life and well-being of everything even slightly otherized.

But you are going the extra mile here to argue that these things are supposed to be seen as perfectly acceptable behavior for a character that is supposed to embody justice and morality. You are legitimizing the warts instead of engaging critically with them.

 

[earthboy]

I'm assuming it's good, though, if an adventuring party in Greyhawk or whatever does take prisoners?

Like, it's not international law, but it's probably a nice thing to do?

Click to shrink...

Removing evils from the world -- which a Paladin can objectively detect -- would be more compatible with Good than letting those evils go free.

Nice is not an alignment for an adventurer.

@earthboy, I'm all for exploring and depicting historical settings with all the warts they had, which includes misogyny, torture and a general disregard for the life and well-being of everything even slightly otherized.

But you are going the extra mile here to argue that these things are supposed to be seen as perfectly acceptable behavior for a character that is supposed to embody justice and morality. You are legitimizing the warts instead of engaging critically with them.

Click to shrink...

So, the Paladin executed a prisoner who was being interrogated by someone else. The Paladin stopped any ongoing torture. The Paladin did not torture the prisoner, the Paladin executed the prisoner.

Now I see you bad-faith posting about the Paladin's actions, and in the same post accusing me of "going the extra mile" to defend things which didn't happen.

If you honestly believe what you wrote, then I guess your accusation makes sense in your head, but to me what's going on here is that you are not accurately representing the facts on the ground, and when I try to clarify what's actually going on, I get attacked for it personally.

"Engaging critically" should be based on the the actual warts. That's what I'm making a fuss about.

 

[Azel]

So, the Paladin executed a prisoner who was being interrogated by someone else. The Paladin stopped any ongoing torture. The Paladin did not torture the prisoner, the Paladin executed the prisoner.

Now I see you bad-faith posting about the Paladin's actions, and in the same post accusing me of "going the extra mile" to defend things which didn't happen.

If you honestly believe what you wrote, then I guess your accusation makes sense in your head, but to me what's going on here is that you are not accurately representing the facts on the ground, and when I try to clarify what's actually going on, I get attacked for it personally.

"Engaging critically" should be based on the the actual warts. That's what I'm making a fuss about.

Click to shrink...

The wart I want to engage critically right now is that you post zingers here like "killing prisoners is fine, actually, as long as they are part of a designated Evil race" and then claim it is a personal attack when I call you out on it.

Just take a step back and try to read others posts as statements made in good faith for a minute.

 

[Oracle of Space]

I'd also like to interject and note that executing prisoners of war has been considered a heinous act for much longer than the Geneva convention has been around. Even back during the middle ages, surrendered combatants were expected to be protected and cared for, at the very least as you can not ransom a corpse.

Edit: Even pirates, who were literally classified as "enemies of humanity" rarely slaughtered surrendered combatants. Probably because, being known for killing prisoners as a very reliable way of getting those you're fighting to fight harder.

 

[earthboy]

The wart I want to engage critically right now is that you post zingers here like "killing prisoners is fine, actually, as long as they are part of a designated Evil race" and then claim it is a personal attack when I call you out on it.

Just take a step back and try to read others posts as statements made in good faith for a minute.

Click to shrink...

1 - You're not "calling me on it" when you accuse EGG of endorsing a Paladin torturing someone whom the Paladin didn't torture, you're just being wrong.

2 - I'm insisting that the accusations against a real person be founded in reality.

3 - When people have made statements in good faith, I've happily accepted them. Nobody else in this conversation has written "You're right" about other people, except me. You for example haven't been budged by facts.

I'd also like to interject and note that executing prisoners of war has been considered a heinous act for much longer than the Geneva convention has been around. Even back during the middle ages, surrendered combatants were expected to be protected and cared for, at the very least as you can not ransom a corpse.

Click to shrink...

Soldiers, though, and not pirates or bandits.

Bandits, pirates, and outlaws -- which this murderous ogre could be compared against -- could be executed.

 

[Reveen]

So, the Paladin executed a prisoner who was being interrogated by someone else. The Paladin stopped any ongoing torture. The Paladin did not torture the prisoner, the Paladin executed the prisoner.

Click to shrink...

You keep saying these very strange things as if it's supposed to make the OG DnD treatment of Paladins sound reasonable and not fucked up.

I don't think it's working.

Even the idea of an aristocracy and monarchy isn't really that out of keeping with such mindsets: they just imagine themselves as the lords and knights rather than the peasants.

Click to shrink...

I think this is the big sticking point with the modern right. Reactionaries these days are wedded to the idea of rugged hard work (that you pay other people to do), and idolizing a cartoon image of the blue collar man. Selling aristocracy to them might fly if it's framed in the current American parlance of the rural/suburban homestead. But it flies out the window when you expect them to identify with a bunch of Hapsburg jaw motherfuckers wearing poofy shirts and those white tights that show off the buttocks.

There's a reason why hyper-trad, NrX, and monarchists tend to be the biggest crybabies on the right. It's because literally, everyone thinks they're lame.

Honestly I really don't know where DnD's reputations where the characters are just random schmoes comes from, at least in every book I've read it really emphasizes and hammers home the fact your characters are the extraordinary ones, the ones who are not only badass enough to plunge ancient ruins and tombs, but are good enough to make a job off of it.

Click to shrink...

Because most players are gonna be asked to make their own backstory

 

[Oracle of Space]

Soldiers, though, and not pirates or bandits.

Bandits, pirates, and outlaws -- which this murderous ogre could be compared against -- could be executed.

Click to shrink...

Pirates and bandits also tended to not slaughter surrendered combatants. They want money, and actually having to fight is a very quick way to not make a profit. Because well, even if you win and take the money off of the corpses, now the pirates have to deal with their injured.

Much better to just threaten travelers, take their money, and let them go.

 

[Azel]

1 - You're not "calling me on it" when you accuse EGG of endorsing a Paladin torturing someone whom the Paladin didn't torture, you're just being wrong.

2 - I'm insisting that the accusations against a real person be founded in reality.

3 - When people have made statements in good faith, I've happily accepted them. Nobody else in this conversation has written "You're right" about other people, except me. You for example haven't been budged by facts.

Click to shrink...

Would you kindly explain to me what exactly you think I have written? Because you are reading something that seems to be only tangentially related to my words.

My points are:
1. Historic settings can contain a lot of Bad Stuff and depicting Bad Stuff is fine as long as it is engaged with critically.
2. You are losing track of what you are arguing in your zeal to defend D&D pretty abysmal handling of a lot of Bad Stuff, thus saying a bunch of Pretty Questionable Stuff.

 

[earthboy]

You keep saying these very strange things as if it's supposed to make the OG DnD treatment of Paladins sound reasonable and not fucked up.

Click to shrink...

If you want to move the goalposts from "evil" to "fucked up", then I don't mind agreeing that OG D&D had plenty of fucked up stuff.

I would not wish to live there.

You're absolutely wrong if you claim that I'm trying to make D&D sound reasonable, though -- D&D is a kitchen sink of crazy.

Pirates and bandits also tended to not slaughter surrendered combatants. They want money, and actually having to fight is a very quick way to not make a profit. Because well, even if you win and take the money off of the corpses, now the pirates have to deal with their injured.

Much better to just threaten travelers, take their money, and let them go.

Click to shrink...

If an authority figure (e.g. a Paladin) captures a bandit, pirate, or other outlaw, the authority figure is within his rights to execute the bandit, pirate, or other outlaw.

The ogre didn't capture the PCs, you knew this right?

Would you kindly explain to me what exactly you think I have written? Because you are reading something that seems to be only tangentially related to my words.

My points are:
1. Historic settings can contain a lot of Bad Stuff and depicting Bad Stuff is fine as long as it is engaged with critically.
2. You are losing track of what you are arguing in your zeal to defend D&D pretty abysmal handling of a lot of Bad Stuff, thus saying a bunch of Pretty Questionable Stuff.

Click to shrink...

Would you kindly explain to me what you think I'm "arguing in [my] zeal to defend D&D [sic] pretty abysmal handling of a lot of Bad Stuff"?

 

[CatOnTheWeb]

Edit: Even pirates, who were literally classified as "enemies of humanity" rarely slaughtered surrendered combatants. Probably because, being known for killing prisoners as a very reliable way of getting those you're fighting to fight harder.

Click to shrink...

Ehhhh, yes and no. Pirates wouldn't torture their prisoners so long as they gave up their treasure without a fight. And even if their targets did fight back, pirates wouldn't 'KILL EM ALL!' for the reasons you said.

But Pirates had a vested interest in discouraging fights, in getting people to just surrender without any fuss, because a fuss means chance of death or maiming for the pirate crew. So, they'd brutally torture a few crewmembers after a battle, just to make a reputation of 'don't fight us, it's just not worth it man,' when they went sailing. It's why Pirates had distinctive flags, it was them saying 'we're so-and-so ship, which has done such-and-such things to people who fought back. Don't fight back, and we won't do that to you.'

 

[Azel]

Would you kindly explain to me what you think I'm "arguing in [my] zeal to defend D&D [sic] pretty abysmal handling of a lot of Bad Stuff"?

Click to shrink...

I don't see why I should repeat my previous post if you do not extend me the courtesy to answer my question.

 

[earthboy]

I don't see why I should repeat my previous post if you do not extend me the courtesy to answer my question.

Click to shrink...

I'm extending you the same courtesy you've just extended me.

Apparently you find answering your own question beneath you. So you weren't asking in good faith after all.

I've actually cited things to support my arguments, unlike your character attacks, so if you were to re-read my posts, you might find some answers. But I'm under no obligation to undertake an effort which you have preemptively dismissed.

 

[RiverDelta]

I was just typically under the understanding that redemption of evil was supposed to be the highest good.

I'm not saying "They're evil races, let's not get into the Orc Baby Debate" isn't a valid position, but if a group wants to try and bring members of a designated "usually Chaotic Evil" race into better circumstances or hold them captive in hopes of making sure they're tried properly for their crimes, I wouldn't discourage that as a DM.

 

[Reveen]

Pirates and bandits also tended to not slaughter surrendered combatants. They want money, and actually having to fight is a very quick way to not make a profit. Because well, even if you win and take the money off of the corpses, now the pirates have to deal with their injured.

Click to shrink...

I mean, if we're going off of history a lot of the 'bandits' might either used to be the exact same villagers the Paladin was sworn to protect, or literally just some kingdoms troops left behind after the last war to rip shit up for the next go around.

I really do hate that shit in tabletop and CRPGs, like never even thinking about where bandits might be coming from and who's fault it is. Leaving me to wonder if I'm actually killing people for a good reason or if I'm just hacking up a bunch of teenagers who used to live in the village paying me to protect it.

You're absolutely wrong if you claim that I'm trying to make D&D sound reasonable, though -- D&D is a kitchen sink of crazy.

Click to shrink...

Then what claim are you trying to make? What do you gain from dying on this hill aside from making people think you're in favour of Gygaxes weird Ye Olde KKK crap?

 

[Hykal94]

I really do hate that shit in tabletop and CRPGs, like never even thinking about where bandits might be coming from and who's fault it is. Leaving me to wonder if I'm actually killing people for a good reason or if I'm just hacking up a bunch of teenagers who used to live in the village paying me to protect it.

Click to shrink...

I'm reminded of that one time Emperor Augustus redistributing farmland to his legions by forcibly taking existing farmland from Roman citizens. This leads, to no one's surprise, a lot of banditry.

 

[Alane1]

Bandits could also be out of work mercenaries or mercenaries who were paid to attack the local area by another lord, a rival city or other some power to get them off their own land, to cause havoc and destruction on a rival's land or both which was also common historically.

The line between bandits and mercenaries could often be rather thin at the best of times historically even when they weren't being paid to play bandit.

 

[earthboy]

I was just typically under the understanding that redemption of evil was supposed to be the highest good.

Click to shrink...

Redemption might be the highest good. Does that mean everything else is somehow non-good? Bit of an excluded middle there if you think the highest good is the only good.

I'm not saying "They're evil races, let's not get into the Orc Baby Debate" isn't a valid position, but if a group wants to try and bring members of a designated "usually Chaotic Evil" race into better circumstances or hold them captive in hopes of making sure they're tried properly for their crimes, I wouldn't discourage that as a DM.

Click to shrink...

Sure, and according to EGG the Paladin is permitted to execute evil prisoners -- not required to do so.

Then what claim are you trying to make? What do you gain from dying on this hill aside from making people think you're in favour of Gygaxes weird Ye Olde KKK crap?

Click to shrink...

Haven't seen Ye Olde KKK crap, can you point out what you mean here?

 

[Madam Carstein]

I think this is the big sticking point with the modern right. Reactionaries these days are wedded to the idea of rugged hard work (that you pay other people to do), and idolizing a cartoon image of the blue collar man. Selling aristocracy to them might fly if it's framed in the current American parlance of the rural/suburban homestead. But it flies out the window when you expect them to identify with a bunch of Hapsburg jaw motherfuckers wearing poofy shirts and those white tights that show off the buttocks.

There's a reason why hyper-trad, NrX, and monarchists tend to be the biggest crybabies on the right. It's because literally, everyone thinks they're lame.

Click to shrink...

I mean, sure, but I think this is rather overestimating the general historical knowledge of the far-right, but more importantly, I think you're directing your arguments at the wrong era. I am not aware of any significant portion of the far-right that idolises Early Modern Europe.

Alt-righters love the idea of mediaeval societies where a king's place was on the battlefield and launching violent wars of conquests against various vaguely-defined pagans (including and especially Muslims) was a highly prestigious action. It's not by accident that Deus Vult has popularity as a slogan among modern far-righters.

Naturally, they also love the idea of living in what they imagine would be a thoroughly homogenous society where they don't have to interact with people of colour, where LGBT+ people are silenced and persecuted, and where women are subordinate and "know their place" compared to men. And that, naturally, their societies are dominated by the super-rich with the poor being safely out of sight and out of mind.

Like, our society's imagined view of what the mediaeval era was like happens to intersect with a LOT of far-right ideals, so I think you're selling that part of it short.

Of course, any modern far-righter who actually encountered the complex realities of life in mediaeval Europe would probably be in for a rather rude awakening*, but we're talking about a group that isn't especially known for its logic or knowledge of historical fact to begin with.

*I mean really, most of them would probably end up in a dungeon for refusing to pay their tolls and taxes or badmouthing the wrong noble*

Bandits could also be out of work mercenaries or mercenaries who were paid to attack the local area by another lord, a rival city or other some power to get them off their own land, to cause havoc and destruction on a rival's land or both which was also common historically.

The line between bandits and mercenaries could often be rather thin at the best of times historically even when they weren't being paid to play bandit.

Click to shrink...

Also, banditry could be a pretty cyclical issue among regions and peoples living in peripheral areas. Most people will not voluntarily risk attacking densely-populated lands that are typically well-garrisoned unless driven to do so by desperation. Of course, sometimes they might also find that living as a farmer in good lands is a lot more pleasant than living as a herder in a harsh and remote area. So I mean... one era's farmers might have been the past era's barbarian raiders.

 

[Alane1]

Raiders could be produced by the tensions and opposing cultures of let's say nomadic and settled people or a produced by long standing cultural and political tensions between kingdoms like the reivers of the Anglo-Scottish border who were a perennial problem for centuries along the borderlands though there were apparently times when raiders ranged away from the borderlands to pillage as far north as the outskirts of Edinburgh in the north and as far south as Yorkshire and Lancaster.

Cross border raiding apparently was also a thing along the Anglo-Welsh border and between the domains of the Normans and the French in France both before and after the Norman conquest of England.

 

[Chloe Sullivan]

Geneva does not exist. There is no modern war going on. D&D monsters cannot be disarmed.

Click to shrink...

Ogres and Orcs and Goblins absolutely can be disarmed, what are you talking about?

 

[earthboy]

Ogres and Orcs and Goblins absolutely can be disarmed, what are you talking about?

Click to shrink...

In 1e AD&D, ogres deal 1d10 damage even without a weapon. You cannot disarm an ogre in that edition, as even without a weapon it is able to deal as much damage as a large sword.

Orcs deal 1d8 damage with no weapon; goblins deal 1d6 with no weapon.

 

[Queshire]

A lot of these things seem like they're going to be specific to the table in question. I like going with the idea that a paladin's power comes from the strength of their will with any religious connection being optional. In that case the paladin in question would keep their powers, but might not keep their place in the party.