The goblin calling you "racist" line is a good theme but the writer didn't develop it.
MakeAthkatlaGrtAgain
Member Posts: 132
I generally find in AD&D alignment of good vs. evil is based on tribalism where helping the in-group is considered "good" while fighting outside groups are considered "good" because outgroups are "evil". That's one issue is that humans and animals like wolves are tribal. Like in the whole european migrant crisis, they brought different groups in and many times these groups of migrants really hated each other and would feud. Is one group good and the other evil like AD&D blindly promotes? Actually good and evil depend on which group one is in. Your own group is "good" while the enemy group is "evil".
In AD&D they have a lot of races as they call them (more like species but they can interbreed so there is some genetic similarity so it's like humans and neanderthals) that are basically considered "evil" as a race. Alignment has whole races considered good, neutral, and evil. This whole concept is racist.
This line almost had it except "racist" is anarchronastic.
"So, all goblins look alike to you? That's what you're saying? Racist."
The word "racist" was created by Leon Trotsky in the 20th century. It's really important to use a word that doesn't take you out of the scene. This reads fare better with the simple change to an older term:
"So, all goblins look alike to you? That's what you're saying? Bigot."
Also the "all X look alike to you" is corny. I really think it better to explore the notion that all races are claimed to be "good" or "evil" because of the AD&D alignment claims and maybe they're not because of tribalism.
"So, you think all goblins/drow/beholders/orcs are evil? That's what you're saying? Bigot."
Using a modern term is lazy. Here's an example of how communication would be without many modern comparisons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TtDZlHqao
For anarchronastic dialog that's done right is like when you first met Jan Jansen and some police (or guard as the concept of separation between the military and civilian police force only came a few hundred years ago as a civil liberties thing to protect against government abuse of power) guy asks you what you saw. You have the option to say, "Don't I have the right to remain silent?" The police/guard guy has never heard of this phrase and is all, "No! What kind of stupid right is that?"
Similarly, a creature can describe racism without the word and the player character has an option to say "racist" and then the various NPCs chime in how they never heard of any word. Then the player character can talk about how all the races of Faerun should get along without conflict and it is wrong for them to hate one another for their race (like Kivan hates drow). And then all the NPCs can say "you're crazy. Nobody thinks like that in this world!" The player character can then explain they grew up at Candlekeep, the great library of knowledge and there were some books they read that few people have which have these ideas. In Planescape Torment there's a corpse you can talk to the spirit of and the body belong to a guy from ancient China who somehow got to Sigil.
In BG1 Kivan if I remember correctly tries to kill Viconia for her race. And in both BG1 and BG2, you lose 2 reputation points for taking a drow. This is the kind of thing to explore.
And again, the player character is the one that can put in modern perspectives like "no racism" and the characters can use their authentic perspective which is the word doesn't even exist and it's considered normal to judge by race: elf, orc, drow, gnome, halfling, etc.
In the Knights of The Old Republic 1 and 2 games, there were a few dialog options where the player could put in a modern earth perspective and the characters react and one line of "pulling a Bindo" which was something the person playing the game knew about but not the character the person is playing. You don't want the NPCs breaking the fourth wall unless one of them is the specific character Deadpool from Marvel comics who does this.
Like...
Player character: Kivan, why do you hate drows so much? That's racist!
Kivan: What is "racist"? Drows did X to my family and [other things].
Player character: Oh we can't tie this to all drows for the actions of a few. It's not fair. There are a lot of good drow. This is just some fringe drow with mental illnesses. Drow are usually good people. And also for the attack those drow did, in reality drow as a whole are the real victim of the attack because of the negative reputation it put on their group.
Kivan: No all drow are bad. Like did you hear just last week at the winter solstice celebration, a drow took a carriage and ran over innocent people celebrating and the other drows took credit saying they planned the attack and will conquer the surface-dwellers.
Player character: Whoa! Check your elf-privilege! Drow only did that because they suffered from centuries of institutionalized racism at the hands of elves.
Kivan: What are you talking about? Are you insane?
Player character: Elves and drow should intermarry to end this racism.
Kivan: That's crazy! Drow want us wiped out. We need to wipe them out.
Player character: You're just being racist. You're as bad as Hitler and the nazis!
Kivan: Who?
You see. Only the player character should have dialog options that don't make sense in the world. The characters should have dialog that keeps in their world. And the AD&D world itself is a very very racist one where this stuff is normal. You can make an entire game where a hero tries to end the hatred between the races.
A good plot idea is there's an earthquake and so drow in one city are in danger. But none of the neighboring drow cities will take them in. So the elves open their hearts and take the drows in which is more expensive because it's a different culture. Then all the drow start flooding in because of the great care the elves provide. Then the svirfneblin (dark gnomes) come saying their cities were effected. And then the drow and svirfneblin in elf cities start fighting because these two groups are normally hostile to each other. And so the whole game will focus on you trying to end all the racial conflict. Also less than 1% of the drow and svirfneblin are able to find work and they mainly cause trouble for the elves. And at the very end you learn of a dragon with some villainous name like Sauron used a spell to cause the earthquake so he could destabilize elf society and conquer them.
In AD&D they have a lot of races as they call them (more like species but they can interbreed so there is some genetic similarity so it's like humans and neanderthals) that are basically considered "evil" as a race. Alignment has whole races considered good, neutral, and evil. This whole concept is racist.
This line almost had it except "racist" is anarchronastic.
"So, all goblins look alike to you? That's what you're saying? Racist."
The word "racist" was created by Leon Trotsky in the 20th century. It's really important to use a word that doesn't take you out of the scene. This reads fare better with the simple change to an older term:
"So, all goblins look alike to you? That's what you're saying? Bigot."
Also the "all X look alike to you" is corny. I really think it better to explore the notion that all races are claimed to be "good" or "evil" because of the AD&D alignment claims and maybe they're not because of tribalism.
"So, you think all goblins/drow/beholders/orcs are evil? That's what you're saying? Bigot."
Using a modern term is lazy. Here's an example of how communication would be without many modern comparisons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TtDZlHqaoFor anarchronastic dialog that's done right is like when you first met Jan Jansen and some police (or guard as the concept of separation between the military and civilian police force only came a few hundred years ago as a civil liberties thing to protect against government abuse of power) guy asks you what you saw. You have the option to say, "Don't I have the right to remain silent?" The police/guard guy has never heard of this phrase and is all, "No! What kind of stupid right is that?"
Similarly, a creature can describe racism without the word and the player character has an option to say "racist" and then the various NPCs chime in how they never heard of any word. Then the player character can talk about how all the races of Faerun should get along without conflict and it is wrong for them to hate one another for their race (like Kivan hates drow). And then all the NPCs can say "you're crazy. Nobody thinks like that in this world!" The player character can then explain they grew up at Candlekeep, the great library of knowledge and there were some books they read that few people have which have these ideas. In Planescape Torment there's a corpse you can talk to the spirit of and the body belong to a guy from ancient China who somehow got to Sigil.
In BG1 Kivan if I remember correctly tries to kill Viconia for her race. And in both BG1 and BG2, you lose 2 reputation points for taking a drow. This is the kind of thing to explore.
And again, the player character is the one that can put in modern perspectives like "no racism" and the characters can use their authentic perspective which is the word doesn't even exist and it's considered normal to judge by race: elf, orc, drow, gnome, halfling, etc.
In the Knights of The Old Republic 1 and 2 games, there were a few dialog options where the player could put in a modern earth perspective and the characters react and one line of "pulling a Bindo" which was something the person playing the game knew about but not the character the person is playing. You don't want the NPCs breaking the fourth wall unless one of them is the specific character Deadpool from Marvel comics who does this.
Like...
Player character: Kivan, why do you hate drows so much? That's racist!
Kivan: What is "racist"? Drows did X to my family and [other things].
Player character: Oh we can't tie this to all drows for the actions of a few. It's not fair. There are a lot of good drow. This is just some fringe drow with mental illnesses. Drow are usually good people. And also for the attack those drow did, in reality drow as a whole are the real victim of the attack because of the negative reputation it put on their group.
Kivan: No all drow are bad. Like did you hear just last week at the winter solstice celebration, a drow took a carriage and ran over innocent people celebrating and the other drows took credit saying they planned the attack and will conquer the surface-dwellers.
Player character: Whoa! Check your elf-privilege! Drow only did that because they suffered from centuries of institutionalized racism at the hands of elves.
Kivan: What are you talking about? Are you insane?
Player character: Elves and drow should intermarry to end this racism.
Kivan: That's crazy! Drow want us wiped out. We need to wipe them out.
Player character: You're just being racist. You're as bad as Hitler and the nazis!
Kivan: Who?
You see. Only the player character should have dialog options that don't make sense in the world. The characters should have dialog that keeps in their world. And the AD&D world itself is a very very racist one where this stuff is normal. You can make an entire game where a hero tries to end the hatred between the races.
A good plot idea is there's an earthquake and so drow in one city are in danger. But none of the neighboring drow cities will take them in. So the elves open their hearts and take the drows in which is more expensive because it's a different culture. Then all the drow start flooding in because of the great care the elves provide. Then the svirfneblin (dark gnomes) come saying their cities were effected. And then the drow and svirfneblin in elf cities start fighting because these two groups are normally hostile to each other. And so the whole game will focus on you trying to end all the racial conflict. Also less than 1% of the drow and svirfneblin are able to find work and they mainly cause trouble for the elves. And at the very end you learn of a dragon with some villainous name like Sauron used a spell to cause the earthquake so he could destabilize elf society and conquer them.
0
Comments
i hated the glum boring negative goblin. i hate goblins as a rule... but i might have liked her if she eas not an ugly eore gloomy clone.
DnD was in its begienings and will always be for me... about one type of creature being classified by alignment in a book... so you could always kill goblins with impunity... the the advaced dnd biok came out and they wrote in wither the dm guide ot player hand book that lalidins would not kill goblin or eas it orc... prisoners in cold blood. I did not like tbis as I prrfeted a pure fantasy whete chaotic ev creatures were all killed in perfect goodness regardless of thrir age gender or tied handicapped state.
It was finely crafted, though, you get a star for effort OP.
As for the OP, it was a joke in bad taste with all things considered. Still it is minor enough to be irrelevant.... Look at the bright side, at least the goblin didn't start protesting [goblin lives matter] lol
too bad the different species in D&D have been called "races" since the beginning of time buddy.
But It is true that nowadays this word is more associated with unrational hate against different people.
I don't think "racist" is anarchronastic. D&D is not our world in middle age. It has his own story and development. The concept of racism, in a world so full of different races, does fit in my opinion and its use in D&D is justifiable.