Видео

rather than a fantasy race issue (aside from cases where a race has little unique backing from its own creator), this sounds like a player skill and dedication issue, idk as a side note, i dont really mind leaning into fantasy races being [some flavor of irl human culture], in the vein that you can justify (maybe in a tongue-in-cheek way) that the fantasy race is why that human culture developed in the way that it did lol i dont even play d&d tho so i aint know shit really interesting discussion tho, i leave a like and comment for you

Democracies and Republics do have a place in fantasy alongside the kingdoms/empires, but look to the Classical era and Renaissance Italy rather than the Enlightenment and modern times for inspiration.

I find GoT stupid. It's n ot grey morality, itś stupid people doing stupid things. They don't look not even horrib le to me, they look idiotic.

Weirdness can be quite good ye

I would note that pure evil races weren't ever a part of dnd kinda - reaction tables in first editions meant anything other than a mindless skeleton, zombie or similar would at least treasure it's life and not fight just to be evil. Lots of evil races in first editions of dnd were also given explanations as to why they are evil and some weren't even set to being evil. Straship Troopers clip also feels out of place - in the movies, bugs are actually just defending themselves against humanity's conquest. We just view things from the viewpoint of the brainwashed and expandable cannon fodder. I would say the "complex orcs, simple zombies" thing mirrors some of my own thoughts on the topic. Pure evil tends to be boring by itself in literature - it acts more as a force of nature affecting other elements. A horde of zombies or a mindless beast of destruction. Complex evil is popular not just because of modern increase in awareness, but because it is much easier to make interesting by itself. Complex evil is easier to make interesting by itself and it's still evil, even if it has some more reasoning behind the acts of evil. You will still have to fight it and it can approach pure evil's levels of unredeemable. I like complex evil to be about individuals and cultures rather than races. Modern people also tend to be a bit more aware of complexities of humanity so pure evil races are harder to pull off - sapience implies free wil and free will implies some sort of justification behind evil, even if it's as simple as cultural influence or brainwashing

I think that sometimes, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Verisimilitude is. It is not making things realistic, but rather making things believable. When the players say to themselves "Ok, that could happen", you have achieved verisimilitude. Suspending belief in the "real" is the cornerstone of fantasy, but giving that fantasy a root in the real, so that it is believable, is the art of good design.

I think most the most important thing is consistency, do you have gods that interfere? Then they should interfere. Are your gods silent and unknowable? Then they should be silent and unknowable. If there's any deviation then that should be a big f'in deal to the world and setting at large and hardly ever in a good way.

Well presented, and I disagree.

This video should be required viewing for anyone thinking of looking into Pendragon. I could make a whole campaign exploring these concepts.

The unique part of “fantasy” and “sci-fi” is that you can look at things from a magical or biological perspective and say “these are just the way they are because they are” You don’t have to humanise them because they *inherently are not human* on their thoughts and actions They are not like us - they don’t have to be Aberrations exist, like a “good” Orc, but they are just that: entirely unique, one of characters that are special *because* of that quirk

This man gets it.

rings of power meanwhile....orcs now have families and feelings and scared of war.....

Not everything needs nuance.

But someone somewhere somehow might have their feelings hurt or, even worse, be offended.

"Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." Elrond, *The Fellowship of the Ring.* This is the fundamental problem with the idea of "evil races." Evil is a choice, not something inborn. There are things that are irremediably, innately harmful to humans and irreconcilable with our welfare -- certain bacteria, for instance, the Guinea worm, or the Cordyceps from *The Last of Us.* But they are not evil, because they cannot choose. They are what they are. This doesn't mean we can't fight these creatures, or even wipe them out; indeed, it is precisely the fact that they can't choose that gives us no other options but to kill them. As Heinlein says, "When I see a black widow, I step on it; I don't plead with it to be a good little spider and please stop poisoning people. A black widow spider can't help it-but that's the point." I do agree that not every race needs to be playable, not because they're evil, but because they would unbalance the game or just don't fit well with the mythology, Many largely good races, like pixies and devas, should be unplayable too. But the idea that villainous races shouldn't have cultures and civilizations? That's absurd. Goblins, orcs, and gnolls are routinely shown wearing armor and carrying steel weapons. How did they get those things without a culture? They didn't just steal them; no human armorer is going to make gnoll-size armor just so the gnolls can steal it. Did they make this equipment themselves? Is somebody else supplying them with these things? Do they have slaves making them? No matter what the answer, there has to be some cultural explanation. If they have their own armorers, there must be some process for choosing and training them. If they are being supplied by allies or gods, there must be some kind of cultural rules for interacting with those allies or worshiping those gods. If they depend on slaves, there must be some process for controlling, punishing, and replacing those slaves. If we simply reduce the villainous races to mere symbols of our deepest fears, then they're all exactly the same, interchangeable and boring. But if we see that hobgoblins have a lawful evil culture and will attack in a planned and coordinated manner, while gnolls are chaotic evil and will charge in every gnoll for itself without preparation or mutual support, that makes each villainous race unique and interesting. There is truth to the idea that villainous races should have some mystery to them, and that what we don't know about them is scarier than what is explained. But that just means that the players shouldn't understand everything about the orcs' or kobolds' culture at the beginning, not that there shouldn't be a culture that the DM uses behind the scenes to control their actions, and that the players should be able to at least partly come to understand if they pay attention. This, again, doesn't require reducing the orcs and kobolds to mere symbols and cyphers. You can study the Nazis for years and still not understand them fully, and what's more, still not have learned all the horrible and revolting things they did. And the Nazis were the same race as many of us. If the Nazis can still retain their aura of menace and some of their mystery after years of study, then surely beings that are really biologically different from us can do that too.

You make quite a few great points but i fundamentally disagree, i don't really have an argument to the contrary of your points i just personally enjoy games with interesting races/species still it is very true games like pathfinder2e and modern dnd have a bit too many pc species that dont really fit/make any sense in the setting/ or have interesting lore to add the a game. Still really enjoyed the video keep it up!

What is the of "fantasy" without fantasy being immersive? Without being evocative and "beyond", fantasy doesn't and cannot exist.

ok cool, great, what was the point of the furries in the thumbnail? video had little to nothing to do with them, with more “human-like” races like elves and dwarves being the focus with like…a singular mention of bird people and turtle people at the end? so I don’t really see the purpose of having furries/fursuits (portrayed in a way that makes it look like it’s a dig/critique against them or players like them) in the thumbnail while the actual content has absolutely nothing to do with it

I still don't understand why this keeps coming up? There is literally no one telling any of us we have to use 100% of what is in any rpg book. To use dnd as the example, just don't allow orcs or goblins or drow as a playable race, its not that difficult. Really WoTC doesn't care at all after you buy the book. So unless you're planning on uploading your sessions to social media, build your world how you see fit.

I find myself remembering the Howard story Beyond the Black River. The themes you discuss here are present throughout that story.

I liked how old D&D handled orcs. Orcs being pure evil but half-orcs having that spark of humanity that allows them to be better. It's one of those "keeping you cake and eating it too" examples.

I CAN NOT be the only one thinking about Border Reivers here, right? I mean, literally the irl origin of Westmarch? Including the term, itself, probably.

Mysterious dungeons, things in the world make the world feel more believable to me to an extent. We humans didn't have all of the answers to life in the medieval times for example: Many had theories or beliefs, but that's about it. Also when it comes to places like the Feywild, you can't expect a dungeon connected to the Fey to be not Mythic.

What are some good examples?

Very good video

What is the movie with those marching skeletons? They look great!

This was so well said! Plus i feel like these recent ideas are really fueled by everyone living in comfortable ivory towers in the modern age, the ancient times were unimaginably fucked, in 1241 a mongolian army reached hungary, massacered 25% of the population, destroyed over 40% of settlements, then just left in1242. Imagine trying to preach about cultural relativism to the people who witnessed it all. The gaulls of ancient france used to give human sacrifice by burning dozens of people at a time in cages, the nordics and perisans wore the skin of their enemy. Fantasy is meant to be in similar settings, where people still try to resist such horrors.

Your talking about the same people who cant separate real life history from fantasy history. People who need orcs to be good by default because they think they are a real world race. So caught up with real world problems that they cant fathom current fantasy races would be better naturally at a thing the others. Its just the sad times we live in.

Yeah, because the god of the sea, horses, and earthquakes whose main rival seems to be the goddess of wisdom, battle tactics, and weaving are very clearly defined. There's no need to worry about this rivalry, though. As it will be mediated by the god of hospitality and his wife the patron of witches. Polytheisc gods have a tendency to get a lot of weird and random things attached to them. They're hardly clear lines. My point is that DnD and other settings are not copying the Greek gods.

The definition of hero changes as time progresses. Ancient definitions may say otherwise, because it was a different world and a diff time. It was about taking what you can.

I'm world-building a high fantasy setting inspired by the migration period and the last years of Rome. This video seems particularly interesting for such a setting because the concept is pretty much a frontier that's closing in on a crumbling civilization, instead of civilization pushing into the frontier. It's kind of the opposite movement of what we normally think about when we hear the term "frontier".

He touches on the real reason tyrannical governments hate America and her allies. It's because their people can see us and know how it can be.

In a RPG, the rules exist for the sake of facilitating role play. With too many people treating it just as a game. *I have to disagree with a lot of people here though.* As Depth & Complexity have almost no correlation. Take Dark Souls or Lovecraft for example, one has a very simple combat system while the other is a story that leaves a lot up to the imagination. Simple stories can have great depth if you leave enough hooks and mysteries for the reader to wonder. Simple systems can have great depth if you give enough options for players to choose from. You do not need a lot of complexity for depth, you just need options and mystery.

Mike Mignola mentioned this in a TPB about a story he wrote - in any given myth there is often some weird element that doesn’t fit or make sense. Something mysterious without explanation. I like to remember that when planning the game I run - which is why my players recently found a fish on the floor of a locked prison cell in a mountain stronghold that caused a feeling of unease in them. Worldbuilding explanation? There was an empty room. 🤷‍♂️ But they don’t need to know that; for them it’s mystery they didn’t manage to solve because they rolled too low.

Every culture is a "warrior culture" on some level, in the sense that the state and other social organizations is built around defense and fielding armies. The nobility and gentry ARE the elite soldier/officer class of society. The effeminate court fop is a relatively recent invention in Western society, and even then, gentlemen continued to duel down to the start of WWI. This is means that even weak states tend to be at least "fairly good" at fielding armies, otherwise, invaders would quickly overrun them by defeating them in detail. Now, there are some exceptions to this, to greater and lesser extents: such as Old Kingdom Egypt, ancient China, and the Byzantine Empire. And monarchs do often employ "new men" people or relatively humble backgrounds that are loyal to the king, rather than powerful and autonomous nobles. The old nobility is often pushed into a "retired decadence," in which they enjoy wealth and high status as compensation of their loss of power, such as the old Roman nobility and French nobles at Versailles. But even then, the new men were placed in civil roles, while the old nobles tended to retain military and especially diplomatic roles. The exceptions to the warrior culture are generally regional hegemons, in which the domestic warrior-nobility is found to be a greater threat to order than outside invaders. These tend to be mature and "decadent" civilizations, with elaborate court rituals, often a plethora of vestigial offices, and a hereditary aristocracy that seems to serve little point. But, these societies tend to have relatively high levels of civilization: the autonomous nobles have been brought under the thumb of the king (except in wilderness areas) and the level of civilization is higher than its neighbors. However, there is also a class of "warrior-centered" cultures in which over-militarization is a compensation for weakness. Sparta is a good example of this: it was only able to exercise hegemony over a relatively small part of Greece, and was afraid to take any army any great distance away from Sparta for fear of a slave revolt. However, the half-barbarous Alexander of Macedon was able to take his army to India. Likewise, the late-era Japanese Samurai culture was largely over compensation for the samurai class being idle due to long periods of peace.

One of the basic problems here is most people have never been taught moral philosophy, they have only been taught a kind of practical morality in which they are just told "this is bad, don't do it" "that's good, don't do it" but they have never been trained in how to determine what is moral on intellectual-philosophical terms, and why. For example, you sort of address this in the video, and other commenters also sort of address it, but all moral complexity arises from and depends upon the fact that there really are such things as objective good and objective evil. If there isn't, then morality simply doesn't exist. If you understand "grey morality" to mean "there is no real right and wrong" then what you are really saying is "there is no such thing as morality" and your "grey morality" is just an oxymoron cloaking the fact that what you really mean is "no morality". If by "grey morality" what you really intend to mean is "moral complexity" then you must have clear moral principles that define at a high level what good and evil are. The complexity arises from applying those principles to the near infinite circumstances that can arise, and the subsequent difficulty of determining in a given situation, what is actually good here? Even when you believe the answer is clear, it is often incredibly difficult to actually make the choice. For example, if someone's life was riding your choice, and you knew beyond doubt which was the morally right choice, but that choice would mean allowing someone to die, could you make it? What if it was someone you loved? Another possibility of what people can mean by "grey morality" is simply "morally compromised". This is the example of the all too common anti-hero. People will say this is "morally grey" because the "hero" does stuff that is actually morally evil. This can be done well, but as the video points out, is often not done well and just ends up being boring and samey. In the past, people liked stories that had real hero's. They liked this because they recognized that there are ideals that we ought to aspire to, and we rarely succeed in reaching them. So they took inspiration from stories of people who did reach those ideals. In more recent times, people have largely exchanged the desire to be inspired to be and do better, for the desire to be confirmed in their moral corruption and compromise. It is true that we can be inspired by seeing a character who is compromised struggle with those issues, but if this is done right, it still has to show us a person trying to overcome their moral failings. All to often, what we get instead is a person embracing their moral failings and defining themselves by their moral failings. Regarding "gritty realism", I haven't been involved in too many games where this became a problem. I do like realism in my games, but I tend more towards historical realism that gritty realism. I like it because for me it creates a world I'm more interested in and that I find more immersive. When I do try to make things more difficult for my players, I find it is generally because they've adopted bad habits of Role Players, which usually equates in some form to thinking that they should be able to do anything they want in the game world without consequence. Feel like killing that butler because he didn't pay your proper respect? well, murder might actually have some consequences. Or it is because they simply refuse to plan and think about strategy etc. When it comes to Game of Thrones "gritty realism", it is kind of a pet peeve of mine. I have a degree in history and I've studied history most of my adult life. It irritates me when people like G. Martin pick out the worst things of a given era or multiple different eras, ignore everything else, and then tell everyone that this is how it really was. No, it wasn't. That is just as heavily skewed as the romanticized rose colored glasses version.

Inspiring content, brother. Going to roll up a hero PC right now.

0:12 “He protected America is what he did! He was a brave American visionnaire! And in this house, Bill the Butcher is a hero! End of story.”

You're right and I don't think this problem you talk about is solvable. To have a genuine character acting non-human requires a lot of research and impersonation from a player. Moreover it requires the same amount of effort from other players so that they are able to understand what's going on with this guy. And even if there's such a motivated group this still begs a question: ok, now it's believeably other race, but is it fun?

I always thought of alignments as Good = Selfless Bad = Selfish Lawful = Security Chaotic = Freedom With that being said, I always assumed that a races natural alignment was more indicative of their culture, than their nature. A “Chaotic evil” race is just a race that culturally promotes the freedom of the self. It means that the strong thrive and the weak barely survive. You only have what you can take and protect. These cultures prize strength, warfare, competitiveness, etc. A “lawful good” race is all about the security of others. A society in which laws are built to ensure that the community (others) is protected and taken care of. These cultures prize obedience, diplomacy, trade, and civilization. A vampire isn’t “evil” because it wants to damn your soul. It’s evil because it has to suck your blood (deprive another creature of life) to survive. Even a vampire that only leeches off of willing victims is still a leech. Just a lawful evil leech. The entire basis of its existence is selfishness. This does in fact leave room for outliers. There are going to be creatures who want to break this mold. Some can. Most cannot. I think an evil race can be playable, if this is kept in mind.

Fantasy races with an alien mindset can work, BUT most of the roleplaying will revolve around the character's alien mindset.

Long talk short, life isn't just 1 and 0. And people who believe that have only two active braincells, one for 1 and one for 0.

Meh... i just run all races as varied as humans. I organize my races as political structures. A tribal nomadic orc band will have more in common with a human tribal nomadic band than a seafaring orc band. Just like humans can be racist to humans that dont look like them so can orcs or any other race. At my table any group can be an ally or an enemy, depending on goals. There are human monsters irl. Why not orc heros too?

That is ignoring the promise aspect of religion. The Roman Catholic priest, when he says, "This is my body," truly believes that he preformed a double miracle of changing the substance but preserving the accidents of the bread and wine. Likewise, when when the priest says, "I baptize thee," or "Thy sins are forgiven," he believes that he has altered someone's eternal state. The presence of wizards, who can cast "fireball" with 6 seconds of prep time, implies that, if religion is going to taken seriously, clerics need to be able to cast spells of more or less comparable strength. I think the underlying problem is trying to have a known and transparent magic system in a medieval setting. That removes all the mystery of the supernatural.