Thread by @Loyal2tGo17

Thoughts on #Gygax, #Orcs and the infamous Chivington quote. A 🧵

LONG! TL:DR Gygax didn't want you to play the moral questions of the game One Way, but wanted you to consider playing with a archaic mythic mindset. Also the Chivington quote is terrible. #dnd

Why am I going into this?

Gygax explaining the moral permissibility of a Paladin executing prisoners who convert to LG has done more to render the idea of Orcs as a humanoid monster disposed to evil completely toxic in a way it would not had Gygax never explained it that way.

Orcs are, in the AD&D Monster Manual, Lawful Evil "race" of humanoid monsters (illustrated with pig-like faces) that are like Hobgoblins or Kobolds described as grouping together in "tribes" and typically ruled in large numbers by a chief.

Terminological overlap with how the American Natives are frequently and correctly described as tribes with chiefs. But does the AD&D Monster Manual describe them as "primitive" or "savage"? Surprisingly, NO. (that came LATER in 2e and 3e!)

The Orcs live underground typically. If above ground, they live in "rude villages" of "wooden huts" -- note, not grass or mud huts as the actual entry for human Tribesmen lists. They use pole arms & crossbows, weapons of some technological sophistication. They wear metal armor.

When they have large bands, they have catapults and ballistae. they are described as excellent miners and tunnel constructors. These are not terms I've ever seen associated with "savages" or "primitives'".

So even we talk about the racial coding of orcs as Other, there is a fair amount of worldbuilding (mostly from Tolkien, gamified by Gygax) using linguistic cues that these organized yet fractious evil humanoids are a thing of their own.

Rather that being "stand-ins" for some low technological group that could be colonized by a greater technological force.

Except, Gary mentioned Chivington

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chiv…

"An Army judge publicly stated that the Sand Creek massacre was "a cowardly and cold-blooded slaughter, sufficient to cover its perpetrators with indelible infamy, and the face of every American with shame and indignation". " - wikipedia

"Public outrage at the brutality of the massacre ...was intense. It was believed to have contributed to public pressure to change Indian policy. The Congress later rejected the idea of a general war against the Indians of the Middle West." Wikipedia

in 2005, Gary quoted the perpetrator of the Sand Creek Massacre, John Milton Chivington, that it was reasonable to kill noncombatant & peaceful Cheyenne & Arapaho because "nits make lice".

For many, this was a bridge too far, perhaps revealing a perverse white supremacy lying inside Gygax's heart; at the least shocking insensitvity. D&D as a game where you invade peoples homes and take their stuff no longer had "colonial" subtext but subtext became text

But I think there is more to be said. I can't see into Gygax's heart and **I don't seek to justify his use of the infamous quote**.

But I do seek to understand how Gygax saw FRP as a pasttime that allowed elements of fantasy violence and conflict to be rationalized.

To this, the main thing I want to look at is Gygag's "editorial" column The Sorcerer's Scroll from The Dragon issue 38, page 22-23 entitled "Good isn't Stupid, Paladins and Rangers"

So here Gygax wants to clear up what Good and Evil are in AD&D. He says the ultimate definition is what you know "good" to be from your own upbringing and laws. He doesn't point to any one place to get these doctrines.

He indicates a sense of bemusement that people are coming to him confused about what constitutes "good" in the game; he expects they should just use their own moral sense. Gary didn't want to do your imagining for you in D&D and he doesn't want to do you moral reasoning for you..

So this is why the article exists. In a fantasy milieu, things you would NEVER do in real life might be things you would do in fantasy.
"what is considered good in reality can be good in fantasy. The reverse is not quite so true"

First, as per the title Good isn't Stupid, and Gygax doesn't want "moral dilemmas" to get in the way of adventure! After discussing Law and its insitance on tempering Good with a social Order, Neutrality (called the "purest" form of Good) and Chaos he says

So on the one hand, Good is "nominally" clear: there are labels on the monsters! A DM should look to the general description of the way Alignment is described and then fill in "details" on his own, with the idea that if he's a jerk about it a player can always leave.

Handling Table Problems by noping out since 1980

One might say this is like Contemporary Community Standards defining what obscenity is. If "everyone" agrees its obscene, its unprotected. But if its uncertain: well you don't have to look at it.

THIS is the really interesting paragraph and drives the argument. Though AD&D seems like a game with essential absolute morals, Gary isn't going to tell you in his game that you need to follow HIS theology, culture, or maturity to determine Good and Evil in terms of game action

Cynically, Gary the fundamentalist Jehovah's Witness is a moral relativist when he want to sell a game

So Gary looks at these example questions with the idea that you can't just get the right answer by consulting your own morality in a fantasy context. You need to think about how Good and Evil were considered in the actual or mythical past. Morality is RELATIVE to the past.

The fantasy milieu and myths are key. Is the Paladin's God Athena? Is it Marduk? That makes a difference. What would happen in the kind of medieval/archaic mythical mileu that Gygax expects you will play in,. "Good Guys" in history and myths might force "conversion"

If that's how the DM and players want the milieu to work then that's how they can work.

But we don't think that way. Correct! Gygax wants you to do some "roleplay" what a devoted champion of an aggressive god might have his chosen champion do. he goes so far as to line out how the Lawful Good (which values order as much as good) PC might reason

"1. Evil is abridged (by at least one creature).
2. Good has gained a convert
3. The convert now has hope for rewards (rather than torment) in the afterlife.
4. The good populace is safer (by a factor of at least 1)."

Should a Paladin have to be celibate? What would a specific diety required. Athena might do so. What if its "generic christian" history says the model of the paladin the RC church didn't require celibacy of all knights, and that in general marriage and kids are ok.

Does a Ranger have to protect a wounded Wyvern? (here the Ranger PC seems to want to define his LG understanding that way) Gygax says the monster's "evil tendencies" means it can be put down because its "stupid" to let a dangerous monster that tends to evil stay living.

[an AD&D Wyvern's alignment is 'Neutral (Evil)' indicating its generally neutral but tends to evil, not that its Neutral Evil)]

I get the sense that Gygax here is focusing on the exigencies of game of adventure where Good people are primarily concerned with protecting other Good people from harm not Good in the abstract.

Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) are four sides in the Wargame Alignment Axis.

You switch alignment, you "forget" how to talk to the people you have spiritual resonances with and learn a whole new secret Alignment language by osmosis. Its a GAME first here, so the Sides can co-ordinate a battle...

Aside: SO MUCH stuff in AD&D is Gary giving you info on how to make mass battles happen. Will the orcs work with the gnolls and dwarves you hired? How can you keep the lizard men in line? How much digging can the Kobolds do in the siege? Etc.

anyway: Those on the side of Evil get no quarter because the person threatened bears the label "good" and pacifism in a wargame that became a new form of entertainment -- the fantasy role playing campaign -- isn't what the game Gygax designed is about.

That's my analysis of the Sorcerer's Scroll background for Gary's 2005 Chivington citation. I hope I haven't made any massive errors. Feel free to correct. I have some additional stuff to contextualize the thread from 2005, but this is it for now.

Does "its all just a game" still fit what Older Gygax is saying in 2005? or is he revealing his own Theological and Cultural preferences? Did Wargaming make Gary Violent? Stay tuned.