Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?

*Deleted by user*

pemerton said:

I first read the DMG as a 12 year old boy. Is the random harlot table really going to be a "fun find" for my 12 year old daughter? I'm not sure about that.

Click to expand...

I don't think everything needs to be boiled down to the suitability of a 12 year old - whether boy or girl.

Re: the claim “eliminating racist/stereotypical tropes constrains creativity”

I’d say not relying on stereotypes increases creativity, because you’re not depending on the discredited ideas of others. IOW, you are forced out of lazy reliance on harmful falsehoods, and must perforce create newer and different ways of depicting your antagonists.

pemerton said:

Huh? The stuff about orcs is all in the books. I've not read any Tolkien letters or biography and have no real interest in doing so. But it's not rocket science to read a book in which (i) blood and inheritance are central obsessions and (ii) the heroic types are from "the west" and predominantly white and (iii) the largely nameless hordes of evil are dark-skinned, bandy-legged and scimitar wielding, and notice that those tropes have fairly obvious racist overtones.

Click to expand...

Sure, inheritance is a big deal for Lord of the Rings, particularly within and around the character of Aragorn. But to what purpose? You may be looking at it as a source of racial/racist overtones, but that's also a fairly shallow observation. Inheritance is an important aspect of Aragorn because a central theme around him is that Right makes Might. Why is he able to wrest control of the palantir from Sauron? Because it's his by right and that gives him strength over it. Same with the dealing with the dead at the Stone of Erech - he has a right to the fealty of the oathbreakers and so they come to his call. Sauron just has might. Moreover, Aragorn redeems the failing west - the heroes may come from there, but they are also a source of virtually all the problems in Middle Earth as well by their own sins of pride and jealousy - by taking his inheritance, his rights, and exercising them appropriately - morally and justly.

billd91 said:

I don't think everything needs to be boiled down to the suitability of a 12 year old - whether boy or girl.

Click to expand...

So, the argument is that it was cool language, so we should forgive the fact that it would add to the unfortunate sexual objectifying of women that thousands of 12 years olds were exposed to?

And how about the women well over 12, for whom that was just one more element of objectification that kept them out of an awesome hobby? For whom it added to the cultural bias of gamers against women? You want to tell them "You aren't 12, so all the talk of prostitutes in the game is something you should ignore, 'cause the language is neat-o!"

'Cause Gygax couldn't have put his cool language into *something else*?

There is a larger question at hand here - what to do with problematic works of the past. Stepping past gaming for just a second, we can look at Gone With the Wind as an example of a formative work of literature that has deeply problematic elements to it.

For sake of understanding our literature, you can't just never have anyone read the book ever again. And there's a solid argument that, even despite the problematic parts of the work, it still has substantial literary value. So, no, you can't just expunge it from existence. That's not constructive, and does not build understanding.

But, what you don't do, is dismiss or ignore the fact that it has problematic bits. If you want to continue to get value out of it, ethically, you have to call out and own the fact that those bits are problematic.

This table in the book, for some reason, needs to be defended? As gaming content, it is junk! We can't bring ourselves to say, "Yeah, Gygax was a visionary, but flawed, and this bit sucked, and the game would have been better if it weren't there, and sure as heck we don't use that crud these days?"

lowkey13 said:

Ask yourself why you're having this debate. People bring out multiple textual examples of the origins of orcs. This shouldn't be a big shock to you (I would hope) but the origins of orcs, both in Tolkien and in 1e have very specific, racial overtones. Like a lot of stuff back then. And the point you keep trying to make is that you refuse to accept any of this fairly obvious information, that people have quoted at you, unless ... what, they provide specific information that the author intended it to be racist? Because otherwise ... it might be a joke, or a parody?

Click to expand...

Because I think it is important for gamers to weigh in on topics like that. They shape what content gets produced. The shape the boundaries of what is considered acceptable and what is considered over the line. I think if we set those boundaries too tightly, even if it is well intentioned, then it is going to lead to a really dull gaming culture. I get that you have a different point of view than me. That is fine. I just wish you could hear my viewpoint without seeming to assume the worst about me (or talking to me like I am a student in need of an education).

But I think you are mischaracterizing the what I am saying. I don't think the 1E orcs, at least as I remember them, have strong racial overtones (could be wrong, been a bit since I read the entry). And I definitely don't think the racial overtones of Tolkien are obvious (like I told Pemerton, if you are going to insist I take a position on them, I would say they are on the cusp but there is plenty of room for doubt in my mind). But that said, I don't think they are approaching anything near what you see in Lovecraft for example (where racial ideas are intended to be carried into the material). With Tolkien, I think when you factor in what we know of him, the struggles he himself had with the question of these evil creature, the final picture is just less resounding and no where close to as final as I think a lot of people in this thread believe. More importantly though I disagree that any of the potential residue from Tolkien is carried over to today. I think you can make a small case that he may have invoked real world races (though to be honest he could have had other things in mind when used that language than people), but orcs have become something very different from what Tolkien envisioned. Even evil orcs.

Obviously I am just one voice in the conversation, that is just my opinion. And it is my real opinion. And I think a lot of people see threads like "are orcs colonialist tropes" and they genuinely scratch their head. I understand there is a way of seeing the world where that is just an obvious conclusion. I think for most people it really, truly isn't. It is the kind of conclusion that strikes me as something you have to be educated into. And I think too often people don't give their real opinion in these discussions because they are concerned about the responses like you ones you are giving me (where your character almost gets called into question for reaching a different conclusion about a trope). I get that there are other voices weighing in here (and certainly am welcoming viewpoints like your's and Hussars). And again, I think chances are, you and I are probably much closer politically and socially than you realize. Just because I think the evil orc trope isn't racist, that doesn't mean I hold racist views, lack empathy or am a bad person. I just disagree with your conclusions on this.

Absolutely Orcs are racist. As a middle aged white male that was raised between two heavily racist societies, I think we have all imbued from the bitter cup of racism, for both good and bad. This is why intent plays such a big part in divining good from bad. Were Orcs, as designed to foster racism, was that the intent behind them? No, I don't think so.

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

For example, why is it a more important value to worry about being seen as a "bad person" than it is to try and understand how factors, subtle and not so subtle, impact people that are different than us?
.

Click to expand...

But this is the kind of loaded question I was pointing to. Do you really think I don't care about how things impact people? Of course I do. But I can disagree about whether a given reaction to something is reasonable. I don't have to agree with every assertion people make on a forum when it comes to whether something is a problem. I am not very concerned about evil orcs, because I think their impact in the world is minimal and I think when we focus our attention on evil orcs, and call them racist, it actually makes fighting racism out in the real world that much harder (it is something I've seen first hadn't where people dismiss a valid complaint about racism with 'well people think orcs are racist too now'). This isn't about not caring about people. It is about some of us disagreeing with the underlying assumptions, and the impact this stuff has on the broader society.

And I don't see the two issues you raise in this question as related at all. I can juggle both concerns.

lowkey13 said:

You didn't quote, or respond, to the lengthy section I included regarding misogyny and the illustrations in 1e; I didn't include that for my fun. I was hoping that might help you understand a little bit about what I view as the issue.

Click to expand...

Because that is a whole other topic, I don't want to get derailed since I am fielding a lot of different response. I perused it, but I skimmed so I am not 100% sure what you were looking for. I do imagine we probably draw the line around what constitutes misogynistic art very differently, and we probably have very different views on what impact that kind of art has on people and society. I think what a lot of this stuff achieves is the veneer of a wholesome society, but like a lot of communities obsessed with wholesome appearances, I think it actually just makes it harder to find the real problems.