The problem with Evil races is not what you think

[Doug McCrae]

In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.

I'm not equating fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. I'm criticising others for doing so -- or, to be precise, associating the monstrous with real world peoples. I'm also criticising them for creating fictional worlds in which some of the ideas of racists are true.

When I criticise JRR Tolkien for giving his orcs the appearance of the "least lovely Mongol-types", I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are orcs. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

When I criticise WotC for giving their goblins and hobgoblins the cultural and perceived racial traits of East Asian peoples, I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are goblins or hobgoblins. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

Summary of these issues, from upthread.

 

[Campbell]

Here's my overall stance on art, literature, and gaming. All artforms (of which fiction and games are examples) are fundamentally about reflecting on our human experiences. That we might not intend to say something more broad about our experiences or the outside world is really immaterial. Our art will reflect the way we see the world around us and often help to make sense of. This is actually accentuated in the case of fantasy because it lets us explore ideas that aren't grounded in our concrete physical reality. It often reflects our greatest hopes and our most terrible fears.

The art we make is important. It reflects on us. It says something about the world we live in, even when it is trying not to. An orc is never just an orc. It has a meaning beyond it's fictional existence. That's what makes fiction so powerful.

 

[transmission89]

I'm not equating fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. I'm criticising others for doing so -- or, to be precise, associating the monstrous with real world peoples. I'm also criticising them for creating fictional worlds in which some of the ideas of racists are true.

When I criticise JRR Tolkien for giving his orcs the appearance of the "least lovely Mongol-types", I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are orcs. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

When I criticise WotC for giving their goblins and hobgoblins the cultural and perceived racial traits of East Asian peoples, I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are goblins or hobgoblins. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

Summary of these issues, from upthread.

Ok, so we can establish that there is a strong common ground from both sides (ignoring the right wing ass hats who band wagon and distort a message as they are wont to do). Note that I’ll be referring to sides just for simplicity and clarity, not to foster adversity.

on your two points, it seems that where we differ is the ”value” or “relevance” on the aspects of these things. I dislike these two words as they sound cold and dismissive, but I can’t think of better right now, so I hope my intentions around it will be clear.

Your side, views the context and relevance of Tolkien’s description as to tying it indelibly to these perceptions and creating this cultural baggage, that he is explicitly associating the two? My side, disagrees with the language used, but takes it at face value, a comparative that is clumsy by modern standards but was meant as just that, no associations beyond that. That therefore there is nothing beyond that (hence the reference to guide to readings above).

Your side places value on the perceived notions of racial traits and draw the association with east Asian people’s due to certain visual cues and language semantic views? Where as my side again would argue that this is perception of reader, the reader association and just to take it at face value. An orc is just an orc. Please recognise that this isn’t a dismissive, “no you’re the racist“ and please it turn, don’t be dismissive of the counter view and take it as such. Its just, for my part at least, I value the quotes outlined in my post above. That reader understanding and interpretation is key. That I (and perhaps the others on ”my side” place less “relevance” on these visual and language cues and take them at the face value of the fantasy creature and not as a cue or indicator of a real world race or issue.

And I think that much of the argument around issues of “a western perspective on orientalism or some such on “my side” is again that notion of “relevance”. A sense of “so what?” (Not intended as a callous and cruel way). In that there is no intention or design of racial offence, it’s just magpieing cool stuff for a fantasy game, it’s not meant to be representative or respective of real cultures because it’s not seeking to accurately portray or represent them) And it being a western perspective is immaterial because again it’s fantasy, and something through a different lens would change it as such. Obviously, were you setting out to create an authentic environment, you would ensure that this accuracy was guaranteed with the appropriate viewpoints and such (this view doesn’t discount the benefits of having a more diverse perspective anyway). And indeed, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander here as watching for example anime, seeing western culture through a Japanese lens in fantasy “not America” is interesting and different.

So again, this is not a continuation of argument. I’m not seeking to persuade, it’s more a clarification of position. I would like to think that this would hopefully create some understanding on both sides. That actually, we agree on much of the issues.
I’m hoping that at least for future conversation, it creates an understanding. That “my side“ do hear and understand “your sides” concerns. That we are not curmudgeonly roadblocks on the path of progress, we just disagree on the “relevance” of associations made as it pertains to the real world and the concerns and struggles of the various movements of equality. I hope that ”your sides” part will at least acknowledge that. That the issues of fantasy races and real life ethnicities are not straight up fact, that these associations are opinion based and not all that argue on this are straight up racists or anti progressives. Except the alt right band wagoning tools. Screw those guys.

 

[Aldarc]

In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.

Outsider following the conversation: What I personally find asinine is that you keep arguing against this particular strawman as if it had any merit about what is actually being argued by critics and then try to gaslight people for having this argument. And as long as you repeat this, it's clear that you either don't understand what others are arguing on this matter or you do but are purposefully being deceptive about it.

 

[Malmuria]

And I think that much of the argument around issues of “a western perspective on orientalism or some such on “my side” is again that notion of “relevance”. A sense of “so what?” (Not intended as a callous and cruel way). In that there is no intention or design of racial offence, it’s just magpieing cool stuff for a fantasy game, it’s not meant to be representative or respective of real cultures because it’s not seeking to accurately portray or represent them)

Conversely, I would say noticing and caring about racial stereotypes in the game and the racialization of monsters via descriptions and aesthetics doesn't prevent me from playing dnd and enjoying fantasy, lotr included. That goes, in fact, for any such critique of culture (and incidentally, re: orientalism, Said is a great model for someone who both loved Western literature and saw all its flaws (though he probably though genre fiction was trash)). It terms of my experience at the gaming table, sometimes I just want to say "omg this is so racist," and get on with playing without someone saying "stop being so sensitive." Other times though, the fantasy magpieing does feel off, and I hope I can say to the people I'm playing with that I'm uncomfortable with it (and that might include discomfort for magpieing as what it is, which is cultural appropriation).

In terms of publishing rpg material, however, there you need to consider your readers--all your readers--and you open yourselves up to this kind of critique. So, as the main ttrpg publisher and the publisher of dnd, I think wotc should a) think about if and how they appropriate non-Western aesthetics into their world or monster design and b) endeavor to create a play culture around the game that leads to inclusive tables, as much as they can.

And it being a western perspective is immaterial because again it’s fantasy, and something through a different lens would change it as such.

Sure, it's fantasy, but I think perspectives of minorities and non-Western people can absolutely lead to new and interesting worlds and games.

 

[transmission89]

Conversely, I would say noticing and caring about racial stereotypes in the game and the racialization of monsters via descriptions and aesthetics doesn't prevent me from playing dnd and enjoying fantasy, lotr included. That goes, in fact, for any such critique of culture (and incidentally, re: orientalism, Said is a great model for someone who both loved Western literature and saw all its flaws (though he probably though genre fiction was trash)). It terms of my experience at the gaming table, sometimes I just want to say "omg this is so racist," and get on with playing without someone saying "stop being so sensitive." Other times though, the fantasy magpieing does feel off, and I hope I can say to the people I'm playing with that I'm uncomfortable with it (and that might include discomfort for magpieing as what it is, which is cultural appropriation).

In terms of publishing rpg material, however, there you need to consider your readers--all your readers--and you open yourselves up to this kind of critique. So, as the main ttrpg publisher and the publisher of dnd, I think wotc should a) think about if and how they appropriate non-Western aesthetics into their world or monster design and b) endeavor to create a play culture around the game that leads to inclusive tables, as much as they can.



Sure, it's fantasy, but I think perspectives of minorities and non-Western people can absolutely lead to new and interesting worlds and games.

I don’t disagree with anything you said here. I think the minor “differentiator” here is the level of “relevance” of that perception of cultural appropriation. But, I do believe that is subjective to the individual and group, and as I’ve always stated, a case of what works for you and your group at the table. I can absolutely respect that there are these differences in “relevance” (I do need a better word). For me, D&D is that common baseline of tropes to be explored and customised as to taste at the tabletop.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So this a point of order, rather than attempt to continue the debate as I think both sides are established. An attempt to cross or at least define the divide here.

This encapsulates the “arrogance” I was talking about. Not the opinion itself but in the way it’s worded here. You and yours on “your side of the debate” associate this and equate it with the just struggle for proper equality. The struggle for equality, equity and general love is absolutely a cause I support and stand for as part of a minority myself (lgbt- I appreciate it’s not racially specific but I hope I am making my firm belief in The message and the cause clear).

what I find distasteful is this almost inbuilt assumption in the argument that this is purely factual and correct, the patronising (whether intentioned or not “ you’re not incapable of of change, you seem to realise..” etc).

Well, obviously we are having a relatively polite conversation. I am not actually trying to put us on different 'sides', because I expect we have pretty much the same goals and whatnot. Frankly, years ago, I probably reacted a bit like you are now, but I have come to see that I can go further and own the effects of whatever I do in the world, at the very least, completely and without reservations. Always hoping that I will also be met with a tolerant attitude as well.

The divide here for myself and many others others (though of course, I don’t speak for all) on “my side” of the argument is that we don’t see fictional races as part of the struggle. In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.

I'm just saying. People have used fictional races, often, to stand in for and comment on other people. I think some examples beyond JRRT were presented earlier in the thread which were rather more explicit than orcs. So, the use of fiction (and fantasy in particular) in an ethnically charged way is not new. Also I don't think this has to do with a 'struggle'. It has to do with simply people wanting to be free of bad images of creatures that are clearly associated with traits their ethnicities or other identities are associated with. It pigeonholes them, and it implicitly denigrates them. Nobody needs to be going out of their way to do it on purpose. It is just that, say you sit down to play D&D with your buds and a monster that is a caricature of YOU shows up? Its a bad guy. Suppose this sort of pigeonholing is constant, you start to get pretty tired of it. I know this happened to people in my family, so I know how tiring it got. When it ALSO shows up in your D&D game? That is a real bummer. Intentionality isn't really germane, nor is some complex history. That's all.

for example:

Orcs Aren’t People: Denouncing Racism in the D&D Community

Again, he is missing the point. When you are a BIPOC person, to use the category he chooses to address, you most certainly ARE aware that Orcs, as a D&D race, share a bunch of features which are also commonly attributed to BIPOC people! All the other stuff he says is simply irrelevant! There need not be some master plan or long history of explicit use of Orcs in D&D as such for racist purposes. The associations are preexisting and not something that has to be explicit within the game itself. Just like JRRT didn't have to explicitly draw the connections in his work, or in the letter cited earlier.

No, Orcs Aren't Racist

And in particulate to those who use literature to build a case to critique, there’s a great book called how to read with a few poignant passage


"... one must not only be a responsive_but also a __responsible_ listener. You are responsive to the extent that you follow what has been said and note the intention that prompts it. But you also have the responsibility of taking a position. When you take it, it is yours, not the author's. To regard anyone except yourself as responsible for your judgement is to be a slave, not a free man. It is from the fact that the liberal arts acquire their name."

Sure, but again, when an author incorporates symbology that has been used for questionable purposes doesn't he have to expect what will come? If you put swastikas into your game and depicted them as insignia for some organization in that game, are you not saying something? If that group is glorified, and if it exhibits any characteristics that might associate it with the obviously evoked real-world group's ideology, don't you think that would have some causal connection to people actually responding in the predictable fashion as a result? I think the case for Orcs is clearly a bit less blatant, but surely you can see how "the reader is responsible" cannot possibly be some sort of absolute response. The writer is ALSO responsible! Communication is 2-way.

"You must make your own assumptions explicit. You must know what your prejudices---that is, your prejudgments---are. Otherwise you are not likely to admit that your opponent may be equally entitled to different assumptions. Good controversy should not be a quarrel about assumptions. If an author, for example, explicitly asks you to take something for granted, the fact that the opposite can also be taken for granted should not prevent you from honouring his request. If your prejudices lie on the opposite side, and if you do not acknowledge them to be prejudices, you cannot give the author's case a fair hearing."

I don't think we're arguing about assumptions here. If you want to ask for license, that's fine you are entitled to do that IMHO. You should do so prudently and with good reason. Nor is he obliged not to tell you "I think your thing would be better if you didn't take this license." Nor are we really discussing PREJUDICES of the reader, we are discussing ways in which readers are not interested in seeing this portrayed which very often correspond with ways other people portray THEM. Portrayal is different from prejudice too, they are distinct. Again, nobody need be guilty of active prejudice to carry around and use its symbology. If you carry a sign, you should probably know what is written on it.

I hope that to you, I have at least made my objections clear, and made the divide clearer, whether or not you choose to agree with the position.I actually feel that on many things, our opinions differ very little

As I said, I’m not interested in continuing the debate, just an attempt to actually clarify it. As an aside, I did find a really interesting article from all this, especially building on notions of memetic legacy:

Sure, we will leave it at I think you will find that your position is one that will be harder to defend over time. I suspect games are going to have to find ways to avoid offending a lot of people who have gotten very sick and tired of being on the receiving end, often for countless generations. It isn't really going to matter what conclusion you and I reach, we are small parts of the world.

When Orcs were Real

This is a Euhemerism. So, I literally read a whole article the other day about how 19th Century Euhemerism is tied together with various racist ideologies, and even relating it to things like Tolkien, etc. Maybe it was linked here, my memory can be pretty crappy. Anyway, it also ties in with the whitewashing of ideology about Rome pretty cleanly. I think there's a sad truth that European intellectuals over the last few centuries have tainted a lot of our cultural heritage with racist and other ideological baggage that we're now going to have to deal with.

 

[pemerton]

issues can be subtle, and it can be hard to know where one might have simply overlooked something because we've been exposed to some negative idea for so long it has vanished from conscious consideration. Nor do people all give the same factors equal weight. You might portray orcs as both technologically advanced in some respect (maybe they make really awesome weapons or something), and yet seeming more primitive in some other sense (governmental institutions perhaps). You might even portray each as being a range that overlaps with other races, etc. That might TO YOU AND ME seem pretty fair and reasonable, they're different but not worse. The orc tribe you are dealing with is 'tribalistic', but over the next mountain is an orc republic. Some player may still interpret this scenario as having a dimension of portraying a negative stereotype. Maybe that player is included in a stereotyped ethnic identity, and maybe they are simply more aware of, or from YOUR perspective "overly sensitive to" certain factors.

So, yes, I think giving the 'orcs' a more nuanced character does work, but it won't work perfectly, that's all.

Also, it inevitably does leave out a lot of the more 'black and white' sort of RP. A lot of people DO enjoy that. We could ask if that kind of play is INHERENTLY relying on some negative stereotypes. Its a tough question. Obviously if you want that kind of play maybe the only way to avoid them really is to make the bad guys 'neoghi' or something that is really super alien and thus further removed from comparisons with the real world.

Well, it works, but it gets further from the 'black and white' kind of play that I was addressing. Many people are happy to play in world of all shades of grey in a moral sense. Others don't want to be confronted with the problem of what to do with 'orc children' or wonder if their PCs are really just 'murder hoboes' (what do actual hoboes think of that one I wonder, lol).

It is plausible to say that relying on fairly inflexible tropes is a core part of fantasy as a genre, and that even fantasy that doesn't do this is subverting those generic expectations. I would need to think more about that. But classic fantasy and dnd come at western folklore from a broadly western perspective. When they approach the 'fantasy' of other cultures, they are also coming at it from a western perspective. This is basically the definition of orientalism, and it is important because it was and is key to reproducing colonial violence in the real world. And, whatever analogies Tolkein did or did not put in his fiction, it says something that his fiction is so easily read as conservative parable.

One thing wotc could do is hire people from diverse cultural backgrounds as writers. And when they do, respect their work without the need to edit back in fantasy racism!

So is it essential to FRPGing that conflicts consist in the threats to "civilisation" posed by nameless hordes of . . . . ? That the solution to the world's problems is the extermination of those hordes?

If so, maybe it's impossible to prise FRPGing of racialised tropes. That's not a conclusion that can be excluded a priori by merely wishing that it weren't so!

That said, I think there are other possibilities. REH's Conan stories are full of casual and sometimes vicious racism, but the basic sword-and-sorcery idea I think can be preserved without it. I think the Silmarillion shows us how we can approach romantic, heroic fantasy without the same degree of racialisation as we see in LotR; and even in LotR perhaps we can draw less on the "ill-favoured fellow" of Bree and more on the (already quoted upthread) sympathetic response Sam has to the battle between the Gondorian rangers and the soldiers marching north.

Martial violence can still easily be a part of the game - but the focus is more on "honourable" fighting between opponents who have been brought into opposition by an unhappy fate (think of the Iliad as perhaps the most famous example of this, and the First World War looked at through a de-historicised lens - which I think is a fitting lens for FRPGing - as providing a modern example), and on the consequences of that, than on righteous violence directed at extermination of the forces of evil. I don't think this has to be a poor fit even for fairly mainstream D&D play.

Upthread, or maybe in another recent similarly-themed thread, I posted that I take the view that aesthetic value can diverge from political value. (Not everyone agrees with this. Proponents of "socialist art" are obviously one such group of dissenters from my proposition, but I think many liberals dissent as well, and probably many "radical" as opposed to traditional conservatives also.) I am aware that what I have posted in the preceding two paragraphs rests upon my view. If someone thinks that we can't have a RPG of violence without engaging with genuine morality and politics of violence, than maybe FRPGing really is doomed. Again, that's not a conclusion we can rebut just by wishful thinking.

 

[Malmuria]

So is it essential to FRPGing that conflicts consist in the threats to "civilisation" posed by nameless hordes of . . . . ? That the solution to the world's problems is the extermination of those hordes?

If so, maybe it's impossible to prise FRPGing of racialised tropes. That's not a conclusion that can be excluded a priori by merely wishing that it weren't so!

That said, I think there are other possibilities. REH's Conan stories are full of casual and sometimes vicious racism, but the basic sword-and-sorcery idea I think can be preserved without it. I think the Silmarillion shows us how we can approach romantic, heroic fantasy without the same degree of racialisation as we see in LotR; and even in LotR perhaps we can draw less on the "ill-favoured fellow" of Bree and more on the (already quoted upthread) sympathetic response Sam has to the battle between the Gondorian rangers and the soldiers marching north.

Martial violence can still easily be a part of the game - but the focus is more on "honourable" fighting between opponents who have been brought into opposition by an unhappy fate (think of the Iliad as perhaps the most famous example of this, and the First World War looked at through a de-historicised lens - which I think is a fitting lens for FRPGing - as providing a modern example), and on the consequences of that, than on righteous violence directed at extermination of the forces of evil. I don't think this has to be a poor fit even for fairly mainstream D&D play.

Upthread, or maybe in another recent similarly-themed thread, I posted that I take the view that aesthetic value can diverge from political value. (Not everyone agrees with this. Proponents of "socialist art" are obviously one such group of dissenters from my proposition, but I think many liberals dissent as well, and probably many "radical" as opposed to traditional conservatives also.) I am aware that what I have posted in the preceding two paragraphs rests upon my view. If someone thinks that we can't have a RPG of violence without engaging with genuine morality and politics of violence, than maybe FRPGing really is doomed. Again, that's not a conclusion we can rebut just by wishful thinking.

I was thinking more abstractly in terms of what "fantasy" does as a genre, that it is sort of powered by pulling, sometimes absentmindedly, from tropes, moods, and figures as already established by mainstream culture. Like, in a 'free kriegsspiel' sense, I could say, let's play Arthurian Fantasy and its probable that we (those discussing here) wouldn't even need more than a set of dice. There's enough to draw from floating around in culture and in our heads that we could probably figure it out as we go. But that also means that we reproduce without thinking the tropes that are baked into that genre (even if it inevitably becomes "Monty Python meets Westeros" to quote zero punctuation).

I'm thinking of why science fiction has been such a fertile genre for exploring themes of race and violence and colonization whereas fantasy has not. There's something about the speculative character of that genre that allows for newness, even if it is just of perspective or looking askant of a contemporary issue. Caveat : I am not a reader of much contemporary fantasy, so maybe this is happening or has been happening and I'm just unaware.

 

[pemerton]

I don't read much genre fiction, so am probably not best-placed to respond to your post @Malmuria.

Fantasy serves different literary purposes. Eg in REH, it is a device for sidestepping engagement with historical minutiae. I suppose one could rewrite Beyond the Black River with the Picts as the agents, but would it be worthwhile?

EDIT: I reread this and thought it's a bit short!

What I mean is why write about colonialism by sidestepping engagement with historical minutiae via a "Hyborian Age"-type world?

Or if fantasy is being used to present a romanticised version of the world, a la JRRT, is that a good vehicle for political engagement?

Is there a genre of dystopian fantasy? (qv dystopian sc-fi)