D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Khelon Testudo]

Remember, the author(s) made all of it up. There didn't have to be orcs aping copies of human cultures. The authors could have stopped at the homage cultures themselves. It's clear they added orcs that ape human cultures so they could add the derogatory references for "humour's" sake.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, maybe. That's what a team of rational, intelligent, experienced cultural consultants are there for. To make nuanced, human judgement calls.

My point is, it's absolutely wonderful--and very much needed--to have these people working on current and future books. But there's basically nothing they can do about the older books other than put that warning on, having a more in-depth warning ("this product contains offensive content about <groups>"), or to stop selling them in the first place. If the original writers, artists, and editors choose to step forward and apologize for offensive content they made, that'd be great. But in my opinion, just having a company (who wasn't even the original publishers) donate money to an organization doesn't really do much. Donating money would be a nice gesture, but--again, to me personally--an unneeded one. What's more important to me is that the problem was recognized and isn't made again.

Obviously, every group of people who have been maligned, and every individual within those groups, are going to have their own opinions on the matter. I know some atheists don't care one whit about the wall and thing it's perfectly fine. There are probably some atheists who do want WotC to donate to the FFRF or another atheist organization. And probably the same thing is the case with every other group that's been maligned in a gaming product, even those who had really nasty prejudice against them, like the groups mocked in Gaz10.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Honoring the author.

None of this thread is against Bruce Heard as a person. I've conversed with him several times over the years, and he's a fine person.

I am able to empathize and work myself into the perspective of the time, while at the same time firmly holding the problematic facets up to the light of examination.

I'd offer a few contextual speculations. I may be mistaken about some or all of these; but these are points I consider when empathizing:

1) The author was raised in continental Europe, and English is not the author's native language—it's a learned language. And in certain European languages, the terms "red man" and "yellow man" may have lingered as "acceptable" terms longer than in the English language. (I'd appreciate if knowledgeable French speakers in the ENWorld community could affirm or dis-affirm that.)

2) The author is of the Baby Boomer generation who, probably even in Europe, were raised on American Western films. Films which were pervaded with the stereotypical "cowboys and Indians" trope.

3) After having met Gary Gygax during a business trip to France, the author was hired by TSR. Moving to Wisconsin, U.S.A. as an adult in the mid-1980s, the European-born author may have missed some cultural nuances. Such as the revisionist trend seen in the film Little Big Man (1970). And other cultural subtleties and implications.

4) In an earlier post, one ENWorlder referred to GAZ10 as "Garbage Pail Kids." Note: the Garbage Pail Kids came out in 1985, in the same era as GAZ10. Others have mentioned "Looney Toons." I feel both of those are spot on. GAZ10 has a "gross" Garbage Pail Kids vibe, plus a zany Looney Toons vibe...plus (unfortunately) Looney Toons' 1940s racial stereotypes. Even Garbage Pail Kids (probably) stayed away from racial stereotypes.

5) The author was "all about humor," with no other inspiration. He states in an interview: "There was no specific source of inspiration [for GAZ10] other than my decision to show the “monster’s” point of view with some humor." However, an unloosed continental European sense of humor may be somewhat different than the North American sense of humor.

6) The author was in a position which may not have provided the critical feedback which this product deserved. AFAIK, the author was, at that time, Product Manager for the entire Basic D&D line, which was equivalent to the entire AD&D product line. AD&D and BD&D were kept as distinct brands, product lines, and departments due to the fact that TSR tallied the Dave Arneson royalties differently in each of the two lines. So, since the author was also his own Product Manager, he may not have received necessary feedback from his team-members who were beneath him in the business hierarchy.

7) The book was rushed. See comments from the author: "Unfortunately, no time was left at all to try out RPG optional developments. I had to shoot from the hip for much of this."

These points do not excuse anything. I just want to try to paint a full picture, in appreciation for the author's humanity.

P.S. Here are the author's full comments on GAZ10, from an interview conducted by "Random Wizard" several years ago:

RW: In 1988, GAZ 10 The Orcs of Thar was released. This Gazetteer was unique in that it was presented from the humanoid monsters perspective. It provided rules for playing Orcs, Kobolds, Trolls, etc... Did you do much playtesting of the rules? The rules seem to encourage a fun and carefree style (and are quite imaginative). Were there any sources of inspiration for putting together this Gazetteer? Was there a reason you tackled this Gazetteer instead of handing it off to someone else?

BH: There was a lot of playtest for the boardgame insert. GAZ10 indeed had a lot of crunch to it. There was no specific source of inspiration other than my decision to show the “monster’s” point of view with some humor. It had been a while since I’d designed GAZ3, and the Known World’s real estate was going away fast! That was the motivation for fishing GAZ10 out of the mix and having some fun with it.

 

[Helldritch]

Helldritch, I totally understand what you and Glen have been trying to repeatedly assert. Yet I see your perspective is wrong or confused.

It's ethically wrong to design a game book with this premise: "Oh, the orcs are just copying the African-like human culture which borders Black Orcland, so it's okay to call the black-skinned orcs Nigorz, and to depict them as chicken-and-watermelon-loving gangstas and mammies. The orcs don't know any better!"

I have nothing more to say than what I already said to you in post #405.

And again, I am telling you that though it is your right to do so, you are putting a first degree to something that is at best second degree.

Does it make the sting less damaging? Not really simply because the writers were careless enough to allow their work to be read in such a way. But does it make a work that is on equal footing with racist literature? I have my doubts and so are many readers. The distasteful references are there but they are nuanced as second and third degree meanings. A much clearer warning should have been sticked to the work but this was the 80s, no one, unless directly concerned would ever have thought of that. Yes some circles might have had more awareness of the stakes, but such was not the ways in the 80s. Context is very important to be able to judge anything from an other era. Intentions and actions can sometimes be taken out of their context and make to mean entirely different things. We see this often enough with people being cited out of context to put them in a bad light that I always try to get a bugger picture before judging on a few citations because out of context, they can mean the reverse of what was the initial intention.

Again, I do not like that Gaz, it was poorly done and executed and it's short comings are quite evident, but are they as bad as you claim them to be in light of them being 2nd and 3rd degree interpretations that have been taken at 1st degree ones? I do not think so. That s why I tell you that your interpretation is debatable.

The work does not intend to be racist but can be interpreted in such a way because it was simply badly written.
Edit: I just read you post about the author. Seems we agree on that one. I bow to your wisdom on that one then.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

My point is, it's absolutely wonderful--and very much needed--to have these people working on current and future books.

Agreed.

But there's basically nothing they can do about the older books other than put that warning on, having a more in-depth warning ("this product contains offensive content about <groups>"), or to stop selling them in the first place.

No. You're wrong. Or, at least you're speaking from a false authority. What, are you the corporate seer of Wizards of the Coast? Why are you magically proclaiming that there are literally only two possible courses of action?

Yet I appreciate that you propose here another option: of putting more specific warnings on some product labels. That's quite boring, but it would be slightly more than the present-day boilerplate.

Why are you hellbent on presenting only two boring options?

If the original writers, artists, and editors choose to step forward and apologize for offensive content they made, that'd be great.

Let me tell you, being tapped by Wizards to speak for an article, and being paid a bit for the time, is great personal publicity. Of course, the amendatory interviews would be done very skillfully, with beautiful editing. Do you really think that R.A. Salvatore just woke up one day and randomly "chose to step forward" and make amendatory comments on the drow for the Polygon article? No. His comments were almost certainly coordinated and vetted by Wizards' own team. And they did a good job. The designer amends interviews aren't there to ruffle even more feathers and open more wounds. They're there for authentic healing and teaching the D&D principle that "diversity is strength."

But in my opinion, just having a company (who wasn't even the original publishers) donate money to an organization doesn't really do much. Donating money would be a nice gesture, but--again, to me personally--an unneeded one. What's more important to me is that the problem was recognized and isn't made again.

Some other poster in this thread spoke as if I were a legal nincompoop for saying that Wizards is the legal successor of TSR. Sweet jeezus. Regardless of what the technical term is, it's a fact that Wizards owns TSR and all its assets. Which means that Wizards owns all of TSR "debits" and moral karma as well. When a company buys another company, they don't just buy the benefits! They also gain the karmic responsibilities.

Obviously, every group of people who have been maligned, and every individual within those groups, are going to have their own opinions on the matter. I know some atheists don't care one whit about the wall and thing it's perfectly fine. There are probably some atheists who do want WotC to donate to the FFRF or another atheist organization. And probably the same thing is the case with every other group that's been maligned in a gaming product, even those who had really nasty prejudice against them, like the groups mocked in Gaz10.

Well gee, should I just throw my hands up and say: "Darn, Faolyn says nothing can be done! I guess I'll just give up."

Dude, processes can happen. There is such a thing as human discernment. Is any amends process absolutely perfect? Of course not. Would some individuals think Wizards went too far, or not far enough? Of course! But that doesn't mean that a living process cannot happen.

What I laid out is actually pretty simple. As with anything in life, you just have to bring in the people who seem the best qualified for the task at hand, and empower them with a mandate to do their thing. The Romani consultant has the skills to come to some sort of objective conclusion when it comes to Romani-inspired motifs. The Humanist consultant does too, about her/his field of expertise. The Feminism consultant too. The Lakota consultant too. Ya gotta trust people to fulfill the role they are expertly trained to do.

And there'd of course be an overarching "managing/editorial team" for the process, which would bring the various specific threads into a coherent whole, so that the findings can translated into a readable DRAGON+ amends article, and the appropriately specific charities can be tapped for automated donations.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

A couple of more research findings, which I'd overlooked. I'll add them to the OP:

"Akkila-Khan went past the mountains and found King Loark. Together, they ravaged the yellow mens' steppes." PG, p.1

"Yellow Loonies" -label from "The World According to Orcs" map

Both of these "yellow" terms are referring to the Mongolian-inspired human beings of Ethengar. Though spoken from a "stupid/comedic" orcish perspective, they're still racial slurs.

We could look in a 1988 Merriam-Webster dictionary to see whether "yellow man" is considered offensive or not.

***
Imagine if Akkila-Khan and Loark had instead ravaged the African-inspired Serpent Peninsula, and the text had said:

"Together, they ravaged the n*ggers' jungle."

Or imagine of the "The World According to Orcs" map had included the Serpent Peninsula, which had been labeled: "N*gger Loonies."

That would be a problem, which could not be "explained away" by saying that the orcs are just stupid.
"Yellow man" (and "red man") are commensurate with the n-word.

 

[Zardnaar]

Agreed.

No. You're wrong. Or, at least you're speaking from a false authority. What, are you the corporate seer of Wizards of the Coast? Why are you magically proclaiming that there are literally only two possible courses of action?

Yet I appreciate that you propose here another option: of putting more specific warnings on some product labels. That's quite boring, but it would be slightly more than the present-day boilerplate.

Why are you hellbent on presenting only two boring options?

Let me tell you, being tapped by Wizards to speak for an article, and being paid a bit for the time, is great personal publicity. Of course, the amendatory interviews would be done very skillfully, with beautiful editing. Do you really think that R.A. Salvatore just woke up one day and randomly "chose to step forward" and make amendatory comments on the drow for the Polygon article? No. His comments were almost certainly coordinated and vetted by Wizards' own team. And they did a good job. The designer amends interviews aren't there to ruffle even more feathers and open more wounds. They're there for authentic healing and teaching the D&D principle that "diversity is strength."

Some other poster in this thread spoke as if I were a legal nincompoop for saying that Wizards is the legal successor of TSR. Sweet jeezus. Regardless of what the technical term is, it's a fact that Wizards owns TSR and all its assets. Which means that Wizards owns all of TSR "debits" and moral karma as well. When a company buys another company, they don't just buy the benefits! They also gain the karmic responsibilities.



Well gee, should I just throw my hands up and say: "Darn, Faolyn says nothing can be done! I guess I'll just give up."

Dude, processes can happen. There is such a thing as human discernment. Is any amends process absolutely perfect? Of course not. Would some individuals think Wizards went too far, or not far enough? Of course! But that doesn't mean that a living process cannot happen.

What I laid out is actually pretty simple. As with anything in life, you just have to bring in the people who seem the best qualified for the task at hand, and empower them with a mandate to do their thing. The Romani consultant has the skills to come to some sort of objective conclusion when it comes to Romani-inspired motifs. The Humanist consultant does too, about her/his field of expertise. The Feminism consultant too. The Lakota consultant too. Ya gotta trust people to fulfill the role they are expertly trained to do.

And there'd of course be an overarching "managing/editorial team" for the process, which would bring the various specific threads into a coherent whole, so that the findings can translated into a readable DRAGON+ amends article, and the appropriately specific charities can be tapped for automated donations.

Agreed.

No. You're wrong. Or, at least you're speaking from a false authority. What, are you the corporate seer of Wizards of the Coast? Why are you magically proclaiming that there are literally only two possible courses of action?

Yet I appreciate that you propose here another option: of putting more specific warnings on some product labels. That's quite boring, but it would be slightly more than the present-day boilerplate.

Why are you hellbent on presenting only two boring options?

Let me tell you, being tapped by Wizards to speak for an article, and being paid a bit for the time, is great personal publicity. Of course, the amendatory interviews would be done very skillfully, with beautiful editing. Do you really think that R.A. Salvatore just woke up one day and randomly "chose to step forward" and make amendatory comments on the drow for the Polygon article? No. His comments were almost certainly coordinated and vetted by Wizards' own team. And they did a good job. The designer amends interviews aren't there to ruffle even more feathers and open more wounds. They're there for authentic healing and teaching the D&D principle that "diversity is strength."

Some other poster in this thread spoke as if I were a legal nincompoop for saying that Wizards is the legal successor of TSR. Sweet jeezus. Regardless of what the technical term is, it's a fact that Wizards owns TSR and all its assets. Which means that Wizards owns all of TSR "debits" and moral karma as well. When a company buys another company, they don't just buy the benefits! They also gain the karmic responsibilities.



Well gee, should I just throw my hands up and say: "Darn, Faolyn says nothing can be done! I guess I'll just give up."

Dude, processes can happen. There is such a thing as human discernment. Is any amends process absolutely perfect? Of course not. Would some individuals think Wizards went too far, or not far enough? Of course! But that doesn't mean that a living process cannot happen.

What I laid out is actually pretty simple. As with anything in life, you just have to bring in the people who seem the best qualified for the task at hand, and empower them with a mandate to do their thing. The Romani consultant has the skills to come to some sort of objective conclusion when it comes to Romani-inspired motifs. The Humanist consultant does too, about her/his field of expertise. The Feminism consultant too. The Lakota consultant too. Ya gotta trust people to fulfill the role they are expertly trained to do.

And there'd of course be an overarching "managing/editorial team" for the process, which would bring the various specific threads into a coherent whole, so that the findings can translated into a readable DRAGON+ amends article, and the appropriately specific charities can be tapped for automated donations.

His main point is that it's impossible just very highly unlikely.

May as throw world peace, no climate change onto your wish list.

Costs to much money/to much effort they're way more likely just to pull the product.

Even if they did it you're gonna have the usual outrage on YouTube and social media.

Basically it's costs a lit, doesn't solve much and argueably makes things worse.

Sometimes doing nothing is the best option. Beyond warning labels, be better going forward.

 

[Khrysaes]

Makes me think of how the Will Smith movie Bright used orcs as an allegory for Black people, or at the very least non-white people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Warning disclaimers or shelving products is, IMHO, about as much as you can expect for problematic legacy products. Forget WotC- I don’t think Hasbro would be too interested in the expenditure and effort it would take to do it properly. It’s all nice, but a bit…(orc &) pie in the sky.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But I'd prefer that future over continuing to identify with a bunch of snarky, congenitally negative, fannish D&D co-dependents who are afraid to speak up about (or even to conceive that there might be) prejudicial "skeletons in the closet", and who just want to "keep up appearances" and be nice, obedient wittle customers, so as to keep the PDF toy milk flowing from the Wizards' teat.

Mod Note:

Nice string of insults. You’ve earned yourself a temporary time-out from your own thread for being an ass.

In addition, you seem to have a penchant for putting words in others’ mouths. Don’t do that. It degrades the strength of your assertions. It will cost you allies.

(Personal note: I loved your original post, and appreciate what I think is your intent, so it ticks me off you made me do this.)