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

Those quotes feel no different to me than the orc quotes which are entirely along the same vein
• "A tall human tribesman strides through a blizzard, draped in fur and hefting his axe."

The above feels like Germania.

• "Many of the lands of the Sword Coast and the North are savage, where day-to-day survival is a struggle. Such lands breed hardy tribes and fierce warriors, such as the Reghed and Uthgardt barbarians of the North and the seafaring Northlanders of the Moonshae Isles and the northernmost reaches of the Sword Coast."

This characterization too feels like "Germania", albeit according to the historical racist academic fiction that misrepresented while appropriating from the Nordic ethnicities.



On rereading the rest of the citations, maybe it expands beyond Germania. But then the Barbarian descriptions come across as troubling for other reasons.

• "A half-orc snarls at the latest challenger to her authority over their savage tribe, ready to break his neck with her bare hands as she did to the last six rivals."

Above, the mention of "orc" as a generic primitive seems to trigger a new incarnation of the old unconscious "tribe=savage" racist trope.

• "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one's own nature was a mark of superiority."

The uncivilized ethnicities are "animals", or at least not "set apart from animals".

"To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature-keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage."

The uncivilized are less human and actually want to be animals. (This is complicated because certain animistic cultures have animalistic spiritual traditions. Nevertheless, the overall conclusion that these cultures are understood as nonhuman is problematic.)

• "They thrive in the wilds of their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

The "tundra" feels like a vague misrepresentation of Nordics, as if all Nordics are Berserkar. (As if all Nordics live in the Arctic Circle.) I dont think anyone perceives the Inuit to be rage-fighters.

The "jungle" feels like a vague misrepresentation of African nations as savages.

The "grasslands" could be various regions in Africa, America, and Eurasia.

Mainly, a racist tradition that equates "savage" "primitive" peoples with sub-human rage-fighting is the problem.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The descriptions of drow culture (udadrow) feel Neutral Evil. They are as much group-oriented as they are individual-oriented. Perhaps even moreso group-oriented.

I wonder if they are perceived as if "Chaotic" because they have black skin.
Not in the slightest. Certainly no more so than surface elves, who also are chaotic - they really just swap the good for evil. Chaos stayed right where it was. And it makes some sense given their factionalism as portrayed in the D series of modules and Drizzt books. Their allegiances are narrowly drawn into families and fluid alliances between clans, not broader society.
And none of that was derived from or based on dark skin.
 

As presented in OA and UA 1st edition, barbarians, the character class, came from three distinct areas: tundra, grasslands, and jungle. Given the focus that TSR had at the time on pushing Oriental Adventures and its related products, it seems clear to me that their underlying thoughts were that these correspond broadly to Siberia, Mongolia/Xinjiang, and Indochina/Bengal. WotC has of course broadened the concept since then, but at the time, TSR had some serious orientalism going on. It's worth noting that the barbarian class in that edition did not have the rage class feature.
 

As presented in OA and UA 1st edition, barbarians, the character class, came from three distinct areas: tundra, grasslands, and jungle. Given the focus that TSR had at the time on pushing Oriental Adventures and its related products, it seems clear to me that their underlying thoughts were that these correspond broadly to Siberia, Mongolia/Xinjiang, and Indochina/Bengal. WotC has of course broadened the concept since then, but at the time, TSR had some serious orientalism going on. It's worth noting that the barbarian class in that edition did not have the rage class feature.
Your hypothesis looks solid, we know about the monk do you see and other classes that fit the bill?
 

As presented in OA and UA 1st edition, barbarians, the character class, came from three distinct areas: tundra, grasslands, and jungle. Given the focus that TSR had at the time on pushing Oriental Adventures and its related products, it seems clear to me that their underlying thoughts were that these correspond broadly to Siberia, Mongolia/Xinjiang, and Indochina/Bengal. WotC has of course broadened the concept since then, but at the time, TSR had some serious orientalism going on. It's worth noting that the barbarian class in that edition did not have the rage class feature.
The 1e Unearthed Arcana barbarian which predated Oriental Adventures (and in turn was based on a Dragon article I believe) was very much not orientalist in that way. It seemed based on Conan and then applied straight to Norse/Germanic types; Huns, Mongols, and other steppe nomads with some horse stuff; and to people from jungle areas like the amazon with stuff like blowguns and such and did not say people from the orient are barbarians while westerners are civilized.

The art accompanying the class certainly does not suggest barbarians are primarily Asian.

1640379686694.png


It explicitly says:

Native territory: Many of a barbarian’s abilities depend on the native territory of the character. It is mandatory that barbarian characters come from some out-of-the-way barbaric state or area within the campaign. Typically they are cavemen, dervishes, nomads, or tribesmen. Only such uncivilized backgrounds can generate the necessary surroundings to produce individuals of the stock from which barbarian fighters would be drawn.
Within the WORLD OF GREYHAWK” Fantasy Game Setting, for example, there are several areas that could spawn the barbarian subclass.
The lands of the Frost, Ice, and Snow Barbarians, as well as the Hold of Stonefist, would be the homeland of barbarians of the Scandinavian/Slavic mold. These characters would employ broad swords and short bows in addition to the required initial weapons. Horsemanship would be nominal at best, but these barbarians would have running abilities and the skill in small craft, rowed.
Barbarians from the Rovers of the Barrens, Tiger, and Wolf Nomads would be excellent horsemen. The Rovers, being the most barbaric of these groups, would have the tertiary abilities of running, animal handling, paddled small craft, sound imitation, and snare building. Their main weapons would be the club, javelin, and lasso or short bow. Other Nomads from this group would be most efficient at long distance signaling, and skilled in the use of the lance, scimitar, and composite short bow.
Savages of the Amedio Jungle or Hepmonaland would have the tertiary abilities of long distance signaling, running, sound imitation, snare building, and possibly paddled small craft. In the Amedio Jungle, the preferred weapons would be club, blowgun or shortbow, and dart or javelin. In Hepmonaland, the typical weapons would be atlatl and javelin, club, and short sword.
Using the above as examples, the DM can tailor his barbarians to fit his campaign. Not only does the native area determine initial weapons known, but it also serves as a base of judgment for the use of secondary abilities. These abilities are severely limited outside the native territory of the barbarian, until the character becomes more effective with his or her abilities by gaining familiarity with the new area.

For OA and the Oriental Barbarian it says:

Within the world of Oriental AD&D® Adventures, there are three territories where barbarians live—the barren steppelands, the forested seacoasts of the north, and the jungles of the south. All barbarians come from one of these areas. Each area allows the character a different selection of proficiencies.
Steppeland barbarians: These barbarians are roving nomads, masters of the horse. Their preferred weapons are the light lance, horsebow, sword, and hand axe. Proficiencies they can choose from are horsemanship, long-distance signaling, outdoor craft, tracking, animal handling, weapon smith, armorer, bowyer, running, dancing, singing, weaving, tanning, sound imitation, survival, and chanting. These barbarians usually live in leather tents, following the movements of migratory herds. They raise small herds of cattle and sheep, but practice no other agriculture.
Forest barbarians: These barbarians live in the snowy forests that dot small islands and line the coasts of the northern part of the world. Their preferred weapons are spear, shortbow, hand axe, harpoon, and sword. Proficiencies they can choose from are small water craft, fishing, tracking, survival, animal handling, weapon smithing, pottery, bowyer, sound imitation, snare building, weaving, tanning, carpentry, agriculture, singing, chanting, dancing, and rhetoric. These barbarians live in small, permanent villages. The women raise small crops, the men hunt and fish.
Jungle barbarians: These people live in the tropical jungles of the south. Their preferred weapons are blowgun, spear, sword, hand axe, and dagger. Proficiencies they can choose from are small water craft, fishing, swimming, survival, animal handling, carpentry, weapon smith, armorer, sound imitation, snare building, pottery, tracking, chanting, dancing, music, and sailing craft. They live in permanent villages, surviving by gathering jungle plants, hunting wild animals, and fishing.
 

Re: personal heritage

I personally “identify“ as an American, because that sounds…much less complicated than what I am. I’m black- or in the current parlance, “African American“ (bleh)- but have been able to trace Mongolian, Taino, Choctaw, Peruvian, German, French, Eastern European Jewish, Italian, Puerto Rican, and at least 5 “sailors” of indeterminate origins from the British Isles in my ancestry. (Some of that’s from family records, some of that’s from DNA.)

Pretty much, if you have a bigoted insult to toss around, I probably qualify.

So when asked, I tell people I’m “Gumbo”, “Crayola 64” or sometimes “caramello”. Because who has time for all that?
Yeah, being American makes your family history very interesting. I'm sure that people from different countries also have a ton of ancestors from different places, but the fact that America has been a "melting pot" for so long makes it fairly unique in the different heritages that most people that live here have.

(My father's side is primarily English and Scandinavian with a bit of German and Irish mixed in, and my mother's side is mostly English and Irish with a mix of Scottish and French, too. Just saying "American" is way easier than spouting your whole family history.)
 

Just because there is A trope that is cowboys vs. indians involvig savages raiding civilization, does not make every instance of savages raiding civilization an example of that trope. You keep making that assertion without any hard evidence. Correlation does not equal causation.

In the case of 5e orcs, they aren't even "savages" like the cowboys vs indians trope describes. They are just savage(fierce/violent) raiders and pillagers, just like Vikings were. They're far closer to Vikings than this extremely tenuous connection you've come up with to members of the nations.
We need to be less essentialist about this. Orcs are Orcs, they don't resemble Native Americans (or any other ethnicity) all the time. In fact, because of what they are, they might resemble different ethnicities as different times and in different uses.

As I said earlier, the issue here is essentially structural. D&D is extremely American. One only needs to compare it to Warhammar, a British game, to see some of those differences. D&D tends to assume big wilderness areas and frontiers and keeps on borderlands. This may not be universal, but it's common. Take for example the North in Forgotten Realms the 'Savage Frontier'. It clearly is influenced by ideas of the North American frontier. And part of the narrative structure of stories of the frontier is the savage threat beyond the frontier. Orcs (and other monsters) fill this roll in Forgotten Realms. Reavers do the same in Firefly. This doesn't mean that Orcs necessarily have Native American characteristics, they can fill that role without feathered headresses or rain dances, or scalping or whatever other stereptypical idea of Native Americans is in the culture. But when people recognise this structural role, it's very easy, if they're careless, to start adding in those ideas as well.

And if you're setting is consciously not North American then you might start looking for other details to help flesh out the Orcs in their structural role and suddenly your Orcs are Mongolians or Zulus, or Saraceans or something else.
 

Ironically enough Drow way back in the beginning had alabaster white skin instead of black. They were palette-swapped after their first appearance because the white elf on white pages looked terrible. They also had short curly hair instead of the long straight hair they have now.
Don't forget the mustaches!
 

As presented in OA and UA 1st edition, barbarians, the character class, came from three distinct areas: tundra, grasslands, and jungle. Given the focus that TSR had at the time on pushing Oriental Adventures and its related products, it seems clear to me that their underlying thoughts were that these correspond broadly to Siberia, Mongolia/Xinjiang, and Indochina/Bengal. WotC has of course broadened the concept since then, but at the time, TSR had some serious orientalism going on. It's worth noting that the barbarian class in that edition did not have the rage class feature.
I'm pretty sure the Barbarian class was quite different between those two books. It was the Oriental Adventures one that was Eastern focused. The UA one, I think, was just Conan.

I don't think there was ever any intention that the D&D Barbarian, in general, was from the East.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top