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

[Yaarel]

I don't think that's as clear as you make it out to be. The intent could very well have been to mock the orcs and the writer just drew upon a name he knew about without thinking it through. We can't tell for certain based on the name alone that the writer was mocking the real personage.

I agree, that probably was the intent, to make fun of the orcs.

However, the problem is, the degree to which the "comedians" could have such disregard for someone elses cultural identity, that it didnt even occur to them that there might be a problem.

The part that is less clear is, we make fun of our own cultures that we ourselves identify with.

Humor is a double-edge sword. Sometimes, even the same words can be used either to strengthen bonds of belonging with a shared understanding or else to bully an other.

 

[Mercurius]

In any case, ultimately that works of the past, especially by long dead creators are problematic is not a big deal in itself. It is completely expected. And people do nothing wrong by merely enjoying such works; though it would be nice if they recognised the problematic elements.

I agree with this, although with the caveat that "recognition of the problematic elements" need not imply a monolithic conclusion and consensus that we must all come to. I'd like to see an openness to a variety of interpretations, rather than--as sometimes seems to be the case--the implication that if you don't come to the same conclusions about what is and is not problematic, and to what degree, than you are perpetuating the bad stuff.

However, properly analysing the problematic aspects becomes explicitly important if you adapt or take influence from an old work. Then you should play attention to not just blindly copy the products of attitudes of the past era. I've been thinking this somewhat due my current setting, which is a primal pulp adventure setting inspired (among other things) by authors such as Howard and Burroughs, works of which contain some rather unfortunate stuff.

This is an interesting topic and involves a degree of subtlety, I would think. I have found that, as a general but not absolute rule, the closer to the text an adaptation comes, the better it is. Again, to emphasis: in general but not always.

I think this is because of the fact that the world or story grew and lived in the author's head; they knew/know it best, from the "inside." Or to put it another way, no one quite does Middle-earth like Tolkien, or the Hyborian Age like Howard.

But how to hew closely to the original, but jettison anything that is objectionable? I don't think it is all that difficult, and doesn't require a complete re-working of the mythos, especially if you focus more on retaining the vibe and atmosphere, rather than re-creating every individual component. In other words, you can capture the "Hyborian feel" without including specific, objectionable components.

 

[Umbran]

Except you're saying that 30+ years after the fact. Times were different.

Hey, dude, I was alive, kicking, and gaming 30 years ago. So, I was there. I know what it was like. Argument of Authority doesn't hold up when there are others with equal or greater authority around.

I have stated how times were different - and again, I was there - and it wasn't in somehow not knowing this was harmful behavior.

Anti apartheid was a big thing here along with fears of nuclear war. If social media existed back then those topics would have been bigger than Chief Sitting Drool who probably wouldn't have trended. A particuly bad taste 80's comedy movie might have trended due to its higher profile.

Sure. But you are failing to understand WHY, and are using your misunderstanding to excuse bad behavior.

I repeat, the cruelty of it is part of the point - they knew it was harmful, they knew such things hurt. "Chief Sitting Drool" isn't funny if it isn't at someone else's expense! The difference between then, and now, was in who could get away with it.

Then, it was wrong, and nobody would hold their feet to the fire over it. Today, it is wrong, and folks can and will make enough of a fuss to discourage it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hey, dude, I was alive, kicking, and gaming 30 years ago. So, I was there. I know what it was like. Argument of Authority doesn't hold up when there are others with equal or greater authority around.

I have stated how times were different - and again, I was there - and it wasn't in somehow not knowing this was harmful behavior.



Sure. But you are failing to understand WHY, and are using your misunderstanding to excuse bad behavior.

I repeat, the cruelty of it is part of the point - they knew it was harmful, they knew such things hurt. "Chief Sitting Drool" isn't funny if it isn't at someone else's expense! The difference between then, and now, was in who could get away with it.

Then, it was wrong, and nobody would hold their feet to the fire over it. Today, it is wrong, and folks can and will make enough of a fuss to discourage it.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But if you wrote a book about the 80's would you whitewash the bad stuff, focus on the good stuff or look at why things were like that?

Things were different yes? In some ways they are better now otherwsys not so much. I don't know what I would do if one had the choice of being born when I was or being born 2011.

 

[Remathilis]

It is a simple matter of fact that many people have a certain default response to people of colour, especially Black people. Therefore one shortcut for "lazy worldbuilding" is to trade on that default response.

This doesn't show that such worldbuilding is not racist. In fact it seems to admit the point!

I think that overstates just a little too much.

Barovia is fantasy Transylvania as depicted in countless Dracula-related media. If someone asked me to describe Barovia, I could start out by saying, "well, it's basically Transylvania" and you would know exactly what I am referring to. Of course, what I see in Transylvania is moody Hollywood soundstages while what you see is decades of hurtful stereotypes of Roma and Slavic people. We will always see what part we want to, and one person's allusion is another person's stereotype.

The issue, of course, is D&D (and media at large, but let's keep it to D&D) is full of those allusions and the accompanying stereotypes. Even the 2021 Ravenloft book keeps Barovia as Transylvania. Eberron has Xen'drik as "Dark continent Africa" complete with Drow "natives". Faerun is chock full of borrowed cultures like the Moonshaes, Multhorand or Chult. And Mystara was built of areas described as "fantasy Medieval <real world culture>" be that culture the Roman Empire, the Italian Mercantile City States, or the American First World nations. And countless settings have had fantasy analogies of East Asia, Arabia, Egypt, etc. from Greyhawk to Golarion. All of it can be considered "lazy" and quite a bit of it built on tropes and cliches considered "hurtful" or even "racist."

It's one thing to condemn an easy target like Chief Sitting Drool, it's a much more complicated question of how you world-build without relying on those well-worn tropes we come back to so often?

 

[MGibster]

Lovecraft’s entire mindset was defined by racism. He was more racist than most people of his time and place. We aren’t being unfair to anyone by calling him a scumbag.

I don't really mind anyone calling Lovecraft a scumbag, but given that millions of Americans in the early 20th century shared similar attitudes, there were a lot of scumbags running around at the time. And if you want to call them all scumbags, I don't really have a problem with that. What I don't get is the intense vitriol towards Lovecraft given that he wasn't in a position for his racist beliefs to influence the lives of many others. Did he use his position to deny housing, employment, or education to anyone? I don't think he was ever in a position to wield significant power over anyone else.

Things don't just become okay because everyone else was a scumbag or cowed by scumbags. Accepting the 'zeitgeist' is how we slide back into scumbaggery.

In the case of Lovecraft, we're talking about the early 20th century. All we can do at this point is "accept" the zeitgeist since we can't go back and change it. But you're right, just because everyone else was a scumbag doesn't make it okay.

Look at the movies from that era and what else was happening. That's why. Is Orcs of Thar offensive absolutely. Compared to what else was going on at the time it wasn't that bad.

You are right. I was unfamiliar with Orcs of Thar until this thread started, and I could scarcely believe in was produced in the late 1980s.

Analysing and criticising these works probably will not do very much to directly change/reduce/eliminate the subordination function of the social and cultural structures. But it can help change/reduce/eliminate the ideological function, and in that way may indirectly affect the subordination function.

I think we're all in general agreement that it's fair to analyze, criticize, and recognize the racism in these works.

 

[Helldritch]

I am not so sure that what is going on here as far as author intent for the point is to be hurtful to Indians.

The humanoids seem to be in part specifically dumb parody versions of a bunch of in world Mystara cultures. The Atruaghin clans are generally understood to be the fantasy Indians of Mystara, the Red Orcs are the dumb humanoid versions of the Atruaghin. The Ethengar are the Mystaran fantasy Mongols and the Yellow Orcs and Gnollistan and such are generally stupid humanoid versions that mirror the Ethengar. It is not just Indians and Mongols, there are roman style mirrorings and the kobolds mirroring the Mystaran Darokinian Fantasy Italian trader states with their kobold High Doge Constantin Diocletus.

The Atruaghin clans would not have a Chief Sitting Drool, while the dumb humanoid version does.

The author intent could have been to cruelly mock Indians as the point. Or it could have been to mock dumb fantasy orcs. Or both or something else I have not thought of.

Similarly with the art of the orc punks with the spike going through the brain enjoying the breakdancing it could have been to target White British punks and say they are brainless idiots, or the intent could be that orcs are brainless, or to be ambiguous and leave it up to audience interpretation. It could be considered a dig at black urban culture through the breakdancing connection, with the breakdancing being appreciated by brainless idiots, or that can be taken as too attenuated a connection.

Given that in this product itself humanoids are multicultural and generally stupid and all the cultures they have specifically mirror other ones in the world who are not similarly treated in a stupid mocking fashion I find it more likely the intent was to have humanoids be stupid Mad Magazine style parodies of many other things and the humanoids are intended to be considered the stupid and mockable target.

These are my thoughts exactly.
People for the "this book is racist!" are simply ignoring the context of the book and the previous ones.
The book does not exist by itself. It makes references to other books and as such, all references must be known and acknowledged for a precise and good criticism of the book to be valid.
The orcs are clearly a parody of the other cultures in the other books. So how good a transposition are those books? Are they thoughtless and rude? I'll tell you right now. Nope, not at all. In fact, the other books are quite respectful of the cultures they get their inspirations from. The humanoids from the Orcs of Thar are a simple parody of what inspired other books/cultures in the Mystaran world.

Taken alone, the book is clearly a bad one but it is a parody nonetheless. As such, it is in no way a treatise on the First Nation People, The Mongols or even something to be related to them. Is the book a good one? Not really, but it is not as hurtful as some might think it is. I took time to read GAZ 12, 14 and even 11. Yes they come later, but these were referenced in other books too. The depiction of the cultures in these books is quite good and nothing stood out as purely negative. Yes some things could be interpretted as such but no culture is perfect and the flaws are as important as the positives aspects in determining a fantasy culture.

So here we clearly have not only a second degree reading but a third one. This book was not meant to insult, especialy if put yourself in the mindset of those time.

Also, the author is mainly french. We do not have the same references as english speaking people do. What seems hurtful to some non French speaker will be considered quite harmless for us.

 

[Helldritch]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But if you wrote a book about the 80's would you whitewash the bad stuff, focus on the good stuff or look at why things were like that?

Things were different yes? In some ways they are better now otherwsys not so much. I don't know what I would do if one had the choice of being born when I was or being born 2011.

I'll choose the 1980's any time! (Well, I was born in the 70s... but you know what I mean.)

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't really mind anyone calling Lovecraft a scumbag, but given that millions of Americans in the early 20th century shared similar attitudes, there were a lot of scumbags running around at the time. And if you want to call them all scumbags, I don't really have a problem with that. What I don't get is the intense vitriol towards Lovecraft given that he wasn't in a position for his racist beliefs to influence the lives of many others. Did he use his position to deny housing, employment, or education to anyone? I don't think he was ever in a position to wield significant power over anyone else.


In the case of Lovecraft, we're talking about the early 20th century. All we can do at this point is "accept" the zeitgeist since we can't go back and change it. But you're right, just because everyone else was a scumbag doesn't make it okay.


You are right. I was unfamiliar with Orcs of Thar until this thread started, and I could scarcely believe in was produced in the late 1980s.


I think we're all in general agreement that it's fair to analyze, criticize, and recognize the racism in these works.

What puzzles me is people's expectations of 1988. I would be more surprised if Orcs of Thar wasn't produced in the 80's.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think people are weighing the difference of intent. I hardly suspect any D&D book was designed with malicious intent to spread lies and hate about RW minority groups, but I am old enough to remember a LOT of RPGs cribbed culture notes from non-mainstream-American cultures (using hollywood or similar interpretations of said cultures) as a shorthand to easily describe fantastical beings to others. It's hard to explain the nunances of a unique orc culture to someone not familiar with your setting, it's easy to say, "they're boar-riding Mongols" and let decades of media paint the picture for them. I'm not saying that is right, merely it was easy and for decades it wasn't called out due to the echo chamber of culture D&D primarily existed in.

Ergo, a lot of people are willing to cut slack to them for being oblivious rather than malicious. I guess if you're only weighing by result (people got hurt) then that is a distinction without difference: ignorance is not an excuse. Most people do see shades of gray though, and I think it's fair to say Bruce Heard wasn't aiming for slander when authoring his book but opted for the easy path of playing on existing tropes and stereotypes rather than creating whole-cloth material. (Mystara is notorious for this design concept; nearly every land in the Known World and Hollow World, even the Savage Coast, is a thin pastiche of a RW culture or lifted from Tolkien in the case of demihumans. It makes Mystara a very easy world to grasp because you can describe whole kingdoms in one sentence, but that also works to its detriment when every kingdom is full of cliches and stereotypes).

There's also marketability to consider. Creating unique cultures, in addition to being a ton of work (if it's even possible), decreases familiarity and potentially reduces your audience. They were and are trying to sell these books to as many people as possible, and using familiar things makes that easier.