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

[Zardnaar]

...

That attitude is, like, the opposite of being progressive and forward-thinking. I'm not going to go into the politics of extremism in NZ, but suffice to say that I think you are grossly underestimating its own ability to grow, and in fact the attitude of "let the small stuff slide" is the sort of thing that allows that sort of stuff to take hold.

Really, when you call it "small stuff", you're making a huge judgment on something that largely affects someone else, and you let it slide because, as you have outline numerous times, you have bigger problems. But for the people it actually affects, it is a big problem or a portion thereof.

We have this sort of attitude here, and I've absolutely heard it justify stuff like Confederate statues and such. So looks like you're a lot closer to America than you think in that regard.

Reason is you still have to live togather. You won't really change things much if those in power are scared of being persecuted or humiliated in the new normal. See Iraq/Syria/South Africa etc. They'll dig in and fight it out.

If you're busy yelling and screaming at each other people gonna get angry. Angry people don't make rational decisions.

Do you think the state of public discord is better or worse here or in the USA?

 

[Mercurius]

I will start with what I think is your mistake.

Why is it valuable for my kids to learn that a certain part of mainstream American thought and literature classified them as "mongrels"? As a general rule white kids don't need to undergo this "learning".

I have no idea what ethnicity your kids are, but I think it is valuable for ALL kids to understand our history of racism, at least once they are old enough to process it. Why is that controversial?

And why should my kids need me to protect them when they go to the public library? As a general rule, white kids don't need their parent to protect them in this way.

Now I'm confused. Where did I imply that your kids should need you to protect them? I don't see how this follows as a response to anything said. I'm merely saying that I think a parent should have more of a say in what their kid can read than a governmental agency, or some approved list or section of the library.

I was involved for a little while with a group that actually got push-back when it wanted to start it's own little children's lending library, where all the works would be by authors of colour. I don't think the concerned liberals had fully thought through their response to the proposal, nor the fact that a white kid might go to a public library and look through work after work after work written by white authors and foregrounding their experiences. I certainly don't think it had occurred to them that white kids never run the risk of encountering works that will frame them as REH and HPL frame all the other kids who might come across them.

Again, I'm not really sure how you're connecting this to anything I've said. And I'm not clear what your suggestion is with regards to Howard and Lovecraft in a public library. You want a special section for all books that don't fit today's standards? And whose standards? Who decides?

Where, here, do you see any trading on default responses to people of colour that are elements in a system of ideology and subjugation?

That may be present - ancient Egypt frequently figures in depiction of the "vigour" of civilisation having shifted from the "East" to the "West" - but I don't know FR well enough to express a view on it.

I'm not saying that I do. What I'm saying is that authors draw from real ideas for a variety of reasons, and often simply because they're interesting or make for fun roleplaying.

For instance, an author might create a culture that is loosely based on the Aztec empire at its worst (or how it is stereotypically understood to have been), complete with child sacrifices and head-ball games. That doesn't mean the author is mocking the culture of all Central American peoples; it could be that they just think it involves fun ideas for a game setting.

It seems to me that in cases like this there is more likelihood that conceptions of "jungle" cultures will reflect default responses that are parts of systems of ideology and subordination. Especially if the ideas about those cultures have been mediated in part or primarily via films, comics, pulps and their offspring, etc.

See my point above. Creators draw from a wide range of ideas, and put bits and pieces together in different ways that serve their purposes. Of course they'll be influenced by common and/or stereotypical conceptions that might be wrong, but how can it be otherwise? And if they're creating a culture that is only meant to signify itself, why can't it have elements of real-world cultures even if they are negative portrayals? If that Aztec-influenced culture I mentioned above is ruled by an evil god who seeks to quench his blood-lust and his culture is entirely about this, why does that have to be considered a castigation of Central American peoples? Why can't it simply be an evil fantasy empire with flavors drawn from Mesoamerica?

Should he not have? Would doing otherwise have been true to the works? Would doing otherwise have given so many Maori and other actors of colour jobs?

I didn't make a normative judgement, just an observation. The normative inferences from that observation are in my view not easy to draw.

Are these open-ended questions that you're entertaining, or are you just be contrarian to whatever I happen to say, even if it is in basic agreement with something you said?

I was acknowledging that I can see how primarily using Maori actors to depict orcs could further the perspective that orcs are stand-ins for non-white people. And as far as I can tell, Tolkien did not depict orcs in a singular way - they were varied in terms of skin color and appearance. But as you said, it stood out that all the Maori in the film were orcs (afaict).

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's why we talk about it but doesn't explain the vitriol. It doesn't explain the need to paint Lovecraft's particular racism as much worse than his contemporaries nor does it explain why some want to see his him no longer named as an influence.

Which is inane to me. He was and is an influence. Erasing his name from his contributions because you don't like his politics makes zero sense to me. The past happened. You dont have to like the person, but it's silly imo to pretend his contributions to literature weren't important.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Reason is you still have to live togather. You won't really change things much if those in power are scared of being persecuted or humiliated in the new normal. See Iraq/Syria/South Africa etc. They'll dig in and fight it out.

If you're busy yelling and screaming at each other people gonna get angry. Angry people don't make rational decisions.

Do you think the state of public discord is better or worse here or in the USA?

Letting stuff slide is a good way to be edged into extremism. Places like America are having problems because we have let things slide for so long. Again, your argument is the exact same sort of things I hear from people on Confederate monuments; you'll anger the wrong people and it's just not worth the fight.

The problem is you're already in a fight. In not taking a stand, you surrender the ground to the other side. Letting small things slide turn into bigger and bigger things. You might well find that out in the future.



At any rate, that still doesn't really justify why this sort of thing would be acceptable in 1988. Again, you seem to have very little real feel for where America was in the late 80's and this definitely would not be acceptable. The justification of "It was the times" doesn't make sense for this sort of really low and regressive stuff.

 

[Mirtek]

D&D has wrestled with that issue since kobold babies were found in the Caves of Chaos, and WotC when working on the lore of 5e had basically two choices: simplify morality in D&D by creating two cosmic teams (good guy PCs vs bad guy monsters) and justify why the bad guys were always bad, or create a muddy world of gray morality where any creature is capable of complex moral thought and the lines of good and evil are blurry. It's obvious which one they opted for, and that they bet on the wrong horse.

That is ignoring that WotC was comming straight from a phase where they had strengthened the later view tremendously and then chose to tear down all of this and go (race really) down the opposite direction.

Catti-Brie got reincarnated by a good goddess and carried with her the divine verdict that all goblins are evil and goblin childrens should be killed in sight (yes, that's actually in an FR novel). From a character who was previously known the question all of this and even convinced her dwarven clan to first try diplomacy with goblins when their immediate response upon discovering them was starting to plan how to kill them.

 

[Remathilis]

That is ignoring that WotC was comming straight from a phase where they had strengthened the later view tremendously and then chose to tear down all of this and go (race really) down the opposite direction.

Catti-Brie got reincarnated by a good goddess and carried with her the divine verdict that all goblins are evil and goblin childrens should be killed in sight (yes, that's actually in an FR novel). From a character who was previously known the question all of this and even convinced her dwarven clan to first try diplomacy with goblins when their immediate response upon discovering them was starting to plan how to kill them.

It's also worth noting that much of the 5e changes came after the 4e backlash, and they wanted to go back to a "back to basics" mentality that Pathfinder had tapped into and would be serviceable if 5e never took off and remained a legacy/life-support product (there was a point where we were considering it lucky if we got three books per year). They went for the simplest option: goblins and orcs are always evil pawns of evil gods. 5e's success changed all that. It brought in new eyes, increased the publishing schedule, and required a more nuanced look of things because creating "the last edition of D&D" was no longer the primary goal of WotC anymore.

Yeah, they bet on the wrong option (the legacy/simplistic one) assuming D&D was going to remain a fairly niche phenomenon that could slide on nostalgia. When D&D became hot girl sh!t, it found that wasn't going to cut it and hence the mid-edition corrections we've seen.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's also worth noting that much of the 5e changes came after the 4e backlash, and they wanted to go back to a "back to basics" mentality that Pathfinder had tapped into and would be serviceable if 5e never took off and remained a legacy/life-support product (there was a point where we were considering it lucky if we got three books per year). They went for the simplest option: goblins and orcs are always evil pawns of evil gods. 5e's success changed all that. It brought in new eyes, increased the publishing schedule, and required a more nuanced look of things because creating "the last edition of D&D" was no longer the primary goal of WotC anymore.

Yeah, they bet on the wrong option (the legacy/simplistic one) assuming D&D was going to remain a fairly niche phenomenon that could slide on nostalgia. When D&D became hot girl sh!t, it found that wasn't going to cut it and hence the mid-edition corrections we've seen.

I think a good way to look at Paizo and Wizards during the early-mid 10's is "Progressive for players": in terms of representation, it was most important to make it inclusive in regards to the player character themselves, rather than reflecting a more progressive world-building outlook across the entire setting. Thus you get a lot of inclusion when it comes to player character examples and player art but still fall back on the classic tropes for "NPC" races and such. Obviously that was not the way to go.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be made about this topic, and perhaps deserving of its own thread.

 

[Hussar]

I think this is a valid and important distinction, and may help to diffuse some of the defensiveness a fan of REH's might feel unless, of course, you're suggesting that reading Howard today perpetuates the "functions of subordination," etc.

But here's a question I have been wondering: For those who are interested in the project of analyzing authors and artists from the past from a certain contemporary lens of what is and is not problematic, where is the line between an author or work being "blacklisted" and when you can still enjoy them, in spite of the problematic content?

I imagine the line is different for everyone, but that's kind of my question. Where is the line for you? And if there's a line for that, is there also a line for where you not only don't want to read them, but also would support their work being pulled out of circulation?

I ask because we all make this sort of decision all the time: we choose to support things that we might find reprehensible, if only out of our own ignorance, intentional or not. We all give money to companies that do things that we don't like, sometimes terrible things. And is that any different that reading an author, some of whose views we find problematic? (aside from the fact that I don't think I've ever come across an author--or person, really--whose views I 100% agree with).

I personally don't have an issue with reading a book or author whose views I don't agree with, or even find reprehensible. For one, it is rare that everything they say is reprehensible or that their work can be entirely reduced to the problematic elements. I'm sure there is stuff out there that would fit that criteria, but I haven't found it - and probably wouldn't enjoy it if I did find it (although, as an aside, when I worked at a big used bookstore back in the 90s, I would come across some pretty wild stuff, but it was rather rare).

So where is the line where thou cannot pass? (By "you" I don't only mean pemerton, but anyone reading this). And if there's a line in which it becomes too much that you won't read it or cannot enjoy it, is there another line where you think more public action should be taken?

For me, there is no black listed line. That’s about blame and frankly I don’t care about blame. These works are an important part of canon and must remain so.

That’s why I keep arguing that the author is probably the least important element. It’s the works that matter.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think you have a good hang on American history.

I'm not going to go into the politics of extremism in NZ, but suffice to say that I think you are grossly underestimating its own ability to grow, and in fact the attitude of "let the small stuff slide" is the sort of thing that allows that sort of stuff to take hold.

I don't think I agree with @Zardnaar. But I can understand where he (? I believe this is the right pronoun) is coming from.

I am in Australia. I have friends who moved here from New Zealand. One reason that some give is that they found NZ too insular. On the other hand, a common phrase among more left-liberal middle class Australians who want to express despair about the political conditions here is to say "I will escape to New Zealand." At the same time that NZ had one of the most Thatcherite governments in the predominantly English-speaking world, it was also banning US warships, the victim of French government terrorism against Greenpeace, and rediscovering and operationalising the Treaty of Waitangi.

In more recent years, NZ has taken many refugees who have been held in camps on Nauru or in PNG by the Australian government. And the NZ PM's response to a white supremacist mass shooting in Christchurch by an Australian generated widespread praise and respect in Australia, especially among more left-liberal Australians.

On the other hand, I have seen Maori activists speak - in Australia - in very hostile terms about the "anti-terrorism" raids that took place in NZ in 2007: 2007 New Zealand police raids - Wikipedia

It seems likely that no country or society is perfect. And many basic social structures are common across many places. But countries and societies are also different.

 

[Zardnaar]

Letting stuff slide is a good way to be edged into extremism. Places like America are having problems because we have let things slide for so long. Again, your argument is the exact same sort of things I hear from people on Confederate monuments; you'll anger the wrong people and it's just not worth the fight.

The problem is you're already in a fight. In not taking a stand, you surrender the ground to the other side. Letting small things slide turn into bigger and bigger things. You might well find that out in the future.



At any rate, that still doesn't really justify why this sort of thing would be acceptable in 1988. Again, you seem to have very little real feel for where America was in the late 80's and this definitely would not be acceptable. The justification of "It was the times" doesn't make sense for this sort of really low and regressive stuff.

Problem here is ideas imported from the USA. The big one was the prevailing economic theory in the 1980's (greed is good), more recently US social media cancer.


We can process the homegrown stuff.