The problem with Evil races is not what you think

Malmuria said:

Does anyone know of an RPG that takes up themes of colonial violence in an interesting way, that they like?

Click to expand...

Dog Eat Dog does this explicitly:

transmission89 said:

Point: Tolkien’s Orcs were a stand in for a real world ethnicity, specifically East Asian.
My claim: They were not.
That is what a rebuttal is. “To claim OR prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false. So clearly it stands as a rebuttal. Which still makes it not a fallacy.

Certainly, I am in agreement with you that the descriptive language a lot of the time evokes wider culture racially motivated fears of different physicality. As was rife in all manners of literature. But not utilising them as a stand in as claimed.

I don’t agree with any of the racial vocabulary used, I don’t endorse it, I stand against it when it is used or implied today. But I don’t seek to criticise unfairly from a modern perspective historical figures without application of context.

Tolkein’s Orcs were his fallen angels, inspired by his readings of myth and legends (despite the hurtful language used as an aid to describe their physicality).

D&D Orcs were obviously inspired by this, to be used as a monster in game, regardless of original literary inspiration, in such a way that, the origins have reached a point of irrelevance if their origins cause discomfort.

Click to expand...

Methinks the Lady doth protest too much...

AbdulAlhazred said:

Methinks the Lady doth protest too much...

Click to expand...

I protest not enough if inaccurate assertions are continually being made. But by all means, continue casting aspersions upon my character.

I get the motive, I get the well intentioned point. I get the desire to explore literature more deeply and draw a deeper understanding of the human condition.

But I also feel it wrong to continually create links between fictional creatures (and in this case, literal monsters) and real world peoples where they don’t exist. Especially when the oft cited evidence is wrong

This is not to say there is no link between older prejudicial views informed thoughts,concepts, ideas, language and imagery that sparkedthese creatures. this is the inescapable reality of context upon author. But that’s not the same as saying the creatures themselves are these things, or meant to be proxies of these or have a direct correlation.

Tolkien Letter #210 (1958):


For an interpretation of "Mongol-types" by Dimitra Fimi see my previous post upthread. It most likely has the same sense as the outdated racial classification "Mongoloid", which refers to East Asian peoples.

Post from an older thread arguing that the D&D goblin is based on the goblins in JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit (1937). In Tolkien's Middle-earth, orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins are the same type of being. The Hobbit: "Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds)."

Artwork for the hobgoblin entry in the AD&D 1e Monster Manual (1977). The armour appears to be based on that of a Japanese samurai:



Selected part of the artwork for the goblin entry in the D&D 5e Monster Manual (2014). Note the yellow-ish skin and East Asian hairstyle:



Selected part of the artwork for the hobgoblin entry in the D&D 5e Monster Manual (2014). Note the Japanese samurai-style armour and East Asian hairstyle:

Doug McCrae said:

Tolkien Letter #210 (1958):

The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.​

For an interpretation of "Mongol-types" by Dimitra Fimi see my previous post upthread. It most likely has the same sense as the outdated racial classification "Mongoloid", which refers to East Asian peoples.

Post from an older thread arguing that the D&D goblin is based on the goblins in JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit (1937). In Tolkien's Middle-earth, orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins are the same type of being. The Hobbit: "Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds)."

Artwork for the hobgoblin entry in the AD&D 1e Monster Manual (1977). The armour appears to be based on that of a Japanese samurai:

View attachment 139454

Selected part of the artwork for the goblin entry in the D&D 5e Monster Manual (2014). Note the yellow-ish skin and East Asian hairstyle:

View attachment 139458

Selected part of the artwork for the hobgoblin entry in the D&D 5e Monster Manual (2014). Note the Japanese samurai-style armour and East Asian hairstyle:

View attachment 139456

Click to expand...

Yeah, refer to my first post on that quote where I’ve already explained what that is and what it is not. I’ve already gone over the language used and again, have discussed that language within its context. I’m not going to repeat it, this just shows you’ve not read what I wrote, whether or not you agree or disagree. Like you show youve not properly read the article where you’ve linked a quote from the Dimitra Fimi, paragraphs are spent talking about the origin of Orcs (hint, not as a stand in for East Asians), and focus solely on the paragraphs that do have the (definitely not appropriate in a modern age) language used as a crude descriptive aid. Which again, I’ve already discussed in my earlier posts (we both agree it’s not acceptable in a modern context).

So the images, we are back now on D&D. A wonderful selection of images you have there. Hang on though, where’s your image of the Orc from the AD&D monster manual? Seeing as we are trying to draw a direct line from the racist Tolkien origin of Orcs to D&D, we have that creature directly in there.


This armour doesn’t look particularly East Asian to me. What about the Goblin? The progenitor of the Orc? Well here he is from Od&D:


Still not East Asian, lets try the the AD&D monster manual:

Noooopppeee. It’s almost like there’s cherry picking going on to try and prove a point.

Ok so, the AD&D Hobgoblin, something not in Tolkien’s work, but, I get it, theres that wider issue in D&D itself. The hobgoblin’s Schtick, is that unlike other goblinoid, these guys are super disciplined, martial focused etc. Now, Gary and co in the early days of D&D Filled it with a grab bag of ideas, myths, legends, folklore, mashing up ideas and elements of history from all over the world. In this mindset, this fever of excitement and grabbing things, what is a feudal army that was renowned (rightly or wrongly) with this discipline, focus, dedication, and with a badass, distinctive looking armour? Awesome, samurai fit the bill. And well, it became the look of hobgoblins. I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that 5th edition, an edition designed at its core to appeal to a nostalgia of the older games after the divisive 4e would include art work that evoked older editions artistic direction!

Having read lots of the early days of the hobby, there’s enough to suggest that little thought when into adding something beyond “oh my days that’s cool, whack it in”, but I’ve seen very little that suggests there was a concerted effort on the part of any of the early creators to go out of their way to make goblinoids be representative of any specific ethnicity. Certainly, a level of sensitivity is lacking to a modern audience accustomed to such things, but no deeper meanings there.

As always, if they aren’t a fit for your group, that’s fine. It’s what works for your table.

@transmission89 Here's a post from a previous thread on the ways in which evil humanoids were given characteristics perceived to be non-European in 1e AD&D (1977-1979), which was not the case in OD&D (1974). Summary: skin colours, witch doctors and shamans, non-state societies, "mongrel" used to refer to half-orcs, orcish fecundity, orcish 'genetic' dominance, hyena-headed gnolls, hobgoblin samurai armour.

transmission89 said:

Now, were we to examine this idea of orcs “evoking” this memetic legacy as a fictional idea (outside of Tolkien), we say that orcs are just orcs, they are not stand ins for any real world group or ethnicity, I do not see that as a bad thing. If you want that in your fiction/game, the warmachine, man (in general, not a specific group) at his worst during war, a literal monster, the orc would serve well at this. You are free from unintentional parallels with your fantasy human kingdoms and cultures.

Click to expand...

This is unsupportable just on the basis of what has been presented in this thread. We have a letter written by JRRT in which he states unequivocally that the Orc is evocative of (looks like and therefor will be associated with by the human mind, as that is how it works) 'mongolians' (IE central or east Asian people). Next we have the geographical and geocultural parallels between Middle Earth and our world. Certainly JRRT was AWARE of these? Certainly it must, at some point in the 40+ years of his creative endeavors, have occurred to him that this parallel would be evocative? I hold it rather difficult to oppose that IT WAS EVOCATIVE TO HIM. Else why so many parallels exist?

Thus they MUST BE in LotR certainly stand-ins for exactly what they evoke! How could it not be thus???!!!! To say otherwise is ridiculous and in fact insulting to a man of considerable intellect and thoughtfulness. I further submit that he has TOLD US THIS WAS HIS INTENT when he stated this orc/Mongol association. He states it in terms of it being what we would call a 'trope' today. Mongolians are a horde of destructive, fecund, aggressive, civilization destroying, easterners and he is evoking all of these traits by describing orcs in the same fashion. This IS his intent! It cannot be otherwise. This is how literature (of any quality) must work! It paints a picture in the mind of the reader by evoking things, by drawing parallels which create associations in the minds of readers so as to bring this picture to life.

And I think this failure to understand this whole point taints your arguments in general to be honest. I understand, and even agree to a point, that Tolkien was probably not trying to say that actual Asian people are basically orcs. Nor necessarily saying that evil comes from the east, etc. He is however using these stereotypes to draw a picture. This alone is hurtful to the people so stereotyped. Cast yourself in the shoes of a person of color who is DAILY subjected to systematic and often particularized prejudice, and then consider how they should view literature which evokes the stereotypes used to model this oppression and justify it.

I mean, I am DEFINITELY not a disadvantaged minority here. I have been married to one, and am married to another, even that doesn't give me any license to explain the experience or claim I fully understand it. @Tonguez I'm guessing does, but it is not their job to fill us all in on the nature of the experience. Still, I can say that my observation is that this sort of depiction is a real bummer, and its (lack of) deliberateness is not even really very relevant. People get really tired of looking at it.

Obviously the larger topic is pretty complicated, and culture is a huge mass of complicated stuff. So nobody can give simplistic answers to any of it. What do we do with legacy material? Should we change how we play D&D, and/or how it is written? Do we need to worry about it if we are all not people whom it would bother? What do I know? I'm just some guy. Personally I generally don't go in a lot for super stereotyped characters/NPCs/Races/whatever. OTOH I think @pemerton is right in saying that a lot of the violence that is depicted in D&D can be seen as justifiable. It is more a question of who is standing in for whom? Think about what would go through your mind if the depiction of orcs sounded more like people from your home town...

transmission89 said:

Having read lots of the early days of the hobby, there’s enough to suggest that little thought when into adding something beyond “oh my days that’s cool, whack it in”, but I’ve seen very little that suggests there was a concerted effort on the part of any of the early creators to go out of their way to make goblinoids be representative of any specific ethnicity. Certainly, a level of sensitivity is lacking to a modern audience accustomed to such things, but no deeper meanings there.

Click to expand...

I think intentionality is not really the point. In fact, what is perhaps more telling is the thoughtlessness, from 1e-5e, that various tropes are reproduced and other cultures appropriated and stereotyped (e.g. "Oriental Adventures," but also Mazteca, Chult). The fact that it doesn't occur to certain creators that their version of "fantasy x" are crude stereotypes, both in text and image, indicates that they take for granted the dominance of their own cultural position. This is not limited to Gygax and co; see Tomb of Annihilation and such. It is frustrating to encounter a grotesque distortion of one's own heritage and ethnicity only to be told, 'relax, it's just fantasy.'

AbdulAlhazred said:

Tolkien was probably not trying to say that actual Asian people are basically orcs.

Click to expand...

Yes, the issue is not that they're identical. The issue is the combining of (real or perceived) characteristics of real world peoples with negative traits.

For example WWII propaganda directed against Japanese people wasn't literally saying that Japanese people have fangs or that they are rats. It was associating the real with the unreal to produce a racist message.

In a similar way Tolkien associates what he considers to be real – features of the "least lovely Mongol-types" – with the unreal – inhumanly evil orcs.

Malmuria said:

I think intentionality is not really the point. In fact, what is perhaps more telling is the thoughtlessness, from 1e-5e, that various tropes are reproduced and other cultures appropriated and stereotyped (e.g. "Oriental Adventures," but also Mazteca, Chult).

Click to expand...

I think 3e and 4e did a decent job removing some of those tropes. But 5e brought them back, in some cases even making things worse, for the reason transmission89 gives:

transmission89 said:

5th edition, an edition designed at its core to appeal to a nostalgia of the older games

Click to expand...

That had its downside!