Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?

[Bedrockgames]

We get orcs which are less “kill on sight because it’s evil” and so on.

.

By why can't we have both? I like more nuanced orcs. I use them myself. But I think there is some value in the thought experiment of a cosmology where you have moral forces that are tied to the creation of whole species. It doesn't mean you have to take those concepts and apply them to real world races. It is interesting in the way that Angels not having free will is interesting in terms of setting. By all means, I'd like to see other things done. I just feel like we are getting into very rigid territory about what is allowed and what isn't creatively. And that is especially concerning if we are removing authorial intent from consideration (what if someone makes such a setting to level a valid critic about racism in the modern world?)

 

[Hussar]

Well the reason we probably shouldn't use original orcs is being elucidated in this thread - the origin of orcs is grounded pretty strongly in racist depictions of various peoples. Intentional or not, it's part of the history of the concept.

The bigger question to me is, why would we bring back this concept? What's the value here? Is it worth it to perpetuate the ideas?

And, as far as using fantasy to make a criticism of racism in the real world, again, who cares what the author intended? The work needs to stand on its own. If I'm reading the setting, it should be pretty obvious that this is meant to be allegory and read as such. I really don't see the need to include the author in this. If the work is so weak that it can't actually stand on its own, no amount of authorial intent is going to save it.

"Don't be racist" is hardly "very rigid territory" is it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well the reason we probably shouldn't use original orcs is being elucidated in this thread - the origin of orcs is grounded pretty strongly in racist depictions of various peoples. Intentional or not, it's part of the history of the concept.

The bigger question to me is, why would we bring back this concept? What's the value here? Is it worth it to perpetuate the ideas?

And, as far as using fantasy to make a criticism of racism in the real world, again, who cares what the author intended? The work needs to stand on its own. If I'm reading the setting, it should be pretty obvious that this is meant to be allegory and read as such. I really don't see the need to include the author in this. If the work is so weak that it can't actually stand on its own, no amount of authorial intent is going to save it.

"Don't be racist" is hardly "very rigid territory" is it?

I think there is a lot here. But I think when we engage in this kind of dialogue, where its simply assumed disagreeing over orcs is the product of racism, rather than a genuine disagreement about what the orcs themselves actually represent, it is difficult to have a real conversation. It feels more like moralizing than dialogue. I suspect you and I probably are not that far apart politically and socially. But in terms of how we see art, history and the role of the author, we clearly differ. I don't assume that difference is a product of you being morally inferior to me. I assume it is a product of you reaching different conclusions through well intentioned reasoning. What concerns me here, is I see more and more rules being laid down about what is acceptable in a fantasy gaming setting. And there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for differences in interpretation. You say the author's intent shouldn't matter, but I don't think we can just limit this to our own subjective reactions. There is a world that exists outside of us. We have to reach beyond our own minds and see what the intention behind the creation was. Like I said though, your are free to disagree with the author's statements, or to say the author didn't achieve what they set out to do. I am just a bit worried because people are so quick to draw conclusions, and so fast to insist others share their conclusions. And often times we don't even disagree on the underlying points behind about society, we just disagree on what the art means.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd argue that Drow make for a perfect example of why we don't treat the author's intent as particularly important. Does anyone think Gygax was particularly misogynistic? I certainly don't. There's no evidence of it as far as I know. I imagine most people reading this probably don't think so either.

But, that doesn't change the fact that the only matriarchy described in D&D is a bunch of men enslaving women in BDSM outfits who worship, and this is a pretty key symbol, not a just spider goddess, but a specifically black widow spider, complete with hourglass symbol. The symbology here is pretty blatant.

IOW, is it really much of a stretch to look at drow and see misogyny? By adding in authorial intent, now we start making excuses - oh, it's not really a black widow symbol, but, an empowering symbol of female strength because female spiders are bigger than male spiders.

While that's true, it's kinda missing the bigger picture here.

I have always felt the core “hidden” idea of the Drow had less in common with standard misogyny and more in common with the biology of spiders- particularly those of the Black Widow variety.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Those things are being erased. Right?

You could look at it that way. You could also look at it as “new discoveries have forced us to re-evaluate our concept that _________ are inherently and irredeemably evil.” within the cultures of the game world reality.

In which case, it’s not erasure so much as revision and refinement of thinking in the light of new evidence.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You could look at it that way. You could also look at it as “new discoveries have forced us to re-evaluate our concept that _________ are inherently and irredeemably evil.” within the cultures of the game world reality.

In which case, it’s not erasure so much as revision and refinement of thinking in the light of new evidence.

But this thread is talking about orcs in gaming as a whole, not just say D&D (where you expect the concept to get refined from edition to edition). Again all I am saying here, is there is a clear point of view being expressed that these kinds of approaches to orcs should not be accepted in gaming culture. And I feel like the room for disagreement being allowed is incredibly narrow. I can totally appreciate where Hussar is coming from, and if Hussar doesn't want those kinds of tropes in his game, I can respect that. But should all creators of orcs in all settings have to abide by Hussar's conclusions on this? I think there is a lot more room for reasonable disagreement on this topic (on whether orcs really are a colonialist trope, whether they are racist, on what impact they even have on the broader culture). I just don't understand why we are all expected to reach the same conclusion here. I do hear what Hussar is saying. I don't agree with his conclusions. I think more nuanced orcs are great. I think it would be a shame though if that is all anyone did, and there were not games that included orcs as evil. It is a trope that is very mythic, and I think can work. It doesn't have to be a bad thing.

 

[Hussar]

I think you're missing my point.

I'm certainly not saying your interpretation is wrong. It's not. it's a quite valid interpretation. However, the racist underpinnings is also a valid interpretation.

IOW, there is no "right" interpretation of orcs. There is no single thing that orcs "actually represent".

The question is, how do we balance these different interpretations?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you're missing my point.

I'm certainly not saying your interpretation is wrong. It's not. it's a quite valid interpretation. However, the racist underpinnings is also a valid interpretation.

IOW, there is no "right" interpretation of orcs. There is no single thing that orcs "actually represent".

The question is, how do we balance these different interpretations?

I don't know that we have to arrive at one balanced conclusion. There isn't a single orc we all have to share. There is room for all kinds of approaches to orcs in the hobby. Do we really need a single guideline that everyone abides by (even if it is a balance of the various interpretations)? And again, I am saying this as someone who tried to make more nuanced orcs, and specifically set out to make my orcs in Sertorius as having both highly advanced cultures and less advanced cultures (some of them are hill tribes, but some are operating at the level of Rome at its height). I like that stuff. But I feel like we are establishing new standards and I am not sure it is wise to jettison the idea of irredeemably evil orcs.

 

[Aldarc]

By why can't we have both? I like more nuanced orcs. I use them myself. But I think there is some value in the thought experiment of a cosmology where you have moral forces that are tied to the creation of whole species. It doesn't mean you have to take those concepts and apply them to real world races. It is interesting in the way that Angels not having free will is interesting in terms of setting. By all means, I'd like to see other things done. I just feel like we are getting into very rigid territory about what is allowed and what isn't creatively. And that is especially concerning if we are removing authorial intent from consideration (what if someone makes such a setting to level a valid critic about racism in the modern world?)

Sure, but, as you suggest, we don't have to play into racist-coding to do so.

I'm not here to win points for originality, just to contribute another "my orcs are different." I was asked by my players to describe the orcs in my upcoming vaguely Greco-Roman Underworld game using Black Hack. And I will admit that the more that I played around with this setting idea, the more absurd certain parts became, and my orcs were one such element. So I told them, "They are pale-skinned pig-faced orcs who serve the Demon Prince of Carnage, Bloodlust, and Conquest. Think about that guy on the internet who gets a raging boner about 'This is SPARTA!', Imperial Rome, or the Vikings. They represent an unbridled over the top machismo. In-game, they are dangerous. But as players, please don't take them seriously, and just have fun with it."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, but, as you suggest, we don't have to play into racist-coding to do so.

Of course we don't. But my point was that people are going to have honest disagreements over whether something is racially coded, whether it is a problem, etc. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes we can get too caught up in making things as wholesome as possible, and miss some of the rough contours. Your orcs would be an example. I could actually see people having issues with "This is Sparta Style orcs" on a number of grounds. Personally I think they sound very entertaining to have in a campaign. I wouldn't want people to start thinking the orcs you proposed should be off limits, because the over the top masculinity could be a problematic trope.