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

[Filthy Lucre]

I am aggressively contra taking the sharp edges off of things in D&D or making things friendlier/less spicy/whatever... but biological determinism has always been a stupid and lazy conceit. Even when I first started playing and DMing when I was 16 I chaffed at the idea that certain races where destined to hew towards a particular moral predisposition.

Now, it's not my place to tell someone else what they can and can't do at their own table... but to be frank if it is something you like, (all X are evil), then it just so happens that you like a very stupid thing.

 

[Cadence]

I could agree with the mixed bag message in cartoons. But not movies and tv. From the 70's on, it seemed that they were anything but villains. But the point is that is the exact opposite of how orcs were in the primary texts.

The 1950s Gunsmoke and Fort Laramie radio shows were definitely more of the native Americans being at least as upstanding as the settlers. Romance of the Ranchos and Red Ryder in the 1940s are pretty cringe-worthy on the other hand.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am aggressively contra taking the sharp edges off of things in D&D or making things friendlier/less spicy/whatever... but biological determinism has always been a stupid and lazy conceit. Even when I first started playing and DMing when I was 16 I chaffed at the idea that certain races where destined to hew towards a particular moral predisposition.

I think something to address here is orcs are not really, or at least weren't, a race as we think of race. So you are not talking about biological determinism among humans, you are talking about something more like how humans are different from other species. And even Race as a descriptor for demi human races, wasn't describing real world race (if it were you would also have put different human racial groups in the Race entry for characters). So I think part of the problem with this discussion is how the term race was used in the game and what it meant, versus what it means in normal language.

Also, count me in as someone who is both against taking away sharp edges and against biological determinism. Racialist thinking bothers me a great deal. But I think for a game where you are dealing with monsters, it isn't the same as talking about human groups. Obviously it could be. A GM or a setting could code those things so they are meant to be some kind of weird Aryan vision of a world, and that would be a problem. I don't think they are automatically those things though.

Also just on the whole orc killing thing it is worth pointing out there has long been a debate about when it is actually okay for good characters to kill monsters, even when they are evil. And I think a lot fo that does hinge on how much one sees it more as orcs are an abstraction of the concept of evil and you are role-playing this clash of cosmic forces, versus a less figurative mindset.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I think something to address here is orcs are not really, or at least weren't, a race as we think of race. So you are not talking about biological determinism among humans, you are talking about something more like how humans are different from other species. And even Race as a descriptor for demi human races, wasn't describing real world race (if it were you would also have put different human racial groups in the Race entry for characters). So I think part of the problem with this discussion is how the term race was used in the game and what it meant, versus what it means in normal language.

Also, count me in as someone who is both against taking away sharp edges and against biological determinism. Racialist thinking bothers me a great deal. But I think for a game where you are dealing with monsters, it isn't the same as talking about human groups. Obviously it could be. A GM or a setting could code those things so they are meant to be some kind of weird Aryan vision of a world, and that would be a problem. I don't think they are automatically those things though.

Also just on the whole orc killing thing it is worth pointing out there has long been a debate about when it is actually okay for good characters to kill monsters, even when they are evil. And I think a lot of that does hinge on how much one sees it more as orcs are an abstraction of the concept of evil and you are role-playing this clash of cosmic forces, versus a less figurative mindset.

As long as I have been alive and consuming fantasy literature I have always understood "race" to mean "species" - so for me out and about in the real world, whenever I hear people talking about "race" I have to remember that what they mean in this particular context is actually "ethnic group" or something to that effect.

My understanding of D&D lore has also always been that orcs are, at rock bottom, naturally occurring creatures that evolved just like humans did and as such cannot be the embodiment of any cosmic principle.

Maybe I've understood D&D lore vastly different from most people - maybe I'm just a lot more enlightened.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My understanding of D&D lore has also always been that orcs are, at rock bottom, naturally occurring creatures that evolved just like humans did and as such cannot be the embodiment of any cosmic principle.

I don't think evolution is always a baseline assumption in the lore. Part of the issue is creatures like orcs have varied a lot from one edition to the next. I am sure there are people who are better equipped than me to quibble over lore features, but just looking at the basic entry from Moldvay as an example, it doesn't say anything about them having evolved. It doesn't say they didn't either. But it is still an edition that seems very strongly rooted in that cosmic battle between law and chaos.

Also I don't think in game they are necessarily the embodiment of chaos, they are in alignment with it. But my point is, people who view that conflict, as figurative (i.e. their character may be slaying an orc, but they are really contending with larger cosmic issues) are coming at it from a Three Hearts Three Lions perspective (it has been a while since I read it, but if I recall the character starts in our world, during world war II and goes to a world that is like our legendary past, where you have mythical creatures embroiled in a cosmic war. And that experience ultimately leads the character to become Catholic at the end. I would see that as very much being a world that is more about the character dealing with these forces within his own soul, than him literally going to a parallel world. And I think that is how some people see things like orcs in a game. Again it has been a long time since I read it, and I am not a huge fan of this genre. But when I talk with gamers who like the whole cosmically evil orc thing, they are either coming at it from an almost parody-like Warhammer view, or from a view where this is meant to reflect deeper spiritual battles or mythic battles happening on a cosmic scale. And then there are also people who just like the convenience of having evil monsters to kill for XP, and aren't particularly worried about what it means. That exists too.

In terms of enlightenment, I don't think how we play games or how we engage in pop culture is particularly reflective of how enlightened we are. Just my opinion. But I think we are much better off looking elsewhere for that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As long as I have been alive and consuming fantasy literature I have always understood "race" to mean "species" - so for me out and about in the real world, whenever I hear people talking about "race" I have to remember that what they mean in this particular context is actually "ethnic group" or something to that effect.

This has been my understanding as well. Honestly I never thought it was a particularly good choice. At the same time, I think when words have currency in something for a long time, it can be confusing to keep changing them. So I was fine keeping it. But I feel this does need to be reiterated because in these conversations race as it is used in D&D and fantasy literature keeps getting used interchangeably with real world race, and I don't think the meanings are the same.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I don't think evolution is always a baseline assumption in the lore. Part of the issue is creatures like orcs have varied a lot from one edition to the next. I am sure there are people who are better equipped than me to quibble over lore features, but just looking at the basic entry from Moldvay as an example, it doesn't say anything about them having evolved. It doesn't say they didn't either. But it is still an edition that seems very strongly rooted in that cosmic battle between law and chaos.

Also I don't think in game they are necessarily the embodiment of chaos, they are in alignment with it. But my point is, people who view that conflict, as figurative (i.e. their character may be slaying an orc, but they are really contending with larger cosmic issues) are coming at it from a Three Hearts Three Lions perspective (it has been a while since I read it, but if I recall the character starts in our world, during world war II and goes to a world that is like our legendary past, where you have mythical creatures embroiled in a cosmic war. And that experience ultimately leads the character to become Catholic at the end. I would see that as very much being a world that is more about the character dealing with these forces within his own soul, than him literally going to a parallel world. And I think that is how some people see things like orcs in a game. Again it has been a long time since I read it, and I am not a huge fan of this genre. But when I talk with gamers who like the whole cosmically evil orc thing, they are either coming at it from an almost parody-like Warhammer view, or from a view where this is meant to reflect deeper spiritual battles or mythic battles happening on a cosmic scale. And then there are also people who just like the convenience of having evil monsters to kill for XP, and aren't particularly worried about what it means. That exists too.

In terms of enlightenment, I don't think how we play games or how we engage in pop culture is particularly reflective of how enlightened we are. Just my opinion. But I think we are much better off looking elsewhere for that.

there is the third I just want something to kill that I do not have to feel bad for which is what gnolls became.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

This has been my understanding as well. Honestly I never thought it was a particularly good choice. At the same time, I think when words have currency in something for a long time, it can be confusing to keep changing them. So I was fine keeping it. But I feel this does need to be reiterated because in these conversations race as it is used in D&D and fantasy literature keeps getting used interchangeably with real world race, and I don't think the meanings are the same.

Yeah, D&D's "races" are more along the lines of what would be different species of hominid in the real world, with humans coexisting with Neanderthals, homo florensies, etc.

In D&D-land, though, a human who has to sleep and probably won't live to 100 can have children with an elf who doesn't sleep, can live to nearly 1000, and who will likely outlive their partner, children, and grandchildren, which is a significant difference between humans and elves that would definitely have cultural ramifications.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I think you can do both. To me part of what bothers me in these discussions isn't calls for more nuanced orcs (more nuanced orcs can be very cool), it is this sense I get that we should only be doing nuanced orcs (or in your terms, that it should be consistent across all IP). With D&D being a game meant to appeal to the broadest audience possible, I think it needs to have some flexibility so you can do both.

My general point is that, within one IP (especially if you are going to do the traditional D&D thing of trying to have it both ways on whether it is a generic game system or an implied setting), if you have this supplement over here that treat orcs (or morks, or borks) as lovey-dovey hippy nature enthusiast tribal-culture analogues most often just minding their own business, but then over here treat them as people-eating monsters with no moral compass (to which the heroes ought have no morale compunction against slaughtering), people are going to conflate these two interpretations (and not without reason). One (and here I mean a game company making a product) should be prepared for that reasonable reaction. D&D 3e did something different with Eberron and drow by drawing a distinct line and saying, 'things are different over here! Drow are...' and it mostly worked (mind you, drow had had a 10-15 years of villain decay at that point, and were maybe more often known for the exceptions to their normal characterization already). If 2e AD&D and BECMI had been more straightforward in their playable humanoid books about 'this is a decidedly alternate interpretation you should take back to your normal game only as a recognized variant,' this issue might not have become quite such a big deal.

I expect there to be trends in the hobby. But lately a lot of these discussions feel like an 'end of history' debate where we either need to end up with orcs that are always evil or orcs that are basically just green humans. I like it best when all of these options are available to the people making settings and games. I don't like it when its "it has to be this way because 'its important' or 'because your evil if you like evil orcs'. Personally, I am very tired of being told how to think and feel about this stuff by other people.

While yes, clearly there are some people who will say something like 'your evil if you like evil orcs,' I don't think it is really that prevalent, especially when you divide by the sum total of gamers out there. Skimming Facebook or Reddit (or better yet, have a politically motivated friend collate them all into evidence that they are being attacked somehow*) can cherry pick a swath of this, but I'd need a lot of convincing that it is a trend. What I do see is a lot of calls for WotC (or Piazzo) to change how the default presentation of these humanoid species is presented in their published rulebooks. Not policing game tables, urging changes in specific corporate decisions.
*or am I the only one with a friend like this?

you did have stuff like the Lone Ranger where his side kick was Tonto (didn't watch the show, and I am sure it would be a portrayal criticized by today's standards, but the point is he was one of the good guys and not fodder).

It should be noted that Tonto was set up as 'the exception' and Native Americans were, if not as universally villainous as cattle rustlers or bank robbers, certainly seen as dangerous entities. This was more pronounced in the radio show than the later tv version. I think we're generally agreeing that there is a transitional trend across the 20th century.

Something that has always struck me is when I talk with people from the 90s and people my age who grew up in the 80s and even the 70s, is it feels like we had a much different relationship with the media we watched as children. I just have this sense that we became very wary of messaging from the shows we watched (because we grew up with very very heavy handed "a very special episode" style sitcoms, and with stuff like Just Say No, that often exaggerated problems or didn't represent them in an accurate way. I could be wrong, but I always sense a lot more sincerity and enthusiasm and enthusiasm for their shows messages when I talk to people who grew up in the 90s instead,. I think maybe we were a little more cynical about that kind of thing.

Interesting. I grew up in the 70s/very early 80s and my interpretation is that there was a large shift between me and the kids I ended up babysitting -- their cartoons started having lessons at the end (and also were more often bald-faced toy commercials). The 90s seemed like just an extrapolation of that trend. I then went to college and had an eye into children's shows again at maybe 2000-2005 when I dated a woman with a child (I seem to recall starting Dora the Explorer and ending with Kim Possible) and those shows seemed to have the lessons those earlier heavy handed very special shows taught as assumed qualities.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My general point is that, within one IP (especially if you are going to do the traditional D&D thing of trying to have it both ways on whether it is a generic game system or an implied setting), if you have this supplement over here that treat orcs (or morks, or borks) as lovey-dovey hippy nature enthusiast tribal-culture analogues most often just minding their own business, but then over here treat them as people-eating monsters with no moral compass (to which the heroes ought have no morale compunction against slaughtering), people are going to conflate these two interpretations (and not without reason). One (and here I mean a game company making a product) should be prepared for that reasonable reaction. D&D 3e did something different with Eberron and drow by drawing a distinct line and saying, 'things are different over here! Drow are...' and it mostly worked (mind you, drow had had a 10-15 years of villain decay at that point, and were maybe more often known for the exceptions to their normal characterization already). If 2e AD&D and BECMI had been more straightforward in their playable humanoid books about 'this is a decidedly alternate interpretation you should take back to your normal game only as a recognized variant,' this issue might not have become quite such a big deal.

I see what you are saying. This is just preference I suppose, but probably because I cut my teeth on the 'settings' period of D&D, I agree with you within a setting line, but I do like being able to have wildly different approaches in different D&D settings. I ended up falling in love with Ravenloft for instance, and while it didn't have anything to do with its approach to orcs, it was because it had the freedom to go in friction that other D&D lines might not have. And I always enjoyed how different the demi humans were in say Dark Sun. But I would find it odd if across dark sun supplements they contradicted themselves (provided it wasn't natural evolution of the line crystalizing an idea...which will lead to some contraction).