The problem with Evil races is not what you think

Yes. When JRRT wants to evoke an evil "other", he draws upon readily-available racist tropes.



You seem very keen to rebut views that no one in this thread has voiced.

Was JRRT a virulent racist? Or just very relaxed about the deployment of racialised tropes? I don't know. I'm commenting on his work. Likewise for the material in D&D. No one in this thread has said that the authors of D&D set out to express racist views. Maybe they did; maybe they didn't. The point is that they, like JRRT, expressed obviously racist ideas.
Right, and while I am leery of drawing this discussion too far into the 'current events' swamp, I would just like to point out that this is very close cousin to a certain vociferous group of partisans in my own country and their complaints about the idea that racism could be 'embedded in the structure of society itself'. I certainly don't see any convincing reason to throw labels at anyone, like @transmission89, but when he/she asserts that JRRT did not actively draw certain parallels, and that his analogy between orcs and Mongols isn't diagnostic of a form of racist view, that feels like a very similar kind of logic. That is, that only OVERT PERSONAL statements of racial bias somehow 'count' as racism. I have news for people, that's not how it is experienced in life! People who may join an RPG and find out that the 'bad guys' are a humanoid race that was explicitly built to evoke their own people and associates negative traits with them, do not feel like it is "OK" simply because the association was made by someone who "wasn't really racist" and has simply been schlepped along for 3 generations of work since then. Not any more than a guy who gets pulled over by the police every week for no other reason than his skin color is really all that worried about the nuances of why each individual LEO is doing it.

Sorry, again, not trying to go beyond talking about RPGs here. Just there's a certain segment of every group of people you interact with who are simply not grasping this basic truth, and then stuff like "JRRT didn't actually SAY he wanted to make people think Mongolians are bad people" pops up. Its missing the point, nor can anyone really say what JRRT actually thought, albeit perhaps not consciously. Unconscious bias is not 'better', and I think it is a real issue for RPGs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Doug McCrae

Legend
I found it a bit disappointing, because it promised to tell us something meaningful about JRRT and race/racism, but what it actually did was catalogue his influences and ways those are expressed. All the conclusions are left as exercises for the reader; and at least in the case of this reader it didn't really change my thinking or shed significant new light.

I enjoyed the essay – it was interesting and informative. But it doesn't properly confront this issue, from Roger Echo-Hawk's blog post Tolkien's Squinteyed Orc-men:

When Tolkien's orcs / goblins made their debut in his earliest writings as monstrous soldiery of evil, they were not squint-eyed; there was no mention of interbreeding between orcs and humans. But between 1939 and 1942 Tolkien spliced new elements into his orcs / goblins. He now made a decision to reshape these fantasy monsters. He decided he would colorize them with distinct details drawn from the traditions of British racial typology.​

He addresses problems with previous scholarship in another post, JRR Tolkien and Race. The most important explanation, in my opinion, is in his book Tolkien in Pawneeland 2e (2016):

Tolkien's squint-eyed southerner [Bill Ferny's friend] was only briefly mentioned when he first appeared in 1939. That is probably when Tolkien first envisioned this new class of creatures, but it wasn't until this writing in 1942 that he turned his hand to sketching in more details of his half-orcs, and the portrayal is clearly drawn from traditional racial Asian typology. (pg 269)

At some point after writing the early drafts – perhaps after about mid-1942 – Tolkien edited his description of the "huge orc-chieftain" to make him more racial: "His broad flat face was swart, his eyes were like coals, and his tongue was red…" (pg 262)

In January 1942 Tolkien's interest in the Asian theater of World War Two became explicitly evident in notes he scribbled on the back of an examination sheet… Tolkien's doodled references to the Asian theater of World War Two came as he sat down once again to insert orcs into his tale, composing notes on the material that became "The Departure of Boromir"… Not long after this, Tolkien prepared "The Uruk-hai"… we encounter Orcs with "hideous faces"… a band of "long-armed crook-legged Orcs" from Mordor, "… swart, slant-eyed Orcs" from Isengard… These orcs refer to Rohirrim as "Whiteskins"… Tolkien had race on his mind; these horrible orcs make use of race… They don't just believe in race; they embody race. And now we see a full flowering of racialized orcs in all their Mongol-type degraded repulsive glory. (pgs 265-267)

Discussing his orcs as "folk made bad" in a letter written in 1944, Tolkien opined that "it must be admitted that there are human creatures that seem irredeemable short of a special miracle, and that there are probably abnormally many of such creatures in Deutschland and Nippon…" (pg 269)​
 
Last edited:

Are the conflict stories with 1-dimensional 'human' bad guys as interesting as the stories with some complexity and variety? How are westerns if either all the native Americans or all the settlers are genocidal? How interesting is a WWII story if all of the Germans (military and civilian) are the equivalent of Rudolph Hoess? Insert any number of other real world conflicts present or past.

I think several of the other threads on "orcs" came to a fairly agreed upon conclusion that many of the difficulties (in avoiding the one-dimensional and avoiding othering) can be solved by having each humanoid species portrayed as having a range of views and morality and not simply as things that should be mowed down whether combatant or non-combatant, adult or child.

It feels like a lot of westerns, fantasy stories, etc... can do that without angsting about every single act of violence or death.
Right, and I agree. I would only say, additionally, that issues can be subtle, and it can be hard to know where one might have simply overlooked something because we've been exposed to some negative idea for so long it has vanished from conscious consideration. Nor do people all give the same factors equal weight. You might portray orcs as both technologically advanced in some respect (maybe they make really awesome weapons or something), and yet seeming more primitive in some other sense (governmental institutions perhaps). You might even portray each as being a range that overlaps with other races, etc. That might TO YOU AND ME seem pretty fair and reasonable, they're different but not worse. The orc tribe you are dealing with is 'tribalistic', but over the next mountain is an orc republic. Some player may still interpret this scenario as having a dimension of portraying a negative stereotype. Maybe that player is included in a stereotyped ethnic identity, and maybe they are simply more aware of, or from YOUR perspective "overly sensitive to" certain factors.

So, yes, I think giving the 'orcs' a more nuanced character does work, but it won't work perfectly, that's all.

Also, it inevitably does leave out a lot of the more 'black and white' sort of RP. A lot of people DO enjoy that. We could ask if that kind of play is INHERENTLY relying on some negative stereotypes. Its a tough question. Obviously if you want that kind of play maybe the only way to avoid them really is to make the bad guys 'neoghi' or something that is really super alien and thus further removed from comparisons with the real world.
 


I pick yours to reply to because I think it’s an accurate distillation of a lot of the counter views and also isnt just repeating points in a banal manner like I’ve not already critiqued them. (Yes, I get it, there were racially loaded terms used by people within that context, it doesn’t mean it’s representative of what they are. wait witch doctor? wasn’t this the same poster arguing that Orcs were clear Asian analogues?) almost like there’s nothing more than these tenuous links to bring to the discussion.
People often 'sin' in ways that they may not even comprehend. A guy once lambasted me for using the word 'Oriental' in a geographical sense and was absolutely adamant that the word is utterly poison in every possible context and is an epithet, always. I still politely disagree, but to a degree it isn't our place to categorize and approve or disapprove of the reactions of other people. So, we may all use words in ways that bother someone else. We should try not to.
Firstly, as it’s only a brief, tangential aside, when it comes to imagining orcs sounding like people from your home town, I don’t have to. As I’ve already stated, one of the few types of orcs that are actually explicitly based on a sub group of people are the games workshop orcs. And it’s pretty hilarious. And on a more serious note, as a grandson of the last generation of Nevi Wesh Romani, having had their culture destroyed, being forced into council homes after WW2 “for their own good” (and having watched a contemporary film about “these poor gypsies”) and having that sense lost to me as an opportunity, I can relate to some degree to the pain aspect. Doesn’t mean that I agree with some of the ultimate conclusions drawn from this discussion.
Fair enough. I think that is amusing too (the orcs, obviously not the Romani).
Secondly, let’s stop pretending and presenting that this argument is only older white guys and bigots keen to preserve this racist status quo vs peoples of colour and their younger white allies arguing for the inevitable tide of progress. It’s dismissive and reductive of an opposing view. I’ve gamed with and am friends with and have watched talks of enough peoples of various age, ethnicities and various sub groups that also disagree with these conclusions, that it’s not as binary as that (also before others pile on, this is not an appeal to the “I’m not racist, some of my best friends are…” so don’t bother).
Oh, there's no pretending anything on my part. I am PRETTY SURE I qualify as an 'older white guy' and I would make no bones about that. Put it this way, Dr King was marching around the south when I was a kid, though a bit young to really understand the whole thing at the time. I don't see this as generational, and I would not simplify it down to some group vs some other group. I've seen the complexity with my own eyes, though I freely admit I have never experienced racial prejudice against my own person. And you are correct, no group can be pigeonholed on any side of this.
Thirdly, indeed you are right, there are parallels and evocations that can be drawn from stereotypes and imagery, this is how fiction works. Am I meant to be shocked at the revelation that western man from the early 20th century with a keen understanding and passion for historical cultures, who set out in his works to create an English based mythos (to fill the void that was created when the potential was stolen by Norman cultural subjugation) wrote from a early 20th century western perspective?
No, and let me be clear. My FIRST MEMORIES are of listening to my Mother read The Hobbit. I LEARNED TO READ when I was FOUR YEARS OLD so I could read it myself (and I did too, cover to cover believe it or not). The teacher threw me out in the hall at the age of 6 for hiding a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring behind the 'Spot and Jane' reader that the rest of the class was cumbersomely wading through. I must have read that series of books 10 times, at least, as well as a good fraction of all the other stuff that was published posthumously and EVERY other fantasy/folklore story that Tolkien wrote. I am a fan. I can still appreciate that there are real and significant racist connotations buried within his work. I agree that these are, judging by the totality of what we know of the man, probably not intended to convey a message of racial prejudice. But, as I said above, it is neither up to me to decide what is offensive to others, nor to dismiss the significance of these elements as a part of the author's legacy.
So we can agree that Tolkien was not saying actual Asian people are Orcs? So can we stop making that claim citing that letter? Yes it was unacceptably crude, yes it’s an appeal to othering from a then early 20th century European perspective. The othering was the point.
The othering was the point, and it is an othering OF ACTUAL PEOPLE. So, yes, I believe that Tolkien did not (consciously at the very least) ascribe 'orc-like characteristics' to Asians. OTOH he did knowingly exploit those associations in order to convey that these traits were associated with orcs. So, I cannot hold him really blameless in that sense.
An othering of a monstrous creature is, in and of itself, not a bad thing. Again, this has been done for time across all cultures’ mythos. A creature like us, our potential for the best or worst of humanity (regardless of ethnicity, all humanity) as well as unlike us, to measure ourselves against (to be looked up to, in the case of the elves, or to be feared in the case of Orcs). The “mistake” in Tolkien’s othering from a modern perspective was to utilise phenotypical characteristics to do so. But it’s almost like society progresses and changes, and in a globalised society, the idea of the other has changed, I’ll not condemn his works for it, again, context is king. But again, despite this mode of othering, an Orc is an Orc, not a stand in for any particular group and should not be used as such or claims made that it is representative of such.
And I'm not so much condemning HIS WORKS as I am pointing out that these elements do 'taint' other derived uses, such as D&D's use of orcs. As you pointed out, GW created a very different and, IMHO, more acceptable stereotype of orcs as 'football hoolies'. Even that might offend someone though! lol. Still, they obviously saw the issue and thought about it, which is clever.
Now to D&D specifically and what to do with it. It circled back to my original point on genetic fallacy. You’re right that culture is complicated, and there are many issues. D&D is game built root and stem on all these tropes, based on fiction and myth. That’s is raison detre It seems not to represent specific cultures, but a whole group of “what’s cool” mashed together in a blender. For example, lots of various European cultures and folklore mashed together (which is why the critique of oriental adventures misses the point, it doesn’t seek to accurately detail a specific culture). These are as much a gross distortion and mash up of culture as any other. It’s not seeking to replicate any individual, it’s not looking to be representative in that aspect.
Again though, this is YOUR PERSPECTIVE. I'm not especially disagreeing with it. I don't particularly find OA offensive. OTOH if you go read a thread on it from a couple years ago on RPG.net you will find out that A VERY LARGE CONTINGENT OF PEOPLE do find it horribly offensive, bigoted, and utterly uacceptable, right down to the title of the book, which some of them equate to calling a book about African Adventures by as * Adventures where the epithet is truly unrepeatable (and should be). I found that to be a bit over the top myself, but it isn't my call to make, their offense cannot be seen as anything but genuine. If some European people want to be offended by some element of their folklore, for whatever reason, that is their prerogative as well. Just like it is the prerogative of certain mothers to be offended by the inclusion of the term 'devil' in the monster manual. I know we consider that later thing silly, but are you implying that their offense is merely a pretense? Maybe in some cases it is, but who am I to judge that??!!
Trying to “fix” different aspects based on these tropes leads to a non game. If we are to determine that fiction and mythos it is problematic (because, regardless of cultural source, pretty much all sources have problematic elements regardless of where they are from in the world, that’s just the way humans have been regardless of ethnicity) then you are left with very little. And what is not a problem today , may become a problem tomorrow, you are left rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship (because you’ve removed these elements from the vessel). You yourself have identified this problem when you commented earlier about concerns with swapping out the orc is effectively a palette swap (my paraphrasing).
I am sorry, but this smacks of trying to say that perfection is impossible, that we cannot succeed 100% so the effort is worthless. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. If I reimagine orcs in a less problematic way, yes it may complicate the story telling task in some cases, or require that I invent some other 2-dimensional non-human monster to be a stock bad guy (but D&D has a huge repertoire there to choose from, is this so hard). No solution is perfect. I only live to be better tomorrow than today. I may not even succeed at that, but I am sure going to try it.
The way to approach this should be in avoiding the genetic fallacy, we recognise the game for what it is, a collection of tropes to enjoy a fantasy romp in, and ignore what we perceive to be problematic origins of tropes as they have no basis or relevance in how those tropes are delayed in the game.

For example, D&D’s idea of race is based on a defunct Victorian model. It’s not advocating for retaining it, it’s just utilising within the context of legacy of an old game. It means nothing more beyond its meanings within the game itself.

We recognise the tropes of finding a lost temple in the jungle and robbing it of its treasures for what they are. But again, within the game, there is no advocating of this beyond what it means within the game itself.
This whole talk of 'genetic fallacy' is simply going to fail as an approach. There's no 'fallacy' here. WE CHOOSE how to make our games. D&D is not some object cast in stone. It wasn't carved by the hand of E. Gary Gygax in marble. It is ours, we are a living culture of people and we can pick and choose how to go forward and what to do with the things given to us by the past. I mean, you wouldn't argue that a statue of Jefferson Davis has to be left standing simply because someone in 1901 saw fit to erect it, do you?
An Orc in the game. Let’s pretend that you know nothing about orcs. D&D is your first exposure to it. There is nothing within the writing of the game itself that makes allusions to certain ethnicities. Words like “savage” or “bestial” to describe them are quite apt and are not loaded words in and of themselves. Now of course, you’ve read, you have context. You know that these words have been applied to various ethnicities before. This is the effects of reader upon works in action (and again, no this isn’t an appeal to “no you’re the racist for pointing out”…so again don’t bother). There has to be recognition that that’s what you’re bringing to the game, to the reading. So it’s down to you to decide if you can put that aside and enjoy orcs for what they are, or if your understanding of context means that you’d prefer an alternative.
You are putting the blame for prejudice on the victim here. I can never accept this logic. It is fundamentally unjust.
Finally, none of this, none of what I’ve said is an argument against progress, nor that we should say, “well, this is just a tangled, complicated mess so why bother”. I find calls of people advocating for these changes of the game that state, “well the world is changing, youll be left behind”, or accusations that I’m trying to keep an old, white dominated world insulting and arrogant, a sense that their argument is automatically right.

We can and will do better. Already, we are seeing much better human interpretations within gaming (see for example Paizo’s new Mwangi book and compare with older writing on the area) as well as better depictions of humans across the spectrum. I applaud this, I value this.

What I object to is the statement as fact of “monsters as people”, when it is not fact. It is opinion. A well meaning one, but one that in my view is asinine and demeaning.

I’ve already repeated aspects now multiple times across posts which suggests we have reached a point where views are entrenched and there’s nothing more that can be added to the conversation. Regardless of differing of opinion, I wish all happy gaming and a continuing of being excellent to one another.
Some of this confuses me a bit, you first talk about 'genetic fallacy' which sounds exactly like "the source we draw from is irrelevant" and then you talk about a 'mess', and that you aren't arguing against 'progress', but then you claim those who point out that you're sticking with a racially charged sort of depiction of things and might be left behind 'insulting'. Do you want to move forward or not? You are actually sending mixed messages.

And you are fundamentally calling people's reactions, THEIR FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS, 'asinine', 'demeaning', 'insulting', and 'arrogant'. I'm guessing this is more likely to land you in Ernie Gygax territory than it is to land you in a good place. I don't think that you're incapable of change, and you seem to realize that there's a genuine reason for it, some of the time. Yet you, like a LOT of people, have not fully internalized that and completely understood it. Its hard. I believe Camus once said that "The world's problems will not be solved until each and every one of us takes complete personal responsibility for them." Now, maybe I'm butchering Camus, or maybe it was another writer, but I think the sentiment is apropos.
 

It seems not to represent specific cultures, but a whole group of “what’s cool” mashed together in a blender. For example, lots of various European cultures and folklore mashed together (which is why the critique of oriental adventures misses the point, it doesn’t seek to accurately detail a specific culture). These are as much a gross distortion and mash up of culture as any other. It’s not seeking to replicate any individual, it’s not looking to be representative in that aspect.

Trying to “fix” different aspects based on these tropes leads to a non game. If we are to determine that fiction and mythos it is problematic (because, regardless of cultural source, pretty much all sources have problematic elements regardless of where they are from in the world, that’s just the way humans have been regardless of ethnicity) then you are left with very little.
It is plausible to say that relying on fairly inflexible tropes is a core part of fantasy as a genre, and that even fantasy that doesn't do this is subverting those generic expectations. I would need to think more about that. But classic fantasy and dnd come at western folklore from a broadly western perspective. When they approach the 'fantasy' of other cultures, they are also coming at it from a western perspective. This is basically the definition of orientalism, and it is important because it was and is key to reproducing colonial violence in the real world. And, whatever analogies Tolkein did or did not put in his fiction, it says something that his fiction is so easily read as conservative parable.

One thing wotc could do is hire people from diverse cultural backgrounds as writers. And when they do, respect their work without the need to edit back in fantasy racism!
 



Or make all evil individual rather than racial. But that would be getting very far from D&D as it has been up to now.
Well, it works, but it gets further from the 'black and white' kind of play that I was addressing. Many people are happy to play in world of all shades of grey in a moral sense. Others don't want to be confronted with the problem of what to do with 'orc children' or wonder if their PCs are really just 'murder hoboes' (what do actual hoboes think of that one I wonder, lol).
 

And you are fundamentally calling people's reactions, THEIR FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS, 'asinine', 'demeaning', 'insulting', and 'arrogant'. I'm guessing this is more likely to land you in Ernie Gygax territory than it is to land you in a good place. I don't think that you're incapable of change, and you seem to realize that there's a genuine reason for it, some of the time. Yet you, like a LOT of people, have not fully internalized that and completely understood it. Its hard. I believe Camus once said that "The world's problems will not be solved until each and every one of us takes complete personal responsibility for them." Now, maybe I'm butchering Camus, or maybe it was another writer, but I think the sentiment is apropos.
So this a point of order, rather than attempt to continue the debate as I think both sides are established. An attempt to cross or at least define the divide here.

This encapsulates the “arrogance” I was talking about. Not the opinion itself but in the way it’s worded here. You and yours on “your side of the debate” associate this and equate it with the just struggle for proper equality. The struggle for equality, equity and general love is absolutely a cause I support and stand for as part of a minority myself (lgbt- I appreciate it’s not racially specific but I hope I am making my firm belief in The message and the cause clear).

what I find distasteful is this almost inbuilt assumption in the argument that this is purely factual and correct, the patronising (whether intentioned or not “ you’re not incapable of of change, you seem to realise..” etc).

The divide here for myself and many others others (though of course, I don’t speak for all) on “my side” of the argument is that we don’t see fictional races as part of the struggle. In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.

for example:

Orcs Aren’t People: Denouncing Racism in the D&D Community

No, Orcs Aren't Racist

And in particulate to those who use literature to build a case to critique, there’s a great book called how to read with a few poignant passage


"... one must not only be a responsive_but also a __responsible_ listener. You are responsive to the extent that you follow what has been said and note the intention that prompts it. But you also have the responsibility of taking a position. When you take it, it is yours, not the author's. To regard anyone except yourself as responsible for your judgement is to be a slave, not a free man. It is from the fact that the liberal arts acquire their name."


"You must make your own assumptions explicit. You must know what your prejudices---that is, your prejudgments---are. Otherwise you are not likely to admit that your opponent may be equally entitled to different assumptions. Good controversy should not be a quarrel about assumptions. If an author, for example, explicitly asks you to take something for granted, the fact that the opposite can also be taken for granted should not prevent you from honouring his request. If your prejudices lie on the opposite side, and if you do not acknowledge them to be prejudices, you cannot give the author's case a fair hearing."

I hope that to you, I have at least made my objections clear, and made the divide clearer, whether or not you choose to agree with the position.I actually feel that on many things, our opinions differ very little

As I said, I’m not interested in continuing the debate, just an attempt to actually clarify it. As an aside, I did find a really interesting article from all this, especially building on notions of memetic legacy:

When Orcs were Real
 
Last edited:

Doug McCrae

Legend
In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.
I'm not equating fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. I'm criticising others for doing so -- or, to be precise, associating the monstrous with real world peoples. I'm also criticising them for creating fictional worlds in which some of the ideas of racists are true.

When I criticise JRR Tolkien for giving his orcs the appearance of the "least lovely Mongol-types", I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are orcs. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

When I criticise WotC for giving their goblins and hobgoblins the cultural and perceived racial traits of East Asian peoples, I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are goblins or hobgoblins. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

Summary of these issues, from upthread.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Here's my overall stance on art, literature, and gaming. All artforms (of which fiction and games are examples) are fundamentally about reflecting on our human experiences. That we might not intend to say something more broad about our experiences or the outside world is really immaterial. Our art will reflect the way we see the world around us and often help to make sense of. This is actually accentuated in the case of fantasy because it lets us explore ideas that aren't grounded in our concrete physical reality. It often reflects our greatest hopes and our most terrible fears.

The art we make is important. It reflects on us. It says something about the world we live in, even when it is trying not to. An orc is never just an orc. It has a meaning beyond it's fictional existence. That's what makes fiction so powerful.
 

I'm not equating fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. I'm criticising others for doing so -- or, to be precise, associating the monstrous with real world peoples. I'm also criticising them for creating fictional worlds in which some of the ideas of racists are true.

When I criticise JRR Tolkien for giving his orcs the appearance of the "least lovely Mongol-types", I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are orcs. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

When I criticise WotC for giving their goblins and hobgoblins the cultural and perceived racial traits of East Asian peoples, I'm not saying that East Asian peoples are goblins or hobgoblins. I'm saying that East Asian peoples are not monsters and that's why it's wrong to associate the two.

Summary of these issues, from upthread.
Ok, so we can establish that there is a strong common ground from both sides (ignoring the right wing ass hats who band wagon and distort a message as they are wont to do). Note that I’ll be referring to sides just for simplicity and clarity, not to foster adversity.

on your two points, it seems that where we differ is the ”value” or “relevance” on the aspects of these things. I dislike these two words as they sound cold and dismissive, but I can’t think of better right now, so I hope my intentions around it will be clear.

Your side, views the context and relevance of Tolkien’s description as to tying it indelibly to these perceptions and creating this cultural baggage, that he is explicitly associating the two? My side, disagrees with the language used, but takes it at face value, a comparative that is clumsy by modern standards but was meant as just that, no associations beyond that. That therefore there is nothing beyond that (hence the reference to guide to readings above).

Your side places value on the perceived notions of racial traits and draw the association with east Asian people’s due to certain visual cues and language semantic views? Where as my side again would argue that this is perception of reader, the reader association and just to take it at face value. An orc is just an orc. Please recognise that this isn’t a dismissive, “no you’re the racist“ and please it turn, don’t be dismissive of the counter view and take it as such. Its just, for my part at least, I value the quotes outlined in my post above. That reader understanding and interpretation is key. That I (and perhaps the others on ”my side” place less “relevance” on these visual and language cues and take them at the face value of the fantasy creature and not as a cue or indicator of a real world race or issue.

And I think that much of the argument around issues of “a western perspective on orientalism or some such on “my side” is again that notion of “relevance”. A sense of “so what?” (Not intended as a callous and cruel way). In that there is no intention or design of racial offence, it’s just magpieing cool stuff for a fantasy game, it’s not meant to be representative or respective of real cultures because it’s not seeking to accurately portray or represent them) And it being a western perspective is immaterial because again it’s fantasy, and something through a different lens would change it as such. Obviously, were you setting out to create an authentic environment, you would ensure that this accuracy was guaranteed with the appropriate viewpoints and such (this view doesn’t discount the benefits of having a more diverse perspective anyway). And indeed, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander here as watching for example anime, seeing western culture through a Japanese lens in fantasy “not America” is interesting and different.

So again, this is not a continuation of argument. I’m not seeking to persuade, it’s more a clarification of position. I would like to think that this would hopefully create some understanding on both sides. That actually, we agree on much of the issues.
I’m hoping that at least for future conversation, it creates an understanding. That “my side“ do hear and understand “your sides” concerns. That we are not curmudgeonly roadblocks on the path of progress, we just disagree on the “relevance” of associations made as it pertains to the real world and the concerns and struggles of the various movements of equality. I hope that ”your sides” part will at least acknowledge that. That the issues of fantasy races and real life ethnicities are not straight up fact, that these associations are opinion based and not all that argue on this are straight up racists or anti progressives. Except the alt right band wagoning tools. Screw those guys.
 

Aldarc

Legend
In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.
Outsider following the conversation: What I personally find asinine is that you keep arguing against this particular strawman as if it had any merit about what is actually being argued by critics and then try to gaslight people for having this argument. And as long as you repeat this, it's clear that you either don't understand what others are arguing on this matter or you do but are purposefully being deceptive about it.
 

And I think that much of the argument around issues of “a western perspective on orientalism or some such on “my side” is again that notion of “relevance”. A sense of “so what?” (Not intended as a callous and cruel way). In that there is no intention or design of racial offence, it’s just magpieing cool stuff for a fantasy game, it’s not meant to be representative or respective of real cultures because it’s not seeking to accurately portray or represent them)
Conversely, I would say noticing and caring about racial stereotypes in the game and the racialization of monsters via descriptions and aesthetics doesn't prevent me from playing dnd and enjoying fantasy, lotr included. That goes, in fact, for any such critique of culture (and incidentally, re: orientalism, Said is a great model for someone who both loved Western literature and saw all its flaws (though he probably though genre fiction was trash)). It terms of my experience at the gaming table, sometimes I just want to say "omg this is so racist," and get on with playing without someone saying "stop being so sensitive." Other times though, the fantasy magpieing does feel off, and I hope I can say to the people I'm playing with that I'm uncomfortable with it (and that might include discomfort for magpieing as what it is, which is cultural appropriation).

In terms of publishing rpg material, however, there you need to consider your readers--all your readers--and you open yourselves up to this kind of critique. So, as the main ttrpg publisher and the publisher of dnd, I think wotc should a) think about if and how they appropriate non-Western aesthetics into their world or monster design and b) endeavor to create a play culture around the game that leads to inclusive tables, as much as they can.

And it being a western perspective is immaterial because again it’s fantasy, and something through a different lens would change it as such.

Sure, it's fantasy, but I think perspectives of minorities and non-Western people can absolutely lead to new and interesting worlds and games.
 

Conversely, I would say noticing and caring about racial stereotypes in the game and the racialization of monsters via descriptions and aesthetics doesn't prevent me from playing dnd and enjoying fantasy, lotr included. That goes, in fact, for any such critique of culture (and incidentally, re: orientalism, Said is a great model for someone who both loved Western literature and saw all its flaws (though he probably though genre fiction was trash)). It terms of my experience at the gaming table, sometimes I just want to say "omg this is so racist," and get on with playing without someone saying "stop being so sensitive." Other times though, the fantasy magpieing does feel off, and I hope I can say to the people I'm playing with that I'm uncomfortable with it (and that might include discomfort for magpieing as what it is, which is cultural appropriation).

In terms of publishing rpg material, however, there you need to consider your readers--all your readers--and you open yourselves up to this kind of critique. So, as the main ttrpg publisher and the publisher of dnd, I think wotc should a) think about if and how they appropriate non-Western aesthetics into their world or monster design and b) endeavor to create a play culture around the game that leads to inclusive tables, as much as they can.



Sure, it's fantasy, but I think perspectives of minorities and non-Western people can absolutely lead to new and interesting worlds and games.
I don’t disagree with anything you said here. I think the minor “differentiator” here is the level of “relevance” of that perception of cultural appropriation. But, I do believe that is subjective to the individual and group, and as I’ve always stated, a case of what works for you and your group at the table. I can absolutely respect that there are these differences in “relevance” (I do need a better word). For me, D&D is that common baseline of tropes to be explored and customised as to taste at the tabletop.
 

So this a point of order, rather than attempt to continue the debate as I think both sides are established. An attempt to cross or at least define the divide here.

This encapsulates the “arrogance” I was talking about. Not the opinion itself but in the way it’s worded here. You and yours on “your side of the debate” associate this and equate it with the just struggle for proper equality. The struggle for equality, equity and general love is absolutely a cause I support and stand for as part of a minority myself (lgbt- I appreciate it’s not racially specific but I hope I am making my firm belief in The message and the cause clear).

what I find distasteful is this almost inbuilt assumption in the argument that this is purely factual and correct, the patronising (whether intentioned or not “ you’re not incapable of of change, you seem to realise..” etc).
Well, obviously we are having a relatively polite conversation. I am not actually trying to put us on different 'sides', because I expect we have pretty much the same goals and whatnot. Frankly, years ago, I probably reacted a bit like you are now, but I have come to see that I can go further and own the effects of whatever I do in the world, at the very least, completely and without reservations. Always hoping that I will also be met with a tolerant attitude as well.
The divide here for myself and many others others (though of course, I don’t speak for all) on “my side” of the argument is that we don’t see fictional races as part of the struggle. In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.
I'm just saying. People have used fictional races, often, to stand in for and comment on other people. I think some examples beyond JRRT were presented earlier in the thread which were rather more explicit than orcs. So, the use of fiction (and fantasy in particular) in an ethnically charged way is not new. Also I don't think this has to do with a 'struggle'. It has to do with simply people wanting to be free of bad images of creatures that are clearly associated with traits their ethnicities or other identities are associated with. It pigeonholes them, and it implicitly denigrates them. Nobody needs to be going out of their way to do it on purpose. It is just that, say you sit down to play D&D with your buds and a monster that is a caricature of YOU shows up? Its a bad guy. Suppose this sort of pigeonholing is constant, you start to get pretty tired of it. I know this happened to people in my family, so I know how tiring it got. When it ALSO shows up in your D&D game? That is a real bummer. Intentionality isn't really germane, nor is some complex history. That's all.
Again, he is missing the point. When you are a BIPOC person, to use the category he chooses to address, you most certainly ARE aware that Orcs, as a D&D race, share a bunch of features which are also commonly attributed to BIPOC people! All the other stuff he says is simply irrelevant! There need not be some master plan or long history of explicit use of Orcs in D&D as such for racist purposes. The associations are preexisting and not something that has to be explicit within the game itself. Just like JRRT didn't have to explicitly draw the connections in his work, or in the letter cited earlier.
No, Orcs Aren't Racist

And in particulate to those who use literature to build a case to critique, there’s a great book called how to read with a few poignant passage


"... one must not only be a responsive_but also a __responsible_ listener. You are responsive to the extent that you follow what has been said and note the intention that prompts it. But you also have the responsibility of taking a position. When you take it, it is yours, not the author's. To regard anyone except yourself as responsible for your judgement is to be a slave, not a free man. It is from the fact that the liberal arts acquire their name."
Sure, but again, when an author incorporates symbology that has been used for questionable purposes doesn't he have to expect what will come? If you put swastikas into your game and depicted them as insignia for some organization in that game, are you not saying something? If that group is glorified, and if it exhibits any characteristics that might associate it with the obviously evoked real-world group's ideology, don't you think that would have some causal connection to people actually responding in the predictable fashion as a result? I think the case for Orcs is clearly a bit less blatant, but surely you can see how "the reader is responsible" cannot possibly be some sort of absolute response. The writer is ALSO responsible! Communication is 2-way.
"You must make your own assumptions explicit. You must know what your prejudices---that is, your prejudgments---are. Otherwise you are not likely to admit that your opponent may be equally entitled to different assumptions. Good controversy should not be a quarrel about assumptions. If an author, for example, explicitly asks you to take something for granted, the fact that the opposite can also be taken for granted should not prevent you from honouring his request. If your prejudices lie on the opposite side, and if you do not acknowledge them to be prejudices, you cannot give the author's case a fair hearing."
I don't think we're arguing about assumptions here. If you want to ask for license, that's fine you are entitled to do that IMHO. You should do so prudently and with good reason. Nor is he obliged not to tell you "I think your thing would be better if you didn't take this license." Nor are we really discussing PREJUDICES of the reader, we are discussing ways in which readers are not interested in seeing this portrayed which very often correspond with ways other people portray THEM. Portrayal is different from prejudice too, they are distinct. Again, nobody need be guilty of active prejudice to carry around and use its symbology. If you carry a sign, you should probably know what is written on it.
I hope that to you, I have at least made my objections clear, and made the divide clearer, whether or not you choose to agree with the position.I actually feel that on many things, our opinions differ very little

As I said, I’m not interested in continuing the debate, just an attempt to actually clarify it. As an aside, I did find a really interesting article from all this, especially building on notions of memetic legacy:
Sure, we will leave it at I think you will find that your position is one that will be harder to defend over time. I suspect games are going to have to find ways to avoid offending a lot of people who have gotten very sick and tired of being on the receiving end, often for countless generations. It isn't really going to matter what conclusion you and I reach, we are small parts of the world.
This is a Euhemerism. So, I literally read a whole article the other day about how 19th Century Euhemerism is tied together with various racist ideologies, and even relating it to things like Tolkien, etc. Maybe it was linked here, my memory can be pretty crappy. Anyway, it also ties in with the whitewashing of ideology about Rome pretty cleanly. I think there's a sad truth that European intellectuals over the last few centuries have tainted a lot of our cultural heritage with racist and other ideological baggage that we're now going to have to deal with.
 

pemerton

Legend
issues can be subtle, and it can be hard to know where one might have simply overlooked something because we've been exposed to some negative idea for so long it has vanished from conscious consideration. Nor do people all give the same factors equal weight. You might portray orcs as both technologically advanced in some respect (maybe they make really awesome weapons or something), and yet seeming more primitive in some other sense (governmental institutions perhaps). You might even portray each as being a range that overlaps with other races, etc. That might TO YOU AND ME seem pretty fair and reasonable, they're different but not worse. The orc tribe you are dealing with is 'tribalistic', but over the next mountain is an orc republic. Some player may still interpret this scenario as having a dimension of portraying a negative stereotype. Maybe that player is included in a stereotyped ethnic identity, and maybe they are simply more aware of, or from YOUR perspective "overly sensitive to" certain factors.

So, yes, I think giving the 'orcs' a more nuanced character does work, but it won't work perfectly, that's all.

Also, it inevitably does leave out a lot of the more 'black and white' sort of RP. A lot of people DO enjoy that. We could ask if that kind of play is INHERENTLY relying on some negative stereotypes. Its a tough question. Obviously if you want that kind of play maybe the only way to avoid them really is to make the bad guys 'neoghi' or something that is really super alien and thus further removed from comparisons with the real world.
Well, it works, but it gets further from the 'black and white' kind of play that I was addressing. Many people are happy to play in world of all shades of grey in a moral sense. Others don't want to be confronted with the problem of what to do with 'orc children' or wonder if their PCs are really just 'murder hoboes' (what do actual hoboes think of that one I wonder, lol).
It is plausible to say that relying on fairly inflexible tropes is a core part of fantasy as a genre, and that even fantasy that doesn't do this is subverting those generic expectations. I would need to think more about that. But classic fantasy and dnd come at western folklore from a broadly western perspective. When they approach the 'fantasy' of other cultures, they are also coming at it from a western perspective. This is basically the definition of orientalism, and it is important because it was and is key to reproducing colonial violence in the real world. And, whatever analogies Tolkein did or did not put in his fiction, it says something that his fiction is so easily read as conservative parable.

One thing wotc could do is hire people from diverse cultural backgrounds as writers. And when they do, respect their work without the need to edit back in fantasy racism!
So is it essential to FRPGing that conflicts consist in the threats to "civilisation" posed by nameless hordes of . . . . ? That the solution to the world's problems is the extermination of those hordes?

If so, maybe it's impossible to prise FRPGing of racialised tropes. That's not a conclusion that can be excluded a priori by merely wishing that it weren't so!

That said, I think there are other possibilities. REH's Conan stories are full of casual and sometimes vicious racism, but the basic sword-and-sorcery idea I think can be preserved without it. I think the Silmarillion shows us how we can approach romantic, heroic fantasy without the same degree of racialisation as we see in LotR; and even in LotR perhaps we can draw less on the "ill-favoured fellow" of Bree and more on the (already quoted upthread) sympathetic response Sam has to the battle between the Gondorian rangers and the soldiers marching north.

Martial violence can still easily be a part of the game - but the focus is more on "honourable" fighting between opponents who have been brought into opposition by an unhappy fate (think of the Iliad as perhaps the most famous example of this, and the First World War looked at through a de-historicised lens - which I think is a fitting lens for FRPGing - as providing a modern example), and on the consequences of that, than on righteous violence directed at extermination of the forces of evil. I don't think this has to be a poor fit even for fairly mainstream D&D play.

Upthread, or maybe in another recent similarly-themed thread, I posted that I take the view that aesthetic value can diverge from political value. (Not everyone agrees with this. Proponents of "socialist art" are obviously one such group of dissenters from my proposition, but I think many liberals dissent as well, and probably many "radical" as opposed to traditional conservatives also.) I am aware that what I have posted in the preceding two paragraphs rests upon my view. If someone thinks that we can't have a RPG of violence without engaging with genuine morality and politics of violence, than maybe FRPGing really is doomed. Again, that's not a conclusion we can rebut just by wishful thinking.
 

So is it essential to FRPGing that conflicts consist in the threats to "civilisation" posed by nameless hordes of . . . . ? That the solution to the world's problems is the extermination of those hordes?

If so, maybe it's impossible to prise FRPGing of racialised tropes. That's not a conclusion that can be excluded a priori by merely wishing that it weren't so!

That said, I think there are other possibilities. REH's Conan stories are full of casual and sometimes vicious racism, but the basic sword-and-sorcery idea I think can be preserved without it. I think the Silmarillion shows us how we can approach romantic, heroic fantasy without the same degree of racialisation as we see in LotR; and even in LotR perhaps we can draw less on the "ill-favoured fellow" of Bree and more on the (already quoted upthread) sympathetic response Sam has to the battle between the Gondorian rangers and the soldiers marching north.

Martial violence can still easily be a part of the game - but the focus is more on "honourable" fighting between opponents who have been brought into opposition by an unhappy fate (think of the Iliad as perhaps the most famous example of this, and the First World War looked at through a de-historicised lens - which I think is a fitting lens for FRPGing - as providing a modern example), and on the consequences of that, than on righteous violence directed at extermination of the forces of evil. I don't think this has to be a poor fit even for fairly mainstream D&D play.

Upthread, or maybe in another recent similarly-themed thread, I posted that I take the view that aesthetic value can diverge from political value. (Not everyone agrees with this. Proponents of "socialist art" are obviously one such group of dissenters from my proposition, but I think many liberals dissent as well, and probably many "radical" as opposed to traditional conservatives also.) I am aware that what I have posted in the preceding two paragraphs rests upon my view. If someone thinks that we can't have a RPG of violence without engaging with genuine morality and politics of violence, than maybe FRPGing really is doomed. Again, that's not a conclusion we can rebut just by wishful thinking.
I was thinking more abstractly in terms of what "fantasy" does as a genre, that it is sort of powered by pulling, sometimes absentmindedly, from tropes, moods, and figures as already established by mainstream culture. Like, in a 'free kriegsspiel' sense, I could say, let's play Arthurian Fantasy and its probable that we (those discussing here) wouldn't even need more than a set of dice. There's enough to draw from floating around in culture and in our heads that we could probably figure it out as we go. But that also means that we reproduce without thinking the tropes that are baked into that genre (even if it inevitably becomes "Monty Python meets Westeros" to quote zero punctuation).

I'm thinking of why science fiction has been such a fertile genre for exploring themes of race and violence and colonization whereas fantasy has not. There's something about the speculative character of that genre that allows for newness, even if it is just of perspective or looking askant of a contemporary issue. Caveat : I am not a reader of much contemporary fantasy, so maybe this is happening or has been happening and I'm just unaware.
 

pemerton

Legend
I don't read much genre fiction, so am probably not best-placed to respond to your post @Malmuria.

Fantasy serves different literary purposes. Eg in REH, it is a device for sidestepping engagement with historical minutiae. I suppose one could rewrite Beyond the Black River with the Picts as the agents, but would it be worthwhile?

EDIT: I reread this and thought it's a bit short!

What I mean is why write about colonialism by sidestepping engagement with historical minutiae via a "Hyborian Age"-type world?

Or if fantasy is being used to present a romanticised version of the world, a la JRRT, is that a good vehicle for political engagement?

Is there a genre of dystopian fantasy? (qv dystopian sc-fi)
 
Last edited:

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top