The problem with Evil races is not what you think

(Emphasis mine.)

1) As long as RW slurs and stereotypes are used as descriptive language for RPG foes, we don’t agree. Remove that language, and we’re good.

2) I patently disagree, especially since it is demonstrable that use of RW slurs and stereotypes in fiction not actually meant to mirror the real world is completely unnecessary. Many fiction writers- and more now than before- have found ways to avoid the honey trap of attempting to use language laden with negative baggage. Put differently, if your fiction’s setting isn’t a period piece, there’s no reason to use bigoted language that has been used to describe blacks, Asians, Jews, etc. It’s lazy writing, and insults a portion of your audience, even if that wasn’t your intent.

3) My answer is “Yes. Yes it is.”
Indeed, many authors have, as another Redditor pointed out much like you have, for example, citing the fantastic works of authors such as Ursula LeGuin. The poster responded thusly (which, I agree with the general sentiments if not every specific, or the tone necessarily,but I shall quote it in full here for integrity of the post)


“To answer each of the questions, the first is, it says that we're playing with fire. That it has found something that is consist with very intimate parts of the human psyche, independent of it's capacity or proclivity to good or evil.

That's not how stories work and you know it, the characters involved are intentionally representative of a particular idea. That's just how it works, they convey ideas in form of social interactions between people. To elaborate further though, people do act in particular ways, cultural groups share many things, including- and most importantly- the manner in which they design and pursue (and therefore enforce) a hierarchy of value. There is something to be said for the analysis of how honor as a central value plays out on a societal scale, as contrasted to merchantile acquisition. Hence, why Klingons and Ferengai at large, are just as interesting as Hideyoshi and Carnegie are in particular.

I'll ignore the racial subtext of what I will assume is a botched attempt at making cultural distinctions, after all part of this discussion is about the degree to which race and culture overlap, and answer the challenge it offers. The simple answer, is you didn't read. I specifically said the value of making an entire people into a character, is so that the individuals which compose it, may be contrasted. Though, regarding your claims of undermine the concept of the "other" I regret to inform you, that it is both a fact of nature, and art. Thus is nature of contrast and symmetry.

And finally, this is where you really pull the ideological rabbit out of your analytical hat. "why would WotC choose a framework with a message with similar themes to racial supremecy?" Well I'm glad you asked.

The simplest answer is cause it works. It's an effective structure to communicate to people the details of a character which will be relevant to the drama by establishing the backdrop of a society against which they stand, or into which they blend. Both are novel.

A more nuanced answer, would also go through the trouble of axplaining that a story which does not have the benefit of defining the social game which it's characters will play, must rely strictly on their interactions as they appear in the social games we play. The unavailability of particular nuance in the practical reality of our lives make certain point unaproachable or uncommunicatable between peoples. Defining your own simplified world is convenient and occasionally mandatory for this purpose, when exploring niche or hypothetical questions.

But the actual language of your statement gives away just what's rotten in the state of Denmark, a framework doesn't have a message, actually. It's a toolkit for conveying, generalizing, specifying, adjusting, or comparing messages. What you meant, is why would they use a framework which was used by racial supremacists to convey their own vile message. That argument gets dangerously close to the Hitler owned a dog side of things, though more specifically you might say "Bricks were used to build the ovens in Auschwitz" and then declaring bricks a stepping stone to the fourth Reich. And you know fair point, but you're really doing a disservice to intellectual discourse if that's where you stop your analysis.

Continuing the analogy, you might object to something as bland and flexible in utility as a brick; I wouldn't object, because it's precisely my claim that that's how general and of utility this form of storytelling is, but I digress. Perhaps you could claim that guns were used to order people into trains and intimidate and control them, and fair point. If you wanted to claim that stories were something akin to ideological weapons, you might be really onto something rather articulate there. However, guns were also used to fight the Nazis, and step one of Hitler taking control was to strip weapons from the hands of anyone he didn't control.

So, if you really do insist on bemoaning the ideological dangers of potentially abusing powerful techniques for crafting grand narratives, I suggest you take a good hard look as precisely the pros and cons of solving that problem by any means other than leaving it alone, and allowing everyone go arm themselves adequately so as to be defended against the encroachments of bad actors and tyrants.

If you wish to lambast the WotC as being wittingly or unwittingly participatory in the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation, then so be it. But first, if ask you count just how many wars nuclear arms have stopped, and just how many they've started. You'll find the score heavily on one side.

And then from there, I would like you to speculate on the value of letting these things play out organically, and to grow detached and independent from their unpleasant roots, grow richer deeper ones, and become a pillar of our culture which holds it up against the rattlings of the world. Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish ripping these things up by their roots, and just how wide are you leaving the door open to unforseen and readily foreseen consequences alike”
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
people do act in particular ways, cultural groups share many things, including- and most importantly- the manner in which they design and pursue (and therefore enforce) a hierarchy of value.

<snip>

the value of making an entire people into a character, is so that the individuals which compose it, may be contrasted.

<snip>

"why would WotC choose a framework with a message with similar themes to racial supremecy?" Well I'm glad you asked.

The simplest answer is cause it works. It's an effective structure to communicate to people the details of a character which will be relevant to the drama by establishing the backdrop of a society against which they stand, or into which they blend. Both are novel.

<snip>

Defining your own simplified world is convenient and occasionally mandatory for this purpose, when exploring niche or hypothetical questions.

<snip>

a framework doesn't have a message, actually. It's a toolkit for conveying, generalizing, specifying, adjusting, or comparing messages. What you meant, is why would they use a framework which was used by racial supremacists to convey their own vile message. That argument gets dangerously close to the Hitler owned a dog side of things, though more specifically you might say "Bricks were used to build the ovens in Auschwitz" and then declaring bricks a stepping stone to the fourth Reich. And you know fair point, but you're really doing a disservice to intellectual discourse if that's where you stop your analysis.

<snip>

if you really do insist on bemoaning the ideological dangers of potentially abusing powerful techniques for crafting grand narratives, I suggest you take a good hard look as precisely the pros and cons of solving that problem by any means other than leaving it alone, and allowing everyone go arm themselves adequately so as to be defended against the encroachments of bad actors and tyrants.

If you wish to lambast the WotC as being wittingly or unwittingly participatory in the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation, then so be it.

<snip>

I would like you to speculate on the value of letting these things play out organically
This is unbelievable.

So @Dannyalcatraz is "bemoaning". And is "lambasting" WotC for engaging in "the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation"? Where is he doing these things? Is this really all you can take away from his posts?

And are you really asserting that just as bricks are a ubiquitous building material, which we can't easily do without, so FRPGing can't do without specific "frameworks" of racialisation and racist tropes that has its the origins in 19th and early 20th century "race science" and its pulp adherents? What is your basis for such an assertion? And what is it adding to our fantasy worlds to have races that are "fecund" and threaten demographically-driven destruction of "civilisation"? (And do you really think this is a character presented as a people/culture? What character is this?)
 

This is unbelievable.

So @Dannyalcatraz is "bemoaning". And is "lambasting" WotC for engaging in "the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation"? Where is he doing these things? Is this really all you can take away from his posts?

And are you really asserting that just as bricks are a ubiquitous building material, which we can't easily do without, so FRPGing can't do without specific "frameworks" of racialisation and racist tropes that has its the origins in 19th and early 20th century "race science" and its pulp adherents? What is your basis for such an assertion? And what is it adding to our fantasy worlds to have races that are "fecund" and threaten demographically-driven destruction of "civilisation"? (And do you really think this is a character presented as a people/culture? What character is this?)
You’ll find that remarkable number of your questions addressed to me as of late are easily answered by actually reading my posts in full, rather than reading selectively.

It will save you missing statements such as “this is a quote from another discussion”, “[whilst I don’t agree] with the tone or every specific point” etc.
 


@transmission89 If you quote a long block of text from someone else I think it's a good idea to use INDENT tags, or alternatively, in the case of a post from a message board such as reddit, QUOTE tags:

Code:
[indent]multiple paragraphs here[/indent]
or
[quote="some redditor"]multiple paragraphs here[/quote]
Cheers for the tip :). Apologies for any confusion caused by not adhering to forum convention. A lot of what I write is in snatches of free time on mobile.
 

darkbard

Legend
Indeed, many authors have, as another Redditor pointed out much like you have, for example, citing the fantastic works of authors such as Ursula LeGuin. The poster responded thusly (which, I agree with the general sentiments if not every specific, or the tone necessarily,but I shall quote it in full here for integrity of the post)
I find this a rather bizarre rhetorical move: to quote some unidentified poster from another social media community and declare you agree with the general sentiment but not specifics (or tone) but then failing to identify your points of disagreement. Why not post your own statements that make the points you wish to make 100% and in the way you wish to make them tonally?
 

Aldarc

Legend
Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish ripping these things up by their roots, and just how wide are you leaving the door open to unforseen and readily foreseen consequences alike”
Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish by scaremongering that things should mostly stay as they are out of the veiled threat of unforeseen consequences?
 

I find this a rather bizarre rhetorical move: to quote some unidentified poster from another social media community and declare you agree with the general sentiment but not specifics (or tone) but then failing to identify your points of disagreement. Why not post your own statements that make the points you wish to make 100% and in the way you wish to make them tonally?
A valid criticism. I’d respond:
To a great extent, I already have touched on those points across a number of posts in the thread.
The quoted parts do express much of what I touched on in a more detailed and eloquent (within the context of that particular back and forth) way and to take the time to rewrite on mobile felt needlessly laborious and would still have a sense of trying to pass off other’s work as my own.
 

pemerton

Legend
It will save you missing statements such as “this is a quote from another discussion”, “[whilst I don’t agree] with the tone or every specific point” etc.
I didn't miss it. But you said I agree with the general sentiments which I reproduced in my quote of your post.

I will repeat what I posted upthread: I believe that most of your posts read like rhetorical posturing, and attacks upon unidentified threats to <something important though you don't actually seem to say what>. You refer to various views that you disagree with, but don't attribute those views to any particular posters, and then as in the post I'm quoting here deny holding the countervailing views that you quote with approval.

EDIT:
The quoted parts do express much of what I touched on in a more detailed and eloquent (within the context of that particular back and forth) way and to take the time to rewrite on mobile felt needlessly laborious and would still have a sense of trying to pass off other’s work as my own.
So you do agree. Except that you don't?
 

CONTENT WARNING: VERY RACIST CLAIMS, IN QUOTATION

This post is about the way features of D&D orcs and goblins – high fertility rates, dominant 'genetic' traits, and abundant population – replicate racist ideas. These ideas may be found in the writings of late-19th and early-20th century influential race 'scientists' – Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard – and in Yellow Peril fiction and other popular fears about "Asiatic hordes". There are also similarities, though not as strong, with the present day far right "White Genocide" or "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory.

High Fertility Rates

AD&D 1e Players Handbook (1978): "Orcs are fecund and create many cross-breeds." D&D 3.5e Monster Manual (2003): Goblins have "rapid reproduction." D&D 4e Monster Manual (2008): "Goblins breed quickly."

D&D 5e Monster Manual (2014):

Luthic, the orc goddess of fertility and wife of Gruumsh, demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation. The orcs' drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races.​

D&D 5e Volo's Guide to Monsters (2016): "Orcs breed prodigiously (and they aren't choosy about what they breed with, which is why such creatures as half-orcs and ogrillons are found in the world)."

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899): "Generative power often stands in inverse relation to the nobility of the race." The "generative power" of "the negro" is superior to that of white people.

Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1920):

Treating the primary race-stocks as units, it would appear that whites tend to double in eighty years, yellows and browns in sixty years, blacks in forty years.​
The black man is, indeed, sharply differentiated from the other branches of mankind. His outstanding quality is superabundant animal vitality... To it... is due his extreme fecundity, the negro being the quickest of breeders.​

Dominant 'Genetic' Traits

AD&D 1e Monster Manual (1977): "Half-orcs tend to favor the orcish strain heavily, so such sorts are basically orcs although they can sometimes (10%) pass themselves off as true creatures of their other stock (goblins, hobgoblins, humans, etc.)." AD&D 1e PHB : "Some one-tenth of orc-human mongrels are sufficiently non-orcish to pass for human." AD&D 2e Monstrous Manual (1993): "Half-orcs tend to favor the orcish strain heavily and as such are basically orcs, although 10% of these offspring can pass as ugly humans." D&D 5e MM: "When an orc procreates with a non-orc humanoid of similar size and stature (such as a human or a dwarf), the resulting child is either an orc or a half-orc."

Chamberlain:

The predominance of his [the "negro"'s] qualities in the descendants [is]... greater than those of the whites.​
In Europe at the present day we… see the growing predominance of an alien race which… by animal force gradually overpowers the mentally superior race.​

Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race (1916):

The result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting to the more ancient, generalized and lower type. The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.​

Stoddard: "In ethnic crossings, the negro strikingly displays his prepotency, for black blood, once entering a human stock, seems never really bred out again."

Abundant Population

AD&D 2e MM: Goblins "would be merely pests, if not for their great numbers." D&D 3.5e MM: Goblins have "great numbers." D&D 5e MM: "Individually weak, goblins gather in large—sometimes overwhelming—numbers." "Occasionally, a powerful war chief unites scattered orc tribes into a single rampaging horde."

MP Shiel, The Yellow Danger (1898): "The Chinese host was to resemble a flight of locusts, covering the entire sky from horizon to horizon… Yen How's army would consist of the 400,000,000 which formed the population of China."

Jack London, The Unparalleled Invasion (1910):

The real danger lay in the fecundity of her [China's] loins​
China's population must be seven hundred millions, eight hundred millions, nobody knew how many millions, but at any rate it would soon be a billion. There were two Chinese for every white-skinned human in the world… and the world trembled​

Federation on Chinese Exclusion, Memorial to Congress (1901):

Civilization in Europe has been frequently attacked and imperiled by the barbaric hordes of Asia. If the little band of Greeks at Marathon had not beaten back ten times their number of Asiatic invaders, it is impossible to estimate the loss to civilization that would have ensued… Attila and his Asiatic hordes threatened central Europe when the Gauls made their successful stand against them… The free immigration of Chinese would be for all purposes an invasion by Asiatic barbarians.​

John Kuo Wei Tchen and Dylan Yeats, Yellow Peril! (2014):

[During the Korean War (1950-1953)] newspapers across the nation ran headlines such as "Red Hordes Swarm South Korea!" as the Chinese pushed American troops back south. Popular press accounts claimed that the Chinese troops were mere cannon fodder, but their sheer numbers made them invincible.​

The "White Genocide" Conspiracy Theory

Bridge Initiative Team, Factsheet: White Genocide Conspiracy Theory (2020):

Proponents of the white genocide conspiracy theory… claim that the "white race" is under threat due to falling birth rates among white women, the continued growth of "mixed race" marriages, and ongoing immigration of black and brown people into Europe and America. They allege that demographic change will result in white people becoming a minority in the United States in the near future​
Brenton Tarrant… attacked two mosques in Ōtautahi/Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand killing 51 Muslims. Tarrant explicitly referenced the white genocide conspiracy theory in his manifesto entitled: "The Great Replacement."​

The parallels here are not as close as they are with the race 'scientists' and fears of "Asiatic hordes". But the broader ideas of the threat of higher birth rates, being outnumbered, and being replaced are the same.
You've only touched on some elements here too:

Orcs are also violent, primitive, and stupid: AD&D 1e Monster Manual p76 ORC "INTELLIGENCE: Average (low)", evil "ALIGNMENT: Lawful evil" they will "always intimidate and dominate the weaker", they are 'tribal', they "hate the light", "Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general", their dress is also repulsive and "dirty and often a bit rusty." Essentially a panoply of negative social, cultural, and personal traits.

Compare this with the views of racial minorities today in the US: Considered stupid and uneducated, assumed to be violent or potentially violent, seen as slovenly and living in dirty conditions, thought to form violent gangs as a habit, criminal, drug users, anti-establishment, etc. I can personally validate many of these stereotypes existing through direct experience of family members who encountered several of them on a daily basis, even from people who were supposedly 'not prejudiced'. You need only turn on the television to see the rest of the whole sordid story.
 

This is a very good summary and analysis, thanks for posting. One way of adjusting older problematic content is to assume these in-game commentaries are written by outsiders to the target group--usually humans, elves, and/or dwarves--and understand that they are biased and racist. I don't have a problem with racism and bias existing in-game, as long as we acknowledge out-game that these views are immoral. For example, in a medieval-like society, no one would have any real idea about "birth rates". It would all be projection and fear about "hoards of Others" designed to instill fear in those like "Us". Orcs might think exactly the same thing about humans (with good reason!), but we never hear their views somehow.

Thus we discard what might have been the original intent of the writers and substitute a new intent that includes the perspective of the targeted race. This allows for a mix of bigoted and thoughtful NPCs in-game, again as long as this can be handled maturely and everyone is comfortable doing this. NPCs can hold the propaganda-laced views of the older writers and others can challenge those views. If people simply are not comfortable with this sort of fantasy, I would never subject them to it. It's just a game, after all.
I like the idea too. It has been used in a considerable number of places in D&D, such as the 'Demonomicon of Igwilv' and whatnot. I think D&D has always written its MMs as being purely accurate (or at least proposed) information intended for the GM, but there's no reason that MUST be true.

As an aside: I am not so sure about racial prejudice in the Middle Ages. I'm certainly no expert, but Shakespeare wrote 'Otello' in the early 17th Century, and there was no connotation there of racial prejudice that I'm aware of. Otello is certainly ABOUT that, nor does it seem to factor into the story at all. Clearly 17th Century Londoners weren't expected to make the kinds of associations many modern audiences would! By that time Europeans had already been deeply enmeshed in the slave trade for at least 100 years. I'm sure that racial prejudices existed, certainly Europeans of the Middle Ages feared 'Huns' and then 'Mongols' (after the 13th Century). They were certainly hostile to practitioners of Al Islam, and we know the history of medieval suspicion of Jews as well. I suspect that these sorts of ideas were more localized and particularized. After all, medieval society was much less open and ideas circulated far less freely than they do today. People tended to be more concerned with whatever was down the road as opposed to what was 100's or 1000's of miles away.

The same might well be true in a fantasy world. There is no universal attitude towards Orcs. There may be considerable hostility and prejudice in one region, indifference in another, peaceful coexistence in a third, and outright interspecies warfare in yet another. The same could well be true of the so-called 'demi-human' races, which was always a classic element of D&D (IE dwarves and elves are not generally friendly, but they CAN band together to oppose their mutual enemies, and might even become relatively friendly in some times and places). You could certainly extrapolate this kind of mosaic of cultures and attitudes. I think it would also be cool to portray some cultures as fairly species-specific (maybe even having some biological basis) and others as being more multi-racial (I think a lot of D&D cities are depicted this way where there are dwarves in one quarter, elves in another, etc.).
 

These are a collection of truly appalling
quotes when applied to people, and are out dated racial views of people of different ethnicities. There’s no question that this view has no place in a modern world, and should not be applied to people.

But again, the link lies on the assumption that orcs and goblins are a stand in for people, that they are anything but a monstrous creature. If words like “fecund”, “hordes” and concepts like “fast breeding being a threat” are to be struck because they have historically been deployed in an appalling manner against people, then you’re going to have a problem with many descriptions of the rabbit threat in Australia.

Looked through this lens, Mass Effect (a sci fi video game) is clearly a racist parable as the horde of reapers descend on the citadel, intent on wiping out good, progressive civilisation. The collectors clearly an embodiment of the trope of black men coming to steal your women away from you. (I don’t believe this is case, just pointing out that an over extension of literary analysis and trope exploration has the potential to limit fiction).

In game terms, Gary wanted a clearly defined evil race of humanoids to fill that same fictitious space as the Nazi (that players could could wantonly engage in combat with, and come out feeing heroic without moralistic issues of having killed many people).
In a tweet, Ed Greenwood stated:

“I talked with Gary Gygax about "baked-in evil" (orcs, drow, etc.) and (though admitting D&D was whitebread, middle-class, and Christian-rooted) he said he HAD to have evil-labelled races to fight (=kill gorily) or the game would have been banned in much of the USA at that time.”

Games stats wise, the individual goblin is weak. So how can we fictionally make it a threat to the dwarven kingdoms, the realms of Elves and men? Well, a goblin must therefore have numbers to present a threat. What are the implications of having large numbers?

Now if you choose to play Orcs as people, to have a D&D game where you play as a cornucopia of fantastical races and explore what it means to be human and what humanity is, you’re going to run into these issues, implications and associations. This is rich and fertile ground to be, and has been explored in western and global fantasy sci fi literature. But it is why, personally, I think that approach to the game as a game is a mistake. But far be it from me to dictate how you play at the table or the stories you tell. The closer it is played straight to the original expression of the game (not necessarily in rules set, but fictional presentation) of the classic struggles of good peoples vs evil monsters and the occasional wicked man/ woman, the less chance you will have of these implications.

Or to clarify, let monsters be monsters and when we present fictional peoples, let that be respectful and not resort to sexist/racist tropes of those people.
OK, let me explain it to you:

'Farah' is a highly skilled professional, ambitious, very good at her job, hard-working, etc. Every day she goes to work and encounters things like 'Sally' (a customer) who says "Oh, sweetie, will you go get the real [insert profession here], I need someone to help me." THIS IS EVERY DAY NORMAL RACISM. This is just what happens EVERY SINGLE DAY before lunch when you look a certain way. I'm not kidding, and this was not some backwards small town someplace, that's the way it is in every single town and city in the USA. Period, end of report. I can recall 'Darren' and 'Joseph' standing outside my window talking about how they deal with run-ins with the local police, going through how many times they each got pulled over for 'driving while black' THAT MONTH and the various crap they got put through and how to deal with it. Just shooting the breeze, trading tips of the trade so to speak. These are educated, adult, home-owning, law-abiding men in their 50's and 60's. Ones who, aside from their skin color and whatever, would easily pass for you or me, living in a mixed race area.

I am not going to bother to delve deeply into what their opinions of orcs would be, or is. It should be obvious. Of course they see the parallels! Do you think they haven't read LotR? Or Conan? Or H. P. Lovecraft? I mean, did you not note 'Lovecraft Country'? Obviously these genres, and RPGs, are not any less appealing or foreign to them than to you or me. They can color between the lines. They DO see, know, and understand, the history of prejudice, probably far far better than you (or me either).

And, I am pretty sure, I hope I am not too out of place by saying this, that they also 'get' that when you or I put orcs in our campaign world, we are not attempting to create a stand-in for people of color. These are perfectly intelligent people. However, they came from a day at the office on Friday when they got insulted 3 times, and then pulled over by a cop on the way home, for no discernible reason. OK. Now, how much more remnant racialized European stereotype mythology which was used for 500 years to stomp all over every other ethnic group, bar none, on the face of the Earth are they really going to want to put up with along with their D&D? Please tell me.

I don't think you comprehend the magnitude or impact of racial stereotypes in the world today. If it was nothing but D&D, I think we'd all do exactly as you seem to propose and laugh about it and just say "well, that's how people were in ancient times" and then maybe in play turn those tropes on their heads. Its a bit different in reality though, fantasy is supposed to be an escape from that kind of thing, not an exemplar of it. Maybe there ARE constructive ways to use it, but we are going to have to be really sophisticated in doing that. I concur with the people who have stated, in the game design world, that they feel more comfortable leaving various cultures to people who grew up in them, and to just entirely demolishing racial stereotypes entirely (which is probably neigh impossible, but...).
 

OK, let me explain it to you:

'Farah' is a highly skilled professional, ambitious, very good at her job, hard-working, etc. Every day she goes to work and encounters things like 'Sally' (a customer) who says "Oh, sweetie, will you go get the real [insert profession here], I need someone to help me." THIS IS EVERY DAY NORMAL RACISM. This is just what happens EVERY SINGLE DAY before lunch when you look a certain way. I'm not kidding, and this was not some backwards small town someplace, that's the way it is in every single town and city in the USA. Period, end of report. I can recall 'Darren' and 'Joseph' standing outside my window talking about how they deal with run-ins with the local police, going through how many times they each got pulled over for 'driving while black' THAT MONTH and the various crap they got put through and how to deal with it. Just shooting the breeze, trading tips of the trade so to speak. These are educated, adult, home-owning, law-abiding men in their 50's and 60's. Ones who, aside from their skin color and whatever, would easily pass for you or me, living in a mixed race area.

I am not going to bother to delve deeply into what their opinions of orcs would be, or is. It should be obvious. Of course they see the parallels! Do you think they haven't read LotR? Or Conan? Or H. P. Lovecraft? I mean, did you not note 'Lovecraft Country'? Obviously these genres, and RPGs, are not any less appealing or foreign to them than to you or me. They can color between the lines. They DO see, know, and understand, the history of prejudice, probably far far better than you (or me either).

And, I am pretty sure, I hope I am not too out of place by saying this, that they also 'get' that when you or I put orcs in our campaign world, we are not attempting to create a stand-in for people of color. These are perfectly intelligent people. However, they came from a day at the office on Friday when they got insulted 3 times, and then pulled over by a cop on the way home, for no discernible reason. OK. Now, how much more remnant racialized European stereotype mythology which was used for 500 years to stomp all over every other ethnic group, bar none, on the face of the Earth are they really going to want to put up with along with their D&D? Please tell me.

I don't think you comprehend the magnitude or impact of racial stereotypes in the world today. If it was nothing but D&D, I think we'd all do exactly as you seem to propose and laugh about it and just say "well, that's how people were in ancient times" and then maybe in play turn those tropes on their heads. Its a bit different in reality though, fantasy is supposed to be an escape from that kind of thing, not an exemplar of it. Maybe there ARE constructive ways to use it, but we are going to have to be really sophisticated in doing that. I concur with the people who have stated, in the game design world, that they feel more comfortable leaving various cultures to people who grew up in them, and to just entirely demolishing racial stereotypes entirely (which is probably neigh impossible, but...).
Ok, let me explain this to you. I get all of that. I’m well aware of all and I deplore that, and stand against that and stand with those who suffer from this Don’t for a second think otherwise. This is not the same as fictional monsters in D&D. So spare me the attempt to reach for moral superiority. This is my problem as the debate is being framed as a moralistic crusade, any one who is opposed to this opinion must be up holders of the social status quo. I stand against this argument because I believe in social progress and equality, I believe the constant linking of orcs as racist is problematic, the constant dismissiveness of western literature because of historical reasons that when explained reach dangerously close to the noble savage trope and is also a very US/Eurocentric POV . This also has implications for how terms and names are weaponised in modern politics in a manner that concerns me, but for obvious reasons, this is not the place to detail that.

You might disagree with my viewpoint on execution, that’s fine, but that’s not the same as saying that our goals are not the same.
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
That's not how stories work and you know it, the characters involved are intentionally representative of a particular idea. That's just how it works, they convey ideas in form of social interactions between people. To elaborate further though, people do act in particular ways, cultural groups share many things, including- and most importantly- the manner in which they design and pursue (and therefore enforce) a hierarchy of value. There is something to be said for the analysis of how honor as a central value plays out on a societal scale, as contrasted to merchantile acquisition. Hence, why Klingons and Ferengai at large, are just as interesting as Hideyoshi and Carnegie are in particular.

A character can represent an idea without using words laden with negative stereotypes or slurs. A passage from a book I studied in Bates Hoffer’s ”Biblical Themes in Literature” back in 1986-87 was about a little boy whom the writer artfully compared to Satan as conceived by innumerable prior writers covering hundreds of years of literature and dozens of cultures…without using a single slur or any profanity.

I'll ignore the racial subtext of what I will assume is a botched attempt at making cultural distinctions, after all part of this discussion is about the degree to which race and culture overlap, and answer the challenge it offers. The simple answer, is you didn't read. I specifically said the value of making an entire people into a character, is so that the individuals which compose it, may be contrasted. Though, regarding your claims of undermine the concept of the "other" I regret to inform you, that it is both a fact of nature, and art. Thus is nature of contrast and symmetry.

Of course “the other” is a fact of nature and art. I would be lying if I said otherwise. But so are dehumanization and demonization.

A saying that has been attributed to many cultures goes something like this: “The power to kill lies within a single word.” A powerful and succinct admonition agains both of those evils. Once you have convinced people that “the other” is not human (or demonic), it’s easy to start them killing in that belief.

And finally, this is where you really pull the ideological rabbit out of your analytical hat. "why would WotC choose a framework with a message with similar themes to racial supremecy?" Well I'm glad you asked.

I didn’t ask. I don’t know where you got that…”quote”…but it wasn’t from me.

But since I’m in the neighborhood…

There is nothing wrong with telling stories involving themes of racial supremacy. Like a battery and its charge, there can be no drama without differences, and the greater the difference, the greater the charge (drama).

HOWEVER, unless you’re doing a period piece, you don’t need the language of real world racial supremacy to tell stories of fictional racial supremacy. It’s simply unnecessary. It is bad, lazy writing. If you are trying to write in a professional capacity and find yourself relying on such a crutch, then you’re probably not well suited to the profession and should find employment elsewhere,

The simplest answer is cause it works. It's an effective structure to communicate to people the details of a character which will be relevant to the drama by establishing the backdrop of a society against which they stand, or into which they blend. Both are novel.

“Because it works” is a TERRIBLE excuse for anything that hurts people.

It works because it’s a crutch. At this point in time, it’s the literary equivalent of using the same prerecorded cowbell, 808 drums, DJ scratch and horn samples as 20,000 other, previous EDM tunes when you record a song, or using AutoTune on all your recorded lyrics. It’s like using the Wilhelm scream every time someone gets hurt in a TV or movie.

If you can’t do better than that, you’re simply…not a very good writer.

But the actual language of your statement gives away just what's rotten in the state of Denmark, a framework doesn't have a message, actually. It's a toolkit for conveying, generalizing, specifying, adjusting, or comparing messages. What you meant, is why would they use a framework which was used by racial supremacists to convey their own vile message. That argument gets dangerously close to the Hitler owned a dog side of things, though more specifically you might say "Bricks were used to build the ovens in Auschwitz" and then declaring bricks a stepping stone to the fourth Reich. And you know fair point, but you're really doing a disservice to intellectual discourse if that's where you stop your analysis.

Continuing the analogy, you might object to something as bland and flexible in utility as a brick; I wouldn't object, because it's precisely my claim that that's how general and of utility this form of storytelling is, but I digress. Perhaps you could claim that guns were used to order people into trains and intimidate and control them, and fair point. If you wanted to claim that stories were something akin to ideological weapons, you might be really onto something rather articulate there. However, guns were also used to fight the Nazis, and step one of Hitler taking control was to strip weapons from the hands of anyone he didn't control.

With this analogy, you’ve played yourself.

The “bricks “ we’re actually discussing here are individual words, held together with “mortar” of punctuation and grammar, which can be used to build anything.

You’re defending the use of complete, prefabricated modular structures to be dropped into any old building. Because it’s easier. Not better. Not even necessarily all that good.

We’re not asking for you to stop using bricks- your analogy- because Hitler used them. We’re asking you to stop putting Nazi-style gas chambers in your condos. We’re asking you- and others like you- to draw up your own plans, because the plans you’re using are fundamentally flawed, and will crumble with time. You’re asking permission to continue using prefabricated houses in the middle of tornado alley.

So, if you really do insist on bemoaning the ideological dangers of potentially abusing powerful techniques for crafting grand narratives, I suggest you take a good hard look as precisely the pros and cons of solving that problem by any means other than leaving it alone, and allowing everyone go arm themselves adequately so as to be defended against the encroachments of bad actors and tyrants.

If you insist on using the language of oppression, you become an oppressor.

If you wish to lambast the WotC as being wittingly or unwittingly participatory in the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation, then so be it. But first, if ask you count just how many wars nuclear arms have stopped, and just how many they've started. You'll find the score heavily on one side.

That is some truly purple prose, there.

I’ll just note that most of the world’s nuclear powers are reducing their stockpiles, and- AFAIK- even the Soviets decided not to mass produce and deploy Tsar Bomba.

And then from there, I would like you to speculate on the value of letting these things play out organically, and to grow detached and independent from their unpleasant roots, grow richer deeper ones, and become a pillar of our culture which holds it up against the rattlings of the world. Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish ripping these things up by their roots, and just how wide are you leaving the door open to unforseen and readily foreseen consequences alike”

If you eat of the fruit of the poisonous tree, you become poisoned.

Why plant oleander in your apple orchard if you don’t have to?
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
I believe the constant linking of orcs as racist is problematic, the constant dismissiveness of western literature because of historical reasons that when explained reach dangerously close to the noble savage trope and is also a very US/Eurocentric POV .

This makes sense if and only if you believe using racist stereotypes and slurs are inherently necessary for Western literature to succeed.

Absolutely no person in this thread has said Western literature needs to be destroyed because of a few slurs and stereotypes. They’re just saying, stop using those RW slurs and stereotypes in fiction that doesn’t need it. The cancer is not the patient.
 
Last edited:

Doug McCrae

Legend
The following changes have been made to D&D without the need to "dismiss an entire canon", so I don't see why further changes should:
  1. Class name "Fighter" instead of "Fighting Man" (1978).
  2. Removal of sex-based ability score limits (1989).
  3. Use of female pronouns as well as male (2000).
  4. Removal of "mongrel" as a term for half-orcs (2000).
  5. Introduction of non-white adventurers in the core rulebooks' art (2000), further increased in 2008.
  6. Announcement about "culturally complex" orcs and drow, changes to the Vistani, and other issues relating to diversity (2020).
  7. Removal of alignment from the monsters in Candlekeep Mysteries (2021).
Part of the 2020 WotC statement was very similar to what has been said in this thread:

Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in.​
 
Last edited:


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
The following changes have been made to D&D without the need to "dismiss an entire canon", so I don't see why further changes should:
  1. Class name "Fighter" instead of "Fighting Man" (1978).
  2. Removal of sex-based ability score limits (1989).
  3. Use of female pronouns as well as male (2000).
  4. Removal of "mongrel" as a term for half-orcs (2000).
  5. Introduction of non-white adventurers in the core rulebooks' art (2000), further increased in 2008.
  6. Announcement about "culturally complex" orcs and drow, changes to the Vistani, and other issues relating to diversity (2020).
  7. Removal of alignment from the monsters in Candlekeep Mysteries (2021).
Part of the 2020 WotC statement was very similar to what has been said in this thread:

Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in.​
I know it’s been said before, but…damn, when will we see the book deal announcement?
 

pemerton

Legend
Ok, let me explain this to you. I get all of that. I’m well aware of all and I deplore that, and stand against that and stand with those who suffer from this Don’t for a second think otherwise. This is not the same as fictional monsters in D&D. So spare me the attempt to reach for moral superiority. This is my problem as the debate is being framed as a moralistic crusade, any one who is opposed to this opinion must be up holders of the social status quo.
Who are you saying has "framed [the debate] as a moralistic crusade"?

Are you able to explain what it would look like to criticise the use of racial stereotypes and racialised tropes in FRPGing that would not be a "moralistic crusade"? Or is "moralistic crusade" just a label you reach for to criticise arguments by labelling them rather than engaging with them?

Also, who has said that you are an "upholder of the social status quo"? The person to whom you were replying - @AbdulAlhazred - explained, via some examples, what some of the effects are of the use in FPRGing of racial stereotypes and racialised tropes. He said nothing about your views. Do you think his examples are reasonable ones? What do you think are the effects of the use in FPRGing of racial stereotypes and racialised tropes?

I believe the constant linking of orcs as racist is problematic, the constant dismissiveness of western literature because of historical reasons that when explained reach dangerously close to the noble savage trope and is also a very US/Eurocentric POV .
Who in this thread is "reach[ing] dangerously close to the noble savage trope"? How are they doing that?

And who is being "constantly dismissive" of "western literature"? Who has dismissed any literature in this thread? Do regard it as "dismissive" of JRRT, or HPL, or REH, to do the sort of textual analysis and exegesis that (eg) @Doug McCrae has done in this thread? From where I'm standing that just looks like pretty standard literary criticism. Where is this alleged "dismissal" to be found?
 

pemerton

Legend
The following changes have been made to D&D without the need to "dismiss an entire canon", so I don't see why further changes should:
  1. Class name "Fighter" instead of "Fighting Man" (1978).
  2. Removal of sex-based ability score limits (1989).
  3. Use of female pronouns as well as male (2000).
  4. Removal of "mongrel" as a term for half-orcs (2000).
  5. Introduction of non-white adventurers in the core rulebooks' art (2000), further increased in 2008.
  6. Announcement about "culturally complex" orcs and drow, changes to the Vistani, and other issues relating to diversity (2020).
  7. Removal of alignment from the monsters in Candlekeep Mysteries (2021).
Gygax in his PHB and DMG uses feminine as well as masculine pronouns. The use of solely masculine pronouns comes later - I haven't checked all the later AD&D books, but OA and the 2nd ed corebooks use masculine pronouns. I don't know why this step was taken - I don't believe that the "him or her"/"his or her" that is found throughout Gygax's books has ever caused any readability issues.
 

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top