Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="transmission89" data-source="post: 8326037" data-attributes="member: 6688441">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.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.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).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?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.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.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.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).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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification