D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

[Guest 6801328]

I do notice how in the first two versions, and then again in 5e, the head/neck are shifted forward, which is a common technique to convey a sense of primitivism.

 

[Charlaquin]

That said, you have proven my point that people were claiming I was over-reacting to: it's not just orcs. Its EVERY race. Every race is, at a certain point, an exaggeration of some human culture or trope mixed with a human with a rubber forehead. Dwarves, elves, halflings, orcs, goblins, drow, all of them.

This, absolutely, I agree with 100%.

You can't remove these links without utterly removing them (or what makes them different from humans). The rabbit hole is far deeper than anyone wants to admit.

And this is where the “rubber masks” argument loses me. In what way does making fantasy people’s narrow, reductive caricatures of humans “make them different from humans” and in what way does adding nuance and variety to their depiction remove that distinction? I can accept the argument that all fantasy peoples are ultimately humans with masks - after all, most writers are human, and must by necessity contextualize and interpret these allegedly inhuman characters through the lens of human experience. I can accept the argument that they are not human because they have traits that are alien to humanity, such as incredibly long lifespans, or being carved from stone instead of born, or what have you. What I can’t accept is that the former overrides the latter only when the people have a nuanced and diverse culture. How is that the bridge too far that takes them from fictional creature written by humans to seem non-human to just a funny-looking human? How is depicting them as having a limited subset of cartoonishly exaggerated human characteristics the thing that makes them no longer runner-forehead aliens? It doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Nope, no paternalism here. None at all. Move along.

Maybe some PoC will be more generous than I, and will be right there with you, encouraging you along with kind words and juice boxes, as you take baby steps toward understanding systemic racism and its roots.

LOL, you know every point I have been making has nothing to do with PoC more so than victims of anything. There was a reason I put "baby steps" in quotes. It simply means the first steps towards healing and recovery, which are often compared to "baby steps" or "one step at a time". People most often need the most help then. Heck, the very act of asking for help is usually the hardest!

I know when I needed help, it was the hardest step. And when I needed help overcoming my own problems and refusing to be the victim any longer, that took time and often there were set backs. But ultimately, no one did if for me, I ended up having to climb that mountain myself. Others helped me find the path, but I did the climbing.

So, YOU chose to put the paternal label on it, not me, and that shows me something about you.

This conversation is over, at least as far as I am concerned.

 

[Charlaquin]

I had a longer post but It's impossible to have a discussion when people can't even explain what the fundamental issue is other than relying on the old "X is a problem because I say it is", "we've already proven it" and so on and so forth.

The argument in a nutshell from my perspective:
[LIIST]
[*]Assume that orcs represent a group of real world people
[/LIST]

So, from point 1 you have already misinterpreted the argument being made.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The modern concept is that individual racism has mostly been solved and that it’s a rare thing. What remains is disparate outcomes. One worldview says that those disparate outcomes are a result of a rigged system against people of color. (Aka systemic racism)

Other worldviews say differently. There is no denial of disparate outcomes - but rather a denial that these are a result of a rigged system.

The Issues can be addressed in both worldviews and often In similar ways but not always. But insisting that someone change their worldview isn’t going to bring progress. Insisting that your worldview is correct isn’t going to either.

In terms of this discussion either orcs are already diverse in which case they don’t need much change according to your worldview

Or orcs are racist depictions in which case they need to cease being orcs - because to be orcs as we have always had them is racist. It’s this change that I am against and it’s because of the differences in world view.

If instead you said let’s change the description of orcs in this concrete way such that they are still orcs but I’ve removed a few phrases people dislike I’d be more agreeable. The thing is I’ve not seen anyone suggest to keep orcs as we have them and just change the language. IMO that tells me the real issue isnt the language around orcs but orcs as we have them and if that’s the case it’s a fundamental worldview difference. We might as well stop discussing because no one is changing minds there.

I'm pretty sure Hussar just wants to change the language. He's said so many times.

 

[Charlaquin]

The dreaded term 'disassociated mechanics' was already brought up earlier, and this is getting too close to that for my liking. I mean we literally have a score called 'Strength.' If that score does not measure how strong the character is, then to me it has become a disassociated mechanic. Now, I get that how closely people want their mechanics and lore to be linked varies greatly, but to me this is a big deal and I gladly accept some imbalance if it means mechanics remaining more strongly associated.

Ability scores have been dissociated since at least 3rd edition and I think it’s time we accept that the ship has long since sailed on them ever reflecting characters’ actual inherent capabilities again.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Mate, at the very end of that scene the Journalist (the only reasonable narrator in the scene) states: "Some say the bugs were provoked by human attempts to colonize within the AQZ, that a "live and let live" policy is preferable to war with the bugs..."

The whole premise of that scene is it's a propaganda film, by a Fascist government to support a war of invasion into foreign lands. The director of the film was a Dutch American who lived in Holland during the Nazi occupation. He actually deliberately mirrored Nazi war propaganda in those scenes:



He was making the point that we're the bad guys, and getting people to cheer along with Fascists. He was showing how propaganda, militarism, jingoism and nationalism lead to unquestioning warfare and genocide.

Which is interesting because in the original novel, the author clearly supports the Fascist government (and leaves the question of who started the war open). Verhoeven went a totally different direction in the movie and clearly inferred that fascism is bad, we're the bad guys, and the whole war is basically Operation Barbarossa (the Nazi invasion of Russia) in space.

Of particular note is at the end, when the humans mind probe a captured Bug queen, and all she feels is 'fear'.

And there was much cheering from those humans present.

It was brilliantly done. Almost too brilliant for it's own good.

Yep, I get all that. My point was simply it is a movie, and you never know what happened outside of the scene or written text (for a book).

And when the humans in my game world start squishing little orcs I'd say they're (the humans) the bad guys, too.

But, what some people seem to keep failing to realize is the real issue is the evil we see is within ourselves-- that is why it is so disturbing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ability scores have been dissociated since at least 3rd edition and I think it’s time we accept that the ship has long since sailed on them ever reflecting characters’ actual inherent capabilities again.

Sorry no, I'm not gonna accept it. If that is the case we might as well remove them.

 

[Oofta]

This, absolutely, I agree with 100%.


And this is where the “rubber masks” argument loses me. In what way does making fantasy people’s narrow, reductive caricatures of humans “make them different from humans” and in what way does adding nuance and variety to their depiction remove that distinction? I can accept the argument that all fantasy peoples are ultimately humans with masks - after all, most writers are human, and must by necessity contextualize and interpret these allegedly inhuman characters through the lens of human experience. I can accept the argument that they are not human because they have traits that are alien to humanity, such as incredibly long lifespans, or being carved from stone instead of born, or what have you. What I can’t accept is that the former overrides the latter only when the people have a nuanced and diverse culture. How is that the bridge too far that takes them from fictional creature written by humans to seem non-human to just a funny-looking human? How is depicting them as having a limited subset of cartoonishly exaggerated human characteristics the thing that makes them no longer runner-forehead aliens? It doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

I would just say that there is only so much "nuance" many people want from their games. People only have so much head-space in their game, if every race is extremely complex they blur together for a lot of people. Kind of along the lines of the paradox of choice.

It's not that there's a bridge too far, it's that the default as a simplified caricature works better as a starting point.

For example in my games the Feywild is occasionally important. I've put more thought (and documentation) into the Sidhe and other fey creatures than I have orcs. For example, goblins are originally from the unseelie court (along with trolls and a few others). The version of the goblins in the feywild are different, if you ask them the goblins most people encounter on the prime material are a corrupted version that have been twisted to evil.

Goblins still aren't widely accepted in the prime material because goblins that have rejected the corruption are so rare (there's a single tribe far to the north).

But I can only do that so often for the exception to stand out.

 

[Maxperson]

Ability scores have been dissociated since at least 3rd edition and I think it’s time we accept that the ship has long since sailed on them ever reflecting characters’ actual inherent capabilities again.

In 3e strength determined how much my PC could lift, drag and carry. That reflects inherent capabilities. Dex was quickness of reflexes and agility. That reflected his inherent capabilities. And so on for all 6 stats. 5e is the same. I'm not sure about 4e, but I suspect it was also the same.