D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[Hussar]

It's fine. I'll just go back to ignoring this line of discussion ... it's been a long day and I just don't care any more.

It is in practically every fantasy novel that I've read: orcs evil. Call me a traditionalist I don't have a problem with some creatures being monsters just because they're roughly humanoid in shape.

See, there's the issue right there, "in practically every fantasy novel" you've ever read. The thing is, practically every fantasy novel you've ever read, particularly anything published before about 1990, was steeped in bigotry, racism, sexism and colonialism. The entire genre was founded on these concepts. I know we all like to pretend that it isn't, but, it's so in your face obvious when you step back for a moment. Conan, Tarzan, any of the pulp writers, all the way through to Tolkien and others in more latter times, the genre has ALWAYS had a massive problem with embedding racisms into the text.

"Well, demons can be attacked on sight, so, orcs can be too" is so unbelievably tone deaf. Demons and devils aren't written as stand ins for real world peoples and cultures. Xenomorphs aren't meant to evoke real world cultures. In all those "practically every fantasy novels" that you read, orc were written with a DIRECT correlation to real world people. Typically people with higher melanin counts than the writer's. THAT'S the issue. Not that it is or isn't done with this or that fantasy race. But that certain fantasy races, typically the humanoids, have ALWAYS been written from a colonialist point of view.

Why do you think humans in Star Trek are better than everyone else? We're more civilized than the Klingons, we're smarter and better at problem solving than the Vulcans. The Romulans are inscrutable and conniving. The Ferrengi are all about greed. Yet, only humans show the entire range of intelligence and society. Gee, not really hard to read between the lines here, is it?

So, no, it's not that "well in my world, orcs are created evil so that makes it okay to kill on sight" that's the problem. The problem is that for about the last hundred years, fantasy and SF writers have used "orcs" of various stripes as very obvious analogues to "lesser" people and that it's perfectly acceptable to kill them, harm them, steal from them and whatever because they are "less" than real people. We're obviously superior, so, it's fine that we defeat them and oppose them, and show them the "right" way to behave.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

See, there's the issue right there, "in practically every fantasy novel" you've ever read. The thing is, practically every fantasy novel you've ever read, particularly anything published before about 1990, was steeped in bigotry, racism, sexism and colonialism. The entire genre was founded on these concepts. I know we all like to pretend that it isn't, but, it's so in your face obvious when you step back for a moment. Conan, Tarzan, any of the pulp writers, all the way through to Tolkien and others in more latter times, the genre has ALWAYS had a massive problem with embedding racisms into the text.

"Well, demons can be attacked on sight, so, orcs can be too" is so unbelievably tone deaf. Demons and devils aren't written as stand ins for real world peoples and cultures. Xenomorphs aren't meant to evoke real world cultures. In all those "practically every fantasy novels" that you read, orc were written with a DIRECT correlation to real world people. Typically people with higher melanin counts than the writer's. THAT'S the issue. Not that it is or isn't done with this or that fantasy race. But that certain fantasy races, typically the humanoids, have ALWAYS been written from a colonialist point of view.

Why do you think humans in Star Trek are better than everyone else? We're more civilized than the Klingons, we're smarter and better at problem solving than the Vulcans. The Romulans are inscrutable and conniving. The Ferrengi are all about greed. Yet, only humans show the entire range of intelligence and society. Gee, not really hard to read between the lines here, is it?

So, no, it's not that "well in my world, orcs are created evil so that makes it okay to kill on sight" that's the problem. The problem is that for about the last hundred years, fantasy and SF writers have used "orcs" of various stripes as very obvious analogues to "lesser" people and that it's perfectly acceptable to kill them, harm them, steal from them and whatever because they are "less" than real people. We're obviously superior, so, it's fine that we defeat them and oppose them, and show them the "right" way to behave.

Does that make it clearer?

But also, just because that happened in the past doesn't mean that's what is happening here. His orcs could be based on no human culture (unless you count jerks as a culture) or a culture that he made up.

 

[Oofta]

See, there's the issue right there, "in practically every fantasy novel" you've ever read. The thing is, practically every fantasy novel you've ever read, particularly anything published before about 1990, was steeped in bigotry, racism, sexism and colonialism. The entire genre was founded on these concepts. I know we all like to pretend that it isn't, but, it's so in your face obvious when you step back for a moment. Conan, Tarzan, any of the pulp writers, all the way through to Tolkien and others in more latter times, the genre has ALWAYS had a massive problem with embedding racisms into the text.

"Well, demons can be attacked on sight, so, orcs can be too" is so unbelievably tone deaf. Demons and devils aren't written as stand ins for real world peoples and cultures. Xenomorphs aren't meant to evoke real world cultures. In all those "practically every fantasy novels" that you read, orc were written with a DIRECT correlation to real world people. Typically people with higher melanin counts than the writer's. THAT'S the issue. Not that it is or isn't done with this or that fantasy race. But that certain fantasy races, typically the humanoids, have ALWAYS been written from a colonialist point of view.

Why do you think humans in Star Trek are better than everyone else? We're more civilized than the Klingons, we're smarter and better at problem solving than the Vulcans. The Romulans are inscrutable and conniving. The Ferrengi are all about greed. Yet, only humans show the entire range of intelligence and society. Gee, not really hard to read between the lines here, is it?

So, no, it's not that "well in my world, orcs are created evil so that makes it okay to kill on sight" that's the problem. The problem is that for about the last hundred years, fantasy and SF writers have used "orcs" of various stripes as very obvious analogues to "lesser" people and that it's perfectly acceptable to kill them, harm them, steal from them and whatever because they are "less" than real people. We're obviously superior, so, it's fine that we defeat them and oppose them, and show them the "right" way to behave.

Does that make it clearer?

In my world, orcs are not a stand-in for anything but ubiquitous boogey men that live in the hills. Most cultures have some kind of monster that lurks in the dark. Sometimes they're humanoid, sometimes they're not.

Much like trolls or ... well any other monster. I simply see no reason to distinguish between orcs, gnolls, beholders, succubi or any other number of evil monsters.

But it goes back to a simple issue. If orcs are not necessarily evil, why are other monsters not necessarily evil? What about red dragons or chokers or beholders? After all they are just more stand-ins for the unknown, for monsters lurking in the dark.

Is it because they have the correct number of limbs in a proper arrangement? Because they share any number of other attributes with other creatures that people slap the evil label on with nary a second thought.

Want to change them? Feel free.

I do have more of a problem with sci-fi homogeneous cultures, particularly in Star Trek. It's always struck me as silly in some ways. Then again Vulcans are not human and it's really difficult to represent what a truly alien intelligence would be like. I can't think of a movie/TV show that's really done it much justice.

 

[Lanefan]

Really it’s more that the D&D multiverse makes little sense. If you treat each world as if the others don’t exist, things work much better.

Multiverse theory in general doesn't make any sense.

There's one universe (that's what the 'uni' part means!) in which are all these different worlds and planes and so forth. To say otherwise is the same as trying to define infinity as a multiple of infinity, a pointless exercise.

I've always liked the idea that if you're standing under a clear night sky somewhere on Faerun, if you happen to look in the right directon at the right time you'll see the distant star around which orbits Golarion; meanwhile all the other worlds and settings are busy orbiting their own stars out there somewhere...

 

[Lanefan]

I think the thing with wizards is that their personal ciphers are just that, personal. They can't be used to communicate with other wizards, so no need for it to go down as a language.

I think that would largely depend on how much inter-communication there is between wizards. If they form guilds (common in my games) then the guild is going to have its own ciphers for members only, and individual members could then use these ciphers among themselves.

Also it'd depend on how secretive wizards generally are in a given setting.

 

[Hussar]

But also, just because that happened in the past doesn't mean that's what is happening here. His orcs could be based on no human culture (unless you count jerks as a culture) or a culture that he made up.

But, that doesn't erase the reason why people find it objectionable. He's still building on those tropes. The tropes are based in racist colonialism.

Which, @Oofta, is the reason why werewolves and demons aren't objectionable. There isn't a century of genre fiction based on the debasement of real world peoples and cultures through the use of these tropes. Demons and devils aren't used as part of the trope because demons, devils, dragons, and beholders are POWERFUL. They are to top of the food chain. They are more powerful than we are. So, they are respected, and not treated as stand ins for "lesser" races.

Orcs, and other humanoids, were never just "stand ins for the unknown". They were stand ins for the very much known and believed - that other races, although they look like us, talk like us, and are in most ways pretty much the same as us, aren't actually like us. They are less than us. They are not as strong, smart, good, noble, whatever, as us. It's not a secret why D&D worlds were almost universally humanocentric. It's based on the cultural imperialism and colonialism of the time. It's just that now it's being called out for the racism that it is.

Now, to be fair, and to jump to the other side of the fence for a bit, look at Star Trek DS9's treatment of Ferrengi. At the outset, Ferrengi were just "the greedy race". Then the writers actually (ahem) humanized them with characters like Nog, his father and Moogie, where the culture is broadened and no longer were the Ferrengi just "the greedy guys". That's how you get around the colonist approach to race that D&D has. Which is what people are talking about @Oofta. If all your orcs are just "stand ins for the unknown" then you're just perpetuating the stereotype and buying into the trope. Fair enough, but, recognize what you're doing. OTOH, if your orcs go from unknown to known (perhaps with a half-orc PC or NPC?) and a broader culture is presented, then, okay, you are breaking out of the trope.

But, what we cannot do and should never do, is pretend that the trope has any origin other than colonist racism.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

In my world, orcs are not a stand-in for anything but ubiquitous boogey men that live in the hills. Most cultures have some kind of monster that lurks in the dark. Sometimes they're humanoid, sometimes they're not.

Much like trolls or ... well any other monster. I simply see no reason to distinguish between orcs, gnolls, beholders, succubi or any other number of evil monsters.

But it goes back to a simple issue. If orcs are not necessarily evil, why are other monsters not necessarily evil? What about red dragons or chokers or beholders? After all they are just more stand-ins for the unknown, for monsters lurking in the dark.

Is it because they have the correct number of limbs in a proper arrangement? Because they share any number of other attributes with other creatures that people slap the evil label on with nary a second thought.

Want to change them? Feel free.

I do have more of a problem with sci-fi homogeneous cultures, particularly in Star Trek. It's always struck me as silly in some ways. Then again Vulcans are not human and it's really difficult to represent what a truly alien intelligence would be like. I can't think of a movie/TV show that's really done it much justice.

For a lot of creatures, them being evil comes from the fact that Evil is a cosmic force in D&D, and creatures can be either made of (fiends) or powered by (undead) said force. Others could have such an alien mind/physiology that they are evil to basically everything except them (abberations). For the terrestial creatures I could say that do evil things because their brains are hardwired that way, which would open up a whole new can of worms that would be almost purely academic and therefore pretty much useless.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

But, that doesn't erase the reason why people find it objectionable. He's still building on those tropes. The tropes are based in racist colonialism.

To that, I say, "Don't assume malice when ignorance is also possible". Specifically passive ignorance.

Orcs, and other humanoids, were never just "stand ins for the unknown". They were stand ins for the very much known and believed - that other races, although they look like us, talk like us, and are in most ways pretty much the same as us, aren't actually like us. They are less than us. They are not as strong, smart, good, noble, whatever, as us. It's not a secret why D&D worlds were almost universally humanocentric. It's based on the cultural imperialism and colonialism of the time. It's just that now it's being called out for the racism that it is.

But they are for his world, are they not? Just because they are in other cases doesn't mean that they are in all cases.

 

[Oofta]

But, that doesn't erase the reason why people find it objectionable. He's still building on those tropes. The tropes are based in racist colonialism.

Which, @Oofta, is the reason why werewolves and demons aren't objectionable. There isn't a century of genre fiction based on the debasement of real world peoples and cultures through the use of these tropes. Demons and devils aren't used as part of the trope because demons, devils, dragons, and beholders are POWERFUL. They are to top of the food chain. They are more powerful than we are. So, they are respected, and not treated as stand ins for "lesser" races.

Orcs, and other humanoids, were never just "stand ins for the unknown". They were stand ins for the very much known and believed - that other races, although they look like us, talk like us, and are in most ways pretty much the same as us, aren't actually like us. They are less than us. They are not as strong, smart, good, noble, whatever, as us. It's not a secret why D&D worlds were almost universally humanocentric. It's based on the cultural imperialism and colonialism of the time. It's just that now it's being called out for the racism that it is.

Now, to be fair, and to jump to the other side of the fence for a bit, look at Star Trek DS9's treatment of Ferrengi. At the outset, Ferrengi were just "the greedy race". Then the writers actually (ahem) humanized them with characters like Nog, his father and Moogie, where the culture is broadened and no longer were the Ferrengi just "the greedy guys". That's how you get around the colonist approach to race that D&D has. Which is what people are talking about @Oofta. If all your orcs are just "stand ins for the unknown" then you're just perpetuating the stereotype and buying into the trope. Fair enough, but, recognize what you're doing. OTOH, if your orcs go from unknown to known (perhaps with a half-orc PC or NPC?) and a broader culture is presented, then, okay, you are breaking out of the trope.

But, what we cannot do and should never do, is pretend that the trope has any origin other than colonist racism.

I do my best to keep an open mind and be considerate. At the same time, I don't really care if someone somewhere based orcs on something objectionable. If a DM says that all humans with dark skin are low intellect brutal savages I wouldn't play in that game.

Orcs aren't human. It doesn't really matter to me what their origin was any more then the origin of owlbears being a cheap plastic toy. I'm sure someone has written a paper somewhere about the racist origins of dragons. Hags are another example of a truly objectionable misogynistic trope about powerful women ... but so are harpies, succubi and I'm sure several more.

A lot of monsters could be considered objectionable. Drow are the poster child for this ... but I can't make all of the monsters in the MM politically correct.

I'm not sure how many monsters (especially intelligent ones) there would be if we eliminated those that had questionable origins.

I get where you're coming from ... but in my world orcs are simply wired to be evil.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

LE does fit for a tyrant; just because they think they're good rather than evil doesn't mean they are good, it just means they have no clue what their alignment really is.

Nah. Its just a more complicated version of the following:

Doctor dedicates life to saving children.

Kills a hundred kids by accidentally administering the wrong medicine one week due to the manufacture mislabeling a product.

WOOPSY POOPSY! He killed 100 kids. An evil thing. But he didnt think he was doing a bad thing. He INTENDED to do good.

The tyrant in question can be a much more complex version of the same thing. Perhaps he believes certain methods (incorrectly) are truly in the service of good. That makes him "good but mistaken" or "good but with an inacurate perception of good". Not "evil".