D&D General Why are "ugly evil orcs" so unpopular?

[DemoMonkey]

So if you described a race of beings as "beautiful", "refined", "elegant", "cultured" and other terms NOT "used by colonizers to dehumanize and oppress indigenous people" THEN it would be ok to say they are all evil?






...like the Drow?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Tolkien himself wrote that orcs were: "squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types"

Tolkien scholar, Roger Echo-Hawk, offers, in my view, the most plausible explanation for why he gave his orcs the appearance of a subset of Asian people – it was a response to Japanese involvement in WWII.

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.​

Tolkien in Pawneeland 2e (2016):

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)

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)

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)​

 

[Bolares]

o/

There’s definitely more than just a handful of us. I think you’ll find the Venn diagram of folks who like Eberron and folks who want non-evil options for gnolls is very nearly a single circle.

Here here o/

 

[Bolares]

If every D&D setting ended up like Eberron, Eberron loses that specialness. It becomes D&D with choo-choo trains. It stops being against type because it is not THE type.

I really disagree with this. Eberron is not great because it's different. Eberron is great because it has good ideas in it. D&D has been getting closer and closer to Eberron over the years (alignment, less racial definitions and more cultural definitions...) and I think it's great!

 

[Bill Zebub]

That’s the thing though, the nazis weren’t evil because they were German, they were evil because they were part of a fascist regime. If you had a fascist orc nation, they would be evil because they were fascist, not because they were orcs. Orcs who were not part of that nation could be good. And non-orcs could fight on their side too.

I think the really interesting question here, though, is that if we do this, and we basically treat orcs as...well, human...then why not just make your fascist nation a human one? How does it improve the story by making them orcs? Why even bother having orcs in the game?

The only good reason I have is that it might get us thinking about racism and stereotypes, but that's a meta-reason. I'm not sure it actually makes the story any better.

And that in itself illustrates (to me) both why orcs are problematic, and why so many people don't want to let go of that traditional portrayal.

Notice how you said “a cultutal atmosphere” and then said “a race of all evil orcs.” That’s the crux of the issue. Race =/= culture, and treating a race as evil is generally not considered acceptable these days. If you want to have a culture of evil orcs, that’s fine, but they probably shouldn’t be the only orcs in your setting.

Here I'll disagree with you slightly. I don't want to tell other people what's ok in their setting.

But I do think they probably shouldn't be the only orcs in the officially published setting.

 

[Bird Of Play]

Notice how you said “a cultutal atmosphere” and then said “a race of all evil orcs.” That’s the crux of the issue. Race =/= culture, and treating a race as evil is generally not considered acceptable these days. If you want to have a culture of evil orcs, that’s fine, but they probably shouldn’t be the only orcs in your setting.

They're orcs. They're not human.
Look at cats. Look at dogs. No matter how very different an individual cat or an individual dog can be, ALL cats have certain behavioural traits and ALL dogs have certain have certain behavioural traits.
So we can say all humans have certain traits, and all orcs have certain traits.

When you think of orcs as humans, it's like you're saying "a golden retriever is superior to a dobermann". Now that is silly, and I understand how it can be considered racist.

But when you do not think of orcs as humans, you're saying "dogs are different from cats" which is true.

In fact, I shouldn't call them a race, so I could make my point clearer: I should say orcs are a species.

Again, I understand my cultural background is very different from that of an American, so there's some things I say without realizing they may be perceived differently by another culture like America's. So let me make it clear, I see orcs as a different species. I don't want any comparison with human phenotypes. If I wanted that I'd just make a town of humans and make them warmongers or whatever.

This is also why I describe orcs as savage and such: I intend they ARE quite literally beasts.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the really interesting question here, though, is that if we do this, and we basically treat orcs as...well, human...then why not just make your fascist nation a human one? How does it improve the story by making them orcs? Why even bother having orcs in the game?

Because they’re cool. That’s all the reason there needs to be. If you think the fascist nation would be more interesting as humans, go ahead and make them human. If you think they would be more interesting as orcs, go ahead and make them orcs. Making races more varied gives us more options as creators, which is a good thing.

The only good reason I have is that it might get us thinking about racism and stereotypes, but that's a meta-reason. I'm not sure it actually makes the story any better.

Why not just for variety? Or because orcs look cool? Because you want to give the fascist nation a certain flavor that you think orcs suit better than some other race. Why not just “I wanted to”? I don’t understand this obsession with having to justify making a character any race other than human. It actually weirdly parallels discussions about representation in media, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

Here I'll disagree with you slightly. I don't want to tell other people what's ok in their setting.

But I do think they probably shouldn't be the only orcs in the officially published setting.

No, you’re right about that. I waffled a bit on how to word that paragraph because I didn’t want to come across as telling people what’s ok in their setting; if an individual person wants all orcs to be evil in their own home campaign (and their players are onboard for it,) that’s their own business. But I wouldn’t want the only orcs in my setting to be evil, and I also don’t think that should be the case in the default D&D setting.

 

[John R Davis]

Treat them as a virus and smoosh them

 

[Deset Gled]

Looking at the wording there, Tolkien refers to what the average European thinks are the "least lovely Mongol-types", not his own perspective on any Asian "type".

Going even further down the rabbit hole, "mongol" used to be a medical term for Down's Syndrome. It was used to describe the physical aspects of the syndrome, long before the chromosomal link was understood. Wikipedia shows that it appeared in scientific journals as late as 1961.

So, at the time, Tolkien was actually using a more "scientific" physical descriptor, rather than a simple racial term. The M word was an acceptable phrase then. It's not now. See also: idiot, hysteria, etc. There's lots of cases to be made of racism in orc history, but this is a particularly weak example.

 

[Charlaquin]

They're orcs. They're not human.
Look at cats. Look at dogs. No matter how very different an individual cat or an individual dog can be, ALL cats have certain behavioural traits and ALL dogs have certain have certain behavioural traits.
So we can say all humans have certain traits, and all orcs have certain traits.

When you think of orcs as humans, it's like you're saying "a golden retriever is superior to a dobermann". Now that is silly, and I understand how it can be considered racist.

But when you do not think of orcs as humans, you're saying "dogs are different from cats" which is true.

In fact, I shouldn't call them a race, so I could make my point clearer: I should say orcs are a species.

Again, I understand my cultural background is very different from that of an American, so there's some things I say without realizing they may be perceived differently by another culture like America's. So let me make it clear, I see orcs as a different species. I don't want any comparison with human phenotypes. If I wanted that I'd just make a town of humans and make them warmongers or whatever.

This is also why I describe orcs as savage and such: I intend they ARE quite literally beasts.

You can call them a different species than human all you want, but that doesn’t accurately describe the way they are actually depicted. The relationship between various humanoid “races” in D&D is more like the relationship between different breeds of dog than it is like the relationship between dogs and cats. Really, it’s most like the relationship between anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals. Which are classified as different species, but could (and did) interbreed with anatomically modern humans. Now, Neanderthals are extinct, but if they were alive today, I guarantee that calling them “bestial” or “primitive” would be considered racist. In fact it’s iffy even with them being extinct, because the very concepts are rooted in colonialism.