I wonder how people would react to Shadowrun where racism is actually a big part of the in game universe…
Only in their fantasies where everything is colored by racism.
There is a lot of racism , hell nearly 50% of Americans voted “I am either a racist or I am OK with it”. but that doesnt mean anything and everything is racist. If you judge a man who you never met, by a single monster he wrote, and decide right then and there he is a Klansman, then maybe you are the problem, not him.
You make the claim, you back it up. Now if you are gonna say that maybe D&D was influenced by racism in American culture- sure, that is more than possible. But you cant go from a vague influence in underlying culture to stating a man is a racist.
“All of this will certainly lead to the question, why is it that the human race is so favored in AD&D? There is no question that human characters have an edge on all others in the long run—even considering the generally unlimited potential for non-human thieves. The bias was placed in the game on the assumption that the vast majority of campaign milieux would be based on human-dominated worlds. Therefore, humans must have some sort of edge. As human adaptability is undoubted, and human capabilities deemed vast by this writer, it seemed to follow that allowing them the full range of possibilities was the best answer. Thus, humans are found in all alignments, in all professions, and so on. The weakest are very weak, the strongest very strong. The human race plumbs the depths and soars to the heights. In AD&D, as in the real world, humankind will certainly attain greatness and domination if it doesn’t destroy itself first through warfare and strife within its own race.” - Gary Gygax, The Dragon, September 1979
Uruk-hai were later bred by the Wizard Saruman the White late in the Third Age, by his dark arts in the pits of Isengard.
In the movie, Saruman says that the first Dark Lord bred the Orcs from captured Elves. He does not explain how Elves could become so corrupted as to turn into Orcs. It may be that the mud-encased pods shown in the movie are Peter Jackson’s attempt to suggest that living Orcs were placed in magical cocoons and transformed into Uruk-hai. This depiction is not inconsistent with the books if only in that it offers one possible explanation for a process that Tolkien himself never seems to have described.
No one but absolutely no one in this thread called Gygax a Klansman. If you are unable to see that, maybe you are the problem, not @Acsenray
I exaggerate to make a point, but he did call him a out and out racist.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they would always coexist. The person whose background made them less sensitive to colorism is more likely to have the opinion that a color difference is no big deal, while the person who has been primed to notice colorism is going to notice it more and have the opinion that it matters.
The question to me is whether one opinion can be said to be more well supported than the other. And it sure seems to me that the latter position is better supported. We have the history of colorist depictions where the “brute” is darker and the good person is lighter. There’s the history of the dark brute stealing the good white woman depiction. We have the fact that apparently people of color were very uncommon in the work anyways. We have the unfortunate implications of taking a light skinned people and then making them evil along with darkening their skin (ala the Mark of Cain or Curse of Ham).
The counterarguments just seem to be “I personally don’t see it” and “I showed my PoC wife, who didn’t mention it.” There’s no actual argument for why the above isn’t a problem. It’s an opinion backed by facts vs. an opinion that is presented like a matter of taste.
Does this mean that the people originally made it were racists? No. Does it mean that you have to be offended by it or you’ll be racist? Of course not. None of that is how cultural analysis works. All that has been shown is that there are racial implications, intended or not, that likely came about due to cultural baggage and ignorance.
And, yes, it’s the same thing as the sexism that they also probably didn’t intend. If you can understand how the drawing would be perceived as sexist, with the tropes and history we know about sexism in depictions, then it doesn’t seem like it should be hard to accept there are racist tropes that are also invoked, even though both are unintentional.
And, of course, this same sort of logic can apply to more of the work than just this one picture. It’s still always going to be about looking at facts, culture, tropes, and history, and seeing which arguments are better supported.
Right. Can’t prove a negative. I can say a thousand reasons why it’s not an issue and just have someone else say “But what about…” as we’ve seen here. If someone wants to enact change, it should start with them able to show a real issue and not just “If you don’t agree, it’s only because you’re not as woke as me”
This isn’t part of D&D orcs. Ironically, this IS part of AD&D Drow and I’ve mentioned it a couple times in this very thread as part of why I see Drow problematic, especially as the dark-skinned PHB player race.
You’re generally arguing reasonably, but this is a very stupid misrepresentation of what folks are saying. Maybe don’t do that.
All of these boil down to “No, you [or your spouse] don’t see it my way because you’re not as enlightened as I am, otherwise you’d be agreeing with me.”
It’s really not, but okay.
That’s okay. That’s how I feel about “Those orcs are racist!” 
People are using “racist” in different ways in this thread. I don’t think anyone meant to imply that Gygax was personally unpleasant to Black people. I think the claim is that the D&D game perpetuated racist stereotypes, and creating it that way was a racist act. Not an intentionally, “I’m out to get the darkie” racist act, but an unconscious and unintentional racist act.
And that’s hardly a remarkable claim to make of any white guy in the 70s.
Also, I’m surprised to hear there were no women involved. I played D&D as a high school girl, or possibly a junior high school girl. I don’t remember exactly what year I started, but I graduated high school in 1980, so before that.
While we’re linking threads, here’s a link to one I posted in Thread Games to see if anyone wants to try a Play By Post game.
Except you haven’t actually made even one argument, let alone 10,000. That was my point. You are treating your personal feelings like they matter more than the evidence-based opinions brought up by others.
If this were a more balanced situation, where people brought up arguments, and then you provided counterarguments, that would be different. But that isn’t what is happening. You seem to have nothing at all to support your opinion other than feelings.
Imagine this were some other topic. I’ll use nonsense words to avoid any biases. We were debating whether zaxxons were really gliberish. One side gave the history of gliberish and how it would apply to zaxxons. The other side say I don’t feel like zaxxons are gliberish, and I asked my wife, and she didn’t mention them being glibberish. And then, when someone pointed this out, they said “well I can’t argue a negative.”
Wouldn’t your conclusion be that the zaxxons were likely glibberish? Or at least that the person arguing they weren’t did not have a good argument?
It has nothing to do with being woke. It has to do with who has made the better argument. It has to do with how you don’t seem to actually have any counterarguments.
As such, the only rational conclusion is that you are either wrong, or at least unable to argue your point. It is frustrating that you instead take away the idea that the bad argument is just as valid as the good one.
Actually, I’ve talked about how the Tolkien history of orcs doesn’t really apply to D&D, made remarks about skin tones, comparisons to Drow, etc. I only mentioned my wife because the flawed argument was made that I personally was only not getting it because I was too white. Of course, without any knowledge of her history or credentials, my wife’s opinion was handwaved with “Well, that’s systemic racism for ya”. But if all you can see is “Well, you just said nope!” then there isn’t much I can do for you.
This is approaching what I think of the “Cat Declawing” point of debate. You have one side passionately convinced that there’s a great moral imperative (“Declawing cats is evil mutilation!”) and the other more or less like “Well, do it or don’t, whatever” without any real zeal because they don’t feel that everyone must declaw, this just don’t agree with the absolutes of the first group. Eventually the first group exhausts the second group down into just not giving a shit about the discussion any longer. If you (generally speaking, not you-you) want to find orcs racist or offensive or whatever, go ahead and do that. I’m not really worried about the sanctity of orckind, I just haven’t found the arguments especially persuasive. If someone needs to tell themselves that it’s because they’re more enlightened or woke, and not because of their arguments just not being especially convincing to anyone not already converted, that’s fine with me.
Not sure I really want to get into this, but FWIW, I agree with the general thrust of this thread that the characterization of orcs as sub-human brutes essentially has its roots in systemic racism. But I don’t know how to understand the above. How can believing that which is true be a bad attitude to have?
If we were to meet an alien species more advanced than us, capable of intellectual feats beyond our smartest minds, would it be wrong to say that they’re more intelligent? Conversely, would if be wrong for them to consider us less intelligent? If we met a species from a planet with higher gravity, who on Earth could lift ten times their body mass, would it be wrong to consider them stronger than us?
I think there can be real differences between different species, and it’s not wrong to acknowledge them. What’s wrong is to pin the (moral) value of an individual from any of these species to these differences—and that’s what’s usually done with orcs: they can be killed, enslaved, and whatnot, with impunity solely because they display certain overt characteristics.
Indeed, any prohibition against acknowledging actually existing distinctions essentially defers to a key racist argument: that such distinctions make a difference. But surely, that there are no meaningful distinctions between humans is essentially accidental; we could’ve been, for instance, like dogs, with a large intra-species variation. Then, it’s not wrong to say that, say, chihuahuas are smaller than Irish setters—but it would be wrong to consider chihuahuas of lesser moral standing on this basis.