Orcs- Problematic, Or Just Poorly Written?

If you're a gamer on any social media right now, then you've no doubt seen the firestorms surrounding the Why Orcs Are Problematic post that's been going around. On one side of the argument you have players shouting, "We know, we've been saying this for years!" and on the other side of it you have players rolling their eyes and shouting back, "Orcs aren't even real, Jesus Christ not everything is racist!"

Artist's depiction of the comments section.

The problem here is that the argument is often couched in black-and-white, binary terms. Either orcs are problematic, or they're not. However, there's a lot going on beneath the surface, and a lot to think about. Not just in gaming in general, but also in terms of the fiction we draw on, the stories we tell, and the attitudes that are often baked-in with the games we consume.

So if you're looking for a deeper dive beyond the two options presented above (or if you're confused and looking for context) hopefully this Monday's post will help you out a bit.

But if that's not really your bag, well, my latest Critical Hits module from TPK just dropped this weekend, so you could go check out The Ghosts of Sorrow Marsh instead!

Seriously, go give it some love!

First Things First, What is an Orc?

Most of us already know the answer, so go ahead and say it with me! Orcs, as a creation of J.R.R. Tolkien were inherently evil humanoid creatures who served the dark lord and made up the ranks of his foot soldiers. They were corrupted, wicked, and they made up the muscle of the threat our heroes had to face.

Check out so far?

In their original incarnation, the orcs were symbolic as much as they were an actual threat to be dealt with. They were also monolithic; the orcs were a hoard, and there was no real, important difference between them. Some might be bigger, some might be meaner, some might be more skilled, but orcs were generally painted with a pretty broad brush. Which, one might argue, was one part of the initial problem.

The Depictions (And Evolution) of Orcs

Elements of this mythology maintained in Dungeons and Dragons' early days. Orcs were repulsive creatures who were brutal, violent, disorganized, and they typically worshiped/were bound to a dark god who demanded slaughter, sacrifice, and debased acts. While I would argue that maintaining a monolithic culture, and not giving orcs a great deal of depth were issues in the writing, the other issues actually came from their art in the early days.

And speaking of problematic art...

As was mentioned in the article, orcs were often depicted bearing weapons and armor inspired by non-European nations of the real world. Now, this was definitely fantasy, and there was no one issue of an orc carrying a kukri or wearing mirror armor that was a problem individually... it was the trend. It was the broad overall pattern that drew the battle lines in purely visual terms. Orcs were universally savage, brutal, and they carried weapons that bore a striking resemblance to India, China, Mongolia, and the Middle East. The heroes were drawing on the aesthetics and inspiration of Western European heroes, and so we have what might literally look like caricatures of East v. West.

Was that intentional? No, probably not. Just as Tolkien didn't state in his books that orcs were supposed to be based on any particular ethnicity or to represent any one group (though he did state in his letters he was drawing on specific ethnicities to make them seem more foreign to his projected European readers), the initial intent was probably not to say Europe good, non-Europe bad. Doesn't mean that's not how it came across, though.

Things got more problematic when orcs stopped just being corrupted evil beings and were given free will and choice. The creation of half-orcs (and eventually of orcs becoming PCs) meant that monsters who had once been entirely used for plot devices now had to become a varied and organic part of the world. But as we saw in Volo's Guide, as mentioned in the original article, there is still a clinging to the idea that all orcs are brutish, savage, and incapable of true empathy and understanding. They're always, at their core, monsters by their very nature. Inhuman. Other.

This becomes really problematic when you look at orcs as a big picture under those circumstances. Because if they can have children with humans, that raises questions of agency, of decisions, and of stereotyping. What was once a generic plot-filler threat is now an entire category made up of individuals who by the lore can be, do, and become what they want the same as any other character. Yet they're still treated as savage, backward, and lesser at the same time. That's frustrating for players who want to be orcs, but it also continues the trend of maintaining that problematic message.

Our Fiction Inherits Baggage (Whether Like It Or Not)

 I grew up reading pulp fiction, and there is a breathtaking amount of racism and sexism in those stories. A lot of it was a product of its time, but many among us forget that the stories and tropes of that time didn't just get uprooted and replaced with shiny, new stuff that nixed the problematic descriptions. Many of these elements endured and maintained, until we didn't see them as products of prejudiced attitudes; they were just the way these stories were told.

Bob Chipman explained it particularly well using the trope of The Lost City.

For those who didn't watch it, the trope of The Lost City has its roots deep in European colonialism to Africa. Explorers would find these ancient ruins, and they would be flabbergasted that something like this could be found in Africa. They turned themselves inside out trying to explain it, ignoring the obvious that perhaps they were built by the ancestors of the people who still lived there. Nonsense! Black people could never comprehend the skill or ability it would take to build a castle, ridiculous!

And as Bob points out, that trope kept coming back over the generations. It existed in the time of the pulps, and early adventure fiction, it showed up in Indiana Jones, it was latched onto by games like Tomb Raider and Uncharted... it's a part of so many stories it would take a huge list to lay them all out.

Does that make all the stories who used this trope racist simply because they have their roots in a colonialist view? No, it doesn't. But it is important to hold these stories at arm's length, and ask what part of the original ancestor has survived and thrived in the current example, and how it was able to make it all the way into the modern incarnation. And, perhaps, what to do to fix it so that baggage doesn't weigh on the narrative.

For those looking for a real-world example, The Liberal Redneck Manifesto talks about the battle flag of northern Virginia... what a lot of people immediately think of as the Confederate flag. It was flown in a losing war, and then it was resurrected as a symbol of hate by organizations like the KKK, and by segregationists who wanted to cow and frighten black people. The flag became a symbol of several Southern musicians as well, and it was adopted by many who saw it as a rebel icon... the problem was that it still held all those older, more awful connotations for black people, and other ethnic minorities. So even if someone wears that flag because it's something waved around by a musician they like, or it's something they associate with family and good times at home, it's important to recognize that there's more to its legacy than the parts you've seen and know. You have to look at all of it, and at what message it sends to other people.

Oh, So Now It's Racist To Have Orcs as Bad Guys?

This is probably the dumbest thing I've seen come out of this conversation, so I'm going to address it here. It is not racist to have orcs as bad guys in your game. It's not racist to play an orc character. The issue arises when people ignore the history of how orcs have been depicted (and the real-life cultures often associated with them through their art, cultural trademarks, etc.), and when they don't put in the work of actually developing orcs in their settings.

There is no replacement for hard work.

As an example, I'm going to turn to Paizo's Golarion setting. When most people think of orcs in this world, they tend to think of the orc hold of Belkzen. This nation is a loose confederation of warring tribes who worship harsh and brutal gods, who value strength, and who were the foot soldiers of a powerful lich king who sought to conquer the world a handful of generations ago. They are, in a very real sense, one of the best takes I've seen on Tolkien's orcs as an organic part of a setting.

However, they are one of dozens of different settlements around the world, and each of them has their own unique culture, background, history, and feel in the context of the setting. The settlement of Averaka is a hard-working fishing village on a northern coast. Orcs and half-orcs in the Mwangi Expanse are often valued for their strength and durability, and they often hold important positions in tribes. Orcs in the deserts form their own familial groups, trading and intermarrying with others. Orcs and half-orcs have a wide variety of traits players and DMs can pick to customize them to a given area, but more importantly the lore of the setting makes it clear that attitudes, styles of society, etc. are a product of their history in a given area, rather than some in-born sameness that all orcs share.

That's the level of work it takes to make a sentient race a real, breathing part of a world and setting, and all of that has to carry through to how they're treated in the world as well. If a settlement is being raided by orcs, ask why, and build that into the adventure. Are they a war band who can't find a master, and they would rather take from the farmers than lay down their swords? Are they starving and pushed out to the edge of the badlands, so they have to steal in order to live? Is there a disagreement over the terms of a peace treaty, or are they mercenaries whose services have been bought by a bigger NPC with a hidden agenda? Is this a land-bound group of pirates looking to get back on the river, but they need the resources to repair their ship?

All of those are workable, and they add extra depth and meaning, allowing orcs to stand on their own as characters instead of as caricatures.

Lastly, Consider The Problematic Core of Many Adventures

Now, I know we're talking about orcs here, but this is something that Mark T. Hrisho brought up on his blog and I think it's a point worth adding to the discussion. Because a lot of our fantasy RPGs have another piece of baggage that has colored many of our monstrous races; mainly that if a given area of the map doesn't have people who look like our party living in it, then it doesn't really qualify as settled or explored territory. It is, instead, the edge of the known world, and the last edge of real civilization beyond which lives only darkness, and savagery.

Helmets on, I hear comments coming!

How many adventures have you played in tabletop RPGs, or even in video games, where you took on quests to "clear out" local monster infestations in the area? Caverns full of goblins, hills teeming with kobolds, mountaintop ogres, or the ever-present roving bands of orcs? If you've been in the hobby any length of time, you can probably think of several games that started you off this way.

And I'm not the first one to point out that in these scenarios we're basically barging into these creatures' homes, killing their families, and taking their stuff.

Even if it's not a job to kill a certain number of non-humans, these scenarios are often painted as, "protecting the light from the darkness of the savage lands," or something similar. Which basically states that none of the cultures of the other beings who call this region home, from the lizard men, to the catfolk, to the gnolls, are "real" people. They're just savages. Monsters. Little better than animals, and often not even worth as much XP.

Am I saying that fantasy RPGs who use this framework purposefully set out to be some kind of subliminal argument for the ideas of Manifest Destiny, or declarations in favor of colonialism? No. However, messages exist in fiction whether they're intended or not. Just like how early Disney princesses being damsels in distress wasn't likely intended to send the message to young girls that they had no agency and should wait to be rescued, but it can be argued that message is present regardless of the intention.

"Problematic" isn't a term reserved only for racial slurs and misogynist rants; it means that we need to look at the history of something, the messages within it, and how it came to be what it is. We need to be intellectually curious, honest with the history, and we need to understand that just because someone didn't intend something to send the wrong message, say the wrong thing, or to smuggle in an offensive attitude, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Because it's only by looking these elements full in the face that we can make the games we love better, deeper, more complex, and in the end, less problematic.

And like I said in It's Okay To Admit There Are Problems in Your Hobby, you can like something problematic without being problematic by association. But we should all seek to be intellectually curious about these issues, and to remember that just because it may not affect us personally, that doesn't mean it's somehow not a real issue.

Like, Follow, and Stay in Touch!

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday!

Again, for more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, and stop by the YouTube channel Dungeon Keeper Radio. Or if you'd prefer to read some of my books, like my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife or my latest short story collection The Rejects, then head over to My Amazon Author Page!

To stay on top of all my latest releases, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now Pinterest as well! To support my work, consider Buying Me a Ko-Fi, or heading to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a regular, monthly patron. That one helps ensure you get more Improved Initiative, and it means you'll get my regular, monthly giveaways as a bonus!

The 5 RPG Characters We Should Stop Playing

The great thing about roleplaying games is that they provide us with escapism, and entertainment. And while everyone's escapism is different, there are certain character archetypes that show up again and again no matter what game you're playing. Whether you're dragon hunting in the newest edition from Wizards of the Coast, enjoying shadow politics in one of the incarnations of Vampire from Onyx Path, or gearing up to take on the multiverse in Savage Worlds, Rifts, GURPs, or any of a hundred other games, here are some PCs you should probably avoid bringing to the table.

Also, this turned out to be a lightning rod for controversy. So, if your thirst for controversial advice hasn't been sated by the end of this post, go check out It's Okay To Admit There Are Problems In Your Hobby or instead head over to take a look at I Don't Really Care What Gygax Had To Say (Appeal To Authority in RPGs). Trust me, they're both well worth your time!

Also, I recently wrote a follow-up post to this list! So if you felt I missed a few archetypes, you might find them in 5 More RPG Characters We Should Stop Playing.

#1: The Bigot

We've all seen this character. Maybe you're in an Old West or 1920s setting, and the player wanted to try being "authentic" to the time period. You might be in a fantasy setting, and one player at the table rolled a die to declare that he was actively prejudiced towards one of the base races of the world. Most of the time this decision isn't made to be offensive, but that doesn't change the fact that the results usually are.

White swans are inferior. Got a problem?

Think about that job you had for a while where one of your co-workers thought it was perfectly fine to talk about women's bodies right in front of them using crude, offensive language. Or that time you were stuck on a company road trip, and discovered your manager wanted to tell you he was surprised that you were unlike all the other Asian/Hispanic/African Americans he'd ever worked with, and then proceeded to list off his secret opinions of what an entire group of people was actually like. If you're lucky enough that you've never been in a situation like this, use your imagination. That is an uncomfortable position to be in, and it's never a good idea to purposefully bring a time bomb like that to a game where everyone's trying to have fun.

But, if You're Going To Do It Anyway...

If you decide that your character must be prejudiced in some way, it's your responsibility to sit down and put some heavy thought into why and how that came about. For example, you've decided your paladin is sexist. That's fine, but why? Is it because he was raised to view women as delicate, and to put them on pedestals (a white knight in more than one way), and he insists that his view of an entire gender take precedence over reality? If your dwarf has a noted prejudice against orcs and half-breeds, what form does that prejudice take? After all, if you've fought an enemy for decades, or centuries, there's no denying their courage, strength, and viciousness. So, does the dwarf instead believe that orcs lack discipline and control? Would this lead said dwarf to talk down to orc party-members, acting more like a disapproving father than a co-worker? Or does he believe orcs are stupid, and therefore ignores strategy and knowledge that is perfectly valid because of its source?

The biggest thing you need to ask, though, is how are you going to maintain prejudice that doesn't stand up in the face of reality? Prejudice, by its very nature, is a broad judgment of a people. If you believe gnomes are cowards, or that fae are all capricious, how will you alter your beliefs when they don't hold up? Characters need to develop, and the Bigot is one who needs more development than most.

#2: The Joke

This one is particularly problematic with newer players, who often confuse silliness with creativity. Maybe it's the guy who comes to Vampire, and uses his potent Disciplines to bend people's minds in order to make them re-enact The Emperor's New Clothes. It might be the new player who decided to play a thief who steals everything that isn't nailed down, purely because the image of a burglar with a bulging sack filled with her compatriots' belongings never fails to get a giggle from the player. At its basest form, the joke character is that guy who comes into game with a character who acts like a cat. It's amusing the first time, but like a 25 cent gumball, loses its flavor in a big damn hurry.

Yeah, it was very funny. Now hold still.

Characters should have quirks, and players should feel free to embrace personalities from all ends of the spectrum. Characters who are genuinely funny, or completely unique, should be encouraged. Joke characters, though, are neither of these things.

But, if You're Going to Do It Anyway...

If you really can't let the concept go, then you have to transform it from a joke into an actual character. Say, for example, you had a character who was a bard, but who was a terrible bard. Can't sing, can't dance, and all his music is off-key. Sure, that's amusing in a "wow, this guy really sucks at his job," kind of way, but the joke will only last until the end of the first character introduction. The question you need to ask is, if this character is awful at music, what is he good at? For example, was he a drill sergeant in the army before leaving, and his battle cries and strategy are unmatched, giving huge benefits to his allies when the swords come out? Is he actually a barbarian, who can shatter skulls with his lute, and then write a truly terrible tune about it afterward?

A joke is a one-note character. You need to write an entire song, and to figure out what's going to still be useful and endearing about the character once the joke's already been told.

#3: The Mute

This one always sounds like a good idea, ironically, but it is rarely as great as the player thinks it will be. In the player's mind, a mute character is sort of like Ariel in The Little Mermaid; we'll be paying more attention to them, because we'll want to know why they can't talk. In reality, though, mute characters tend to get sidelined because so much of the interaction at the table involves speaking. The result is that even if the player who brought a mute character thought it was a good idea, he or she will quickly get frustrated that everyone ignores them.

At which point they have to communicate in exaggerated expressions.

The most frustrating part of the mute character is that you might have a really cool story behind why you can't talk. Demon stole your voice in exchange for a boon, you're operating under a curse from a sea hag, or you're pulling a Silent Bob and just never talking until that one moment in the adventure where it will make everyone's head turn. But that moment isn't going to be in a few hours; it's going to be months until you get to drop that bombshell. If you ever do.

But, if You're Going To Do It Anyway...

If you insist that you can make your mute character work, there are a lot of things you should consider. The most obvious is a partner; a Jay to your Silent Bob, if you will. This could be another player at the table, or even a character under the storyteller's control, but the point is you have a mouthpiece that will keep you involved, even if your character isn't talking.

The other thing you need to think about is the point of playing a mute character. For example, say you're involved in a shadowy Call of Cthulhu game where you're playing a mute who is also an expert in mythos lore. However, you have a secondary role for the storyteller as the head of the local Cult of Hastur, and you keep silent around your compatriots so they won't connect that you are also the threatening voice on the phone trying to manipulate their movements. That kind of double-blind situation can be very rewarding, and you're plugged into the action because you're spying on what the party is doing. However, not being able to speak is a huge handicap that rarely pays off the way we think it will in our roleplaying.

#4: The Hedonist

We've all seen this character at least once, and it's one of the only kind that travels in flocks. It's the bard who decides to try to seduce the queen, in the throne room, while the king is delivering your quest. It's the changeling who decides he's going to just chill at the bar, and refuse to get on the plot bus unless it makes a stop downtown in front of his favorite watering hole. It's that one guy who comes along on your spy mission, and thinks it would be a topping idea to start shooting up medical grade amphetamines that actually hinder his prowess while trying to sneak into an enemy base.

In short, it's the character who should really be an NPC.

"The necromancer raises his staff, and-" I seduce him!

The Hedonist is all play, no work, and tends to make amazingly stupid decisions as a result. The best case scenario is that the character stays behind at the tavern. The worst case scenario is that you brought their scabrous, drunken ass with you into a place where you're actually depending on them to perform.

But, if You're Going To Do It Anyway...

The key to the Hedonist is the same as the Joke; develop past the one-note character trait. You have a drunken dwarf, who never goes anywhere without a supply of spirits. Okay, good for you. Add some drama to that situation by asking, why? Is it because the character is coping with the emotional trauma of making a living by putting his ax into thinking, feeling creatures in exchange for gold? Is it because the wound that got him dismissed from service, and brought shame to his family, still pains him, and he drinks to numb it?

These kinds of questions can deepen the character, and add layers of personality you weren't expecting. Everything from drinking and drugs, to sex and gambling can be made relevant in a character's story. As long as, that is, the character can still do his or her job when called upon to strap up and ride out.

#5: The Misanthrope

This is the character we all dread showing up at our tables. They have no interest in making friends, they don't care about teamwork, and generally give the impression that they would be much happier if tabletop games came with a single-player version. They're usually trying to reach for the essence of characters like Batman or Wolverine, but instead they just end up as surly murderhobos who will grumble and growl until it's time to kill more things.

No, I won't shower. I don't care what you think.

Misanthropes are one of two things. Either they're incomplete characters, or they're a result of a player forgetting that roleplaying games are a team-oriented pastime. Either way, the reaction to the misanthrope is going to be strained patience at best, or letting him get eaten by a dragon at worst.

But, if You're Going To Do It Anyway...

Don't. The proper answer to the misanthrope is to go back to the drawing board, and fill in the blanks until you have a character that can work with compatriots in order to achieve his or her goals.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to be friendly. It doesn't mean you need a ray of sunshine to shoot from your nether regions. What it does mean, though, is that you need to design a character that can act like an adult when it's time to follow the plot. Whether that's taking point on a government black ops team going after ancient cults in deep jungles, or working with a team of monster hunters trying to beard the local vampire prince in his own court, is up to you.

Easy ways to hammer a misanthrope into a more acceptable shape include making him part of an official organization (so the storyteller can simply order him into areas, as a commanding officer), attaching him to one of the other PCs (lifelong friend, trusted partner, or someone he owes a debt to. The misanthrope might not say it out loud, but he cares about this person), or simply making sure his aggression is pointed toward the enemy, rather than his allies.

You Can Make Any of These Work

As I've tried to point out, a good roleplayer can turn any of these archetypes into a complex, compelling character. However, most of us are nowhere near as good as we think we are, and the execution often falls far short of the image we had in our heads. Additionally, there are just certain concepts that fly in the face of a game's flavor, and canon. So, while I don't want to discourage players from stretching out, and trying new things, I would strongly caution against bringing monkey wrenches into a game.

If your character is going to cause a strain, whether it's because there's friction with other PCs, he won't follow plot hooks, or his concept simply can't pick up his share of the work load, it's time to go back to the drawing board. You won't have fun with it, and neither will anyone else at the table.

As always, thanks for popping in to check out my latest update here on Moon Pope Monday. If you want to help support me and my blog, then consider bopping over to my Patreon page to become a patron today! As little as $1 a month can be a big help, and it will keep content just like this coming your way. Also, if you don't want to miss any of my updates, then consider following my on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter! Lastly, I've got more content in my Gamers archive, and if you want to hear me and other talented gamers build our own little world full of adventure and advice, check out Dungeon Keeper Radio!