The Author meaning Tolkien. You are criticizing his work on a detail that he clarified had no meaning or intention of being applied to a racial stereotype.Seems a rather superficial article that is completely built on assuming the Author intended for Orcs to be compared to whatever.I may have slipped up somewhere in my writing, but I am 100% sure that this article makes no claims to author intent.
Well... he's wrong. He may not have intended it, but his work clearly articulates orc moral depravity through racist language. This fact is inescapable, as I (and many others) have evinced. I actually spend very little time on Tolkien because this ground is well tread. You can google the issue if you care to learn more, but I find Tolkien's work to be bland, and would rather not waste too much time debating of particularities.
@Annabel. There is nothing invisible about oppression. Discussions about oppression maybe, and folks attempts to disguise it through the methods you describe... But you know it when you feel it.
By all means continue discussing the corresponding, interlocking hierarchies, knowledges, and systematic delineations of human difference. I don't find it inaccessible at all. I do get bored however.
Bash the Hateful - Best avatar name I ever saw in Guild Wars.
Well at least we agree about the Tolkster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... he's wrong. He may not have intended it, but his work clearly articulates orc moral depravity through racist language. This fact is inescapable, as I (and many others) have evinced. I actually spend very little time on Tolkien because this ground is well tread. You can google the issue if you care to learn more, but I find Tolkien's work to be bland, and would rather not waste too much time debating of particularities.The Author meaning Tolkien. You are criticizing his work on a detail that he clarified had no meaning or intention of being applied to a racial stereotype.Seems a rather superficial article that is completely built on assuming the Author intended for Orcs to be compared to whatever.I may have slipped up somewhere in my writing, but I am 100% sure that this article makes no claims to author intent.
Again, it only articulates that thought to you because it already existed within the mind of the reader. You are making a connection that Tolkien had not. You and the others making that argument came up with that interpretation, not Tolkien.
I think the issue here is that the author proposed a problem but not really a solution.
Orcs are problematic due to historically ignorant opinions of race.
But consider that as a GM I want to run an adventure. In the adventure someone has stolen a pie. Now I could have a sensitive, tolerant and kindly orc who just happens to like pie steal said pie. But then when the heroes show up what can they do? Talk to the orc so that they can rescue the pie?
Yeah that's a much more culturally sensitive story, but it's not a very interesting one.
I want my players to kill the orc and take the pie.
Orcs are badguys, fantasy RPG worlds need "badguy" races in order to function. Heroes need villains to slay. Yes sometimes that means you can have nuanced villains with goals and motivations. But most monsters barely last 5 rounds (30 seconds) against the players. Moral conundrums are fun in games occasionally, but I don't want to start every fight with a 30 minute debate about the nature of evil.
Orcs are a great "other" because they don't exist. They are shorthand EVIL, like Goblins, Trolls, Nazis and Genetically Engineered Space-Bugs. If you make them too empathetic then there's no guilt-free fun in the slapstick violence applied to them on a regular basis.
It's a common joke that adventuring groups are just wandering murderous hobos, but to be honest nobody wants to roleplay that. They want to be heroes.
I still disagree with this DM. Just because I want to have some moral interplay doesn't mean I have to wait thirty minutes to get to the slaying. Maybe there won't be any slaying. Maybe the PCs will feel bad about it later. Which is ok too. Realization and reflection about the horror of war post battle is a real thing I'm sure.
As for heroes, I rarely want to play heroes. Heroes suck a lot of the time. I want to play characters that feel real to me, and hopefully don't annoy other people. Sometimes those characters might want to be heroes, even if I don't want them to be. And I've rarely played a murder-hobo.
|
On the other hand I do think it's important for content creators and content consumers to be aware of the problematic history of terms like race.
Dark = Evil is something that does need to be examined, and it does come from a place of white privilege.
Consider the grey skinned orc, the black-skinned drow (especially when compared to the fair skinned elves).
Sometimes there needs to be more than just tradition to justify these tropes in fantasy worlds.
Definitely there are a lot of brown people in the world, with a lot of tps of brown I have to say.
Well, that's just it. I wouldn't say anyone's skin was actually brown any more than I'd say anyone's skin was actually white. Black, brown, white, are just shortcuts, not real skin colors. But again, this is just me--I conceded that it can refer to real skin, even if it's not something I'd ever picture.
[Emphasis mine] My mileage varies so much from this it is in kilometers. It also assumes a generic approach to RPGs. Not all tables/players/GMs agree with this cut and dried approach to murder-hoboism. Then again, my brothers subscribes to this wholeheartedly, and sadly promulgates the trope with his children. And yet they can all read Elfquest, in which the heroes are elves and the humans are all evil...
I'm not saying this is the end all, be all, correct approach. I'm saying only that this is the approach that led to "always evil" races. As I suggested, if you want gray morality, by all means, do it. But early D&D was not written as gray, it was written black and white--obvious good vs. obvious evil.
The article is suggesting that the existence of always evil races is tied to real world racism. I am suggesting it is only tied to the fantasy of making evil something obvious and easy to deal with (i.e. you can just beat it up).
I think the issue here is that the author proposed a problem but not really a solution.
Yes. But that's because good critique doesn't require a solution be provided. I admit the problems I've highlighted are quite large, and any solution would need to be much larger. Because there is a correspondence between the "real world" problems and their instances within roleplaying literature, any solution would have to encapsulate something of both realms. I don't have the magic bullet, but I haven't been ignoring the possible solutions either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gary Gygax did not create the Dark Elves as we know them. While Drow did make their appearance in several AD+D modules before and and were mentioned in the monster manual. Their actual advent as a fully statted out entry along with their dark eldritch chainmail and weapons that would disintegrate in the sunlight, was in the Fiend Folio. The Fiend Folio, which was published by TSR UK, was unique in that all of it's entries came from White Dwarf's monthly column of the same name, monsters submitted by readers.
I kinda figured because it let them more easily blend into the dark places in which they lived. Of course, the stark white hair screwed that up. I'm not sure Gary Gygax thought about it in terms of physiological/environmental reality/verisimilitude.
Yes, LazarX, but if you look in the FF, where it credits the authors, you'll find the author was GG. Surprised me a little when I worked that out 20 years ago I admit.
I always thought Drow was his bastardization of archaic "trow" bad elf spirit types...
On the other hand I do think it's important for content creators and content consumers to be aware of the problematic history of terms like race.
Dark = Evil is something that does need to be examined, and it does come from a place of white privilege.
Consider the grey skinned orc, the black-skinned drow (especially when compared to the fair skinned elves).
Sometimes there needs to be more than just tradition to justify these tropes in fantasy worlds.
Although we specifically have a Trope that says "Dark is not Evil"
Batman wears mostly dark colors and hes a Good Guy! We have tons and tons of examples of Dark heroes. Our modern society continues to push for that gritty realistic hero. There are plenty of absolutely horrifying monsters out there who have bright motifs. Shining Child for one.
@Annabel. There is nothing invisible about oppression. Discussions about oppression maybe, and folks attempts to disguise it through the methods you describe... But you know it when you feel it.
By all means continue discussing the corresponding, interlocking hierarchies, knowledges, and systematic delineations of human difference. I don't find it inaccessible at all. I do get bored however.
Bash the Hateful - Best avatar name I ever saw in Guild Wars.
That is true. My bad, I think I wasn't paying enough attention, and wrote myself a mistake. That is true, oppression makes itself very visible to the oppressed. But I do think that corresponding, interlocking hierarchies, knowledges, and systematic delineations of human difference enable privilege folks to be blind to oppression felt by others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly I have just submitted a fantasy novel to a book publisher. The conflict in that novel is between human beings from different continents with different racial characteristics.
So I will pose this as a question to the enlightened ones here.
Does it matter if my novel has a light-skinned hero and dark-skinned evil barbarians?
Now, after thinking about that for a while, answer this question:
Does it matter if my novel has a dark-skinned hero and light-skinned evil barbarians?
Now, after digesting that, in the interest of having a reasonable conflict between good and evil, is it "wrong" for there to be any racial distinction whatsoever between the protagonist and his people, and the marauding invaders?
Seriously, I want to know, because I gave this a whole lotta thought when I was writing it.
That is true. My bad, I think I wasn't paying enough attention, and wrote myself a mistake. That is true, oppression makes itself very visible to the oppressed. But I do think that corresponding, interlocking hierarchies, knowledges, and systematic delineations of human difference enable privilege folks to be blind to oppression felt by others.@Annabel. There is nothing invisible about oppression. Discussions about oppression maybe, and folks attempts to disguise it through the methods you describe... But you know it when you feel it.
By all means continue discussing the corresponding, interlocking hierarchies, knowledges, and systematic delineations of human difference. I don't find it inaccessible at all. I do get bored however.
Bash the Hateful - Best avatar name I ever saw in Guild Wars.
I guess I just find privilege is another word for oppressors. And these are relative terms. We can each feel oppressed/be seen to oppress by turns in a myriad of modalities - cultural/economic/emotional/social/historical/sub-cultural/apptitudinal/chr nological/[insert - al].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly I have just submitted a fantasy novel to a book publisher. The conflict in that novel is between human beings from different continents with different racial characteristics.
So I will pose this as a question to the enlightened ones here.
Does it matter if my novel has a white-skinned hero and dark skinned evil barbarians?
Now, after thinking about that for a while, answer this question:
Does it matter if my novel has a dark-skinned hero and light-skinned evil barbarians?
Now, after digesting that, in the interest of having a reasonable conflict between good and evil, is it "wrong" for there to be any racial distinction whatsoever between the protagonist and his people, and the marauding invaders?
Seriously, I want to know, because I gave this a whole lotta thought when I was writing it.
They have skin? You fool!!!!
[EDIT - Ooops. Forgot to add the emoticon. ;)]
;_;
I am very sorry to report that I must be going to bed now, so sayith the BF.
No joke, tomorrow I am going into Manhatten to apply to work at a game store and then going to Columbia University to listen to a guest lecture by Ann Morning, the scholar I quoted in the introduction of this article. I am so excited! Thanks everyone for this awesome first two pages of a discussion! Can't wait to see more!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bouncing back and forth, reading through:
I do have to agree on the Advanced Race Guide. I was extremely frustrated with that entry, like Orcs of Golarion before it. Looking closer at the Half-orc entry in the ARG might be worth a follow-up though, because it actually offers more positive possibilities that the Orc entry failed to deliver.
I'm honestly surprised the ugly origins traditionally forced on half-orcs didn't get a closer look. That's always been one of my biggest problems with the stereotypical take on orcs.
Looking at how videogame settings like Warcraft and Elder Scrolls bucked many of those stereotypes and actually took orcs in new directions might be worth a look too. Always felt tabletop gaming fell short compared to those takes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bouncing back and forth, reading through:
I do have to agree on the Advanced Race Guide. I was extremely frustrated with that entry, like Orcs of Golarion before it. Looking closer at the Half-orc entry in the ARG might be worth a follow-up though, because it actually offers more positive possibilities that the Orc entry failed to deliver.
I'm honestly surprised the ugly origins traditionally forced on half-orcs didn't get a closer look. That's always been one of my biggest problems with the stereotypical take on orcs.
Looking at how videogame settings like Warcraft and Elder Scrolls bucked many of those stereotypes and actually took orcs in new directions might be worth a look too. Always felt tabletop gaming fell short compared to those takes.
Not saying I don't love Elder Scrolls and Warcraft a whole whole bunch, but didn't they just turn Orcs into the Noble Savage? I've never seen the imaginary cultures those two franchises came up with for Orcs as being particularly free of racist cliches either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. "olive" or "olive brown" are the terms commonly used to describe people of middle eastern and swarthier southern european descent (greek, italian, spainish, israeli, and arabic people)-- so yes that is a real skin color.
If they had wanted a fake skin color they could have said green. No one has green skin.
2. It always bothered me that drow retreated underground and their skin got darker. . . Drow to be true underground elves should be albino.
3. Something can be racist without intent. If it is perceived as such, then it is-- regardless of the author's intent. If someone drops the "n" word in a non-racist connotation in public/print/ect its still racist. There's tons of discourse about this in popular media.
4. I hate the concept that you "need" preternaturally evil creatures so you have something to kill in DnD. You already have powerful willfully evil creatures like liches. You have monsters which are mostly animal/ killing machines that have to be slain because they are dangerous in close contact with humans (i.e. man-eaters that need put down). You have DEMONS-- creatures that are not humanoid and essentially do not have free will and are evil.
Why do goblins and orcs need to be evil?
Or why do ALL goblins and orcs need to be evil?
Why can't there be some tribes or bands of evil orcs and some good ones? For that matter why cant the pie--stealer or the bandits be humans?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Something can be racist without intent"
"If it is perceived as such, then it is."
I perceive these statements as racist.
|
|
Not saying I don't love Elder Scrolls and Warcraft a whole whole bunch, but didn't they just turn Orcs into the Noble Savage? I've never seen the imaginary cultures those two franchises came up with for Orcs as being particularly free of racist cliches either.
I wouldn't say they were completely free of baggage, but they were definitely a step up from having an entire race of people tagged as okay to murder because they were the wrong race.
I don't think they're so severe as just being Noble Savage types, particularly when both their positive and negative traits get some play. But it can be tricky to completely avoid aspects of that when you're trying to keep them as a relatively primitive but sympathetic people.
|
|
On the other hand I do think it's important for content creators and content consumers to be aware of the problematic history of terms like race.
Dark = Evil is something that does need to be examined, and it does come from a place of white privilege.
Consider the grey skinned orc, the black-skinned drow (especially when compared to the fair skinned elves).
Sometimes there needs to be more than just tradition to justify these tropes in fantasy worlds.
Although we specifically have a Trope that says "Dark is not Evil"
Batman wears mostly dark colors and hes a Good Guy! We have tons and tons of examples of Dark heroes. Our modern society continues to push for that gritty realistic hero. There are plenty of absolutely horrifying monsters out there who have bright motifs. Shining Child for one.
Okay but consider this:
Batman when he wears Black is a brooding anti-hero (Batman in the 80's)
Batman in Blue and Light grey is a goofy good-guy (Batman in the 60's)
Spider-Man in bright Red and Blue tights is an outright good guy.
Spider-Man in a black costume is being slowly consumed by a metaphorical rage monster.
On top of which what you wear isn't the same as skin colour.
I thought this was an interesting article. It traces the history of orcs in fantasy games back through Tolkien. It talks about the tropes and real-world ideas which have influenced depiction of orcs and to what extent these influences continue today.
There's some interesting facts I was unaware of. For example, my mental image of orcs gives them very green skin like nothing we see in the real world, possibly due to too much Warcraft :P I didn't know that in some older depictions, orcs were described with a wider variety of skin colors, including some found in the real world!
Yes, most of the artwork of the PC races is that of "white" people. This isn't racism, this is marketing. Most of the people playing and buying Paizo products are "white." Just as I would not expect Jet Magazine to fill its pages with pictures of "white" people, I would not expect a product that is being bought by mostly "white" people to filled with pictures of people of Asian, or African, or any other skin color and facial features.
The one thing that I did notice, and I haven't finished the article do to a buggy computer, is that all of the evil races in Tolkien are artificial. They were bred/magicked from the naturally occurring races and for the most part controlled by some evil entity. And while the average Orc is a mook, so are most of the humans etc. Those armies that fought, and there were armies, were made up of humans, orcs, dwarves, elves, etc and all but the heroes were mooks. Tolkien wasn't writing the story of infantryman Joe from Bree, he was writing the story of the heroes. And Heroes run through mooks.
On the other hand I do think it's important for content creators and content consumers to be aware of the problematic history of terms like race.
Dark = Evil is something that does need to be examined, and it does come from a place of white privilege.
Consider the grey skinned orc, the black-skinned drow (especially when compared to the fair skinned elves).
Sometimes there needs to be more than just tradition to justify these tropes in fantasy worlds.
Although we specifically have a Trope that says "Dark is not Evil"
Batman wears mostly dark colors and hes a Good Guy! We have tons and tons of examples of Dark heroes. Our modern society continues to push for that gritty realistic hero. There are plenty of absolutely horrifying monsters out there who have bright motifs. Shining Child for one.
Okay but consider this:
Batman when he wears Black is a brooding anti-hero (Batman in the 80's)
Batman in Blue and Light grey is a goofy good-guy (Batman in the 60's)Spider-Man in bright Red and Blue tights is an outright good guy.
Spider-Man in a black costume is being slowly consumed by a metaphorical rage monster.On top of which what you wear isn't the same as skin colour.
And bringing comics into it brings a whole other can of worms what with all the early african american characters having black in their names. . .
|
|
I thought this was an interesting article. It traces the history of orcs in fantasy games back through Tolkien. It talks about the tropes and real-world ideas which have influenced depiction of orcs and to what extent these influences continue today.
There's some interesting facts I was unaware of. For example, my mental image of orcs gives them very green skin like nothing we see in the real world, possibly due to too much Warcraft :P I didn't know that in some older depictions, orcs were described with a wider variety of skin colors, including some found in the real world!
Yes, most of the artwork of the PC races is that of "white" people. This isn't racism, this is marketing. Most of the people playing and buying Paizo products are "white." Just as I would not expect Jet Magazine to fill its pages with pictures of "white" people, I would not expect a product that is being bought by mostly "white" people to filled with pictures of people of Asian, or African, or any other skin color and facial features.
The one thing that I did notice, and I haven't finished the article do to a buggy computer, is that all of the evil races in Tolkien are artificial. They were bred/magicked from the naturally occurring races and for the most part controlled by some evil entity. And while the average Orc is a mook, so are most of the humans etc. Those armies that fought, and there were armies, were made up of humans, orcs, dwarves, elves, etc and all but the heroes were mooks. Tolkien wasn't writing the story of infantryman Joe from Bree, he was writing the story of the heroes. And Heroes run through mooks.
I think Paizo has been doing a good job of presenting people of multiple ethnicities in their illustrations of humans.
I would like to see more brown dwarves/elves and gnomes but overall many of the iconics and characters illustrated in PF aren't European.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if it might just be possible that dark is associated with evil because people around the world are generally more afraid of.... the dark? Is that too crazy of a premise?
Totally ignored Warcraft Orcs
also on the Warhammer orcs, ask any Warhammer gamer and they will tell you Orcs are clearly based on English Rugby and Football fans
Why do dark elves have black skin? Given that they live underground in darkness it seems more reasonable that they should have albino skin. Someone had to make the decision at some point that their skin was black.I kinda figured because it let them more easily blend into the dark places in which they lived. Of course, the stark white hair screwed that up. I'm not sure Gary Gygax thought about it in terms of physiological/environmental reality/verisimilitude.
Also, if they are Dark Elves, perhaps a dark color suits them? Perhaps their outward coloration reflects their inner darkness.
In Dragon Magazine 129, page 21, I quote the following:
The drow, or dark elves, are easily the most distinctive elves found in the AD&D® game. From their very appearance to their way of life, dark elves are as different from surface elves as is possible; in more ways than one, dark elves are like photographic negatives of surface elves. At the same time, the common ancestry of dark and surface elves shows up in the many similarities between the races. Indeed, the enmity between these races could well lie in the fact that each side sees a horrid caricature of itself in the other.
It is not from an attempt to make them into some racist view, but an opposite of the normal Elves. Had the "normal" Elves been black with white hair, the Dark Elves would have fair skin and dark hair.
I do not believe that there has been any attempt to write racism into the game. However, I can understand how others can interpret it as such. And it is a good point to consider society and culture. I do not like races to be "evil", but their culture can indeed be seen as such.
Totally ignored Warcraft Orcs
also on the Warhammer orcs, ask any Warhammer gamer and they will tell you Orcs are clearly based on English Rugby and Football fans
Thanks to playing Dawn of War, this is my opinion as well. :)
I think it has more to do with folks deciding to use Orcs (and elves) to write racial allegory than anything to do with Orcs (and elves) themselves.
Why else turn orcs into Klingons?
Edit: Agree with warhammer orcs are hooligans. Look at Bloodbowl.
I think Paizo has been doing a good job of presenting people of multiple ethnicities in their illustrations of humans.
I would like to see more brown dwarves/elves and gnomes but overall many of the iconics and characters illustrated in PF aren't European.
They have and I applaud them for it, I would like to see more diversity in the roleplaying/gaming world. But as I said, they have to put out what sells.
I think most are 'overreading' color, into the drow at least. I'm pretty sure the basis of their original design was that they are 'polar' opposites of the 'good' elves, and thus pale skin and dark hair became a photo negative. It's also been put into cannon during the War of the Spider Queen novels that the drow descended from the tribes of the Ilithiiri, a naturally dark(brown)-skinned elven offshoot. Further supplemented by the change worked upon them by the magic that coerced them below ground, the faerzess.
I apologize if some of the story spellings are wrong, I'm posting from memory, not looking them up atm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it matter if my novel has a light-skinned hero and dark-skinned evil barbarians?
Context is important.
If I write a novel and there is a female character in it who is stupid and helpless, there's probably no problem.
If I write a novel featuring dozens of characters and all the females are stupid and helpless and none of the males are, then I probably have a problem, even if I deny it.
If all fantasy novels featured nothing but stupid and helpless females, then the fantasy genre would have a problem.
If all dark-skinned people in Tolkien are portrayed as irredeemably evil, that might indicate a (subconscious?) prejudice. Or it might reflect an innate fear of darkness, which, if allowed to apply to skin color, seems to lead into racism.
If dark-skinned barbarians in a modern novel are portrayed in a way that resembles the sort of things we might expect a racist to fantasise about (heroically slaughtering hordes of them, the idea that they need the civilizing influence of white leaders, or similar) then the author can be justifiably suspected of racial insensitivity at the very least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most are 'overreading' color, into the drow at least. I'm pretty sure the basis of their original design was that they are 'polar' opposites of the 'good' elves, and thus pale skin and dark hair became a photo negative. It's also been put into cannon during the War of the Spider Queen novels that the drow descended from the tribes of the Ilithiiri, a naturally dark(brown)-skinned elven offshoot. Further supplemented by the change worked upon them by the magic that coerced them below ground, the faerzess.
I apologize if some of the story spellings are wrong, I'm posting from memory, not looking them up atm.
See, I've always taken Drow (which I never cared for) to be black like India Ink, not the natural skin tone. It was one of the most unnatural skin colors of all the humanoids. This is close. Although perhaps a bit glossier, like that of a Blackwidow spider.
|
|
Did someone say real life skin tones?
Never been a fan of locking dark skinned elves as evil either. Honestly, the frequency of the "pretty"/typically-good races being restricted to lighter skin tones has been infuriatingly annoying for a long, long time.
It is no secret that we see good and evil represented by different cues.
Dark, brooding, ugly = evil.
Fair, merry, beautiful = good.
Sometimes these tropes are deliberately confused to create a cross-over tension, such as Batman's dark brooding nature or the fair beauty of an evil sorceress, but the very fact that this can be done is down to the underlying prejudices we hold. Batman's darkness wouldn't work as an key to his ambiguous nature without the knowledge that it represents something less than shiny and conventional good.
If you want to argue against it, do so, but you are arguing against centuries of evidence. Hell, even the heroes and villains in Hollywood Westerns knew what hat they had to wear.
It is no secret that we see good and evil represented by different cues.
Dark, brooding, ugly = evil.
Fair, merry, beautiful = good.Sometimes these tropes are deliberately confused to create a cross-over tension, such as Batman's dark brooding nature or the fair beauty of an evil sorceress, but the very fact that this can be done is down to the underlying prejudices we hold. Batman's darkness wouldn't work as an key to his ambiguous nature without the knowledge that it represents something less than shiny and conventional good.
If you want to argue against it, do so, but you are arguing against centuries of evidence. Hell, even the heroes and villains in Hollywood Westerns knew what hat they had to wear.
Its always been that way therefore it should is not really a good excuse in matters like this. If you read the "science" books of the 1800s they will explain to you how Africans people are inherently stupid, lazy, and inferior-- but some brave people challenged those notions despite having to argue against "centuries of evidence."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is saying that it is the way it 'should' be. It is saying how it is. That it is wrong to do so is implied in the article.
The article is saying that applying those characteristics we see as evil and inferior to orcs stereotypes them as irredeemably evil. The characteristics, in turn, come from centuries of human prejudice.
It is an interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with all the conclusions, but I certainly agree with the broad direction of the argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, most of the artwork of the PC races is that of "white" people. This isn't racism, this is marketing. Most of the people playing and buying Paizo products are "white." Just as I would not expect Jet Magazine to fill its pages with pictures of "white" people, I would not expect a product that is being bought by mostly "white" people to filled with pictures of people of Asian, or African, or any other skin color and facial features.
Can't it be both? I mean, I don't think the argument that imagining predominantly white races for marketing reasons contradicts the idea that it is also part of racism. In fact, this is exactly one of the ways that racism is made invisible because is "interlocks" with capitalism. To put another way, people preferentially choose products that image themselves, so therefor we can see that the dominant groups are imaged more often than the subordinate groups.
Mark Gottdiener penned the idea "cultures of consumption" (in opposition to consumer culture), where he argued that consumerism hasn't replaced culture, rather culture is now expressed through consumptive practices. In this way, I think it makes sense to say, we can see racism emerge from our culture through consumer goods. I tend to favor Gottdieners work (though speaking of inaccessible, whoah boy!).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. If we assume the Author is lying then we cannot make any assumptions about the literary work whatsoever. Did Frodo destroy the ring? Well Tolkien wrote it, but if he could have been lying...
Of course we can still make assumptions. The point is that the words of the author are not actually that relevant for analysis.
Note that Frodo destroyed the ring within the context of the story itself, as told in the book.
You cannot compare this to an author making a statement in an interview or biography. Especially since your opinion can change, but what you have written cannot.
We must make a distinction between an author writing something in a particular text, and the author saying something about that particular text.
If the writer is unaware of the meaning then it effectively has no meaning. Why did he write it there unless he had a reason?
Of course it still has meaning outside the text itself. You're looking at meaning as if it's something the author implants in the text.
Counterquestion:
If we found a book and the book has no author, can we still analyze it?
2. As for the Blue curtain, the author may have very well just liked the color blue. It was only mentioned to set the scene in our heads.
Yes. This is why we try not to overanalyze small details. For example a particular scene with a particular coloured curtain is unlikely to have that much meaning. It's only when we get to more prominent features of the story that we should look at things really carefully.
Yes, most of the artwork of the PC races is that of "white" people. This isn't racism, this is marketing. Most of the people playing and buying Paizo products are "white." Just as I would not expect Jet Magazine to fill its pages with pictures of "white" people, I would not expect a product that is being bought by mostly "white" people to filled with pictures of people of Asian, or African, or any other skin color and facial features.Can't it be both? I mean, I don't think the argument that imagining predominantly white races for marketing reasons contradicts the idea that it is also part of racism. In fact, this is exactly one of the ways that racism is made invisible because is "interlocks" with capitalism. To put another way, people preferentially choose products that image themselves, so therefor we can see that the dominant groups are imaged more often than the subordinate groups.
Mark Gottdiener penned the idea "cultures of consumption" (in opposition to consumer culture), where he argued that consumerism hasn't replaced culture, rather culture is now expressed through consumptive practices. In this way, I think it makes sense to say, we can see racism emerge from our culture through consumer goods. I tend to favor Gottdieners work (though speaking of inaccessible, whoah boy!).
Also, just because you assume the majority of your market is a particular skin color doesn't mean that you should write to that. Its similar to arguments that the reason all the main heroes of movies are 100% white male is because the white males won't go to see movies with female leads or african american leads, but that women and minorities are so used to watching movies with those protagonists that they will continue to pay for them.
So, we're not doing that because we're racist-- its just a business decision. We're not sexist and refusing the green light a Wonder Woman film because we are part of the patriarchy, its because our audience is!
Contributor
|
A few thoughts...
Drow are dark-skinned because they are a misunderstanding of svartalfar in Norse legend, who seem to be identical to dwarves. Who are generally evil (to mention another cruel stereotype that has become outmoded).
Paladins in medieval literature killed misshapen, irredeemable (except for the women-folk and a few special exceptions) monsters. They were called Pagans (i.e., Muslims). I am not endorsing this as a trope for modern gaming.
I don't use Orcs much in my games. I prefer Goblins because they are more fay, and less human in their folkloric characteristics (and generally not associated with a racial group). The trouble even with the folkloric Orcs - who tend to be be shaggy and caucasian in skin color in my homebrew, is that satyri or wild men were used in Medieval mappa mundi to represent African peoples.
But I also don't have "always" in my alignment line for anything the PCs encounter. Wild men and women in medieval legend (and modern fantasy) are definitely capable of good, and so are dragons, hence the "always" is really kind of a relic of simpler iterations of the game, not a reflection of fantasy per se. Hordes of mooks you can kill willy-nilly always seemed to be a particularly frustrating cinematic thing - storm-troopers, or in the bad old days, Indians. I say we are not playing a video shooter. We are a playing an RPG with intelligent people. We can do better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, most of the artwork of the PC races is that of "white" people. This isn't racism, this is marketing. Most of the people playing and buying Paizo products are "white." Just as I would not expect Jet Magazine to fill its pages with pictures of "white" people, I would not expect a product that is being bought by mostly "white" people to filled with pictures of people of Asian, or African, or any other skin color and facial features.Can't it be both? I mean, I don't think the argument that imagining predominantly white races for marketing reasons contradicts the idea that it is also part of racism. In fact, this is exactly one of the ways that racism is made invisible because is "interlocks" with capitalism. To put another way, people preferentially choose products that image themselves, so therefor we can see that the dominant groups are imaged more often than the subordinate groups.
Mark Gottdiener penned the idea "cultures of consumption" (in opposition to consumer culture), where he argued that consumerism hasn't replaced culture, rather culture is now expressed through consumptive practices. In this way, I think it makes sense to say, we can see racism emerge from our culture through consumer goods. I tend to favor Gottdieners work (though speaking of inaccessible, whoah boy!).
Using that logic, then everything produced is racist. There were complaints about movie made about WWII, that no African-American actors were in the movie. The fact that there were no African-Americans present during the battle made no difference to those screamed racism.
If I were to make a movie about the founding of the US, should I cast Denzel Washington as George Washington so I am not accused of racism?
In the US, about 1 in 5000 people have Sickle Cell Anemia, about 1 in 500 African-Americans have the disease. That is about 1 in 4000 Americans. So 4 out of every 5 cases is in the African-American population. Is it racist to have the majority of the PSAs done by African-Americans? Or should we have people of all colors doing the PSAs, or perhaps we should do it by racial percentages?
BTW currently the US is about 72% "White" and 12% African-American. I haven't checked the artwork, but I wonder what the percentages are there. Making them 50-50, or equal between all skin colors would seem more racist than artwork that more closely fits the real world demographics.