[The competition in last week's post remains open. I put up that post thinking I would get about three replies max, but it seems to have got a bit of a momentum, so I will keep it open until Friday and then announce the winner.]
A while ago, I put up a post dismissing the notion that 'racially essentialist depictions of orcs are racist'. In my view, that was a category error, fostered really by misunderstandings about the expressionist nature of fantasy. As I put it at the time:
Orcs don't have genes. They are mythical, fairy tale beings, with a different essence altogether. They're not a 'race', or a 'species'. They're spirits, demons, monsters. This isn't racism. It is quite literally the stuff of which fantasies, myths and legends are made. Why would you want them to be otherwise?
I later revised my position a little as a result of the comments on that earlier post, and accepted the premise that certain naturalistic depictions of orcs are undesirable. The way I now see it is that:
Orcs work really well as a representative of the worst human tendencies... - aggression, cruelty, resentment, and so on. Watering that down by trying to make them sympathetic ironically seems to have the result of making it feel 'wrong' to stereotype them as evil, leading to weird discomfort with what is a core element of traditional D&D (killing evil humanoids and/or taking their stuff).
[Ultimately] if one is to use orcs at all, it is better to do so expressionistically rather than naturalistically. In other words, orcs (like all monsters in general, really) are best thought of as representations or evocations of mood and emotion rather than natural species with genes and psychologies and histories of their own. They're like fairy tale goblins, devils or evil spirits - and not like Klingons.
In other words, it is a really bad idea to treat orcs (or other evil humanoids for that matter) as a kind of 'noble savage' or similar, because then one instantly generates obvious insensitivities and understandably gets into hot water accordingly. It is, paradoxically, the introduction of nuance that is the problem. Unreconstructedly evil orcs aren't a cause for concern. Orcs who might not be evil, or who just have a 'different perspective', seem as though they are natural beings with inner lives, and the way we think about and depict them therefore begins to seem as though it bears some relation to how we think about the real world and real people. Clearly, this is a minefield best avoided.
I increasingly think that the word 'orc' makes more sense as a category or concept, rather than a 'race' or species or whatever; an orc, that is to say, is not a member of a particular group with defined characteristics, but a way of classifying the Enemy - the human-hating, destructive, violent, demonic things which everywhere threaten the human world. It doesn't matter what they look like or do - maybe they have flamingo heads and live on floating cities from which they raid human settlements; maybe they are like bipedal snapping turtles who live to taste human flesh and bone; maybe they are boar-headed thugs who dwell in the forest; maybe they are beetle-people. These are all orcs, provided they have the characteristics of orcishness - hatred of humanity, hatred of goodness, and extreme violence. What matters in other words is what they represent: something roughly our size, and of our intelligence, which exists purely to prey upon us, and therefore is to be resisted and destroyed wherever it is found.
There is a way to tie this thought into an ongoing project of mine, the single-class paladin campaign, in which the PCs, rather than being representative of rogueishness, instead represent its opposite. Paladins protect. The protect people from all kinds of dangers, evils, and cruelties. But maybe their chief enemies - the things they fight against most often, and with the most vehemence - are the many different, possibly infinitely different, varieties of orc, and what they represent: almost the anti-paladin in the terms which I have described what a paladin is. A paladin protects; orcs predate. A paladin puts his honour above his life; orcs traduce and subvert honour wherever they can. A paladin always stays true to his word; an orc holds that truth is a fiction. And so on. When one thinks of orcs in these terms, as literally the embodiment of evil, a great deal of problems are resolved, and fresh creative opportunities appear.
"A paladin always stays true to his word; an orc holds that truth is a fiction."
ReplyDeleteThe discourse playing checkers, while @noisms plays chess.
Ha! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWLxPqpe7k
DeleteIf I remember correctly this is what John Wick did in "Houses of the Blooded" (great game btw), Orcs in this game were a general category of inhuman/monstrous/evil enemies. A inspiring game book well worth reading and with many big ideas (even if the execution/ruleset is kind of wonky and a bit disjointed).
ReplyDeleteI have Houses of the Blooded somewhere. I couldn't get into it - I think fundamentally I'm just not that into vampires... But might take another look.
DeleteIf you can find it its well worth another look, if only for inspiration. Despite the name its not about Vampires, but more a soap opera about melnibonean like nobles. Quoting an rpgnet review "In HotB players take on the role of ven nobles, managing their stolen fiefdoms, plotting their graceful treacheries and deceitful marriages, and attending politically charged parties to display their brilliant arts." Back then it was refreshing to play on a bigger canvas as nobles and their perspective compared to the classic street level dungeon raiding adventurer.
DeleteOK - you've convinced me. Will dig it out!
DeleteHappy to hear, hope you enjoy ^_^
Delete"Evil" to me is the concept of that which is antithetical to the interests of what a protagonist deems essential for community health -- meaning ethically, socially, in terms of the prosperity and continuation of memetic structures that support a functional lifestyle for their perceived association. Given that the word denotes (or at least connotes) an extremity, I would stress the point of "antithetical" -- not "at odds with" or "troubling alongside", or causing political and moral difficulties for the protagonist; instead it is fundamentally destructive to the protagonist's memetic security (and often their practical security also). Saying that a given species is prone to, or inherently aligned to, evil, simply means to me "I, the viewer, perceive that species' own memetic complex and behavioural norms, their key values manifested as impacts on the world, as inherently disastrous to my own".
ReplyDeleteFiction tends to portray "evil" as mindless violence, destruction, torture, befouling of environment, deliberate spread of misery indiscriminately, etc., because that's an easy and broad concept that 99% of participants would be averse to, since arguably no functional society can endure that. If people want a fun and easy opponent, depicting evil as something like that is near-universally acceptable. When you have complexities like imprisonment, human sacrifice, indentured servitude, strict caste requirements, ritual honour killing, consumption of meat, capital punishment, abortion, bloodsports, intensive animal farming, warfare... then you risk trampling over all sorts of cultural, national, and individual perspectives that potentially damage the immersion in a shared gaming experience. So while it's understood that certain characters, factions, etc. might view these things as evil, it's also understood that others wouldn't or might view coordinated opposition to them as evil. And so they avoid the popular label of "evil", I think, because "evil" as used is arguably shorthand for "near-universally evil".
I can follow your reasoning but I actually believe evil exists and that it is objectively so... ;)
DeleteAs an honest question -- when you say you believe it exists objectively, is that the notion of an actual phenomenon or quality within shared reality (that is, outside of human psychology and existing regardless of it) or a certitude regarding your deepest ethical considerations, comparable to a form of faith, perhaps biologically ingrained? Given how prevalent the position of an objective evil is, I wonder if it's a common evolutionary benefit -- it's hard to dispute certain socially-useful belief structures if they're so entrenched they are unquestionable, after all!
DeleteOf course, the relative commonality of belief in objective evil explains why the topic you're addressing here is so important to people, and why there's so much discussion of it. People struggle with a notion of "inherently evil" races and find it uncomfortable to link "evil" with biology. Of course, if by "evil" we mean what I called the "near-universal evil" above, a system like the one you propose works for me as well as it does for someone who sees evil as an objective phenomenon; after all, the "near-universal evil" is so broadly accepted precisely because it would be so antithetical to structured functioning social systems that explaining a biological or cultural framework for it is very difficult. Convincing worldbuilding would definitely support a system of dispersed corruption for Evil more easily than it would an enduring system (biological or cultural).
I think evil is an actual phenomenon within shared reality, as you put it - as in, I think that human actions can be oriented towards an objective good or an objective evil. Obviously this derives from my religious beliefs!
DeleteThere is no doubt in my mind that the discomfort or squeamishness about 'inherently evil' races is partly a product of secularisation; that's entirely understandable and reasonable. Why would an agnostic person or atheist have truck with a concept of inherent evil?
The creator/god of the orcs can be William Blake's Orc.
ReplyDeleteAriosto's orc, a sea monster similar to the one that threatened Andromeda.
And Tolkien's orcs, which are portrayed more as brutalized and brutalizing trench infantry. If there's a colonialism to orcs it comes from D&D. Tolkien never gave orcs witch doctors or organized them into "tribes."
Yes, this is an important point about Tolkien, and you're absolutely right.
DeleteTo give a favourite example of the notion of evil in a role-play setting... I'm a fan of the default universe in the Traveller rpg, and my favourite faction in that setting are a race called the K'kree (horse-people, essentially). The defining trait of the K'kree is their absolute aversion to meat-eating. Meat-eating in any form, to K'kree sensibilities, is fundamentally *wrong*. It's not a matter of philosophy, ideology or religion, it's a deeper complex originating in their evolutionary history as prey animals and association of flesh-eating with death and horror. The moderate K'kree position is that societies capable of converting to veganism are redeemable and should be approached diplomatically in hopes of influencing them to civilized conduct; the opposing pole calls for crusade and extermination of any society that permits the terrible act of meat-eating. No sane K'kree, no matter how friendly to aliens, would accept the argument "I eat meat, but I'm not a bad person". That would be received the way this comment's reader would receive "I torture and rape small children for fun, but I'm not a bad person". i.e. that claim wouldn't work, because the judgement would be that you are a bad person by virtue of that activity and outlook, inherently.
ReplyDeleteBasically, to the K'kree, I who writes this comment am evil, because I eat meat. Some might seek to hope for my redemption and education, some would advise killing me; none would say "oh, that's okay, he can do his own thing", because what I do is evil. It's not just that they would find it distasteful, or perverse, or uncivilized; they would find it *evil* as I understand the term -- fundamentally incompatible with the default K'kree memetic complex, where the choices are ignore it if you can, fight it off, or exterminate it.
There's a wonderful piece of background fluff in which, among other things, a K'kree ambassador recalls K'kree stomping on babies to kill the vermin; not an act that requires justification for K'kree, because those were babies of carnivores. It would be indeed like feeling the need to justify killing an Orc of the "stock fantasy, kill-rape-pillage" kind. The K'kree are a civilized, reasonable-enough culture who behave in ways many would label evil, as part of their desire to rid their universe of evil. If you approach the setting from the K'kree perspective, they're a noble, heroic people -- it's just that their ethical complex is not compatible with their neighbours, most of whom are of the "you can't stomp on babies because you dislike their imminent diet" camp.
It's always interesting to see how newcomers to the setting relate to the K'kree. All the factions in Traveller are multi-faceted and make ethical sense from their own perspective -- the K'kree are the faction most clearly a default "bad guy", but that's only because their own actions and attitudes overlap significantly with what most others would consider to touch upon, if not match up with, evil.
This is interesting - although of course human beings have proved themselves capable of stomping on babies not even because you like their imminent diet, but just because they are the wrong type of baby.
Delete*dislike
DeleteAh, a problem of the objective evil ;) If their moral system is so unquestionably rooted in what benefits their current association within a certain framework ("my family-tribal group" and "short-term competition for resources/territory/moral supremacy"), then by virtue of the absolute nature of that morality, adjusting to an altered framework (e.g. "sapient life" and "long-term prosperity of same") is going to be resisted. Of course they'll stomp on the "wrong" babies. There's some irony in the idea that "nationalist Vs imperialist" -- so to speak -- governs perception of evil; always about serving the largest association of which one views themselves a part and enforcing a standard control system across that association, disregarding or attacking anything outside of it. Meaning the "nationalist" and the "imperialist" would always be unable to tolerate sharing their memetic space with the other.
DeleteI greatly appreciate both your post and the discussion, by the way -- it's great to have informal forums (is that a contradiction?) to discuss these things.
I don't know - I think there is something deeper going on in e.g. the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide than just tribalism, although I accept that is part of it. There is a point at which violence becomes an expression of hatred for life itself, often visited on a group to which one does not belong. Is this properly attributed to tribalism, or something else? I put it down to the something else.
DeleteNow that's an interesting concept -- evil as a sort of anti-life in the psyche, an actual psychological-spiritual opposition to the inherent desire or tendency of life and matter and culture to remain assembled. I think I understand what you're getting it here, as a notion of evil as an objective phenomenon.
DeleteBrings to mind the Kirby: "Yes, it is his gift to us, friends! The Cosmic Hunting License! The Right to point the finger or the gun! Certainly not the others! They can be recognized for what they are! But not us, friends, not us! When we wear this helmet, we feel unified! Glorified! Justified! Step up friends! Take your helmet! Be superior! Be fierce! Be a Justifier! It's Darkseid's gift of anti-life -- it's the 'Happiness Package!'" - Glorious Godfrey, Forever People #3
DeleteThis feels similar to something i have been running in my games pulls from the story where fafnir the dwarf turns into a dragon from his greed. So specific monsters, dragons, goblins, orcs, devils, demons oozes and giants are all creatures created when a sapient(human halfling or whatever) give into their sins. So when someone wholly subsumes themselves to cruelty they physically, magically, and spiritually transform into an Orc. All Orcs are evil, because it requires it to become one.
ReplyDeleteI like this idea although I am interested to know if there is a mechanism by which an NPC or PC can thus become an orc (or anything else).
DeleteOrcs as "all that is bad" in humans reminds me of a question I've often had when considering the ever-popular old-school reaction table. If we don't want orcs that are just soon-to-be-robbed cavemen (and I don't), what does a "friendly" or "helpful" reaction mean for orcs?
ReplyDeleteSome monsters I can parse: a dragon might be freshly fed and more interested in riddling and toying with you, a hag or a devil might be interested in making deals. I can see orcs who aren't looking for a fight right now due to circumstances, but helpful orcs?
Helpful orcs would be orcs who have inadvertently aided your cause, e.g. by waylaying the baddie that the PCs are chasing.
DeletePerhaps Orcs that recognise your adventurers as fellow "apex predators" and rather than fighting seek to "parlay" in a particular sense that involves staking out territories and avoiding detrimental competition? They know you're not planning on staying, you're passing through on a quest or whathaveyou, and they're willing to give you some aid/pointers/equipment to help you on your way. That, or they know your target is a more fearsome monster/villain/unfortunate target, and are happy to have you face them rather than they?
DeleteYou are hitting on my favourite pet topic, which nobody ever comments on when I post about it, which is 'reaction dice that create the world'. In short, reaction dice shouldn't dictate the mood of the monsters but the favourable or disfavourable conditions of the landscape and environment, as well as the abilities and equipment of the monsters themselves. A 'friendly' reaction for a random encounter with orcs should mean the PCs have e.g. height advantage and the orcs are, for example, fleeing a recent raid on their village. Once things are framed in those terms the mood should be dictated by what the PCs do and say and what the DM thinks is appropriate.
DeleteI see the utility, but I don't *love* 'reaction dice create the world'.
DeleteI feel this approach blurs two usefully distinct concepts; one of which the PCs can/should mostly control (e.g. high ground, how prepared they are for combat), and the other, literally the reaction/mood/attitude of the NPCs, is mostly beyond the control of the PCs.
I know my response to @Kalyptein is basically 'reaction dice create the world', though. I have no justification for this.
I do it as direct as possible--the orcs are inherently evil AND are friendly to the PC's, usually because they think the PC's are also evil! It's even a chance for comedy a lot of the time as they try to comiserate about those damn heroes always stopping them from eating people and kicking puppies and the like.
DeleteHa, yes.
DeleteOh, so now resentment is "one of the worst human tendencies"... I see. %)
ReplyDeleteMike
Yes - it's possibly the most damaging of all human passions. The incel who shoots up a school; the Nazi who murders Jews, the Khmer Rouge who murder and enslave the 'bourgeois', the Hutus who slaughter the Tutsis, the skinhead who beats up a black person, the Hamas terrorists who murder Jewish babies. All of it resentment, all the way down. That it is understandable in some circumstances does not make it anything other than dangerous.
Delete100% agree --- that Anonymous thinks otherwise is shocking. How has resentment crept into acceptability in modern culture?
DeleteAnd yet there are a few examples you lacked the balls to namedrop.
DeleteWith regard to orcs, I think you have to make them demons or Klingons. Demons works for the reasons you state but I think so does Klingons where they're similar to humans and not fundamentally any more evil but different in some ways.
ReplyDeleteFor a campaign in which orcs are basically Klingons you shouldn't have the PCs attack them on sight (unless the PCs are evil) but that doesn't mean that the PCs can't fight them a lot, the same as humans fight other humans a lot.
It's, like you said, the middle part where you get into trouble. Where orcs are people to, but it's OK to slaughter them.
Yep.
DeleteSome time ago, I switched all my monsters from species into perspectives: Orcs are ruthless warriors, because ruthless warriors that lose all humanity turn into orcs. Kobolds are cowards, because humans who betray everything they believe in turn into kobolds. Trolls are ravenous monsters because they lost everything but their rage. And so on. And so on. I found that makes it much easier to use those monsters at the table.
ReplyDeleteYes, that makes sense - although I would like to know if there is a mechanic for this. Can a PC turn into a kobold by being routinely cowardly, for example?
DeleteI don't even think the word evil needs to come into the conversation. It certainly doesn't in a lot of mythology, even though Tolkien did it. I think "monster" is enough.
ReplyDeleteAre orcs evil? In my opinion not any more than animals are, and they certainly are also not good. But they are monsters, and monsters are:
Greedy and selfish
Not mortal
Possess no love for mortals (but may want things from them)
Non-naturalistic (unlike natural beasts)
Made from Chaos, not Order
Bypass the laws of mortals (including moral and physical laws)
Etc.
This is just a personal thing, but I think that there is no use to the word "evil" without free will coming into the equation. I.e. I can accept AD&D's (albeit unnecessary) moral axis of the alignment system for PCs, but I completely reject it for monsters. The idea of uncontrollable good or uncontrollable evil beings is nonsense to me. If it's uncontrollable, it can't be called good or evil anymore.
The original alignments of Chaos and Law work for me, though.
BTW, even if orcs aren't evil, they can still be in the more violent, ruthless and murderous group of monsters. Most monsters do not enjoy causing physical harm the way orcs do, even if none of them can be said to be "good".
So if I were to use 'orc' as a concept, I might use it as a word for any monster that delights in violence, perhaps especially against mortals. Goblins might be an even more specific type of orc that resorts to more underhanded, clever and tricky methods to achieve this end.
This still begs the question, "is it evil to slay monsters outside of self-defense?", but at least it's a real ethical conundrum now, rather than the two really boring other extremes of, "always because they're born evil" or, "never because they're people with green skin".
This is my own take and clearly not what mid to modern D&D puts forward; I'll be the first to acknowledge that. But I do think it's closer to how Gary/Dave saw things originally in the first D&D before it started to become popular to see humanoid monsters in a more naturalistic light.
Good point about evil requiring free will. I need to think about that a bit more.
DeleteCertain tribes of Australian aborigines had a pre-colonial practice where the mother would eat every second child that she bore. Stock depictions of brutish fantasy Orcs are relatively tame when compared to some historical human cultures.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe in the objective reality of good an evil, then it seems to me that you must also reject cultural relativism and accept that certain cultural practices (and by extension the peoples that created and practiced them) are objectively evil.
Ah yes, it must be that I secretly harbour racist sentiments.
DeleteThe modern boar-tusked fantasy orc is a woodwose. Woodwoses are the original noble savage trope-- but Tolkien's woses are not his orcs. Tolkienish orcs are a wolf-shirted Koryos, a predatory pack of despoilers and robbers and monastery-looters. They are the perfect foil for a band of warriors sworn to defend the weak, cultivate virtue, and defend the righteous.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly.
Delete