Forum

Gyrovague, I’ve tried to invert said stereotypes and make players think critically in my campaigns. I ran a game where the Elves were the dominant culture, but had grown rigid and arrogant, and they built their shining cities on the backs of Orc slaves who they dehumanized and abused. Obviously not all of these erudite and civilized Elves were evil, and they didn’t view themselves that way at all, but they had created a very racist society and it was a huge driver of conflict in the game.

If we are playing a game in Middle-earth, it means we accept the conventions of Middle-earth. Now I’m not saying, import all of Tolkien’s most racially atavistic language and live with it, but Orcs are a fairly important part of the setting. Removing them - or even just trying to really understand them and paint them as sympathetic - causes problems. Practical gameplay problems, and likely thematic problems, and of course it may also upset people by raising real life issues that are challenging in what is meant (at least to my mind) as an escapist fantasy where racial prejudice isn’t something that anyone should be forced to confront or deal with if they don’t want to.

I don’t know what the best way to challenge this convention is. I also don’t deny that stereotyping is bad, or that we shouldn’t try to be sensitive to other’s opinions. I just don’t know how you treat Orcs as people in a way that doesn’t overturn fundamental assumptions of Tolkien’s stories.

It’s also noteworthy that I don’t see the same problem - at all - with actual people of color in Middle-earth. Haradrim or Easterlings, or the northern people of Forodwaith, or the Woses, or the tan-skinned Gondorian coastal folk. All of those people are Men, and they can have complex stories from different vantage points than the Eurocentric heroes of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.

Orcs though aren’t supposed to be people - even if they are demonized in rather racist terminology. I don’t think they’re meant to reflect ethnicity but just cruelty and evil. I don’t know if you can reject that premise and still actually enjoy the game. Otherwise the heroes’ every action is potentially questionable (which might be totally appropriate to another game/setting, but I don’t think reflects any story we know from Middle-earth).

(PS - this is a fascinating discussion and I am enjoying the back and forth here. I respect what you’ve said and I hope that nobody is offended by what I’ve said).

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you: if we want to play in Middle Earth as Tolkien envisioned it, then we sorta have to use orcs as described. And, as I said earlier, I like having my default villains that I can fight without having to think too hard about it. And I recognize that doing so is problematic. It's yet another case where it's easy for me (straight white male) to shrug it off as "just a game" but...but...well, my thinking on this has evolved considerably over the years.

My approach as a GM is lifted from Burning Wheel. Challenge the character's beliefs.

For example Frodo believed Bilbo should have killed Gollum, and Gandalf challenged that belief. Sam believed Gollum was irredeemable. Frodo challenged that. All the hobbits believed that the Shire was naturally pure and inviolate. Aragorn, and then Saruman both challenged that belief. And even though Sam was perhaps correct, the challenge was an interesting story.

I think 'defeating foes' is a necessary and enjoyable part of LOTR. This is not supposed to be the same as 'killing orcs'. Some characters believe those to be the same. Some players too. I would challenge that with moral dilemmas such as:

'Do you need to kill them? What if you make them flee? You then run them down for being orcs? Here's a Shadow Point!'
'Here's an elf NPC who's a terrible person. She kills a lot of orcs. Is she really an ally? Should you try to heal her of the Shadow's touch, or move on? Or help her? Or oppose her?'
'If you try to free some orcs, will they turn on you? Should you do it anyway?'

The bouts of madness, especially the new version where the player maintains control, are an excellent way to explore these issues. The Curse of Vengeance and Lure of Power are explicitly related to some of these issues.

And in terms of philosophy, politics, and ethics, I think the process is more important than the result. It's less valuable to create a secondary world that is simple, than one which challenges. The challenge is more useful than the answer.

This whole post gives me more faith in people. I've met some GMs whose egos are so wrapped into what they do that they can't seem to help making a mess of everything. Now here are several of you trying so damn hard to avoid communicating in absolutes, and striving to give players a way to do the same. Well done. The fact that you struggle with these things matters. Maybe I can be like you when I grow up.

Dear Free League,

I like Tolkien.
I love reading his works.
I enjoy playing a RPG that faithfully represents Middle Earth with my family and friends.