Forum

I'd encourage you to hire and pass this by a sensitivity reader sooner than later, even if just for parts of the book related to lore. Tolkien had a lot of very racist ideas, and while they are not interminably present in his writing, some of the clarifications from his personal correspondence makes it much more clear about where specific elements have come from -- the man liked to write! He is a man of his time, of course, but I'd encourage you to be careful about which things you take directly from him and choose to represent in your game.

I've been reading a bit about the history of orcs in fantasy recently, so when I saw the section and noted that and you've repeated his Orcs have "slanted eyes" line in chapter 8, copying bits of his descriptions of orcs.

In a private letter, Tolkien describes orcs as: squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.

It is a small thing, but I'm highlighting it merely to bring attention to something you have a choice about when designing a game space for people to find themselves in and whom they are against. I could link you to reading on this subject, but it's quite easy to find (the quote above is copied his Wikipedia article) given the prominence of Tolkien's lore in culture. I also imagine this game will continue to grow with supplements, and as you cover the people from the south and east, this is something to keep in mind.

Anyways, thanks for your consideration. Looking forward to the final release, everything is beautiful, as expected!

The game must be inclusive and welcoming. The writers have typically done a very good job of balancing faithfulness to the setting of the books while expanding the stories of those within the world to include many different types of diverse people.

Good guys are heroes of any race or origin; Orcs are evil monsters who hate and destroy.

I think some people get very hung up on Tolkien’s particular description of Orcs as brutish Mongols, when he’s pretty clear and consistent that he views Orcs as not a corollary to any human race, but to particular sets of behavior. In his letters to his son during World War II, he described war as a terrible endeavor with “Orcs” on both sides, driving good people to terrible deeds and generally taking license to act out evil. Unquestionably, he did refer to some white people as Orcs. He also compared the way he and fellow soldiers lived in the trenches of the Great War as analogous to the brutality of existence as Orcs.

While you can read artifacts of racism into the fantasy, in general Tolkien’s stories are wholesome. Good villains should not be racial caricatures. Up to this point I’ve seen nothing in the supplementary materials from the first edition that makes me worry about that.

While you can read artifacts of racism into the fantasy, in general Tolkien’s stories are wholesome. Good villains should not be racial caricatures. Up to this point I’ve seen nothing in the supplementary materials from the first edition that makes me worry about that.

Very well put, I whole heartedly agree!

I agree, well put. The bit of text that put me on this is from p. 148:

Their appearance and size differs from tribe to tribe,
but many prominent features are common to all Orcs, such as
short legs, broad, slanted eyes, wide mouths and long fangs.

Which, if you'll notice, is extremely close to the exact quote I pulled from Wikipedia. I remember this phrasing from my past reading, which is what brought this back to mind. I won't have time to give this version of the text a full read, but having seen this, I merely wanted to note a potential concern. Which was to suggest: if they're borrowing external descriptions, that they should be careful in what they choose.

I agree, well put. The bit of text that put me on this is from p. 148:

Their appearance and size differs from tribe to tribe,
but many prominent features are common to all Orcs, such as
short legs, broad, slanted eyes, wide mouths and long fangs.

Which, if you'll notice, is extremely close to the exact quote I pulled from Wikipedia. I remember this phrasing from my past reading, which is what brought this back to mind. I won't have time to give this version of the text a full read, but having seen this, I merely wanted to note a potential concern. Which was to suggest: if they're borrowing external descriptions, that they should be careful in what they choose.

They left out the reference to "Mongel-types" though didn't they, so it's already sanitised for modern sensiblities.

Umm...full quote from Letter 210 for posterity:
19. Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Ores is not a form of Auks.) The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the ‘human’ form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."
Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (p. 274). HMH Books. Kindle Edition.

Tolkien is here trying to communicate objections to a "film treatment" of Lord of the Rings in 1958.

I ... am probably going to get crucified for saying this but ... uh ... isn't he just acknowledging a common racist bias of his culture? I mean...he indicates in the quote the relativity of beauty...that's not an acknowledgement of his agreement with that bias he mentions. The fact that he notes it as a particular "European" bias (while rather presumptive) rather indicates that he does not agree with it. He also indicates that the Orcs are corruptions of the human form. By saying that Orcs are "degraded and repulsive versions" of a given group of actual humans he would seem to clearing be indicating the elevation of the humans in question.

Umm...full quote from Letter 210 for posterity:
19. Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Ores is not a form of Auks.) The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the ‘human’ form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."
Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (p. 274). HMH Books. Kindle Edition.

Tolkien is here trying to communicate objections to a "film treatment" of Lord of the Rings in 1958.

I ... am probably going to get crucified for saying this but ... uh ... isn't he just acknowledging a common racist bias of his culture? I mean...he indicates in the quote the relativity of beauty...that's not an acknowledgement of his agreement with that bias he mentions. The fact that he notes it as a particular "European" bias (while rather presumptive) rather indicates that he does not agree with it. He also indicates that the Orcs are corruptions of the human form. By saying that Orcs are "degraded and repulsive versions" of a given group of actual humans he would seem to clearing be indicating the elevation of the humans in question.

Yes, I'd agree with this.

I'd also like to point out that Asian people don't usually imagine themselves to have slanted eyes. Most of my family are Japanese, and I'm an immigrant to Japan, so this kind of issue is a common topic of conversation for us. That's a European stereotype. For example, in Japanese we have words for upward slanted eyes, downward slanted eyes, and unslanted eyes, all used without judgement for just general description of anyone's face.

I think that these issues are extremely complex, and it's easy for Westerners to attempt to dominate post-colonial discussions of race. For example, fantasy dwarves are sometimes seen as an anti-semitic stereotype, but I believe that's often because they match some parts of the anti-semitic stereotype, rather than being intended as such. The anti-semitism comes from the (white) reader more than the writer, and the opinions of Jewish people are not sought.

I think that avoiding insensitive descriptions of Orcs (and others) in this book is probably sufficient. A retrospective approach to the works of Tolkien is outside the scope of this RPG, and unlikely to be very successful without the input of academics, particularly non-Western ones.

but I believe that's often because they match some parts of the anti-semitic stereotype, rather than being intended as such.

This is an important observation, although I think we might be arriving at different conclusions.

The debate about orcs is often badly misunderstood/misconstrued. In other forums I keep seeing people say, "Orcs aren't meant to be <insert real world enthnicity>!" Right, they're not. But that's not the point. Here's the issue, as concisely as I can explain it:

1. For as long as we have written records, including both the very recent past and the present day, people have justified enslavement/subjugation/genocide/cruelty by portraying the "other" as inhuman.
2. That is often accomplished through use of the same stereotypes: ugly, stunted, vicious, primitive, promiscuous, emotional (as opposed to rational), unclean
3. Over the centuries, this has resulted in our (subconscious?) association of these characteristics with people who are intrinsically "bad".
3. When storytellers (authors, artists, filmmakers, RPG creators) want to signal to their audiences that somebody is the villain, they naturally use the language and imagery that most effectively conveys that, even though they might not consciously be trying to use real world people as the archetype.

So the criticism of the use of this device in RPGs is two-fold:
1. It reinforces, probably unintentionally, the long-held belief that an entire ethnicity can be, well, promiscuous, violent, less intelligent, etc. Yes, people can "tell the difference between real life and a game" (oh lord am I SICK of that argument) but media portrayals, even fictional ones, have a way of altering our perceptions of how the world works, even when we know it's fiction.
2. To members of ethnicities that have been...and still are...subject to these stereotypes, this connection between language and discrimination is more obvious, because they personally have experienced it, and/or just because they (naturally) have a greater awareness of the history of it. To encounter it in a roleplaying game is probably somewhat analogous to a rape survivor encountering a rape scene in a game. So to tell somebody, "Hey, relax, orcs aren't meant to be you" is a little like telling the rape survivor, "Hey, chill out, that rape victim isn't YOU." (EDIT: and just because a single rape victim can be found who laughs it off and claims not to mind, doesn't mean it's ok.)

All that said, I like having orcs as bad guys to slaughter. I find myself wrestling with the issue because I don't want that part of the game to change. And yet I believe all of the above. It's hard. Anybody who says the answer is simple...in either direction...is wrong.

For different reasons, I think this is why Tolkien struggled with the Orcs as well. He needed bad guys - and Legolas and Gimli make sport of killing Orcs. But he ran into spiritual and philosophical problems with them over time.

1. If Orcs were wholly the creation of Morgoth, it gave Morgoth creative powers that he wanted reserved for the one true god, Eru.

2. If Orcs were just corrupted Elves, they needed a path to redemption in the afterlife which he doesn’t address.

3. Maybe Orcs were merely automatons repeating their evil master’s thoughts and not really “speaking people.” But then, they have no will of their own and everything they do is some reflection of Morgoth’s malice, yet we see two Orcs talking about living free without masters, though they are soon at each other’s throats.

None of these are truly satisfying ideas. Orcs are alive, they aren’t robots, but they’re also a generic enemy people. While they have customs, those customs are presumed to be violent, brutal and cruel. Nobody ever talks about a truce with the Orcs.

They’re an embodiment of Bad Things, which makes it hard to have an honest appraisal of specific negative traits or the things that describes them (ugliness, savagery, ignorance). I don’t think they’re supposed to be viewed as people. That doesn’t stop me from calling my players out if they behave cruelly towards them, but I think to some degree we need to accept that they are fantasy villains that exist solely to be battled and even to some degree feared and despised.

but I think to some degree we need to accept that they are fantasy villains that exist solely to be battled and even to some degree feared and despised.

Mmmm...I think I'll quibble with the assertion that we "have to accept that". Rather, I'd say that if we want to have humanoid villains in our games, who can be killed without compunction or pausing to find out if they are good guys or bad guys, then we "have to accept" that we are doing so by relying on stereotypes and tropes that have been used for centuries to justify some of the most horrid behavior humans have managed to invent.

Here's a thought experiment: what if the designated "bad guys" in a game world were beautiful, articulate, artistic, and rational. They speak multiple languages, and write poetry. They live in elegant cities, with architecture and stonework unrivaled by the "good" guys. But the GM says, "Yeah, they're the bad guys you are at war with. They're like orcs, basically, but I wanted to make them different."

When encountering them, would you automatically attack them and fight to the death? Or...would part of you think, "Yeah, but they can't be intrinsically bad. Not all of them. It's just that they've been taught to hate us, and vice versa. We should try to negotiate first."

I know I would. Which makes me ask: why if they are dirty and primitive and stupid and ugly am I ok with the characterization of "intrinsically evil"?