Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2025, 09:13:16 AM

Quote from: bat on May 04, 2025, 12:27:06 AM

Quote from: Omega on May 03, 2025, 09:49:42 PMWhat some of the village idiot applicants here keep willfully forgetting is that D&D orcs were originally NOT just purely evil. They could be Chaotic AND neutral. Though I do not recall ever finding out why there were neutral orcs.

Wow. Not everyone started out with OD&D. While correct, Holmes, Basic and 1e, which a lot of people are used to, did not have the neutral alignment listed. I can see neutral orcs though, survivors of a warband left without direction, without the drive to destroy they just become neutral and live out their lives not trying to break or kill everything in their path.

Not you. The other members here who endlessly proclaim over and over "Orcs should have remained Evil!" when they damn well know they werent.

   I did not think I was on that particular list, although common opinion may vary on that, I was just stating that to a lot of people, they have only seen orcs list as evil or chaotic (even OD&D retroclones like S&W list orcs as Chaotic and maybe with 5 or 6 of this it is easy to forget the OD&D listing as it is watered down by all of the other sources.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 05, 2025, 08:22:33 AMJust because you are yourself the victim of a crime does not absolve you of responsibilities you commit afterwards, so the orcs are still fully responsible for wrongdoing with Morgoth and Sauron guilty of accessory. This logic applies quite well to our current political climate; a lot of people drinking a whole lot of political Kool-Aid are effectively political footsoldiers. They don't want to take personal responsibility for their actions, but they are still morally culpable for the wrongdoing, and just because you don't like someone doesn't give you a license to commit crime against them.

Interesting invocation of modern politics...
I will note you might be in the J.R.R Martin camp of criticizing Aragorn's policy decisions. because he does in fact politically pardons the minions of Sauron, just not the orcs. such as the Easterlings and the Haradrim. mind you both cultures that had been corrupted and controlled by Sauron for centuries and had even Morgoth worship as a stable of their cultural practices. even they get more consideration to their circumstances than the Orcs.
why are we holding ancestral guilt for one but not the other?

QuoteElvish souls don't die the way the other races of Middle Earth do; they are bound to Arda, to the point that they live forever unless they are killed and even when they are killed, they can be reincarnated in some circumstances. Presumably, elvish souls will cease to be when Arda ceases to exist, which really puts a dampener on how much value penance can actually provide. The only carrot possible for penance is a return to the Undying lands, but otherwise they will be stuck in an indefinite life and reincarnation cycle until the end of Arda

This would promote a rather hedonistic and materialistic mindset among the elves as they basically just have a form of mechanistic determinism with extra steps.  which of course we don't see, and puts a rather nihilistic note on the story, which I don't think Tolkien was going for.

But that is rather beside the point because You are mistaking speculative information within the setting for factual, in so far as Elves fates after Arda is "destroyed" if it ever even is properly destroyed. while yes their souls are tied to Arda and don't pass on (I've already noted this before) It's never spelled out or made clear what happens after Arda for them, Dwarves believe they are responsible for rebuilding Arda after it's destruction, despite their souls being just as tethered to the direct fate of Arda, so in no way is this implication set in stone or affirmed as fact anyway that they all cease to be after some specific event or time.

Also there is that pesky detail that we never see orcs or former orcs in the halls of Mandos. or even a slight hint to that idea.

QuoteMy supposition is that Tolkien thought his wordcount for his denoument was valuable to keep from rambling on forever, and he wanted to keep Sharkey's raid on the Shire to demonstrate the Hobbits' character growth and to create a, "you can't go home again," moment at the end. This isn't exactly a "mistake," so much as deprioritizing giving an antagonist race closure (which most readers won't care about unless they start waxing philosophical about the nature of orcness) to give that wordcount to viewpoint characters in a way which materially influences the ending.

The fact of the matter is wordcount and rambling wasn't the issue here, he devoted more lines to giving closure to aspects of the setting we had less direct exposure with than the orcs, but couldn't be bothered with the orcs?

The pragmatic editorial explanation doesn't really answer this one.

Greetings!

*Sigh* Some people like to assume that OD&D is somehow the absolute authority on Orcs or whatever. Noone cares what OD&D said about anything. Back in the day, most everyone viewed OD&D as the "Basic Game" for kids. AD&D was the official book and standard that everyone embraced. In AD&D, Orcs are EVIL.

I also don't understand this deep-seated need by some folks to chase after the idea that somehow, some way, the Orcs must be REDEEMABLE. Whatever Tolkien may have jumped around on philosophically navel-gazing about the deeper morality of Orcs is again, not relevant in D&D. In AD&D, while Orcs are obviously inspired by Tolkien's interpretation, "Orcs" as a concept taken from history and mythology where there are definite mythological inspirations for savage, evil humanoid monsters like Orcs that Tolkien was likewise inspired from in his depiction of Orcs.

Even when reading Tolkien, such as The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings--as a kid, what was people's impressions of Orcs back in the day? Orcs are savage, evil humanoid monsters. End of story.

Well, but letter #156 that Tolkien wrote to his sister in 1956, Tolkien felt guilty and wrestled with his depiction of Orcs being entirely evil, or postulated that Orcs could be redeemed somehow, blah, blah, blah. Again, so what? That isn't relevant either, and especially irrelevant to some kids that read just The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings back in the day.

Clearly, AD&D was not just inspired by Tolkien. So, therefore, when playing D&D, you are playing a game set up in your own world--NOT Middle Earth. The prime author and arbiter here is the DM--not Tolkien.

Even a casual reading of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings shows that Orcs are savage, evil monsters. For game purposes such as D&D, Orcs do not need to be any more complicated than that.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Some more Tolkien orcs by McBride, and with a cave troll in the background

Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2025, 01:19:23 PMClearly, AD&D was not just inspired by Tolkien. So, therefore, when playing D&D, you are playing a game set up in your own world--NOT Middle Earth. The prime author and arbiter here is the DM--not Tolkien.

Even a casual reading of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings shows that Orcs are savage, evil monsters. For game purposes such as D&D, Orcs do not need to be any more complicated than that.

No one is arguing against the DM choosing whatever they want.

Some people are pushing that orcs should be one particular way because that's what they originally were -- but I think that's a hollow argument, especially when original orcs aren't as described (like OD&D orcs being neutral or chaotic). Orcs were changed from Tolkien to early D&D, and there's no reason they shouldn't be changed further. I don't think Warcraft or Shadowrun or Earthdawn orcs are particularly woke, even though they aren't inherently evil.

Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2025, 01:19:23 PMIn AD&D, Orcs are EVIL.

I also don't understand this deep-seated need by some folks to chase after the idea that somehow, some way, the Orcs must be REDEEMABLE. Whatever Tolkien may have jumped around on philosophically navel-gazing about the deeper morality of Orcs is again, not relevant in D&D. In AD&D, while Orcs are obviously inspired by Tolkien's interpretation, "Orcs" as a concept taken from history and mythology where there are definite mythological inspirations for savage, evil humanoid monsters like Orcs that Tolkien was likewise inspired from in his depiction of Orcs.

Even when reading Tolkien, such as The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings--as a kid, what was people's impressions of Orcs back in the day? Orcs are savage, evil humanoid monsters. End of story.

Well, but letter #156 that Tolkien wrote to his sister in 1956, Tolkien felt guilty and wrestled with his depiction of Orcs being entirely evil, or postulated that Orcs could be redeemed somehow, blah, blah, blah. Again, so what? That isn't relevant either, and especially irrelevant to some kids that read just The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings back in the day.

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 04, 2025, 10:50:18 AMThe difference between whether orcs are capable as individual soldiers (which I agree they are), and whether they are a geopolitical power, "world conquerers" as you put it, is down to their political and military leadership, and their economic/diplomatic power. The seem to have functionally none of the latter, so they rise and fall with their leaders (as most factions do in Middle Earth).

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 04, 2025, 10:50:18 AMI think you could argue that the Battle of Five Armies represents the peak of the Misty Mountains orcs as an independent regional power. Prior to that, they seem to just be loose federation of tribal chieftains (though they call themselves kings).

In general, I feel your post argues that what we see of orcs in Tolkien's stories aren't representative of orcs. i.e. Bolg and his army in The Hobbit are the rare exception, and orcs aren't usually that organized or effective to be a regional power. This justifies how Tolkien's orcs could be the same as D&D cannon-fodder orcs.

Now, Tolkien wrote very little about orcs outside of the stories where they appear as antagonists. So, I'll grant that there's room for interpretation without technically contradicting what he wrote.

However, I think Tolkien's orcs should really be judged by how they features in the stories. That's orcs as Tolkien intended that we see. They don't succeed in conquering the world and wiping out the main characters, but they make a credible attempt at it. They are clearly intended to be powerful, capable antagonists as a whole - and both by themselves and under sorcerous leaders, they can and do form large armies capable of taking and holding territory.

This contrasts with early D&D.

---

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 04, 2025, 10:50:18 AMBut the sheer fact that we almost never see them under their own leadership is significant to the point you're making. Orcs as foot-soldiers of non-orc bad guys pop up frequently in D&D. Again, the only times we see orcs ruled by orcs are in the Hobbit and the supplementary material pertaining to the Goblin and Dwarf wars between books.

Can you name any D&D module where orcs are foot-soldiers under another command? All of the modules that I've looked at have orcs as a small ragtag band under a chief.

The Lord of the Rings is fundamentally about the war against Sauron - so obviously most of the orcs they're facing are the ones commanded by Sauron or his ally Saruman. Even so, the orcs of Moria are independent, and they are featured. Orcs also managed an ambush to kill King Isildur on their own, two years after Sauron was first defeated.

EDIT: fixed the previously-missing second-to-last paragraph in the story

Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2025, 01:19:23 PMEven a casual reading of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings shows that Orcs are savage, evil monsters. For game purposes such as D&D, Orcs do not need to be any more complicated than that.

I just found this article by Gary Gygax about some of the earliest gaming with orcs. It was printed in Dragon Magazine #312, page 16 (2003).

Quote from: Gary GygaxTHE FIRST ORC HERO
HE'S GOT STARS IN HIS EYES
by Gary Gygax

It didn't take long for the regulars in my GREYHAWK campaign to discover that it was cheaper and easier for them to subdue and conscript orcs into their attack forces than it was to find and hire mercenaries. Tenser, Terik, and Robilar were aggressive and ambitious characters, going so far as to clear a dungeon level, fill it with their own orc warriors, and use that as their adventuring base for dungeon delving. The captured and "converted" orcs usually didn't survive long. Eventually, both Tenser and Terik decided to forego such troops, so among the PCs only Robilar remained in charge of any considerable body of these humanoids.

Here I must make a seeming digression. Rob Kuntz was always ready to play just about any challenging game, and he played to win. In one case he attempted to foist off "quij" as a word when we were playing Scrabble. Of course we called him on it, and thereafter gave Rob a hard time about it whenever the subject of "fudging" in game play came up.

One fine day not long after the Scrabble incident noted above, Rob asked to play D&D, and I was happy to oblige as DM. In the course of exploring a side level of my Greyhawk Castle dungeons, Robilar and his guard of about a half-dozen orcs were surprised in a large room by a party of ogres. In the melee that ensued, the orcs fell rather quickly—all but one, that is. In short order, there were but three ogres left alive, two attacking Robilar, and one squared off against the sole surviving orc from Robilar's force. Armed and armored as he was, the fighter was hard pressed to manage the two big humanoids, and by the time he finally managed to finish off the second ogre, he was very near zero hit points! These ogres were tough, and a lot of high numbers came up when their attack rolls were made, so Rob was sweating the outcome. Had the third of their number managed to join the fray against Robilar, he would have been slain.

As Robilar was exchanging attacks against the pair of ogres, smiting them hip and thigh, his valiant orc faced his ogre adversary alone. If I was rolling well for the pair taking on Robilar, I couldn't avoid rolling poorly when it came to this humanoid's attacks. The ogre hit only once in about 10 rounds of the exchange between it and the orc. The latter, however, hit the ogre about every other time, so as Robilar dropped his last assailant, so did the orc that served him. Even I, as DM, was impressed by the way the dice favored that orc.

"The orc is well above the run-of-the-mill humanoids of his ilk. Defeating an ogre single-handed is most unusual," I said to Rob. "I'll roll 2d6 to see what his new hit point total is."

So I rolled the dice and they came up boxcars. "Twelve points," I exclaimed. "This is an orc hero! You can roll 4d6 for him if you want, or keep the 12 total he now has." Of course, Rob rolled the dice and got a higher total for his new 4th level orc fighter. "By the way," I added as he was noting the hp information, "his name is Quij."

So that was how the first orc hero came into being, and how I made sure that Rob could never live down his fudging in the Scrabble game. It was scant compensation for the affair, because Rob had made a considerable coup. He valued Quij highly, and the orc hero went on many subsequent adventures with his master, serving Robilar well indeed, until they came to the Temple of Elemental Evil. That episode in the history of Quij is a whole different story...

Note that Rob Kuntz started playing Robilar in 1972, about two years before D&D was published for the general public. I think it's fascinating to hear about how Gygax ran those early games.

Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2025, 07:07:09 PMEDIT: fixed the previously-missing second-to-last paragraph in the story

Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2025, 01:19:23 PMEven a casual reading of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings shows that Orcs are savage, evil monsters. For game purposes such as D&D, Orcs do not need to be any more complicated than that.

I just found this article by Gary Gygax about some of the earliest gaming with orcs. It was printed in Dragon Magazine #312, page 16 (2003).

*stuff*

Not surprised. Gary and crew seemed to have used hirelings and monster conscripts as a disposable resource. Which is funny in a "beer and pretzles D&D" kinda way, but I try to run NPCs a little more believably.

Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2025, 06:35:27 PM

QuoteBut the sheer fact that we almost never see them under their own leadership is significant to the point you're making. Orcs as foot-soldiers of non-orc bad guys pop up frequently in D&D. Again, the only times we see orcs ruled by orcs are in the Hobbit and the supplementary material pertaining to the Goblin and Dwarf wars between books.

Can you name any D&D module where orcs are foot-soldiers under another command? All of the modules that I've looked at have orcs as a small ragtag band under a chief.

Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2025, 07:07:09 PMI just found this article by Gary Gygax about some of the earliest gaming with orcs. It was printed in Dragon Magazine #312, page 16 (2003).

QuoteTHE FIRST ORC HERO
HE'S GOT STARS IN HIS EYES
by Gary Gygax

It didn't take long for the regulars in my GREYHAWK campaign to discover that it was cheaper and easier for them to subdue and conscript orcs into their attack forces than it was to find and hire mercenaries. Tenser, Terik, and Robilar were aggressive and ambitious characters, going so far as to clear a dungeon level, fill it with their own orc warriors, and use that as their adventuring base for dungeon delving.

See there you go, orcs in the service of ruthless human warlords

More seriously, I'm not the guy for that question. I only started reading/using modules around the time that I stopped playing official D&D. Maybe someone else can weigh in. I've certainly encountered it in homebrew games and heard other people mention it in stories of their own games, but hey, that's anecdotal.

Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2025, 06:35:27 PMThe Lord of the Rings is fundamentally about the war against Sauron - so obviously most of the orcs they're facing are the ones commanded by Sauron or his ally Saruman. Even so, the orcs of Moria are independent, and they are featured. Orcs also managed an ambush to kill King Isildur on their own, two years after Sauron was first defeated.

It's not just LOTR. In all the long history of Middle Earth, the only independent orc polities I'm aware of are the ones in the Misty Mountains throughout the Third Age. Even reading between the lines, those are tiny percentage of what orcs do in Middle Earth, when compared to the long war against the Angband-Mordor-Angmar-Mordor lineage.

I wouldn't call the Moria orcs "featured", and they don't get a very impressive showing. They have no named chief,  king or heroes. The Fellowship blunders into their lair, beats them in a skirmish and escapes. Take the Balrog out of the equation and it's basically the Goblin-town scenario again with no Great Goblin. Also, some sources say the Moria orcs are already in Sauron's service at that point, but I couldn't verify it.

I've always understood the Gladden Fields incident to be a pretty small engagement: Isildur and his personal retinue being attacked by a couple hundred orcs at most. I could be wrong there, but if not, it'd fit in with what I said before about orcs being dangerous as raiders but not at the level of kingdoms and grand armies.

Just to reiterate, I don't disagree with you that Tolkien's orcs are dangerous. I just don't think its fair to call them world conquerors, or claim they have mighty kingdoms. 

Quote from: Jaeger on May 05, 2025, 06:33:49 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2025, 01:19:23 PMIn AD&D, Orcs are EVIL.

I also don't understand this deep-seated need by some folks to chase after the idea that somehow, some way, the Orcs must be REDEEMABLE. Whatever Tolkien may have jumped around on philosophically navel-gazing about the deeper morality of Orcs is again, not relevant in D&D. In AD&D, while Orcs are obviously inspired by Tolkien's interpretation, "Orcs" as a concept taken from history and mythology where there are definite mythological inspirations for savage, evil humanoid monsters like Orcs that Tolkien was likewise inspired from in his depiction of Orcs.

Even when reading Tolkien, such as The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings--as a kid, what was people's impressions of Orcs back in the day? Orcs are savage, evil humanoid monsters. End of story.

Well, but letter #156 that Tolkien wrote to his sister in 1956, Tolkien felt guilty and wrestled with his depiction of Orcs being entirely evil, or postulated that Orcs could be redeemed somehow, blah, blah, blah. Again, so what? That isn't relevant either, and especially irrelevant to some kids that read just The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings back in the day.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Excellent, Jaeger! I think the constant searching of Tolkien's tea leaves is a pointless exercise. As for Orcs in the D&D game, again though, what are the depiction of Orcs through The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? Savage, evil humanoid monsters. As DM's, well, even if one desires to be more closely inspired in the deployment of such Orcs in their game world, again, much of the portrayals of Orcs within Tolkien's books are the Orcs being marauding raiders, serving either some powerful chieftain, king, or a powerful Dark Lord or sorcerer such as Sauron or Saruman. More specifically, the Orcs are typically gathered together into vast armies and marching to war from one end of Middle Earth to the other.

For game purposes, it certainly isn't a stretch for any DM being so inspired as to assume that Orcs could promote one of their own to being some uber-powerful chieftain or king--and not needing to be led by a sorcerer or mythic being of vast power. Throughout Tolkien's books, the Orcs do a lot of marching and fighting in wars. It would be reasonable to assume that such Orcs would be good at warfare, and at least a few would embrace solid leadership abilities. If one were to also read Tolkien's The Silmarillion, the Orcs in The Silmarillion are constantly organized into armies and fighting wars, laying siege to one Elven city after another, as well as steamrolling any Human cities that they Orcs come across. Furthermore, the Orcs wage war against the Dwarves within their subterranean realms as well as settlements above ground for decades at a time, or centuries even.

From this, it is easy to comprehend the AD&D Monster Manual, wherein it describes Orcs as typically being marauding raiders, but when led by a strong leader of some kind, are also well-known to gather into armies and engage in full-scale warfare. The DM is encouraged to embrace the Orcs with whatever varying degrees of military skill for Orcs as deemed appropriate for their campaign. Orcs as savage raiders is a common portrayal, while portraying some Orcs as very warlike and even disciplined, organizing under a strong leader to march to war, is also very appropriate.

Orcs throughout D&D history and various editions over the years have remained consistent with this kind of approach and underlying assumptions. Gradually, however, the only super-stupid changes have been navel-gazing and "Deconstructing" Orcs and alignment so as to make Orcs not evil, and that Orcs are really misunderstood, and can be seen as good-hearted native tribes actually being oppressed and colonized by the evil, greedy Humans and other Demi-Humans consumed with hate and racism.

That's the Cake of Stupid that we get with so many geniuses taking it upon themselves to "Re-imagine" Orcs for the game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2025, 07:07:09 PMEDIT: fixed the previously-missing second-to-last paragraph in the story

Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2025, 01:19:23 PMEven a casual reading of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings shows that Orcs are savage, evil monsters. For game purposes such as D&D, Orcs do not need to be any more complicated than that.

I just found this article by Gary Gygax about some of the earliest gaming with orcs. It was printed in Dragon Magazine #312, page 16 (2003).

Quote from: Gary GygaxTHE FIRST ORC HERO
HE'S GOT STARS IN HIS EYES
by Gary Gygax

It didn't take long for the regulars in my GREYHAWK campaign to discover that it was cheaper and easier for them to subdue and conscript orcs into their attack forces than it was to find and hire mercenaries. Tenser, Terik, and Robilar were aggressive and ambitious characters, going so far as to clear a dungeon level, fill it with their own orc warriors, and use that as their adventuring base for dungeon delving. The captured and "converted" orcs usually didn't survive long. Eventually, both Tenser and Terik decided to forego such troops, so among the PCs only Robilar remained in charge of any considerable body of these humanoids.

Here I must make a seeming digression. Rob Kuntz was always ready to play just about any challenging game, and he played to win. In one case he attempted to foist off "quij" as a word when we were playing Scrabble. Of course we called him on it, and thereafter gave Rob a hard time about it whenever the subject of "fudging" in game play came up.

One fine day not long after the Scrabble incident noted above, Rob asked to play D&D, and I was happy to oblige as DM. In the course of exploring a side level of my Greyhawk Castle dungeons, Robilar and his guard of about a half-dozen orcs were surprised in a large room by a party of ogres. In the melee that ensued, the orcs fell rather quickly—all but one, that is. In short order, there were but three ogres left alive, two attacking Robilar, and one squared off against the sole surviving orc from Robilar's force. Armed and armored as he was, the fighter was hard pressed to manage the two big humanoids, and by the time he finally managed to finish off the second ogre, he was very near zero hit points! These ogres were tough, and a lot of high numbers came up when their attack rolls were made, so Rob was sweating the outcome. Had the third of their number managed to join the fray against Robilar, he would have been slain.

As Robilar was exchanging attacks against the pair of ogres, smiting them hip and thigh, his valiant orc faced his ogre adversary alone. If I was rolling well for the pair taking on Robilar, I couldn't avoid rolling poorly when it came to this humanoid's attacks. The ogre hit only once in about 10 rounds of the exchange between it and the orc. The latter, however, hit the ogre about every other time, so as Robilar dropped his last assailant, so did the orc that served him. Even I, as DM, was impressed by the way the dice favored that orc.

"The orc is well above the run-of-the-mill humanoids of his ilk. Defeating an ogre single-handed is most unusual," I said to Rob. "I'll roll 2d6 to see what his new hit point total is."

So I rolled the dice and they came up boxcars. "Twelve points," I exclaimed. "This is an orc hero! You can roll 4d6 for him if you want, or keep the 12 total he now has." Of course, Rob rolled the dice and got a higher total for his new 4th level orc fighter. "By the way," I added as he was noting the hp information, "his name is Quij."

So that was how the first orc hero came into being, and how I made sure that Rob could never live down his fudging in the Scrabble game. It was scant compensation for the affair, because Rob had made a considerable coup. He valued Quij highly, and the orc hero went on many subsequent adventures with his master, serving Robilar well indeed, until they came to the Temple of Elemental Evil. That episode in the history of Quij is a whole different story...

Note that Rob Kuntz started playing Robilar in 1972, about two years before D&D was published for the general public. I think it's fascinating to hear about how Gygax ran those early games.

Greetings!

Yes, Jhkim, most people are aware that Gygax played differently in his campaigns from the actual AD&D rule books. Gygax also was a pretty big fan of "Gonzo" elements, so his players having all kinds of weird hirelings and henchmen isn't surprising. Most gamers, however, gain their interpretations and inspirations from what is written in the AD&D rule books--and not from some obscure letter that Gygax wrote.

It was not unheard of with campaigns back in the day where some individual Orc, a small group, or even a tribe, were of some Non-Evil alignment. That differed from the rules, though also the rules encouraged the DM to be creative and make the game their own, so there was always room in a campaign for weird exceptions from the norm. That kind of dynamic has always been an aspect of the D&D game, from the earliest years.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK