Quote from: Fheredin on Today at 08:22:34 AMI would beg to differ on that being an inherently "Christian" point of view so much as loosely Tolkien's while he was writing Lord of the Rings. Insert Venn diagram here. I don't even actually recall this from Augustine's discussion of evil, either, although that could be because I haven't read Augustine in ~20 years. Regardless, Augustine is not actually canon. He's commentary, and you are free to disagree with commentary. I could write a book about the flaws in Calvin's commentaries.

I'd agree the nature of evil is a tertiary concern in Christianity, likewise the idea of evil as the absence of good is an idea that started in neoplatonism, likewise that commentary does not carry the same authority as scripture, however unlike John Calvin, Augustine is nowhere near as polarizing in his opinions, likewise he is generally well regarded by theologians as a whole across many sects, not just Catholics.

But this is all rather beside point, because Tolkien believed this point of view and thus it informs his cosmology and setting.

QuoteRegardless, I have to point out that from Morgoth's perspective, this is hairsplitting. Morgoth didn't actually care if orcs were self-aware, so even if he could have made them so, he probably would not have. How much does the definition of creativity actually matter?

I'd strongly disagree, Morgoth's entire character is built on the fact he can't be God, his goal to usurp and become the sovereign of all existence and the view that he was superior to all his peers and siblings. his entire spiral into insanity is predicated on this.

It probably drove him mad to no end he did not have the power to make truly original things like Aru could, further cementing the gulf in power between the two. The Orcs (regardless of version) are clearly a lashing out towards Aru by making a mockery of his children, since Morogth has no real ability to make children of his own.

it's not hair-splitting, it's borderline the crux of his character. Sauron on the other hand was not wrapped up in the delusion that Morgoth was. he knew well enough Godhood was not on the table, and given the Valar as a whole were disinterested in the affairs of Middle Earth he saw it as a place to rule and order, because his whole drive is to order and structure things and make them efficient. Sauron would have considered the issue of free will and creativity Vs. Ingenuity to be hair-splitting.

Quote from: blackstone on Today at 11:03:26 AMI guess nobody gave two shits about my input, which I thought was relevant in regards to orcs as given in the game itself, and not the very loose interpretation of orcs in D&D...

Oh well...

Welcome to the club. I will bite, however, and agree, it is with D&D. And while you cited excellent examples of orcs from other D&D derivatives, what about a game like OpenQuest? A simple OSR version of earlier editions of RQ in which any creature can get in a lucky hit and cause that higher end character to have a very bad day and there is no reason NOT to beef up adversaries in the first place.

Quote from: blackstone on Today at 11:03:26 AMI guess nobody gave two shits about my input, which I thought was relevant in regards to orcs as given in the game itself, and not the very loose interpretation of orcs in D&D...

Sorry, blackstone. Those were interesting comments citing specific material - so thanks. However, they came across to me as more like minor tweaks to standard early D&D orcs.

1) Having a 3+3 HD leaders like your Black Orcs seems similar to early practice. For example, B2 "Keep on the Borderlands" has two orc leaders of 4HD and 3HD. The 2E MM added in Orogs as high-power orc figures, and later editions had similar higher-power orc options.

2) To me, both the humanoid racial preference table from the DMG or the Deities & Demigods entries on Gruumsh vs Maglubiyet seem like footnotes that don't effect games much. I suspect most DMs wouldn't even know about either. Even if orcs and goblins are warring, their wars don't seem to change settings significantly.

Have orcs featured differently in your homebrew adventures or settings as a result of these? Do orcs have powerful nations in a setting of yours like Mordor? Have you had any adventures where orcs were the focus?

Quote from: jeff37923 on Today at 09:23:37 AMI'm late to the party, but I can think of two distinct milestones in the conceptual history of orcs where they were significantly nerfed and lost their mojo.

The first is when the whole bullshit "Orcs are a stand-in for whoever we think is marginalized and we are racist". We know that this is a woke lie, but the social repercussions of that has made a far more sympathetic monster than the representations of mankind's evil and brutality that they were.

The second happened when BECMI's Orcs of Thar and D&D 3.x were set aside and monsters were not allowed to achieve character levels

As I noted in the OP, I think the biggest change was from Tolkien - where orcs were a world power and the primary antagonists of the stories - to early D&D where they are a minor side threat for beginning adventurers, with almost no nations of their own and not even the primary enemies in introductory modules for 1st level adventurers.

A side note on the latter - Volo's Guide to Monsters (2016) has optional rules for orc and other monster PCs just like in Orcs of Thar. The 5E change is the official NPC stat blocks of any race don't use PC rules, but instead have simplified stats. There are empowered tougher-than-usual monster NPCs in many 5E modules - they just don't use PC levels to make them.

Tougher-than-standard orcs have always been a mechanical option, but in practice it's only been used for one or two 3 or 4HD leaders to a group, as far as I've seen. That doesn't change much.