Quote from: Fheredin on May 01, 2025, 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 May 01, 2025, 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 May 01, 2025, 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 May 01, 2025, 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.

Quote from: jhkim on May 01, 2025, 12:45:03 PM1) 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?

1. That's true, beefed up orcs and other Goblinoids have always been a part of D&D from the beginning. I guess giving them a name like "Black Orc" or "Cloven-hoofed" gives it more depth to me. IT's just not a orc with 3+3 hit dice. For example: under the Black Orc description in the Dragonslayer RPG by Greg Gillespie:



2. I guess it depends on how the DM wants to play it when Orcs and Goblins mix. For me, the war between the two races in the afterlife does spill over into the material world.

Orcs or other having a kingdom or nation? Well, you do have the Orcs of Thar. I do know that exists. For me, the only organized orc "kingdom" is when playing Hackmaster 4e, the default setting is Garweeze Wurld. It's called the Southern Orc League, which is a theocracy.

Greetings!

I have all of Tolkien's books. Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings. I've also read them many times over the years. Tolkien is in a class by himself as an author, writer, myth-maker and world-crafter. His works are absolutely brilliant, wonderful, and *Literary* on such a powerful scale, Tolkien's books will be read 500 years from now. Most other authors that like to pretend they are in the same room with Tolkien or the fans that like to embrace this delusion--will be long forgotten by most people.

Tolkien will still be read and loved by millions of people, even centuries from now.

Having said that, all the arguing over what Tolkien "meant" in chapter 12, V36, is absolutely irrelevant to me. Why?

Because I am playing a GAME. I am the DM, and I set and create the world. The world is not Middle Earth, and again, we are playing a RPG--not retracing the footsteps of Lord of the Rings.

Look up KING FINGOLFIN. And his story. King Fingolfin as an epic HERO, and makes the whole world tremble and take notice. They wake the fuck up for sure when King Fingolfin rides his horse ALONE out across the wastelands. Absolutely EPIC!

As others have noted, like Blackstone, Opaopajr, among more, there always has been creativity and nuances with presenting Orcs in the game. Since the beginning! So, there is plenty of literary, rules, and module stuff to use as inspiration for interpreting and using Orcs in a variety of ways. Yes, you can also have different Orcs in your world all at the same time. Orcs don't all have to be just one way. Orcs can have different cultures, different religions, and different expressions and depictions in how they are Orcs.

So, yeah. Fuck the haters and the crybabies. Make Orcs how you want them to be in your game world. Some evil, some good, whatever. Make them all evil savages. Make them "Kumbaya" pacifist hippies interested in dope, love and orgies. Go wild!

For my world though, I make Orcs savage, dark, and evil. My Orcs can give some lessons to the Reich about what it means to embrace evil and serve the Dark Gods.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: blackstone on May 01, 2025, 03:16:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 01, 2025, 12:45:03 PMHave 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?

That's true, beefed up orcs and other Goblinoids have always been a part of D&D from the beginning. I guess giving them a name like "Black Orc" or "Cloven-hoofed" gives it more depth to me.
...
Orcs or other having a kingdom or nation? Well, you do have the Orcs of Thar. I do know that exists. For me, the only organized orc "kingdom" is when playing Hackmaster 4e, the default setting is Garweeze Wurld. It's called the Southern Orc League, which is a theocracy.

I agree it's better to demonstrate what higher-level orcs are like, with stat blocks, instead of having them be one-offs.

Regarding kingdoms... Thar is an example, but it also demonstrates my point. To the outside world, Thar is a wasteland. The orcs hide there and only make stealth raids. It's a kingdom, sure, but not a very powerful one.

In the Lord of the Rings, Mordor is probably the strongest kingdom in the world, with massive armies and also a number of major human allies. The orcs also have a few other lesser kingdoms.

What's weird to me is that most D&D players don't seem to notice this complete flip.

---

Quote from: Opaopajr on April 30, 2025, 05:04:06 AMOnce you play *anything* with the ability to "level-up" and use the same gear and tactics of fellow sentients with opposable thumbs of a sort then it's game on! Quickly-maturing, rapid-breeders versus long-lived slow-maturing, slow-breeders will always be a friction due to the life strategy -- hence why Humans are critical in the elf, dwarf, human, half-X, gnome, halfling consortium. Humans being larger in sized, rapid in maturation, and quick to breed makes them the bulwark against the horde creatures of ogre, orc, hobgoblin, goblin, etc.

This is another interesting difference from Tolkien. Tolkien's orcs could get quite old. For example, the orc leader Bolg, son of Azog, was over 140 years old in The Hobbit. Tolkien had a note that orcs are short-lived compared to "Men of higher race" - but Men of higher race can live quite a while, so that's not necessarily a contradiction. Tolkien says nothing about orcs' rate of reproduction.

However, D&D has indeed made orcs into quickly-maturing rapid-breeders as Opaopajr says - with 1E MM orcs living around 40 years, and in Dragon magazine and 2E, it was established that they have a high rate of reproduction.

Again, nothing wrong with the change -- but it reinforces how orcs were changed for early D&D.

I like the fact that different settings have different Orcs. the evil barbaric Tolkeinesque kind are good, but so are the "Proud but sometimes brutal or barbaric warrior culture" ones we see from Elder Scrolls as Orsimer.

Not sure about Mexican orcs though lol.

Quote from: ZeeHero on May 01, 2025, 09:40:58 PMI like the fact that different settings have different Orcs. the evil barbaric Tolkeinesque kind are good, but so are the "Proud but sometimes brutal or barbaric warrior culture" ones we see from Elder Scrolls as Orsimer.

Not sure about Mexican orcs though lol.

I've been trying to classify orcs of different games/editions into just a few categories of broad archetypes. Thus far I've got four:

• Goblin/Minion
• Raider/Scrounger
• Brute/Hoodlum
• Warrior Race

The Goblin/Minion is what Tolkien's vision is closest to - related to goblins in films like Labyrinth (1989) and parodied in Despicable Me. They are distinct by being short and often clever -- but also usually wicked and fractious, fighting among themselves. They are pictured working in large numbers for a dark lord, fighting for him in great armies and also building and maintaining his insidious machines.

The Raider/Scrounger is a poor cousin to them, who are primitive, short-lived, brutal creatures who live in hideouts, and raid more advanced, successful, and/or civilized beings. They're not very strong or successful - and they generally have no dark lord, just a bullying local chief. This is what early D&D orcs are more like, but I'm still trying to think of other examples of the archetype. The Beagle Boys from Scrooge McDuck come to mind, but I'm sure there are better examples.

The Brute/Hoodlum are strong and dumb, full of machismo. They may work together well as a gang or horde, but they can easily be fooled or misled. They understand only strength and violence. This is represented by some caveman or biker gang stereotypes, going back a century or more. These were applied to orcs especially in Warhammer 40k Space Orks.

The Warrior Race is also strong, but not dumb. They might be cruel and vicious, but they tend have some code of honor. Their culture prizes military might and conquest. The Klingons from Star Trek are the most well-known of this archetype - sometimes cruel enemies, sometimes honorable allies. It also shows up in the Warcraft / World of Warcraft and Elder Scrolls franchises.

---

I've been struggling some with the names of these and the examples, but I feel like it's getting at something that distills details into something more visceral.

Quote from: jhkim on May 01, 2025, 07:21:37 PMIn the Lord of the Rings, Mordor is probably the strongest kingdom in the world, with massive armies and also a number of major human allies. The orcs also have a few other lesser kingdoms.

What's weird to me is that most D&D players don't seem to notice this complete flip.

The reason for this is because most players that are Millennials or Gen Z aren't well-versed in classic fantasy literature. Their concept of an Orc comes from video games and those RPGs that are influenced by them, which is by in large a post-modernist impression. To them, orcs are just another race of people.

Or as they stupidly say, "species".

I understand nuance and the "many shades of gray" in the world, but that's the real world. But this is fantasy. I play to escape from the real world problems. I prefer to have well-defined concepts of good and evil, law and chaos.

Which I think gets into a larger issue with modern D&D. Because of DEI and post-modernist influences, the game is written in a way to directly reflect our word, but with a fantasy twist. Every tavern is a medieval version of a bistro. Every inn is like a B&B off of Vrbo. Every Orc is a stand it for a Mexican.

If that's what a person likes in their game, that's fine. It's just not my preferred way of play. In fact to me it's counter to what D&D should be.

Millennials and Gen Z aren't very good at dealing with reality for the most part. They've been sheltered. Coddled. The latest form of D&D compensates for this. They can play out their issues of dealing with reality within a fantasy setting, hence all the bistro-like taverns, morally gray area orcs, and the such.

They're using D&D as a coping mechanism for their lack of mental maturity to deal with reality.

I just do not get the appeal in playing in a fantasy game like that.

Some may say that's the whole point of RPGs: they're a coping mechanism for their lack of mental maturity to deal with reality. I disagree. RPGs were meant to take a break from our reality. Once the game is over, you have to go back to the real world and deal with it.

The latest generation of players doesn't want to. They'd rather use D&D as a crutch to emulate our real world in a SAFE SETTING. Because if they fuck up in a RPG, there are no real repercussions. IT's a "safe space". But if something goes bad in the real world, holy shit their concept of reality comes crashing down around them. Next thing you know they're balling their eyes out on Twitter/X, because the Starbucks has a line of four people, and they can't cope with the job. Meanwhile the same scenario is played out in Safe Fantasyland, where everybody is "all-so-cool", and they can magically make everything ok.

Fuck that.

Make Orcs EVIL again. Make them the blood-lusting monsters they truly are, and let's not stop there. Make Drow the scary villain bad-asses again. Make vampires evil blood sucking bastards again. Make evil, EVIL again. Because you can't have good without evil. Once cannot exist without the other. Hence the eternal struggle.

Sorry, I went off into a rant. I do believe there is a connection with modern depictions of orcs and post-modernism (which I despise).

You can just focus on the orc stuff and ignore the rest if you will.

Quote from: ZeeHero on May 01, 2025, 09:40:58 PMNot sure about Mexican orcs though lol.

They're good at lawn care?
They make the best carne asada?
The females are hot-looking weather reporters?

Quote from: Trond on April 30, 2025, 12:05:09 AMThe weird thing about orcs is that they did not only lose their mojo after Tolkien, they got dumbed down too. Tolkien had several kinds of orcs. The "standard" ones (often called goblins) e.g. in the Misty Mountains, the larger and stronger Uruks, and even some kind of sniffer scout orcs.

Initially D&D orcs were apparently fairly organized and not the dumb brutes they mostly are now.

I blame Forgotten Realms for part of this problem as the orcs of Faerun are mostly dumb brutes.

Quote from: blackstone on Today at 09:43:42 AMThey're using D&D as a coping mechanism for their lack of mental maturity to deal with reality.

I just do not get the appeal in playing in a fantasy game like that.

Some may say that's the whole point of RPGs: they're a coping mechanism for their lack of mental maturity to deal with reality. I disagree. RPGs were meant to take a break from our reality. Once the game is over, you have to go back to the real world and deal with it.

The latest generation of players doesn't want to. They'd rather use D&D as a crutch to emulate our real world in a SAFE SETTING. Because if they fuck up in a RPG, there are no real repercussions. IT's a "safe space". But if something goes bad in the real world, holy shit their concept of reality comes crashing down around them. Next thing you know they're balling their eyes out on Twitter/X, because the Starbucks has a line of four people, and they can't cope with the job. Meanwhile the same scenario is played out in Safe Fantasyland, where everybody is "all-so-cool", and they can magically make everything ok.

Fuck that.

Make Orcs EVIL again. Make them the blood-lusting monsters they truly are, and let's not stop there. Make Drow the scary villain bad-asses again. Make vampires evil blood sucking bastards again. Make evil, EVIL again. Because you can't have good without evil. Once cannot exist without the other. Hence the eternal struggle.

Sorry, I went off into a rant. I do believe there is a connection with modern depictions of orcs and post-modernism (which I despise).

You can just focus on the orc stuff and ignore the rest if you will.

As 'the D&D Guy', as I have been introduced on panels and other situations on the campus, I hear a LOT of what you are saying, and I don't introduce roleplaying games (nor do I only deal with D&D) this way, it is not meant to be a safe space, the supporting literature in Appendix N proves that. I run a game as part of both my Humanities class and my Workforce Training class and I can only report that when I run a game (like Swords & Six-Siders) I run it like I have always run games and some of the students totally get into it like I did too many years ago, and some look like I just kicked their puppy, yet there is hope, for there are fewer of them. My off campus groups do not have students, there are younger people and they all enjoy an older style of play. At least they keep coming back.