Quote from: ForgottenF on May 04, 2025, 12:03:37 AMAlso, while I do agree that Tolkien's orcs are supposed to be capable soldiers, it's not hard to read the books and come away with the opposite conclusion. Tolkien doesn't spell things out for his reader, so you have to go beyond the surface level to pick this stuff up. On the surface, orcs suck. They only get one "on-screen" win in all of the Hobbit and LOTR, and that's when it takes a small army of Uruk Hai to kill Boromir and kidnap the wrong hobbits. There are other victories, but they're mostly in the background, and never when our POV characters are present. Orcish battlefield capability comes across better with the full context of the Silmarillion, Appendices, Unfinished Tales, etc., but I don't know how many people were reading those in 1977.

OK, so you're agreeing with me about Tolkien - but you say that it's not hard to misread him? Fair enough, I can agree to that. People can overlook things and miss out if they're not reading carefully. I might be biased from reading a bunch of Tolkien, and reading closely since I've been running Middle Earth games.

---

Still, the point is that there's a major shift between what Tolkien actually wrote (near world-conquerors) versus the portrayal of orcs in early D&D (minor mooks).

There's some overlap because it's also true that in Tolkien, an individual orc is not especially fearsome. However, they clearly have ability to organize, build fortifications and siege engines, and operate effectively in war - to field armies that are considered major threats. That's clear both in The Hobbit and in The Lord of the Rings.

Skipping to just whether they won or lost in the end "on-screen" skips over what sort of threat they are. Did they lose in The Battle of Helm's Deep? Yes, they did. However, they were assaulting a supposedly impregnable fortress - taking it down, and only being defeated by unexpected reinforcements. Likewise, the Battle of Osgiliath where they slaughtered Gondorians happens "off-screen", but it is clearly described.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 03, 2025, 09:42:59 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on May 03, 2025, 07:06:53 PMI think you're misunderstanding the problem, at least as I see it as a fiction editor.

No, I just don't constitute it as a strong argument. and as a whole I've already alloted you more side tangents and posts than I should have.

QuoteFor the record, I do think it's possible by showing that the entire group in question has a defective grieving process. Self-aware characters know that a dead character can't be replaced with characters just like them; the original is still dead.

grief is just as fakeable to a classical P-zombie as anything else, though funny how we never see Orcs grieve, or care for each other.

I've been quite consistent for the last three leaves of the exchange that the problem is this is a poor creative decision which is difficult to follow through on, and LotR (and all other works of fantasy listed on this thread) are more constrained by practical writing concerns than pure philosophy and internal lore. This is why I didn't particularly bite on the philosophical zombie angle and instead stuck to the much more basic self-aware angle; it isn't that they are denotatively that different, but that the connotations mean that you're putting all the emphasis on things which aren't actually limiting factors.

The observation we don't see orcs grieve in LotR is a perfect example of this. The explanation is almost certainly that Tolkien didn't want orcs to be sympathetic, so even if they do grieve (which is not a given), the story's framing would have been cut to avoid showing it. The philosophical zombie argument is a thought experiment to prove the hard problem of consciousness, but the task of the author is to make that inner existence apparent to the reader, which means finding ways to cheat past the hard problem of consciousness.

I would say that asserting that self-aware and not self-aware entities can have identical grieving processes is not a solid assumption. That's the philosophical zombie thought experiment talking. But from a creative writing perspective, you have to make some kind of compromise on the philosophical zombie thought experiment to communicate certain ideas to the reader.

Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2025, 12:57:21 AMThanks for the correction and additions. (I have _The Orcs of Thar_ but I forgot about the name.) Are you disagreeing about the big picture, though? Thar's secret army under the Broken Lands has the potential to be a problem for surrounding nations, but at present they're just hiding and raiding caravans. They have shown no ability to take and hold territory.

You mention Hule (which I didn't recall), but you also say that was removed from canon, and from what I read  here, Hule is predominantly human with a 30% minority of mixed humanoids (primarily bugbears, gnolls, kobolds, ogres, and orcs).

Im not disagreing persay, just talking about how theres a variety of orcs in mystara. Also Hule wasnt removed from canon, but the adventure Red Arrow Black Shield where they are the primary antagonist was removed from canon.

Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2025, 02:57:07 AMDid they lose in The Battle of Helm's Deep? Yes, they did. However, they were assaulting a supposedly impregnable fortress - taking it down, and only being defeated by unexpected reinforcements.

That's a battle they chose though, and the reinforcements --while unexpected-- were not unknown. The Uruks had actually engaged Erkenbrand's forces before Theoden arrived, so they knew that contingent was in the field and could involve itself. The Huorns are more unexpected, but their involvement in the battle is minor. All they really do is mop up of the already fleeing Uruks in the aftermath.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that Saruman's defeat in the Helm's Deep campaign is mostly owed to his own failures as a leader. (You can read a very thorough explication of that theory here.) But that's really the point. The 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).

The quality of their leaders varies across the books. Under Morgoth or Sauron's leadership, orcs do pretty well. Under Saruman's they do not. But 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.

Amusingly, I think you could argue that orcish fortunes actually fair the best under their own leadership. We don't get told much of the Dwarf-Goblin wars, but the orcs do end them holding Moria and much of the Misty Mountains, so there's a Pyrrhic victory there at least. Even though he loses the Battle of Five Armies, Bolg's generalship is pretty solid. He manages to bring his army to Erebor undetected and nearly defeats the triple entente arrayed against him. There he genuinely is beaten by the arrival of unforeseeable reinforcements in Beorn and the Eagles. There's probably a diplomatic coup there as well, in welding together the various tribes to make up that army. The goblin army turning up at Erebor surprises everyone except Gandalf, suggesting that no one expected them to even be able to field such a force.

I 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). That's also pretty consistent with how D&D orcs are usually portrayed.  We're told that they raid the human settlements on the east side of the mountains and make crossing the range dangerous, but no one seems to be expecting a massive goblin putsch to conquer Wilderland. Thorin and Co. interrupt a council meeting with the wolves to ally against the Woodmen, but even that would be low-level conflict relative to what we see in the other books. And then the defeat at Erebor seems to effectively end them as a military threat. In the War of the Ring, They provide mercenaries to both Sauron and Saruman, but the only independent action I'm aware of is a punitive raid launched by the Moria tribe against Lothlorien for harboring the Fellowship, which is soundly crushed.

EDIT: I should probably clarify that I don't think Tolkien intended us to think the Bolg is a superior general to Sauron (though I think he probably is better than Saruman), and I don't think the text would support that conclusion. Sauron's campaign against the Free Peoples is quite impressive when you get into the details. His forces also wind up being defeated on every front, but much of that can be attributed to the destruction of the ring and subsequent removal of him and all his top generals. What I mean is that Tolkien's orcs fare best when their ambitions are kept limited. They can maintain stable realms in the mountains, and so long as they confine themselves to protecting their territory and to raiding their neighbors, they seem to be able to keep that up for centuries. When they fall in with a big chancer like Sauron or Saruman, they usually go down with him.

Alright I'll bite.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 04, 2025, 08:20:41 AMThe observation we don't see orcs grieve in LotR is a perfect example of this. The explanation is almost certainly that Tolkien didn't want orcs to be sympathetic

Wouldn't you agree that this is rather contradicted by the idea Orcs are just the victims of a eugenics program to create soldiers? that they are on some core level still Elves?

Let's follow your train of logic and take an editorial perspective on this matter as you seem to insist we should.
Looking at Tolkien what was his central belief? well he was a Catholic Christian, and anybody who knows anything about Christianity knows that it's central ethos is Redemption.

Through out the Legendarium this theme plays subtly in the back with sweet notes and melodies, Boromir's last stand, Galadriel's test and the return of The Elves being allowed to return to Valanor, Smeagol chance at it. it is woven into the backdrop of the setting because ultimately the setting is a pre-history of earth  and by extension Aru is God.

So given all that, wouldn't it be weird that there are no proper lines devoted to this theme in relation to the Orcs?
Even Sauron, The Dark Lord, and former lieutenant to Morgoth (literally Satan) get's more  speculative lines devoted to his possible redemption than the Orcs.

QuoteSauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eönwë the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eönwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë.

Even if you view this as insincere on Sauron part, it's clear that other character believed it was sincere, and thus there was a chance he could be redeemed, which is still more than can be said for the Orcs.

Given Tolkien's theological view that anyone with a soul had a chance at redemption, only to not even address the topic with Orcs, to me throws a monkey wrench at the idea they are twisted Elves altogether.

You could make the argument this is simply inconsistent or poor writing on Tolkien part, but I'd note that sword cuts both ways in terms of this argument, and  saws the branch in which we both sit.

Angus McBride paid pretty close attention to Tolkien as a source. Here are some examples of his take on orcs.

If you want to know Tolkien's last thought about orcs, you need to read Morgoth's Ring, Vol. X of the History of Middle Earth.

He went back and forth on what orcs were, but he was convinced that if they were rational, they were in theory redeemable, even if that was practically impossible for Elves or Men to accomplish.

Quote from: Trond on May 04, 2025, 05:32:30 PMAngus McBride paid pretty close attention to Tolkien as a source. Here are some examples of his take on orcs.

This is an orc illustration from Against the Darkmaster. Someone's been cheating...

On the subject, here's an orc illustration from Dragon Warriors which I quite like.


Looks like it might also have been inspired by those McBride pieces, without you know... just copying them.

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 04, 2025, 11:52:26 PM

Quote from: Trond on May 04, 2025, 05:32:30 PMAngus McBride paid pretty close attention to Tolkien as a source. Here are some examples of his take on orcs.

This is an orc illustration from Against the Darkmaster. Someone's been cheating...

Also see the cover of the rules, particularly the QuickStart rules, and compare to McBride's MERP cover.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2025, 02:31:14 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on May 02, 2025, 06:57:39 PMOrcs in D&D should be feared by PC's like the Reavers are feared in the firefly tv series. That they no longer are is a failure on the part of the commercial stewards of the hobby.

It certainly doesn't help that D&D orcs have always been 1HD mooks that characters slay by the thousands in order to get xp and loot and level up.

Exactly, Ratman_tf. Orcs being cannon-fodder is in lots of early D&D material.

Something I'd really like to get is some good non-D&D parallels for the "Raider/Scavenger" orc archetype of early D&D.

Distinct qualities: They occupy places built by others, and scavenge their equipment, not building things of their own. They don't form nations with armies who marshall and conquer territory, but rather only have small bands with a strongman orc leader who raid for spoils. (D&D orcs aren't 100% this, but it is a tendency.)

Any good examples of enemies or creatures like this outside of D&D?

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 04, 2025, 02:38:20 PMAlright I'll bite.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 04, 2025, 08:20:41 AMThe observation we don't see orcs grieve in LotR is a perfect example of this. The explanation is almost certainly that Tolkien didn't want orcs to be sympathetic

Wouldn't you agree that this is rather contradicted by the idea Orcs are just the victims of a eugenics program to create soldiers? that they are on some core level still Elves?

Let's follow your train of logic and take an editorial perspective on this matter as you seem to insist we should.
Looking at Tolkien what was his central belief? well he was a Catholic Christian, and anybody who knows anything about Christianity knows that it's central ethos is Redemption.

Through out the Legendarium this theme plays subtly in the back with sweet notes and melodies, Boromir's last stand, Galadriel's test and the return of The Elves being allowed to return to Valanor, Smeagol chance at it. it is woven into the backdrop of the setting because ultimately the setting is a pre-history of earth  and by extension Aru is God.

So given all that, wouldn't it be weird that there are no proper lines devoted to this theme in relation to the Orcs?
Even Sauron, The Dark Lord, and former lieutenant to Morgoth (literally Satan) get's more  speculative lines devoted to his possible redemption than the Orcs.

No, for two reasons.

• Just 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.
• Elvish 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.

Quote

QuoteSauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eönwë the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eönwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë.

Even if you view this as insincere on Sauron part, it's clear that other character believed it was sincere, and thus there was a chance he could be redeemed, which is still more than can be said for the Orcs.

Given Tolkien's theological view that anyone with a soul had a chance at redemption, only to not even address the topic with Orcs, to me throws a monkey wrench at the idea they are twisted Elves altogether.

You could make the argument this is simply inconsistent or poor writing on Tolkien part, but I'd note that sword cuts both ways in terms of this argument, and  saws the branch in which we both sit.

I don't follow how this "saws the branch in which we both sit." The Lord of the Rings is the grandfather of the modern high fantasy genre, but it is not perfect, and expecting it to be so is nonsense. More to the point, there is a third explanation; Tolkien had reason to do this on purpose.

My 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.

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.

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 01:48:17 AMSomething I'd really like to get is some good non-D&D parallels for the "Raider/Scavenger" orc archetype of early D&D.

Distinct qualities: They occupy places built by others, and scavenge their equipment, not building things of their own. They don't form nations with armies who marshall and conquer territory, but rather only have small bands with a strongman orc leader who raid for spoils. (D&D orcs aren't 100% this, but it is a tendency.)

Any good examples of enemies or creatures like this outside of D&D?

That archetype is almost exclusive to RPGs (and a few works of non-interactive fiction directly inspired by them), because there it serves a mechanical purpose (providing work for solo or small group adventurers). Many RPGs have orcs in the role, so alternatives are going to turn up most often in games that have moved orcs into another archetype. World of Warcraft had several races filling at least most of the criteria, as does the Elder Scrolls. Even D&D has kept creatures like Gnolls in basically the same role since they started rehabbing orcs.

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 01:48:17 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2025, 02:31:14 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on May 02, 2025, 06:57:39 PMOrcs in D&D should be feared by PC's like the Reavers are feared in the firefly tv series. That they no longer are is a failure on the part of the commercial stewards of the hobby.

It certainly doesn't help that D&D orcs have always been 1HD mooks that characters slay by the thousands in order to get xp and loot and level up.

Exactly, Ratman_tf. Orcs being cannon-fodder is in lots of early D&D material.

Something I'd really like to get is some good non-D&D parallels for the "Raider/Scavenger" orc archetype of early D&D.

Distinct qualities: They occupy places built by others, and scavenge their equipment, not building things of their own. They don't form nations with armies who marshall and conquer territory, but rather only have small bands with a strongman orc leader who raid for spoils. (D&D orcs aren't 100% this, but it is a tendency.)

Any good examples of enemies or creatures like this outside of D&D?

As a race? Not sure.
But any post-acopalyptic game will have plenty of scavenger people/cultures like this. I forget the name of the game that many recommended years ago, very close to Mad Max in feel.