I disagree, I'd say they're more in line with Mongols in that they're full-time pillagers.  I also mildly disagree with jhkim about Shadowrun in that all metahumans are still human, so they don't really fit into a racial setup as there are literally black orcs, Asian orcs, etc.  Metahumans are widely mistreated by humanity as a whole, most especially the orcs and trolls but even the dwarves and elves to a degree, and racism isn't gone but has been widely supplanted by metatype discrimination, as racists suddenly got less interested in skin color when there's an eight foot tall dude with tusks hanging out on the corner and a bunch of ghouls in the parking garage across the street.  In any event, all of that is to say that orcs are definitely a persecuted minority in Shadowrun, but the feel of it is different from our current standards of racism, especially because a human child can randomly turn into an orc when they hit puberty, while not many children suddenly turn black when they're teenagers.

Quote from: oggsmash on June 25, 2024, 01:53:45 PMYou lose me at electric slide...that and all line dancing is the whitest thing on earth.

FWIW they gave the female orc a booty dance. I don't think twerking had been invented in 2004, but it was the contemporary equivalent.

I didn't know this until just now, but apparently they gave the Tauren (minotaur) female the electric slide. Given that as Orphan81 said, the Tauren where mostly flavored like American Indians, I think that's pretty good evidence they didn't care much about what race got what dance. They just went with whatever cultural reference they thought the audience would laugh at.

Quote from: Valatar on June 25, 2024, 05:01:01 PMI disagree, I'd say they're more in line with Mongols in that they're full-time pillagers.

Yeah I always got a Turkomongol vibe from WoW's orcs, too, though I could never articulate why.

Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2024, 04:29:04 PMIn any of these, there are variations in how people use them. I don't think orcs being associated with a human group is inherently classist or racist. It depends on how it is used.

This is the part I want to make sure doesn't get lost. As fun as it is to point and laugh at WOTC for failing in their own dumb logic, it's important to not to fall into accepting their premises while doing so.

Well, first off, Tolkien's "orcs" are the original orcs.  He borrowed a line from Beowulf, which was describing the monsters descending from Cain (ultimately resulting in Grendel) as "eotanas, ylfas, and orcneas."  That's giants (and the origin of the term "ettin"), elves, and ... something.  As far as scholars of Anglo-Saxon can surmise, "orcneas" most probably describes a kind of ravenous dead creature (so an undead, in D&D terms something like a zombie or ghoul).

So, Tolkien took that term and expanded on it, coming up with a creature to flesh out an unknown term (much like he turned the Middle English "wuduwasa" into Woodwoses, or wild men of the woods).  That is the origin of orcs.  Before Tolkien, no one really gave that term or its meaning any serious thought, other than as a generic monster or bogeyman.  So Tolkien really did invent the orc, even if he didn't invent the word.

As you can see from the etymology, the ideas of inhumanity and rapaciousness were inherent in the original term.  This is why Tolkien's orcs are generally portrayed as cruel, inhuman, brutal and rapacious.  Only later, when his original construction started to conflict with his religious ideologies, did Tolkien start to soften his idea of what an orc was, where they came from, and how "savable" they might have been.

When EGG decided to frame his orcs as a pig-faced creature, he was deliberately separating himself from the visual representation of the orc, but not the character of the orcs.  They were still inhuman, cruel, and rapacious.

Modern reframing of orcs as analogues or representations of historical cultures miss the point entirely.  Orcs were never intended to be human-adjacent.  They were "enemies," in a truly existential sense.  Humanizing orcs makes as much sense as humanizing ghouls or leeches...

People say that something is coded when they want to equate two things that are clearly not equivalent.  If they were actually equivalent, there wouldn't be any need to throw up a smoke screen by talking about codes. 

Most things are not secret squirrel coded stand-ins for something else.  I would say that the vast majority of things are pretty much just what they seem to be.  Orcs are an evil humanoid race for the PCs to fight.  That's what they seem to be and that's what they are.  There is no secret code.  They aren't coded.  They are just orcs.

Millennials are coded as useful idiots lacking critical thinking skills.

We also have the etymological connection between orc and ogre in medieval and early modern European literature - the 'uerco' of Giambattista Basile, the 'orco' of Oriosto's Orlando Furiosa and Samuel Holland's 'orke' from Don Zara. These works all cast the orc/ogre as flesh eating monsters. As Eirikrautha says, these creations are not the developed idea of the orc as found in Tolkien, but the notion of the orc/ogre as a monster is not coded to the African-American (or whatever) as they are indigenous to European romance literature, quite possibly deriving from the Etruscan underworld god Orcus. 

As I understand it the pig faced orc derives from the Brothers Hildebrandt picture in the 1976 Tolkien Calendar and was first put into D&D by Dave Sutherland III on the inside cover of the Holmes Basic rules of 1977. I read that Gygax thought they were a bit too porcine, but thought it good as they were not quite Tolkien's orcs and he was still smarting over the cease and desist letter from the Tolkien estate.

When you evaluate your virtue based on how outraged you are, it's little surprise that one goes looking for things to be outraged by... and if you can't find something; invent it.

The Left has always leaned towards the mentally ill tween Tumblr crowd and their Oppression Olympics, so it's little wonder that whatever teen boys find interesting or funny (i.e. keeps them from being perpetually miserable self-loathing loads like them) would be prime candidates for their ire and be labeled as "problematic."

As with the Prager-U video of a white guy in a stereotypical Mexican getup (poncho, sombrero, fake handlebar mustache); only the white college girls thought it was was offensive. When he went into a Mexican neighborhood everyone thought he was cool, showed appreciation or was funny.

In the same way, most of the young black men I knew during WoW's heyday thought the "ghetto orcs" were hilarious. They knew it was supposed to be funny and that all the other races were send ups and had fun with it just like every other teenage and twenty-something male was doing.

It was only the mentally ill perpertually unhappy Leftists who had a problem with it... not because of any "coding" but because normal guys were having fun with it instead of being miserable like them. "Coding" was just another excuse by the envious and miserable to try and destroy other peoples' fun so they'd be just as miserable as they are.

And then get ever more outraged when the normies and better adjusted just move on to the next thing instead of wallowing in the misery of what was lost (like they would do for virtue points among themselves whenever they yet again failed at life).

Star Wars fans just keep rewatching the originals and reading the novels from before the Disney Empire. RPGers just keep playing the older editions and laugh at the failure of the mentally ill tween girl direction the new stuff is going. It drives them nuts (well, more nuts).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 25, 2024, 05:07:58 PMAs you can see from the etymology, the ideas of inhumanity and rapaciousness were inherent in the original term.  This is why Tolkien's orcs are generally portrayed as cruel, inhuman, brutal and rapacious.  Only later, when his original construction started to conflict with his religious ideologies, did Tolkien start to soften his idea of what an orc was, where they came from, and how "savable" they might have been.

Tolkien explicitly stated that orcs were redeemable in a letter in 1954, the same year that Lord of the Rings was published, which fits with the theme of mercy for Gollum and others. Maybe that's a change from his early stories in the 1930s, but it was part of his thinking at the time LotR was published.

So even Tolkien evidently missed the point of Tolkien's orcs.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 25, 2024, 05:07:58 PMModern reframing of orcs as analogues or representations of historical cultures miss the point entirely.  Orcs were never intended to be human-adjacent.  They were "enemies," in a truly existential sense.  Humanizing orcs makes as much sense as humanizing ghouls or leeches...

"Modern"? Tolkien described orcs as redeemable in 1954. Good-aligned half-orcs have been playable characters in D&D since 1978, and Roger Moore detailed half-orcs and orcish culture in Dragon magazine in the early 1980s. Non-evil orcs were popularized by Shadowrun in 1989. That's 35 years ago, followed soon after by Earthdawn, Warcraft, and plenty of other sources.

You can prefer unredeemable orcs for your games - nothing wrong with that - but it's not particularly modern and even Tolkien said they weren't unredeemable in his world.

Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2024, 07:42:10 PMSo even Tolkien evidently missed the point of Tolkien's orcs.

Not really. The Wise only think the Orks were bred from captured Elves. However, in his Drúedain essay, it's said that the Orks and Drûghu's consider each other renegades. And then there is the case of The Tale of Adanel which is in his commentaries on Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, the former which is a legend passed down through the wise women of the House of Marach of the Edain about the Fall of Mankind and the shortening of their lifespans (which is commented on by Andreth in her talk with Finrod).

It's not clearly spelled out Orks were clearly Men originally. The true cosmology (Round World) and the fact Quendi awoke first, followed (probably a day later) by Atani (Dwarves and Hobbits probably at roughly the same time) and the fact they were all in scattered locations from one another which would have taken years to reliably 'migrate': Cuiviénen for the Quendi (in the East), Hildórien for the Atani (in the South) and The Misty Mountains, Blue Mountains, and likely the Red Mountains for the Dwarves means the real 'First Age' would have lasted longer than the 3441 years of 2nd Age or the 3021 years of the 3rd (Tolkien says each Age is shorter than the last). That's the only way to reliably explain the variation in Men and later Orks.

In the Tale of Adanel, Melkor finds them not long after they awaken and he basically 'helps' them (sort of like how a drug dealer gives someone 'a little taste for free'). Later he returns and demands worship and Men fall from Eru by doing so (and as such, Eru's last words they ever hear are they will now come to him much quicker than planned, reducing their lifespan). They build a temple and begin sacrificing those who abjure Melkor in this massive temple.

Boom, right there, you have the origin of the Orks.

What's ironic about this whole story is that Eru talks to the first Men in Hildórien, where he doesn't speak to the Elves at all. The Vala Oromë finds the Elves and protects them from the depredations of the Orks (aka corrupted Men in service to Melkor) and then later the Maiar Melian (future wife of Thingol Greycloak), Tarindor (Curumo/Saruman), Olorin (Mithrandir/Gandalf), Hrávandil (Aiwendil/Radagast), Palacendo (Pallando/Rómestámo) and Haimenar (Alatar/Morinehtar) arrive to shepherd the Quendi (and do so in their resplendent forms, unlike how they appeared later as The Istari). However, the Valar take no notice of Men having been born....except MAYBE Ulmo and Mandos. Ulmo because he is everywhere water is present and Mandos because all of a sudden Men start coming to him in The Halls WAY before they should have.

Irony of ironies, the House of Marach, which had The Tale of Adanel preserved among its folk, was the house Sauron ensared using the EXACT same methods Melkor did thousands of years before. That House, that of Hador Golden-hair, was the most numerous of the Dúnedain. They became The Kings Men in Númenór and later the Black Númenóreans in Middle Earth. Fun fact: Queen Berúthiel of Gondor was probably a Black Númenórean from Umbar or the like.

Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2024, 07:42:10 PMTolkien explicitly stated that orcs were redeemable in a letter in 1954, the same year that Lord of the Rings was published, which fits with the theme of mercy for Gollum and others. Maybe that's a change from his early stories in the 1930s, but it was part of his thinking at the time LotR was published.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 25, 2024, 05:07:58 PMOnly later, when his original construction started to conflict with his religious ideologies, did Tolkien start to soften his idea of what an orc was, where they came from, and how "savable" they might have been.

Tolkien developed the idea for his orcs in the late 1920s.  That's 25 years before the Lord of the Rings.  Only you could quote the part of my statement that explains what you are objecting to, and then ignore it.  Never change, you duplicitous buffoon...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 25, 2024, 11:28:59 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2024, 07:42:10 PMTolkien explicitly stated that orcs were redeemable in a letter in 1954, the same year that Lord of the Rings was published, which fits with the theme of mercy for Gollum and others. Maybe that's a change from his early stories in the 1930s, but it was part of his thinking at the time LotR was published.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 25, 2024, 05:07:58 PMOnly later, when his original construction started to conflict with his religious ideologies, did Tolkien start to soften his idea of what an orc was, where they came from, and how "savable" they might have been.

Tolkien developed the idea for his orcs in the late 1920s.  That's 25 years before the Lord of the Rings.  Only you could quote the part of my statement that explains what you are objecting to, and then ignore it.

I'm not ignoring it. I specifically pointed it out. Tolkien had the idea for orcs in the late 1920s, but by the time of the Lord of the Rings, his ideas had evolved to the point that he made it explicit that they were redeemable.

This is purism so extreme that even Tolkien writing about orcs in the 1950s is considered (a) modern; and (b) missing the point of orcs. This effectively says that The Lord of the Rings wasn't proper Tolkien, and only his earlier writings had the correct view.

For me, The Lord of the Rings is absolutely central to the Tolkien canon.

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on June 25, 2024, 10:40:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2024, 07:42:10 PMSo even Tolkien evidently missed the point of Tolkien's orcs.

Not really. The Wise only think the Orks were bred from captured Elves. However, in his Drúedain essay, it's said that the Orks and Drûghu's consider each other renegades. (....)

Thanks for the details, but I'm not sure how or if we're disagreeing. Do you think that orcs are redeemable, as Tolkien expressed in his 1954 letter? That's the central point I was commenting on.

Quote from: Orphan81 on June 25, 2024, 08:03:29 AMThe Orcs are supposedly "Black Coded" and this has been a baffling mystery to Gen X players. Orcs have never come across as Black Coded, where the hell are Millennials coming with this accusation?

Its mostly hallucination.
These are the same people who claim Drow are represent black people, represent the oppression of women because they are depicted as evil and so on ad nausium.
Recent one was goblins.

As keep saying. There is NO limit to what they will hallucinate.

Just like there is no limit to what they will claim next is sexist or racist.

These are insane people. They do insane things.

Quote from: jhkim on June 25, 2024, 07:42:10 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 25, 2024, 05:07:58 PMModern reframing of orcs as analogues or representations of historical cultures miss the point entirely. 

"Modern"? Tolkien described orcs as redeemable in 1954.

He was talking about a modern reframing of orcs as analogues or representations of real world ethnic. He was not talking about orcs being inherently evil or irredeemable though you responded to that anyway.  Once again, you are being disingenuous and not responding to what the person you are quoting actually said.

Quote from: jhkim on June 26, 2024, 01:53:26 AMThanks for the details, but I'm not sure how or if we're disagreeing. Do you think that orcs are redeemable, as Tolkien expressed in his 1954 letter? That's the central point I was commenting on.

What does it matter?  Generally any fantasy race is portrayed as sentient and intelligent to some degree; with sufficient perseverance and tolerance to pain one could find a goblin, gnoll, orc, drow, naga, whatever, that was not ravenously homicidal.  Spelljammer and Planescape back in the day both had scenarios where, due to various environmental pressures, races that would be at each others' throats were forced to coexist, so in theory one could go and have a chat with an illithid and walk away with their brain still in their skull.  But that didn't alter the general proclivities of those races; by and large they were still evil and still had an eye out for an opportunity to benefit from causing harm to others.  The fact that an orc can theoretically turn out to be a good person does nothing to change the situation when ten of them are running at you with axes.

Quote from: Valatar on June 26, 2024, 03:30:24 AMThe fact that an orc can theoretically turn out to be a good person does nothing to change the situation when ten of them are running at you with axes.

Exactly. I have yet to see a scenario outside of internet hypotheticals, where orcs aren't guilty of something to justify the character's actions or reactions. They'd get the same treatment if they were human miscreants.