Quote from: jhkim on February 21, 2025, 12:28:11 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 21, 2025, 11:25:05 AM

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 03:55:05 AM*SIGH* I really don't understand all of the hand-wringing over Orcs. There somehow is this kind of deep-seated need to excuse the Orcs, to forgive them, to shelter them or lift them up as somehow good and virtuous and redeemable.

Why all of this desperate need to have Orcs be just misunderstood, and ultimately redeemable to the Light?

Speaking only for myself, it's my basic Catholic disposition that, like Tolkien, wrestles with the moral implications of a race of sapient beings created irredeemable.

To SHARK and Steven Mitchell - Tolkien is the one who created the current archetype of orc, and he is the one who wrote at length about moral implications and said they were not irredeemable -- back in 1954. One of his central themes was about mercy, summed up by Gandalf's quote that Brad posted earlier, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

So the thought of orc redemption isn't a modern SJW thing -- it was something that Tolkien wrestled with in the 1950s.

You're free to have orcs however you want in your campaign. The orcs in my Shadowrun campaign aren't the same as orcs in Tolkien's Middle Earth or orcs in your world of Thandor.

To Chris24601:

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 21, 2025, 11:25:05 AMIn short, they're bad neighbors to all the free cities and other successor states that arose after the Cataclysm wiped the Empire off the map along with 99.9% of the population. They're an evil empire-in-the making and you definitely shouldn't have moral qualms about killing their soldiers in the process of liberating villages and slave camps from their clutches. But they also aren't intrinsically evil. They grow up in an evil culture and most start committing grave moral evils as soon as they reach the age of reason; but if you were to raise them free of their culture they'd just be another mutant with a particular mixed-bag of "cursed blessings" that all mutants in the setting have.

That also solves the moral issues of the orcs, just in the opposite direction of the Shade version. They have moral agency and choose to do evil like the worst stereotypes of the Roman Empire they're built on.

Thanks for the overview of orcs in your campaign world. In my recent campaign world, the Solar Empire (based on the Incans) is objectively good - ruled by a divinely-inspired king chosen by the good-aligned sun god. So you're taking the worst stereotypes of the Roman Empire, and I'm taking the best stereotypes of the Incan Empire.

It's fantasy, so we can do what we want in our own worlds. But in this case, it's made your Roman-inspired orcs evil and my Incan-inspired orcs good.

Greetings!

Yes, Jhkim, I'm fully aware of what all Tolkien wrote about Middle Earth. I own and have read The Silmarillion, The Lord of The Rings, The Hobbit, Unfinished Tales, and more. Like Brad, I started reading Tolkien when I was a kid, and then proceeded to get into everything Tolkien wrote. I've read his excellent works for many years since. Tolkien was a brilliant scholar, and an inspiring author and writer. I even have one of those fine "World of Middle Earth" coffee-table books with absolutely beautiful maps and cartography provided by world-class cartographers.

Having said that, I'm not running a D&D campaign set in the world of Middle Earth. I use my world of Thandor. So, whatever Tolkien wrestled with and hemmed and hawed about the spiritual sanctification of Orcs, or whether or not Orcs possessed eternal souls that could be redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross--is absolutely irrelevant. I don't care about what Tolkien wrote about in "Letter #156" in 1938, or his notes that he scribbled to his son Christopher in 1968. Nor do I care about the mind-boggling Woke Feminist interpretation of what some fat, ugly Lesbian "Tolkien Scholar" in current-day Cambridge University, Britain has argued about "What Tolkien *really* meant with such and such writing in The Lord of the Rings.

As far as being inspired by Scriptures and theological doctrine--I'm more interested in what the Lord says about Evil creatures, and tribes of the wicked and abominable that are damned and judged, than what Tolkien says, or Gandalf. In the Bible, the Lord says the following:

1 Samuel 15:3
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

King James Version (KJV)



Thus, the Orcs are therefore likened to the Amalekites, like what is described in the Biblical quotation I noted.

Beyond such Biblical theological ruminations and marinating in God's righteous judgment and using us as instruments to smite the wicked and the blasphemous, and standing strong for righteousness and fighting against evil, as you noted yourself previously, there have been interpretations that differed from Tolkien's expressions of Orcs--as you noted, 1E AD&D's Monster Manual. Yes, in the 1EAD&D Monster Manual, Orcs are pig-faced, primitive, evil savages. The AD&D Orcs organize themselves into tribes, worship dark, evil gods, and are always engaged in rape, plunder, and war.

Orcs are a vibrant, colourful, and savage enemy that opposes all of civilization, righteousness, goodness, and by extension, are ever-present antagonists standing against the Player Characters.

I think that original game-based interpretation is of salient importance. We are playing the D&D game, with the point being to have fun. I don't think dragging obscure Tolkien references into a game or insisting on moral struggle sessions is very helpful in contributing to the fun process of playing in a fantasy milieu.

I freely grant, while I myself am something of an educated scholar, and well-versed in philosophy, theology, and history--some of my players would look at me cross-eyed if I were to drop some of these moral struggle sessions about Orcs on them. Between puffing on a good cigar, and taking a swig of fine whiskey, they would likely exclaim to me, saying--

"What, SHARK? Bro, pass me the lighter, and lets get rolling the dice! Fuck the Orcs! It's time to bring the hammer down on them! Fucking Orcs need to die!"

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Quasquetonian on February 21, 2025, 02:47:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 06:12:10 PMAs also introduced in the 1980s, Warcraft orcs are distinctly more like Klingons - the big powerful proud warrior race.

Other people have addressed this to some extent, but with respect to Warcraft, this isn't accurate at all.  The corrupted nature of the orcs is pretty central to the narrative of the second and third games in the series.  Since you're looking for alternate interpretations of orcs, it's probably worth going into a little more detail.

In the first two games, the orcs are depicted as thoroughly vicious and evil.  They lust for conquest.  They enslave the races they defeat.  Their spellcasters are all demon-summoning necromancers. Orc society is ruled from the shadows by an immensely powerful orcish warlock, making the entire race effectively henchmen of an evil wizard.  They have already committed genocide against one race at the behest of a demon lord. While it is never stated outright that orcs are a corrupted and degenerate race, there are hints that this is the case.  Orcish necromancy is revealed to be a perversion of ancestor worship.  The strange alien home world of the orcs is dying around them, but once they come through the portal to Azeroth (the earthlike fantasy world that is the setting for the games), this taint seems to follow them and transform the landscape.

In the third game, after being defeated and subjugated, the orcs unexpectedly fall into a state of lethargy.  This is initially interpreted by humans as a disease, but it turns out that orcs have been under the influence of evil magics and demonic corruption for so long that they can't function without them.  That's where the storyline of the orc campaign in the third game begins, and the proud barbarian warrior orcs that you're talking about emerge from that.

Thanks for the added detail. Does that invalidate the Klingon comparison, though? Even during the TNG era, the Klingons weren't nice. They eventually had a treaty with the Federation, but they were brutal and lusted for conquest. Pre-peace-treaty they tried to mass execute civilians like the Organians. Even in the TNG era, there were many Star Trek stories where evil Klingon subgroups or individuals were the enemy.

I'm not saying that Warcraft orcs and Klingons are identical, but it seems like they have the same broader archetype of the proud, brutal warrior race. It sounds like the first two games are like pre-peace-treaty Klingons under evil government, and the third game shifted them to be more like the proud barbarians of the TNG era.

This is all I ever needed for D&D Orcs...

This is the tale the shamans tell, in the camps of the orcs when the night is deep on the world and dawn is far away:

In the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven gods drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. "All the lots are taken!" they said tauntingly. "Where will your people dwell, One-Eye? There is no place left!" There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it forth over the world. The shaft blotted out the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: "No. You lie. You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps; One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell . . . here!" With that, Gruumsh struck the forests with his spear, and a part of them withered with rot. "And here!" he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening mighty rifts and chasms. "And here!" and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust. "And here!" and the black spear gouged the meadows, and made them barren. "There!" roared He- Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. "There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they shall survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day shall come when they cover the world, and shall slay all of your collected peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!"

In this way, say the shamans, did the orcs come into the world, and thus did Gruumsh predict the coming time when orcs will rule alone. This is why orcs make war, ceaseless and endless: war for the wrath of Gruumsh.

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 02:48:30 PMI'm not running a D&D campaign set in the world of Middle Earth. I use my world of Thandor. So, whatever Tolkien wrestled with and hemmed and hawed about the spiritual sanctification of Orcs, or whether or not Orcs possessed eternal souls that could be redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross--is absolutely irrelevant. I don't care about what Tolkien wrote about in "Letter #156" in 1938, or his notes that he scribbled to his son Christopher in 1968.

Again, that's exactly my point about different versions of orcs. Tolkien's orcs aren't the same as Thandor orcs, and that's fine. My beef was with you suggesting that Tolkien was a mush-brained SJW who didn't understand what orcs really are.

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 02:48:30 PMI think that original game-based interpretation is of salient importance. We are playing the D&D game, with the point being to have fun. I don't think dragging obscure Tolkien references into a game or insisting on moral struggle sessions is very helpful in contributing to the fun process of playing in a fantasy milieu.

I've had great fun in my recent Middle Earth games.

The whole plot of the last one-shot adventure was a mission of peace - a quest to get to King Thror and end the devastating War of the Dwarves and Orcs that was being driven in part by his Sauron-created dwarven ring which would lead to his death. Orcs were still the enemy, but the point wasn't to wipe them all out - it was to save Thror and the dwarven people after the devastation of Smaug.

Nothing wrong with a low-thought slaughter-fest game, but my Tolkien games have often had moral dilemmas as part of the fun.

I mentioned before that in my "New Fellowship" game, one of the PCs risked himself to rescue Gollum, and successfully brought Gollum out from Mount Doom, eventually settling him back at the Shire. I loved that twist.

Another twist I loved was in a different run of the "New Fellowship" game, where the eagle PC flew Gollum far away from them such that he couldn't follow, depositing him in Fangorn forest. That lead to a brief reunion of the ent-wife PC with an ent there, and the ents taking charge of Gollum.

One of the main features of the "New Fellowship" adventure was that doing evil would further the corruption of the Ring-bearer. Too much slaughter and indifference and the Ring would take you over. The players didn't hate this - they all enjoyed getting into the Tolkien themes and the possibility of being corrupted by the Ring.

There's plenty of different ways to have fun in RPGs.

Quote from: crkrueger on February 21, 2025, 04:33:03 PMThis is all I ever needed for D&D Orcs...

This is the tale the shamans tell, in the camps of the orcs when the night is deep on the world and dawn is far away:

In the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven gods drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. "All the lots are taken!" they said tauntingly. "Where will your people dwell, One-Eye? There is no place left!" There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it forth over the world. The shaft blotted out the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: "No. You lie. You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps; One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell . . . here!" With that, Gruumsh struck the forests with his spear, and a part of them withered with rot. "And here!" he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening mighty rifts and chasms. "And here!" and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust. "And here!" and the black spear gouged the meadows, and made them barren. "There!" roared He- Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. "There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they shall survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day shall come when they cover the world, and shall slay all of your collected peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!"

In this way, say the shamans, did the orcs come into the world, and thus did Gruumsh predict the coming time when orcs will rule alone. This is why orcs make war, ceaseless and endless: war for the wrath of Gruumsh.

Greetings!

crkrueger! I love that story from Dragon Magazine! I agree as well. My own sentiments are similar.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: crkrueger on February 21, 2025, 04:33:03 PMThis is all I ever needed for D&D Orcs...

The Grummsh story is cute, but raises some questions about the "good" gods being dicks, and the orcs being justified in their actions due to being unfairly treated.

Quote from: jhkim on February 21, 2025, 04:58:21 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 02:48:30 PMI'm not running a D&D campaign set in the world of Middle Earth. I use my world of Thandor. So, whatever Tolkien wrestled with and hemmed and hawed about the spiritual sanctification of Orcs, or whether or not Orcs possessed eternal souls that could be redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross--is absolutely irrelevant. I don't care about what Tolkien wrote about in "Letter #156" in 1938, or his notes that he scribbled to his son Christopher in 1968.

Again, that's exactly my point about different versions of orcs. Tolkien's orcs aren't the same as Thandor orcs, and that's fine. My beef was with you suggesting that Tolkien was a mush-brained SJW who didn't understand what orcs really are.

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 02:48:30 PMI think that original game-based interpretation is of salient importance. We are playing the D&D game, with the point being to have fun. I don't think dragging obscure Tolkien references into a game or insisting on moral struggle sessions is very helpful in contributing to the fun process of playing in a fantasy milieu.

I've had great fun in my recent Middle Earth games.

The whole plot of the last one-shot adventure was a mission of peace - a quest to get to King Thror and end the devastating War of the Dwarves and Orcs that was being driven in part by his Sauron-created dwarven ring which would lead to his death. Orcs were still the enemy, but the point wasn't to wipe them all out - it was to save Thror and the dwarven people after the devastation of Smaug.

Nothing wrong with a low-thought slaughter-fest game, but my Tolkien games have often had moral dilemmas as part of the fun.

I mentioned before that in my "New Fellowship" game, one of the PCs risked himself to rescue Gollum, and successfully brought Gollum out from Mount Doom, eventually settling him back at the Shire. I loved that twist.

Another twist I loved was in a different run of the "New Fellowship" game, where the eagle PC flew Gollum far away from them such that he couldn't follow, depositing him in Fangorn forest. That lead to a brief reunion of the ent-wife PC with an ent there, and the ents taking charge of Gollum.

One of the main features of the "New Fellowship" adventure was that doing evil would further the corruption of the Ring-bearer. Too much slaughter and indifference and the Ring would take you over. The players didn't hate this - they all enjoyed getting into the Tolkien themes and the possibility of being corrupted by the Ring.

There's plenty of different ways to have fun in RPGs.

Greetings!

No, Jhkim. Tolkien was definitely not a mush-brained SJW. My illustration or point though was if you are playing a fantasy game of D&D, largely inspired and based upon AD&D--which of course has inspirations from Tolkien--but you aren't running the game set in Middle Earth--then all of the angels dancing on a pin head and Tolkien's back and forth thoughts over 40 years about Orcs in Middle Earth isn't really relevant or helpful.

Hell, MOST GAMERS playing D&D nowadays have never read anything that Tolkien wrote. Their references are more likely The Lord of the Rings films, by Jackson. And, truth be told--many of the younger players don't even have that as a background reference. Their reference bubble is entirely within the game books, and maybe video games in general over the last 15 years. I've met more than one person under the age of 40 for example, that has never seen Jackson's The Lord of the Rings.

That brings me around to the larger point that probably many gamers want to play and have fun--they would get glassy eyed when you start quoting some obscure collection of Tolkien's letters from 75 or more years ago. "Tolkien who? That dude that wrote the Lord of The Rings? Oh, right right." Beyond that--yeah, lots of gamers raised on COD or whatever are interested in adventure, conquest, fighting, and booty. And seeing their characters "get juiced"--they certainly aren't interested in moralistic struggle sessions about whether or not Tolkien thought one decade or not that Orcs had a redeemable soul, and might, maybe, somehow could be redeemed to the Light.

As far as morality struggles in a campaign, well, you claim to have players that like that, and have had fun. Ok, great. I have had a few myself in my own campaigns. However, maybe I am trapped in my own bubble of self-referencing anecdotes like some of our friends here like needling you about with your anecdotes--*Laughing*--but in my experience, easily half of my own players want to enjoy time with adult friends, have some food and drinks, smoke, and roll dice and kill stuff. And get that booty. And juice their characters with whatever new spells, abilities, or magic items. They are not likely to be interested in moralistic struggle sessions after a long week at work, fighting traffic, shopping, and dealing with the kids.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 21, 2025, 06:44:16 PM

Quote from: crkrueger on February 21, 2025, 04:33:03 PMThis is all I ever needed for D&D Orcs...

The Grummsh story is cute, but raises some questions about the "good" gods being dicks, and the orcs being justified in their actions due to being unfairly treated.

Well, the point is, no matter what the truth is, the Orcs' entire culture is based on destroying the other races.  Why do Orcs make war?  Because that's what Gruumsh made them for.  They're his weapons in the War against the peoples of the other Gods.  Whether their origin story is true compared to everyone else's, or whether Corellon shot out Gruumsh's eye, etc. is moot.

Quote from: crkrueger on February 21, 2025, 07:08:34 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 21, 2025, 06:44:16 PM

Quote from: crkrueger on February 21, 2025, 04:33:03 PMThis is all I ever needed for D&D Orcs...

The Grummsh story is cute, but raises some questions about the "good" gods being dicks, and the orcs being justified in their actions due to being unfairly treated.

Well, the point is, no matter what the truth is, the Orcs' entire culture is based on destroying the other races.  Why do Orcs make war?  Because that's what Gruumsh made them for.  They're his weapons in the War against the peoples of the other Gods.  Whether their origin story is true compared to everyone else's, or whether Corellon shot out Gruumsh's eye, etc. is moot.

Greetings!

My friend, that is an excellent point! I myself, in running campaigns in my World of Thandor, I enjoy embracing a similar approach to keeping Cosmological or Theological TRUTH more or less vague, uncertain, or otherwise entirely parochial. OF COURSE every race and culture has their own religious dogmas and anointed truth. From their perspective, and traditions. Virtually none of them in my campaigns have God on speed dial to provide them with a perfect and comprehensive bullet point presentation or a TED talk on how every detail in creation and their particular culture was made and provide all the answers.

*Laughing* Honestly, keeping stuff kind of vague and uncertain allows for some religious strife, naturally, but it takes the wind out of getting too deep into theology or philosophy. Which, of course, is intentional on my part. My players are not particularly interested in sitting through hours-long lectures on philosophy and theology. Let alone getting wrapped up in moralistic struggle sessions over theological interpretations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: estar on February 21, 2025, 12:40:53 PMI am not a fan of Milton or the devil as an antihero.

To be fair to Milton, you should blame the Romantics for the "devil as an anti-hero" thing.

Quote from: crkrueger on February 21, 2025, 07:08:34 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 21, 2025, 06:44:16 PM

Quote from: crkrueger on February 21, 2025, 04:33:03 PMThis is all I ever needed for D&D Orcs...

The Grummsh story is cute, but raises some questions about the "good" gods being dicks, and the orcs being justified in their actions due to being unfairly treated.

Well, the point is, no matter what the truth is, the Orcs' entire culture is based on destroying the other races.  Why do Orcs make war?  Because that's what Gruumsh made them for.  They're his weapons in the War against the peoples of the other Gods.  Whether their origin story is true compared to everyone else's, or whether Corellon shot out Gruumsh's eye, etc. is moot.

If Grummsh was just a chaos god of destruction, then he doesn't need an excuse. The chaos gods of 40k (for example) are unrepentant in their aspects. But the story insinuates that Grummsh does have some sense of fairness, if only to make the argument that the other gods cheated him and the orcs hatred (and his) is justified.

Quote from: jhkim on February 21, 2025, 02:41:43 PMI'm leaning towards three broad archetypes, and subtypes within those. However, I only know Warhammer 40K and Warcraft by reputation and descriptions on the web. I haven't played them. So I'd love thoughts from someone with experience. The three broad archetypes:

• The Minion / Goblin - short, fiendishly inventive, quarrelsome
• The Brute - big, strong, tough, dumb
• The Savage - big, warrior culture, aggressive

Well in both Warhammer and Warcraft, the orcs/orks are part of broader factions that include goblins, trolls, etc., so some of the roles are intended to be filled by other humanoids.

That said, you could argue that Warcraft orcs have been through all three over the history of the series. Cosmetically, they've always been "brutes", and their combat role in the strategy games is to be stand-and-bang infantry. They were technically minions of the Burning Legion prior to Warcraft III and they are arguably "savages" in Warcrat III and beyond.

None of those descriptors properly fit to me though. One of the things that makes the Orc campaign compelling in Warcraft II (which is the one I've played the most) is that it really sells the idea of conducting an elaborate military campaign at a continental scale, with concern for logistics, operations, and strategy. You don't feel like you're playing a minion, and while the noble savage trope isn't really there yet, I wouldn't say the orcs come over as a just a ravening horde. "Brutes" don't seem like they should be able to build oil rigs and operate battleships. It feels more like being in an early industrial military culture than anything else. Less fantasy Klingons and more fantasy Prussians. 

EDIT: It's probably worth mentioning that the Warcraft universe has a surplus of other races that can serve the role of "barbarous, antagonistic humanoid mob": troglodytes, serpent men, boar-men, murlocs, centaurs, harpies, and so on. That seems to be a commonality in fantasy settings that remove orcs from the traditional role.

As for Warhammer Orcs, they changed over time.  Early on, Warhammer Mass Combat Roleplay (ie first edition) Orcs were more Tolkienesque, perhaps because GW moved a lot of their Lord of the Rings line into their Warhammer line when the rights expired.  They were often shorter than men. Around the time of third edition Warhammer Fantasy Battle and First Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay they got bigger and bulkier.   Possibly starting with the purchase of Nick Lund's orc range of miniatures.  Still Strength 3 toughness 4 though.  Warhammer 40000 Rogue Trader got a three book treatment on Orcs that seems to be where a lot of the Waaaaagh came in as well as much of the silliness though Paul Bonner and Kev Adams certainly gave us some goofy orcs.  I think the biggest change was Brian Neilsen's orcs, especially the multipart orcs with the bigger, beefier arms.  These guys are all miniature Hulks.  This is where we start seeing the Orcs with special rules for "Choppas" and eventually the upgrade to Strength four.  Fantasy Battle has long had a nebulous relationship to 40k, but the idea of Orcs as fungus was certainly hinted at heavily in the Old World Bestiary for second edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.  Best bestiary I've ever read, so much fun.

Quote from: jhkim on February 21, 2025, 04:21:30 PMThanks for the added detail. Does that invalidate the Klingon comparison, though? Even during the TNG era, the Klingons weren't nice. They eventually had a treaty with the Federation, but they were brutal and lusted for conquest. Pre-peace-treaty they tried to mass execute civilians like the Organians. Even in the TNG era, there were many Star Trek stories where evil Klingon subgroups or individuals were the enemy.

I'm not saying that Warcraft orcs and Klingons are identical, but it seems like they have the same broader archetype of the proud, brutal warrior race. It sounds like the first two games are like pre-peace-treaty Klingons under evil government, and the third game shifted them to be more like the proud barbarians of the TNG era.

I don't think a comparison between Klingons and the orcs from Warcraft is a compelling one.  (EDIT: At least the first two games in the series.)

When people think of the Klingons as a proud and honorable warrior race, they're usually thinking specifically of Worf, an outsider who tries to live up to a highly idealized conception of Klingon culture.  When he meets other flesh-and-blood Klingons, he finds that they cannot live up that same standard, or do not want to, or twist it to suit their own purposes, or merely pay lip service to it.  When Worf chides Yar by saying, "Cowards take hostages.  Klingons do not," it's not an accurate depiction of the Klingon honor code.  It's a guarantee that, by the end of the episode, a Klingon will take hostages and Worf will have to navigate that.

However, even if the Klingons were a proud and honorable warrior race, the orcs in the first two Warcraft games are definitely not.  They're explicitly evil.  They're in league with dark forces.  Most orcs do not realize they are being manipulated and ruled by a necromancer, but they're more than happy to march into battle alongside undead abominations, infuse themselves with demonic blood, commit genocide, and enslave races.  Orcish necromancers even enslave the spirits of their own ancestors.  They slaughter women and children like livestock.  There's no talk of honor, pride, or anything resembling a code of conduct.

There are evil Klingons, sure, but most of them are just space jerks.

Thrall, the main character of the orc campaign in the third game, is probably inspired to some extent by Worf.  Both are raised by humans.  Both try to find their way to a proud warrior culture.  Both end up becoming racial paragons despite, or maybe because of, their upbringing.  Also, Worf has become so iconic that any non-human but human adjacent warrior race is going to bear some influence from him if they display certain characteristics, so it's likely the post-corruption orcs are more generally inspired by him.

I have some other things to say about this, but I want to respond to one of your other posts and they'll make more sense there.

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 07:07:42 PMHell, MOST GAMERS playing D&D nowadays have never read anything that Tolkien wrote. Their references are more likely The Lord of the Rings films, by Jackson. And, truth be told--many of the younger players don't even have that as a background reference. Their reference bubble is entirely within the game books, and maybe video games in general over the last 15 years. I've met more than one person under the age of 40 for example, that has never seen Jackson's The Lord of the Rings.

That brings me around to the larger point that probably many gamers want to play and have fun--they would get glassy eyed when you start quoting some obscure collection of Tolkien's letters

We're in a weird reversal where now you're arguing to just give players material like the modern video games they're familiar with, and forget about old-school stuff. In the past, you've tended to argue to bring in older sensibilities.

Fashions and tastes change over the years, but some things really are timeless, and Tolkien is one of those. I don't want to be stuck in the past, but I've gotten a lot of mileage out of older material - what I consider classics - rather than just going with the latest publications and editions. Last summer I ran my "New Fellowship" game for a group including two teens plus my 24-year-old son, and it went over really well with them - and I think encouraged the teens to take another look at Tolkien.

I don't want to disparage playing to recent video game sensibilities. But it doesn't have to be one or the other. I find young people can learn to have fun with and appreciate older material, and in turn, as an older gamer, I'm open to trying stuff that today's teens come up with. At DunDraCon last weekend, I played in a game run by a teenager loosely based on the "Wings of Fire" books that started a decade ago.

Quote from: SHARK on February 21, 2025, 07:07:42 PMin my experience, easily half of my own players want to enjoy time with adult friends, have some food and drinks, smoke, and roll dice and kill stuff. And get that booty. And juice their characters with whatever new spells, abilities, or magic items. They are not likely to be interested in moralistic struggle sessions after a long week at work, fighting traffic, shopping, and dealing with the kids.

Do you actually think that my Middle Earth games are described as "moralistic struggle sessions"? There's a massive middle ground between "moralistic struggle session" and just treating everything like a video game to grind through and open the loot boxes.

I think that's exactly where tabletop RPGs shine. It's not just juicing and lootboxes - it's having the game world seem real, and the enemies and NPCs have personality and motivation instead of being a bag of hit points and XP.