Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PMIt seems to me that D&D orcs shifted significantly away from Tolkien on several points:

• Orcs being a corrupted from their original form. You suggested this was part of their archetype, estar, but it isn't mentioned in any D&D material.

Because Orc were not invented by D&D they were invented by Tolkien. I and lot of hobbyists of the time were well aware that Tolkien had Orcs as bad guy minions and orcs as tribal inhabitants of an area like Moria. And saw how D&D reflected that with Keep on the Borders for tribes, and Hall of the Fire Giant King. Then slightly later when the Greyhawk Folio came out with both aspects and with the dark lord minion aspect like with Iuz more clearly drawn than the enslaved orcs of the Fire Giant King.

But again most of us didn't get into it that deep,it was sufficient that you had the humanoids whom you expected to fight, and demi-humans who were you friends.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PMThe fiendish inventiveness of orcs and their cruel war machines and scarring medicines. This is completely dropped for D&D.

You are the one bringing this up. Frankly it one of those details that make sense if pointed out but the biggest impression I got and most of my friends got was the archetype I mentioned before. And the biggest reason we knew about the orcs being corrupted beings is the same reason people know about it from the film. It was part of what was going on with Saruman and was remarked on by the characters in the book.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PM

• Orcs riding on wargs.

That is because Gygax decided that belonged with Goblins, not orcs. So it wasn't dropped as much it was adapted.

QuoteWolf, Dire: This variety of wolf is simply a huge specimen typical of the Pleistocene Epoch. They conform to the characteristics of normal wolves. (Worgs): Evil natured, neo-dire wolves are known as worgs. These creatures have a language and are often found in co-operation with goblins in order to gain prey or to simply enjoy killing. They are as large as ponies and can be ridden. They otherwise conform to the characteristics of wolves.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PMOrcs being henchmen of a dark lord. This is mentioned in the 1E MM, but it rarely features in any of the modules or setting books, and is not in the 2E MM.

Again we were all aware of Lord of the Rings as bunch of junior high schoolers in the late 70s and early 80s. Especially after the explosion of fantasy novels after the Sword of Shannara.

As for D&D it was as featured as often as any other fantasy tropes that wasn't a maze with rooms filled with monsters, treasure, and traps.

For example the Greyhawk Folio

QuoteIn addition to the many evil clerics, thieves, fighters, assassins, and magic-users who have gathered under the grim banner of Iuz, numbers of the foulest tribes of humanoids have grown in strength and are ready to march. Goblins, orcs, and hobgoblins in the thousands are known to be in arms, swelling the human contingents of Iuz's armies

.

As for humanoid tribes fighting each there are the Pomarj and the Yatil Mountains.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PMOrcs fighting other orcs. This is mentioned in the 1E MM, but it doesn't feature in any of the modules or setting books, and also isn't mentioned in 2E.

You are looking for deeper meaning that isn't there. Outside of a handful of characteristics that exist in varying degrees among the three major types I mentioned, every author comes up with their own set details about what makes an orc an orc.

Some, like I do, start out with corrupted beings that originated as servants of a dark power. (Tolkien)

Some start with the honorable warrior culture (Warhammer/Warcraft)

Some just start with being a warlike tribal culture and ignore anything about honor or corruption in favor of their interpretation (D&D).

Quote from: weirdguy564 on February 20, 2025, 07:50:23 PMMaybe I'm a philistine heathen, but I don't really care what the entomology of the name is, or how Tolkien wrote it. 

The "entomology of orcs" is exactly what Peter Jackson did when he said he wanted the Moria orcs to be like scurrying insects.

One of the best parts of Orcs of Thar has been overlooked, and I think it has some bearing on D&D orcs. In the module, orcs and all humanoids were the vessels of souls who reincarnated from evil or chaotic beings in a previous life. This was supposed to be a stepping stone on the path to immortality. That's a pretty big departure from Tolkien's orcs.

As for my own take, it started with a notebook, where I went through the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and Monster Manual II and categorized all the entries. One of the categories was sentient beings capable of forming cultures. Between all three, I counted over 60 distinct races/species/creature types that fit that definition.

So from a worldbuilding perspective I went holy shit that is a lot. With the Majestic Wilderlands, I never went with the entire list, but I did account for most of the ones found in the original Monster Manual.

The root of I came up with is found in the fact that most are not truly alien but rather some type of humanoid or animal-human hybrid. So the reason why so many distinct sentient beings exist is because at the beginning of creation there just humans and elves being taught by the gods. For various regions a faction broke away that wanted to impose their own vision on creation. They called themselves Demons.

This resulted in the Dawn War being fought and during that war the demon sought to create the perfect servitor race from humans. The resulted in dwarves, halflings, goblins, orcs, lizardmen, reptile men, and all the other myriad humans. For various reasons that I won't get into, elves couldn't be transformed by demons only humans.

As for orcs.

QuoteOrcs are defined by aggression. The demons took humans and transformed them into orcs by infusing them with fierce aggressiveness that only subsided in the presence of a strong leader. During the Dawn War, the Free People attempted to integrate liberated orcs as they did with other races but were soon forced to drive them out because the orcs' aggression proved too disruptive. After the war, the orcs turned on themselves in a fratricidal struggle for power. Only the high birth rate bestowed upon them by the demons saved the orcs, allowing their tribes to survive and establish new homes throughout the Majestic Fantasy Realms.

Orc society is organized in a hierarchy of strong rulers, with leaders and subordinates locked in a continual cycle of duels and leadership challenges. Female orcs are just as aggressive as male orcs, and one third of the orc tribes are led by females.

As a legacy of their creation, orcs can be dominated by strong-willed individuals from other cultures. This involves defeating the strongest orc leader and continually overcoming challenges from subordinate orcs. The most notable recent example is the great dragon Aracador, who rallied the orcs of the White Mountains to sack the elven forest of Silverwood.

As for Orcs PCs, sure and I list them as a choice along with the other races in my rules. As part of my brief, is that for Orcs, like humans their level of aggressiveness falls on a bell curve. It just with Orcs the mean is off the high end of normal humans. For a Orc PC, the aggressiveness can be on the low end, an exception to be sure but not one unheard off.

As far being NPCs goes, they have the same potential as any humans, so there can be a 9th-level Orc Fighter, a 6th level Orc Cleric, or a 3rd Level Orc Magic User. This reflects how Orc NPCs were handled in my GURPS campaign. And also means don't expect an Orc Warren to be full easy pickings with 1 HD only. Regarding roleplaying Orcs as NPCs, their aggressiveness means that most encounters don't end peacefully. But when exceptions occur they often do make sense.

Now this is just how I handle Orcs. There are other approaches that work just as well including ones that don't get into that much depth about why orcs are orcs.

I played GURPS as my main system for two decades so just made sense to make orc NPCs of differing points values representing different levels of skill. Sometimes, circumstances were such that I had to roleplay the orcs interacting with the PCs. So I came up with a way that didn't make every orc a carbon copy of each other but also avoided making them honorable klingons which I disliked. Then when I wrote my Majestic Fantasy Rules I translated that into OD&D terms.

Quote from: estar on February 20, 2025, 08:56:53 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PMIt seems to me that D&D orcs shifted significantly away from Tolkien on several points:

• Orcs being a corrupted from their original form. You suggested this was part of their archetype, estar, but it isn't mentioned in any D&D material.

Because Orc were not invented by D&D they were invented by Tolkien. I and lot of hobbyists of the time were well aware that Tolkien had Orcs as bad guy minions and orcs as tribal inhabitants of an area like Moria. And saw how D&D reflected that with Keep on the Borders for tribes, and Hall of the Fire Giant King. Then slightly later when the Greyhawk Folio came out with both aspects and with the dark lord minion aspect like with Iuz more clearly drawn than the enslaved orcs of the Fire Giant King.

But again most of us didn't get into it that deep,it was sufficient that you had the humanoids whom you expected to fight, and demi-humans who were you friends.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PMThe fiendish inventiveness of orcs and their cruel war machines and scarring medicines. This is completely dropped for D&D.

You are the one bringing this up. Frankly it one of those details that make sense if pointed out but the biggest impression I got and most of my friends got was the archetype I mentioned before. And the biggest reason we knew about the orcs being corrupted beings is the same reason people know about it from the film. It was part of what was going on with Saruman and was remarked on by the characters in the book.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PM

• Orcs riding on wargs.

That is because Gygax decided that belonged with Goblins, not orcs. So it wasn't dropped as much it was adapted.

QuoteWolf, Dire: This variety of wolf is simply a huge specimen typical of the Pleistocene Epoch. They conform to the characteristics of normal wolves. (Worgs): Evil natured, neo-dire wolves are known as worgs. These creatures have a language and are often found in co-operation with goblins in order to gain prey or to simply enjoy killing. They are as large as ponies and can be ridden. They otherwise conform to the characteristics of wolves.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PMOrcs being henchmen of a dark lord. This is mentioned in the 1E MM, but it rarely features in any of the modules or setting books, and is not in the 2E MM.

Again we were all aware of Lord of the Rings as bunch of junior high schoolers in the late 70s and early 80s. Especially after the explosion of fantasy novels after the Sword of Shannara.

As for D&D it was as featured as often as any other fantasy tropes that wasn't a maze with rooms filled with monsters, treasure, and traps.

For example the Greyhawk Folio

QuoteIn addition to the many evil clerics, thieves, fighters, assassins, and magic-users who have gathered under the grim banner of Iuz, numbers of the foulest tribes of humanoids have grown in strength and are ready to march. Goblins, orcs, and hobgoblins in the thousands are known to be in arms, swelling the human contingents of Iuz's armies

.

As for humanoid tribes fighting each there are the Pomarj and the Yatil Mountains.

Quote from: jhkim on February 20, 2025, 07:31:12 PMOrcs fighting other orcs. This is mentioned in the 1E MM, but it doesn't feature in any of the modules or setting books, and also isn't mentioned in 2E.

You are looking for deeper meaning that isn't there. Outside of a handful of characteristics that exist in varying degrees among the three major types I mentioned, every author comes up with their own set details about what makes an orc an orc.

Some, like I do, start out with corrupted beings that originated as servants of a dark power. (Tolkien)

Some start with the honorable warrior culture (Warhammer/Warcraft)

Some just start with being a warlike tribal culture and ignore anything about honor or corruption in favor of their interpretation (D&D).







For me

Greetings!

Excellent, Estar! I agree.

I understand everything you have discussed just fine. That all makes sense. What boggles me is this mysterious, "Deeper Meaning" that Jhkim seems to be driving at.

There is no deeper meaning.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: estar on February 20, 2025, 09:29:59 PMAs for orcs.

QuoteOrcs are defined by aggression. The demons took humans and transformed them into orcs by infusing them with fierce aggressiveness that only subsided in the presence of a strong leader. During the Dawn War, the Free People attempted to integrate liberated orcs as they did with other races but were soon forced to drive them out because the orcs' aggression proved too disruptive. After the war, the orcs turned on themselves in a fratricidal struggle for power. Only the high birth rate bestowed upon them by the demons saved the orcs, allowing their tribes to survive and establish new homes throughout the Majestic Fantasy Realms.

Orc society is organized in a hierarchy of strong rulers, with leaders and subordinates locked in a continual cycle of duels and leadership challenges. Female orcs are just as aggressive as male orcs, and one third of the orc tribes are led by females.

As a legacy of their creation, orcs can be dominated by strong-willed individuals from other cultures. This involves defeating the strongest orc leader and continually overcoming challenges from subordinate orcs. The most notable recent example is the great dragon Aracador, who rallied the orcs of the White Mountains to sack the elven forest of Silverwood.

As for Orcs PCs, sure and I list them as a choice along with the other races in my rules. As part of my brief, is that for Orcs, like humans their level of aggressiveness falls on a bell curve. It just with Orcs the mean is off the high end of normal humans. For a Orc PC, the aggressiveness can be on the low end, an exception to be sure but not one unheard off.

Thanks, estar!! That might be a great example to throw in about how orcs are adapted for particular worlds.

My most recent fantasy campaign was loosely based on the Incan empire with D&D rules and tropes. A bit like the Romans, the Incans were known for turning their enemies into their subjects / allies. So I defined the four core races of the empire as dwarves, elves, humans, and orcs. Dwarves were the first, and they made the distinctive stonework of the Solar Empire and its reverence for mountains. Elves were next, who were good with plants and created the terraced gardens and fields of the empire. Humans brought domesticated animals and weaving. The orcs:

QuoteOrcs were the last to come from the sacred lake, and are said to have been sent by Viracocha to the far corners of the world to wake up all the other peoples and creatures of the world from the earth. They are warlike wanderers by nature, and they especially revere Illapa the god of storms and war. They are known as soldiers and scouts.

• Orcs are violent, but they are not seen as inherently evil. While they tend towards Illapa the god of storms, the orcs of the empire also respect Inti.

I see them as much like Tolkien orcs in many ways. If there was a dark lord instead of a virtuous god-king, then orcs could easily become a great force of evil. In this background, though, they are the mainstay of the empire's armies, fighting to defend civilization. It brings to mind the comic The Dark Knight Returns, where Batman defeats a gang leader and then recruits all the gang members to be his minions.

Here's my full background doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ZadR7QUcyFsZ7u5x1MukSgY2cA7_CmZog7MgrxcxCU/edit?tab=t.0

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 20, 2025, 05:08:38 PMWell, then, it is incumbent upon you as a first step to determine how orcs "are understood by Tolkien fans."  Seems like, after you are done a decade hence, we can then move on to the specifics.  Though you'll probably have to define "Tolkien fans" first, just to narrow down your material.

I'm a Tolkien fan. I have spend about 35 years so far reading everything many, many times, including everything Christopher Tolkien ever did, listening to interviews, reading all the published letters. Whatever.

I can tell you this: Tolkien himself did NOT know, fundamentally, what orcs were. He deigned to comment upon their inherent "evilness" due to his Catholicism. In fact, since he considered them "corrupted" by outside forces, I am of the opinion that he wasn't sure what Eru thought of orcs, so he didn't think he could comment. Now THAT is sticking with your own lore.

That said, orcs are evil as fuck because they are. We never meet a "good" orc in any of Tolkien's writings, even though we see plenty of bad men, elves, dwarves, and possibly hobbits (who are more just selfish than anything else). Eagles are impenetrable, dragons, balrogs, and trolls are uniformly bad. But for dragons and balrogs, that seems to be a choice, especially balrogs because decided to follow Morgoth; they weren't created that way. I dunno if a good troll or dragon is possible, probably not, but again corrupted beings; there was no free will there so to speak.

Hence, minions of Morgoth/Sauron are all evil, but some of them decided to be that way (irredeemable) and some were just born into it (jury is out). Either way, they all deserve death, but as Gandalf said, "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."

I crammed orcs in dragonlance by saying they were the result of feral subteranean human survivors of the cataclysm breeding with the physical manifestation of a demon named orcus. i don't gotta explain shit, its magic...

Quote from: Brad on February 20, 2025, 10:02:17 PMI can tell you this: Tolkien himself did NOT know, fundamentally, what orcs were. He deigned to comment upon their inherent "evilness" due to his Catholicism. In fact, since he considered them "corrupted" by outside forces, I am of the opinion that he wasn't sure what Eru thought of orcs, so he didn't think he could comment. Now THAT is sticking with your own lore.

Exactly!
The Good Professor never settled on the issue of orcs. His very latest ruminations were that they were initially beasts from the old world crossed with human stock to give them form (i.e. bipedal posture) and some semblance of intelligence. Christopher's editorializations in the form of the Silmarilion should be taken with a grain of salt; appreciated for what they are, but not considered canon. Tolkien later rejected his earlier writings that orcs were corruptions of elves. The only reason that made it into the published work is because it was the most completed version of his notes.

QuoteBut for dragons and balrogs, that seems to be a choice, especially balrogs because decided to follow Morgoth; they weren't created that way.

That's debatable. From the very beginning, Melkor and several of the other Ainur sowed discord into the Ainulindalé, to which Eru said that there is no creation that does not first originate with Himself. So although the Ainur had free will amongst themselves, it can be argued that their evil nature was first devised by Eru (possibly as a test for Elves and Men on Middle Earth).

Regardless, the orcs of Middle Earth were clearly meant to be servants of the Dark Powers, and quite likely irredeemably evil.

Quote from: Effete on Today at 02:02:53 AMRegardless, the orcs of Middle Earth were clearly meant to be servants of the Dark Powers, and quite likely irredeemably evil.

In his letter #153 (Sep 1954), Tolkien stated:

Quote from: TolkienThey would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.)

Now, I can believe that at other times he might have suggested otherwise. He changed his mind about many things in Middle Earth over time. I think it's best to consider it undefined.

Quote from: Brad on February 20, 2025, 10:02:17 PMI can tell you this: Tolkien himself did NOT know, fundamentally, what orcs were. He deigned to comment upon their inherent "evilness" due to his Catholicism. In fact, since he considered them "corrupted" by outside forces, I am of the opinion that he wasn't sure what Eru thought of orcs, so he didn't think he could comment. Now THAT is sticking with your own lore.

Quote from: Brad on February 20, 2025, 10:02:17 PMHence, minions of Morgoth/Sauron are all evil, but some of them decided to be that way (irredeemable) and some were just born into it (jury is out). Either way, they all deserve death, but as Gandalf said, "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."

Can you suggest letters or other writing other than letter #153? It seems to me, as you state, he clearly is opposed to the idea of dealing death in judgement - since that is a major theme in Lord of the Rings.

As a parallel, in the Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander, Taran finds a baby gwythaint - a bird corrupted by the evil lord Arawn. He tries to care for it as best he can, against the advice of all the others. It escapes, but it eventually helps him in return, and even gives its life for him much later.

---

I think it's an open question of what would happen if caring characters in Middle Earth were to find a baby orc or half-orc.

I've done several runs of my "New Fellowship" one-shot adventure. One of my favorite bits from those was when a PC risked his life to save Gollum in the end, after they had throw the One Ring into the lava and he tried to leap after it. We agreed in the postscript that years later, Gollum had settled as a crotchety old man in the Shire - hating all his neighbors and them hating him, but the PCs still felt good about saving him.

Greetings!

*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?

I say, fuck that. Do your redemption arcs with Humans, or Elves, or Dwarves. Dragons, or some Giants, fine.

For Orcs?

Let the Orcs be ruthless, and hateful, and violent savages. Let them be the wicked, the depraved, the sadistic, conquering villains. They are evil, from the womb!

Yes. Let fire, and steel, and death be the Orc's portion! Crush them relentlessly, and show them no mercy!

Geesus. I want the Orcs to keep their testosterone, their hatred, their savagery. It is precisely the Orcs' differences as a dark, evil, and brutal race that makes them interesting and FUN!

I say stomp the heavy boot on all the Barney Orc utopians. Let the hate burn bright! Redeeming Orcs into Barney Orcs DILUTES the game world, and makes the entire world more feminine, soft, and happy. Fuck that.

The armies need to march. Pile the bodies of the conquered high!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: estar on February 20, 2025, 06:45:06 PMWell keep in mind the view that Klingons were honorable warriors was a TNG thing. The Orc as a vicious but honorable warrior came first in the mid 80s with Warhammer. Although, to be fair, Warcraft is the one that cemented this aspect of the orc, and the TNG honorable Klingon and Warcraft-style orc seem to have co-developed alongside each other throughout the 90s.

An interesting observation. It does seem that orcs and klingons of the 90's were kind of a reaction to "evil for evil's sake" of previous villians. The best (IMO) example is Xanatos of the Disney cartoon Gargoyles. Infamous for being competent and complex.

Quote from: SHARK on Today at 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?

It's really pretty simple at heart, as are most big lies. For some people, the very concept of "evil" is beyond the pale, to the point that it needs to be rooted out of all thought.  This isn't a form of moral nihilism alone (though it is that too) so much as a deep-seated fear.  I forget who said it about the post-moderns or the exact quote, but it went something like:  "Unlike Nietzsche who looked into the Abyss with fear and loathing, they took one glance and gleefully jumped in."

Just as Chesterton commented, "the lesson of dragons is not that dragons exist but that they can be slain," well the lesson of orcs is not that orcs exist but that evil is a thing.  If evil is a thing for orcs, then it could be a thing lurking in anyone. If it could be in anyone, it could be in me.  Some people need desperately for there not to be orcs, because they think they might be part one.

Quote from: estar on February 20, 2025, 06:45:06 PMWell keep in mind the view that Klingons were honorable warriors was a TNG thing. The Orc as a vicious but honorable warrior came first in the mid 80s with Warhammer. Although, to be fair, Warcraft is the one that cemented this aspect of the orc, and the TNG honorable Klingon and Warcraft-style orc seem to have co-developed alongside each other throughout the 90s.

WHFB orcs were honorable?  Admittedly I've always been more into the 40k side of GW's offerings but I've never heard or seen that take on WHFB orcs.  I fully admit though that I've never been an expert on the fantasy side of the lore (skimming to reading through a couple editions of army books) but I've never heard of them been referred to as honorable.  Vicious and violent?  Absolutely.  The ultimate example of a violent might makes right society?  Sure.  But always chaotic on the verge of violence within their own units/society enforced only by even more severe violence from those (temporarily) in charge.  Are there any examples in the WHFB lore where you can point to orcs being honorable as opposed to just refraining temporarily from violence/aggression simply for an equally temporary more important benefit?  I do agree though that Warcraft introduced that more "noble savage" motif to their clearly inspired fantasy orcs though.

Quote from: Effete on Today at 02:02:53 AMThat's debatable. From the very beginning, Melkor and several of the other Ainur sowed discord into the Ainulindalé, to which Eru said that there is no creation that does not first originate with Himself. So although the Ainur had free will amongst themselves, it can be argued that their evil nature was first devised by Eru (possibly as a test for Elves and Men on Middle Earth).

Regardless, the orcs of Middle Earth were clearly meant to be servants of the Dark Powers, and quite likely irredeemably evil.

That's true, of course, but I still think balrogs specifically decided to be evil, even if Melkor seeded the thought. Eru allowed Melkor to do as he wished, probably as you stated to test men, but the balrogs uniquely had a choice in the matter. Same with Sauron...he could have just kept learning from Aule and been the greatest smith ever, but instead was corrupted by Morgoth. You can make the case that Morgoth fooled Sauron to some degree, but ultimately Mairon became the Lord of the Rings through his own volition. I think this has to be the case, the free will thing, or Aragorn and Galadriel and Gandalf rejecting the ring is pretty nonsensical.

And and to address Shark's point, kill 'em all, let God sort them out.