Quote from: yosemitemike on November 23, 2023, 12:24:14 AM
Evil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race.  They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose.  They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it.  They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs.  They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries.  They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.

A lot of this stuff about nature vs nurture misses something obvious.  Orcs are not an analogue for a human culture.  They are a fantasy race in a fantasy setting.  All of this stuff about nature vs nurture or the dominant orc culture may well not even apply at all.  For example, the orcs in LotR did not arise naturally and did not have an orc culture that developed naturally.  They were made by the Dark Lord to be his soldiers.  They were purpose built to be brutal killers and that's just what they are.  In a fantasy setting, it's common for races to be made by gods or other powerful entities in their own image or to serve their purposes.  If, in this setting, the orcs were created by a malevolent god or entity to be its foot soldiers to conquer or destroy the world, it makes perfect sense that they what they were made to be.

D&D Orcs are the funniest. Evil beings, created by an evil god to be evil, and that god constantly monitors them to keep them on the track of evil.

"OMG, bio essentialism!" scream the baby-brains. "They're a stand-in for black people!" whine the morons.

Quote from: Grognard GM on November 23, 2023, 01:24:27 AM

D&D Orcs are the funniest. Evil beings, created by an evil god to be evil, and that god constantly monitors them to keep them on the track of evil.

"OMG, bio essentialism!" scream the baby-brains. "They're a stand-in for black people!" whine the morons.

They clearly aren't though unless you actually believe that black people aren't human and were created by a bloodthirsty, savage evil god in his own image to be evil.

Look, everyone already knows we need people to stick our swords in, and whose heads demand splitting with our axes. And fantasy games need lots of them. So "evil races" exist.

They aren't going to kill themselves, boys.

Quote from: yosemitemike on November 23, 2023, 12:24:14 AM
Evil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race.  They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose.  They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it.  They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs.  They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries.  They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.

I agree particularly with the bolded parts - and this is exactly my problem with the video from the OP. The video claims that there is a moral imperative to put evil races into a fantasy game, because of Neanderthals somehow, and I don't think that makes any sense. My game worlds are obviously a personal creative investment or invention, but they aren't a political statement. They're intentionally different than what I think the real world is like or should be.

However, I don't think orcs work well to avoid moral quandaries, because there is the problem of women, children, and prisoners. It's written into the original Monster Manual that PCs will encounter a lair with non-combatants and orc children, but slaughtering helpless babies is something that most players get uncomfortable with. In my experience, demons or undead work a lot better as enemies with no moral quandaries.

Quote from: tenbones on November 23, 2023, 01:13:14 PM
Look, everyone already knows we need people to stick our swords in, and whose heads demand splitting with our axes. And fantasy games need lots of them. So "evil races" exist.

They aren't going to kill themselves, boys.

Only humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 02:04:24 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on November 23, 2023, 12:24:14 AM
Evil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race.  They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose.  They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it.  They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs.  They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries.  They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.

I agree particularly with the bolded parts - and this is exactly my problem with the video from the OP. The video claims that there is a moral imperative to put evil races into a fantasy game, because of Neanderthals somehow, and I don't think that makes any sense. My game worlds are obviously a personal creative investment or invention, but they aren't a political statement. They're intentionally different than what I think the real world is like or should be.

However, I don't think orcs work well to avoid moral quandaries, because there is the problem of women, children, and prisoners. It's written into the original Monster Manual that PCs will encounter a lair with non-combatants and orc children, but slaughtering helpless babies is something that most players get uncomfortable with. In my experience, demons or undead work a lot better as enemies with no moral quandaries.

Not women, females, not babies: pups, brood.

Why are you racist against demons and the undead?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 03:11:13 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 02:04:24 PM
However, I don't think orcs work well to avoid moral quandaries, because there is the problem of women, children, and prisoners. It's written into the original Monster Manual that PCs will encounter a lair with non-combatants and orc children, but slaughtering helpless babies is something that most players get uncomfortable with. In my experience, demons or undead work a lot better as enemies with no moral quandaries.

Not women, females, not babies: pups, brood.

One can use whichever words you like in one's own game, obviously. I was talking about the original Monster Manual, which uses "females" and "young". i.e. In a lair, there are 50% as many females as male orcs, and 100% as many young as male orcs.

I think there are some good options to change this. The gargun - the orcs of the Hârn setting - have an insect-life lifecycle, so there is a dangerous bloated queen that lays eggs. Newly hatched gargun are almost immediately walking and dangerous. There was a related change in the Lord of the Rings movies, where Tolkien orcs were shown being created full-grown from pupae in pits.

NGL, you're right that Harn does properly alien evil races very well with the gargun. Likewise to a lesser extent mistrust for the Ivashu, in that even when they aren't trying to they effectively wind up serving the mad plans of their godking creator. Harn is just pretty cool overall, and provides some good and relatively unique templates and techniques for doing that sort of thing.

This is why you should NEVER give an inch to a leftist: Now demons being inherently evil is racist too (Jhkim alt-right confirmed).

QuoteEvil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race.  They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose.  They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it.  They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs.  They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries.  They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.

I always considered this argument to be really weak considering pulp/action heroes never had problems mudering human mooks and henchmen by hundreds.

QuoteOnly humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.

Of course not.
One of dictionary definition of people is: (countable) Persons forming or belonging to a particular group, such as a nation, class, ethnic group, country, family, etc.
And of course term person in traditional philosophy is applied not just to humans but also to angelic spirits and to Three Persons of God.

When we take fantasy - which is separate cultural entity quite new, then in most revered classic we have FREE PEOPLE OF MIDDLE-EARTH, the moniker under which both elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits and ents function.

"Learn now the lore of Living Creatures!
First name the four, the free peoples:
Eldest of all, the elf-children;
Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses;
Ent the earthborn, old as mountains;
Man the mortal, master of horses:"

And yes that also make Tolkien orcs, at least in most theories about their origin (because one include apes so it's maybe more doubtful), people. Not free of course.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 28, 2023, 01:37:26 PM
And of course term person in traditional philosophy is applied not just to humans but also to angelic spirits and to Three Persons of God.

  The classical definition from Boethius: Individual substance/hypostasis of a rational nature. So if they're rational individuals, they're people.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 28, 2023, 01:37:26 PM

QuoteEvil races like orcs do not exist to make some political statement or to be analogues of some real world race.  They were invented in fantasy literature to serve a specific, practical purpose.  They were there to give the heroes enemies that they could kill witho0ut them or the audience having to feel bad about it.  They serve the same purpose in heroic fantasy rpgs.  They are an enemy that the PCs can kill without bringing up a lot of moral quandries.  They aren't required for a fantasy setting but they do serve a practical purpose.

I always considered this argument to be really weak considering pulp/action heroes never had problems mudering human mooks and henchmen by hundreds.

QuoteOnly humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.

Of course not.
One of dictionary definition of people is: (countable) Persons forming or belonging to a particular group, such as a nation, class, ethnic group, country, family, etc.
And of course term person in traditional philosophy is applied not just to humans but also to angelic spirits and to Three Persons of God.

When we take fantasy - which is separate cultural entity quite new, then in most revered classic we have FREE PEOPLE OF MIDDLE-EARTH, the moniker under which both elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits and ents function.

"Learn now the lore of Living Creatures!
First name the four, the free peoples:
Eldest of all, the elf-children;
Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses;
Ent the earthborn, old as mountains;
Man the mortal, master of horses:"

And yes that also make Tolkien orcs, at least in most theories about their origin (because one include apes so it's maybe more doubtful), people. Not free of course.

per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person

    1.    a human being regarded as an individual.
    "the porter was the last person to see her"

But neither the elves, dwarves or halflings are either angelic nor one of the three persons of God

Look, I love LotR but his poetry isn't going to change the definition.

So, nice try but no prize.

Quoteper·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person

    1.    a human being regarded as an individual.
    "the porter was the last person to see her"

Nice definition you found. The problem is I found definitions myself.
For instance this:

person (plural persons or (by suppletion) people)

1. An individual who has been granted personhood; usually a human being. [from 13th c.]
Each person is unique, both mentally and physically.
2. A character or part, as in a play; a specific kind or manifestation of individual character, whether in real life, or in literary or dramatic representation; an assumed character.
3. (Christianity) Any one of the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity: the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
4. Any sentient or socially intelligent being.
5. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) Someone who likes or has an affinity for (a specified thing). [from 20th c.]
Jack's always been a dog person, but I prefer cats.
6. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) A human of unspecified gender (in terms usually constructed with man or woman).
7. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) A worker in a specified function or specialty.
I was able to speak to a technical support person and get the problem solved.
8. The physical body of a being seen as distinct from the mind, character, etc. [from 14th c.]
9. (law) Any individual or formal organization with standing before the courts. [from 14th c.]
At common law a corporation or a trust is legally a person.
10. (law, euphemistic) The human genitalia; specifically, the penis.
11. (grammar) A linguistic category used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to whom or about whom they are speaking. See grammatical person. [from 14th c.]
12, (biology) A shoot or bud of a plant; a polyp or zooid of the compound Hydrozoa, Anthozoa, etc.; also, an individual, in the narrowest sense, among the higher animals[19th century].

QuoteLook, I love LotR but his poetry isn't going to change the definition.

Yes it does, because despite your utter authism in this area Geeky - dictionary definitions are not set in stone, objective rigid science.
And different dictionaries had different definitions. The one of your English teacher, or the one of dictionary you had in house in NO WAY trump accomplished philosopher like Boetius, or accomplished linguist like Tolkien. (And of course even their definitions are not really objective - because especially in philosophical/theological/abstract terms - there is no such thing.)

Thank God not every system is d&d.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 03:09:20 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 23, 2023, 01:13:14 PM
Look, everyone already knows we need people to stick our swords in, and whose heads demand splitting with our axes. And fantasy games need lots of them. So "evil races" exist.

They aren't going to kill themselves, boys.

Only humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.

Oh no, I was definitely saying that you can have human cultures in my games that deserve axes to their heads.