Quote from: Omega;1126008Except I didnt say what you claimed. Nice SJWing there.

Struggle more.

You are still backpeddling.

Quote from: Omega;1125791Stupid people claiming stupid things about games. News at 11.

No. Really. These morons just parrot/cut-n-paste the same tired old spiel because they have no brain cells to rub together.

Orcs = Rape
Orcs = Black People

sooooo. That must mean Orcs = Black rapists?

Thats what these nuts are obviously claiming then.

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1126006I would not recommend adopting the trend of making Orcs less evil - unless it serves a dramatic purpose, or for matters of style and taste ; i.e, not for any moral reason.

Because "mellowing" the Other is a bottomless rabbit hole. Soon, you will find justification for Gnolls to be misunderstood hyena-men with a bad breath problem ("but it's not their fault, man !"), for Barghest to be misunderstood puddles, and for demons to be redeemable material.  I wonder how it could all end ?

On the one hand, I agree that, say, Earthdawn isn't more moral than D&D for having non-evil orcs. On the other hand, you're speaking as if there needs to be a special reason for orcs to be non-evil. i.e. Everyone should always slavishly copy Tolkien, and any difference from Tolkien must be justified.

I think the only needed reason to have non-evil orcs is "It's fun to play." If my players have fun playing good orcs and good gnolls and good kobolds (which they actually did), then that's reason enough to try it. For example, my last D&D campaign was based on this. Here's the pregen orcish paladin from my one-shot, for example:

QuoteYour people, the orcs, have always lived simply and plainly. They work hard and shun the fancy trappings of other races. An orcish tool will never be as beautiful as drow handiwork, but it will do its job dependably. Orcs till the soil and make a living even in places that other races avoid as wastelands. The elves have their green forests, the dwarves the rich mountains, and the gnomes their fertile hills. Meanwhile, orcs make a simple living in among trackless jungle, treacherous crags, and barren rocky fields.

But you are different than most. You have seen the injustices too often against your people and others. When orcs prosper, then the evil races make war on them and take the fields they cleared and the wilderness they tamed. You are a holy warrior of Gruumsh, and cannot stand to see wrongs unpunished.

The full pregen characters are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h46QMGupmr5bz-G8M75sOI4ieyk5g0Zvbgye3yV5WLg/edit#heading=h.4b5v2y831sx

My question to you is: Does this represent the bad "love" of Other you're talking about? Or do you think it sounds like a fun game?

Quote from: jeff37923;1126016You are still backpeddling.

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way. Still didnt say what you claim.

Continue struggling though.

It is quite misleading to frame everything in the context of contemporary culture wars. In the present case, it is doubly so, since D&D's traditions here go back all the way to the 1970s, way before even 1990s "political correctness" took root in the murkier corners of academia. The framing is just not relevant, because it goes against the game's textual and oral history.

As it stands, OD&D identifies orcs (alongside lycanthropes, ogres, dragons, chimerae, and giants) as possibly belonging to either Chaos or Neutrality (while goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins and gnolls are invariably Chaotic). There is precedent for playing evil player characters, some using orcs as henchmen from Lord Robilar and on, without identifying these characters as irredeemable psychopaths. The AD&D DMG lists 1/4 of ruffian encounters in the city as "half-orc or humanoid race" "if desired" (p. 191), and 5% of classed characters on the chart are half-orcs - as many as elves, and more than halflings or gnomes (half-elves, the "other" half-race, are 8%). Modules such as The Secret of Bone Hill make note of half-orcs living among humans - in neutral-ish territories, at least - and being available as mercenaries. This does not seem to paint orcs as a "kill on sight" type of enemy, more like a low-level nuisance. I hope this does not paint Gary Gygax & Co as the enemies of "Western Civilisation". If it does, perhaps it is time to burn your rulebooks like Jack Chick told you to.


If we expand the scope of the game to third-party materials, Judges Guild's products, Gamelord's Thieves Guild &c provide a lot of examples which do seem to paint a rather different picture of half-orcs and even some other monster races than suggested. I will not mention Empire of the Petal Throne or Runequest (which did, in fact, have a Rape Race).

But that's arguably beside the point. The main reason for going with a more "shades of grey" view of orcs - and D&D evil in general - is because it offers more opportunities in the context of a campaign. And of course, if you meet a band of armed orcs out in the wilderness, you can still slay them without moral quandaries, because they are also thinking about relieving you of your valuables and/or carrying you off to the orc mines or as sacrifice on their dark altars.

Half Orcs come from Half-Orcburg. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Quote from: Melan;1126071It is quite misleading to frame everything in the context of contemporary culture wars. In the present case, it is doubly so, since D&D's traditions here go back all the way to the 1970s, way before even 1990s "political correctness" took root in the murkier corners of academia. The framing is just not relevant, because it goes against the game's textual and oral history.

As it stands, OD&D identifies orcs (alongside lycanthropes, ogres, dragons, chimerae, and giants) as possibly belonging to either Chaos or Neutrality (while goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins and gnolls are invariably Chaotic). There is precedent for playing evil player characters, some using orcs as henchmen from Lord Robilar and on, without identifying these characters as irredeemable psychopaths. The AD&D DMG lists 1/4 of ruffian encounters in the city as "half-orc or humanoid race" "if desired" (p. 191), and 5% of classed characters on the chart are half-orcs - as many as elves, and more than halflings or gnomes (half-elves, the "other" half-race, are 8%). Modules such as The Secret of Bone Hill make note of half-orcs living among humans - in neutral-ish territories, at least - and being available as mercenaries. This does not seem to paint orcs as a "kill on sight" type of enemy, more like a low-level nuisance. I hope this does not paint Gary Gygax & Co as the enemies of "Western Civilisation". If it does, perhaps it is time to burn your rulebooks like Jack Chick told you to.


If we expand the scope of the game to third-party materials, Judges Guild's products, Gamelord's Thieves Guild &c provide a lot of examples which do seem to paint a rather different picture of half-orcs and even some other monster races than suggested. I will not mention Empire of the Petal Throne or Runequest (which did, in fact, have a Rape Race).

But that's arguably beside the point. The main reason for going with a more "shades of grey" view of orcs - and D&D evil in general - is because it offers more opportunities in the context of a campaign. And of course, if you meet a band of armed orcs out in the wilderness, you can still slay them without moral quandaries, because they are also thinking about relieving you of your valuables and/or carrying you off to the orc mines or as sacrifice on their dark altars.

Greetings!

Hey there Melan! Good stuff! Gary and Co. were not the "Enemies of Western Civilization" for sure!:D Melan, you don't think that SJW's get their inspiration from such philosophy? I mean, there is a difference between if you, or I, say in a campaign, *these* Orcs are not always evil, and often live like such and such; as opposed to the SJW's. They frame Orcs as not being evil, particularly identifying them with primitive tribal peoples of our own world, bravely resisting the "Colonizers"!:D And whereupon they load all of this kind of Marxist ideology into their argument. I think there is a difference in approach there, do you see what I'm saying? The philosophy and motivation between two such approaches is entirely different. That is what I was intending to highlight.

I have always liked Half Orcs. I think they present a different spin on a "rough barbarian" type of character, as opposed to some kind of Human barbarian type character.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim;1125977I don't have a problem with evil orcs, but you're making it sound like anything *other* than evil orcs means that the game isn't fun. As if the players of Earthdawn are engaging in moral philosophy.

I've had lots of fun in games with non-evil orcs. My last D&D campaign had good-aligned orcs, goblins, and others as the PCs. They were straight up killing evil -- it's just that the evil was humans, elves, and dwarves. I've had other games with non-evil orcs as well, like Shadowrun where we had an orc shaman PC, and a GURPS Fantasy game where my PC was a rich orcish arms dealer. I enjoy Tolkien, but it's not like every game has to be just like Tolkien or it isn't fun. Mix it up a little.



That sounds like Ghettopoly to me.

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/222573/ghettopoly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxf14_HSRc

Mostly agree, but SHARK's post still brought a smile to me and made me laugh.

I think the problem with this topic is that it greatly depends on how orcs are established in the game world. And either depiction--either as rampaging beats (traditional/Tolkienesque orcs) or noble savages--is valid for a fantasy world, depending on what the world is supposed to be about.

Quote from: Jaeger;1126009You say this like it is a bad thing...

You say that like you shouldn't feel horrible and ashamed about killing FICTIONAL antagonists in a make believe GAME featuring simulated worlds that aren't real. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Jaeger;1126009You say this like it is a bad thing...

That wasn't my intent. I don't think this is bad. I think it's honest. I have no problem rolling dice to determine whether paper figures on a tabletop are defeated or not.

When gamers try justifying slaughter in the "lore" by claiming that humanoids are evil rapist savages that we are morally obligated to exterminate, including the women and children and (maybe) halfbreeds, my internal alarm bells go off because that sounds exactly like all war propaganda ever.

Off the top of my head, wartime propaganda depicted Germans as murderous gorillas trying to steal our women. A number of recent artistic depictions of humanoids use vaguely similar styles to stereotypical Germanic barbarians, like wielding metal axes and wearing furs. The humanoids are described as generic enemies of civilization in the exact same ways as pop-cultures describes the Germanic barbarians that attacked the Roman Empire.

We all know that the Germanic tribes were people, right? Why is there this pathological obsession with making fantasy beastmen born irredeemably evil when even Tolkien himself didn't like the idea of writing orcs that way?

I do think cultures can promote evil acts, given the clear historical evidence, but entire species being born evil? I think there's a time and place for fighting demons who earned their fates through free will by doing evil in life (or just got really unlucky), but what purpose does it serve to the writer's interests to focus on a race who is born evil?

Why should I, as an aspiring fantasy writer, write all beastmen as born evil? What greater purpose would it serve to my narrative? Why shouldn't I give beastmen free will so that encounters can be more variable, or substitute humans instead?

Quote from: Melan;1126071But that's arguably beside the point. The main reason for going with a more "shades of grey" view of orcs - and D&D evil in general - is because it offers more opportunities in the context of a campaign. And of course, if you meet a band of armed orcs out in the wilderness, you can still slay them without moral quandaries, because they are also thinking about relieving you of your valuables and/or carrying you off to the orc mines or as sacrifice on their dark altars.

Precisely.

I think the obsession with making adventurers into moral paragons and going to absurd lengths to ensure they can do no wrong no matter how many people they ruthlessly slaughter leads to a blander media landscape overall. I don't think violent bandit hordes should be discarded outright, just add more tools to the toolbox.

As said earlier, in non-fantasy RPGs players have no similar quandary when it comes to slaughtering hordes of human mooks when we know that humans are people with free will. Why should beastmen be different?

One of the reasons why I like 40k space orks is because their morality is so utterly alien without being cartoonishly evil. They live on combat. It comes to them as easily as breathing. They aren't evil rapists who love causing pain, they simply have no concept of non-combatant. The closest thing they have to non-combatant in their own culture/ecosystem are military scientists and livestock. You don't have to feel guilty for slaughtering them because they like being slaughtered. They accord us, their foes, respect based on how deadly we are.

Why can't we have more fun concepts like that?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126104One of the reasons why I like 40k space orks is because their morality is so utterly alien without being cartoonishly evil.

40K Orcs are the epitome of cartoonish. Their chief warlord is named after Margaret Thatcher! Their society is based on English soccer hooligans. They delight in causing pain and suffering to others, for no reaon than it's a laugh. Even at their most "serious", 40k Orcs are ridiculous.

And I say this as a 40K fan who likes the ridiculous cartoonish evil of the space Orks.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;112611040K Orcs are the epitome of cartoonish. Their chief warlord is named after Margaret Thatcher! Their society is based on English soccer hooligans. They delight in causing pain and suffering to others, for no reaon than it's a laugh. Even at their most "serious", 40k Orcs are ridiculous.

And I say this as a 40K fan who likes the ridiculous cartoonish evil of the space Orks.

Which just highlights how incoherent and argumentative for the sake of being argumentative BoxCrayonTales's arguments actually are. He'll bring up examples of things that actually contradict his points just to keep arguing his point. Tolkienesque Orcs ALSO live on combat and have no concept non-combatants...but why can't they be more like 40k Orks, which are basically reskinned, spacefaring variants of Tolkienesque Orcs?

Noble save orcs have been a thing in MULTIPLE SOURCES since the 90's to the point where they've even started portraying them as such in D&D...but why does every orc has to be a tolkienesque orc, even though orcs have hardly even been that tolkienesque in decades?

This is what I got to say about noble orcs. Not all orcs gotta be evil but there is nothing wrong with magical creatures of pure evil.

Do we gotta write #notall for boogeymen? Do are demons good but pressured into being evil by society?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;112611040K Orcs are the epitome of cartoonish. Their chief warlord is named after Margaret Thatcher! Their society is based on English soccer hooligans. They delight in causing pain and suffering to others, for no reaon than it's a laugh. Even at their most "serious", 40k Orcs are ridiculous.

And I say this as a 40K fan who likes the ridiculous cartoonish evil of the space Orks.

Then I misspoke. They are cartoonish in a different manner to the sadist rapist orcs found elsewhere in fantasy. They are cartoonish in a genuinely comedic slapstick way, rather than cartoonish in the "commodification of misogyny as a sign of maturity" way.

The space orks don't only engage in violence towards humans, either. They have been known to keep humans as slaves (e.g. Yarrick's backstory), try breeding humans as livestock (e.g. War of the Beast), and even maintain trade relations (e.g. the Diggas).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126113

This is what I got to say about noble orcs. Not all orcs gotta be evil but there is nothing wrong with magical creatures of pure evil.

Do we gotta write #notall for boogeymen? Do are demons good but pressured into being evil by society?

Finally! A virgin noble savage vs Chad trad orc meme. Now this topic is complete.

From now on every single orc in my games is gonna be a Chad Uruk male-only race that lives to rape and pillage and relies 100% on females from other species to reproduce. If I want a stand-in for "noble savage" types in my campaigns I'll just use bugbears or something as a baseline instead, but orcs themselves will always be ultraviolent bred through rape types.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126112Which just highlights how incoherent and argumentative for the sake of being argumentative BoxCrayonTales's arguments actually are. He'll bring up examples of things that actually contradict his points just to keep arguing his point. Tolkienesque Orcs ALSO live on combat and have no concept non-combatants...but why can't they be more like 40k Orks, which are basically reskinned, spacefaring variants of Tolkienesque Orcs?

If you think that my argument is incoherent because I prefer 40k's asexual space orks over Goblin Slayer's rapist goblins, then I don't know what else to say. Clearly I have failed to articulate myself in a coherent manner.

Here are a couple articles explaining the criticism of the rapist savages:
https://www.thefandomentals.com/evil-races-fantasy/
https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/6/30/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-ii-theyre-not-human

The latter even praises 40k's space orks.

I hope those articles can articulate the criticism in a better way than I can. I hope you will find them educational.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126112Noble save orcs have been a thing in MULTIPLE SOURCES since the 90's to the point where they've even started portraying them as such in D&D...

The "noble savage" is a racist garbage trope and I dislike portraying orcs that way just as much as I dislike the born evil rapist horde.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126112they've even started portraying them as such in D&D...

To my knowledge this is only the case in deliberately mold-breaker settings like Eberron. In my survey of settings, the majority of the time the orcs behave like the goblins in Goblin Slayer.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126112but why does every orc has to be a tolkienesque orc, even though orcs have hardly even been that tolkienesque in decades?

Who was arguing that every orc should be a tolkienesque orc?

D&D is heavily inspired by Tolkien but its got plenty of its own uniqueness.

In fact, Tolkien wanted to argue that orcs can be redeemed in accordance with his Catholic beliefs.

In the majority of D&D settings, the only good orc/goblin/humanoid is a dead one. The dilemma of "Should we kill the baby orcs?" arose from D&D subculture for a reason.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126113This is what I got to say about noble orcs. Not all orcs gotta be evil but there is nothing wrong with magical creatures of pure evil.

Do we gotta write #notall for boogeymen? Do are demons good but pressured into being evil by society?

This is a false dichotomy, tho. As least in the monster manual, orcs aren't demons. They have a lot of human-like qualities, but are otherwise denied personhood in order to justify depicting them as virulent misogynists who deserve to be exterminated down to every last man, women, and child.

They're essentially reskinned from propaganda depicting Germans as subhuman scum we should exterminate off the face of the Earth.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126115Finally! A virgin noble savage vs Chad trad orc meme. Now this topic is complete.

From now on every single orc in my games is gonna be a Chad Uruk male-only race that lives to rape and pillage and relies 100% on females from other species to reproduce. If I want a stand-in for "noble savage" types in my campaigns I'll just use bugbears or something as a baseline instead, but orcs themselves will always be ultraviolent bred through rape types.

You're entitled to do as you please in your personal campaigns.

I just don't think this should be depicted as the default in the monster manual without any contrasting options.

I don't want peer pressure to force me to play as a paladin who gleefully murders baby orcs because the setting is contrived to make killing baby orcs the morally good choice.

It's bad enough that people in real life make bad choices to the point where the only reasonable option is to kill or lobotomize them. Publishing a fictional world where you're morally justified in murdering babies as the standard feels like a callous trivialization of real life moral dilemmas.

I don't have a problem with roleplaying brutal violence including rape, genocide, infanticide, degloving, etc. Where I think it gets iffy is trying to justify murdering babies as morally good.

What purpose does that serve? Does it indicate maturity? Do we like the shock value?

Quote from: Omega;1126067Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way. Still didnt say what you claim.

Continue struggling though.

So, you deny dragging that tired SJW schtick of orcs are blacks into the conversation.

Quote from: Omega;1125791Stupid people claiming stupid things about games. News at 11.

No. Really. These morons just parrot/cut-n-paste the same tired old spiel because they have no brain cells to rub together.

Orcs = Rape
Orcs = Black People

sooooo. That must mean Orcs = Black rapists?

Thats what these nuts are obviously claiming then.