TheRPGSite

This thread is inspired by a throwaway quote in the Adam Koebel thread:

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125669There's no shortage of official and third-party D&D monsters whose shtick involves rape. It disgusts me because it is so tasteless and exploitative. The standard half-orc backstory where all half-orcs are rape-babies makes me queasy. It's doubly ironic when these publishers claim to be progressive.

I find it interesting that "half-orcs-by-rape" have become such a default assumption of D&D worlds, so much so that it is often specifically mentioned as their usual origin story. It is also one of the D&D elements which are typically found to be "problematic" by critics; that you have a whole player subrace of, basically, rape babies. Quit correct that it would be tasteless.

The reason this comes out of left field is because it didn't seem to be that way at all when we started playing (early 1990s). The assumption was simply that some people just have seriously low standards - not unlike real life - and there would certainly be many more people like this than rapists. Half-orcs would mostly result from drunken flings at the tavern, prostitution, or just a particularly bad taste that was looked down on, but nevertheless happened. This actually cut both ways: one of Hungary's formative fantasy novels (https://beyondfomalhaut.blogspot.com/2017/04/blog-smell-of-chicken-guts-unlikely.html) featured a half-orc protagonist (lovingly described as "reeking of the smell of chicken guts" in his favourite old cloak), who finds human women to be mostly uninteresting, and elves almost revolting in their purity, while he has the hots for a female half-orc assassin (who ends up betraying him multiple times, which only adds to the romance). At any rate, there was no great assumption that half-orcs would by default result from raiding orcs forcing themselves on hapless human women, but something that would just result every so often from humans and orcs living in close proximity, mostly in seedier parts (like cities with a lot of travellers passing through). And while the books don't put much emphasis on the matter, said half-orc is the offspring of a priestess of chaos, who deliberately bore a half-orc child to fulfill a prophecy.

There is, also, quite a leap of assumption that it is an orc-males-and-human-women issue. Perhaps a human man might also feel affection for an orc woman, or at least have a fondness for the brain soup Ugglina the Orc is cooking. Perhaps orcish strength and resilience are sought commodities on certain frontiers, which are valued over physical beauty. Or, as it happens, one or both parents are rich and/or powerful, and it was a marriage of convenience, or a diplomatic arrangement. Sure, orcs smell, but then so do barbarians.

I would not say this rules out rape. In lawless and violent locales, it may be a horrible fact of life (and if you think humans would be above raping orc females, you have more faith in humanity than I do). It is hard to have a plausible world where horrible crimes don't happen every so often. But even beyond the possibility, something about the idea that half-orcs=rape all the time, every time, strikes me as both an ugly assumption, and one that, honestly, betrays a lack of imagination.

Another issue was that all the evil elements in D&D also were to have no redeeming qualities imo. So half-orcs being from an evil race had to be cartoony evil with some screwed up elements. Take a look at FR and the Zhentarim. Up until 3E they were a prime example. An evil organization that was foiled at every turn because the higher ups wanted it so. Bane instead of leading his followers was busy trying increase the divide between Divine and Arcane spellcasters within the Zhentarim for shits and giggles. Which made no sense Bane wants to conquer Faerun and is undermining his own organization. Along came 3E and that removed that nonsense. I may just remove half-orcs and make them a subset of orcs.

Sometime between 2nd edition and 3rd, orcs went from "Pig headed cannon fodder" to "Green skinned warriors". I don't imagine the earlier types got many dates. the latter more fit your description of maybe associating with other humanoids.

So there's also the factor that the definition of 'orc' has evolved over the editions.

I thought they originated in the breeding pits of the Dark Lord, certainly in Tolkien. Made sense when orcs were Faceless Minions of Evil. 'Mummy Orc and Daddy Human loved each other Very Much' works better for World of Warcraft type orcs.

Quote from: Melan;1125731https://beyondfomalhaut.blogspot.com/2017/04/blog-smell-of-chicken-guts-unlikely.html

Hopefully this isn't too off topic: Do you happen to know if any of these books have been translated to English? I've been looking around and not finding them, but I would love to read them. Cheers

Greetings!

Excellent topic, Melan! I sympathize with your frustration at the whole "Half Orcs are the product of rape all the time!" thing. However, I would submit that in a dark and brutal world, such rape would be a fairly significant occurrence. (Such rape, as you noted, not being the sole proviso of Orcs, but also humans raping Orcs!)

In my own World of Thandor, I have rape being the origin of about 10-30%, based on region and social and political environment. In that I also include slavery, as well as prostitution, which is common in urban cities, but also fairly common in larger rural communities as well. The majority of Half Orcs in Thandor however, originate from other mated pairs of Half Orc parents. Well, most are mated pairs and couples, but the rough nature of Half Orcs means that within the Half Orc community, such as it is, wherever they happen to establish a sub-culture within their own communities, or within a Human or Orc community, there are also a good deal of prostitution and orgies going on, and serial couplings, with single Half Orc mommies entertaining numerous "boyfriends" in sequence. Relationships lasting a few weeks or a few months is very common, thus many Half Orc children are bred by single Half Orc mommies. Many Half Orc women *love* the "Badboys", Ruffians, rugged mercenaries, tribal warriors, as well as the common hard-drinking, cigarette-smoking labourer and craftsman. There is also a good attraction to the traveling caravan merchants, the wagon-drivers and caravan guards. Within the larger cities, there's an additional subset of Half Orc women that are deeply attracted to the rough, strict, Watchmen, Bounty Hunters, Witch Hunters, Road Wardens, and other members of law enforcement, and the hard machinery of "The State."

Some of these relationships grow into stable, disciplined, committed relationships, though probably half of them or more are unfortunately more hedonistic, emotional, and temporary. This then gives rise to more emotionally damaged Half Orc children with trainloads of emotional and social problems being bred, which then grow up to be just like their Half Orc parents. Many Half Orcs *like* living in rough wagon parks, where yes, they breed like crazy. It is an ongoing cycle of harshness, dysfunction, hedonism, and violence. Many Half Orcs grow to adulthood thoroughly devoted to hedonism, and "living in the Now." They love violence, and see violence as an excellent solution to most any kind of problem. Many Half Orcs hold little regard for "morality" and otherwise being "law abiding." They often see the system as something to exploit and get their juice from, and squeeze whatever benefits they can get away with. The important idea is almost anything is good to do--just don't get caught. They often live in a harsh, survival-mode environment, socially, where the strong, and the cunning, and the sly and the manipulative people are the ones that get ahead and win. The weak, the naïve, the straight-laced law-abiding folks--they get left in the mud, as victims, as suckers. They *deserved* to be beaten; they deserved to be robbed; they deserved to be scammed, hustled, and manipulated.

In such a harsh, brutal world of survival and self-interest, Half Orcs seldom embrace relationship fidelity and loyalty. Hedonism and lascivious sexual relations are *the norm*. It is what most Half Orcs growing up witness their mommies doing, as well as their fathers, or any other males around their family and neighborhood. Other Half Orc women are just as mercenary and promiscuous as the Half Orc men. They jump on whoever the passing shiny sexy male who has *Bam*. Social charisma, a muscular, hard physique, a supply of gold, and the respect of other Half Orc men in the neighborhood. Them having the desire of other Half Orc women, all of that goes into who the typical Half Orc woman finds super attractive and irresistible. Does he dress good? Does he have weapons, and muscles? Is he strong and ruthless? Is he successful, and does he have gold, resources, and goodies? Half Orc women want to be his number one cupcake!

Of course, there is a minority of the typical Half Orc population that is super religious and tending towards deep superstition, but is otherwise firmly committed to family unity, individual discipline, social order, and are deeply and fervently religious and spiritual. These Half Orcs *love* order, unity, and strict discipline. They often serve in the military, law enforcement, as mercenaries, as well as in religious organizations and institutions, and are also passionate about being professional artisans, learning skills, and embracing trade and business adventures.

That is the world that Half Orcs come from, often, in the World of Thandor.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Really orcs are infinitely divisible by two.  So you also get quarter orcs and eighth orcs.  They get smaller as you divide them of course.  It's believed that orcs are made up of cells with a sort of genetic memory that recongeal into the same shape no matter how you subdivide them.  Some orcs can even divide and regroup at will.

In my setting, a breeding program by an evil wizard who was trying to make soldiers as strong as orcs and as smart as humans. Unfortunately he got the opposite, only slightly smarter than their orc cousins and not really any stronger than a healthy, athletic human.  He tossed them aside and left them to fend for themselves. They wandered in semi-nomadic groups settling wherever they could, eventually multiplying until they were a proper race.

Only after abandoning them did the wizard discover they possessed two distinct advantages over orcs. They could move around and do stuff by day as easily as by night, and they could ride horses (in my setting, horses are instinctively afraid of orcs).

I've always gone with the low standards theory.  Working at Walmart I have noticed that the fattest, surliest, unpleasantest women you can possibly imagine can still have a brood of children (even though you don't understand how they could even physically have sex being so obese). And then you have the drugged up tweaker men who look likey were taken from the outskirts of Dunnich (or Mayberry),  

Compared to either of them a half orc would look positively attractive.  And that's not discounting fetishes.  Alien porn is a thing. There's a whole subgenre of literary porn (aimed at women) where human women are kidnapped and raped by monstrous aliens and used for breeding stock. It's not a huge market, but it's one.

In my own game world, most half orcs come from adventuring bands wiping out the male orcs in a band, leaving the females to fend for themselves, and who end up going to mining camps and such on the outskirts of civilization where they are welcomed by the mostly entirely male settlements.

History is FULL of half-insertconquerorshere.  I rather just make half orcs orcs or a variant orc, but I dont get too hung up on the origins.   A gm deciding a half orc needs to hear details on his/her conception...no.

Quote from: JeremyR;1125750I've always gone with the low standards theory.  Working at Walmart I have noticed that the fattest, surliest, unpleasantest women you can possibly imagine can still have a brood of children (even though you don't understand how they could even physically have sex being so obese). And then you have the drugged up tweaker men who look likey were taken from the outskirts of Dunnich (or Mayberry),  

Compared to either of them a half orc would look positively attractive.  And that's not discounting fetishes.  Alien porn is a thing. There's a whole subgenre of literary porn (aimed at women) where human women are kidnapped and raped by monstrous aliens and used for breeding stock. It's not a huge market, but it's one.

In my own game world, most half orcs come from adventuring bands wiping out the male orcs in a band, leaving the females to fend for themselves, and who end up going to mining camps and such on the outskirts of civilization where they are welcomed by the mostly entirely male settlements.

Its funny you mention this, i heard from multiple sources, the lady writing a series of bigfoot porn makes over a half million a year.....so there is certainly a market.

In the game I want to set up, orcs are a spiritual infection.  A cross between the Gotha virus from GURPS Horror and actual demonic possession.  Half orcs are survivors of the infection and are technically held up by most religions as a triumph of the soul over the abyss.  However, people are dicks and there is still a lot of bias against them...assuming that any one of them could go right back to being a howling death cult fanatic: all cracked skin, red eyes, and blasphemous madness.

I never liked the sci-fi episodes that had a transformative retrovirus that gets completely fixed at the end of the episode.  Half orcs are cured in one way or another, but they done go back to normal.

I don't have them in my games (where I'm the GM), at most I allow half Elves/Human, Dwarfs, Halflings can't interbreed among themselves nor humans or Elves. Orcs, Goblins and other fuglies are 100% evil demon spawn or wizardry induced mutations, maybe even aliens from another plane/planet.

It has to do with my general dislike for "lets see who can build the most special snowflake character!" and my deeply rooted belief that most players end up playing a human in a rubber suit.

Alternately I've heard liquor is generally involved.  Lots and lots of liquor.  Imagine all those afterwork parties at Orthanc.  Heck the fighting Urk Hai call Sauruman 'old man'.  Think about it.

I gotta be honest with you, the default assumption about the origin of half-orcs from anyone I've ever played with since very early on when I was introduced into the hobby has always been that they're the product of rape. And I've been playing since 1990. And given the standard D&D background of orcs as irredeemable evil raiders not accepted in ANY civilized land I can see few alternatives to that origin, at least not as a likely scenario. They're not even allowed as PCs--that's how vile they're considered to be.

Unless we're talking about WOW-style cool looking noble savage orcs there's little chance that a half-orc would be the product of anything other than rape. You can't have accidental prostitute babies when orcs aren't even allowed in civilized lands. But I suppose it depends on how orcs are portrayed in your campaign.

I have no issue with noble savage "beastmen" orcs if that's how they're established in the campaign (and I've portrayed them as such sometimes), but that's not how they're traditionally portrayed in the game or literature. Tolkien's orcs were not even natural creatures, but the product of dark magic that twisted and deformed them into monsters bred for killing--I'm not even sure they could reproduce.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125765Unless we're talking about WOW-style cool looking noble savage orcs there's little chance that a half-orc would be the product of anything other than rape. You can't have accidental prostitute babies when orcs aren't even allowed in civilized lands. But I suppose it depends on how orcs are portrayed in your campaign.

I have no issue with noble savage "beastmen" orcs if that's how they're established in the campaign (and I've portrayed them as such sometimes), but that's not how they're traditionally portrayed in the game or literature. Tolkien's orcs were not even natural creatures, but the product of dark magic that twisted and deformed them into monsters bred for killing--I'm not even sure they could reproduce.

The Eberron setting has spent over a decade with their gray-skinned "noble savage" orcs. It works for that setting, and IMO, that setting is more D&D (at least 5e D&D) now than just about any other.

Before one can ask where half-orcs come from, one must first ask where orcs come from.

In Tolkien, orcs are slaves to sin. The Ring represents sin, and the Lord of the Rings is the Master of sin -- Sauron = Satan.

The distinction between evil humans and orcs is that humans still have free will, they have not yet sold their souls. Deviating from that ruins the fundamental truth in the narrative.

Orcs with free will = you can live as a slave to sin and still have free will. It is a mutilation of the narrative and doesn't make any sense.


The biggest threat to primitive humans once they survive infancy is homicide. It is the major cause of death among primitive cultures. Before humans can live in groups larger than 200 or so, they must first solve the problem of human nature, which Christians refer to as our "fallen nature". That is the major objective of mythology and religion, which is to ruminate over human nature and find solutions; when you look at a culture's mythology, it reflects what is on their collective minds as they struggle with their daily lives, and usually it is other humans that are the major stumbling blocks that threaten their safety and prosperity.

The biggest threat to women is rape and homicide. Fighting over females is the major preoccupation of tribal peoples. Mother Nature seems to think that it is really important that we reproduce, so much so that men will murder each other fighting over females. Most tribal wars are either started or perpetuated by fighting over females. It is common for them to kidnap females back and forth. Islamic cultures don't cover their women in public because they hate women -- they never would have survived if they hated women -- it is to protect them from other males.

The Iliad, one of the oldest stories of our culture, begins with the men fighting over the girls that they have captured in battle. They are literally fighting over who gets to rape a particular female, the daughter of a priest of Apollo. Enraged that the men wouldn't give back the girl in exchange for a ransom, Apollo slaughters many of the men of the army with arrows of disease. The Trojan War itself began with a fight over a woman, "the face that launched a thousand ships".

For primitive man, God is between a woman's legs.

Orcs are humans who are slaves to sin.

Connect the dots.

Liberals distort our stories and disconnect them from reality. It is why their movies fail at the box office or their TV shows fail in the ratings. Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Marvel comics, and so on. It's because the stories they tell are false and don't resonate with the culture. Because they hate "organized" religion they are disconnected from the ancestral wisdom of our culture.

Thus we get orcs as stand-ins for blacks and Latinos and immigrants as well as nonsensical arguments about irredeemable evil.

As to the stereotype of orc males raping female humans, most rapists in the real world would rather rape a virgin than a whore. Also, Russian women raping German men wasn't a thing in WWII. Hence the stereotype stands.

Evil humans will of course willingly breed with orcs, but that is a reflection of their wretchedness as many such humans will also engage in unsavory acts with animals. No such acts can be equated with normal consensual unions.

In my own game I assume that orcs do not have free will and do not have immortal souls. They are the tools of evil. Like animals, their souls cease to exist when they die. Orcs are evil, meaning they are sadistic and predatory psychopaths. Half-orc PCs are those few half-orcs who do have free will and immortal souls due to the unusual nature of their human parent, although as with all demi-humans (I assume that elves, dwarfs, and the like are humans with faerie blood) their free will is tempered by their non-human ancestry, hence level limits.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1125772Before one can ask where half-orcs come from, one must first ask where orcs come from.

I have played many games with orcs & half-orc in it and never had my mind come up with the strangeness you just posted.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1125772Before one can ask where half-orcs come from, one must first ask where orcs come from.

In Tolkien, orcs are slaves to sin. The Ring represents sin, and the Lord of the Rings is the Master of sin -- Sauron = Satan.

The distinction between evil humans and orcs is that humans still have free will, they have not yet sold their souls. Deviating from that ruins the fundamental truth in the narrative.

Orcs with free will = you can live as a slave to sin and still have free will. It is a mutilation of the narrative and doesn't make any sense.


The biggest threat to primitive humans once they survive infancy is homicide. It is the major cause of death among primitive cultures. Before humans can live in groups larger than 200 or so, they must first solve the problem of human nature, which Christians refer to as our "fallen nature". That is the major objective of mythology and religion, which is to ruminate over human nature and find solutions; when you look at a culture's mythology, it reflects what is on their collective minds as they struggle with their daily lives, and usually it is other humans that are the major stumbling blocks that threaten their safety and prosperity.

The biggest threat to women is rape and homicide. Fighting over females is the major preoccupation of tribal peoples. Mother Nature seems to think that it is really important that we reproduce, so much so that men will murder each other fighting over females. Most tribal wars are either started or perpetuated by fighting over females. It is common for them to kidnap females back and forth. Islamic cultures don't cover their women in public because they hate women -- they never would have survived if they hated women -- it is to protect them from other males.

The Iliad, one of the oldest stories of our culture, begins with the men fighting over the girls that they have captured in battle. They are literally fighting over who gets to rape a particular female, the daughter of a priest of Apollo. Enraged that the men wouldn't give back the girl in exchange for a ransom, Apollo slaughters many of the men of the army with arrows of disease. The Trojan War itself began with a fight over a woman, "the face that launched a thousand ships".

For primitive man, God is between a woman's legs.

Orcs are humans who are slaves to sin.

Connect the dots.

Liberals distort our stories and disconnect them from reality. It is why their movies fail at the box office or their TV shows fail in the ratings. Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Marvel comics, and so on. It's because the stories they tell are false and don't resonate with the culture. Because they hate "organized" religion they are disconnected from the ancestral wisdom of our culture.

Thus we get orcs as stand-ins for blacks and Latinos and immigrants as well as nonsensical arguments about irredeemable evil.

As to the stereotype of orc males raping female humans, most rapists in the real world would rather rape a virgin than a whore. Also, Russian women raping German men wasn't a thing in WWII. Hence the stereotype stands.

Evil humans will of course willingly breed with orcs, but that is a reflection of their wretchedness as many such humans will also engage in unsavory acts with animals. No such acts can be equated with normal consensual unions.

In my own game I assume that orcs do not have free will and do not have immortal souls. They are the tools of evil. Like animals, their souls cease to exist when they die. Orcs are evil, meaning they are sadistic and predatory psychopaths. Half-orc PCs are those few half-orcs who do have free will and immortal souls due to the unusual nature of their human parent, although as with all demi-humans (I assume that elves, dwarfs, and the like are humans with faerie blood) their free will is tempered by their non-human ancestry, hence level limits.

Not that I agree with everything or most of what you say but it does have a grain of truth and logical consistency.

Quote from: Melan;1125731I find it interesting that "half-orcs-by-rape" have become such a default assumption of D&D worlds, so much so that it is often specifically mentioned as their usual origin story. It is also one of the D&D elements which are typically found to be "problematic" by critics; that you have a whole player subrace of, basically, rape babies. Quit correct that it would be tasteless.

The reason this comes out of left field is because it didn't seem to be that way at all when we started playing (early 1990s). The assumption was simply that some people just have seriously low standards - not unlike real life - and there would certainly be many more people like this than rapists. Half-orcs would mostly result from drunken flings at the tavern, prostitution, or just a particularly bad taste that was looked down on, but nevertheless happened.

In my experience of traditional D&D material, you don't find orcs and humans hanging out together in a tavern with opportunities to date. Orcs are monster opponents, not date-able NPCs or prostitutes. There's no reason to go into explicit detail about rape, but given no portrayal of cross-socialization, it does seem implied.

Quote from: S'mon;1125740I thought they originated in the breeding pits of the Dark Lord, certainly in Tolkien. Made sense when orcs were Faceless Minions of Evil. 'Mummy Orc and Daddy Human loved each other Very Much' works better for World of Warcraft type orcs.

Tolkien was quite uninterested in saying anything about reproduction, even among his main characters. Logically, the "breeding pits" would involve a lot of rape, but he doesn't portray orc women or children -- so I think it fits better to imagine them as being magically created as full-grown monsters, like how it was portrayed in the movie adaptation. In D&D, though, it's explicit that there are orc women and children.

From yo momma!   ;)

Rape per se makes very little sense. Orcs getting women from conquered territories or tributaries (or even allies, since history has many examples of people making alliances with savages and heathens)? That makes more sense.

And if the setting has barbarian humans, they probably wouldn't have the same cultural divide with orcs and would probably intermarry with them. There's also plenty of examples of civilized men "going native." There could be stereotypes about how orc women aren't as prudish as human or elven women, and at least a few horny adventurers out there looking for an orc wife (This was a real motivation for adventurers in real life).

What really doesn't make sense is that orc tribes are always shown as either being racially homogeneous, or only having things like goblinoids or ogres around. Orc tribes should have tons of other demihumans recruited or enslaved from conquered lands. Most half-orcs should be part of orc tribes, not tragic outcasts living in human lands.

I've somewhat accidentally done away with half-orcs, as orcs are a playable race in my setting. While there is some lore regarding the existence of half-orcs, I don't actually call them out as an option on my race list, and no one has ever asked to play one.

Same goes for half-elves, as well. I think this came about as an intention to do some kind of template for the half-races, instead of a standalone race, and I guess I just... never got around to writing the templates.

Quote from: jhkim;1125779Tolkien was quite uninterested in saying anything about reproduction, even among his main characters. Logically, the "breeding pits" would involve a lot of rape, but he doesn't portray orc women or children -- so I think it fits better to imagine them as being magically created as full-grown monsters, like how it was portrayed in the movie adaptation. In D&D, though, it's explicit that there are orc women and children.

"the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar" (The Silmarillion p. 50)

I find the magical pod orcs to be a cop-out. Tolkien was circumspect about writing about orc reproduction because it is heavily implied that Morgoth "made" orcs by corrupting elves. And Saruman bred the Uruk-Hai by crossbreeding humans and orcs. And describing that stuff is better left for writers like GRR Martin, and not the treatise for a high fantasy story like Lord of the Rings. Like how the Empire in Star Wars probably did some horrible things, but Star Wars: Dachau probably wouldn't fit the tone of the films.

The tragedy of the orcs in middle earth underscores how terrible Morgoth, Sauron and Saruman were. The orcs probably could be saved, but just try while an army of them are slaughtering your villagers.

Stupid 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: Ratman_tf;1125784"the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar" (The Silmarillion p. 50)

From what I recall LOTR does imply in several places that orcs and half-orcs (as you say) breed naturally. There is speculation of near-human man-orcs living in Bree, as well as the Uruk-Hai. I remember in the Silmarillion orcs capturing elven females with at least implied nefarious intent. It certainly felt weird to me when I saw Jackson's Saruman growing orcs in pods. That also seems to go against the idea that evil can't create life, only corrupt existing life.

When I play games with Orcs, Half-Orcs can be the offspring of Orc invasions, they can also be the result of normal Orc/Human liaisons and they can be the result of Half-Orcs breeding with other Half-Orcs.

I have nothing wrong with a PC having a story of their Half-Orc being brought up in shame because it reminded everyone of what had happened. I equally have no issue with a Half-Orc PC being just one of a number of Half-Orcs in a village of Half-Orcs.

Quote from: Omega;1125791Orcs = Rape

Maybe, sometimes.

Quote from: Omega;1125791Orcs = Black People

Personally, I have never thought this and don't know anyone, as far as I know, who thinks this.

I am well aware of the worst topics of real life, such as rape and pedophilia, but I don't want them in my gaming. I know the history of war and what happens to the conquered, but emulating that savagery isn't why I game. I'm very much about gaming as escapist fantasy.

Our crew discovered Palladium Fantasy 1e during our AD&D 1e days and Palladium's embrace of Monsters as PC Races was a big deal back then (yes, I know Tunnels & Trolls did it first, but Palladium did it better). Much of our crew pretty much dumped the Half-Orc and just made Orc the race option. For me, I like the half-human aspect so I went with the Curse Bloodline idea.

If I have half-orcs in a game, they're born from human parents, but something went terribly wrong and their cursed blood dominates. Perhaps it the sins of the parents, perhaps its being conceived in an evil place, perhaps its just being born under the wrong moon. Either way, they are neither Human nor Orc, and greatly reviled by humans, and especially elves and dwarves. Nonetheless, nothing stops one of the Cursed from becoming legendary heroes of good.

Quote from: soltakss;1125798Personally, I have never thought this and don't know anyone, as far as I know, who thinks this.

I believe that it was "orks=black people" with the spelling indicating that the orks in question are those of Shadowrun. In that setting, orks (and other metahumans, to varying degrees) were racial minorities that took the place of those based on ethnicity and skin colors.

One of the weirder elements I saw in a campaign world was that there was considerable dimorphism between male and female orcs.

Male orcs were pretty much big brutish types, although even that has its merits (opening jars, for example). Female orcs, on the other hand, were reminiscent of Orion slave girls in Star Trek. Sure, they had green skin and were healthy, sturdy types, but that was about all the two had in common. In fact, some nobles would raid orc encampments for women as having an orc concubine was considered impressive ('taming the beast'/civilization's superiority, that sort of thing).

So yeah, half-orcs tended to pop up a lot.

Quote from: areallifetrex;1125782Rape per se makes very little sense. Orcs getting women from conquered territories or tributaries (or even allies, since history has many examples of people making alliances with savages and heathens)? That makes more sense.

And if the setting has barbarian humans, they probably wouldn't have the same cultural divide with orcs and would probably intermarry with them. There's also plenty of examples of civilized men "going native." There could be stereotypes about how orc women aren't as prudish as human or elven women, and at least a few horny adventurers out there looking for an orc wife (This was a real motivation for adventurers in real life).

What really doesn't make sense is that orc tribes are always shown as either being racially homogeneous, or only having things like goblinoids or ogres around. Orc tribes should have tons of other demihumans recruited or enslaved from conquered lands. Most half-orcs should be part of orc tribes, not tragic outcasts living in human lands.

From a world building perspective, you would expect that women raped by orcs would abort their pregnancies as birth control has been practiced throughout real human history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control). I expect the overwhelming majority of surviving half-orcs to be the children of slaves or consensual relationships.

As for other monsters whose lore involves rape... any time a monster is mentioned as being sexually compatible with humans then this will typically involve either violent rape (orcs, ogres, minotaurs, etc) or rape through mind control (succubi, lamiae, etc). The exact lore varies by edition.

Quote from: soltakss;1125798Personally, I have never thought this and don't know anyone, as far as I know, who thinks this.

That is because it is a strawman. In my surveys, I have found the accurate argument to be "savage humanoids in general, orcs being a commonly cited example, are disturbing because their characterization is reminiscent of real world racist propaganda that dehumanized non-white people." Ultimately, this is a side effect of the fact that elf-games are violent fantasies of murdering and looting. Attempting to justify the actions of the murderhobos would necessarily require dehumanizing their victims in a similar manner to historical racist propaganda.

The problem goes away if you stop depicting savage humanoids as inherently evil and deserving extermination.

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.

When Star Trek: TNG first came out, a lot of black rights activists came out of the woodwork declaring that Klingons were parodies of militant black activists. That was a bullshit designed to attract attention to their cause de jour rather than examine the theme of Klingons in the Star Trek setting, just like how a discussion on half-orc origins has brought about a bullshit claim from Omega that everyone else REALLY MEANS that orcs are black rapists for there to be half-orcs.

Quote from: Melan;1125731This thread is inspired by a throwaway quote in the Adam Koebel thread:


I find it interesting that "half-orcs-by-rape" have become such a default assumption of D&D worlds, so much so that it is often specifically mentioned as their usual origin story. It is also one of the D&D elements which are typically found to be "problematic" by critics; that you have a whole player subrace of, basically, rape babies. Quit correct that it would be tasteless.

The reason this comes out of left field is because it didn't seem to be that way at all when we started playing (early 1990s). The assumption was simply that some people just have seriously low standards - not unlike real life - and there would certainly be many more people like this than rapists. Half-orcs would mostly result from drunken flings at the tavern, prostitution, or just a particularly bad taste that was looked down on, but nevertheless happened. This actually cut both ways: one of Hungary's formative fantasy novels (https://beyondfomalhaut.blogspot.com/2017/04/blog-smell-of-chicken-guts-unlikely.html) featured a half-orc protagonist (lovingly described as "reeking of the smell of chicken guts" in his favourite old cloak), who finds human women to be mostly uninteresting, and elves almost revolting in their purity, while he has the hots for a female half-orc assassin (who ends up betraying him multiple times, which only adds to the romance). At any rate, there was no great assumption that half-orcs would by default result from raiding orcs forcing themselves on hapless human women, but something that would just result every so often from humans and orcs living in close proximity, mostly in seedier parts (like cities with a lot of travellers passing through). And while the books don't put much emphasis on the matter, said half-orc is the offspring of a priestess of chaos, who deliberately bore a half-orc child to fulfill a prophecy.

There is, also, quite a leap of assumption that it is an orc-males-and-human-women issue. Perhaps a human man might also feel affection for an orc woman, or at least have a fondness for the brain soup Ugglina the Orc is cooking. Perhaps orcish strength and resilience are sought commodities on certain frontiers, which are valued over physical beauty. Or, as it happens, one or both parents are rich and/or powerful, and it was a marriage of convenience, or a diplomatic arrangement. Sure, orcs smell, but then so do barbarians.

I would not say this rules out rape. In lawless and violent locales, it may be a horrible fact of life (and if you think humans would be above raping orc females, you have more faith in humanity than I do). It is hard to have a plausible world where horrible crimes don't happen every so often. But even beyond the possibility, something about the idea that half-orcs=rape all the time, every time, strikes me as both an ugly assumption, and one that, honestly, betrays a lack of imagination.

Rape is a touchy subject. For my own games, if rape is part of the background of the setting then it stays. If a Player or GM wants to have rape as an in game, in character action I dump the game.

Orcs are the iconic representation of uncivilized bestial violence. They are cannibalistic when food sources get low. They craft and create crude devices for war, but would rather take them in conquest from humans, elves, and dwarves, while halflings and gnomes can offer little more than meat for their tables and sport for their amusements. Even the humans, elves, and dwarves  become meat for the table once the orcs are done playing with them. This iswhy the civilized lands strike back against the orcs to keep their numbers down.

Half-orcs not being the product of rape or forced breeding programs had never crossed most gamers minds in play IMHO because it would seem out of character for the monster and make it less 'monstrous'.

Storks, man... Its always the Storks.

Precisely NO PEOPLE are harmed in the production of Half-Orcs via implied rape.

I'll extend that to "Half-Elves", "Half-Dwarves" and "Half-fantasy anything in elf-games".

Quote from: soltakss;1125798Maybe, sometimes.

Personally, I have never thought this and don't know anyone, as far as I know, who thinks this.

https://www.wired.com/2018/11/geeks-guide-lotr-orcs/
Now you do.

The real irony for me is that in one my current campaigns the half-orc is actually the result of a loving union (harsh people on the borderlands style) while the half-elf was the result of rape during a Wild Hunt (and the elves of the region are very touchy about interbreeding with "lesser" species).

Quote from: S'mon;1125740I thought they originated in the breeding pits of the Dark Lord, certainly in Tolkien. Made sense when orcs were Faceless Minions of Evil. 'Mummy Orc and Daddy Human loved each other Very Much' works better for World of Warcraft type orcs.

No, half-orcs in Tolkien originated in the breeding pits of Saruman, the Wannabe Usurper of Dark Lord Junior. Morgoth used elf stock in his breeding pits, making proper orcs out of them.

Quote from: Albert the Absentminded;1125821No, half-orcs in Tolkien originated in the breeding pits of Saruman, the Wannabe Usurper of Dark Lord Junior. Morgoth used elf stock in his breeding pits, making proper orcs out of them.

I was counting Saruman in the Dark Lord camp.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1125784"the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar" (The Silmarillion p. 50)

I find the magical pod orcs to be a cop-out. Tolkien was circumspect about writing about orc reproduction because it is heavily implied that Morgoth "made" orcs by corrupting elves. And Saruman bred the Uruk-Hai by crossbreeding humans and orcs. And describing that stuff is better left for writers like GRR Martin, and not the treatise for a high fantasy story like Lord of the Rings.

I agree that Tolkien intended to say that orcs breed like humans -- but he was extremely circumspect in describing that. He didn't just avoid describing sex like GRR Martin, he never mentions any orc women or children, to the point that it's an obscure line that orcs reproduce at all. The problem of adaptation is that film is a visual medium, so it's not so easy to convey "breeding pits" without giving details. In RPGs, since the plot is freeform, you'll have situations where PCs get to an orc lair and ask what they find. A GM can't define that there are orc women and children exist in the lair without them appearing, if the plot is freeform and PCs can go wherever they like and ask such questions.

Quote from: S'mon;1125793From what I recall LOTR does imply in several places that orcs and half-orcs (as you say) breed naturally. There is speculation of near-human man-orcs living in Bree, as well as the Uruk-Hai. I remember in the Silmarillion orcs capturing elven females with at least implied nefarious intent. It certainly felt weird to me when I saw Jackson's Saruman growing orcs in pods. That also seems to go against the idea that evil can't create life, only corrupt existing life.

I agree that it's implied, but it is pretty notable that one has to read between the lines to get that orc women and children even exist. In a film or especially in an RPG, it's harder to draw a veil over such details. One could just have a meta-rule at the table that PCs don't ask about where new orcs come from, and the group skims over such issues, but that could feel strange.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125811Rape is a touchy subject. For my own games, if rape is part of the background of the setting then it stays. If a Player or GM wants to have rape as an in game, in character action I dump the game.

Orcs are the iconic representation of uncivilized bestial violence. They are cannibalistic when food sources get low. They craft and create crude devices for war, but would rather take them in conquest from humans, elves, and dwarves, while halflings and gnomes can offer little more than meat for their tables and sport for their amusements. Even the humans, elves, and dwarves  become meat for the table once the orcs are done playing with them. This iswhy the civilized lands strike back against the orcs to keep their numbers down.

Half-orcs not being the product of rape or forced breeding programs had never crossed most gamers minds in play IMHO because it would seem out of character for the monster and make it less 'monstrous'.

It is edgelordy and cliche.

Why do orcs have to be monsters in the first place? Why can't adventurers fight literal nazis? Or [insert real life group you don't like here]?

Conversely, couldn't you play up the banality of evil by having the overlord legitimately hiring people to birth brainwashed soldiers for his army? Seriously, imagine a conversation between two prostitutes who casually talk about how many babies they had who were sent to death and only care about how much money they were paid for each one. IMO, that is far more horrifying than any amount of imagined torture porn featuring women getting raped by orcs could ever be.

Quote from: tenbones;1125813Precisely NO PEOPLE are harmed in the production of Half-Orcs via implied rape.

I'll extend that to "Half-Elves", "Half-Dwarves" and "Half-fantasy anything in elf-games".

Nobody is harmed by playing FATAL but that doesn't mean we should tell everyone that they're wrong, stupid, immature, etc unless they play and praise it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1125818https://www.wired.com/2018/11/geeks-guide-lotr-orcs/
Now you do.

The elf-games have this premise where entire races of intelligent beings exist for the purpose of being killed because the author arbitrarily declared they were born evil. This is implicitly done because the author doesn't want to depict the PCs routinely killing other human beings. That whole dynamic is eerily similar to the dehumanizing racist/sexist/ideological propaganda used throughout real history.

Quote from: Albert the Absentminded;1125821No, half-orcs in Tolkien originated in the breeding pits of Saruman, the Wannabe Usurper of Dark Lord Junior. Morgoth used elf stock in his breeding pits, making proper orcs out of them.

What the hell even is a "breeding pit"? Judging by the name, I'm assuming it is literal and not a euphemism for a brothel. Are these like sentient ponds that eat people and spews out orcs? Sounds pretty metal.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Why do orcs have to be monsters in the first place? Why can't adventurers fight literal nazis?

Because that's what the name Orc LITERALLY means.

The term is used in Beowulf as a reference to those condemned by God and it is generally translated as "evil spirit." Its a variant of Orke or "Ogre"; a common term for evil spirits throughout the medieval world.

As I'm sure you're aware, it derives from Orcus, a euphemism for the Roman god of underworld. In the context of Medieval Europe however that meant "The Devil."

You may as well ask "Why do Nazis have to be bad guys in the first place?"

Words either mean things or they don't.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125829Because that's what the name Orc LITERALLY means.

The term is used in Beowulf as a reference to those condemned by God and it is generally translated as "evil spirit." Its a variant of Orke or "Ogre"; a common term for evil spirits throughout the medieval world.

As I'm sure you're aware, it derives from Orcus, a euphemism for the Roman god of underworld. In the context of Medieval Europe however that meant "The Devil."

You may as well ask "Why do Nazis have to be bad guys in the first place?"

Words either mean things or they don't.

This is an intellectually dishonest argument. The orcs aren't literal demons in the lore of the game canon. They're basically human beings, except the writers said they're arbitrarily born evil as a shallow for building the game around killing them. Why not fight the literal demons of the game? We don't need orcs in that case. We don't need to worry about fictitious moral dilemmas like "should we kill the baby orcs?" At least demons are the transmuted souls of people who did evil in life of their own free will.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125829You may as well ask "Why do Nazis have to be bad guys in the first place?"

The nazis are the default bad guys in a lot of fiction because they historically did bad things. It's an easy shorthand. Orcs are wholly fictional and never existed in reality. More importantly, nazis are still human beings. They didn't choose the path of evil because they were born evil, they chose it because they were indoctrinated by their culture. They don't even believe themselves to be evil, they believe their enemies are... orcs, basically.

The philosophical implication with orcs is they exist solely to allow the PCs to commit genocide without guilt as a game convention. That feels a lot like racist propaganda to me, so I naturally find the concept disturbing. The concept of orcs being people in their own right is still an outlier in tabletop games, whereas in wider fiction like video games and prose it is far more common.

Quote from: jhkim;1125824I agree that Tolkien intended to say that orcs breed like humans -- but he was extremely circumspect in describing that. He didn't just avoid describing sex like GRR Martin, he never mentions any orc women or children, to the point that it's an obscure line that orcs reproduce at all. The problem of adaptation is that film is a visual medium, so it's not so easy to convey "breeding pits" without giving details. In RPGs, since the plot is freeform, you'll have situations where PCs get to an orc lair and ask what they find. A GM can't define that there are orc women and children exist in the lair without them appearing, if the plot is freeform and PCs can go wherever they like and ask such questions.

Yes, but what I think is also avoided is that notion that 'orc psychology' is somehow simply based on human or elf deviance.

In D&D, it was made clear from early on that half-orcs are typically the result of rape. Then there is the lack of CHA penalty of half-orcs to orcs.

LOTR orcs may not be all that sex driven. A bunch of male orcs pillaging a human town may be thinking in terms of labor slaves or simply slaughtering everyone. Violence alone may simply override most other considerations. Or orcs may simply cannot get it up for anything other than an orc female.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125829Because that's what the name Orc LITERALLY means.

The term is used in Beowulf as a reference to those condemned by God and it is generally translated as "evil spirit." Its a variant of Orke or "Ogre"; a common term for evil spirits throughout the medieval world.

As I'm sure you're aware, it derives from Orcus, a euphemism for the Roman god of underworld. In the context of Medieval Europe however that meant "The Devil."

You may as well ask "Why do Nazis have to be bad guys in the first place?"

Words either mean things or they don't.

This is an intellectually dishonest argument. The orcs aren't literal demons in the lore of the game canon. They're basically human beings, except the writers said they're arbitrarily born evil as a shallow for building the game around killing them. Why not fight the literal demons of the game? We don't need orcs in that case. We don't need to worry about fictitious moral dilemmas like "should we kill the baby orcs?" At least demons are the transmuted souls of people who did evil in life of their own free will.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125829You may as well ask "Why do Nazis have to be bad guys in the first place?"

The nazis are the default bad guys in a lot of fiction because they historically did bad things. It's an easy shorthand. Orcs are wholly fictional and never existed in reality. More importantly, nazis are still human beings. They didn't choose the path of evil because they were born evil, they chose it because they were indoctrinated by their culture. They don't even believe themselves to be evil, they believe their enemies are... orcs, basically.

The philosophical implication with orcs is they exist solely to allow the PCs to commit genocide without guilt as a game convention. That feels a lot like racist propaganda to me, so I naturally find the concept disturbing. The concept of orcs being people in their own right is still an outlier in tabletop games, whereas in wider fiction like video games and prose it is far more common.

---

[/HR]

But trying to argue using that kind of sophistry is pointless, so I'll just switch to the visceral argument.

To quote a few choice articles:

Quote from: Greyhawk GrognardYou play an RPG so your character can kill his enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.

Quote from: James Mendez HodesWe need imaginary non-people we can fight and kill for fun

Quote from: Cultists of KhorneBlood for the blood god! Skulls for the skull throne!

I feel like orcs are some lame moral salve to our consciences. We want elf-games to indulge our secret fantasies of being murderous psychopaths, but we cannot accept that we enjoy that fantasy so we introduce orcs as a substitute for human beings that we can kill without conscience.

That makes us losers and pansies. We should own up to our bloodlust and embrace the indiscriminate murder of innocent people for fun. In the game, not reality.

Tabletop games give us the choice between a paladin who heroically murders baby orcs and a soldier of Khorne who slaughters all races equally. Playing the former is intellectually dishonest.

Play games where you kill innocent people for fun and profit. Don't be a loser by pretending they're orcs and that magically makes it okay. Own up to your bloodlust. Embrace it! Follow the darkness with all your strength!

Quote from: Lynn;1125835Yes, but what I think is also avoided is that notion that 'orc psychology' is somehow simply based on human or elf deviance.

In D&D, it was made clear from early on that half-orcs are typically the result of rape. Then there is the lack of CHA penalty of half-orcs to orcs.

LOTR orcs may not be all that sex driven. A bunch of male orcs pillaging a human town may be thinking in terms of labor slaves or simply slaughtering everyone. Violence alone may simply override most other considerations. Or orcs may simply cannot get it up for anything other than an orc female.

It may be possible that orcs reproduce asexually and/or hermaphrodites. It does make the most sense to engineer them that way if you want disposable soldiers.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827It is edgelordy and cliche.

To you, obviously.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Why do orcs have to be monsters in the first place? Why can't adventurers fight literal nazis? Or [insert real life group you don't like here]?

Because they are cliches? Because Nazis in a medieval fantasy setting is jarring as fuck and catapults Players right out of their immersion?

Seriously, if you don't want to use a real life group as a generic violent and brutish enemy, then why shouldn't people choose orcs and half-orcs?

You remind me of this meme:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4247[/ATTACH]

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Conversely, couldn't you play up the banality of evil by having the overlord legitimately hiring people to birth brainwashed soldiers for his army? Seriously, imagine a conversation between two prostitutes who casually talk about how many babies they had who were sent to death and only care about how much money they were paid for each one. IMO, that is far more horrifying than any amount of imagined torture porn featuring women getting raped by orcs could ever be.

Birthing takes time. Raising orc whelps and brainwashing them takes time. Prostitutes would demand a lot of money to bed an orc.

Plus I've already one upped you. Last fantasy game I ran, the Players were hired by the father of a daughter who married/mated with an orc chief so that the village could have a fighting force to defend themselves with. The orc chief has turned out to be an acceptable father,  but the human father of the daughter still wants the chief and the rest of the orcs dead (even though it would make the village vulnerable to a band of gnolls roaming around).

Real question for you: If you get this bent out of shape over a bit of setting in a fantasy game, then how can you live your life day-to-day? There isa lot of even more awful stuff out here in reality.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Nobody is harmed by playing FATAL but that doesn't mean we should tell everyone that they're wrong, stupid, immature, etc unless they play and praise it.

Are you equating the use of Half-orcs and people's inability to deal with any potential insinuation of their origin with FATAL? That says more about you than me, and passive aggressively calling them stupid, immature and wrong?

I will say people that believe this (which may be you) might be a little immature, for believing that if true. Stupid or wrong? eh. I wouldn't go that far. But that's a mighty broad brush you're painting with.

The tragedy here is that faux-activists clearly don't practice their own advice.

IF you decide you want half-orcs in your setting, and you had a discussion when forming the group/campaign, clearly you would know exactly how you should handle it for that game.

1) People don't want rape/ non-consensual sex as a feature nor do they want it to come up? Half-orcs are the union between willing couples. They are the product of either brief dalliances of fun or loving relationships.

2) People are fine with 'R' rated stuff as backstory or window-dressing, but would prefer not to deal with the ugly stuff in-game. You're half-orc can be from any kind of union BUT we're not playing out any 'in-game' orc raids on the local village.

3) We want hard-core X rated in your face gritty Conan drama. Not only do I want to know the tragedy of your rapey conception, but I also would like you to tell the story as your father or mother. In character, first person with detailed descriptions. I'll grab the tissues.

I'm really tired of reading the moral admonishments of gamers riding atop their lofty high-horses condemning rape, incest and skeezy-sex as impure and repugnant. Yeah, great, you're a shiny knight of purity who is perfect and only plays rainbows and unicorns and spreads happiness across the land. Good for you. I don't believe you. I know you're a skeezy pervert. Your grandstanding bullshit is not convincing me.

If people want to have weird fetish sexy-times fantasies in their games, who cares?

The REAL issue here is WHERE some people decide to partake of said sexy-time fantasies! For fucks sake where did we find all these exibitionist RPG flashers?!?!

Places one should not do sexy-time RPG stuff;

1) A game store game.
2) A convention game.
3) A home game with your young children and their friends.
4) A home game where several participants described discomfort with the subject. Because, you intelligently decided to discuss ahead of time.
5) A public game at your church or boy scouts / girl scouts meeting.

Places where sexy-time RPG stuff is acceptable;

1) A home game where everyone enthusiastically wants to play the game under the specific parameters agreed upon.
2) A home game between consenting adults as part of your broader sexual relationship.
3) A home game where you are literally "playing with yourself".
4) A convention game slotted for the "after dark" midnight table where you card everyone at the door AND they all signed-up for your meticulously detailed disclaimer.

The Adam Koebel incident is all too common because GMs are humans. We get horny, which makes us stupid and forget that people have feelings and we're not the only horny thing in the room. People can be selfish. Many nerds are not as socially-aware as we could be. We get stubborn, and distracted, and opinionated and often lose the forest for the trees. Shit happens. EDITED to add: So we need to learn from our mistakes and be MORE cognizant.

So, rape and sex are not the problem. Dark, difficult subject matters are not the problem.

It's WHEN and HOW they are brought up, often against the consent or will of the participants - that is the problem.

TL;DR - Half-orcs origins should be based on the subjects that are acceptable to that group. There is no need to follow cannon or any other factor. Talk about it, set a precedent for your group, and run with it.

EXTRA TL;DR - The subject of rape/sex/skeeze in RPGs is not evil. It's just potentially difficult for some people. Consent is king, so put your grown-up pants on and have a FUCKING conversation which is the core of the FUCKING hobby in the first place since you'll all be around a GODDAMN table having FUCKING conversations on the regular. Also, stop flashing public game tables with your perv!! For the love of Jesus Christ and all his disciples.

Have fun. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125837It may be possible that orcs reproduce asexually and/or hermaphrodites. It does make the most sense to engineer them that way if you want disposable soldiers.

Which would make them 40k Orks (seriously; 40k Orks are essentially sapient fungi).

If you're looking for guilt-free beatdown targets, though, the undead are always there. You can argue the morality of slaughtering backwards barbarian hordes, but fighting creatures that are not only 'not alive' but are actively dangerous? Hey, sign me up.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125808From a world building perspective, you would expect that women raped by orcs would abort their pregnancies as birth control has been practiced throughout real human history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control). I expect the overwhelming majority of surviving half-orcs to be the children of slaves or consensual relationships.

As for other monsters whose lore involves rape... any time a monster is mentioned as being sexually compatible with humans then this will typically involve either violent rape (orcs, ogres, minotaurs, etc) or rape through mind control (succubi, lamiae, etc). The exact lore varies by edition.


That is because it is a strawman. In my surveys, I have found the accurate argument to be "savage humanoids in general, orcs being a commonly cited example, are disturbing because their characterization is reminiscent of real world racist propaganda that dehumanized non-white people." Ultimately, this is a side effect of the fact that elf-games are violent fantasies of murdering and looting. Attempting to justify the actions of the murderhobos would necessarily require dehumanizing their victims in a similar manner to historical racist propaganda.

The problem goes away if you stop depicting savage humanoids as inherently evil and deserving extermination.

Just because abortion has technically existed since the dawn of human history that doesn't mean that abortion in a primitive world is therefore safe, effective and readily available or even desirable. Ancient abortion practices included things like ingesting poison that could also kill the mother or surefire methods like jumping up and down or riding on horseback. If riding on a horse was always an effective method to abort a baby they'd be renting out pony rides for knocked up teenage girls in places were abortion is illegal rather than doing surgical procedures in a back alley. And that's not even getting into the morality of the thing or what sort of objections religious institutions might have against such practices in the game world.

Even if you want to bring magic into the mix, just because magic technically exists that doesn't mean that you'll find a willing wizard with a ready abortion spell in every village or settlement. Magic is supposed to be rare in some worlds, or even dangerous and undesirable.

Also, just because you're queasy about rape or savage humanoids could technically be portrayed as noble savages rather twisted creations of evil that doesn't mean that therefore 100% all humanoids in every single world now have to be naturally evolved creatures that are just as worthy of dignity and respect as human beings. Sometimes fantasy creatures are demon spawn or soulless creations of magic, like the original orcs were intended to be--and that comes straight from literature that predates RPGs, so giving players excuses to not feel bad about slaughtering countless "evil" creatures has nothing to do with it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125836This is an intellectually dishonest argument. The orcs aren't literal demons in the lore of the game canon. They're basically human beings

No.....They are orcs, or else they would have been called bandits or pirates or berserkers or any number of other names for human monsters.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125836Why not fight the literal demons of the game? We don't need orcs in that case. We don't need to worry about fictitious moral dilemmas like "should we kill the baby orcs?" At least demons are the transmuted souls of people who did evil in life of their own free will.

You never read Orcs of Thar, have you?

In Orcs of Thar, there is a little known secret which slips out. Humanoids in The Known World are all the reincarnated souls of sentient beings which did evil in life. It is a stage of life that they must go through as their spirits slowly evolve to be able to be ascendant or devolve to the point where their souls become demonic. I always liked that little wrinkle.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125836The philosophical implication with orcs is they exist solely to allow the PCs to commit genocide without guilt as a game convention. That feels a lot like racist propaganda to me, so I naturally find the concept disturbing.

WTF? You do understand that this is a fantasy game and not Real Life, right?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125836I feel like orcs are some lame moral salve to our consciences. We want elf-games to indulge our secret fantasies of being murderous psychopaths, but we cannot accept that we enjoy that fantasy so we introduce orcs as a substitute for human beings that we can kill without conscience.

That makes us losers and pansies. We should own up to our bloodlust and embrace the indiscriminate murder of innocent people for fun. In the game, not reality.

Tabletop games give us the choice between a paladin who heroically murders baby orcs and a soldier of Khorne who slaughters all races equally. Playing the former is intellectually dishonest.

Play games where you kill innocent people for fun and profit. Don't be a loser by pretending they're orcs and that magically makes it okay. Own up to your bloodlust. Embrace it! Follow the darkness with all your strength!

OK, you've been in quarantine for too long.

Quote from: trechriron;1125842The Adam Koebel incident is all too common because GMs are humans. We get horny, which makes us stupid and forget that people have feelings and we're not the only horny thing in the room. People can be selfish. Many nerds are not as socially-aware as we could be. We get stubborn, and distracted, and opinionated and often lose the forest for the trees. Shit happens. EDITED to add: So we need to learn from our mistakes and be MORE cognizant.

Dude, if your games result in you getting horny and your Players getting horny and you all forget common sense and manners - you need to get out more and maybe game a little less.

Gaming time is gaming time. Sexy time is something else.

Half-elf is to elf and human as paladin is to cleric and fighter.  It's a concession to the reality of a class-based game mechanic dealing with archetypes.  You want a race that's sort of human, sort of elven, because of something that happened in the past, maybe a long time ago?  Here's your widget.  I think people get so hung up on the "Half" part of the name, they take it a little more straight-forward than it is meant to be. A half elf is merely someone with both elf and human ancestors where neither side is yet diluted enough to lose some racial mechanics.  Could be your direct parents.  Could be that the elven blood lasts through many generations of human descendants.  That's all it is.

Since I don't much care for the whole "Half" anything races as a mechanic, even recognizing why it is there, I find I can't get all that excited about half anything, especially orcs.  If you don't like the implications (or anything else for that matter) of half races, it's easy enough to drop them or change their purpose.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1125843Which would make them 40k Orks (seriously; 40k Orks are essentially sapient fungi).

If you're looking for guilt-free beatdown targets, though, the undead are always there. You can argue the morality of slaughtering backwards barbarian hordes, but fighting creatures that are not only 'not alive' but are actively dangerous? Hey, sign me up.

Whole books have been written about the undead as tragical villians.

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.

I thought that the Drow were supposed to be the Black rapists?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: jeff37923;1125847OK, you've been in quarantine for too long.

I have been noticing things getting a little crazier then normal online.

I've always assumed half-orcs were the products of the enslavement and rape of human women. The orcs in my worlds aren't green-skinned barbarians who socialize with humans; they're horrible monsters who murder/eat/rape humans given any opportunity.

I don't know when or why orcs started being regarded in RPGs as analogous to human barbarians, rather than monsters. Or why some people feel they should be treated with more empathy and nuance than gnolls, sahuagin, or mind flayers. To me they've always been monsters.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125836This is an intellectually dishonest argument. The orcs aren't literal demons in the lore of the game canon.

Really? The guy who has wastes pages arguing that there shouldn't be both ogres and oni or both spectres and wraiths in the same game because they're the same things expressed by different cultures is now arguing that the definition of a word doesn't matter?

Words only mean things to you until you need them not to. Got it, you fucking hypocrite.

Also, which canon are you discussing? Greyhawk? Mystara? Forgotten Realms? Eberron? Nerath? Warhammer? Adventures in Middle Earth? Rokugon? Old Praetoria?

That you act like there's just one shows your utter disingenuousness. You act as if all settings present orcs in the exact same way with the exact same "problematic" issues attached when you already know better.

And in some campaigns the orcs are literal demons (basically the foot soldiers of the demon armies). In others they're evil spirits inhabiting some corporeal shell (birthed rather like depicted in the LotR films). In still others they're vat-grown magitech abominations.

Regardless, all of these different versions, despite sometimes having nothing otherwise in common, get named orcs in their respective settings because etymologically ORC (or orke or ogre) means "evil being."

Some settings may play with those assumptions (see Eberron), but the reason for the name is because the name has a specific meaning... just as Nazi (i.e. a national socialist) does.

So just for you, because I know you'll hate it ... in my next game the creatures that people call orcs will actually be the twisted evil spirits of actual fucking Nazis released from Hell by a fell ritual and picking up right where they left off in this new world; proclamations of being the master race and eternal rule, swastikas, book burning, death camps, the whole nine yards.

Because Orc and Nazi mean the same thing... they're the Bad Guy.

Quote from: Haffrung;1125871I've always assumed half-orcs were the products of the enslavement and rape of human women. The orcs in my worlds aren't green-skinned barbarians who socialize with humans; they're horrible monsters who murder/eat/rape humans given any opportunity.

I don't know when or why orcs started being regarded in RPGs as analogous to human barbarians, rather than monsters. Or why some people feel they should be treated with more empathy and nuance than gnolls, sahuagin, or mind flayers. To me they've always been monsters.

Someone upthread tried to point out that Orcs are monsters by etymological definition (https://www.etymonline.com/word/orc), and was quickly labeled "intellectually dishonest". I'm 98+% sure the same people making any claim to the contrary are the same ones who spend all their free time arguing that D&D is all about the evils of white privilege and needs to be decolonized.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125838To you, obviously.

I have read the 120 Days of Sodom... and browsed various Anonkun quests depicting extreme acts of cannibalism, sexual violence, and mutilation.

Women getting ripped apart by orcs is passe.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125838Nazis in a medieval fantasy setting is jarring as fuck and catapults Players right out of their immersion?

Then rename them to Nords or something.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125838use a real life group as a generic violent and brutish enemy

I advocate that adventuring parties should kill human beings as often and as brutally as possible, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, age, creed, etc.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125838why shouldn't people choose orcs and half-orcs?

Humans are quite capable of committing the most brutal acts of violent sadism on their own. We don't need orcs.

Orcs are the fantasy gamer equivalent of teddy bears. Adults substitute human beings as their targets of brutal violence.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125838Birthing takes time. Raising orc whelps and brainwashing them takes time. Prostitutes would demand a lot of money to bed an orc.

This is a thermian argument. It is fantasy fiction. We can justify whatever the hell we want.

[video=youtube;AxV8gAGmbtk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk[/youtube]

Quote from: jeff37923;1125838Plus I've already one upped you. Last fantasy game I ran, the Players were hired by the father of a daughter who married/mated with an orc chief so that the village could have a fighting force to defend themselves with. The orc chief has turned out to be an acceptable father,  but the human father of the daughter still wants the chief and the rest of the orcs dead (even though it would make the village vulnerable to a band of gnolls roaming around).

I have to give you credit for depicting orcs as non-evil. That's mindblowingly creative and the overwhelming majority of gamers are incapable of imagining that as a possibility.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125838Real question for you: If you get this bent out of shape over a bit of setting in a fantasy game, then how can you live your life day-to-day? There isa lot of even more awful stuff out here in reality.

That is precisely the reason why we don't need orcs. Every time I watch the news I hear about humanity's evil. I am looking forward to the real life apocalypse because I hate the human race.

I want to kill human beings, not lame teddy bear proxies like orcs.

Quote from: tenbones;1125840Are you equating the use of Half-orcs and people's inability to deal with any potential insinuation of their origin with FATAL? That says more about you than me, and passive aggressively calling them stupid, immature and wrong?

I will say people that believe this (which may be you) might be a little immature, for believing that if true. Stupid or wrong? eh. I wouldn't go that far. But that's a mighty broad brush you're painting with.

No, I'm saying we should be honest with our true desires and play as dark eldar forever.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1125843Which would make them 40k Orks (seriously; 40k Orks are essentially sapient fungi).

If you're looking for guilt-free beatdown targets, though, the undead are always there. You can argue the morality of slaughtering backwards barbarian hordes, but fighting creatures that are not only 'not alive' but are actively dangerous? Hey, sign me up.

Or we could just kill human beings. We don't need to go out of our way to justify wholesale slaughter as morality.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125845Just because abortion has technically existed since the dawn of human history that doesn't mean that abortion in a primitive world is therefore safe, effective and readily available or even desirable. Ancient abortion practices included things like ingesting poison that could also kill the mother or surefire methods like jumping up and down or riding on horseback. If riding on a horse was always an effective method to abort a baby they'd be renting out pony rides for knocked up teenage girls in places were abortion is illegal rather than doing surgical procedures in a back alley. And that's not even getting into the morality of the thing or what sort of objections religious institutions might have against such practices in the game world.

Even if you want to bring magic into the mix, just because magic technically exists that doesn't mean that you'll find a willing wizard with a ready abortion spell in every village or settlement. Magic is supposed to be rare in some worlds, or even dangerous and undesirable.

You want fictional women to be raped and forced to give birth to rape babies. You want to have entire fictional races who you can fictionally kill guilt-free.

You don't have to justify your twisted fantasies of rape and murder to me. You need to be honest with yourself and stop trying to justify them as morality.

I recommend playing Hatred and/or RapeLay.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125845like the original orcs were intended to be--and that comes straight from literature that predates RPGs

We have no idea what the "original" orcs were meant to be. We're not entirely sure the word comes from Orcus. It might be related to orca, the whale.

The concept of orcs as a race of anything comes from Tolkien.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125847No.....They are orcs, or else they would have been called bandits or pirates or berserkers or any number of other names for human monsters.

The monster manual says they are humanoids, not demons. I assumed we were talking about generic D&D, not any particular campaign setting where the assumptions might be very different.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125847You never read Orcs of Thar, have you?

In Orcs of Thar, there is a little known secret which slips out. Humanoids in The Known World are all the reincarnated souls of sentient beings which did evil in life. It is a stage of life that they must go through as their spirits slowly evolve to be able to be ascendant or devolve to the point where their souls become demonic. I always liked that little wrinkle.

Sounds fascinating.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125847WTF? You do understand that this is a fantasy game and not Real Life, right?

Then you should have no problem playing as dark eldar for the rest of your gaming life.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125847OK, you've been in quarantine for too long.

I'm being honest about the fact that D&D is a violent crime simulator and that everyone who needs guilt-free targets is a pansy.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125876Really? The guy who has wastes pages arguing that there shouldn't be both ogres and oni or both spectres and wraiths in the same game because they're the same things expressed by different cultures is now arguing that the definition of a word doesn't matter?

Words only mean things to you until you need them not to. Got it, you fucking hypocrite.

I'm not arguing the definition of a word doesn't matter. I'm using the monster manual as my primary reference here, and it has its own definition separate from the various others you've given.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125876Also, which canon are you discussing? Greyhawk? Mystara? Forgotten Realms? Eberron? Nerath? Warhammer? Adventures in Middle Earth? Rokugon? Old Praetoria?

The monster manual says they are humanoids, not demons. I assumed we were talking about that generic D&D, not any specific campaign setting.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125876That you act like there's just one shows your utter disingenuousness. You act as if all settings present orcs in the exact same way with the exact same "problematic" issues attached when you already know better.

I assumed we were discussing the orcs in the monster manual. It's not a hard assumption to make.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125876And in some campaigns the orcs are literal demons (basically the foot soldiers of the demon armies). In others they're evil spirits inhabiting some corporeal shell (birthed rather like depicted in the LotR films). In still others they're vat-grown magitech abominations.

Can you give some specific examples? I'm not aware of any published settings where this is the case.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125876Regardless, all of these different versions, despite sometimes having nothing otherwise in common, get named orcs in their respective settings because etymologically ORC (or orke or ogre) means "evil being."

We're not sure of the true etymology. The fantasy gaming's primary reference point is Tolkien and the monster manual. Even in reality, the concept of orcs as demons is archaic and has been displaced by the fantasy version pioneered by Tolkien.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125876Some settings may play with those assumptions (see Eberron), but the reason for the name is because the name has a specific meaning... just as Nazi (i.e. a national socialist) does.

That specific meaning comes from Tolkien. The original demonic definition he himself was aware of is now archaic and displaced by his Middle Earth orcs. And World of Warcraft's orcs, I guess.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125876So just for you, because I know you'll hate it ... in my next game the creatures that people call orcs will actually be the twisted evil spirits of actual fucking Nazis released from Hell by a fell ritual and picking up right where they left off in this new world; proclamations of being the master race and eternal rule, swastikas, book burning, death camps, the whole nine yards.

I don't hate that at all. It sounds pretty neat. You should totally write a book about it. I curse myself for not coming up with it first.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125876Because Orc and Nazi mean the same thing... they're the Bad Guy.

Yes, but your assumptions about orcs are weird and not indicative of what everyone here or elsewhere in the gamer community seems to agree on.

Quote from: SavageSchemer;1125878Someone upthread tried to point out that Orcs are monsters by etymological definition (https://www.etymonline.com/word/orc), and was quickly labeled "intellectually dishonest". I'm 98+% sure the same people making any claim to the contrary are the same ones who spend all their free time arguing that D&D is all about the evils of white privilege and needs to be decolonized.

You are misrepresenting the argument. The monster manual says orcs are humanoids, not demons. It's intellectually dishonest to claim that the orcs in the monster manual are demons because of an archaic definition of the word.

Quote from: Haffrung;1125871I've always assumed half-orcs were the products of the enslavement and rape of human women. The orcs in my worlds aren't green-skinned barbarians who socialize with humans; they're horrible monsters who murder/eat/rape humans given any opportunity.

I don't know when or why orcs started being regarded in RPGs as analogous to human barbarians, rather than monsters. Or why some people feel they should be treated with more empathy and nuance than gnolls, sahuagin, or mind flayers. To me they've always been monsters.

Quote from: SavageSchemer;1125878Someone upthread tried to point out that Orcs are monsters by etymological definition (https://www.etymonline.com/word/orc), and was quickly labeled "intellectually dishonest". I'm 98+% sure the same people making any claim to the contrary are the same ones who spend all their free time arguing that D&D is all about the evils of white privilege and needs to be decolonized.

The OP in this thread was Melan, who seemed to be arguing that the association of half-orcs with rape was off-base. What he said was,

Quote from: Melan;1125731I find it interesting that "half-orcs-by-rape" have become such a default assumption of D&D worlds, so much so that it is often specifically mentioned as their usual origin story. It is also one of the D&D elements which are typically found to be "problematic" by critics; that you have a whole player subrace of, basically, rape babies. Quit correct that it would be tasteless.

The reason this comes out of left field is because it didn't seem to be that way at all when we started playing (early 1990s). The assumption was simply that some people just have seriously low standards - not unlike real life - and there would certainly be many more people like this than rapists.

I don't think that he is arguing that D&D is about white privilege or needing decolonization. Instead, he seems to be arguing that the "problematic" label is incorrect because the association with rape is incorrect. Others are arguing that the association with rape is correct, but that it isn't a problem.

Quote from: areallifetrex;1125782What really doesn't make sense is that orc tribes are always shown as either being racially homogeneous, or only having things like goblinoids or ogres around. Orc tribes should have tons of other demihumans recruited or enslaved from conquered lands. Most half-orcs should be part of orc tribes, not tragic outcasts living in human lands.

Alot of settings, especially D&D tend to depict orcs as very often having a few, or a-lot of other races mixed in. Usually other humanoids like goblins, hobgoblins and ogres. But sometimes also trolls, bugbears, and gnolls. And the occasional human. Sometimes lead by a powerful human.

Other RPGs either go much the same route, ot have the orcs or most any race near purely homogenous one race each with maybee some add-ons somehow.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882I have to give you credit for depicting orcs as non-evil. That's mindblowingly creative and the overwhelming majority of gamers are incapable of imagining that as a possibility.

Orcs in Earthdawn (https://non-aliencreatures.fandom.com/wiki/Ork_(Earthdawn)), 1993, were portrayed as non-evil. Revisionist orcs (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurOrcsAreDifferent) are themselves an old trope at this point.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882I have read the 120 Days of Sodom... and browsed various Anonkun quests depicting extreme acts of cannibalism, sexual violence, and mutilation.

Women getting ripped apart by orcs is passe.

Sounds like you have some worrisome taste in literature. But if you enjoy reading about sodomy, cannibalism and mutilation so much, then the question becomes WTF is your problem with the mere implied existence of orc rape babies in a FICTIONAL game narrated within the privacy of someone else's game table you're not likely to ever know, much less attend?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882It is fantasy fiction. We can justify whatever the hell we want.

Glad you agree we can justify orcs being a race made up entirely out of rape babies sired by members of a monstrous, male-only species that relies on females from other species to reproduce. By force. A la Goblin Slayer.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882You want fictional women to be raped and forced to give birth to rape babies. You want to have entire fictional races who you can fictionally kill guilt-free.

You don't have to justify your twisted fantasies of rape and murder to me. You need to be honest with yourself and stop trying to justify them as morality.

I recommend playing Hatred and/or RapeLay.

Funny how none of these claim appear nor are implied anywhere in my refutation to the flaws in your argument, which you refused to address.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882We have no idea what the "original" orcs were meant to be. We're not entirely sure the word comes from Orcus. It might be related to orca, the whale.

The concept of orcs as a race of anything comes from Tolkien.

Yes we do. Just because we don't know with 100% certainty the exact etymology of the word "orc" or because Tolkien was too prudish to come out and spell it out explicitly that orcs are specifically the product of rape, that doesn't mean that we're completely in the dark about what orcs are intended to represent in the greater scheme of things. It's not like the guy didn't write multiple books or left hundreds of detailed notes on his world building.

We don't need Tolkien to explicitly tell us orcs were intended to be brutal engines of destruction twisted by dark magic, they're depicted as such in his works. It's self fucking evident.

Do you even read what you're writing? You're not even trying to honestly address people's points, but are desperately trying to grasp at the weakest straw you can find or invent.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125905Do you even read what you're writing? You're not even trying to honestly address people's points, but are desperately trying to grasp at the weakest straw you can find or invent.

He has gotten overtly antagonistic in the last few posts.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125837It may be possible that orcs reproduce asexually and/or hermaphrodites. It does make the most sense to engineer them that way if you want disposable soldiers.

Tolkien was pretty specific that they do in similar ways to humans and elves, but there is no reason for orcs in D&D not to be whatever the DM wants. I guess it depends on what you want them to represent, such as the various types of zombies in All Flesh Must Be Eaten.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1125896Orcs in Earthdawn (https://non-aliencreatures.fandom.com/wiki/Ork_(Earthdawn)), 1993, were portrayed as non-evil. Revisionist orcs (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurOrcsAreDifferent) are themselves an old trope at this point.

I agree that there are several examples of non-evil orcs in the past - like Earthdawn and Shadowrun, along with Sovereign Stone.

I think calling this "revisionist" is kind of demonstrating the point, though. It's not revisionist for orcs in one fantasy world to be different than another. There's no reason why orcs (or elves or dragons) in every fantasy world need to be the same as in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

I think it's annoying how many fantasy worlds slavishly copy Tolkien. Having non-evil orcs just to be different than Tolkien isn't hugely creative, but neither is just making everything the same as in Tolkien.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1125908He has gotten overtly antagonistic in the last few posts.

That's because his one fixed idea is being challenged more than normal.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125905WTF is your problem with the mere implied existence of orc rape babies in a FICTIONAL game narrated within the privacy of someone else's game table you're not likely to ever know, much less attend?

I have no such problems. If you want to play a Rapeborn, then that's entirely on you.

I thought that, hey, maybe the Rapeborn shouldn't be the default option in a game ostensibly made for ages 12+?

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125905Glad you agree we can justify orcs being a race made up entirely out of rape babies sired by members of a monstrous, male-only species that relies on females from other species to reproduce. By force. A la Goblin Slayer.

Don't forget the infanticide! Killing baby goblins is morally right and you should kill them as often as you possibly can, and you should go out of your way to make their deaths as torturous and agonizing as possible. Filthy little anklebiters. The world would be so much better if all those filthy goblins were dead.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125905Funny how none of these claim appear nor are implied anywhere in my refutation to the flaws in your argument, which you refused to address.

It's fiction. Birth control is as easy or difficult as we want it to be. You're making it difficult because you want to force fictional women to carry their rape pregnancies to term and raise the resulting subhuman halfbreeds to adulthood, as opposed to doing everything within their power to avoid that fate including infanticide by Goblin Slayer. I would imagine that the human culture would have a eugenics policy/holy code and order to terminate half-orc pregnancies, or stone the women to death, perhaps calling them literal demons if they aren't already.

I get that you want to torture fictional women. Whatever floats your boat, dude. Why do you want to torture fictional women with rape by orcs specifically? Isn't it plenty sufficient for them to be raped by human men? Humans are born evil, you know. Original sin and all that.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125905Yes we do. Just because we don't know with 100% certainty the exact etymology of the word "orc" or because Tolkien was too prudish to come out and spell it out explicitly that orcs are specifically the product of rape, that doesn't mean that we're completely in the dark about what orcs are intended to represent in the greater scheme of things. It's not like the guy didn't write multiple books or left hundreds of detailed notes on his world building.

We don't need Tolkien to explicitly tell us orcs were intended to be brutal engines of destruction twisted by dark magic, they're depicted as such in his works. It's self fucking evident.

I wasn't arguing that orcs weren't intended to be villains in Tolkien's work or monster manual. I was arguing that there isn't a clear concept of orcs prior to Tolkien, and that monster manual's orc isn't equivalent to that sense anyway.

Look at this quote from 1656, Samuel Holland, Don Zara del Fogo, I.1: "Who at one stroke didst pare away three heads from off the shoulders of an Orke, begotten by an Incubus."

That's obviously not an orc in the same sense used by monster manual. They aren't equivalent. That's like saying that the D&D bugbear is equivalent to the pre-D&D bugbear. It isn't.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1125905Do you even read what you're writing? You're not even trying to honestly address people's points, but are desperately trying to grasp at the weakest straw you can find or invent.

If I actually came out and said I find the Rapeborn's backstory a creepy sexual fetish and think it shouldn't be the default backstory for all half-orcs, then you'd call me an SJW and dismiss my complaints as irrelevant.

I've been trying everything I could, making the craziest of non-arguments, to avoid saying so until right now.

My position is this: I don't think half-orcs should default to rape babies. I don't think savage humanoids should default to born evil.

I think that, as Greyhawk Grognard put it, "You play an RPG so your character can kill his enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women." I think that, rather than imaginary non-people (e.g. orcs, goblins, whatever), we should fight and kill imaginary humans for fun.

That makes me an SJW, I guess.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827It is edgelordy and cliche.

AND?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Why do orcs have to be monsters in the first place?

They don't have to, but conversely there's no reason why they can't be.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Why can't adventurers fight literal nazis? Or [insert real life group you don't like here]?

But they do? In different games of course, but why would I want literal nazis in my elf games?
And when we do include speciesm/racism from one fantasy race towards another the same idiots who claim making orcs bad is racism get their panties in a bunch.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Conversely, couldn't you play up the banality of evil by having the overlord legitimately hiring people to birth brainwashed soldiers for his army?

I could, but I don't want to. Or are you saying I must?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Seriously, imagine a conversation between two prostitutes who casually talk about how many babies they had who were sent to death and only care about how much money they were paid for each one. IMO, that is far more horrifying than any amount of imagined torture porn featuring women getting raped by orcs could ever be.

Lucky for me I don't do rape porn nor your nazi eugenics proposed porn either.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827Nobody is harmed by playing FATAL but that doesn't mean we should tell everyone that they're wrong, stupid, immature, etc unless they play and praise it.

Anybody that plays, likes and or praises a game I disapprove off is wrong, stupid, immature...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827The elf-games have this premise where entire races of intelligent beings exist for the purpose of being killed because the author arbitrarily declared they were born evil. This is implicitly done because the author doesn't want to depict the PCs routinely killing other human beings.

Do you even Mythology? All those fantasy races were originally 100% evil or at the very least the vast amount of time. Elf games if anything made some of those not so, because they are based of Tolkien and not the Brothers Grimm. But even if you were right, so what?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827That whole dynamic is eerily similar to the dehumanizing racist/sexist/ideological propaganda used throughout real history.

What are you smoking? Where are the IRL orcs, goblins, etc?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125827What the hell even is a "breeding pit"? Judging by the name, I'm assuming it is literal and not a euphemism for a brothel. Are these like sentient ponds that eat people and spews out orcs? Sounds pretty metal.

Don't know don't care, it's not metal is ugly as fuck, but hey, I'm not the OrcsLivesMatter activist here.

Quote from: jhkim;1125919I agree that there are several examples of non-evil orcs in the past - like Earthdawn and Shadowrun, along with Sovereign Stone.

I think calling this "revisionist" is kind of demonstrating the point, though. It's not revisionist for orcs in one fantasy world to be different than another. There's no reason why orcs (or elves or dragons) in every fantasy world need to be the same as in Tolkien's Middle Earth.

I think it's annoying how many fantasy worlds slavishly copy Tolkien. Having non-evil orcs just to be different than Tolkien isn't hugely creative, but neither is just making everything the same as in Tolkien.

Eh. Now we're quibbling over which trope is less creative.
Personally, I'm fine with either version, so long as the game is good.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1125924Eh. Now we're quibbling over which trope is less creative.
Personally, I'm fine with either version, so long as the game is good.

OK, I agree with that.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125921I think that, as Greyhawk Grognard put it, "You play an RPG so your character can kill his enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women." I think that, rather than imaginary non-people (e.g. orcs, goblins, whatever), we should fight and kill imaginary humans for fun.

Okay, so you don't like to play games where the protagonists kill monsters. Whatever. But do you honestly believe the RPG hobby needs to be excised of monsters?

Quote from: Haffrung;1125926Okay, so you don't like to play games where the protagonists kill monsters. Whatever. But do you honestly believe the RPG hobby needs to be excised of monsters?

The dude seriously recommends Monsterhearts over 1e Vampire the Masquerade. I don't think rational thought is anywhere within a league of his comments.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882I advocate that adventuring parties should kill human beings as often and as brutally as possible, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, age, creed, etc.

Humans are quite capable of committing the most brutal acts of violent sadism on their own. We don't need orcs.

Orcs are the fantasy gamer equivalent of teddy bears. Adults substitute human beings as their targets of brutal violence.

OK, are you talking about in game or in Real Life? Because the former already happens a lot without any problems and the latter is just creepy.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882This is a thermian argument.

You mean those aliens from Galaxy Quest?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882I have to give you credit for depicting orcs as non-evil. That's mindblowingly creative and the overwhelming majority of gamers are incapable of imagining that as a possibility.

OK. you didn't seem to get it. It isn't that the orcs in that adventure were non-evil, it was that the orcs in that adventure were the lesser evil.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882That is precisely the reason why we don't need orcs. Every time I watch the news I hear about humanity's evil. I am looking forward to the real life apocalypse because I hate the human race.

I want to kill human beings, not lame teddy bear proxies like orcs.

Again, you are creepily mixing in game and in Real Life. Please just pick one.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882Or we could just kill human beings. We don't need to go out of our way to justify wholesale slaughter as morality.

Creepy......

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882You want fictional women to be raped and forced to give birth to rape babies. You want to have entire fictional races who you can fictionally kill guilt-free.

You don't have to justify your twisted fantasies of rape and murder to me. You need to be honest with yourself and stop trying to justify them as morality.

I recommend playing Hatred and/or RapeLay.

This is all coming from the voices in your head, dude.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882I'm being honest about the fact that D&D is a violent crime simulator and that everyone who needs guilt-free targets is a pansy.

In your opinion.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125921I have no such problems. If you want to play a Rapeborn, then that's entirely on you.

I thought that, hey, maybe the Rapeborn shouldn't be the default option in a game ostensibly made for ages 12+?

I am adopted. More than likely, given the circumstances I have been able to find out about my conception, I satisfy your definition of Rapeborn.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882My position is this: I don't think half-orcs should default to rape babies. I don't think savage humanoids should default to born evil.

I think that, as Greyhawk Grognard put it, "You play an RPG so your character can kill his enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women." I think that, rather than imaginary non-people (e.g. orcs, goblins, whatever), we should fight and kill imaginary humans for fun.

That makes me an SJW, I guess.

That's OK, to you I am Rapeborn, to everyone else I guess that I am a half-orc.

Actually, let me spell out the point I am making here. The Real Life guy who was likely conceived by rape and whose biological mother gave him up for adoption because he was a rape baby, does not find the reality of the situation nearly as dreadful as you find the similar imaginary situation for a half-orc in a fantasy role-playing game. Get the fuck over yourself.

Can we start a thread on the the evil of Monopoly and its insinuated goal of becoming a slumlord and all the crimes and shit associated with such places? OMG... this is like genocide!

Seems I'm late to the thread...

Quote from: Chris24601;1125930The dude seriously recommends Monsterhearts over 1e Vampire the Masquerade. I don't think rational thought is anywhere within a league of his comments.

WTF? Monsterhearts over 1e 1e Vampire the Masquerade!?

Well, its good to know I can dismiss anything he has to say about RPG's out of hand.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125921I have no such problems.

Yet every post you've made implies otherwise.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125921If you want to play a Rapeborn, then that's entirely on you.

I have no desire to play half-orcs. If I wanna play orcs I go for the gold and play full blown orc (a "noble savage orc", perhaps, but still...). I don't settle for crappy watered down "half" races. But if we're talking traditional Tolkienesque orcs (as opposed to WOW-style noble savage orcs) having babies with humans (or any other race for that matter) then the most likely scenario is that that child is the product of rape. That has been my argument from post 1 at page 2, and pretty much everyone else's argument as far as I can tell.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125921I thought that, hey, maybe the Rapeborn shouldn't be the default option in a game ostensibly made for ages 12+?

Then maybe you should've said that instead of arguing against points people never made and injecting your own straw man fantasies onto them. You'd still be wrong on the topic of whether it makes sense for half-orc spawn of traditional non-noble savage orcs to be the product of something other than rape, but at least you'd be making some sort of valid point.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125921It's fiction. Birth control is as easy or difficult as we want it to be.

Not if you want to keep things internally consistent and you're not one of those subhuman morons that think that "fiction" is a "get out of jail free card" for things having to make sense. Verisimilitude is a thing, and that one that always trumps the word "fiction".

Verisimilitude is greater than fiction. Without verisimilitude "fiction" is just a lie (and utter garbage). Verisimilitude is what makes fiction art.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125921That makes me an SJW, I guess.

No, going around throwing accusations and arguing against things people never said makes you an SJW. Or at least like one.

I guarantee that most people in this thread are giving way more thought to the gestation of a half-orc than anyone with an author's credit on any D&D book ever did.

Quote from: Haffrung;1125871I don't know when or why orcs started being regarded in RPGs as analogous to human barbarians, rather than monsters. Or why some people feel they should be treated with more empathy and nuance than gnolls, sahuagin, or mind flayers. To me they've always been monsters.

For orcs, it happened at least as long ago as Earthdawn (1992-ish) where almost all humanoid "monsters" were just different phenotypes of people. Warcraft (1994) spread the idea of green-skinned "noble savages" with World of Warcraft (2004) pushing it further and Eberron (2004) bringing the same to D&D (although with gray skin)

For gnolls and sahuagin, which are largely D&D specific (OK, other games have gnolls, but not as D&D depicts them) both are somewhat more nuanced as recently as Eberron (2004). Both are still largely horrible and monstrous by most humans' standards.

For mind flayers...I remember that they tried it in d20 modern but it was a totally tongue-in-cheek thing. I don't know if mind flayers have ever been seriously portrayed as non-monsters.

Greetings!

Oh, geesus. What a fucking shit fest this thread has turned into!:D

What is up with all the handwringing over how Orcs are evil? They are ORCS! And if many, or most Half Orcs are the product of *RAPE*--so what? Back in the day, even as kids, we understood quite well that Orcs were evil, cruel, and savage creatures. It didn't surprise any of us that Orcs routinely engaged in raping their human victims en masse across the land. We never got deep into the details--we all understood that what Orcs do isn't what Mom and Dad do. Orcs beat, torture, and rape their victims. The human women are often enslaved in the orc lands, where most eventually die in their harsh environment. A few may escape, or be rescued, but it always seemed a sure thing that such were a distinct minority. Meanwhile, some percentage of human females are left behind in the burning, traumatized lands that the savage Orc armies just returned from attacking and plundering. Such human women that survived, proceeded to struggle on to rebuild their lives. During that process, soon in the aftermath, many were pregnant and gave birth from their time of being raped by the Orc marauders. We always assumed that probably many Half Orcs born within such human communities were often killed at birth; others being set upon as youngsters and killed by groups of human adolescents or adults alike. Thus, from such a hostile and rough childhood, some Half Orcs born in human communities would eventually survive and reach adulthood. By the Alignment tendencies in the books and discussions in Dragon Magazine, we figured that most such Half Orcs naturally embraced an Evil alignment, for their nature predisposes them to love Evil and Wickedness. That also explained why so many Half Orcs were opportunistic, self-serving and untrustworthy Thieves; cruel, bastard Assassins; or brutal and ruthless Fighters. Beyond all of that, somehow, some few were not of an Evil Alignment, and were some flavour of Neutral or perhaps even of Good Alignment. Ok, fine. We could see how that could work out now and then. Human genes at work, human culture, religion and civilization, some strong human family members, and some kind other humans along their way to adulthood. So, a few Half Orcs could be of Good Alignment. That same reasoning is workable even to the present day, in whatever campaign.

As far as why are Orcs Evil? Because they are evil, brutal, unreasonable and thoroughly uncivilized fucking monsters, that's why. As a whole fucking race, they love torture, slavery, cannibalism, rape, mass slaughter and human sacrifice. They LOVE DARKNESS AND WICKEDNESS! Just like in The Lord of the Rings.

That's why in my game group, most of the gang lights up a cigar, and unleashes the wizard's flame thrower on all the fuckers. The rest of the group throws flasks of oil and burning torches, and moves in like whirling bladed lawnmowers, and wipe the Orcs out. Every last one of them. No mercy. No crying. Get them all wiped the fuck out, and get busy plundering any treasure. Make sure any fleeing survivors see or hear their fellow Orc tribe members being hacked down and roasted. Let them spread the news to other Orc tribes that judgement is coming! Wrath and fire is being poured out upon them!

The group gathers any treasure and equipment plundered, and moves on, exploring nearby areas, and pursuing adventures. More Orcs can be found and dealt with, in a swift and ruthless manner. No one ponders the alleged or theorized "innocence" or the imagined depth of Orc's moral faculties, whatever they are, scant or non-existent as they may be. They are ORCS. Light up another cigar, pour some more drink, and get rolling the dice. FUN and adventure awaits!

If I imposed some lengthy, moralistic philosophy discussion about Orc morality on my players, they would look at me like I was fucking nuts, and roar at me to keep that whiny bitch nonsense, and to fucking pack it! I can easily imagine their laughter, derision, and scorn. They are there to have fun, and have adventures. Any such moral considerations are reserved for other humans, elves, dwarves and such civilized peoples. Orcs, Goblins, Troglodytes, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Snakemen, half fucking demons, and so on are the Enemies of Civilization, and righteousness. That's the way that stuff works with most of my players.:D

The game should be fun. We don't need to bring real-world fucking Nazis into the ancient and medieval fantasy game world.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882Every time I watch the news I hear about humanity's evil. I am looking forward to the real life apocalypse because I hate the human race.

Amen.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125882I'm being honest about the fact that D&D is a violent crime simulator and that everyone who needs guilt-free targets is a pansy.

I almost agree.

I notice that D&D players generally want to kill monsters. Perhaps its the fantasy aspect of heroes battling monsters. However, in most non-fantasy games, the players have no issue killing humans. Nobody minds blasting stormtroopers or cultists or space pirates.

I'm hesitant saying the D&D player who prefers orcs over humans as foes is a pansy because that same player might be fine shooting up rooms of terrorists in a modern spy game, but simply prefers his fantasy realms to be filled with fantastical enemies.

Its pretty easy for humans to be guilt free kills in most RPGs. Any dramatic fiction is good at setting up Red vs. Blue and giving supreme justification for maximum violence against your foes.

Quote from: tenbones;1125933Can we start a thread on the the evil of Monopoly and its insinuated goal of becoming a slumlord and all the crimes and shit associated with such places? OMG... this is like genocide!

I would absolutely play Slumlord Monopoly!!! That's fucked up funny!

Well, that escalated quickly! ;)

Still, the thread has been fairly educational - I have always viewed orcs as potbellied, pig-faced, lowly brigand types, the kind you would find in smaller numbers in the seedier corners of human civilisation. (As they would pose no fundamental threat unless they formed an army.) Much of this, I assume, comes from 1st edition AD&D, not Tolkien, who did not have much to say on orc procreation. But the main big lesson about AD&D is how much Tolkien is only the barest sort of window dressing. And AD&D did have half-orc player characters as one of its default options.

Certainly, people interpret their orcs quite differently - I probably could not imagine some of the Warcraft-style orcs living near humans. But I always considered the Warcraft take a fairly modern interpretation. Interesting.

I'm going insane from cabin fever under quarantine.

Quote from: Jaeger;1125937Seems I'm late to the thread...



WTF? Monsterhearts over 1e 1e Vampire the Masquerade!?

Well, its good to know I can dismiss anything he has to say about RPG's out of hand.

WW games suck on general principle. The setting is an idiosyncratic straightjacket, the rules for superpowers are awful, etc. Especially now when the books promote anti-republican rhetoric and have a mandate that alphabet people aren't allowed to be villains.

I only listed Monsterhearts as one example in a whole list of urban fantasy rpgs. I've never actually played it. I don't know why you would dislike it, but whatever.

Quote from: Haffrung;1125926Okay, so you don't like to play games where the protagonists kill monsters. Whatever. But do you honestly believe the RPG hobby needs to be excised of monsters?

Nope. Hydras and nemean lions are tight.

I don't believe that humanoids being born evil should set the standard. I find it a rather repulsive concept philosophically. Maybe it's my Christian upbringing in which I was taught that nobody is beyond redemption through Jesus. The idea of anybody being born evil and beyond redemption seems wrong to me.

Even if humanoids aren't real people, it's the same tribalistic propaganda humans have been using to justify slaughtering one another since time immemorial. "We need stuff. That tribe over there has stuff. That tribe over there is evil and inferior. That means we are morally justified in killing them and stealing their stuff."

Since at least the early 90s fantasy writers have been comfortable writing humanoids as being just as morally complex as humans. It's hardly a new concept by any stretch.

By all means, kill hordes of humanoids in your elf-games. But I don't think we need to justify this wanton slaughter by making them born evil. You can do that if you want, but you don't need to.

I'll be over here, playing a Christian paladin converting the humanoids to Christianity and saving their souls through Jesus Christ.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1125944I almost agree.

I notice that D&D players generally want to kill monsters. Perhaps its the fantasy aspect of heroes battling monsters. However, in most non-fantasy games, the players have no issue killing humans. Nobody minds blasting stormtroopers or cultists or space pirates.

I'm hesitant saying the D&D player who prefers orcs over humans as foes is a pansy because that same player might be fine shooting up rooms of terrorists in a modern spy game, but simply prefers his fantasy realms to be filled with fantastical enemies.

Its pretty easy for humans to be guilt free kills in most RPGs. Any dramatic fiction is good at setting up Red vs. Blue and giving supreme justification for maximum violence against your foes.

That certainly clears things up for me. Thank you very much.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1125862Whole books have been written about the undead as tragical villians.

Yes, and I've sworn to slap that silly Twilight bint into next week if I ever find her :)

Ironically, though, I did make an alternate writeup for ghouls who turned to the worship of Mordiggian, the Charnel God (see the Clark Ashton Smith story of the same name), as opposed to Orcus, Yeenoghu, or Doresain. While Mordiggian is not exactly a 'good' deity, he is hilariously disinterested in the living to the point where if you're not actively impeding him or trying to steal corpses, he won't bother you. Ghouls devoted to Mordiggian, as a result, serve as a corpse disposal service instead of stalking the living.

Quote from: SHARK;1125943If I imposed some lengthy, moralistic philosophy discussion about Orc morality on my players, they would look at me like I was fucking nuts, and roar at me to keep that whiny bitch nonsense, and to fucking pack it! I can easily imagine their laughter, derision, and scorn. They are there to have fun, and have adventures. Any such moral considerations are reserved for other humans, elves, dwarves and such civilized peoples. Orcs, Goblins, Troglodytes, Beastmen, Lizardmen, Snakemen, half fucking demons, and so on are the Enemies of Civilization, and righteousness. That's the way that stuff works with most of my players.:D

The game should be fun.

I 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.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1125944I would absolutely play Slumlord Monopoly!!! That's fucked up funny!

That sounds like Ghettopoly to me.

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

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

Quote from: HappyDaze;1125942For mind flayers...I remember that they tried it in d20 modern but it was a totally tongue-in-cheek thing. I don't know if mind flayers have ever been seriously portrayed as non-monsters.

Having to eat thinking people's brains probably doesn't make them very popular.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1125944I notice that D&D players generally want to kill monsters. Perhaps its the fantasy aspect of heroes battling monsters. However, in most non-fantasy games, the players have no issue killing humans. Nobody minds blasting stormtroopers or cultists or space pirates.

Hi! I'm the outlier to prove the rule; I love stun settings and non-lethal options.

The group I played Rifts with got really annoyed because a properly played Ley Line Walker is more ridiculous than a Glitterboy at everything except blowing things up and I played my character as a normal human being who generally likes to avoid violence or killing people. My kill count at the end of the campaign was three; all in immediate self-defense and creatures that my spells couldn't typically stop. Most of the party had kill counts in the many dozens.

The issue was I also racked up several times more captures than entire party killed put together, because spells like Magic Net are fight enders without having to punch through armor (and such non-lethal spells make perfect sense for a caster who's primary class trick is being able to teleport a hundred miles down a ley line before the net wears off).

And while I was Unprincipled (out for himself, but not a sociopath) I often ended up being the voice of morality for the Principled and Scrupulous PCs (who would have had zero issues cutting every one of them down in the heat of battle) by the simple expedient of "you can't just execute helpless prisoners."

Thus, the party's biggest hassle was that my basic "lets try not to kill anyone unless we have to" morality meant we invariably ended up with a train of prisoners we had to feed and transport to someplace justice could be administered (being unprincipled, I was fine with just taking their weapons and armor, eliminating the threat and profiting us, and letting them go... but those Principled and Scrupulous types want their justice served).

Anyway, I often play spellcasters in fantasy settings in a similar vein. The main reason in real life that many object to firearms is a fear of becoming a killer. Soldiers have to be trained to dehumanize their enemies in order to do it. Most people having to do so without such training (and sometimes even with it) suffer trauma from having to do so.

Give an ordinary human a device (magic) that can, at your option, either kill or reliably disable an attacker without killing them and I'd wager most will use the non-lethal option almost every time.

You want the orc raider stopped because they are threatening you or others; killing it is just the only viable option for most people to make that happen. Unless you're a wizard. Then you can put them into an enchanted slumber or web them up or charm them or force them to do community service polymorphed into a mule.

A wizard who resorts to just fireballing his enemies (barring some exceptions like mindless undead hordes) hasn't the imagination to be worthy of the title.

* * * *

Anyway, all this is getting to the point that one thing I think BoxCrayon completely misses in his "you just want an excuse to murder people" diatribe is actual character motivation.

I don't know of many campaigns or even adventures where the primary motivation for PCs is "Let's go murder orcs!"

No. Even the most threadbare adventures in that ballpark are typically "The orcs in the ruin are attacking nearby farmsteads. We need you to stop them."

Others are generally, "There's a ruin a days march from here said to full of lost treasure. We should try to find it."

Rather than BoxCrayon's assertion that players are looking for a "crime simulator." If anything, my experience is that players are interested in a "defenders of civilization/explorers of the unknown" simulator.

The monsters, like orcs, are either threats to civilized places or obstacles that happen to be between you and the treasure/knowledge.

It should also be noted that in the earliest versions of the game, fighting monsters to gain treasure was almost seen as a fail state... if you could gain the treasure without the risk of a fight you were coming out significantly ahead.

BoxCrayon is wrong about nearly everything so him being wrong about basic human motivations shouldn't really be a surprise. Or maybe I've just mostly gamed with a bunch of weirdos who like being Spider-Man better than Deadpool.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125979It should also be noted that in the earliest versions of the game, fighting monsters to gain treasure was almost seen as a fail state... if you could gain the treasure without the risk of a fight you were coming out significantly ahead.

Thus the rules for morale and reaction. It's in later editions like 3rd where encounters become a sort of sport or a puzzle and avoiding a fight or finding a non-violent solution becomes a less frequent thing.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125979Hi! I'm the outlier to prove the rule; I love stun settings and non-lethal options.

The group I played Rifts with got really annoyed because a properly played Ley Line Walker is more ridiculous than a Glitterboy at everything except blowing things up and I played my character as a normal human being who generally likes to avoid violence or killing people. My kill count at the end of the campaign was three; all in immediate self-defense and creatures that my spells couldn't typically stop. Most of the party had kill counts in the many dozens.

The issue was I also racked up several times more captures than entire party killed put together, because spells like Magic Net are fight enders without having to punch through armor (and such non-lethal spells make perfect sense for a caster who's primary class trick is being able to teleport a hundred miles down a ley line before the net wears off).

And while I was Unprincipled (out for himself, but not a sociopath) I often ended up being the voice of morality for the Principled and Scrupulous PCs (who would have had zero issues cutting every one of them down in the heat of battle) by the simple expedient of "you can't just execute helpless prisoners."

Thus, the party's biggest hassle was that my basic "lets try not to kill anyone unless we have to" morality meant we invariably ended up with a train of prisoners we had to feed and transport to someplace justice could be administered (being unprincipled, I was fine with just taking their weapons and armor, eliminating the threat and profiting us, and letting them go... but those Principled and Scrupulous types want their justice served).

Anyway, I often play spellcasters in fantasy settings in a similar vein. The main reason in real life that many object to firearms is a fear of becoming a killer. Soldiers have to be trained to dehumanize their enemies in order to do it. Most people having to do so without such training (and sometimes even with it) suffer trauma from having to do so.

Give an ordinary human a device (magic) that can, at your option, either kill or reliably disable an attacker without killing them and I'd wager most will use the non-lethal option almost every time.

You want the orc raider stopped because they are threatening you or others; killing it is just the only viable option for most people to make that happen. Unless you're a wizard. Then you can put them into an enchanted slumber or web them up or charm them or force them to do community service polymorphed into a mule.

A wizard who resorts to just fireballing his enemies (barring some exceptions like mindless undead hordes) hasn't the imagination to be worthy of the title.

* * * *

Anyway, all this is getting to the point that one thing I think BoxCrayon completely misses in his "you just want an excuse to murder people" diatribe is actual character motivation.

I don't know of many campaigns or even adventures where the primary motivation for PCs is "Let's go murder orcs!"

No. Even the most threadbare adventures in that ballpark are typically "The orcs in the ruin are attacking nearby farmsteads. We need you to stop them."

Others are generally, "There's a ruin a days march from here said to full of lost treasure. We should try to find it."

Rather than BoxCrayon's assertion that players are looking for a "crime simulator." If anything, my experience is that players are interested in a "defenders of civilization/explorers of the unknown" simulator.

The monsters, like orcs, are either threats to civilized places or obstacles that happen to be between you and the treasure/knowledge.

It should also be noted that in the earliest versions of the game, fighting monsters to gain treasure was almost seen as a fail state... if you could gain the treasure without the risk of a fight you were coming out significantly ahead.

BoxCrayon is wrong about nearly everything so him being wrong about basic human motivations shouldn't really be a surprise. Or maybe I've just mostly gamed with a bunch of weirdos who like being Spider-Man better than Deadpool.

My gaming experience is that we kill stuff because the DM put it in our path specifically so we can kill it and the game's presentation expects us to solve our problems typically through violence. The PCs are just disposable killing machines and the setting is a death labyrinth intended to reward us with abstract loot by killing stuff. We didn't kill humanoids because they born evil, we killed them because the DM put them in our path so we could kill them for loot. Monsters are bags of XP and loot spawned by spawn points and random generation tables, nothing more.

If that education makes me completely wrong about everything (whatever that entails), then feel please enlighten me as to the correct way of playing fantasy games and consuming fantasy fiction.

Quote from: Chris24601;1125979You want the orc raider stopped because they are threatening you or others; killing it is just the only viable option for most people to make that happen. Unless you're a wizard.

Hey now, in 5e, every melee weapon can be set to stun. It's only ranged weapons and damaging spells that are always deadly.

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

Greetings!

Well, Jhkim, yeah, variety with Orc morality can be fun and interesting. In my own campaign, there have been a *few* Orc tribes that managed to not be Evil. Then there's a pretty large number of Half Orcs that are not Evil in alignment.

Whatever kind of variant you can come up with is good, too.

My comment and exhortation about the game being fun is largely targeted at the emotionalism and philosophy that having "Evil Orcs" is this huge moral problem that needs deep introspection and moral concern. Furthermore, embracing the platform that Orcs are a vile, savage, and evil race that needs to be fought against and ruthlessly exterminated at every opportunity--must therefore signify some kind of moral delinquency and immaturity on the part of those that choose to implement such platforms in their campaigns.

That kind of moralistic philosophical argument against such just wouldn't go anywhere with most of my players, and most gamers that I have known. One of my friends would say:

"Dude. Orcs hate humans and Elves, and Halflings and Dwarves. They kill us, enslave us, and eat us all the time. The Baron says we need to defend the kingdom, so the Orcs are getting fucking napalmed, baby. Wherever we find them, the Orcs are gonna fucking die."

Orcs are typically born evil. They are a monstrous race that needs to be resisted, fought against, and destroyed. Orcs are a threat to civilization, and must be exterminated. I think that position is fine. It's also fun at the game table.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jeff37923;1125810just like how a discussion on half-orc origins has brought about a bullshit claim from Omega that everyone else REALLY MEANS that orcs are black rapists for there to be half-orcs.

hah-hah. You are so funny when you try... and fail miserably.

Did I say all? Anywhere? No. I did not.

Keep struggling.

Quote from: tenbones;1125933Can we start a thread on the the evil of Monopoly and its insinuated goal of becoming a slumlord and all the crimes and shit associated with such places? OMG... this is like genocide!

Probably allready a thread or two over on BGG along those lines. Theres alot of nuts over there with a pathological hatred of the game.

Quote from: trechriron;1125842The tragedy here is that faux-activists clearly don't practice their own advice.
[...]
So, rape and sex are not the problem. Dark, difficult subject matters are not the problem.
It's WHEN and HOW they are brought up, often against the consent or will of the participants - that is the problem.
[...]Consent is king.

You know you're dangerously close to making total sense here :-) ?
All good things in moderation, I'll say, my good sir !

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1126000You know you're dangerously close to making total sense here :-) ?
All good things in moderation, I'll say, my good sir !

Well thats ever been the problem. Most people are sane and can look at stuff and not totally lose their minds. Unfortunately for the last century or two we've been under the increasingly growing thumb of moral guardians who, lets face it - are more often than not insane. They want to "protect" you, or just the children, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! by in many cases, totally sanitizing everything. Ray Bradbury called it out in several of his stories. Eventually taking it to its logical insane conclusion in one story where even cemeteries are being dug up and destroyed because its too morbid and might scare someone. Instead we have a growing legion of loons who want everything even remotely possibly objectionable removed.

On top of, and increasingly combined with, the nuts who will hallucinate rape and racism and anything else into absolutely anything.

Very different from saying "hey, this is going in directions I am not comfortable with. Could we tone that down or not touch on it?"

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125964I'm going insane from cabin fever under quarantine.

No shit.....

Quote from: Omega;1125997hah-hah. You are so funny when you try... and fail miserably.

Did I say all? Anywhere? No. I did not.

Keep struggling.

You said it, I didn't, nice backpeddling though.

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.

The crux of the problem here, as I see it, is the now widespread Western idea that it is morally wrong to depict Others as threatening or dangerous.

The RPG consequence of this fundamental idea is the trope : "You're a bad human being for wanting to kill Orcs." And : "If you depict Orcs as evil, you're a flawed human being, because depicting the Other as evil is ALWAYS a moral feeling".

I don't know exactly why so many Western people are in love with the Other, except that it seems to be a symetrical twin of hating oneself.

This mad "love" of the Other, upon reflexion, may be Christianity gone seriously askew.

Going back to RPG, I 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 ?

Quote from: jeff37923;1126004You said it, I didn't, nice backpeddling though.

Except I didnt say what you claimed. Nice SJWing there.

Struggle more.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125983... we kill stuff because the DM put it in our path specifically so we can kill it and the game's presentation expects us to solve our problems typically through violence. The PCs are just disposable killing machines and the setting is a death labyrinth intended to reward us with abstract loot by killing stuff.
...

You say this like it is a bad thing...

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1126005The crux of the problem here, as I see it, is the now widespread Western idea that it is morally wrong to depict Others as threatening or dangerous.

The RPG consequence of this fundamental idea is the trope : "You're a bad human being for wanting to kill Orcs." And : "If you depict Orcs as evil, you're a flawed human being, because depicting the Other as evil is ALWAYS a moral feeling".

I don't know exactly why so many Western people are in love with the Other, except that it seems to be a symetrical twin of hating oneself.

Greetings!

Indeed, Lychee of the Exchequer, the whole terrible philosophy comes out of the foundations of Liberal SJWism. The brainwashing of millions of people through university classes--for years and years now--where Western Civilization is always painted as greedy, racist, evil, and imperialistic. Anyone that comes from "The Other" is constantly depicted as being the victims of Western Powers, and "The Other" is inherently good; innocent; and superior in knowledge and wisdom to anyone from the West. Furthermore, "The Other" is shown as being more "authentic" and deeper, spiritually. Everything from "The Other" is richer, deeper, and more meaningful, from music, dancing and art, to language, tattoos, family and social customs.

Philosophically, it is this kind of world view and ideology where it filters down into gamers, that the players--the characters--are representatives of a more advanced, greedy, colonialist and racist culture, that is imposing war, death, exploitation, and subjugation on poor, misunderstood primitive humanoid cultures.

The whole ideology is insidious, and yet it has become more pervasive throughout our society over the years, tainting and influencing everything, including gaming, world building, and how we develop and run our game worlds. These liberal ideologues take immense pleasure in questioning every assumption--no matter how reasonable--with an eye towards polluting it, criticizing it, subverting it, and ultimately twisting whatever concept into a bizarre kind of social and ideological pretzel!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1126006This mad "love" of the Other, upon reflexion, may be Christianity gone seriously askew.

Going back to RPG, I 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 ?

With everyone saved by the grace of God?

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. :D


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. :D


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.:D

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. :D

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?

(https://i.redd.it/8zxbjp6zyt341.jpg)

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(https://i.redd.it/8zxbjp6zyt341.jpg)

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.

(http://i.imgur.com/kaXpjy5.jpg)

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.

Quote from: jeff37923;1126121So, you deny dragging that tired SJW schtick of orcs are blacks into the conversation.

Greetings!

Jeff! Perhaps I can help here, my friend. From Omega's post, I didn't interpret that he was championing SJWism at all. He mentioned the Orcs=Rape; Orcs=Black People and then said "sooo. That must mean Orcs=Black Rapists? That's what these nuts are obviously claiming then."

He is clearly, to me, being sarcastic and mocking of the SJW idea that Orcs are really stand-ins for black people, and are thus a trope for all the horrible white racists in gaming to wantonly slaughter and subjugate.

I did not get the idea that Omega was approving of such jackass ideology, Jeff. Hopefully I have helped.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126113(https://i.redd.it/8zxbjp6zyt341.jpg)

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?

Greetings!

Just brilliant, Shrieking Banshee! Fucking hilarious! Very appropriate, too!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jeff37923;1126121So, you deny dragging that tired SJW schtick of orcs are blacks into the conversation.

Nice goalpost moving there sonny.

Reading comprehension is not one of your strong points lately is it?

Why yes I did drag that one out. Because yes they do drag that one out and because Yes the two claims combined paint a rather ugly picture of certain nuts out there who claim both this are true,

None of which has jack to do with your obsession that I claimed ALL SJWs say this.

Now move the goalposts again please because of course you will.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120If 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.

Those articles are hilariously bad. I'm especially amused at how badly they have to scrape to try and justify the accusations of "racism" involving fantasy creatures.

Quote from: SHARK;1126123I did not get the idea that Omega was approving of such jackass ideology, Jeff. Hopefully I have helped.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Jeffs in one of his periodic insane modes that can last months or more. Eventually the other Jeff will return. So chances of him responding well are about zero at this point. Hes out to pick a fight and it could have been any of us. I just call him out more when he flips out because having to deal with this RL with family suffering dementia, now in two cases fatal, had left my patience with him at less than zero.

I like talking with Jeff when hes sane. I have no tolerance for it when hes off his rocker.

Quote from: Omega;1126125Why yes I did drag that one out.

Nice to see that you are capable of manning up and admitting your mistakes, when cornered.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120If 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.

Your argument is incoherent because its all over the place and you keep moving the goal posts (you've been arguing non-stop about games portraying orcs as irredeemable monsters PCs feel no guilt slaughtering, but now you're pretending your ONLY issue has been their sexuality all along? BULLSHIT!), and no matter what you'll always find a way to complain and nitpick to keep whining. Case in point...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120The "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.

Rampaging rapist orcs are bad. Noble savage orcs are also bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And those articles you posted simply make superficial comparisons between orcs and wartime propaganda, which obviously--assuming that a race of beings like traditional D&D orcs actually did exist--any information about them would have at least superficial similarities to wartime propaganda, cuz even if such propaganda is normally exaggerated in real life, in this case it presumably happens to be true. So are we not supposed to provide accurate information about a race that hypothetical does exist in a world out of fear of arousing distrust from easily offended people cuz that information looks like wartime propaganda despite (on this case) being true? Or are we supposed to change the "truth" of that race because you choose to take offense from it?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120To 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.

Perhaps, but "monster races" have also become increasing prevalent in recent editions of D&D, and as far as I can tell orcs are rarely (if ever) explicitly portrayed as rapists in D&D products and the only real difference between them an 40K orks is that 40K orks are apparently asexual. Otherwise we're talking about the same thing, except you choose to like 40k orks for arbitrary reasons that contradict the diatribe you're written in most of these posts.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120I don't have a problem with roleplaying brutal violence including rape, genocide, infanticide, degloving, etc.

This entire thread suggests otherwise. But move those goal posts.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120Where I think it gets iffy is trying to justify murdering babies as morally good.

Which absolutely NO ONE has done, but keep arguing against points people never made. I eagerly await you twisting my bringing up Goblin Slayer pages ago as a tongue in cheek rebuke as proof positive I was justifying orc infanticide as a good thing.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120What purpose does that serve? Does it indicate maturity? Do we like the shock value?

It doesn't have to serve ANY purpose. But if you insist...

Traditional "Tolkienesque" Orcs are like the fomorians or similar mythological beings that represent the chaotic, destructive primal forces that threaten the harmonious order of civilization. They're a personification and embodiment of such forces. They're not supposed to be naturally evolved creatures with hopes and dreams, but personifications of chaos and depravity. They aren't "real" normal humanoid creatures, but symbolic entities that represent the mythological conflict between Order and Chaos I've often seen you bring up in other threads but obviously have absolutely ZERO understanding about.

Quote from: SHARK;1126123Greetings!

Jeff! Perhaps I can help here, my friend. From Omega's post, I didn't interpret that he was championing SJWism at all. He mentioned the Orcs=Rape; Orcs=Black People and then said "sooo. That must mean Orcs=Black Rapists? That's what these nuts are obviously claiming then."

He is clearly, to me, being sarcastic and mocking of the SJW idea that Orcs are really stand-ins for black people, and are thus a trope for all the horrible white racists in gaming to wantonly slaughter and subjugate.

I did not get the idea that Omega was approving of such jackass ideology, Jeff. Hopefully I have helped.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I understand that Omega was mocking the idea that orcs are blacks or black rapists. The conversation was about orcs being evil and not racism victims. I just didn't want the conversation to go down that particular rabbit hole. It has been done to death on this forum and not germaine to the conversation at hand. In short, he opened the door and it shouldn't have been opened.

Quote from: jeff37923;1126134I understand that Omega was mocking the idea that orcs are blacks or black rapists. The conversation was about orcs being evil and not racism victims. I just didn't want the conversation to go down that particular rabbit hole. It has been done to death on this forum and not germaine to the conversation at hand. In short, he opened the door and it shouldn't have been opened.

What's the SAN damage on that?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120If you tThis is a false dichotomy, tho. As least in the monster manual, orcs aren't demons.

And if they where that would make killing them OK? Geeze how immoral of you man. As long as something LOOKS like you and shares your traits its worthy of life but if it doesn't its worth being slaughtered?

Your ethics make me sick! Sick I say!

QuoteI don't want peer pressure to force me

But peer pressuring others with guilt and association with historical atrocities and comparing them to historical propaganda is aight? While at least I said that its fine to have noble orcs, I found the notion on getting caught up with moralizing on fantastic fiction stupid, you where the one that said its allegorical to propaganda.

Everything can be tied to somekind of propaganda, or abuse, or form of suffering. I don't make all orcs evil in my game and in my current game Its currently set in a 'Post Dark Lord' Orc country, and how the orcs are dealing with this new political situation.

But this whiny preachy 'Think about the orc children!' stuff just makes me really annoyed.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126142And if they where that would make killing them OK? Geeze how immoral of you man. As long as something LOOKS like you and shares your traits its worthy of life but if it doesn't its worth being slaughtered?

Your ethics make me sick! Sick I say!



But peer pressuring others with guilt and association with historical atrocities and comparing them to historical propaganda is aight? While at least I said that its fine to have noble orcs, I found the notion on getting caught up with moralizing on fantastic fiction stupid, you where the one that said its allegorical to propaganda.

Everything can be tied to somekind of propaganda, or abuse, or form of suffering. I don't make all orcs evil in my game and in my current game Its currently set in a 'Post Dark Lord' Orc country, and how the orcs are dealing with this new political situation.

But this whiny preachy 'Think about the orc children!' stuff just makes me really annoyed.

Greetings!

I agree, Shrieking Banshee. Your commentary opposed to Box of Crayons has me thinking about his crazy interpretation. Why all the tears about Orcs? What about Lizardmen, and Snakemen, and...Ratmen?

Are these savage, often primitive and bestial races, are they really just misunderstood as well? Are they as races, deeply infused with the same kind of moral agency as Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings?

And while we're at it, in this fantastic, moralistic and egalitarian world, *hypothetically*--if any or all of these *monstrous races* are morally equal in every way to humanity and so on, then really, what makes them genuinely different? If they are not genuinely different, at a fundamental level--then really they are just humans with a different coloured hat.

From that, if they are not really different on a fundamental level, and they share the same kind of complex moral agency as Humans--then why not just get rid of them, and have everyone just be different colours and tribes of humans.

Exactly. Then the fucking SJW's would be whining about how savage and misogynistic and racist everyone is to *fellow humans* in the fantasy game world. Whaa, whaa, whaa! and on and on they would go, writing deep, bloviating articles and thought-pieces criticizing how everyone is a bunch of racist, misogynistic, Imperialist and Colonialists!:D

It never ends!:D

On a different angle, I don't mind some Orcs or whoever not always being evil. That's all good. The crying and vilification of those that *enjoy* or *prefer* using Orcs as evil monsters--amongst the other monstrous humanoid races--is what is wrong, and I find such quite annoying and self-righteous.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spike;1126137What's the SAN damage on that?

I would say 1d2 / 0

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126142And if they where that would make killing them OK? Geeze how immoral of you man. As long as something LOOKS like you and shares your traits its worthy of life but if it doesn't its worth being slaughtered?

Your ethics make me sick! Sick I say!



But peer pressuring others with guilt and association with historical atrocities and comparing them to historical propaganda is aight? While at least I said that its fine to have noble orcs, I found the notion on getting caught up with moralizing on fantastic fiction stupid, you where the one that said its allegorical to propaganda.

Everything can be tied to somekind of propaganda, or abuse, or form of suffering. I don't make all orcs evil in my game and in my current game Its currently set in a 'Post Dark Lord' Orc country, and how the orcs are dealing with this new political situation.

But this whiny preachy 'Think about the orc children!' stuff just makes me really annoyed.

Orc children?

Nits become lice. When do you want to deal with the problem?

Quote from: RandyB;1126146Orc children?

Nits become lice. When do you want to deal with the problem?

I also remember what gary gygaxes response to the question was:

Take in the kids and educate them how to live well and kill their parents.

I think the guy might be an objectivist. Led to a fun game.

From the tabletop rape of Elspeths rpg characters.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125849...if your games result in you getting horny ...

Not what I said. I said we get horny and horny people get stupid. Period. When someone makes a mistake, we should probably give them a chance to learn from it and become a better person. OR. They don't and we move on. I'm a good GM. So, I have made people horny in my game. They told me so. I provide towels and cold showers for free, just in case. [queue Jeff judgement admonishment response to my liberal bad-wrong-fun sex in 3.. 2.. ] You're still my favorite Jeff. I don't care how mad you get at me.

Quote from: EOTB;1125940I guarantee that most people in this thread are giving way more thought to the gestation of a half-orc than anyone with an author's credit on any D&D book ever did.

By a factor of 1000. But of course, there was at least a dozen dozen white hetero angry fat-beards snickering in their basements while making Orcs in ye olden days. Where they hid secret misogynistic code-words in certain monster descriptions. ORC is likely a dog whistle acronym having to do with rape and woman. Those evil motherfuckers absolutely liked Orc rape and the reveled in it! THAT'S why we can't have nice things boys. Fucking fat-beards.

[sarcasm; also note that I do not condone rape of anyone in real life. I do not condone the subject of rape in publicly-facing RPG arenas nor without the consent of all participants. I do not actually believe that fat-beards are a racial definition. I do not believe in misogynistic secret code-words - most misogynists are quite open about it. I don't care how you Orc in your game as long as everyone in your game agrees with how you Orc. With love.]

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1126000You know you're dangerously close to making total sense here :-) ?
All good things in moderation, I'll say, my good sir !

I try and agreed. :-)

well i summoned the ghost of lovecraft and asked him where half orcs come from.
he blamed ozzy osbourne.

ymmv

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126131Your argument is incoherent because its all over the place and you keep moving the goal posts (you've been arguing non-stop about games portraying orcs as irredeemable monsters PCs feel no guilt slaughtering, but now you're pretending your ONLY issue has been their sexuality all along? BULLSHIT!), and no matter what you'll always find a way to complain and nitpick to keep whining. Case in point...



Rampaging rapist orcs are bad. Noble savage orcs are also bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And those articles you posted simply make superficial comparisons between orcs and wartime propaganda, which obviously--assuming that a race of beings like traditional D&D orcs actually did exist--any information about them would have at least superficial similarities to wartime propaganda, cuz even if such propaganda is normally exaggerated in real life, in this case it presumably happens to be true. So are we not supposed to provide accurate information about a race that hypothetical does exist in a world out of fear of arousing distrust from easily offended people cuz that information looks like wartime propaganda despite (on this case) being true? Or are we supposed to change the "truth" of that race because you choose to take offense from it?



Perhaps, but "monster races" have also become increasing prevalent in recent editions of D&D, and as far as I can tell orcs are rarely (if ever) explicitly portrayed as rapists in D&D products and the only real difference between them an 40K orks is that 40K orks are apparently asexual. Otherwise we're talking about the same thing, except you choose to like 40k orks for arbitrary reasons that contradict the diatribe you're written in most of these posts.

 

This entire thread suggests otherwise. But move those goal posts.



Which absolutely NO ONE has done, but keep arguing against points people never made. I eagerly await you twisting my bringing up Goblin Slayer pages ago as a tongue in cheek rebuke as proof positive I was justifying orc infanticide as a good thing.



It doesn't have to serve ANY purpose. But if you insist...

Traditional "Tolkienesque" Orcs are like the fomorians or similar mythological beings that represent the chaotic, destructive primal forces that threaten the harmonious order of civilization. They're a personification and embodiment of such forces. They're not supposed to be naturally evolved creatures with hopes and dreams, but personifications of chaos and depravity. They aren't "real" normal humanoid creatures, but symbolic entities that represent the mythological conflict between Order and Chaos I've often seen you bring up in other threads but obviously have absolutely ZERO understanding about.

Greetings!

VisionStorm, did you read the two articles that Box of Crayons posted?

Both of them are written by total SJW's that are gargling on the sweet chewies of Left-wing Marxism, including the smug nonsense that Tolkien was a racist. And of course, "White people can't experience racism." On and on, and on. I was right. All of this "critique" comes gushing forth from Liberal, Marxist, SJW ideology.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Melan;1125731The assumption was simply that some people just have seriously low standards - not unlike real life - and there would certainly be many more people like this than rapists.

Ours is a world where people have sex with goats and horses. An orc is at least bipedal and verbal.

Rape will happen in any society. But humans are overall so horny they'll fuck anything.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1126178Ours is a world where people have sex with goats and horses. An orc is at least bipedal and verbal.

Rape will happen in any society. But humans are overall so horny they'll fuck anything.

**cough**Neanderthals**cough**

in fact if you check the starfleet captains handbook scanning for fuckable orifices is the second procedure to be executed after basic hailing in first contact missions.

Quote from: SHARK;1126144Greetings!

I agree, Shrieking Banshee. Your commentary opposed to Box of Crayons has me thinking about his crazy interpretation. Why all the tears about Orcs? What about Lizardmen, and Snakemen, and...Ratmen?

Are these savage, often primitive and bestial races, are they really just misunderstood as well? Are they as races, deeply infused with the same kind of moral agency as Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings?

And while we're at it, in this fantastic, moralistic and egalitarian world, *hypothetically*--if any or all of these *monstrous races* are morally equal in every way to humanity and so on, then really, what makes them genuinely different? If they are not genuinely different, at a fundamental level--then really they are just humans with a different coloured hat.

From that, if they are not really different on a fundamental level, and they share the same kind of complex moral agency as Humans--then why not just get rid of them, and have everyone just be different colours and tribes of humans.

Exactly. Then the fucking SJW's would be whining about how savage and misogynistic and racist everyone is to *fellow humans* in the fantasy game world. Whaa, whaa, whaa! and on and on they would go, writing deep, bloviating articles and thought-pieces criticizing how everyone is a bunch of racist, misogynistic, Imperialist and Colonialists!:D

It never ends!:D

On a different angle, I don't mind some Orcs or whoever not always being evil. That's all good. The crying and vilification of those that *enjoy* or *prefer* using Orcs as evil monsters--amongst the other monstrous humanoid races--is what is wrong, and I find such quite annoying and self-righteous.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I never vilified anyone for using humanoids as target practice. I knocked over bags of XP and loot every time I played.

I am perfectly content with acknowledging RPGs as essentially violent crime fantasy. Killing fictional people can be cathartic.

I think people should be free to play games that depict racial violence. Whether that is real human races or fantasy races.

Going to extreme lengths to justify wanton slaughter as morally upright is creepy as hell, but I don't think anybody is bad for doing that. Unimaginative, perhaps, but not a bad person. I'm pretty sure the reason why is because people love slavishly copying Tolkien and don't care to think through the philosophical implications of there being entire races of beings that are born evil.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126131(you've been arguing non-stop about games portraying orcs as irredeemable monsters PCs feel no guilt slaughtering, but now you're pretending your ONLY issue has been their sexuality all along? BULLSHIT!)

I'm not saying that. I fully acknowledge that RPGs are violent crime fantasy and there's nothing wrong with that.

In fact, as someone else said before, PCs don't feel guilt about slaughtering human targets despite humans not being born evil.

The "they want our women" message written into a lot of lore is creepy as hell, but that's hardly the only contributor to why its creepy as hell. I could go on about how the way RPGs easily depict misogyny in an exploitative manner, but that's a whole other topic.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126131Rampaging rapist orcs are bad. Noble savage orcs are also bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Do you even know what a noble savage is in the context I'm using it? It doesn't mean "non-evil humanoid race." It's a term that was applied to actual human beings by colonizers. It has really unsavory connotations. There's a whole wikipedia page if you're interested.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126131And those articles you posted simply make superficial comparisons between orcs and wartime propaganda, which obviously--assuming that a race of beings like traditional D&D orcs actually did exist--any information about them would have at least superficial similarities to wartime propaganda, cuz even if such propaganda is normally exaggerated in real life, in this case it presumably happens to be true. So are we not supposed to provide accurate information about a race that hypothetical does exist in a world out of fear of arousing distrust from easily offended people cuz that information looks like wartime propaganda despite (on this case) being true? Or are we supposed to change the "truth" of that race because you choose to take offense from it?

You're essentially saying that the monster manual depicts a world that is the fantasy equivalent of nazi racial propaganda being true. You're essentially saying that it's okay to play the equivalent of Racial Holy War as long as we replace all mention of real groups with fictional humanoid races.

Which I can't argue with because I don't disagree. I just said RPGs are violent crime simulators.

In fact, I'm not even opposed to people playing RaHoWa. It's repulsive but I don't think it should be censored or banned. I don't think anybody is bad for playing it. You don't need to be a racist to consume product with racist messaging in it.

I just think we should be honest with ourselves about the eerie resemblance between the rhetoric used to describe D&D's humanoids and the caricatures in RaHoWa or the rhetoric used by Manifest Destiny to dehumanize First Nations people.

The monster manual posits a world that is the fantasy equivalent of colonizer rhetoric being true. Just because it is fiction doesn't mean that resemblance doesn't exist. Having that resemblance doesn't mean the game is bad or that people playing it are bad.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126131Which absolutely NO ONE has done, but keep arguing against points people never made. I eagerly await you twisting my bringing up Goblin Slayer pages ago as a tongue in cheek rebuke as proof positive I was justifying orc infanticide as a good thing.

I never said anyone here suggested infanticide was morally justified, just that it has been brought up elsewhere because it's a pretty common meme in case you didn't know. Are you arguing that killing baby orcs is wrong? If so, then why are we not justified in killing baby orcs? Are they not born evil? Should we kill baby orcs or not? Why?

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126131Traditional "Tolkienesque" Orcs are like the fomorians or similar mythological beings that represent the chaotic, destructive primal forces that threaten the harmonious order of civilization. They're a personification and embodiment of such forces. They're not supposed to be naturally evolved creatures with hopes and dreams, but personifications of chaos and depravity. They aren't "real" normal humanoid creatures, but symbolic entities that represent the mythological conflict between Order and Chaos I've often seen you bring up in other threads but obviously have absolutely ZERO understanding about.

That's not how orcs or other humanoid races are depicted in the monster manual or fiction at large. They're not symbolic entities, they're fictional subhumans who are human-like in terms of intelligence, social structure, etc but it's morally justified to slaughter them because they're born evil and lack free will. In other words, humanoids are basically the fantasy equivalent of the nazi's racial hierarchies or the shallow pop-culture interpretation of Germanic tribes as caricatures dedicated to destroying civilizations.

Furthermore, you're not even describing the fomorians in an accurate manner. They're far and away from Tolkienesque orcs. Plenty of fomorian characters are depicted with redeeming qualities. They aren't a entire race of sadistic rapists like Tolkienesque orcs are often depicted. Equivalents in other mythologies, like jotun and asura, are depicted with far more nuance that you are crediting them with.

You're probably thinking of D&D's demons, not humanoids. The humanoids are basically Germanic tribes attacking Rome with a beastman skin tacked on.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126142And if they where that would make killing them OK? Geeze how immoral of you man. As long as something LOOKS like you and shares your traits its worthy of life but if it doesn't its worth being slaughtered?

Your ethics make me sick! Sick I say!

There is a big difference between 1) an orc who is essentially a human being (complete with intelligence, culture, family, blah blah blah) except that the writers have arbitrary decided they're guilt-free targets in a similar manner to how wartime propaganda depicted real people and 2) a demon who was sent to hell for using their free will to do bad things in life as a human being.

The way humanoids are depicted is essentially the fantasy equivalent of a universe where the nazis were right about racial hierarchies.

Playing that doesn't make you a nazi.

Roleplaying a violent psychopath who gleefully murders innocent people doesn't make you that in real life.

I played Postal 2 and loved butchering innocent people for fun. That doesn't mean I'd ever do the same in real life.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126142But peer pressuring others with guilt and association with historical atrocities and comparing them to historical propaganda is aight? While at least I said that its fine to have noble orcs, I found the notion on getting caught up with moralizing on fantastic fiction stupid, you where the one that said its allegorical to propaganda.

Everything can be tied to somekind of propaganda, or abuse, or form of suffering. I don't make all orcs evil in my game and in my current game Its currently set in a 'Post Dark Lord' Orc country, and how the orcs are dealing with this new political situation.

But this whiny preachy 'Think about the orc children!' stuff just makes me really annoyed.

I don't think people should be guilted out of playing the fantasy equivalent of RaHoWa. I think people should be free to play FATAL too. Playing RaHoWa or FATAL doesn't make you a bad person. Playing a game where orcs are guilt-free targets doesn't mean you're a racist who thinks it's okay to kill [insert real world group here]. I value free expression like that.

I think we should be conscious of the fact that the way D&D's humanoids are depicted shares commonalities with the caricatures in propaganda. That doesn't make us bad people for playing violent crime simulators.

I don't think we should lie to ourselves that we aren't playing violent crime simulators with rhetoric reminiscent of propaganda that was historically used to justify killing real people.

Quote from: SHARK;1126170Greetings!

VisionStorm, did you read the two articles that Box of Crayons posted?

Both of them are written by total SJW's that are gargling on the sweet chewies of Left-wing Marxism, including the smug nonsense that Tolkien was a racist. And of course, "White people can't experience racism." On and on, and on. I was right. All of this "critique" comes gushing forth from Liberal, Marxist, SJW ideology.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Oh joy.

I'm getting the feeling that you guys are arguing in bad faith because you think I'm an evil SJW who wants to send in the thought police to censor your games. I'm not. I just said I'm totally okay with people playing RaHoWa and FATAL. (And yes, I'm sure that eventually somebody will take my words out of context.)

The way D&D depicts humanoids bears a disturbingly close resemblance to real life racist and colonizer propaganda used throughout history to justify man's inhumanity to his fellow man. I would think that this would be pretty obvious to anyone who has studied history, but I'd love to read any contrasting essays on the topic.

Acknowledging such parallels exist doesn't mean the game is evil or that players are evil, anymore than playing Cowboys & Indians means you want to kill First Nations people in real life. The parallels are obvious, and I suspect part of the reason people might refuse to acknowledge it is because they think it will reflect badly on them. It doesn't.

I'll use a reverse example. The video game This Land Is My Land is a revenge simulator. You play as a generic native american man who goes around murdering white colonists in revenge for the horrors of colonization. This is morally repugnant. Colonization was horrific, but revenge killing isn't morally superior. But playing and enjoying This Land Is My Land doesn't make you a racist who wants to exterminate white people in real life, nor should a game about playing a white person murdering native americans make you a racist who wants to kill natives in real life. So playing essentially the same game, except killing orcs, doesn't make you a racist. Playing a game with morally repugnant elements doesn't make you a bad person in real life. (And before you accuse the developers of being SJWs, they're a Ukranian studio. The Ukraine has experience with colonization by the nazis, so I suspect there may be a sublimation element somewhere.)

If a game like This Land Is My Land can receive wild acclaim despite its premise of racial violence, then we should be totally okay with any racial violence in roleplaying games. Depicting racial violence doesn't mean you advocate racial violence in real life. I would think that would be obvious.

But fuck it all.

I'm a cynical condescending bastard who only sees the worst in people and looks forward to the apocalypse because I hate humanity and wishes it would go extinct. I fully expected you guys to dismiss everything I said and dismiss me as a loony SJW who wants to steal your toys, demonize you as a crypto-fascist, and moralize over our silly little elf-games.

I'm tired of arguing. You win this argument. From this moment forward, I will advocate that orcs should be evil, should be exterminated at every opportunity, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an evil SJW.

i hate it when you trade a wagonload of whiskey and rifles to an orc tribe for a valley and they pack up and shuffle off, only to return 6 months later in a rape'n'raid lovefest when your town is half built, and respond to your "yo we had a deal greenskin" with "deal was with old chief, we have new chief now". makes me want to forcibily relocate them all to an out of the way patch where, if they won't join in the new civ i'm building, they at least will be less inclined to attack or hinder it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183I never vilified anyone for using humanoids as target practice.

I guess if you get to define what villification is then yes. You did not villify anybody.
But I will assume your acting out of ignorance as opposed to malice. So to clarify:

I think people felt plenty villified for being told that having evil humanoids makes you complicit in propaganda and racial extermination fantasies. Wanting to play superhero doesn't originate in fantasies about being a violent thug that wants to hurt people without law, wanting to play cops and robbers doesn't make you either fantasize about breaking the law or punishing people that do.
And playing fantasy hero with a abstracted antagonistic force doesn't make you a goddam racial exterminator fantacizer.

So get off your morallity bullshit high chair you constructed out of pretzel sticks and used boxes of chearios. Fuck off with your moral equivication.

I get your fucking game now. You have this bullshit pattern that you demand everybody follow and if they don't their ignorant bumpkins.
Do you drink coffee by calling it 'Forced labor beans'? Do you call coal power 'Poison smoke zappers?'. Id guess you would because your playing this bullshit moralizing game.

Like I just can't get over this stupidity.

Is Mario Brothers an animal abuse simulator? Those games actually make it clear that the enemies hes fighting have families and normal lives but he mowes them down without a second thought.

Is Pac Man a vore fetish game?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126120Here 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: BoxCrayonTales;1126183I'm getting the feeling that you guys are arguing in bad faith because you think I'm an evil SJW who wants to send in the thought police to censor your games. I'm not. I just said I'm totally okay with people playing RaHoWa and FATAL. (And yes, I'm sure that eventually somebody will take my words out of context.)

The way D&D depicts humanoids bears a disturbingly close resemblance to real life racist and colonizer propaganda used throughout history to justify man's inhumanity to his fellow man. I would think that this would be pretty obvious to anyone who has studied history, but I'd love to read any contrasting essays on the topic.

I don't have an opposing essay at this point, but I can dispute it. I would argue that the resemblance between fantasy monsters and wartime propaganda is precisely because both of them borrow from the local mythology. Much of the propaganda imagery is clearly not racist, as you noted with the monstrous image of Germans -- who were the enemy, but not a racial enemy.

If our whole culture were to shift -- say in a hundred years -- and we eliminated monster imagery like the orc, then it would just be replaced with some other symbol of evil. Let's suppose the new symbol of evil is an orange-faced man with a huge comb-over. Then that imagery would be used in wartime propaganda to justify dehumanizing the enemy.

Any symbol of evil will be used to justify dehumanizing and attacks against the enemy. And we will have symbols of evil, because evil exists. Wartime propaganda will adapt to use whatever imagery people believe in.

I think there is racism, and there is racism in some fantasy -- but the resemblance to wartime propaganda is spurious. It just shows common roots, not an inherent problem with the symbol.

As the second article noted, it was pretty easy for WH40K to cast orcs as British soccer hooligans -- which suggests that the colonialist imagery of orcs isn't at their core. It's a weak association at best.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183Going to extreme lengths to justify wanton slaughter as morally upright is creepy as hell...
The "they want our women" message written into a lot of lore is creepy as hell...

Maybe it's just me, but I find 'creepy as hell' to have negative connotations. Which fits oddly with an "it's fine to play Nazi Humans killing Untermenschen Orcs" claim. I'm not seeing a consistent position.

Quote from: SHARK;1126170Greetings!

VisionStorm, did you read the two articles that Box of Crayons posted?

Both of them are written by total SJW's that are gargling on the sweet chewies of Left-wing Marxism, including the smug nonsense that Tolkien was a racist. And of course, "White people can't experience racism." On and on, and on. I was right. All of this "critique" comes gushing forth from Liberal, Marxist, SJW ideology.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I read some of it then skimmed the rest. Typical spurious arguments desperately trying to link Tolkien to racism and eeevil colonizers, cuz fantasy can't feature evil creatures without it being some sort of secret dog whistle calling for the extermination of purportedly lesser races. Nothing I had not read before from what I could see.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183I never vilified anyone for using humanoids as target practice. I knocked over bags of XP and loot every time I played...

*too long post snipped for brevity*

Orcs aren't innocent victims of Nazi propaganda used by evil white people as an excuse to exterminate them and steal their land. They're monstrous humanoids that (at least in the context of traditional D&D) really are vile rampaging savages out to pillage and destroy everything in their path and enslave anyone who survives. They're in no way comparable to Native Americans being driven from their land by evil colonizers--the orcs ARE the "colonizers".

You are taking completely different things out of context and willfully forcing parallels based on incidental and superficial similarities in a desperate attempt to find "creepy" justification for "wanton slaughter" and all forms of depravity within them. Then you keep insisting you're OK with these things existing in an RPG, even as you continue moping about them and lamenting their "disturbing" implications with your incessant passive aggressive whining, hoping that the world would end because these game elements you're totally 100% OK with exist.

But you're not vilifying anyone. You just hope that the apocalypse would come because some humanoid races in a FICTIONAL game world are depicted as evil creatures. Some of the time. Which makes it Nazi propaganda.

Wow, that's a lot of hubbub on a topic that seems like it should be simple.

In my games, orcs fill the roll of "evil bad guy that you don't have to feel bad about killing because they're evil and will kill you if given the chance."  They're savage, animalistic, and brutish, and there really is not any peaceful contact between humans and orcs ever.  Thus the only ways a half-orc could be received is by rape, either in a raid by one side on the other, or if slaves are taken.  It's a squicky idea, so it's not really something we've ever wanted to dwell on in the game, and the point is understood but not really discussed.  Half-orcs are also exceedingly rare, so again it doesn't come up much.

If you want a more nuanced orc in your game, sure, there are a lot of possibilities.  But going the traditional route there is no reason to make it complicated at all.

Greetings!

You know, I was thinking about this assertion by Box of Crayons;

The "they want our women" message written into a lot of lore is creepy as hell, but that's hardly the only contributor to why its creepy as hell. I could go on about how the way RPGs easily depict misogyny in an exploitative manner, but that's a whole other topic.


This critique is wholesale nonsense, taken entirely out of context, and pumped full of SJWism spin. The critique is mind boggling in its blindness and sweeping disregard of where the early inspirations for such writing and implications suggested of evil humanoids like Orcs throughout books and modules from the beginning of the hobby come from. Any good student of real-world history can recall numerous examples from the pages of history where warlike marauders from foreign lands invaded other kingdoms and lands--always, always, one of their main desires was the subjugation, capture, and plundering of the women of the conquered lands and peoples.

Muslim seaborne raids and invasions throughout the Mediterranean region--a huge target was the capture and enslavement of European women.

The Vikings savage raids throughout Ireland, Scotland, Britain, and other regions of Europe--they too, captured and enslaved conquered women en mass. They especially enjoyed capturing virgin nuns from monasteries and cloisters, as well as huge numbers of young farm girls. They were all eagerly carried off into the Viking's dragon ships to a certain doom.

The Mongols sweeping invasions of Eastern Europe, Russia, the Ukraine, Turkey, Persia, Central Asia, the Kwarazam Empire, and China, literally *millions* of women were marched off by the conquering Mongols as slaves.

The Mongols, Jin, and other invaders of China: In a BBC series, The Story of China, hosted by Historian Michael Wood, Wood goes into grim detail of when the barbarian invaders poured into the Northern Song Empire, and encircled and besieged the great northern capital--the savage barbarians demanded *women* Tens of thousands of them. The finest and most beautiful women of the empire were to be given into the invaders hands. The women of the royal household; the Emperor's court women; the thousands of dancers, and the 1500 women of the Emperor's orchestra--all were given to the conquering barbarians. Wood goes on to describe how such a sad and horrifying calamity it was for the Northern Song Empire, and its people. He said many of the women marched off into the camps of the surrounding barbarian armies chose to commit suicide rather than submit to the horrifying fate that awaited them.

The Germanic Barbarians invaded the Roman Empire. What do you think they were doing with all of the beautiful Roman women and girls that they captured in the tens and hundreds of thousands? I assure you, the invading Germanic barbarians were not kind, nor were they gentle.

The Roman invasions of everywhere. Indeed, the Roman Legions demonstrated the terrible price for opposing the empire. The Romans raped, conquered, and enslaved millions to the yoke of the empire. Along the way, foreign women, whether barbarian women from some tribe or region, or whether from some civilized kingdom--all were taken like ripe fruit by the conquering Roman Legions.

And history is full of many more examples, often in great detail, and frequently with primary sources. The Trojan War, too, was fought over a woman. Thus, the fear and threat of foreign barbarians or other kinds of invaders having a primary interest in plundering and enslaving your kingdom's women is an enormous historical reality, and a salient inspiration for the various implications embraced by the game books and writers over the years as to the focus and desires of savage, evil hordes of brutal, conquering humanoids.

There is nothing especially or even vaguely racist about such implications, nor does it have much specifically to do with any "colonizers". It is purely taken from real-world human history, of everyone's history, in every corner of the world, for thousands of years of recorded history, of warfare and conquest, and of raiding.

Evil Humanoids seek to invade, conquer, and plunder civilized lands.

YES. That definitely means that for the player characters and allied NPC's--the evil humanoid invaders certainly do "Want Our Women".

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

BoxCrayonTales is not a SJW.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183I'm a cynical condescending bastard who only sees the worst in people and looks forward to the apocalypse because I hate humanity and wishes it would go extinct.

And that's why you're perfect for this forum!

Humans will go extinct sooner than later, but what can we really expect from race of really fucked up upright monkeys? Just look at Shark's litany of human history...and remember that's all from the civilized part of our timeline compared to our 200,000 previous years of stone age behavior.

As modern humans, we want to look upon the Bronze Age as the "bad old time" that we've advanced and evolved from into "civilized" people. But that's not the truth. Most of our species' time on this planet was spent raping women and cooking babies. We're descended from cannibals!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183I fully expected you guys to dismiss everything I said and dismiss me as a loony SJW who wants to steal your toys, demonize you as a crypto-fascist, and moralize over our silly little elf-games.

While some of your language and arguments have been used by actual loony SJWs, I do NOT believe that's who you are. You aren't demanding adherence to your ideology. You're just presenting your viewpoint. And you've repeatedly added the caveat that gamers who play differently than you are not racists nor evil. That's NOT the behavior of a SJW.

I don't overly disagree with much of what you said. However, I do think you have a very rosy perspective on the so-called "First Nations" people. They were Stone Age assholes, not mystical saints. They lost their land because technology wins wars and demographics are destiny, not because of any inherent evil in "colonizers". Most native tribes were conquerors and "colonizers" as well, like any Stone Age tribe, killing their competitors and taking their land. They are humans and behaved just like the rest.  

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126186Is Pac Man a vore fetish game?

What is a vore fetish?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1126159I also remember what gary gygaxes response to the question was:

Take in the kids and educate them how to live well and kill their parents.

The Gygax quote I was thinking of in this thread was more along the lines of "Orcs can be converted to become Lawful.  And then you should slit their throats before their Chaotic nature has a chance to reassert itself, so that they'll still be Lawful when they die."

Quote from: Spinachcat;1126204What is a vore fetish?

"Vore" as in "carnivore".  A fetish for imagining that you're being eaten alive, frequently involving gigantic women who are large enough to pop your entire body into their mouth like an M&M and swallow you whole.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1125983My gaming experience is that we kill stuff because the DM put it in our path specifically so we can kill it and the game's presentation expects us to solve our problems typically through violence. The PCs are just disposable killing machines and the setting is a death labyrinth intended to reward us with abstract loot by killing stuff. We didn't kill humanoids because they born evil, we killed them because the DM put them in our path so we could kill them for loot. Monsters are bags of XP and loot spawned by spawn points and random generation tables, nothing more.

If that education makes me completely wrong about everything (whatever that entails), then feel please enlighten me as to the correct way of playing fantasy games and consuming fantasy fiction.

I wouldn't say you're 'wrong.'

I'd say that if that's the extent your fantasy roleplaying though you experienced only an extremely tiny range of actual play; akin to trying to paint a realistic portrait using only a single pigment.

Hack'n'Slash (basically what you're describing) is a style of play that basically falls under what's known as the Slayer motivation, but there's a much broader range of categories than that; 4E D&D identifies those other types as actors, explorers, instigators, power gamers, storytellers, thinkers and watchers.

Other than the power gaming motivation, few other player types have a desire for combat as their preferred solution to an encounter.

- Actors' primary interest is roleplaying a distinctive character during interactions.
- Explorers would rather be soaking up the atmospheric text and learning all sorts of hidden lore the DM's devised for the setting.
- Instigators want to make deliberately bad choices in order to make things happen.
- Power gamers fall on the more meta side in that they're looking for options to make their character as mechanically strong as possible, but in game will want opportunities to test and/or show off their work.
- Storytellers are looking for ways to incorporate their character into the world; if you're using an established setting they're the one with a PC attached, however vicariously, to some relevant major NPC or organization if at all possible (instead of a starting generic fighter, they're the one who was apprenticed to one of the Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr).
- Thinkers engage situations as problems to be solved; whether social, investigation or combat.
- Watchers are there because they want to have fun with their friends regardless of what they're doing.

The groups I've run with rarely include Slayers, while actors, explorers and storytellers are common (and power gamer is an extremely common secondary motivation).

Every motivation test I've ever taken has landed me solidly in the Thinker category with what looks like outliers into most of the other categories. But those are mostly because world lore (explorer), leveraging your interaction skills (actor), knowing what the GM wants to have happen (storyteller) and having the right mechanics for the job (power gamer) all make problem-solving a lot easier.

The result of this is that probably twice as much time in our campaigns are spent engaging in social interactions and solving problems in non-standard ways than is ever spent in combat. Even in systems like 4E (supposedly "all combat") we'd have an actual fight maybe once out of every every dozen encounters. Awareness, stealth, engineering, persuasion and judicious use of magic (illusions, conjurations and transmutations mostly) were the primary tools of the party.

It's frankly the reason I had to separate out skills and other non-combat boons from classes in the system I've nearly finished writing. Forcing fighters to have just a small number from a very limited pallet of skills on top of fighting not being especially common amongst many of my testing groups was a double-whammy of not fun. So now you could be an arcanist, artisan, barbarian, entertainer, military, religious, etc. who knows how to fight. Everyone has tools useful outside of combat because in terms of player motivation, fighting for the sake of fighting isn't as common as it used to be.

In large part I think we can attribute that to video games. If you want the visceral experience of carving through enemies by the tens, hundreds and thousands no table top game can compete with modern video games, because the game can calculate far more variables in nanoseconds than player brains using calculators could in an hour and give you combat resolution in real time.

Whereas, as every computer "rpg" with its three option dialogue tree has show; the best computer programming can presently produce are railroady stories that are literally incapable of lateral thinking and out of the box problem solving. Nor does it appreciate how well you roleplay "your" character.

Which is why my generalized experience with the local/regional RPG community has been a steady reduction in the number of players with slayer motivations (power gamers just shift focus to non-combat abilities) while actors, instigators, storytellers and thinkers are on the rise (explorers and watchers being pretty consistent).

These are players much more prone to view a situation where you see inevitable combat and slaughter as a problem with multiple solutions and opportunities. The actor wants a chance to roleplay their interaction with the orcs. The storyteller will be plumbing the setting lore they're aware of for advantages. The explorer will be seeking clues to other outcomes. The thinker is weighing the cost vs. benefit of a fight vs. other solutions (would negotiations work? Would a bribe to allow us passage be cheaper than replacing the healing resources we'd consume to keep going after the fight?).

My experience is virtually the opposite of yours. I rarely find people to be as misanthropic and hateful as you sadly seem to have experienced. I see a restaurant owner who made my dad a batch of egg salad free of charge because it's his favorite and he's stuck at home during all this mess. I see members of my church pooling resources to assist those most affected. I see people who are struggling themselves go out of their way to buy gift certificates for their favorite local restaurants that they're holding onto until things go back to normal and leaving even bigger tips for their carry-out than normal to help keep them afloat. I see medical professionals working every day to save lives.

My experience is that people are generally good when dealing with each other (there's always some bad apples, but they're the minority); it's faceless institutions where people are dehumanized into numbers and algorithms determine decisions that are cruel and often wicked.

And that colors the adventures that get portrayed by people I associate with too. Our characters aren't interchangeable death machines. The first session of most campaigns is establishing the PCs in a community; be it a border town, a city borough or some other place. We meet the locals and learn of surrounding dangers and opportunities. We listen to the traveling bard at the tavern to get a sense of the world (and because clues come from the conservation of detail or lack there of). Then we figure out what we, these adventurers and protectors of civilization, are going to do based on what we've learned.

It doesn't matter if Box is an SJW or not.  What matters is that he is a one-issue poster.  IIRC, he's had about two times in the last six months when any post he made wasn't about this pet issue.  So I've mainly stopped reading them, because I know what is in the post as soon as I see the poster:  Same old same old, or an attempt to try to steer the conversation to that same old.   If the conversation indicates hope of some other outcome based on responses, I'll go back and skim to see if the post is one of the exception.  Which is where I get the two times.  It's entirely possible I've missed two or three more.  

So the real question is whether or not he is a troll.  Does he do this because he doesn't have anything else to talk about, or does he enjoy wasting everyone's time with his pet issue?  I have no idea which one it is, only the behavior I have observed above.  My suggestion is that anytime he talks about something else, he be interacted with, but otherwise ignored.  That way, he'll either get bored and go away, or he'll expand his horizons a little.  Would be a win for the board if it were the latter.

QuoteWhere do half-orcs come from?

Your mom.

Spoiler

Not the Codex but I couldn't resist. :D

Quote from: nDervish;1126216The Gygax quote I was thinking of in this thread was more along the lines of "Orcs can be converted to become Lawful.  And then you should slit their throats before their Chaotic nature has a chance to reassert itself, so that they'll still be Lawful when they die."

I wasn't saying that as a negative. I'm not an objectivist but I'm not knocking Gygax for being one.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183I'm a cynical condescending bastard who only sees the worst in people and looks forward to the apocalypse because I hate humanity and wishes it would go extinct.

Sounds like something Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would say.

Well, we know where Deep Ones come from, anyhow.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1126231It doesn't matter if Box is an SJW or not.  What matters is that he is a one-issue poster.  IIRC, he's had about two times in the last six months when any post he made wasn't about this pet issue.  So I've mainly stopped reading them, because I know what is in the post as soon as I see the poster:  Same old same old, or an attempt to try to steer the conversation to that same old.   If the conversation indicates hope of some other outcome based on responses, I'll go back and skim to see if the post is one of the exception.  Which is where I get the two times.  It's entirely possible I've missed two or three more.  

So the real question is whether or not he is a troll.  Does he do this because he doesn't have anything else to talk about, or does he enjoy wasting everyone's time with his pet issue?  I have no idea which one it is, only the behavior I have observed above.  My suggestion is that anytime he talks about something else, he be interacted with, but otherwise ignored.  That way, he'll either get bored and go away, or he'll expand his horizons a little.  Would be a win for the board if it were the latter.

I've interacted with him before about other things and seen him post about other stuff as well. I even had a few amicable interactions with him (after initial disagreements) in a thread about Planescape several months ago, though, those interactions went a bit south after we hit a wall at some point and started disagreeing again.

Thing is he tends to be inconsistent and nitpicky with his arguments, sometimes arguing against things that were never said, holding positions that seem arbitrary for no reason yet won't let go, and can't seem to maintain a coherent thought sometimes, rambling on and on, even contradicting himself. So the discussion just goes around in circles getting nowhere.

I don't think he's a troll, I just think that he rambles and mopes too much, then gets lost in his own thoughts typing out these long replies that often don't address what you actually said and seem almost like an excuse to keep arguing about the same thing.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126292I've interacted with him before about other things and seen him post about other stuff as well. I even had a few amicable interactions with him (after initial disagreements) in a thread about Planescape several months ago, though, those interactions went a bit south after we hit a wall at some point and started disagreeing again.

Thing is he tends to be inconsistent and nitpicky with his arguments, sometimes arguing against things that were never said, holding positions that seem arbitrary for no reason yet won't let go, and can't seem to maintain a coherent thought sometimes, rambling on and on, even contradicting himself. So the discussion just goes around in circles getting nowhere.

I don't think he's a troll, I just think that he rambles and mopes too much, then gets lost in his own thoughts typing out these long replies that often don't address what you actually said and seem almost like an excuse to keep arguing about the same thing.

I've read through this whole trainwreck of a thread, finally (whew!), and I think I see the problem.  There is a basic conflict of assumptions that underlies BoxCrayonTales' objections and the responses herein.

First, he assumes that there is no such thing as a person who is inherently evil.  As in, "evil from the day of birth with no hope or chance of reformation" kind of argument.  Whether because of a religious, leftist, or other cultural bias, he would assert (as a sizable portion of folks, I would imagine) that evil is not an inherent quality.  People must become evil, either through initiation, abuse, or unfettered inclination.  Therefore, the creation of fantasy that normalizes this idea (of the irredeemable evil) can normalize this belief when dealing with actual people.

Now, I disagree with the above strongly, but I think that's his basic starting point.  There are some psychological studies that have show people on the left side of the political spectrum have a strong outgroup bias, and this may be one reason.  They have a tendency to assume that everyone is just like they are (every person I've ever met who decries private gun ownership with the old canard, "What if they get angry and shoot someone!?!" is simply assuming that others are no better at anger management than they are), and extend the moral courtesies that they would like to receive themselves to those outside their own cultural or moral groups.

The second sticking point is that, as far as I can tell, BoxCrayonTales had no desire to argue his point.  Normally, when we of the non-SJW stripe bring up an idea, we do so as a test of its validity.  We present an idea for others to examine, think about, and then critique.  There is a growing number of people who don't express ideas in order to have them examined or challenged.  Istead, they express ideas to establish their moral or cultural superiority.  It is a membership flag, a way of establishing that the person has the "right" feelings.  It's somewhat akin to the way a devout religious person might reference their religion in order to establish that they are part of the ingroup ("It's in God's hands" or "Inshallah").  So he wasn't expressing his ideas for study; just as a demonstration of virtue.

BoxCrayonTales may have his pet issues (who doesn't), but I don't think he's a troll and he's certainly not a SJW. I've only had good interactions with him and I find his posts interesting, even if I disagree.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1126183The way D&D depicts humanoids bears a disturbingly close resemblance to real life racist and colonizer propaganda used throughout history to justify man's inhumanity to his fellow man.

This may well be true, but Orcs are not your fellow man; they are a different species. Normatively, we don't have well-developed ethics of how to treat other sentient species, for obvious reasons. History suggests humans are plenty willing to genocide each other for all kinds of perceived differences so it's hard to imagine they wouldn't genocide a different species given the chance, especially a human society at a medieval or prior stage of development where scarcity really bites and there is next to no perceptible technological progress in a human lifespan (so if you want to get richer you need to take it from someone else).

Also, in a fantasy world where gods make their pleasure or displeasure felt directly, the human attitude to appropriate treatment of orcs is going to be shaped by what the gods think surely?

Anyway I recently re-read LotR and it's pretty clear (to me as a Brit) the orcs are depicted quite a lot like the working class. Michael Moorcock argued the same thing. It's like holding up a mirror to how your society is fucked up. Put most bluntly, who would you kill if you could get away it? I am not claiming Tolkien literally fantasised about killing working class people, in case anyone needs that pointed out...

Quote from: Mishihari;1126199Wow, that's a lot of hubbub on a topic that seems like it should be simple.

In my games, orcs fill the roll of "evil bad guy that you don't have to feel bad about killing because they're evil and will kill you if given the chance."  They're savage, animalistic, and brutish, and there really is not any peaceful contact between humans and orcs ever.  Thus the only ways a half-orc could be received is by rape, either in a raid by one side on the other, or if slaves are taken.  It's a squicky idea, so it's not really something we've ever wanted to dwell on in the game, and the point is understood but not really discussed.  Half-orcs are also exceedingly rare, so again it doesn't come up much.

If you want a more nuanced orc in your game, sure, there are a lot of possibilities.  But going the traditional route there is no reason to make it complicated at all.

Agree. The existence of half-orcs and the implied origins are consistent with the idea that the default AD&D world is a pretty dark and savage place.

Also, just because half-orcs are a character race option doesn't mean there need to be loads of them. I kind of like the idea of playing the only half-orc most people will ever see.

There is likely to be a lot of prejudice among humans obviously. Not just because orc=ugh, but because a half-orc is a walking, talking reminder of that time the defences didn't hold, and that they might not hold next time.

Quote from: nDervish;1126216"Vore" as in "carnivore".  A fetish for imagining that you're being eaten alive, frequently involving gigantic women who are large enough to pop your entire body into their mouth like an M&M and swallow you whole.

And the world just got a little bit stranger, again. Although I half-suspect this is some urban dictionary made up shit rather than a fetish any person actually has.

Quote from: Marchand;1126388Although I half-suspect this is some urban dictionary made up shit rather than a fetish any person actually has.

Seems active enough on Fetlife, this is one of about 60 groups devoted to the topic:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4253[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Zalman;1126392Seems active enough on Fetlife, this is one of about 60 groups devoted to the topic:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4253[/ATTACH]

This is either proof that;

A) there are enough fucked up humans that we don't need orcs or goblins, just groups of fucked up humans.

B) that consensual human/orc relations happen regardless of how monstrous the orcs are because there are enough fucked up humans to make it happen regardless.

C) both.

Quote from: Chris24601;1126394This is either proof that;

A) there are enough fucked up humans that we don't need orcs or goblins, just groups of fucked up humans.

B) that consensual human/orc relations happen regardless of how monstrous the orcs are because there are enough fucked up humans to make it happen regardless.

C) both.

You forgot D) beergoggles.

You know what, nevermind.  Having read through it after Melan's original post, I proclaim this thread to be irredeemably stupid and unworthy of any engagement including my original response.

Questions for all the GMs!!

1) How do you feel about using human foes vs. monster foes?

2) Have you encountered any opposition by players regarding killing human foes?

3) Are any thoughts regarding the above questions game dependent? AKA, are there D&Disms at play that don't show up in other RPGs?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1126463Questions for all the GMs!!

1) How do you feel about using human foes vs. monster foes?

Foes are foes, it doesn't matter because it is a game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;11264632) Have you encountered any opposition by players regarding killing human foes?

Never. Then again, I play with people who have a strong grasp of reality or I don't play with them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;11264633) Are any thoughts regarding the above questions game dependent? AKA, are there D&Disms at play that don't show up in other RPGs?

Nope. You either get the difference between the Real World and a game or you don't.

Jeff's answers are accurate from my perspective and the vast majority of players I have encountered.  The potential exceptions have mostly been at conventions, and even then I could not state categorically that the players had a problem, only that I didn't get to know them well enough to say for sure whether some subtle clues would have emerged as a problem later.

Then there are the two exceptions that I know for a fact had serious problems, but those were not game related.  A game was just one of many ways in which the problems manifested themselves, including one guy who was not figuratively but in reality "off his meds"--and not capable of friendly social interaction even when on them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;11264631) How do you feel about using human foes vs. monster foes?

I use them all the time. Wherever it makes sense really. Elves (not drow), dwarves and even gnomes are also fait game. The group even refers to the latter as "gnomicide."

Quote2) Have you encountered any opposition by players regarding killing human foes?

Only when I'm a player, but then I generally regard fighting as a last resort regardless of system and my aversion to killing applies across species and because, as someone with the thinker motivation, live beings are more generally useful for problem-solving than dead ones. Mercy is also a useful bargaining tool and, if things go sideways in a civilized setting (or modern setting in general) battery is a lot easier to justify as self-defense to the authorities than homicide.

Quote3) Are any thoughts regarding the above questions game dependent? AKA, are there D&Disms at play that don't show up in other RPGs?

Slightly, but it's more thematic than specific to a given system. If there's an invasion or war going on then killing of the enemy becomes much more common. I actually find it more common in sci-fi/space opera settings where faceless mooks are part of the setting (ex. Stormtroopers) than fantasy actually. In mecha-focused games blowing up enemy capital ships with crews of thousands without a moment's regret is pretty common whether the opposing side is humans or bug-eyed monsters.

By contrast, lethality goes down to almost zero when I'm running a Star Trek game. "Set phasers to stun" and solving the problem du jour through non-violent means is a huge part of playing as a Starfleet officer. My Mage game set in the modern world also features very low lethality because dead bodies get attention and magic is such a flexible tool that enemies are rarely direct enough to lead to direct combat that often.

Traditional D&D dungeon crawls actually lean more towards the latter in my experience. You try for the positive outcome on the reaction rolls before you start a fight because allies are way more useful than a pile of dead bodies. An exchange between neutral parties is similarly a better outcome than combat most times too.

Killing whoever it is also feels way more justified when they attack first after you tried to negotiate in good faith.

Rape really doesn't have a place in PG-13 material anymore, something I actually agree with. Sexual Violence can be alluded to in such things, but going with it being a very real thing that happens in a setting kicks it up to a hard R in my opinion.

In which case, for standard most ages Appropriate Dungeons and Dragons you're basically left with two choices. Half-Orcs are rare and from voluntary coupling... Much like your Half-Elfs... and with the newer generation version of Orcs being more attractive than their predecessors, makes perfect sense... or just skip it all and make Orcs a playable race. Like Shadowrun and Earthdawn did decades ago.

This all comes back to the inclusion of Half-Orcs in Dungeons and Dragons being a poor choice in the first place. Because when they debuted in the Players Handbook back in 3rd edition... It was clear.. they came from Rape. Because Orcs were a nasty, brutish, and evil species.

Well, times have changed, and as I've stated before, I agree with this particular change... Rape really shouldn't be a front and center thing for a most ages appropriate game. So Half-Orcs can't come from rape. Which means, Orcs can't be a nasty, brutish, inherently evil species anymore...

Which means you've lost a great source of canon fodder baddies to plague PC's with.

Keep your evil half breeds to races people would willingly have sex with... Like, Sexy Drow, or Succubi/Inccubi in the case of Tieflings...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1126463Questions for all the GMs!!

1) How do you feel about using human foes vs. monster foes?

Foes are foes. I don't racially discriminate. Some human foes might be rapists too, though I don't regularly feature that in my games but it might be implied if applicable.

Quote from: Spinachcat;11264632) Have you encountered any opposition by players regarding killing human foes?

With the rare exception of players willing to RP proper good and/or pacifist PCs, they will mercilessly slaughter ANY foes regardless of race. Conversely, "Good RP" players will (in character) refuse to murder helpless foes, even if they're goblinoids.

Quote from: Spinachcat;11264633) Are any thoughts regarding the above questions game dependent? AKA, are there D&Disms at play that don't show up in other RPGs?

Not really, as far as I can tell. Players will behave as previously stated regardless of game system. Even if the system discourages killing.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126491Rape really doesn't have a place in PG-13 material anymore, something I actually agree with. Sexual Violence can be alluded to in such things, but going with it being a very real thing that happens in a setting kicks it up to a hard R in my opinion.

In which case, for standard most ages Appropriate Dungeons and Dragons you're basically left with two choices. Half-Orcs are rare and from voluntary coupling... Much like your Half-Elfs... and with the newer generation version of Orcs being more attractive than their predecessors, makes perfect sense... or just skip it all and make Orcs a playable race. Like Shadowrun and Earthdawn did decades ago.

This all comes back to the inclusion of Half-Orcs in Dungeons and Dragons being a poor choice in the first place. Because when they debuted in the Players Handbook back in 3rd edition... It was clear.. they came from Rape. Because Orcs were a nasty, brutish, and evil species.

Well, times have changed, and as I've stated before, I agree with this particular change... Rape really shouldn't be a front and center thing for a most ages appropriate game. So Half-Orcs can't come from rape. Which means, Orcs can't be a nasty, brutish, inherently evil species anymore...

Which means you've lost a great source of canon fodder baddies to plague PC's with.

Keep your evil half breeds to races people would willingly have sex with... Like, Sexy Drow, or Succubi/Inccubi in the case of Tieflings...

I don't necessarily mind allusions to rape as much, cuz we're dealing with games where PCs and NPCs outright murder people on a regular basis and to me murder will always be worse than rape (cuz it demonstrably is) regardless of social attitudes towards it. But I can see why people might be wary of featuring rape in a game targeting children and I probably wouldn't include it in a session with kids present. Though, I mostly agree, specially about Half-Orc PCs being a bad idea in the first place.

My take has always been that the entire existence of Half-Orcs revolves around giving players a watered down version of orcs, cuz the designers didn't want to allow full orcs as a PCs race despite there being a demand for it. I would much rather allow players play an actual orc than to beat around the bush with watered down races when I know that what players really want to play is an actual orc. If drow can be PCs then so should full blooded orcs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1126463Questions for all the GMs!!

1) How do you feel about using human foes vs. monster foes?

2) Have you encountered any opposition by players regarding killing human foes?

3) Are any thoughts regarding the above questions game dependent? AKA, are there D&Disms at play that don't show up in other RPGs?

My players regularly encounter human (and other assorted PC races, but generally >75% human) foes. They have no issues killing them when engaged in battle, but they are hesitant about premeditated intrusions into their "lairs" with intent to do wanton slaughter (including of non-combatants). In the latter cases, they are far more likely to try to come up with non-violent solutions than they would be if the foes were of the typically monstrous races.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126491This all comes back to the inclusion of Half-Orcs in Dungeons and Dragons being a poor choice in the first place. Because when they debuted in the Players Handbook back in 3rd edition... It was clear.. they came from Rape. Because Orcs were a nasty, brutish, and evil species.

Half-orc was a race choice at least as far back as AD&D 1e. I never played one until a 2e game (he was a deserter from the Greyhawk Wars), but they were around long before 3e.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1126503Half-orc was a race choice at least as far back as AD&D 1e. I never played one until a 2e game (he was a deserter from the Greyhawk Wars), but they were around long before 3e.

2e actually got rid of half orcs, they came back in 3e.

Quote from: S'mon;11265112e actually got rid of half orcs, they came back in 3e.

They most certainly existed in 2e. While the 2e PHB (1989) doesn't list them as a PC choice, it does mention them a few times. The stats for PC half-orcs that we used came from the Skills & Powers (1995) book, which was a late 2e product. The Complete Book of Humanoids (1993) also had a very similar PC half-orc.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1126514They most certainly existed in 2e. While the 2e PHB (1989) doesn't list them as a PC choice, it does mention them a few times. The stats for PC half-orcs that we used came from the Skills & Powers (1995) book, which was a late 2e product. The Complete Book of Humanoids (1993) also had a very similar PC half-orc.

True, but I think that the point is that they weren't a standard PC race in 2e and you needed special optional supplements (that came out years after the 2e PHB and needed DM permission) to even get stats for them. But they came back as a standard PC race in 3e due to popular demand.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126516True, but I think that the point is that they weren't a standard PC race in 2e and you needed special optional supplements (that came out years after the 2e PHB and needed DM permission) to even get stats for them. But they came back as a standard PC race in 3e due to popular demand.

The point was that they existed well before 3e. That they existed in 2e is also true regardless of the particular book that their rules appear in.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1126503Half-orc was a race choice at least as far back as AD&D 1e. I never played one until a 2e game (he was a deserter from the Greyhawk Wars), but they were around long before 3e.

Notice I said the Player's Handbook, and not some extra supplement. They weren't in the 2e Player's Handbook, and I don't recall them being in most of the previous ones. But then, I didn't personally own any of the various 1st edition Player's handbooks. But they weren't there in 2e.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126516True, but I think that the point is that they weren't a standard PC race in 2e and you needed special optional supplements (that came out years after the 2e PHB and needed DM permission) to even get stats for them. But they came back as a standard PC race in 3e due to popular demand.

Yes.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126525Notice I said the Player's Handbook, and not some extra supplement. They weren't in the 2e Player's Handbook, and I don't recall them being in most of the previous ones. But then, I didn't personally own any of the various 1st edition Player's handbooks. But they weren't there in 2e.

So you deliberately skipped AD&D 1e? You probably should have made that omission clear.

One really simple and realistic source for half orcs is a recessive gene.  One in four or one in eight orcs is born just a little more human.  There isn't really any human DNA involved, just a quirk of the genome.

Quote from: David Johansen;1126531One really simple and realistic source for half orcs is a recessive gene.  One in four or one in eight orcs is born just a little more human.  There isn't really any human DNA involved, just a quirk of the genome.

So something like the way a small number of sahuagin look like sea elves despite not having any actual sea elf blood in them (unless it's in their bellies after feasting on sea elf flesh)?

It could also be the result of a disease. Orcs that eat human flesh or perhaps those that are simply around them for too long might have a chance of giving birth to half-orcs without ever actually breeding with humans. Now the orcs try to quickly kill humans or drive them away because they are an existential threat.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1126532So something like the way a small number of sahuagin look like sea elves despite not having any actual sea elf blood in them (unless it's in their bellies after feasting on sea elf flesh)?

It could also be the result of a disease. Orcs that eat human flesh or perhaps those that are simply around them for too long might have a chance of giving birth to half-orcs without ever actually breeding with humans. Now the orcs try to quickly kill humans or drive them away because they are an existential threat.

Or, conversely, orcs are the result of habitual human cannibalism. Half-orcs are the recessive human genetics expressing.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1126519The point was that they existed well before 3e. That they existed in 2e is also true regardless of the particular book that their rules appear in.

I don't dispute that on principle, but I was talking more about "the point" that the S'mon and Orphan81 were trying to make. I also think that you're taking the word "exist" more literally than was intended and Orphan81 missed the inclusion of the race in earlier editions cuz he didn't have the books (a honest mistake). No one is completely denying the existence of half-orcs in general, but rather pointing out that they weren't always a standard race, so their presence as a persistent standard PC race wasn't codified as part of the system till later editions.

So this whole topic didn't really become an issue till then. Before that half-orcs were mostly an oddity or relegated to a Monster Manual entry intended as enemy encounters.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126534I don't dispute that on principle, but I was talking more about "the point" that the S'mon and Orphan81 were trying to make. I also think that you're taking the word "exist" more literally than was intended and Orphan81 missed the inclusion of the race in earlier editions cuz he didn't have the books (a honest mistake). No one is completely denying the existence of half-orcs in general, but rather pointing out that they weren't always a standard race, so their presence as a persistent standard PC race wasn't codified as part of the system till later editions.

So this whole topic didn't really become an issue till then. Before that half-orcs were mostly an oddity or relegated to a Monster Manual entry intended as enemy encounters.

Greetings!

My friend, I must respectfully disagree with you here. Half Orcs go all the way back--firmly--to AD&D 1E. There were rules for including them as Player Characters both in the rule books--as well as Dragon Magazine. In addition, Half Orc characters were *always* very popular, not merely an oddity or kept locked away as opponents within the Monster Manual. I remember many players eagerly wanting to play Half Orc Fighter/Thieves, Fighters, and occasionally, Assassins.

And the moralistic crying about the "origins of the Half Orc" is a much over-blown hysteria. Even myself, and many people I played with at the time--as we were mostly 10-12 years old at the time, we had no problem embracing the idea that Half Orcs came from rape, or also likely, from small communities of Half Orcs, usually living in independent communities in the wilderness, or as minority sub-cultures within larger Human settlements. It wasn't a cause for hysteria and gnashing of teeth, or some other "problematic" navel-gazing, as we see so much with the SJW morons nowadays.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126534I don't dispute that on principle, but I was talking more about "the point" that the S'mon and Orphan81 were trying to make. I also think that you're taking the word "exist" more literally than was intended and Orphan81 missed the inclusion of the race in earlier editions cuz he didn't have the books (a honest mistake). No one is completely denying the existence of half-orcs in general, but rather pointing out that they weren't always a standard race, so their presence as a persistent standard PC race wasn't codified as part of the system till later editions.

So this whole topic didn't really become an issue till then. Before that half-orcs were mostly an oddity or relegated to a Monster Manual entry intended as enemy encounters.

But again, in 1E, they were a standard race listed alongside the others. And 1E was the game that a ton of people grew up on, since D&D's peak popularity for a long time was in the early 1980s. This was the player races illustration from the Player's Handbook:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4255[/ATTACH]

They were clearly standard, not differentiated at all from the other four PC races. They were not a sidebar, and were listed alongside in all the race tables.

I could see an argument that they were the least popular of the five PC races, but they existed and were standard in 1E.

Quote from: jhkim;1126536I could see an argument that they were the least popular of the five PC races, but they existed and were standard in 1E.

Gnomes... they don't even make it into the picture!

Neither do halflings, but they've always been one of the Big Four.

@SHARK and jhkim

I'm aware of half-orcs in 1e and was talking more specifically about 2e in that last post, but this side discussion has gotten fragmented over multiple post between multiple posters. Half-orcs were standard in 1e (Orphan81 didn't know in the post that kicked off this side discussion, which contributed to the confusion) but were removed by 2e and didn't come back to stay till 3e. That's why I used the qualifier "persistent" at some point in my last post, to indicate that half-orcs didn't become a standard race that stuck around edition after edition ("persistent") till 3e+. So it really wasn't codified as a standard race everyone expected to always be part of the game till then.

Quote from: SHARK;1126535And the moralistic crying about the "origins of the Half Orc" is a much over-blown hysteria. Even myself, and many people I played with at the time--as we were mostly 10-12 years old at the time, we had no problem embracing the idea that Half Orcs came from rape, or also likely, from small communities of Half Orcs, usually living in independent communities in the wilderness, or as minority sub-cultures within larger Human settlements. It wasn't a cause for hysteria and gnashing of teeth, or some other "problematic" navel-gazing, as we see so much with the SJW morons nowadays.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

This was my experience as well. Everyone I played with when I got into the game was a teen and no one lost sleep over the idea that most half-orcs were most likely the product of rape. Hysteria around it seems to be a recent phenomenon. I mean, our characters murder and maim, or at the very least have to deal with murder and maiming and cannibalism, etc. from enemy monsters, but rape specifically is what people want to make a non-topic like it's worse?

Quote from: jhkim;1126536But again, in 1E, they were a standard race listed alongside the others. And 1E was the game that a ton of people grew up on, since D&D's peak popularity for a long time was in the early 1980s. This was the player races illustration from the Player's Handbook:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4255[/ATTACH]

They were clearly standard, not differentiated at all from the other four PC races. They were not a sidebar, and were listed alongside in all the race tables.

I could see an argument that they were the least popular of the five PC races, but they existed and were standard in 1E.

Sure.

Anecdotally even as a teen back then - literally no one I knew assumed that the product of Half-Orcs *weren't potentially* by rape. I had a couple of players that played Half-Orcs a lot, and they always assumed that but it didn't stop them from roleplaying it, and invariably they would have stronger connections to their human mothers (interestingly I've never had a player have a human father - which obviously underscores those assumptions.

My years of running games at conventions, no one batted any eye at that assumption - because it doesn't define the character. Just like your skin color, and sex don't define the character of the character. Do they inform the circumstances under which a player approaches playing the character? sure - but that's on the player. Nowhere does it implicitly state that you have to product of rape, but given the assumptions about what orcs are, and how they operate, it takes zero intelligence to make that leap. I have *no idea* why this is controversial unless a person is bringing their own hangups into the game, including their own inherent racist projections and biases (which includes idiotic narratives like "orcs are clearly analogs of blacks" and stupid shit like that), and so we're clear - I'm not saying you are saying that jhkim, I'm speaking to the narrative of this stupid thread.

And then there is the ignorance of the conceits of the setting - nothing stops a player and GM from concocting some scenario where a human is somehow in love with an orc and layed an egg which hatched into your character. But that would be highly circumstantial and equally fine.

Would people be having this discussion with Warhammer Fungus Orks? Seems like a whole lotta projecting is going on that has nothing to do with the act of gaming and make-believe for the purposes of having this thing called "fun".

Because no one is getting raped. No one is getting murdered. No one is having anything done to them. It's a game. The fact I need to spell it out should be an indicator of how psychologically unstable people have become. I'm going to start calling these numbskulls "Hanks"... stop playing Mazes&Monsters, you Hanks out there.

Quote from: jhkim;1126536But again, in 1E, they were a standard race listed alongside the others. And 1E was the game that a ton of people grew up on, since D&D's peak popularity for a long time was in the early 1980s. This was the player races illustration from the Player's Handbook:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4255[/ATTACH]

They were clearly standard, not differentiated at all from the other four PC races. They were not a sidebar, and were listed alongside in all the race tables.

I could see an argument that they were the least popular of the five PC races, but they existed and were standard in 1E.

I think you and HappyDaze here are probably blinded by your age and need to take your Grognard glasses off. I'm only 38, I played 1st ed D&D when I was like 12, and I remember the specific version of 1e I played at the time, didn't have Half-Orc as a playable race. It had Elf and dwarf as it's own separate class. Next for me was D&D 2e... which specifically didn't have Half-Orcs as a playable race..

So I'd hazard to say, for most D&D players out there right now around my age group... We never saw Half-Orc as being a viable option. It was something new and different that 3rd Ed touted as a feature back in 99/00 when it released. And it was cool and edgy to my 18 year old self.

Flash forward a couple decades later. Having a character race based entirely on rape, is not a good idea for something you're trying to sell as a main-stream product. Yes, I agree with Tenbones, it's all a game, it's all pretend. But D&D is the "Marvel" of roleplaying games. It's meant to be appropriate for most ages, it's meant to be something you can bring the kids in to play... Yes you can have settings and supplements that are meant for a more mature audience.... But selling wise, right out of the box.. the Book Mom and Dad can buy for 12 year old Johnny and Suzy to try out RPG is probably going to go further in this day and age with a race that doesn't have RAPE as the primary reason for it's existence.

Don't get me wrong. Werewolf the Apocalpyse was my introduction to RPGs... but you can bet your ass if my Mom had actually *KNOWN* about the content in Werewolf, she probably wouldn't have been very happy about it. Just as if I had kids, I probably wouldn't want them to play WoD games until they were about 16 or so.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126542I think you and HappyDaze here are probably blinded by your age and need to take your Grognard glasses off. I'm only 38, I played 1st ed D&D when I was like 12, and I remember the specific version of 1e I played at the time, didn't have Half-Orc as a playable race. It had Elf and dwarf as it's own separate class. Next for me was D&D 2e... which specifically didn't have Half-Orcs as a playable race..

So I'd hazard to say, for most D&D players out there right now around my age group... We never saw Half-Orc as being a viable option. It was something new and different that 3rd Ed touted as a feature back in 99/00 when it released. And it was cool and edgy to my 18 year old self.

Flash forward a couple decades later. Having a character race based entirely on rape, is not a good idea for something you're trying to sell as a main-stream product. Yes, I agree with Tenbones, it's all a game, it's all pretend. But D&D is the "Marvel" of roleplaying games. It's meant to be appropriate for most ages, it's meant to be something you can bring the kids in to play... Yes you can have settings and supplements that are meant for a more mature audience.... But selling wise, right out of the box.. the Book Mom and Dad can buy for 12 year old Johnny and Suzy to try out RPG is probably going to go further in this day and age with a race that doesn't have RAPE as the primary reason for it's existence.

Don't get me wrong. Werewolf the Apocalpyse was my introduction to RPGs... but you can bet your ass if my Mom had actually *KNOWN* about the content in Werewolf, she probably wouldn't have been very happy about it. Just as if I had kids, I probably wouldn't want them to play WoD games until they were about 16 or so.

Your lack of accurate knowledge is no reason for me to take off my "grognard glasses."

Quote from: HappyDaze;1126543Your lack of accurate knowledge is no reason for me to take off my "grognard glasses."

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4256[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Orphan81;1126542I think you and HappyDaze here are probably blinded by your age and need to take your Grognard glasses off. I'm only 38, I played 1st ed D&D when I was like 12, and I remember the specific version of 1e I played at the time, didn't have Half-Orc as a playable race. It had Elf and dwarf as it's own separate class. Next for me was D&D 2e... which specifically didn't have Half-Orcs as a playable race..

So I'd hazard to say, for most D&D players out there right now around my age group... We never saw Half-Orc as being a viable option. It was something new and different that 3rd Ed touted as a feature back in 99/00 when it released. And it was cool and edgy to my 18 year old self.

Flash forward a couple decades later. Having a character race based entirely on rape, is not a good idea for something you're trying to sell as a main-stream product. Yes, I agree with Tenbones, it's all a game, it's all pretend. But D&D is the "Marvel" of roleplaying games. It's meant to be appropriate for most ages, it's meant to be something you can bring the kids in to play... Yes you can have settings and supplements that are meant for a more mature audience.... But selling wise, right out of the box.. the Book Mom and Dad can buy for 12 year old Johnny and Suzy to try out RPG is probably going to go further in this day and age with a race that doesn't have RAPE as the primary reason for it's existence.

Don't get me wrong. Werewolf the Apocalpyse was my introduction to RPGs... but you can bet your ass if my Mom had actually *KNOWN* about the content in Werewolf, she probably wouldn't have been very happy about it. Just as if I had kids, I probably wouldn't want them to play WoD games until they were about 16 or so.

Greetings!

Hmmm. Orphan81, you and your friends must have been playing with copies of some OD&D books, which surfaced after AD&D 1E. OD&D originally was produced for awhile before AD&D 1E. OD&D had *Races as classes*--whereas AD&D 1E did not. AD&D 1E had clearly defined classes, and separate races. Of the official races for player characters in AD&D 1E was the Half Orc--as Jhkim shows in the character races graphic, from the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Orphan81, you probably should have just said "I didn't know half-orc PCs were from the 1e PHB. Thank you for the clarification."

Quote from: SHARK;1126545Greetings!

Hmmm. Orphan81, you and your friends must have been playing with copies of some OD&D books, which surfaced after AD&D 1E. OD&D originally was produced for awhile before AD&D 1E. OD&D had *Races as classes*--whereas AD&D 1E did not. AD&D 1E had clearly defined classes, and separate races. Of the official races for player characters in AD&D 1E was the Half Orc--as Jhkim shows in the character races graphic, from the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Oh you're most certainly correct... But it illustrates how "Younger" Guys like me, had mainly seen 2E as our primary originating D&D where Half-Orcs weren't originally playable.. Alongside with OD&D as well.

Which again, as the discussion is going, is not the point anymore. The point is, in this day and age, Half Orc works less and less as originally intended for a most ages appropriate product. There was also a long stretch of time the 2nd edition era, where they apparently thought putting the Half-Orc race in as a standard character race probably wasn't a good idea either.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having a Half-Orc race in a more Witcher/GoT style maturity level... But not something you wanna have in your LotR intro Fantasy Adventure series the kids can play. At least not, as they were originally written.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1126539@SHARK and jhkim

I'm aware of half-orcs in 1e and was talking more specifically about 2e in that last post, but this side discussion has gotten fragmented over multiple post between multiple posters. Half-orcs were standard in 1e (Orphan81 didn't know in the post that kicked off this side discussion, which contributed to the confusion) but were removed by 2e and didn't come back to stay till 3e. That's why I used the qualifier "persistent" at some point in my last post, to indicate that half-orcs didn't become a standard race that stuck around edition after edition ("persistent") till 3e+. So it really wasn't codified as a standard race everyone expected to always be part of the game till then.



This was my experience as well. Everyone I played with when I got into the game was a teen and no one lost sleep over the idea that most half-orcs were most likely the product of rape. Hysteria around it seems to be a recent phenomenon. I mean, our characters murder and maim, or at the very least have to deal with murder and maiming and cannibalism, etc. from enemy monsters, but rape specifically is what people want to make a non-topic like it's worse?

Greetings!

Excellent, my friend! Yeah, definitely some good times! I understand what you were saying now. Weird how 2nd Edition waffled on the Half Orcs, huh?

I don't understand what all the moralistic hysteria is with these folk about the origins of the Half Orc. Half Orcs don't always come from *rape*--there are assumed to be populations of Half Orcs that get together.

And beyond that, what is with these folk's crying? Some Half Orcs come from rape. AND? When we were 10, 12 years old, we understood what Half Orc's background *often* entailed--and we weren't traumatized by such knowledge. Have a drink my friend! I'm fixing to light up a pipe of fine tobacco.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Orphan81;1126542I think you and HappyDaze here are probably blinded by your age and need to take your Grognard glasses off. I'm only 38, I played 1st ed D&D when I was like 12, and I remember the specific version of 1e I played at the time, didn't have Half-Orc as a playable race. It had Elf and dwarf as it's own separate class. Next for me was D&D 2e... which specifically didn't have Half-Orcs as a playable race..

The specific edition you're referring (with non-human races treated as "classes") was Basic D&D, which predates Advanced D&D 1e. The AD&D line was a split in system rules that occurred early on due to creative differences between the game's creators (Dave Arneson & Gary Gygax) leading to much confusion, which is why by 3e (with the original creators out of the picture) Wizards of the Coast dropped the "Advanced" from the label and simply marketed all editions of the game as D&D (they're all technically AD&D and Basic never got further editions). But AD&D 1e itself had half-orcs, while Basic and AD&D 2e didn't, hence the confusions we're dealing with now.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126547Oh you're most certainly correct... But it illustrates how "Younger" Guys like me, had mainly seen 2E as our primary originating D&D where Half-Orcs weren't originally playable.. Alongside with OD&D as well.

Which again, as the discussion is going, is not the point anymore. The point is, in this day and age, Half Orc works less and less as originally intended for a most ages appropriate product. There was also a long stretch of time the 2nd edition era, where they apparently thought putting the Half-Orc race in as a standard character race probably wasn't a good idea either.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having a Half-Orc race in a more Witcher/GoT style maturity level... But not something you wanna have in your LotR intro Fantasy Adventure series the kids can play. At least not, as they were originally written.

Greetings!

Thank you, Orphan81. I can see why some adults might be uncomfortable with Half Orcs in a high fantasy or LOTR style campaign with little kiddies playing in the group.

However, my friend, that begs the question, how did 10 and 12 year old kids understand Half Orcs and their frequent origin circumstances--and play AD&D 1E for many years without being traumatized or swallowed up in such concerns before 2E came on the scene?

Since you are a *bit* younger--I realize 2E is your first main game--but 2E also was gripped by *concern hysteria* at the management level back then. They took out Demons, Devils, Half Orcs, and a whole lot more from the original AD&D 1E--including making new art assignments that often made the creatures more cartoon-like; all in efforts to make then-hysterical middle-class mommies happy.

Long before 2E and their raft of parent-pleasing changes--for *years*--we had the original rules, with the terrible Half Orcs, Assassins, poisons, and whole legions of demons, devils, vampires, and all manner of savage and bloodthirsty monsters. We also got to constantly look at wondrous black & white art in the Monster Manual of naked Succubi, and Erinyes demonesses! So much was there that could have corrupted our young minds, Orphan81!:D (I'm teasing you, my friend!)

If someone has sensitive, young kiddies playing, then self-censor away as much as you like, you know? Such campaigns are fine being Rated G. However, I know many, many 10 and 12 year olds, as well as older adolescents, that handled original AD&D just fine.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1126550Greetings!

Thank you, Orphan81. I can see why some adults might be uncomfortable with Half Orcs in a high fantasy or LOTR style campaign with little kiddies playing in the group.

However, my friend, that begs the question, how did 10 and 12 year old kids understand Half Orcs and their frequent origin circumstances--and play AD&D 1E for many years without being traumatized or swallowed up in such concerns before 2E came on the scene?

Since you are a *bit* younger--I realize 2E is your first main game--but 2E also was gripped by *concern hysteria* at the management level back then. They took out Demons, Devils, Half Orcs, and a whole lot more from the original AD&D 1E--including making new art assignments that often made the creatures more cartoon-like; all in efforts to make then-hysterical middle-class mommies happy.

Long before 2E and their raft of parent-pleasing changes--for *years*--we had the original rules, with the terrible Half Orcs, Assassins, poisons, and whole legions of demons, devils, vampires, and all manner of savage and bloodthirsty monsters. We also got to constantly look at wondrous black & white art in the Monster Manual of naked Succubi, and Erinyes demonesses! So much was there that could have corrupted our young minds, Orphan81!:D (I'm teasing you, my friend!)

If someone has sensitive, young kiddies playing, then self-censor away as much as you like, you know? Such campaigns are fine being Rated G. However, I know many, many 10 and 12 year olds, as well as older adolescents, that handled original AD&D just fine.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm in agreement with you that I know a number of adolescents capable of handling subject matter like that... And in particular, I know most of us in that period never went into gratuity about it. My argument is more about how society currently views things, and as D&D is the flagship of the RPG industry, it is sadly the one that has to stand up to certain amounts of unreasonable scrutiny. It's much like you mentioned with 2nd edition, and how it was sanitized from all the "Demonic" elements in order to survive the Satanic Panic that happened in the 80s..

And you can completely bet, I thought D&D was to "Kiddy" and "For Babies" compared to say... Whitewolf games when I was in my early teens... and celebrated the return of all the Demons and Devils when 3rd edition came out... But I was also a kid, and kids are dumb. I didn't understand that it wasn't about making sure to not warp the minds of children... but it was trying to survive the scrutiny of pearl clutchers as much as possible.  

Now, I am against censorship in all it's forms... (And here comes the But that can be pointed at to say, "no you aren't!) But, D&D standing as the flagship representative to the public...helps out the rest of the industry by being the most ready to pass the inspection of the normie and mainstream going public.

This is where 3rd party supplements, the OSR and other games come in. To fill the role of subject matter D&D tends to avoid, as being the "diplomat" of the RPG industry. Just as an example, I find Forgotten Realms boring as hell... But it's the most kitchensink, generic, Tolkein knock off newbie friendly setting for Dungeons and Dragons. It exists to get them in the door... and from there the ones who want more can head to the specialty sections.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126491This all comes back to the inclusion of Half-Orcs in Dungeons and Dragons being a poor choice in the first place. Because when they debuted in the Players Handbook back in 3rd edition... It was clear.. they came from Rape. Because Orcs were a nasty, brutish, and evil species.

Well, times have changed, and as I've stated before, I agree with this particular change... Rape really shouldn't be a front and center thing for a most ages appropriate game. So Half-Orcs can't come from rape. Which means, Orcs can't be a nasty, brutish, inherently evil species anymore...

Quote from: jhkimBut again, in 1E, they were a standard race listed alongside the others. And 1E was the game that a ton of people grew up on, since D&D's peak popularity for a long time was in the early 1980s.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126542I think you and HappyDaze here are probably blinded by your age and need to take your Grognard glasses off. I'm only 38, I played 1st ed D&D when I was like 12, and I remember the specific version of 1e I played at the time, didn't have Half-Orc as a playable race. It had Elf and dwarf as it's own separate class. Next for me was D&D 2e... which specifically didn't have Half-Orcs as a playable race.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1126546Orphan81, you probably should have just said "I didn't know half-orc PCs were from the 1e PHB. Thank you for the clarification."

Exactly. Orphan81, you were wrong when you said that half-orcs debuted in 3rd edition. That's not some sort of capital crime -- you just happen to have missed AD&D 1st edition in your play experience. It sounds like an honest mistake, and it doesn't mean you're a bad person or anything.

However, you keep doubling down as if everyone else who corrected you is wrong. Accept the new piece of information, and revise your point a little. It's not the end of the world.

In general, it seems to me that there are many points of view here -- it's not just a simple us-vs-them. Posters have varying attitudes, from the OP to BoxCrayonTales to Orphan81 and many others.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126552I'm in agreement with you that I know a number of adolescents capable of handling subject matter like that... And in particular, I know most of us in that period never went into gratuity about it. My argument is more about how society currently views things, and as D&D is the flagship of the RPG industry, it is sadly the one that has to stand up to certain amounts of unreasonable scrutiny. It's much like you mentioned with 2nd edition, and how it was sanitized from all the "Demonic" elements in order to survive the Satanic Panic that happened in the 80s..

And you can completely bet, I thought D&D was to "Kiddy" and "For Babies" compared to say... Whitewolf games when I was in my early teens... and celebrated the return of all the Demons and Devils when 3rd edition came out... But I was also a kid, and kids are dumb. I didn't understand that it wasn't about making sure to not warp the minds of children... but it was trying to survive the scrutiny of pearl clutchers as much as possible.  

Now, I am against censorship in all it's forms... (And here comes the But that can be pointed at to say, "no you aren't!) But, D&D standing as the flagship representative to the public...helps out the rest of the industry by being the most ready to pass the inspection of the normie and mainstream going public.

This is where 3rd party supplements, the OSR and other games come in. To fill the role of subject matter D&D tends to avoid, as being the "diplomat" of the RPG industry. Just as an example, I find Forgotten Realms boring as hell... But it's the most kitchensink, generic, Tolkein knock off newbie friendly setting for Dungeons and Dragons. It exists to get them in the door... and from there the ones who want more can head to the specialty sections.

Greetings!

*laughing* Good stuff, Orphan81! "Kids are dumb...the scrutiny of pearl clutchers"!:D

You make a good argument for D&D being the "ambassador" game. 3rd party publishers can wait in the shadows, offering the good stuff! Oh yeah, you are so right, with Forgotten Realms being so sugary and sweet, so full of syrup that the mommies will love it!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Why does D&D need half-orcs when Palladium Fantasy, Tunnels & Trolls, Earthdawn, Shadowrun and many other RPGs just let you play Orcs as PCs?

Is it a nostalgia thing?

Is it a balance / contrast with half-elves?

I think the idea was that a half orc could manage to pass in human society while a full orc couldn't.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1126560Why does D&D need half-orcs when Palladium Fantasy, Tunnels & Trolls, Earthdawn, Shadowrun and many other RPGs just let you play Orcs as PCs?

Is it a nostalgia thing?

Is it a balance / contrast with half-elves?

Half-orcs come from Tolkien. Everything in the game originally had either a literary or historical source.

Quote"Are they men he has ruined or has he blended the races of orcs and men?"

-- Treebeard, The Two Towers

Orcs themselves are servants of Evil and they are corruptions, not natural living beings in their own right.

QuoteBut since they [orcs] are servants of the Dark Power, and later of Sauron, neither of whom could, or would, produce living things, they must be "corruptions".

-- Morgoth's Ring

The blending of orcs produces either stronger orcs or vile and cunning men (Morgoth's Ring, Part Five, Myths Transformed pp.418-9).

QuoteIt became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning. There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile."

-- JRR Tolkien

A playable orc, properly speaking, would just be a half-orc of some sort, since orcs themselves are "orc-minded" -- slaves. The human agency supplied by the player is what makes them half-orc and not wholly orc.

In terms of game mechanics, in AD&D half-orcs can multi-class as cleric/assassins or fighter/assassins, and their advancement in the assassin class is unlimited. Each demi-human race in that game has its own unique blend of character multi-class combinations.

Quote from: David Johansen;1126561I think the idea was that a half orc could manage to pass in human society while a full orc couldn't.

This. It's a mercy to the DM if playing to the presumptions of the setting, where orcs aren't well-liked.  It allows a player to get what they want out of the character without forcing the DM to throw them out of half the civilized places they're trying to get into for play purposes.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126542I think you and HappyDaze here are probably blinded by your age and need to take your Grognard glasses off. I'm only 38, I played 1st ed D&D when I was like 12, and I remember the specific version of 1e I played at the time, didn't have Half-Orc as a playable race. It had Elf and dwarf as it's own separate class. Next for me was D&D 2e... which specifically didn't have Half-Orcs as a playable race..

So I'd hazard to say, for most D&D players out there right now around my age group... We never saw Half-Orc as being a viable option. It was something new and different that 3rd Ed touted as a feature back in 99/00 when it released. And it was cool and edgy to my 18 year old self.

Nothing has changed about "Orcs" in "D&D" that changes the assumptions of "Half-Orcs" in D&D. If you made a "Half-Ogre" as a playable core race... what do your critical thinking skills assume about Ogres as you already understand them in D&D to *likely* be. Exactly.

Further - NOWHERE in D&D does it implicitly say it HAS to be that way. So why castigate everyone with the likely assumption and remove your own personal agency for CHOOSING otherwise at your table? Why impugn motive where precisely zero exists? I'll use your own claims against you...

Quote from: Orphan81;1126542Flash forward a couple decades later. Having a character race based entirely on rape, is not a good idea for something you're trying to sell as a main-stream product. Yes, I agree with Tenbones, it's all a game, it's all pretend. But D&D is the "Marvel" of roleplaying games. It's meant to be appropriate for most ages, it's meant to be something you can bring the kids in to play... Yes you can have settings and supplements that are meant for a more mature audience.... But selling wise, right out of the box.. the Book Mom and Dad can buy for 12 year old Johnny and Suzy to try out RPG is probably going to go further in this day and age with a race that doesn't have RAPE as the primary reason for it's existence.

And 5e STILL has Half-Orcs as a core race. And precisely NOTHING has changed. It doesn't mean that because they *might* be the product of rape they are, but since this is entirely independent of your choices as a player - it's moot. A GM can no more force your character to be the product of rape or incest, or anything else unpleasant to your sensibilities than you can conversely castigate the assumptions of a game based on no implicit mandate that doesn't exist. Tieflings are in the same boat. Why assume that Tieflings have had romantic concensual encounters rather than a Demon Gone Wild? It's PROBABLY a common thing. But it doesn't mean it has to.

Nor does it mean that because YOUR PC Half-orc is the product of a loving pair of trans-speciel parents - most other Half-orcs aren't the product of rape. If you're trying to justify the capacity to have rational and critical thought be expressed based on marketing needs... well you have some unspoken claims, that really aren't even part of the thread premise.

Quote from: Orphan81;1126542Don't get me wrong. Werewolf the Apocalpyse was my introduction to RPGs... but you can bet your ass if my Mom had actually *KNOWN* about the content in Werewolf, she probably wouldn't have been very happy about it. Just as if I had kids, I probably wouldn't want them to play WoD games until they were about 16 or so.

which corresponds to probably 99%(my bullshit fact) of all of us. My mom gave me the complete works of Sherlock Holmes at age 7 thinking I was going to be reading about a sleuth in a Deerslayer hat... my dad raised his eyebrows when I was asking him about cocaine and prostitutes. Somehow I survived those days of youth... /swwwwooooooon.

It occurs to me that it might all be the result of people (orcs and humans) lying on their dating profiles.

You know, I was looking through some old story notes for a superhero campaign and something occurred to me; aren't Hercules (and most of his heroic kin) and King Arthur also the "products of rape"?

How many totally normal and even heroic real people throughout history and today are the "products of rape" and yet manage to not be defined by it?

Rape isn't something exclusive to orcs. Having it as a character's backstory isn't exclusive to half-orcs.

Quote from: David Johansen;1126590It occurs to me that it might all be the result of people (orcs and humans) lying on their dating profiles.

"no hookups!!"

Quote from: Chris24601;1126592You know, I was looking through some old story notes for a superhero campaign and something occurred to me; aren't Hercules (and most of his heroic kin) and King Arthur also the "products of rape"?

How many totally normal and even heroic real people throughout history and today are the "products of rape" and yet manage to not be defined by it?

Rape isn't something exclusive to orcs. Having it as a character's backstory isn't exclusive to half-orcs.

Yes, of course. Early D&D also had naked boobies in some of the art. For a game that eventually got aimed at kids, and was sold in the kid's toy section of the Sears catalog, (not to mention the kid friendly cartoon and toy merchandising) it touched on some more "adult" themes from the literature that inspired it.

In my (1e) D&D campaign setting I toyed with the idea of allowing half-orcs, because my initial default was to accept as much as possible from the MM and the PHB and implied AD&D setting but at the end of the day, I ended up dumping them. Viable orc-human hybrids just weren't compatible with what I decided I wanted orcs to be (in my own setting, no broader judgement implied).

Effectively (again, in my own setting), they lacked the ahem apparatus to be capable of rape, let alone reproduction, with humans. Since they do love torturing sentient beings under their control, I suppose they could possibly violate them e.g. with a stick, or whatever, but obviously no half-orcs result from that.

And frankly, even that sort of rape has never come up in play. Because who wants that? Really?

 You know, thinking back to when I started playing rpgs in the 70s, as an early-teen boy, playing with a group of other early teens (mostly boys), who you'd think might be super-keen on introducing giggly potentially creepy sex-stuff into rp, we never did. However interested in sex we might have been (and cmon, young teens, hormones), nobody but nobody felt rping was a suitable venue for that. And who wanted to be "that guy?"

Quote from: tenbones;1125933Can we start a thread on the the evil of Monopoly and its insinuated goal of becoming a slumlord and all the crimes and shit associated with such places? OMG... this is like genocide!

Why is there only one game of Monopoly?

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1126569A playable orc, properly speaking, would just be a half-orc of some sort, since orcs themselves are "orc-minded" -- slaves. The human agency supplied by the player is what makes them half-orc and not wholly orc.

You've got to love Orcs and their Dark Lords. In my games, Orcs have a natural inclination to serve a Dark Lord, no matter what they would normally do.

Quote from: soltakss;1126637You've got to love Orcs and their Dark Lords. In my games, Orcs have a natural inclination to serve a Dark Lord, no matter what they would normally do.

Do you go with typically LE orcs then instead of the CE ones (assuming you use D&D alignments)?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1126625Yes, of course. Early D&D also had naked boobies in some of the art. For a game that eventually got aimed at kids, and was sold in the kid's toy section of the Sears catalog, (not to mention the kid friendly cartoon and toy merchandising) it touched on some more "adult" themes from the literature that inspired it.

I agree with the spirit of this, but there is a huge difference between naked boobies and rape.

Quote from: Zirunel;1126629And frankly, even that sort of rape has never come up in play. Because who wants that? Really?

You know, thinking back to when I started playing rpgs in the 70s, as an early-teen boy, playing with a group of other early teens (mostly boys), who you'd think might be super-keen on introducing giggly potentially creepy sex-stuff into rp, we never did. However interested in sex we might have been (and cmon, young teens, hormones), nobody but nobody felt rping was a suitable venue for that. And who wanted to be "that guy?"

I am similar. I played a fair amount of 1E D&D back during the 1980s as a teenager, and I don't recall any sort of rape to ever be discussed as part of the game. I don't think this was prudishness, and it wasn't deliberately avoiding the topic. Rather, we felt it didn't fit with the high fantasy genre. We had half-orc and half-ogre characters, but their family background was never considered. Partly, D&D deliberately has PCs created without parents -- compared to something like Pendragon or HarnMaster where your family background is important for the game.

I don't have a problem with groups deciding to have games where half-orcs often result from rape, but I think it's pretty reasonable and not overly prudish to avoid the subject in the core game.

Everyone knows half-orcs are delivered by half-storks.

Quote from: jhkim;1126656I agree with the spirit of this, but there is a huge difference between naked boobies and rape.

I disagree. I think there's a comparable difference between a half orc character having an unfortunate origin story involving rape, and playing out a rape at a table. The comparison would be having a boob in a module art, and having a module involve a detailed sex scene. And none of it would be appropriate for a saturday morning cartoon.

Can we accuse people that are whining about this as an "issue" of being "overly privileged" since I don't know of any person that actually gets to choose their Background in real life...

Quote from: jhkim;1126656I agree with the spirit of this, but there is a huge difference between naked boobies and rape.


I am similar. I played a fair amount of 1E D&D back during the 1980s as a teenager, and I don't recall any sort of rape to ever be discussed as part of the game. I don't think this was prudishness, and it wasn't deliberately avoiding the topic. Rather, we felt it didn't fit with the high fantasy genre. We had half-orc and half-ogre characters, but their family background was never considered. Partly, D&D deliberately has PCs created without parents -- compared to something like Pendragon or HarnMaster where your family background is important for the game.

I don't have a problem with groups deciding to have games where half-orcs often result from rape, but I think it's pretty reasonable and not overly prudish to avoid the subject in the core game.

Played AD&D back in the 80's as a teenager as well.   I don't remember any rape going on either.   Granted my wife (who was my girlfriend at the time) played with us during those years.... one would think that might have had something to do with it but the guys, which we still play with to this day, still got into trouble with the farmer's daughter or the local barmaid which sometimes turned out to be a vampire or a cultist.    It was my best friend, his little brother, another friend of ours and my girlfriend and later we added her little brother.   35+ years later we are still playing together.   So I guess we are doing something right :)

Over the years we gamed with strangers from time to time but it was mostly hit and miss.   Now days we just stick with friends and family.

As far as Half Orc's go..... In my world they are produced by Orc's being Orc's and all that entails.   Sometimes its by rape while other times its not.   Honestly there are so few times someone ever played a Half orc in all the years I have ran RPG's that I can count on one hand how many times someone has played one.  We are on our second half orc in 35 years.   Most of the people in our group seem to pick either Half elf, Elf or Human.   They are the most common races played followed by Dwarves, halflings and gnomes.    Hell even when we played Shadowrun, Orks wasn't something our group played.  Trolls sure but not Orks.   Earthdawn? Obsidianmen, trolls, humans, elves and windlings but no Orks.  

I think orc/ork could be deleted from being a playable race and the people at my table wouldn't even blink an eye.

Quote from: Vile;1126657Everyone knows half-orcs are delivered by half-storks.

Good one!

I have honestly never used Orcs when I GM'd any D&D related game. As a player, I have dealt with Orcs. Even in the current campaign, I play in.

My current character. Who is a demon. She actually trussed up some local bandits on a BBQ spit for a band of Orcs. The bandits had been playing darts with a pixie bound to the dartboard. And my demon character didn't like the bandits' behavior. She's lawful evil. And she saw what they did to the pixie as lacking any kind of honor.

As to where half-orcs come from? I would rather think of more pleasant things.

Half-orcs are dumb. If I'm running a certain kind of campaign, I'll just let people play orcs. Of course, usually I won't.

Playing a Half-Orc is not the same as playing an Orc.

Thats just gross.

Quote from: Shasarak;1126841Playing a Half-Orc is not the same as playing an Orc.

Thats just gross.

I agree.

Playing a Half-Orc is gross.

Full-blood Orcs FTW! :D

Quote from: soltakss;1126637You've got to love Orcs and their Dark Lords. In my games, Orcs have a natural inclination to serve a Dark Lord, no matter what they would normally do.

I don't use D&D alignment, but if I did they would be LE, generally. Even the CE ones would bend to the Dark Lord, in their own special way.

Quote from: soltakss;1126897I don't use D&D alignment, but if I did they would be LE, generally. Even the CE ones would bend to the Dark Lord, in their own special way.

So orks are extra bendy now? I always thought that was the role of elves.

Where do half-orcs come from? They come from regular orcs that had an encounter with an axe!

Quote from: David Johansen;1126531One really simple and realistic source for half orcs is a recessive gene.  One in four or one in eight orcs is born just a little more human.  There isn't really any human DNA involved, just a quirk of the genome.

Another fine addition to my collection of weird world ideas if I run a campaign again.

So where do half-elves come from?

Quote from: tenbones;1126926So where do half-elves come from?

A female elf rapes a human male cuz male elves were too busy doing each other to give her any. Then she leaves the unwanted half-breed child in human lands and sticks the guy with child support. :p

Quote from: soltakss;1126897I don't use D&D alignment, but if I did they would be LE, generally. Even the CE ones would bend to the Dark Lord, in their own special way.

Gygax confirmed when queried on the matter that the reason for LE orcs is a simple matter of survival for the smaller humanoids. To have a chance against competent PCs they must act as a group.

CE does not preclude serving a Dark Lord, it merely alters the manner of that service. Indeed, in the real world it is selfish pride that is the cornerstone of evil. What the game calls LG and CE are compared to each other by way of sheep and goats: The shepherd leads the sheep and protects them from the environment (note that modern sheep are stupider and fluffier than their ancient counterparts -- ancient sheep and goats were visually indistinguishable to non-shepherds), while the goatherd follows behind his herd and protects the environment from them. Sheep are loyal while goats are stubborn and do what they want. The CE Dark Lord (usually female in mythology, such as Tiamat and her monsters) merely follows behind his flock and laughs at the destruction and mayhem they cause.

On the origin of the half-orc; a treatise

Despite numerous distasteful rumors, half-orcs are, in fact, not the product of a union between an orc and human. Instead, they are the product of a very delicate yet extraordinary botanical happenstance.

There exists, in darker and cooler lands, a rare breed of large carnivorous plants. These plans blindly and instinctively lash out to consume the flesh of any passerby. They ostensibly grow near caravan roads and common trails, frequented by all sorts. The sharp leaves and mobile vines are so swift and powerful, most victims survive the assault however missing limbs and chunks. Normally, the flesh is then consumed within, as it rots naturally in the large trunk of the vicious plant.

On the occasion the meat of a human and orc are mingling in the miasmic pool of rot, a strange alchemical process takes place. The reaction kicks off quite abruptly, killing the carnivorous marauder, leaving only a tall hardened cocoon-like husk of the trunk. 12 hours later a fully grown albeit teenaged half-orc emerges. The gender being random and unpredictable.

All research of the greatest council of wizards has proven these creatures are fully flesh, and fully combined of the two species.

Unfortunately, slavers and ruffians watch for instances of these cocoons and often enslave the physically strong specimens for gladiatorial combat, hard labor or other less scrupulous matters. This lends to the common assertion that half-orcs tend to be evil or unscrupulous themselves. The truth however is more complicated.

As to the cause of this strange creation is anyone's guess. The wisest of our college are still studying the nature of both orcs and humans for clues.

Thandoren Fellumeen
Grand Master Wizard of the College of Magics

Quote from: trechriron;1126964On the origin of the half-orc; a treatise

Despite numerous distasteful rumors, half-orcs are, in fact, not the product of a union between an orc and human. Instead, they are the product of a very delicate yet extraordinary botanical happenstance.

There exists, in darker and cooler lands, a rare breed of large carnivorous plants. These plans blindly and instinctively lash out to consume the flesh of any passerby. They ostensibly grow near caravan roads and common trails, frequented by all sorts. The sharp leaves and mobile vines are so swift and powerful, most victims survive the assault however missing limbs and chunks. Normally, the flesh is then consumed within, as it rots naturally in the large trunk of the vicious plant.

On the occasion the meat of a human and orc are mingling in the miasmic pool of rot, a strange alchemical process takes place. The reaction kicks off quite abruptly, killing the carnivorous marauder, leaving only a tall hardened cocoon-like husk of the trunk. 12 hours later a fully grown albeit teenaged half-orc emerges. The gender being random and unpredictable.

All research of the greatest council of wizards has proven these creatures are fully flesh, and fully combined of the two species.

Unfortunately, slavers and ruffians watch for instances of these cocoons and often enslave the physically strong specimens for gladiatorial combat, hard labor or other less scrupulous matters. This lends to the common assertion that half-orcs tend to be evil or unscrupulous themselves. The truth however is more complicated.

As to the cause of this strange creation is anyone's guess. The wisest of our college are still studying the nature of both orcs and humans for clues.

Thandoren Fellumeen
Grand Master Wizard of the College of Magics

Ooooh. Clever. Although this also makes an excellent argument as to where some of the stranger entries in the Monster Manual come from.

Owlbears, for example.

Quote from: trechriron;1126964On the origin of the half-orc; a treatise

That's excellent! Kudos! Solid, fantastical and flavorful concept.

Documented evidence of how half-orcs happen. No Photoshop was involved!


(https://64.media.tumblr.com/b615148a1d012b81a7339f08ede69e61/aaa96ac97cc31cda-26/s2048x3072/48024977c28e73e541511da26ab6c3a10fba7966.jpg)

I'm late to the party - but did anyone post this one yet? (relevant bit in the last four panels) Any time some brings up the background of half-orcs it reminds me of this comic - which both touches on the raider/attack version as a trop, while also flipping it on its head.

https://i.giantitp.com//comics/oots/oots0555.gif

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on September 28, 2020, 04:14:08 PM
I'm late to the party - but did anyone post this one yet? (relevant bit in the last four panels) Any time some brings up the background of half-orcs it reminds me of this comic - which both touches on the raider/attack version as a trop, while also flipping it on its head.

https://i.giantitp.com//comics/oots/oots0555.gif (https://i.giantitp.com//comics/oots/oots0555.gif)

Here's another comic in a similar vein: https://mcnostril.tumblr.com/tagged/half-orc (https://mcnostril.tumblr.com/tagged/half-orc)

I think we have to face the real problem here.


Many orcs have problems being strong enough for orc women. These weaklings can only lift small stones and are weak hunters and weak fighters. So what do these weak orcs do? These orcs find human women and make babies with them. Babies have gross round ears, pathetic small tusks, sickly-green skin, and are not very strong, though stronger than wimpy humans.

Humans try to claim orcs take advantage of their disgusting-looking human women. I don't know why any real orc would want one of those things that can barely give birth to one baby at a time unless he had no other choice. What kind of warrior would an orc with human blood in his veins be? Sure some become shamans, and that's good for someone who can barely lift an orcish axe.


But overall, it just shows how humans like to blame other races for things they don't want to admit. The difference between an elf and a human is that the elf can't help lying. But the human, they do it for a reason.


--taken from the Words of Gronk, Hand of Gruumsh, battle captain of the Bloody Tusk orc tribe

half orcs are hybrids and thus manufactured in california.

Is it low standards, or high standards? Half-orcs are the mules of humanoids -- smarter and better-tempered from their human side, bigger and stronger from their orc parentage. Just as some people breed mules on purpose, mightn't someone see the advantages of a half-orc child?

And, hey, if you want to stick with the mule analogy more closely, it could be that the half-orcs we know of are bred of human males and orc females, whereas the opposite would be like the hinny, which instead gets the worst traits of both parents for some reason -- so those would be scrawny, ugly, meanies that probably don't see the light of day much.

Quote from: Zalman on October 01, 2020, 06:34:02 PM
Is it low standards, or high standards? Half-orcs are the mules of humanoids -- smarter and better-tempered from their human side, bigger and stronger from their orc parentage. Just as some people breed mules on purpose, mightn't someone see the advantages of a half-orc child?

And, hey, if you want to stick with the mule analogy more closely, it could be that the half-orcs we know of are bred of human males and orc females, whereas the opposite would be like the hinny, which instead gets the worst traits of both parents for some reason -- so those would be scrawny, ugly, meanies that probably don't see the light of day much.

In my campaign, I shamelessly ripped off The Grey Bastards where the Fire-Cult nation to the south has raised GENERATIONS of half-orcs as slaves... and has given some of them a land grant ... on someone else's land... to help keep the hobgoblins and other nations in check.

MOST half-orcs in my campaigns come from other half-orcs... even if as 'mules' they should be sterile.  The original half-orcs?  Rape.  There is no love between orcs and other races - orcs don't have art, hobbies, hell, even jobs - orcs don't produce anything, they TAKE.

My current campaign is going to be using Orog's as the 'baseline' orc... with the 1 HD version either not existing or as the slave caste, a la Warcraft.  More coolness I'm pinching from French (author of The Grey Bastards) they have no dogs, no horses and can't raise livestock - animals know a predator when the smell one.

On a side note, I've always been of a mind that if you want the 'noble savage' (which is a bullshit concept.   You're either a savage, or a tribal) use hobgoblins.  Strength and Honor: The Mighty Hobgoblins of Tellene is IMO the single best thing Kenzer and Co. ever put out.  It's a good read, and even if I don't care much for the hairy-chewbacca like sub-breed they created (uh, bugbears guys?  use bugbears), it's a damn fine book, that to muddy the waters further, introduces a half-hobgoblin.

When orcs ruled the land through conquest and had many human subjects, orc chieftains used the right of prima nocta to ensure that the resulting population generated was more orcish in outlook and appearance.

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 04, 2020, 08:28:22 AM
When orcs ruled the land through conquest and had many human subjects, orc chieftains used the right of prima nocta to ensure that the resulting population generated was more orcish in outlook and appearance.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Ahh, yes. Prima Nocta is damned right, Jeff! That's how it's done, my friend.

"Well, you see? If we can't drive them out, we'll breed them out! We shall use an old custom, Prima Nocta. That should get us a more Orcish population for us to rule over." ;D

I choked on my coffee laughing when I read your commentary there, Jeff. Fucking awesome, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I don't know where half-orcs come from, but in my (D&D) setting I know where they go: straight in the bin. I don't want them around, so they don't exist as NPCs or as PCs.