all things orcish

[Wicht]

Now, completely disregard Tolkien's orks [sic] (the first link), they are flat, un-interesting and only exist for hero fodder in the books.

Have you read "The Two Towers?" I actually find the conflict between the various orcs in the band taking the hobbits to Saruman reflective of Tolkein giving his orcs quite a bit of culture and personality.

Likewise the orc grunts and their leaders in the pages of "The Return of the King" reflected quite well a military culture full of infighting, personal ambition, and a bit of cannibalistic opportunism. Warhammer orks, especially 40k, are very much derivative of the orcs found in "The Return of the King," though Tolkien's orcs were smarter and more cunning imo.

 

[Ragmon]

Have you read "The Two Towers?" I actually find the conflict between the various orcs in the band taking the hobbits to Saruman reflective of Tolkein giving his orcs quite a bit of culture and personality.

Likewise the orc grunts and their leaders in the pages of "The Return of the King" reflected quite well a military culture full of infighting, personal ambition, and a bit of cannibalistic opportunism. Warhammer orks, especially 40k, are very much derivative of the orcs found in "The Return of the King," though Tolkien's orcs were smarter and more cunning imo.

For the 2 towers comment, try this go re-read that part and ignore the parts where it says orc or urukhai, you wouldn't be able to tell if their orc or just some group of humans. At that point it will be like if their cultists, savages, cannibals or something.

If by culture you mean, "We come into this world fully grown and ready for battle, get some armore slapped on us, grabbing our weapons on the way to the battle field, and on our down time we try not to starve (occasional cannibalism), and we obey the Master". Yes I over simplified it, but that is all I got from Tolkiens writings.

Comparing Lotr and WH40k orks is like comparing a kinds drawing of an ork with a full blown fully illustrated game rule book for orks.
Yes we can say the orks are a derivative of the Tolkien orcs, but in that case we might as well start going back further in time, going back to Beowulf, old English texts and Nordic Mythology.
As I see it the WH40k ork is more of a D&D derevite, big, mean and green with 2 lower jaw teeth protruding and looking more bestial (Yea yea yea, the founders of D&D based most of the things off of Lotr).

On the smarter and more cunning. Really? Really? Medieval orcs are smarter then Space orks (just to point out they have a cast (or is is class?) system where there are doctors, surgeons, robotics experts and well so on).
More cunning? Don't think so their the same irrational killing machines, frontal assaults are still the best, and win by numbers with both types of orks, maybe and ambush or 2 just to mix things up.
As I said It can't be really compared, Tolkien didn't bother to write about his orc or detail them in such a fashion as the Workshop guy did with their orks. While Tolkien wrote them as enemies just like in D&D. The workshop guys wrote them as playable race, and spiced them up gave them depth, flavor, history they gave and uninteresting idea of Hero-fodder grunts from Tolkiens writing and D&D and gave them character.

Hmm, I guess that is my reasoning behind my previous post, about not wasting time with reading about the Tolkien orcs.

And no, I don't like the Lotr books, their slow, the movies did it justice by cutting out all the unnecessary stuff. To qoute the immortal Kurt Vonnegut: "Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action". On that note IMO the books were 2/3rds too long. But that is just me.

Umf, now that's a rant.... well I guess that is what happens when I get to talk about my favorite fantasy race.

PS: I tried to place the c-s and k-s on the end of the correct ork or orc i was talking about.

 

[Wicht]

For the 2 towers comment, try this go re-read that part and ignore the parts where it says orc or urukhai, you wouldn't be able to tell if their orc or just some group of humans. At that point it will be like if their cultists, savages, cannibals or something.

If by culture you mean, "We come into this world fully grown and ready for battle, get some armore slapped on us, grabbing our weapons on the way to the battle field, and on our down time we try not to starve (occasional cannibalism), and we obey the Master". Yes I over simplified it, but that is all I got from Tolkiens writings.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. You have vastly oversimplified the different cultures of orc-kind and have taken the movie version and pasted it onto the book version.

On the smarter and more cunning. Really? Really? Medieval orcs are smarter then Space orks (just to point out they have a cast (or is is class?) system where there are doctors, surgeons, robotics experts and well so on).
More cunning? Don't think so their the same irrational killing machines, frontal assaults are still the best, and win by numbers with both types of orks, maybe and ambush or 2 just to mix things up.

Yeah really.
(and it is caste)

Warhammer orks tend to be caricatures in the army books, as far as I can tell. Tolkiens orcs were articulate in their own fashion, had a sense of history, and simply strike me as having a little more depth to them. It may just be a personal opinion, but there it is. GW orks have no sense of history and they are fungal born with their culture implanted into them which drives them to behave in a rather linear fashion.

As I said It can't be really compared, Tolkien didn't bother to write about his orc or detail them in such a fashion as the Workshop guy did with their orks. While Tolkien wrote them as enemies just like in D&D. The workshop guys wrote them as playable race, and spiced them up gave them depth, flavor, history they gave and uninteresting idea of Hero-fodder grunts from Tolkiens writing and D&D and gave them character.

While I concede GW has produced many more books specifically about orcs than Tolkien, I still disagree with your perception of Tolkiens use of them as characters. Indeed character-wise, most GW orks seem to me much of a muchness, caricatures if I can use that word again. I don't see much difference in personality between any of the fungal creatures, despite their personal histories. Which is fine. GW orks are what they are and I like them for what they are. But I do think you do a disservice to Tolkien's actual use of orcs as individuals, with their own motivations, cultures, etc. They never struck me as being mere hero-fodder. Villains yes, meant to be defeated, but still characters in their own right, with their own history and culture.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

I thought Kenzer & Co did a pretty good job with Fury in the Wastelands: The Orcs of Tellene. The link is to their PDF store.

I'll add another vote for this book.
It's a very good write up of how a chaotic evil society works.
They wrote a bit about how newborns have to be separated from their mothers for a short while, because the mothers can get a bit too hungry...

 

[Imaro]

I decided to use Klingons form Star Trek (not the original series but those from the movies and beyond) as the basis for the Orcs under the Orc Lord in my 13th Age game...

EDIT: In other words my vote goes towards making your own version of orcs, and stealing liberally from any source (even non-orc ones) that piques your interest while doing so.

 

[Ragmon]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. You have vastly oversimplified the different cultures of orc-kind and have taken the movie version and pasted it onto the book version.
Yeah really.
(and it is caste)
Warhammer orks tend to be caricatures in the army books, as far as I can tell. Tolkiens orcs were articulate in their own fashion, had a sense of history, and simply strike me as having a little more depth to them. It may just be a personal opinion, but there it is. GW orks have no sense of history and they are fungal born with their culture implanted into them which drives them to behave in a rather linear fashion.
While I concede GW has produced many more books specifically about orcs than Tolkien, I still disagree with your perception of Tolkiens use of them as characters. Indeed character-wise, most GW orks seem to me much of a muchness, caricatures if I can use that word again. I don't see much difference in personality between any of the fungal creatures, despite their personal histories. Which is fine. GW orks are what they are and I like them for what they are. But I do think you do a disservice to Tolkien's actual use of orcs as individuals, with their own motivations, cultures, etc. They never struck me as being mere hero-fodder. Villains yes, meant to be defeated, but still characters in their own right, with their own history and culture.

Yes. Lets agree to disagree, and lets leave it at that.

 

[Dioltach]

Orcs with Cha 9 or less are rather orcward.

 

[Ragmon]

Orcs with Cha 9 or less are rather orcward.

Boooo, get off the forums!

 

[Rakusia]

i liked it it was very punny. good suggestions. we ended up going with a kinda predator type society just not advanced as much but its very much about the personal honor and proving your abilities

 

[Ell-Egypto]

Here's some names of Orcs in various campaigns I've seen:

• Tark Beefmarks
• Brangor Bloodaxe
• Azog Blackbane
• Omatup Heartbreaker
• Omarari Fangteef
• Nobneck Pushgog
• Omamays Geltrag
• Wiz-Wuz, goblin shaman