D&D General Why are "ugly evil orcs" so unpopular?

[Sacrosanct]

I have a very long and wordy response to the OP. That is:

Times change.

 

[Willie the Duck]

The movement away from unqualified alignment descriptors undermines that contention.

That's a positive trajectory. However, looking at the writeups in the MM and moreso Volo's, it's hard to call that a done deal.

 

[Charlaquin]

we don't want to be attracted to evil

You and I clearly hang out in different circles

 

[Charlaquin]

Tastes change? Over the course of decades.

BTW, weren't Jackson's ugly orcs pretty popular... oh god, that was 20 years ago, wasn't it?

It works in LotR because it’s a medium that’s consumed passively. The audience never has the opportunity to say “what if Aragorn just tried talking to the orcs?” and have the book/film actually answer that question.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A summary of my argument against orcs and similar beings such as goblins.

Orcs and other evil humanoids are very similar to humans, except that they are evil and possess other features falsely ascribed to people of colour. They can thus be improved by breaking this linkage between human and evil. Either keep their human aspects but give them human morality too or keep them evil but make them more inhuman in other ways – like vampires, demons, or constructs, for example.

What about other human-like monsters such as ogres? One reason I don't have a problem with D&D ogres is that they remain fairly true to their folkloric roots. Evil humanoids otoh are either wholly invented, such as gnolls, or, in the case of goblins and kobolds they are very different from the original stories. Originally these beings were spirits with magical powers, and they tended to be solitary.

The change to more human-like fairies, using the word in a broad sense to refer to many different kinds of fantastic beings, is something that seems to take place in the late 19th century, when euhemerist explanations for fairies were popular. Though they go back at least as far as the late 18th century. Carole G Silver, Strange and Secret Peoples (1999):

An early historical realist or euhemerist, he [Sir Walter Scott] thought the prototypes of the fairies were duergars, or dwarfs — distorted images of the early Lapps, Letts, and Finns, peoples who had inspired superstitious fears in the hearts of those who encountered them. He had probably derived this idea from Paul Henri Mallet's extremely popular book, Northern Antiquities (trans. 1770), specifically from the author's suggestion that the "Laplanders, who are still as famous for their magic, as remarkable for the lowness of their stature; pacific even to a degree of cowardice, but of a mechanic industry which formerly must have appeared very considerable."​

​

Aided by the new science of archaeology, euhemerism (the belief that myths and folk beliefs arise from actual historical persons or events) became a major explanation of fairy origins — raising issues related to Victorian ideas of race and empire. Were the originals of the fairies a lowly, perhaps aboriginal British tribe or were they a superior group who brought magical knowledge to those they invaded? The new euhemerism climaxed in the 1890s in David MacRitchie's once famous, now discredited "pygmy theory" of fairy origins.​

"Little people" euhemerism and its influence on Appendix N authors.
Robert E Howard and HP Lovecraft's understanding of the theory.

 

[Charlaquin]

To me there's an interesting parallel that's going on and that's the Drow. Drizzt in a lot of ways falls under the same umbrella as Worf son of Mogh. A member of an "evil" race that fights for good. And while we're moving towards 3 dimensions with the orcs, we don't seem to be doing the same thing with the drow. They're still evil, they still take slaves, and they're still worshiping Lloth.

No, it’s happening with drow too. The Lolth-worshipping, slave-taking drow of Menzoberanzan are now just one group of drow among many (well, among 3), most of which are not evil.

 

[Charlaquin]

At one point, people accused Tolkien of basing orcs on the Japanese.

It’s less “at one point” and more “currently.” It’s also less “based orcs on the Japanese” and more “utilized orientalist tropes in his depiction of orcs.” It’s also less “accused” and more “observed.”

 

[D1Tremere]

Like any monster, they can be made interesting. I really dislike PCs being monster races. But that's just my opinion and is therefore is correct for me.

Just as your opinion is for you!

As the player base has gotten older and perhaps more critical in their thinking, the question emerged "what exactly defines a monster race, and why are the PC races not?"

 

[Umbran]

That's a positive trajectory. However, looking at the writeups in the MM and moreso Volo's, it's hard to call that a done deal.

Nothing is ever a done deal. Even if they printed a 6e that had no mention of any alignment, that wouldn't prevent a return in 7e.

Creating and maintaining a better world is a struggle with entropy, and therefore never actually completed.

 

[Charlaquin]

I know a handful of people that are a little upset with gnolls being this editions 'designated extra-bad-guys' status

o/

There’s definitely more than just a handful of us. I think you’ll find the Venn diagram of folks who like Eberron and folks who want non-evil options for gnolls is very nearly a single circle.