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

[DemoMonkey]

"if the main reasons they are identifiable as "a different species" are those historical stereotypes."

This is an interesting point. What are acceptable identifiers? Can you give an example of an acceptable short hand for "These are evil, you don't have to give them the first attack?"

 

[BookTenTiger]

"if the main reasons they are identifiable as "a different species" are those historical stereotypes."

This is an interesting point. What are acceptable identifiers? Can you give an example of an acceptable short hand for "These are evil, you don't have to give them the first attack?"

DM: You recognize these orcs as the ones who have been attacking the village. They wear the severed heads of villagers tied to their belts.

 

[ART!]

Tolkien himself wrote that orcs were: "squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types"

Mind you, he also made some clear statements against the racism of WWII Germany. So... it is complicated.

Looking at the wording there, Tolkien refers to what the average European thinks are the "least lovely Mongol-types", not his own perspective on any Asian "type".

 

[DemoMonkey]

Valid, but only if there is a prior plot event. What if we kick in their door because they are in Room 7 of the second level of the dungeon? DM says "Roll for initiative!" Do we have to try and negotiate with them and get the response "Stab stab stab headbutt stab" or can we open with a fireball, because they are, y'know. Orcs?

 

[Charlaquin]

"if the main reasons they are identifiable as "a different species" are those historical stereotypes."

This is an interesting point. What are acceptable identifiers? Can you give an example of an acceptable short hand for "These are evil, you don't have to give them the first attack?"

Yes. A uniform. Specifically, the uniform of the evil empire, or cult, or group of raiders, or whatever.

Granted, there are still philosophical questions to be raised - is this individual legionnaire/cultist/raider really an evil person, or could they be a conscript/brainwashed/a product of circumstance? But, generally those are questions that most people are comfortable handwaving, or at least accepting that the outcomes of treating the evil legion/cult/raiders as ok to kill are still ultimately positive and therefore at worst a tragic necessity.

Crucially though, shifting the “ok to kill” signifier to allegiance instead of race eliminates the biological essentialism element. You no longer have groups that are evil because of their genes, but instead you have groups who do evil things. Evil becomes a product of action instead of nature.

 

[Bill Zebub]

DM: You recognize these orcs as the ones who have been attacking the village. They wear the severed heads of villagers tied to their belts.

That's a great example. It identifies these particular orcs as evil. It would accomplish the same thing if they were human, not orcs. They could be Nordic-looking, wearing business suits, and be quoting classical poetry with Oxbridge accents and you'd still know they are evil.





Oh, wait, I guess the business suits give them away as evil, huh?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Valid, but only if there is a prior plot event. What if we kick in their door because they are in Room 7 of the second level of the dungeon? DM says "Roll for initiative!" Do we have to try and negotiate with them and get the response "Stab stab stab headbutt stab" or can we open with a fireball, because they are, y'know. Orcs?

This right here is the whole point. D&D has created a system where a being can be labeled as evil just because of their race.

If you were playing the same game and you kicked open the door and there were humans or Halflings, would you also cast fireball? Or would you wait until you find out if they are merchants or bandits?

Why not the same with orcs?

 

[Charlaquin]

Looking at the wording there, Tolkien refers to what the average European thinks are the "least lovely Mongol-types", not his own perspective on any Asian "type".

Presupposing that he knows what the average European finds lovely. Moreover, the issue here is not “Tolkien said ‘mongol types’ aren’t lovely,” but that he based the appearance of his always-evil race on that of a real group of people.

 

[ReshiIRE]

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.

I think you would be interested in Pathfinder 2e's depiction of Gnoll ancestory.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This right here is the whole point. D&D has created a system where a being can be labeled as evil just because of their race.

If you were playing the same game and you kicked open the door and there were humans or Halflings, would you also cast fireball? Or would you wait until you find out if they are merchants or bandits?

Why not the same with orcs?

Halflings? Definitely.