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

[DemoMonkey]

Things can be evil just because the rules of the imaginary game say they are evil. It doesn't HAVE to be any more complicated than that. It doesn't have to MEAN any more than that.

"What does the stat block say?"

"Evil."

"Light 'em up!"

 

[ReshiIRE]

Halflings? Definitely.

Oh christ not this thread again, we're already derailed enough.

 

[Bird Of Play]

Oh my! I come back and there's six pages worth of replies!!
This means I can't answer individually; I'll try to reply to the main points that got mentioned.

1) Are real world comparisons with human phenotypes necessary in this case? What I mean I've used drows and orcs for years, and not once I thought they'd be associable to a real world phenotype of humans. Who knows, maybe I am not seeing what actually is there, but what I'm saying here is just: I doubt this is what I'm trying to discuss here.

2) The Disney trope of good = pretty, evil = ugly. I think that may be one of the main reasons I dislike the "new" orcs. Oh, so now that they're "good" and that players play them, they gotta be handsome and pretty? Ugh. This definitely also explains why I don't like current tieflings either.

3) Now, the real world has evil and good, and there's absolutely some individuals who are eviler than others. So, why shouldn't it be in a fantasy race? Why an entire race, you ask? Well, nazi Germany was an entire country of evil. Does that mean Germans were inherently evil? Nope, actually. And yet, it sure did look as if they were an evil country. Further nuance: even the nazis weren't ENTIRELY evil. What I mean is that they were humans just like us. Perhaps the sadist SS general had a loving wife and kid he'd protect with his life. Perhaps the insane doctor who experimented on prisoners was vegetarian and pampering his cute little dogs. Perhaps that evil nazi was an evil nazi only because he lived among them and he literally had no other option than to go along with the tide to survive. Aaaaand all this high and philosophical talk is only to say something as simple as: an evil-aligned character can do good deeds, and a good-aligned character can do bad deeds, and there IS such a thing as a cultural atmosphere that influences how people living in a place behave and see things so a race of "all evil orcs" is not strange at all.

4) Let's even forget the entire evilness part. if we imagine orcs as savage beasts, it's less about evil and more about them following their nature. Now, unless they're as dumb as a virus, there's still a bit of personal choice involved, but the more beastlike they are, the less actually evil they are. You gotta be smart to fully understand evil. And this brings me to another point: why can't we have a dumb, beastlike race? If the orcs, even when depicted as monstrous, are still way too human-looking, we can distinguish them from humans by making the think like animals, or, if you will, like primitive humans, say Neanderthal and such. And here's a challenge: it's harder to write characters like that and still give them a lot of personality and purpose. Hard..... but absolutely not impossible.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

I think the core problem with orcs that makes it so that we're giving them more depth is that fantasy races were traditionally very white and orcs weren't. There was a lot of discussion around whether orcs were a stand in for people of color and having orcs in that situation while also having them be blanket "evil and dumb" is a BIG issue.

Responding to the bolded part: that's increasingly not true. Elistree (the moon goddess of good drow) has been around for a while, but IIRC they're adding two new groups of drow to the Realms that don't worship Lloth.

Does anyone else remember when half-elves were the edgy race? Then it was orcs, the drow - by now tieflings have lost their edge, even - it's fallen aasimar now. I suspect redeemed Mind Flayers in the near future.

(I may have the timing on tieflings and drow reversed.)

 

[Willie the Duck]

Things can be evil just because the rules of the imaginary game say they are evil. It doesn't HAVE to be any more complicated than that. It doesn't have to MEAN any more than that.

"What does the stat block say?"

"Evil."

"Light 'em up!"

It absolutely can. People have mentioned that board game token model already. Nothing stops people from playing that way. Of course in that case a write up in-book about whether such and such a race are always/often/sometimes evil (and why) is probably not going to matter.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Things can be evil just because the rules of the imaginary game say they are evil. It doesn't HAVE to be any more complicated than that. It doesn't have to MEAN any more than that.

"What does the stat block say?"

"Evil."

"Light 'em up!"

Yup, I totally get this. Sometimes I want to play this way.

The question is how the players know those monsters are evil. How is it being broadcast? If it's rotting flesh and glowing eyes, great. If it's cloven hoofs and horns, great. If it's the amorphous shape covered with eyes, great.

If it's the descriptors used historically as propaganda to label some humans as sub-human, and therefore to rationalize subjugation....not so great.

And given all the other ways to broadcast evil, why must we continue to rely on this method that strikes painfully close to home for so many people? So many people who might otherwise participate in this awesome hobby?

 

[Lanefan]

Because it perpetuates the idea that some group of people have no meaningful individuality or personality, and if you know one, you know all of them. Also, there's not really anything to know about them, because they are just evil and have no motivations.

And for Orcs, that's really all I need.

 

[jmartkdr2]

BUT

This is ignoring the deities of the D&D universe. Contrary to our world, Deities are a sure thing. The mortals have concrete, real evidence that the Gods exists. It is not only a matter of fate as in our world, but a fact! And they can be quite active in the world either through their agents, their deific minions, their own avatars or even themselves! So if a god (or a pantheon) creates a race, decides that the race will be such and such, is it so hard to accept that the race might do what it is supposed to do? Afterall, if said race does not do as it told, a god might get angry don't you think? And when faced with a god that can and is willing to enact its godly powers, the lowly mortals will follow. Humans have gods of various alignments, elves, dwarves and a lot of other "playable" races have the same. Good allows choices. Evil does not. It takes quite an individual to fully deny his origins and move to something else entirely especially when going against real gods. Exceptions were always present in D&D.

An interesting side effect of this: if they're okay to fight because they worship Gruumsh, that side-steps most of the issue people have with always-evil races. Because you don't need to say "all orcs are always evil," just "most orcs are evil and the ones that aren't will announce themselves as different."

Sure, a really thoughtful group might try to talk, but there's a war on, no Geneva convention, and these orcs are enemy soldiers. So fight.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I guess I'm the outlier.

I love that Eberron took fresh takes on nearly all the classic D&D racial tropes: militant elves, primitive halflings, noble hobgoblins and spiritual orcs. I like Droaam and other monstrous realms. I like the fact alignment isn't as reliable and the Gods are silent.

I like it, in Eberron.

Because it throws certain implied tropes on its ear. I like Ravenloft too, but I wouldn't want typical D&D games to be set in thematic islands ruled by an immortal creature either. I like it because it is different and unique.

If every D&D setting ended up like Eberron, Eberron loses that specialness. It becomes D&D with choo-choo trains. It stops being against type because it is not THE type.

I don't want to lose D&D that has the classic feel to Eberron's post- modern ideals any more than I would want D&D to start using Dark Sun or Ravenloft or even Dragonlance as the default assumption. I want a setting where evil is a little more clear cut to contrast Eberron's noir takes. I want a setting where Pelor owes your 20 gold to contrast the silence of the Silver Flame. And I want tree hugger elves and menacing orcs to contrast the tree hugger orcs and menacing elves of Eberron.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh my! I come back and there's six pages worth of replies!!
This means I can't answer individually; I'll try to reply to the main points that got mentioned.

1) Are real world comparisons with human phenotypes necessary in this case? What I mean I've used drows and orcs for years, and not once I thought they'd be associable to a real world phenotype of humans. Who knows, maybe I am not seeing what actually is there, but what I'm saying here is just: I doubt this is what I'm trying to discuss here.

A lot of people have used drows and orcs for years and not thought they’d be associated with real-world groups of humans. That’s kind of the entire crux of the change. The game was written and designed by people with certain backgrounds, for people with certain backgrounds. As the hobby has grown, people with different backgrounds have gotten into it and noticed certain unconsciously biased elements that had slipped in, and have been pointing them out. This is a good thing. This is how we improve as a culture.

2) The Disney trope of good = pretty, evil = ugly. I think that may be one of the main reasons I dislike the "new" orcs. Oh, so now that they're "good" and that players play them, they gotta be handsome and pretty? Ugh. This definitely also explains why I don't like current tieflings either.

I’m with you on not liking the evil = ugly, good = pretty association. But I don’t think going back to all orcs being evil and ugly is any better. We fix the problem by having orcs who are good and orcs who are evil, orcs who are ugly and orcs who are pretty. More diversity in the way we depict fantasy races is a good thing!

3) Now, the real world has evil and good, and there's absolutely some individuals who are eviler than others.

That’s not an uncontroversial statement, but it also isn’t necessary to the argument.

So, why shouldn't it be in a fantasy race? Why an entire race, you ask? Well, nazi Germany was an entire country of evil. Does that mean Germans were inherently evil? Nope, actually. And yet, it sure did look as if they were an evil country.

That’s the thing though, the nazis weren’t evil because they were German, they were evil because they were part of a fascist regime. If you had a fascist orc nation, they would be evil because they were fascist, not because they were orcs. Orcs who were not part of that nation could be good. And non-orcs could fight on their side too.

Further nuance: even the nazis weren't ENTIRELY evil. What I mean is that they were humans just like us. Perhaps the sadist SS general had a loving wife and kid he'd protect with his life. Perhaps the insane doctor who experimented on prisoners was vegetarian and pampering his cute little dogs. Perhaps that evil nazi was an evil nazi only because he lived among them and he literally had no other option than to go along with the tide to survive.

Yes, and that’s why it isn’t uncontroversial to say evil is a real thing in real life. It’s a thorny philosophical subject, and probably not an appropriate topic for a gaming forum. Suffice it to say, yes, there is room to get into the weeds of “is this individual soldier in the evil army truly an evil person?” in your game if you really want to. But, since they are part of an evil organization, actively pursuing that organization’s evil goals, we generally treat the use of violence against them as morally acceptable, especially in the context of an RPG.

Aaaaand all this high and philosophical talk is only to say something as simple as: an evil-aligned character can do good deeds, and a good-aligned character can do bad deeds, and there IS such a thing as a cultural atmosphere that influences how people living in a place behave and see things so a race of "all evil orcs" is not strange at all.

Notice how you said “a cultutal atmosphere” and then said “a race of all evil orcs.” That’s the crux of the issue. Race =/= culture, and treating a race as evil is generally not considered acceptable these days. If you want to have a culture of evil orcs, that’s fine, but they probably shouldn’t be the only orcs in your setting.

4) Let's even forget the entire evilness part. if we imagine orcs as savage beasts, it's less about evil and more about them following their nature. Now, unless they're as dumb as a virus, there's still a bit of personal choice involved, but the more beastlike they are, the less actually evil they are. You gotta be smart to fully understand evil. And this brings me to another point: why can't we have a dumb, beastlike race? If the orcs, even when depicted as monstrous, are still way too human-looking, we can distinguish them from humans by making the think like animals, or, if you will, like primitive humans, say Neanderthal and such. And here's a challenge: it's harder to write characters like that and still give them a lot of personality and purpose. Hard..... but absolutely not impossible.

So, the problem you run into there is that “bestial,” “primitive,” etc. are terms that have historically been tools that colonizers have used to dehumanize and oppress indigenous peoples. Saying “it’s ok to kill these humanoids because they’re uncivilized savages” is really uncomfortably close to real-world rhetoric that has been used to justify genocide. If anything, this is probably worse than having orcs be ok to kill because they’re evil.