How do you spice up your orcs?

[Barastrondo]

My suggestion is to use the existing "hard rules" material that defines the orcs (in order to save you effort) but work them into your world with a unique personality. Many of the alternative suggestions here seem to be the other way around, live with the stereotypes of the orc label but add hard rules stuff to distinguish them. You can make either work and if you enjoy extending creatures, the latter can be a lot of fun but I think the real problem with the orcs is the stereotype and that many campaigns would be better served investing in personality-distinction rather than mechanics-distinction.

Stereotypes are harmless enough for standalone encounters but if you are going to make the creature a major campaign focus, I don't see how they are really helping you.

It depends on whether your group sees the concept "orc" as a stereotype or as an archetype. Stereotypes are, as you say, frequently counter-productive. Archetypes, however, are practically the foundation of player buy-in. All my players are familiar with Warcraft, Warhammer and Lord of the Rings, and it's tricky to come up with stereotypes that can accurately describe all three of those orcs. They're not all green; they don't all use axes; none of them leave pregnant victims in the wake of their attacks; not all of them are Chaotic Evil. Yet they're all accepted as "orcs."

If anything, those three point out that orcs contain archetypes within them. You have the "violent but potentially noble brute," the "implacable tide of violence," and the "minions of the Evil Overlord." If a group of players are the sort to recognize each of those as a potential foundation for an orcish culture, they probably won't need the GM to throw away the word "orc" to get them receptive to whatever the campaign spin may be.

 

[the Jester]

My orcs use guns powered by, essentially, powdered sunlight.

 

[Rechan]

You could steal a page from the Ancient Romans to cover that. They were all about honor and duty but could be exceptionally ruthless, ruthless enough that most folks would call them evil.

Like most socieities the matter of honorable dealings was mostly confined to how you treated members of your class within your society and to a lesser extent your peer class of your foes. It was okay to slaughter and enslave everyone else

Ok, I see the problem here I'm having. It's one of language.

I consider "Honor" basically as a code of respectful behavior (to enemies, to clan/family, etc).

In the context folks keep using it (Honor + Evil), it seems to be merely a justification to do heinous behavior, not a limitation or an ethical code curtailing certain behavior.

I mean, if honorable evil foes do everything that dishonorable evil foes do, except that they salute one another, then their honor really doesn't come into place at all. If that honor doesn't factor into how the foes treat the PCs or anyone the PCs come into contact wtih, then it's not a distinguishing feature.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

How do you do "honorable but very very evil"? Perhaps it's the late hour, but I am having trouble conceptualizing it.

My orcs were typical orcs in that they would raid human settlements, burn the town, and eat babies. However, they also showed great respect for strength and courage. A warrior that fought on alone despite the odds might be spared death. An orcs word was his bond. If an orc guaranteed you passage, you got it, regardless of what individual orcs thought about it. If, for example, Grok the orc granted you passage through a pass because you saved his life, and another orc refused you passage, or attacked, it would be an affront to Grok's honor and the orc would have to be dealt with ritualisticly. Think of Worf and STNG Klingons.

 

[Haltherrion]

It depends on whether your group sees the concept "orc" as a stereotype or as an archetype. Stereotypes are, as you say, frequently counter-productive. Archetypes, however, are practically the foundation of player buy-in. All my players are familiar with Warcraft, Warhammer and Lord of the Rings, and it's tricky to come up with stereotypes that can accurately describe all three of those orcs. They're not all green; they don't all use axes; none of them leave pregnant victims in the wake of their attacks; not all of them are Chaotic Evil. Yet they're all accepted as "orcs."

If anything, those three point out that orcs contain archetypes within them. You have the "violent but potentially noble brute," the "implacable tide of violence," and the "minions of the Evil Overlord." If a group of players are the sort to recognize each of those as a potential foundation for an orcish culture, they probably won't need the GM to throw away the word "orc" to get them receptive to whatever the campaign spin may be.

Archetypes are useful for sure. Unless a campaign recreates all the basic races, it is certainly using archetypes for the player races. But an archetype can shade into a stereotype and personally, I find that something like “orc” hit that territory long ago.
Even your point about orc possibly being one of three types raises the point: you say “orc” and your players may already be thinking one of several different possibilities. As a ref of course you can then spend the time to disabuse them of their preconceptions but knowing these preconceptions exist, why not simply skirt the whole issue by giving them a new label? One needn’t change any of the mechanics but a new label and hopefully some distinctive personality for individuals and nation will make them far more memorable and not waste any time setting aside misconceptions.
The same can be said for many player races but the referee can always decide to accept the likely preconceptions or create something new that builds on an old archetype. I did this in my current setting where elves are still elves but the dwarves have a new label. The label doesn’t fool anyone but it does help make it clear from the beginning that they are not your stereotypical dwarves.
In the case of orcs, I think there are additional complications. You say “orc” and I’d wager half or more of your players are going think “boring”, this despite the fact that you may intend to build your campaign around them and have endowed them with all sorts of cool personality and setting details. Again, you can work past that but why handicap yourself from the start? Call them something else.

 

[Haltherrion]

Ok, I see the problem here I'm having. It's one of language.

I consider "Honor" basically as a code of respectful behavior (to enemies, to clan/family, etc).

In the context folks keep using it (Honor + Evil), it seems to be merely a justification to do heinous behavior, not a limitation or an ethical code curtailing certain behavior.

I mean, if honorable evil foes do everything that dishonorable evil foes do, except that they salute one another, then their honor really doesn't come into place at all. If that honor doesn't factor into how the foes treat the PCs or anyone the PCs come into contact wtih, then it's not a distinguishing feature.

I think there is meant to be more to it than that. Honorable evil foes, for instance, might treat an enemy with some chilvalry if they fought well yet still perpetrate atrocities. If you read much medieval history you might find plenty of honorable knights, some considered paragons of virtue, who did what we would consider to be evil acts in an absolute sense. They did this within certain parameters (namely not against other knights) but it was pretty aweful stuff all the same.

If you admire Caeser, you might admire some of his noble traits yet the man in the end killed a lot of gauls for his personal gain, pretty evil stuff.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I've used Orcs recently as the focus for a short campaign (5 levels) and have another campaign setting that I work on occasionally (but have never used) that also uses Orcs. Both rather different in terms of fluff.

The campaign I ran was bassed in Greyhawk and used a bit of the Greyhawk Wars, specifically the bit about the Turosh Mak and his Orc horde conquering the Wild Coast. I played the Orcs as being of 2 basic types: the old fashioned tribal orcs and the new model army orcs, with a cult of personality focussed on Turosh Mak and strong centralised authority. (basically Tolkien's Moria Orcs and Uruk Hai, respectively.) Made for some fun bits.

The campaign setting has various tribal groups based on all the classic Evil Humanoid types from DnD: Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds, Gnolls, Hobgoblins, etc. I've tried to give each one a different tribal identity to distinguish them from one another. I've got three tribes of Orcs, each different. One being the classic 'vicious savages,' one being the 'noble savage' cliche and the third being sneaky, poison gas using, paranoid bunker dwelling survivalists.

In terms of mechanics I'm a big fan of Keep It Simple. For instance, for the Tursoh Mak orcs I used the Heavy Infantry Feat mentioned upthread and gave them heavy armour; orcs with AC20. Makes a bunch of 2nd level characters think twice, especially when they fight cleverly.

 

[arscott]

on "honorable, but evil":

I think the "Knights that treat peasants like crap" is a dead end. Most of the "honorable" in these sorts of situations is based on social class. But the orc archetype is overwhelmingly lower class, which makes them a poor choice for those sorts of antagonist.

For an entirely different take on the concept, focus on "good people with evil goals".

What if Orcs see civilization as inherently corrupt, and strive to destroy it? They'll burn cities to the ground, and then teach the survivors how to hunt and fish.

What if orcs are kind servants of a bloodthirsty god? Long ago, when floods and earthquakes devistated the coast, the orcs and their priests brought food and healing to the displaced and helped rebuild. Now, many years later, the orcish gods have supplanted the human ones, and many orcs live among us. But when the sun burns red in the sky, the orc-gods thirst for the blood of their newfound worshippers...

 

[S'mon]

none of them leave pregnant victims in the wake of their attacks

Tolkien's orcs did, at least impliedly. I recall from the Similarillion they liked to cart off female captives, and Saruman had his man-orc breeding program.

I guess Peter Jackson's orcs-from-cysts don't.

 

[S'mon]

Ok, I see the problem here I'm having. It's one of language.

I consider "Honor" basically as a code of respectful behavior (to enemies, to clan/family, etc)..

An honour code that includes enemy X within its value-set is one sort, an honour code that does not include enemy X within its value-set is another.

The WW1 European armies had an honour code that included each other, and civilians, within its value-set. In WW2 by contrast the Nazis and Soviets didn't generally include each other's warriors or civilians within their honor codes, neither did the Japanese military include enemy warriors or civilians within their honor code (and this was often reciprocated).

Clearly though, the WW2 Samurai code *is* an honour code, and it affected how the Japanese fought.

Ergo, just because an enemy's code does not include the PCs, it can still be important in characterisation of that enemy. I tend to have my hobgoblins behave very 'Roman', for instance - like old Star Trek did with the Romulans.

It can be interesting to have an enemy whose code encompasses the PCs, but this normally requires reciprocity ("They don't observe Geneva Convention, why should we?") - if the PCs are in the habit of massacring prisoners, the honourable enemy is unlikely to give them parole! But if both sides adhere to a code, it's unlikely the enemy can be classed as 'Evil' - the Evil enemy would be the exception, the villain who doesn't stick to the Code. That might mean anything from killing prisoners to using disguise/infiltration tactics to fighting on a holy day.