Impromptu Stream with Ed Greenwood, Tim Kask, & TSR CCO

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Source

Upthread, Gygax says that the second lawful good option "taken as prisoners to be converted" can be followed by immediate execution.

Uhh, wow, that's insanely problematic. "Genocide is Lawful Good, Slavery is Chaotic Good". If that's the kind of D&D that Gygax approved of, I would not want to play a D&D that Gygax was in charge of.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, that's not great. I'm not sure what "alternate meaning" the phrase "nits make lice" could have. It's obviously horrific, racist, and calling for genocide. It's literally saying to kill children so that they won't grow up to be adults and have more children. Applying it to D&D races just makes them even more problematic.

To be honest, before this discussion, I'd never heard the phrase in any kind of racist context. I know I had heard the words together at some point, but just assumed it was an adage about dealing with pests or treating kids with lice thoroughly or something. Not a way to paint whole groups of people as subhuman. Yikes.

 

[aramis erak]

Orc literally means demonic monster from the water in 16th C english.
the understanding of "Demon" and "Demonic" is literally a force that inherently causes harm and tempts people to do evil, if not doing evil itself.

Tolkien's orcs are a magical hybrid of demon and elf. They lack free will; they cannot choose to be good. They are inherently enslaved by and to evil by their birth.

the early Orcs of OE and AD&D 1E are equally as bound to evil as any balrog. They lack free will. They are defined as subhuman.

They are, literally, a macroscopic plague. They hold the same place as the facehuggers and drones in Alien: A macroscopic plague with a mind. Or the Vampires of Ringworld. Or the Terminators of that franchise. Or the Replicators of Stargate. They're talking Yersinia pestis.

Newer editions don't hold that. It's not orcs as african-american stand-in, but orcs as literal speaking macroscopic plague.

 

[Umbran]

Orc literally means demonic monster from the water in 16th C english.

Tolkien was a professional linguist, and knew the word's basis much farther back than 16th century English.

"I originally took the word from Old English orc (Beowulf 112 orc-neas and the gloss orc: þyrs ('ogre'), heldeofol ('hell-devil')). This is supposed not to be connected with modern English orc, ork, a name applied to various sea-beasts of the dolphin order".
-Tolkien, in a letter to Naomi Mitchison

They lack free will

This is not supported by Tolkien's text. Orcs are seen making their own decisions time and again in the work - they even argue amongst themselves, trying to exert.. you guessed it... their will upon each other. If they lacked free will, there'd be no argument in orcish ranks.

 

[aramis erak]

This is not supported by Tolkien's text. Orcs are seen making their own decisions time and again in the work - they even argue amongst themselves, trying to exert.. you guessed it... their will upon each other. If they lacked free will, there'd be no argument in orcish ranks.

My router sometimes argues with my mother's router... they have to renegotiate the protocol. It's a dialog, with one device imposing decisions upon another... but there's no freedom of will there.
Just because two deterministic items disagree on the current status and one prevails does NOT prove free will. Especially not in the theological context ... which, thanks to CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien was involved in discussions of. Theologically, within the Chrisitian frameworks, animals are not understood to have free will; they're bound to instincts and perception-reaction trees. Orcs have no ability to choose good, to seek salvation. Theologically, that's the only force of will that matters.

 

[Umbran]

My router sometimes argues with my mother's router... they have to renegotiate the protocol. It's a dialog, with one device imposing decisions upon another... but there's no freedom of will there.

Orcs are seen avenging fallen comrades.
Orcs abhor eating orc flesh, and find the accusation that they engage in cannibalism to be an insult.
Shagrat and Gorbag express reasons for following Sauron - one that they fear him, the other that they fear Sauron's enemies even more.

In fact, when you look at what orcs say, it turns out that they have morality rather like human morality. They have loyalties, likes and dislikes, reasons for what they do, and opinions on what is proper or improper behavior, fairness, and so on.

What we see, though, is that orcs are incredible hypocrites. They have opinions and morals, but are entirely self-centered in their application, and do not engage in self-reflection on their own behavior.

This is entirely intentional on Tolkien's part, because to him, this is pretty basic evil that we all see day-to-day, among real-world humans. For, while he placed the orcs in his works all on one side of the conflict, he thought, in fact:

"Yes, I think the orcs as real a creation as anything in 'realistic' fiction ... only in real life they are on both sides, of course. For 'romance' has grown out of 'allegory', and its wars are still derived from the 'inner war' of allegory in which good is on one side and various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides: which means a motley alliance of orcs, beasts, demons, plain naturally honest men, and angels."
-Tolkien, in a letter to his son Christopher during WWII.

So, orcs are people. They're just really crummy people.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

My router sometimes argues with my mother's router... they have to renegotiate the protocol. It's a dialog, with one device imposing decisions upon another... but there's no freedom of will there.
Just because two deterministic items disagree on the current status and one prevails does NOT prove free will. Especially not in the theological context ... which, thanks to CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien was involved in discussions of. Theologically, within the Chrisitian frameworks, animals are not understood to have free will; they're bound to instincts and perception-reaction trees. Orcs have no ability to choose good, to seek salvation. Theologically, that's the only force of will that matters.

Interesting that you seem to think Tolkien understood religion "thanks to C S Lewis". Lewis was the atheist and late convert to Christianity. Tolkien had always been a very spiritually connected Catholic. And he struggled with the idea of orcish free will throughout his life. He certainly didn't think "well, they're animals, and that's that."

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Orcs are seen avenging fallen comrades.
Orcs abhor eating orc flesh, and find the accusation that they engage in cannibalism to be an insult.
Shagrat and Gorbag express reasons for following Sauron - one that they fear him, the other that they fear Sauron's enemies even more.

In fact, when you look at what orcs say, it turns out that they have morality rather like human morality. They have loyalties, likes and dislikes, reasons for what they do, and opinions on what is proper or improper behavior, fairness, and so on.

What we see, though, is that orcs are incredible hypocrites. They have opinions and morals, but are entirely self-centered in their application, and do not engage in self-reflection on their own behavior.

This is entirely intentional on Tolkien's part, because to him, this is pretty basic evil that we all see day-to-day, among real-world humans. For, while he placed the orcs in his works all on one side of the conflict, he thought, in fact:

"Yes, I think the orcs as real a creation as anything in 'realistic' fiction ... only in real life they are on both sides, of course. For 'romance' has grown out of 'allegory', and its wars are still derived from the 'inner war' of allegory in which good is on one side and various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides: which means a motley alliance of orcs, beasts, demons, plain naturally honest men, and angels."
-Tolkien, in a letter to his son Christopher during WWII.

So, orcs are people. They're just really crummy people.

Yes, and in fact for Tolkien the "orc" came to represented the human brutalised by the world of war. Tolkien labelled tanks and nuclear bombs are effectively "orcish". His immediate thoughts upon hearing his son (I believe) becoming a WWII pilot was "imagine the reaction of a hobbit to seeing their so riding a wyvern"

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Note very carefully: Nowhere does anyone in Lord of the Rings advocate orc genocide, in fact, after the War of the Ring is over, it seems there's no reason to fight orcs at all. Only in D&D have people somehow cottoned on to the fact that orc is extermination is, prima facie, good. That idea would have horrified Tolkien, a man who saw all war as ultimately corrupting.

 

[Umbran]

Interesting that you seem to think Tolkien understood religion "thanks to C S Lewis". Lewis was the atheist and late convert to Christianity.

Specifically, Lewis returned to religion after meeting Tolkien.