Orcs: How Important Are They?

[Desdichado]

In my current campaign, there are no humanoids at all---except humans themselves.

However, I've always got other campaigns brewing in the back of my mind, and honestly I like goblinoids better than orcs. But, since I also downplay (or outright eliminate) alignment, I also tend to downplay the difference between orcs and goblinoids. I'd rather get rid of bugbears, which I always thought were kinda silly and have orcs play that same role as a special caste of fighter or something. When I ran a d20 Middle-earth game, that's pretty much what I did; used goblin statblocks for "Snaga" style orcs/goblins, used the hobgoblin statblock for Mordor soldier orcs, used the orc statblock (without the emphasis on chaotic) for Saruman's Uruk-hai and used the half-orc statblock for... well, for half-orcs. Duh.

But I still think orcs and goblinoids step on each others toes in terms of role, and there's little reason to have both unless you really play up alignment. To me, that's the only main difference between them. I think orcs and gnolls step on each others toes too, and I'd rather have orcs than gnolls, though.

I also don't like the idea of them being savage humanoids on the edges of society; I like the idea of a full-scale invasion of a massively organized and efficient goblinoid/orc EMPIRE that's at least as sophisticated (if not moreso) than any human kingdoms.

Also with regards to the person who said that orcs are the Huns of fantasy; I kinda like having my Huns just be humans sometimes too. The proliferation of redundant humanoid races is something that I try to do away with in my homebrews. No reason to have most of them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Pick a humanoid race, or two, and run with it. Unless your characters are globe trotting from level 1, they should just have a few races of enemies to deal with. In that context, orcs are great. When they're one of 45 humanoid races, not so much.

 

[Desdichado]

Pick a humanoid race, or two, and run with it. Unless your characters are globe trotting from level 1, they should just have a few races of enemies to deal with. In that context, orcs are great. When they're one of 45 humanoid races, not so much.

Agree 100%.

 

[Raven Crowking]

IMC, I once had the PCs heal the NPC orc they had just met (released as a prisoner in a dungeon) before they healed the PC party member. I guess they like the orcs in my campaign world. Of course, I've done a bit of work to make them my own.

I've also had the an Orc clan rename itself after one of the PCs and try to emulate him....

My orcs are a race that once were honorable, but then fell upon hard times. They believe that life is a training ground for death, when they will train to overthrow the Celestial Realm itself and become as (minor) gods. They are addicted, all too often, to zurgash (also known as dumbwode), a mixture made from (among other things) a fungus grown on the bones of their ancestors. It stains the lips and tongue blue, prevents speech when active, but increases the ability to rage in combat. It also is degenerative, lowing the intellingence of users over time.

 

[Crust]

Orcs are as important as the Tony Montana's of any campaign world. We need to be able to look at something and say, "That's the bad guy."

And yes, there are other bad guys, but orcs are a staple.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, you *could* run a game without orcs.

But why would you *want* to?

Seriously, the "savage humanoids" have been a staple of fantasy since the days when it was still legends and fairy tales. And the difference between goblins and orcs can be summed up with the word STEALTH. Goblins have it. Orcs do not. Goblins are crafty, sneaky, ambush-predators. They tinker and strategize. Goblins are in your shadow, stabbing you in the kidneys.

Orcs are in your face, cleaving your clavicle in twain with an axe, mounting your head on a pike, and munching it like it was barbeque pork.

Goblins snicker in the dark corners.

Orcs roar in the full moon.

Goblins live on the fringes of humanity.

Orcs destroy humanity.

Goblins are looking out for themselves; you can work with them if you benfit them.

Orcs are looking for your suffering. You can work with them, if you give them an easier target (and then they'll come for you when there are no easier targets).

Yeah, you can focus your campaign on other things, no problem. But why would you loose the violence, bloodshed, and animalistic rabid-dog fury of the orcs?

 

[Desdichado]

Seriously, the "savage humanoids" have been a staple of fantasy since the days when it was still legends and fairy tales.

Actually, I'd argue that back when it was still fairy tales and folklore, the goblin better represents that better than the orc. Monsters were sneaky little fey creatures; scary, but not some kind of weird savage attacking thing. That role was reserved for human groups like the Huns or the Vikings.

The orcs primacy is completely based on Tolkien, who coined the word in the first place by adapting some old English to give it to us. Does Fritz Leiber have anything like orcs? No. Does Robert E. Howard? Not really, unless you want to call his man-apes an analog. How about Lovecraft or Clark Ashton Smith, or Edgar Rice Burroughs, or any of the other "early" fantasy writers?

No, no, no and no. Orcs are a Tolkien thing. Pretending (or believing) that Tolkien-style fantasy is the only fantasy worthy of the name is short-sighted, IMO. My campaign settings these days bear little resemblance to Tolkien. Much less than D&D standard, even. It's refreshing to step outside of Tolkien's sphere of influence and see all this stuff that was written before him, actually, but which has somewhat been forgotten and it's influence submerged and made very subtle.

I sometimes describe my campaign setting du jour as a combination of Sergio Leone, Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom, Charles Dickens and H. P. Lovecraft with plots that feel like early Robert Ludlum novels heavily steeped in occult. And frankly, after years and years and years of weak tea wannabe Tolkien clones, I'm having tons of fun stretching out in directions like that.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I like the MM4 take on orcs. Physical strength is all they have going for them. They're lazy, greedy, selfish, destructive and disorganised.

Each of the humanoid races has its own niche now so you can use them all. Goblins are fecund, noisy and dirty. Hobgoblins are disciplined and militaristic, well suited to being BBEG minions. Bugbears are sneaky bullies. Gnolls are bestial, predatory and linked with demons. Kobolds are expert miners and trapmakers, filled with hatred for all other races.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Seriously, the "savage humanoids" have been a staple of fantasy since the days when it was still legends and fairy tales.

I see the savage humanoids as being a relic of colonialism. They're proxies for racism. Though you could argue that the non-human humanoids of European folklore - trolls, elves and the like - are a deep memory of neanderthals.

 

[Jhaelen]

No, no, no and no. Orcs are a Tolkien thing.

That's exactly what I dislike about orcs. There's lots of other options for the role of 'savage humanoids'. Most of them way better.

In my current campaign it's the 'animal tribes'. Originally inspired by the werewolf rpg, mechanically using a toned-down version of the lycanthrope template. If Eberron had been released earlier I might have based them on shifters.