Orcs: How Important Are They?

[I'm A Banana]

That role was reserved for human groups like the Huns or the Vikings.

In mythological terms, other "human groups" were almost always alien bizarre magical creatures anyway. To anyone in their path, the Huns were most definitely inhuman monsters. The D&D orcs (which can be very Hun-like) fit such a mold quite well.

Orcs are a Tolkien thing.

D&D Orcs bear little resemblance to Tolkien's corrupted evil. Orcs in D&D today owe more to the Huns, to "Dark Continent" style Africans, to Polynesian islanders, to native Amazon tribes, or even more "warlike" Native American tribes....all human groups. But in fantasy, humans with a different culture (and maybe a different skin) may as well have sprung fully-formed from Faerie. Fantasy humans are more normally a specific *kind* of human, rather than the true diverisity of them.

Which, I suppose, is a pretty good reason for pushing Orcs (and other D&D humanoids) to the background. If you've got humans as diverse as they are in real life, rather as narrow as they are in myth, you've lost the need for some of those "inhuman" humanoids.

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.

But D&D orcs, at least in 3e, aren't really Tolkien clones. Hobgoblins, actually, do a slightly better job of that, but even they are only about as Tolkien-esque as Grey Elves.

D&D orcs would be more at home in the jungles and savannahs and Mad Max style postapocalyptic leather-daddy deserts than they would in Middle Earth.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I like Orcs, but only those with old-school piggish features or the Warhammer Greenskins. For some reason, the great-axe toting furball apes of the 3e MM bug me.

Reading this thread, I realized that in all my years of gaming, I've never seen anyone play a half-orc but me, and that character only lasted a few levels. I think that I'm going to have to demand that someone darn well play a half-orc in the next campaign I run!

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

True enough, but that's an issue with how "modern" you want your fantasy to be. The closer you are to the mythological tales, the more racist you get ("humans" are only Mediterranean European! Everything else is dwarves, elves, orcs, goblins, halflings...), because racism often made for some rip-roaring tales of far-off lands and strange creatures.

I like D&D's default middle ground of "Humans are flexible enough to be anything, and encomass all real-world humans," combined with "Orcs are kind of like what colonial Europe *thought* certain tribes were like," myself.

 

[Desdichado]

In mythological terms, other "human groups" were almost always alien bizarre magical creatures anyway. To anyone in their path, the Huns were most definitely inhuman monsters. The D&D orcs (which can be very Hun-like) fit such a mold quite well.

No, they weren't. Not even the Romans thought that for the most part, and it's only from a handful of Roman writers that we get that. If you could, ask any Goth, Vandal, Alan or even Chinese contemporary if they thought the Huns were some kind of inhuman monster and he'd laugh at you. Ask Romans from a few years after the initial invasions, like Aetius, or the emperor who signed up Huns to be foederati, and they'd laugh too.

Which, I suppose, is a pretty good reason for pushing Orcs (and other D&D humanoids) to the background. If you've got humans as diverse as they are in real life, rather as narrow as they are in myth, you've lost the need for some of those "inhuman" humanoids.

Exactly what I've done.

But D&D orcs, at least in 3e, aren't really Tolkien clones. Hobgoblins, actually, do a slightly better job of that, but even they are only about as Tolkien-esque as Grey Elves.

Uh, no. The differences between them are superficial and inconsequential. D&D orcs (and elves, since you bring them up) are simply a genericized and very shallow reflection of Tolkien's description.

D&D orcs would be more at home in the jungles and savannahs and Mad Max style postapocalyptic leather-daddy deserts than they would in Middle Earth.

I don't know if we're wandering a bit into the "3e is dungeonpunk" fallacy or not here, but I'm not particularly interested in debating that at the moment. In my opinion, the differences between Tolkien and D&D orcs are fairly superficial. The main differences being that Tolkien's orcs were a manifestation of religious views, in many ways, while D&D orcs are just a shallow reflection that resembles Tolkien's but has ignored the reason for their existence. In either case, this whole discussion about whether or not D&D orcs resemble Tolkien orcs is somewhat bizarre to me. I never thought I'd be arguing that that was the case because it's seems so self-evident to me that they are that I'm a bit at a loss as to where to go next. If you disagree, I guess I'll just have to scratch my head and move on from the discussion.

 

[EvilPheemy]

In my current campaign, the Orcish nations have been long subjugated by the Empire. Orcs are second-class citizens, and more importantly line infantry and shock troops for the Imperial Armies. Often, Orc Legions are commanded by an Imperial Noble, but the wisest of those commanders realize that the true Leaders of the Legions are those Orcs who can keep their bretheren in line.

And yes, my campaign is using a heaping, steaming shovelful of colonial European metaphor.

What's worse is that should the Orcs rise up and strike at their oppressors, at the end of the day, they're natural inclination is towards barbarism and worship of Evil deities. Thus whoever wins the Rebellion, it will still bode ill for those kingdoms who value freedom and justice.

(Insert dramatic music here).

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, they weren't. Not even the Romans thought that for the most part, and it's only from a handful of Roman writers that we get that. If you could, ask any Goth, Vandal, Alan or even Chinese contemporary if they thought the Huns were some kind of inhuman monster and he'd laugh at you. Ask Romans from a few years after the initial invasions, like Aetius, or the emperor who signed up Huns to be foederati, and they'd laugh too.

The Romans, in many ways, had moved past the original mythological kind of thought I'm describing when I say "orcs are based in very early myth."

Go earlier than the Romans. Go earlier than trans-continental empires. Go, perhaps, into very early Greece at the latest. Back when everyone who wasn't "one of us" was a "barbarian."

Of course the Romans would have laughed. They were far too well-educated. Orcs are from something much, much earlier.

The differences between them are superficial and inconsequential. D&D orcs (and elves, since you bring them up) are simply a genericized and very shallow reflection of Tolkien's description.

I really don't see it. Axe-wieldling, primitive barbarians who rape and pillage the civilized world, who disrupt life for the sake of bringing pain and fire and blood...that doesn't sound like Tolkien's "slowly brooding army of ill-defined darkness" as much as it sounds like some missionary's fever dream, or something out of the Odyssey's lands of lotus eaters and islands of shapeshifting sorceresses.

About the only thing they share is the name. Even the D&D origin story of the Orc (in Grummsh's battle with Corellon) deals more with colonialism themes (fighting for land) than with any kind of creation, corruption, or servitude.

So, if you see them as direct Tolkien rip-offs, I'm gonna hafta ask how you see them that way, since we obviously came to very different conclusions based on the same information in the 3e MM.

You seem to have used actual D&D humans for this role, but, as your use of the Roman comparison implies, you seem to grow distant from this crazy world of racist mythology that views everyone outside of your little village as either sub- or super- human. Which, y'know, cool, but I'm big into the mythological feel, usually, and orcs (as I understand 3e to suggest them) hit that very well.

 

[Desdichado]

The Romans, in many ways, had moved past the original mythological kind of thought I'm describing when I say "orcs are based in very early myth."

Go earlier than the Romans. Go earlier than trans-continental empires. Go, perhaps, into very early Greece at the latest. Back when everyone who wasn't "one of us" was a "barbarian."

Of course the Romans would have laughed. They were far too well-educated. Orcs are from something much, much earlier.

Very early Greece wasn't a superstitious backwater. They went toe to toe with the Hittite Empire and were considered equals.

Also, if you're talking about Huns and anyone earlier than the Romans in the same breath, I'm afraid you've very much lost me with whatever metaphor you're trying to establish. The Huns didn't exist in Western knowledge until fairly late in the Roman empire timeline when they burst into Pannonia, looted and killed a bunch of Romans and then were beat at the Cataulanian Fields (or however you spell that) and then were very quickly absorbed into the Roman structure.

I really don't see it. Axe-wieldling, primitive barbarians who rape and pillage the civilized world, who disrupt life for the sake of bringing pain and fire and blood...that doesn't sound like Tolkien's "slowly brooding army of ill-defined darkness" as much as it sounds like some missionary's fever dream, or something out of the Odyssey's lands of lotus eaters and islands of shapeshifting sorceresses.

Perhaps that's because you are very much mischaracterizing Tolkien's orcs. Yes, they were savage primitive barbarians who pillaged the civilized world, and there's even cases of orc rape in The Lay of Leithien.

About the only thing they share is the name. Even the D&D origin story of the Orc (in Grummsh's battle with Corellon) deals more with colonialism themes (fighting for land) than with any kind of creation, corruption, or servitude.

I dunno; this whole discussion about orcs as a metaphor for racism and colonialism is something you may do in your campaign (or Doug MacCrae) but it's not at all something that's inherent in the fluff of the game. I'm not buying that at all, especially combined with a rejection of a Tolkien origin for orcs. That's truly one of the most bizarre theories I've heard in a really long time.

You seem to have used actual D&D humans for this role, but, as your use of the Roman comparison implies, you seem to grow distant from this crazy world of racist mythology that views everyone outside of your little village as either sub- or super- human. Which, y'know, cool, but I'm big into the mythological feel, usually, and orcs (as I understand 3e to suggest them) hit that very well.

That's true; in my current campaign I'm going for a much more "realistic" fantasy. A very low fantasy, dark fantasy, grim n gritty, and I very much prefer that in general. But I can dig a mythological feel, but I don't this so generic mythological whatever it is you're positing. What mythology does it resemble? I'm not sure. What mythological creature comes in wild hordes of ravening barbarians? Mythological monsters tend in almost every culture to be more like singular entities.

I honestly don't know what you mean by mythological, unless you mean "has a Tolkien feel." But that would be counter to what you're actually saying, so I'm confused.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

My position on orcs is fairly simple: if you're going to use them, either reinvent them (as Eberron has done) or use them very sparingly.

But then, The Lord of the Rings is all but the very last thing I would use as a touchstone for my games of Dungeons & Dragons, so it's not much of a surprise that I'm not interested in orcs qua orcs.

 

[RFisher]

I have strong urgings to swap the names of goblins & hobgoblins, to rename gnomes as common elves & elves as noble elves, & call orcs trolls.

Then I think, if all I'm changing is the names, why bother?

Yet I keep wanting to do it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then I think, if all I'm changing is the names, why bother?

Flavour.

It could be cool.

RC