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

[Deset Gled]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but the plot of zootopia is all about not being "all ugly all evil"....

The plot of Zootopia was that a class of physically undesirable citizens (carnivores) was being judged as savages (less than herbivores), and elected officials were intentionally trying to employ systematic racism in their government by inducing violence.

Also, it started with "Z".

 

[Bolares]

But what if one doesn't think Eberron is great at all?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion... I'm not advocating that D&D should become Eberron. But to me it's clear that a lot of 5e's assumptions, and even some changes we've got later in this edition's run make it really close to a lot of Eberron's core assumptions.

 

[Rabulias]

Edit: found a better picture.

I see your picture and raise you this one:

 

[Bolares]

The plot of A Modern Prometheus (more commonly known as Frankenstein) is too. I believe they may have been trying to make the point that you need “ugly = evil” as a baseline in order to tell stories with “ugly =/= evil” as the moral.

Ah, I had no idea what Modern Prometheus was. We just call it Frankenstein here

 

[Bolares]

The plot of Zootopia was that a class of physically undesirable citizens (carnivores) was being judged as savages (less than herbivores), and elected officials were intentionally trying to employ systematic racism in their government by inducing violence.

Also, it started with "Z".

Sure, but I never said the stories where you assume something is "all evil/all ugly" and then prove thei are not are boring. I was specifically talking about my opinion of making RPG races all evil all ugly as a true and generalistic statement of facts within the world, with no room for exeptions. Maybe I should've been more clear.

 

[the Jester]

No, it doesn't, if the main reasons they are identifiable as "a different species" are those historical stereotypes. "They are a different species" is exactly what that rationalization tries to achieve. "They are less than human, so it's ok to kill/subjugate them."

If they are basically human except that they are stupid, angry, ugly, promiscuous, etc., then, really, they are human...with historical markers to identify them as killable.

Again, though, if something else works for you at your table, go for it. I'm only trying to explain the reasoning that others (including, apparently, WotC) are using.

A couple of things.

First, I would argue that one of the main reasons that those historical stereotypes have become identifiers for humanoids is because we (the larger gaming community) keep trying to bring them closer to being human; in other words, we're changing them from monsters to people by giving them more and more human characteristics. They were basically savage pig-men in 1e, after all; their appearance, especially their faces, have been edging closer to human every edition since. There's been some talk about where it's okay to draw the line between "monster" and "person" lately; orcs started off clearly on one side and have migrated to a middle point where some people see them one way and most, the other.

Second, different is not the same as less than. Elves are also different than humans. The reason it's okay to kill or subjugate orcs (in a game where it is) is usually not because orcs are humans with funny hats; it's usually because they are hostile to humanity. And this is usually either a byproduct of their biology or the result of the influence of their gods. Just as you wouldn't expect wolves and sheep to live in peace, orcs and humans have a relationship within the biological web that isn't typically conducive to peaceful close co-existence- basically, one where orcs are the predators, but the human prey can work together in numbers to provide a telling defense-through-offense. This isn't like the Germans butting heads with the French, in my view; it's more akin to two species competing for space.

But I do agree that everyone should run whatever makes it fun for their table.

Anyway, I think you (and several others) kind of proved my initial point about how the different species argument gets discounted in these discussions. I get where you guys are coming from, but strongly disagree; and I think a lot of the problematic elements of humanoids come from humanizing them instead of keeping them as less human, more distinct, and more different- in other words, as more inhuman. But I'm generally pro-more-differences when it comes to nonhumans.

One more thing I'd like to add, though, is that my perspective is that of a white American guy, with all the baggage that contains. So I'm painfully aware that my view is limited to that perspective.

 

[the Jester]

orcs can successfully breed with homo sapiens and produce viable fertile offspring so they are like neanditles logically they are homo horridus.

So can dragons, demons, etc. The "can breed with each other" test is not valid in a D&D world. D&D lore implies a vastly greater degree of fecundity and possible interbreeding between widely removed creatures than in the real world. See also: aasimar, genasi, a million half-x templates from 3e, the original lore for creatures such as sylphs, brownies, etc (which described them as the descendants of bizarre mixes), etc.

 

[Rabulias]

Ah, I had no idea what Modern Prometheus was. We just call it Frankenstein here

The full title is Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, so I consider Frankenstein to be the primary title.

Edit: The full title also reinforces that Frankenstein is the creator, not the monster.

 

[Charlaquin]

A couple of things.

First, I would argue that one of the main reasons that those historical stereotypes have become identifiers for humanoids is because we (the larger gaming community) keep trying to bring them closer to being human; in other words, we're changing them from monsters to people by giving them more and more human characteristics. They were basically savage pig-men in 1e, after all; their appearance, especially their faces, have been edging closer to human every edition since.

The notion of savage [animal]-men was still just as colonialist when they had literal pig heads. All that humanizing them has done is make the uncomfortable reality of the archetype more obvious.

That’s not to say orcs can’t be done in a way that is purely monstrous. Warhammer 40K orcs are the usual go-to example here. That’s just never been D&D orcs. D&D orcs have always been an indigenous group that the PCs drive out of their homes and appropriate their land and resources, with their inherent savagery used as justification. It just gets harder to ignore the more human they look.

 

[Mind of tempest]

So can dragons, demons, etc. The "can breed with each other" test is not valid in a D&D world. D&D lore implies a vastly greater degree of fecundity and possible interbreeding between widely removed creatures than in the real world. See also: aasimar, genasi, a million half-x templates from 3e, the original lore for creatures such as sylphs, brownies, etc (which described them as the descendants of bizarre mixes), etc.

but the orc predates all that and demons are spirits and not bound by such weaknesses as biology.
and more importantly, it does not change my point the orcs are people, I consider dragons people just big and not humanoid.