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

[Bill Zebub]

Because thread gets locked.

Yeah, I'm done. I don't know why I get sucked in.

Maybe it's because I'm stupid and ugly and irrational.

But not nearly as promiscuous as one might wish.

 

[Umbran]

Great reference, the movie does show a lot.

The book is even better.

 

[Umbran]

But I think the 'different species' angle is one that is almost never even acknowledged by those who are, if you will, pro-more-human-orcs.

The "different species" argument is severely weakened by the existence of half-orcs.

The "different species" argument also ignores how humans are all one species, but show enormous differences in culture, attitude, and behavior over time and space - so "different species" that is used to support monoculture has issues.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

First the answer for the looks is disneyfication (or whatever the other posters called it). I don't think anyone's gonna argue that (probably).

The second is a more interesting question as well as the follow-up "why is it okay for some but not others?"

I think it may be orcs went:
Monsters
Humanoids who do evil things
Humanoids who mostly do evil things
Humanoids who are stereotyped as doing evil things
Humans who look different than you

Totally discounts the idea of an evil god creating them for intrinsic evil because people lack an understanding of a god directly influencing them (not here to start a religious debate, but surely a world where the gods are objectively real would put more stock in doing what the gods tell them to.)

 

[Scribe]

Totally discounts the idea of an evil god creating them for intrinsic evil because people lack an understanding of a god directly influencing them (not here to start a religious debate, but surely a world where the gods are objectively real would put more stock in doing what the gods tell them to.)

If there is one thing all these threads have made me consider most, it's God's, their impact, and oddly enough I've come to the conclusion that they can't be known to exist, and day to day impactful.

They cause a lot of issues for me as I deconstruct my own view on a setting and the various things they impact.

 

[BookTenTiger]

But this totally overlooks "a different species" as a difference. And that comes with significant weight in terms of how a creature behaves, or at least it should (in my judgment, anyway). And the gulf between that behavior and how we humans behave can go a long way toward justifying putting a species in the "enemy" box.

Which isn't to say that I think all orcs should be evil; I've had non-evil humanoids pop up in my games from time to time since the 80's. But I think the 'different species' angle is one that is almost never even acknowledged by those who are, if you will, pro-more-human-orcs.

Are there really "species" in a fantasy game?

What does species mean when you have things like Owlbears? Are a Red Dragon and a Gold Dragon different species? Is a Bearded Devil a different species than a Spined Devil?

I think it's a little silly to use modern science to denote who can and can't be considered an enemy in a D&D game. All it really comes down to is if the individuals are obstructing the characters from achieving their goals. You don't need the justification of "all of these guys are evil" if whoever it is wants to stop the characters from, say, finding the magic sword or rescuing the lost prince.

I feel like in the past, orcs served a narrative purpose that many people don't feel comfortable perpetuating anymore. The idea that "all these people are ugly and evil, so if you see them you can kill them" just feels... icky. So the big question becomes: what makes an orc an orc? And I personally think that's a really fun question to answer, though not an easy one once you get rid of the old stereotypes.

 

[Willie the Duck]

In addition to what others have said, it's probably because a lot of the most popular play styles no longer need of them.

Games that are story-focused have motivations for the villains, obviating the need for 'because evil'. Most games also don't rely so much on 'kill things for XP', so you also don't need half an excuse to murder just swathes of people to to gain powers from their deaths while calling yourself good.

I think one of the fundamental issues that D&D has had is that it vaguely tries to have it both ways in whether it is a generic fantasy game or a specific setting (the vague implied setting, well outside of questions like 'is FR the default setting or not?'). At peoples' individual tables, there can be the evil Empire (complete with faceless StormTempest Troopers), FireMagma Nation, or Prince HumperdinckFlumperdinck, and you can set up a situation where your opposition (who very well may be orcs or gnolls are weredireflumpfs or whatever) are evil because of what they do. D&D, by continuing to not speak to a setting, sets up the implication that it believes in inherent good or evil without action, much less inherently among species. Honestly, that's a take on the matter and 1e and 3e spent a lot of time focused on alignments as literal in-universe forces which was interesting for a once through read, but honestly neither what I'd want as far as deep moral philosophy or as a continuous gaming framework.

Also, remember when Diablo was to blame for everything people didn't like? Has there really not been another major Fantasy gamechanger in the past 20 years?

There have been many big developments, but no one single one. That's also the new world in which we live -- fantasy (and 'nerd' culture in general) has become mainstream enough to become fragmented. There's no top 40 radio you can turn to these days to find out what the kids are into, so to speak.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think one of the fundamental issues that D&D has had is that it vaguely tries to have it both ways in whether it is a generic fantasy game or a specific setting (the vague implied setting, well outside of questions like 'is FR the default setting or not?'). At peoples' individual tables, there can be the evil Empire (complete with faceless StormTempest Troopers), FireMagma Nation, or Prince HumperdinckFlumperdinck, and you can set up a situation where your opposition (who very well may be orcs or gnolls are weredireflumpfs or whatever) are evil because of what they do. D&D, by continuing to not speak to a setting, sets up the implication that it believes in inherent good or evil without action, much less inherently among species. Honestly, that's a take on the matter and 1e and 3e spent a lot of time focused on alignments as literal in-universe forces which was interesting for a once through read, but honestly neither what I'd want as far as deep moral philosophy or as a continuous gaming framework.

This precisely.

I feel like WotC actually needs a default setting presented in their core books so that they can say "In this setting, most orcs belong to the __ Empire, which wants __. In your setting, it might be different."

 

[Scribe]

D&D, by continuing to not speak to a setting, sets up the implication that it believes in inherent good or evil without action, much less inherently among species.

Agreed, I truly believe that this must be addressed in the next version of the game.

 

[Umbran]

Totally discounts the idea of an evil god creating them for intrinsic evil because people lack an understanding of a god directly influencing them (not here to start a religious debate, but surely a world where the gods are objectively real would put more stock in doing what the gods tell them to.)

Note that while there is a "default" setting for published D&D, the game does not assume everyone is playing in that setting, so assumptions of specific game-world-religion are not solid.