Way back, Ninja D! made a series of threads about dwarves, our thoughts about them, whether we liked them or not, and how we used them in our settings (if we did). What with Steerpike getting his Underdeep game going, and a few comments in Sylmenor's new "Greetings" thread, I thought I'd see what people did with Orcs...those famous "anonymous bad guys" trope.
Do you use Orcs in your setting? Is there anything that makes them different from the orcs of settings x, y, and z? Any preference for "orc" vs. "ork?"
If you don't use orcs, do you fill that role with something else, or does that role not fit into your setting at all? What would you like to see different in orcs?
What I've mainly done thus far in my setting is to push the 'noble savage' aspect of the barbarian tribe complex of tropes - orcs who are large and physically very boar and auroch like (for the sake of etymological echoes I ended up naming them Aurch) but who have a very strong sense of animistic spirituality and believe in restraint and self-mastery. Though the Aurch still do have a tendency towards causing tremendous damage should they loose control, the raging barbarian frothing at the mouth (ala D&D) is actually considered a shameful figure in their society though they are well-suited to it.
As far as what I like to see, I find the Always Chaotic Evil stereotypes of orcs completely lacking in interest unless there's a proper cultural context to that depiction (and even then monocultures are utterly lacking in interest, on the whole). I've always wanted (and am dimly planning in another part of my setting of riffing off the whole Orc/Orca similarity in both naming and fierce apex predator thing and doing aquatic orcs of some kind.
As far as spelling goes, I favour "orc" and support any derivatives that reference Tolkien's original "yrch".
Stereotypical orcs don't really capture my fancy, but then again neither did any of the other "horde" races like bugbears, and hobgoblins.
I really like orcs in Eberron however. There's just something I find absolutely awesome about an entire orc society that once saved the world from Lovecraftian horrors.
I find Orcs are actually more interesting when they're played straight in the original Tolkien way (which they typically aren't in fantasy mainstream.)
That is to say that they are not dumb brutes, but rather smart (cunning and technologically savvy, especially in terms of siege engineering and mass production of practical tools and weapons) if lacking in creativity and "true" craftmanship. What makes them monstrous is that they are cruel and malicious (and warped ugly - which may be a consequence of the former, with appropriate metaphysics to justify it) and may have been created with the express purpose of replacing (via implied genocide) whatever other races are present in the world.
To say nothing of the idea that they were originally elves (or any other non-monstrous beings) subjected to horrible mutilations and torture to make them what they are now, permanently and irrevocably tainted in a manner that passes on from one generation to the next. That's some vivid and hardcore tragedy, far more stirring than the modernist "really they're honorable noble savage warrior race guys and everyone's just prejudiced against them wah wah wah" take.
In my setting I take a "chaotic neutral warrior" approche with the orcs. They love the thrill of battle, its unwise to anger them and they are generally boorish. They don't really care about philosophicals question such as good or evil. That doesnt mean they are a bunch of grotesque brute, they want it their way. Across the ages, the orc fought so many battles that they are now rafined in war in general. Many orcs warlords have been famous for being cunning on battle. One of the orc territory now reclaims to be a kingdom. The other human/dwarve/elven kingdom, doesnt like that, but no one want to mess with them. The warrior-king of that orc kingdom aim to rise his kingdom's economy with mercenairy army contracts. The orcs from that kingdom are pretty much like the goth peoples during the roman empire age. Well, that's one of my orcish culture for example.
I never liked the "stupid chaotic evil savage" stereotype, personnally. If they were like that, I couldnt conceive how that race would not be exterminated by the other races
In Avayevnon I went the "proud warrior race" route. I eventually renamed them the Gorim, and I modelled them primarily off the Spartans, but had a few different groups. I had them be naturally hairy, but mostly keep themselves carefully shaved all over as a sign of being civilized. They placed a high value on honor, and had specific rites of courtship.
I don't have orcs in Cad Goleor or in Infernal Devices, so those don't apply, but I do have them in Camulus. In Camulus I play with the idea of the "savage" a bit more. I gave them access to the best iron in the known world, and a cultural attitude of "might makes right" and "I have the right to whatever I can take and keep." This applies to land, power, women, and essentially all parts of life. They are in some ways influenced by "The Iron Islands" from A Song of Ice and Fire.
I have used Orcs in two settings. In the first one, they were a mixture between Greeks and Plains Indians culturally, with stat modifiers based around WIS instead of STR. In the other, they were basically blacks (a Grayhawk in the late 19th century setting).
M.
When I use them, I go for a more true savage approach - it's not that they're stupid or whatever, it's just that they are near biologically incapable of controlling their temper and when it flares up, it's near impossible to quell until something's dead. Intelligent honeybadgers, basically. Add a dash of meritocracy (where granted, the only merit that matters is strength) and you have my orcs. I typically have them band together either under the rulership of a different race or when a greater threat appears - I had a group of orc warriors known as the Bloodfists, who's leader had an axe named Herosbane, ally with the player characters once to prevent a death god from being brought to the material plane, happily dying so others could keep living.
I like orcs a lot. I agree with Ghostman that they're probably at their most kvlt and brutal when Tolkienian, but I do also enjoy the proud-warrior-race-guy type orc as well, just as long as there is still some nastiness to them. After all, no matter how proud you are, if you're a warrior race that's gonna involve a lot of killing, and a lot of being totally cool with killing, and probably also full on enjoying killing. And then of course there's the Warhammer orc, which is a whole load of fun in its own right.
EDIT: Although there are no true orcs in Dark Silver, I did originally create my Snaketalkers as sort of human orcs who fulfilled the same role within the setting that orcs do in vanilla DnD. Obviously I ended up adding a few of my own twists and some sword & sorcery pulpiness, but yeah the basic idea of them is orcs-but-not-orcs.
I did like the idea that Orcs were at the forefront of technology in Tolkien's works. And that alone seems to make them evil in Tolkien's universe, based on the fact that 3000 years after the first defeat of Sauron, the "good" kingdoms of elves and men are at the EXACT SAME tech level they were back then. And that Narsil, a 3000 year-old sword, is still the best ever made.
And orcs being "the dark side of industry" is something that can be pretty cool. Uncreative, quickl, destructive (as seen with the massive deforestation of Fangorn, and genocide of the Ents), and ugly creations used for evil. The weapons of the heroes by contrast are ancient, and carefully crafted with magic and an eye to beauty, forged by hand and hard work. Sometimes they even literally GIVE OFF LIGHT.
I always thought that orcs, especially Tolkiens, carried some severe racist and colonialist overtones. They are a heavily stereotyped referenced to the Other and perhaps even the global South as seen by Europeans, everything that Tolkien, and no doubt many others, thought that Western Europe and England was not - brutish, crass, 'black', and only able to be ruled by a strong despot. Now maybe I'm reading too much into this and I'm aware that the idea of 'orc' has evolved beyond this, but still, they were developed as the antithesis to the Anglo-Saxon; physically, intellectually, emotionally. It's hard for me to get past.
I carefully took some of the traditional ideals then moved along with them. The Orcs, Bugbears, and 1/2 Ogres are playable races. To some degree, the history of the setting is such that the more traditional roles of the orcs and other humanoid races is far in the past, as well as it being a past where what they were built for has faded into ancient history. Things have moved along.
The orcash are the second most numerous race in Celtricia, after the Hobyts. Their integration is a subplot in the setting, with some of them still being tribal, others beig integrated, others being both.
In addition, most races in Celtricia can cross breed, so some of the racial strains are actually partially mixed.
[ooc]
"The Ogrillites
"The eight original Planars, called by the Alementary the True Gods, all had within them the creative spark, a part of the Song that allowed them to create. Even some of the Angels had within them that part of the song.
And in the depths of time, after the Omwo~, after the Stunatu, and even after the Humans, Anthraxus created his Servants of Woe, the Ogrillites..."
-fragment of the Journey of the Chosen, found in Silverwood.
The Ogrillite peoples were created by Athraxus the Decayed at the end of the First Millenia of the Age of Heroes. Long after the other Iesueca were created, Anthraxus took and perverted the other races and made them into his own. The Brutal Orcash, the clever Goblins and Hobgoblins, the canine Gnollic, the powerful Ograks, the Huge Fomor , and the wise Gartier, all were made as his people and his forces. Bred for conflict and born to war.
For thousands of years, these creatures were seen as sub-cultural and bestial, inferior enemies of the other intelligent races. Great wars were fought on racial lines, with the Ogrillites being the favored troops of those that made aggressive war . Yet as with all the races, time wore on and the original designs of the planars became less and less easy to determine. The Ogrillites, especially the Orcash, grew in numbers and in the wild areas prospered.
In the current philosophical mindset of the Celtrician setting, the ability to integrate into a multi-racial culture is seen as one of the tenets of a cultured person. Over millenia, positive relationships between the various races had become quite normal. However, there had been a good amount of racism and discrimination practised, even among allies until very recently. Where the enemies of the various city-states and countries were of a different race, it was often outright ugly.
But a little less than 2 centuries ago, driven in particular by the bold, equalizing, racial independence that the now-powerful and multi-national guilds had brought to the scene, race ceased being a major discrimination point in the Celtrician Cradle area. The roots of this change can be found in the Bright Lands, where plutocrats in Hobyt Inn started trading heavily with their former enemy, the Blacknote Orcash Tribe a few days north of that city. By that time within the city of HobytInn, Hobyts, Humans, and Omwo~ had been living with anti-discrimination laws for centuries, although the Orcash were not included. Though there was great debate, a philospohical movement began in the North-West that was predicated on the idea that one of the primary determinants of a civilized society is the ability to become integrated in a multi-racial society.
Thus, the Bright Lands were the first to open up citizenship to the Orcash and Gartier and also to include Ograk, Goblin and Gnolls as well (this is incredibly rare because of the distribution of the races). However, in a world where Hobyts and Orcash are the most populous races, almost 10% of the Orcash of the world, and almost 25% of the Orcash in the Northern Celtrician 'cradle' area, are 'civilized' and integrated.
In the time since then, most of the Northern (cradle) countries have accepted and adopted this acculturation. The idea has also spread to the Lands of Om in the Far South and most of the west. However, the Ambrellian and Argussian Empires are combating the idea. Some rulers and leaders embrace this change and proselytize it, although many fear it, but nonetheless this tide of change has washed over the lands.[/ooc]
I avoided using Orcs in my setting primarily because they're more Tolkien than they are mythological, at least to me. That's not saying that there won't be something similar. I am using "goblins" as one of the three groupings of villainous humanoids in my setting: there are goblins (evil fey), giants (self explanatory), and ferrals (anthropomorphic animals and lycanthropes). Some of my goblins may end up very orc-like. In fact, their association with elves (being, basically, corrupted elves), makes them very orc-like in the Tolkienesque sense.
Funny how things work out.
Quote from: Señor Leetz
I always thought that orcs, especially Tolkiens, carried some severe racist and colonialist overtones. They are a heavily stereotyped referenced to the Other and perhaps even the global South as seen by Europeans, everything that Tolkien, and no doubt many others, thought that Western Europe and England was not - brutish, crass, 'black', and only able to be ruled by a strong despot. Now maybe I'm reading too much into this and I'm aware that the idea of 'orc' has evolved beyond this, but still, they were developed as the antithesis to the Anglo-Saxon; physically, intellectually, emotionally. It's hard for me to get past.
As someone who read a ton of Tolkien early, and who actually TA'd it later on, understanding the world according to the English at that time, or those times as Tolkien wrote over decades and undoubtably changed himself, was critical. Between the Swarthymen, the Pukel men, the 'cruel Haradrim', even the placement and existence of Numenor, there was certainly a level of thought, much in the ways of the speeches of Churchill and his ilk, that was colonial and was frankly racist (Much though I still enjoy reading about Churchill and some of his speeches). Some of the more recent biographical sketches of him in 'Franklin & Winston' and in Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy (merely the best pure writing I have seen in decades) make it clear that once in his cups, which was pretty much daily, he thought the A-S hegemony was the only group suited to running the world.
I think that realization back in the early 80's, when I took classes then helped teach the subject, brought on the first sequential realizations that eventually led to the idea that my analogues had been created to be such, tainted copies, but had slipped through the centuries and millenia into their own place in the world, as opposed to what they were created to be.
I dislike alignment somewhat benignly; but especially dislike the idea of Racial Alignment (Though I have no problem with 'cultural racial alignment proclivities'). Orcs are the D&D clasic exemplar of 'Racial Alignment'. So when one looks at the idea of traditional orcs, and evil races, one must look at that.
Quote from: LordVreeg
Quote from: Señor Leetz
I always thought that orcs, especially Tolkiens, carried some severe racist and colonialist overtones. They are a heavily stereotyped referenced to the Other and perhaps even the global South as seen by Europeans, everything that Tolkien, and no doubt many others, thought that Western Europe and England was not - brutish, crass, 'black', and only able to be ruled by a strong despot. Now maybe I'm reading too much into this and I'm aware that the idea of 'orc' has evolved beyond this, but still, they were developed as the antithesis to the Anglo-Saxon; physically, intellectually, emotionally. It's hard for me to get past.
As someone who read a ton of Tolkien early, and who actually TA'd it later on, understanding the world according to the English at that time, or those times as Tolkien wrote over decades and undoubtably changed himself, was critical. Between the Swarthymen, the Pukel men, the 'cruel Haradrim', even the placement and existence of Numenor, there was certainly a level of thought, much in the ways of the speeches of Churchill and his ilk, that was colonial and was frankly racist (Much though I still enjoy reading about Churchill and some of his speeches). Some of the more recent biographical sketches of him in 'Franklin & Winston' and in Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy (merely the best pure writing I have seen in decades) make it clear that once in his cups, which was pretty much daily, he thought the A-S hegemony was the only group suited to running the world.
I think that realization back in the early 80's, when I took classes then helped teach the subject, brought on the first sequential realizations that eventually led to the idea that my analogues had been created to be such, tainted copies, but had slipped through the centuries and millenia into their own place in the world, as opposed to what they were created to be.
I dislike alignment somewhat benignly; but especially dislike the idea of Racial Alignment (Though I have no problem with 'cultural racial alignment proclivities'). Orcs are the D&D clasic exemplar of 'Racial Alignment'. So when one looks at the idea of traditional orcs, and evil races, one must look at that.
Heh, I thought J.R.R. Tolkien hated allegory.
Well, his works are wrought with it, regardless.
M.
Just a thought, but if we want to discuss racism/allegory in Tolkien, that might deserve another thread - let's talk about Orcs here. :)
Not saying the thread's getting derailed, it's just on that edge where it could be and figured I'd step in before that happened.
Quote from: Xathan
Just a thought, but if we want to discuss racism/allegory in Tolkien, that might deserve another thread - let's talk about Orcs here. :)
Not saying the thread's getting derailed, it's just on that edge where it could be and figured I'd step in before that happened.
Um.
He IS the source of the term and race in question. His ideals on orcs and how that transfrered itself into the industry is pertinent, though Tolkien's use or misuse of allegory may not be.
Quote from: LordVreeg
Quote from: Xathan
Just a thought, but if we want to discuss racism/allegory in Tolkien, that might deserve another thread - let's talk about Orcs here. :)
Not saying the thread's getting derailed, it's just on that edge where it could be and figured I'd step in before that happened.
Um.
He IS the source of the term and race in question. His ideals on orcs and how that transfrered itself into the industry is pertinent, though Tolkien's use or misuse of allegory may not be.
Exactly. That's why I made sure to point out that thread wasn't derailed yet and mentioned his racism/allegory use or lackthereof specifically - there are plenty of examples of allegories or racism in tolkien that don't relate to orcs, and figured it couldn't hurt to put a gentle reminder in that those would better go in their own thread than here. Was not targeted at any post - it was a pre-emptive act. (I call it a post of opprotunity) No offense or direction at anyone was meant.
Related to your point about him being the originator: I think the only two races that tolkien used that didn't have a direct mythological counterpart were the hobbits and the orcs. Goblins, dwarves, elves, etc can all be found in mythology, though often in various different forms. Even the Nazgul are just an example of cursed people, which goes back as far as storytelling. Yet Orcs have become virtually ubiquitous in fantasy, but hobbits/halflings seem to only really be used by DnD and related works. Any thoughts as a student of Tolkien (or from anyone in general) why orcs caught on while hobbits/halflings didn't as much, because the best theories I have are "Orcs are badass" and "Orcs provide an enemy that we didn't feel as culturally bad dehumanizing as monsters that need to be killed, while halflings are just short people."
Quote from: Xathan
Any thoughts as a student of Tolkien (or from anyone in general) why orcs caught on while hobbits/halflings didn't as much, because the best theories I have are "Orcs are badass" and "Orcs provide an enemy that we didn't feel as culturally bad dehumanizing as monsters that need to be killed, while halflings are just short people."
Well, like I mentioned earlier, they are used as the consummate Other, and as you mentioned, an enemy we don't any remorse towards because they are not human and are irredeemable - as you put it "monsters that need to be killed." However, uncritically looking at anything, even imaginary races in constructed worlds, only perpetuates the conditions that they were created in, and, in the case of Tolkienesque orcs, that being of Ango-Saxon superiority and tones of racism. There is a reason why Tolkien described elves are fair and orcs as black (or green or brown or what-have-you).
Now I'm obviously not saying everyone who uses orcs is racist, far from it, but that looking critically at things taken for granted can only help us build better, more original settings.
I was looking up Tolkien's Orcs and Goblins just a bit, remembering how the sword "Sting" has a blade that glows blue "when orcs are close" but seems to light up just as much for goblins. I found long arguments about whether or not orcs and goblins were a)the same thing, b)related, c)goblins were a KIND of orc, d)if the difference was who MADE them, etc.
I found nothing conclusive. But it seems that whatever enchantments are on the sword do not draw a distinction, so they must be pretty closely related. In Avayevnon my Gorim started as Orcs, which I previously had ruled to be the same thing as hobgoblins. In Camulus, however, Orcs and Hobgoblins are rivals.
Do any of you either "equate" orcs with another race, or set them at odds with one particular race more than others?
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
I was looking up Tolkien's Orcs and Goblins just a bit, remembering how the sword "Sting" has a blade that glows blue "when orcs are close" but seems to light up just as much for goblins. I found long arguments about whether or not orcs and goblins were a)the same thing, b)related, c)goblins were a KIND of orc, d)if the difference was who MADE them, etc.
I found nothing conclusive. But it seems that whatever enchantments are on the sword do not draw a distinction, so they must be pretty closely related. In Avayevnon my Gorim started as Orcs, which I previously had ruled to be the same thing as hobgoblins. In Camulus, however, Orcs and Hobgoblins are rivals.
Do any of you either "equate" orcs with another race, or set them at odds with one particular race more than others?
I think the choatic fractiousness of orcs in D&D was one of the reasons they were not a long term threat, as they were as likely to fight amongst themselves as against someone else.
My Orcash were created as troops and were actually very hierarchy-driven, but now exist in a time where their tribe or their nation (depending on their level of acculturation) is becoming more important that their racial heritage.
If I'm going a biological evolution route I typically put non-elven mammalian humanoid races as sharing a common ancestor and branching out - dwarves and gnomes split from the tree in one direction, humans, orcs, and halflings another, and goblinoids another (elves are typically related to fae creatures and not subject to evolution as it works for mortals). The reason there are so many more types of goblinoids is they breed more often and have shorter generations and are less prone to the organization that breed solid civilizations that remove many evolutionary pressures, so all that adds up to "evolving more rapidly" so therefore evolution happens more rapidly for them. (I typically say ambient magic means new mutations happen more rapidly so instead of millions of generations, it can happen in thousands.) End result? Orcs are separate from other goblinoids and are closer to humans, hence the interbreeding.
Of course, if I'm going fantasy creation myths, then it varies depending on how I feel about the setting. I typically avoid "created as soldiers" though, just because if I was going to create a better soldier by twisting humanoid races, I'd try and make hobgoblins since they tend to be more intelligent (in DnD, at least) and disciplined.
Quote from: Señor Leetz
Quote from: Xathan
Any thoughts as a student of Tolkien (or from anyone in general) why orcs caught on while hobbits/halflings didn't as much, because the best theories I have are "Orcs are badass" and "Orcs provide an enemy that we didn't feel as culturally bad dehumanizing as monsters that need to be killed, while halflings are just short people."
Well, like I mentioned earlier, they are used as the consummate Other, and as you mentioned, an enemy we don't any remorse towards because they are not human and are irredeemable - as you put it "monsters that need to be killed." However, uncritically looking at anything, even imaginary races in constructed worlds, only perpetuates the conditions that they were created in, and, in the case of Tolkienesque orcs, that being of Ango-Saxon superiority and tones of racism. There is a reason why Tolkien described elves are fair and orcs as black (or green or brown or what-have-you).
Now I'm obviously not saying everyone who uses orcs is racist, far from it, but that looking critically at things taken for granted can only help us build better, more original settings.
Just for fun, in a setting I was running but never wrote up, there were the pale orcs and the dark orcs. The players immediately assumed pale orcs were good and dark orcs were bad, as expected, and were shocked as hell when the dark orcs turned out to not be evil, merely in a situation similar to Native Americans at the time of colonialism - recently decimated by a plague and being driven back from their lands, and had finally had enough and were fighting back - while the pale orcs were at war with the dark orcs not because they were good and just like everyone (in and out of game) thought, but because they were to dark orcs what drow were to elves and found a common ally in the humans taking the dark orcs lands.
Two of the players were so upset they almost quit, one was thoughtful, and one was "whatever, lets kill the other orcs, and then convince humans to go expand to the north where only undead elves rule. It's still okay to kill brain eating undead, right? Or you gonna guilt trip us there, too?" (I did not.) The angry ones misunderstood: I wasn't trying to call the players racist. I was trying to call our cultural biases racist (with the subtly of a 17 year old), and at 25 now realize I was being a bit racist myself for making skin color matter for alignment for orcs - even though I inverted what people expect.
I agree with you that not everyone who uses classic tolkien style orcs is racist. Sometimes you just want to turn off your brain and hack and slash. But Fantasy, as a genre, is about allegory, and it's silly to ignore the message we can send with that allegory. [spoiler=Semi off topic to avoid hijacking]That's part of why I love using Aberrations, (nonintelligent) Constructs, Evil Outsiders, and Undead as foes for DnD: Aberrations either drive us insane by existing or have a biological need to feed upon us, nonintelligent constructs are just mobile objects, and undead have a predatory drive towards humankind or are really just creeper than average nonintelligent constructs (The best case undead in my writings want to be returned to the peace of the afterlife/oblivion) Evil Outsiders (demons and devils) are beings that are inherently evil and proud of it. All of which means you can not worry about allegory and kill them.
Spoilerized because figured my earlier post would make this tangent hypocritical otherwise. Now it's marginally LESS hypocritical ;)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Xathan
If I'm going a biological evolution route I typically put non-elven mammalian humanoid races as sharing a common ancestor and branching out - dwarves and gnomes split from the tree in one direction, humans, orcs, and halflings another, and goblinoids another (elves are typically related to fae creatures and not subject to evolution as it works for mortals). The reason there are so many more types of goblinoids is they breed more often and have shorter generations and are less prone to the organization that breed solid civilizations that remove many evolutionary pressures, so all that adds up to "evolving more rapidly" so therefore evolution happens more rapidly for them. (I typically say ambient magic means new mutations happen more rapidly so instead of millions of generations, it can happen in thousands.) End result? Orcs are separate from other goblinoids and are closer to humans, hence the interbreeding.
I like that reasoning for the different goblinoids. So, would different goblinoids in this set-up have different habitats and diets? Like, Bugbears being apex predators where as goblins are second-level consumers or some such? Goblins living in mountains and caves, whereas bugbears live in forests, or on the open plain? Or are they all intermixed?
Quote from: Xathan
Fantasy, as a genre, is about allegory
NO.
It's about monsters and swords and magic and ancient ruined cities and strange gods and fantastic treasures.
Look hard enough and you can find allegory anywhere, in anything.
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: Xathan
If I'm going a biological evolution route I typically put non-elven mammalian humanoid races as sharing a common ancestor and branching out - dwarves and gnomes split from the tree in one direction, humans, orcs, and halflings another, and goblinoids another (elves are typically related to fae creatures and not subject to evolution as it works for mortals). The reason there are so many more types of goblinoids is they breed more often and have shorter generations and are less prone to the organization that breed solid civilizations that remove many evolutionary pressures, so all that adds up to "evolving more rapidly" so therefore evolution happens more rapidly for them. (I typically say ambient magic means new mutations happen more rapidly so instead of millions of generations, it can happen in thousands.) End result? Orcs are separate from other goblinoids and are closer to humans, hence the interbreeding.
I like that reasoning for the different goblinoids. So, would different goblinoids in this set-up have different habitats and diets? Like, Bugbears being apex predators where as goblins are second-level consumers or some such? Goblins living in mountains and caves, whereas bugbears live in forests, or on the open plain? Or are they all intermixed?
To avoid derailing too much I'll keep this short, but yes - they operate different ecological or environmental niches. Bugbears are apex pack hunters, hobgoblins are more pack hunters like wolves, goblins are more like jackals. To keep it from getting too much off topic, bugbears and orcs in this setup are rival apex predators - the same situation you get in the natural world when bears and mountain lions inhabit the same ecological location. (due their natural sneakness, the bugbears area actually the mountain lions in this anology. :P)
Of course, since the distinction isn't strong in tolkien, one could argue that talking about goblins in an orc thread is, in fact, totally valid, as you pointed out.
Quote from: Kindling
Quote from: Xathan
Fantasy, as a genre, is about allegory
NO.
It's about monsters and swords and magic and ancient ruined cities and strange gods and fantastic treasures.
Look hard enough and you can find allegory anywhere, in anything.
I disagree...and that, discussion, more than anything else deserves a seperate thread. ;)
Quote from: Kindling
Quote from: Xathan
Fantasy, as a genre, is about allegory
NO.
It's about monsters and swords and magic and ancient ruined cities and strange gods and fantastic treasures.
Look hard enough and you can find allegory anywhere, in anything.
I agree with Xathan. Good fantasy, like any other speculative genre, is about dealing with real world issues in an unreal word.
I despise your opinions, but this thread is about orcs, so let us orc.
Female orcs - do they exist? are they substantially different from male orcs? what is their place in orc "society"?
Quote from: Kindling
I despise your opinions, but this thread is about orcs, so let us orc.
Female orcs - do they exist? are they substantially different from male orcs? what is their place in orc "society"?
Yeah, this is going to take me far afield again. There is no 'orc society' in Celtricia, or little. There are tribal societies and national/cultural entities.
Sexism exists in Celtricia, but is considerably lessened. Much as magic has replaced technology to some level, magic reduces any physical advantage the male gender might have, and since there are more women than men borne to most races, there are slightly more female casters.
This reduces sexism in general.
Tribal Orcash of any gender are used to being somewhat down the pecking order, as most Ogrillite tribes include stronger Ograks, Gartier, gnollic, and others. The presence of half breeds (Orcgraks being the most common) that lodge with them mitigates a bit. But in the tribal situations, where casting is less taught and less common, and where physical size and power is more important, female orcash are more common to cast. but non casting, tribal females often have very low social positions.
Now for the acculturated Orcash, this means divesting themselves from this attitude. Yes, there is a slight sexism in some guilds or some societies, but especially in the matrilineal Cradlelands, orcash who aculturate have to get used to more subtle and less obvious (and sometimes absent) racism and sexism.
My settings usually involve much less sexism than the real world, but may not do away with it completely. The Orc tribes in my setting tend to be more sexist than the rest of the world. In Camulus orcs, goblins, hobs, and bugbears marry literally just by kidnapping their wives. They remain married as long as the wife remains with him. She may or may not try to escape. Another orc can steal your wife, making her HIS wife instead. They have no concept of "rape" because they have no concept of "consent" of any kind: if you want something, you take it--if you can.
On the flip-side, because this society is all about power and what you can do, if an orc woman were to exercise her power in the same way as orc men, she could take multiple captive husbands as well. But since the men always take the best and the most of the food, and are more practiced in the arts of war, a woman rarely has the chance to gain enough strength and power to do this, and so women end up being viewed as property, even though this is not formally institutionalized.
In Avayevnon, my "Spartan" orcs have a similar marriage ceremony (kidnapping), but it is a more formalized ritual and less brutish.
There are no female orcs; everyone knows orcs are the off spring of the Orcen tree, being the things created inside those bulb...things...you see hanging off those vines.
This is a mountain biome tree, which is why you see so many orcs in woodland mountains.
They are so hostile because these "male" orcs are also the primary means of propagation. The "rape" part of "rape, pillage, plunder" will convert the unfortunate victim into another tree, over the course of months.
The pillage and plunder part is sort of an artifact, though scientists seem to agree it's a form of landscaping - raze places to make a rich, ash-infused soil perfect for the growth of a new Orcen tree.
They travel in packs because this achieves their goals better. Kind of like wolves. Sometimes a few will go solo; these are another survival adaptation to try and propagate new Orcan trees in different areas.
They're not truly sentient, though, so hack and slash away!
M.
In an introductory Pathfinder campaign I'm working set in what is basically post-glasnost Mordor (if you think that sounds Terry Pratchett-esque, you're spot on), orcs make up a major section of the population. While not created from corrupted elves or anything so Tolkenian (they're closer to the Warcraft end of the spectrum, for those of you who are fans of TVTropes), they have been used as shock troops for the Unholy Empire for the better part of the past thousand years and most of them, as with most races in this setting, are quite enthusiastically evil. However, they do resent the idea that they are inherently cruder or more savage than any other race. Since I'm playing with a lot of deliberate anachronisms, they had their own tribal culture before being enslaved by the forces of darkness, but nowadays they're more likely to congregate in gangs or extended criminal families under the banner of an ancient clan: if I had to make a comparison, tribal marks are a bit like Scottish tartans. They're also very far from sexist, coming from a culture that doesn't consider stomping skulls into blood-jelly a gendered action.
Also, half-orcs (or half-humans, depending on who you ask) aren't all the products of rape like virtually every fantasy setting depicts them, because I find it even more unbelievable that no one would want to consensually miscegenate with a tall, strapping warrior just because their faces aren't too conventionally attractive.