On Orcs: Well, there was one for dwarves...

Cheomesh · January 28, 2013, 03:14:43 PM

Well, his works are wrought with it, regardless.

M.

Xathan · January 28, 2013, 04:10:43 PM

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.

LordVreeg · January 28, 2013, 04:13:54 PM

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.

Xathan · January 28, 2013, 04:22:04 PM

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."

O Senhor Leetz · January 28, 2013, 04:47:36 PM

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.

Seraph · January 29, 2013, 12:04:43 PM

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?

LordVreeg · January 29, 2013, 02:05:01 PM

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.

Xathan · January 29, 2013, 03:38:22 PM

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.

Xathan · January 29, 2013, 03:52:30 PM

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]

Seraph · January 29, 2013, 06:15:45 PM

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?

Kindling · January 29, 2013, 07:30:49 PM

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.

Xathan · January 29, 2013, 07:40:47 PM

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. ;)

O Senhor Leetz · January 30, 2013, 01:07:17 AM

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.

Kindling · January 30, 2013, 06:40:23 AM

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"?

LordVreeg · January 30, 2013, 08:55:31 AM

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.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

On Orcs: Well, there was one for dwarves...

Cheomesh

Xathan

LordVreeg

Xathan

O Senhor Leetz

Seraph

LordVreeg

Xathan

Xathan

Seraph

Kindling

Xathan

O Senhor Leetz

Kindling

LordVreeg