Anyone else find it weird lore wise that 5e orcs are evil. [Archive]

Rfkannen

2014-10-07, 08:04 PM

So classicaly orcs have always been evil, and as such they are still evil in 5e, they have been this way classically and no doubt they will be evil in future editions. I have no problem with this realy as it can be very usefull for dungeon masters to have a race that players can guilelessly commit genocide on, however lore wise I find it a bit weird that orcs are evil.

So the Phb has the oath of vengeance paladin, this paladin states that they are fueled by vengance yet are not evil, lets compare this to the orcs. The story of the orcs origin starts with gruumsh going to grab his land, yet all the other gods are rude and deny him any dominion on the material plane. Gruumsh then went into a rage, made the orcs and claimed that there purpose was to reek revenge on the other gods denying him. So why exactly do the other gods get a pass and the orcs are labeled evil? Yes, they were built for raids and destroying yet if the paladin fueled by vengance isnt evil, why are orcs?

Then their is the matter of racism. Orcs are of course hatefull of elves, however they do have good reason, I mean there god was shot in the eye of the elvish god. However besides that Orcs are shown to have a good attitude towards crossbreeds, be able to work with other races, and generally are remarkably accepting of the races not made by the gods that crossed gruumsh.

However what realy sparked this idea in my head was that it is breifly mentioned that breaking a peace treaty would be against the ideals of the orc gods. Seriusly if they were completly caotic evil, why in the world would it be a warning sign to the orcish people that one of their leaders broke a peace treaty? What this would imply is that orcs actualy do have a side to them that is not completly evil, after all why in the world would an evil race not simply break the treaty when they were more powerfull and be happy about it?

Now what would I consider an evil race? Well the ogres that are generally just evil for no reason and eat people. The mind flayors for obvius reasons such as the brain eating. Demons, devils. Red dragons (again just kind of jerks)

Also one of their main gods is a fertility goddess, what kind of evil people has one of their main gods be a fertility goddess?

Also I just want to say that yes this will differ depending on campaign, personaly my orcs will be chaotic neutral and I bet many others will be chaotic evil. However what I am talking about is just the information that has been provided in 5e by wotc.

Jeraa

2014-10-07, 08:17 PM

So the Phb has the oath of vengeance paladin, this paladin states that they are fueled by vengance yet are not evil, lets compare this to the orcs. The story of the orcs origin starts with gruumsh going to grab his land, yet all the other gods are rude and deny him any dominion on the material plane. Gruumsh then went into a rage, made the orcs and claimed that there purpose was to reek revenge on the other gods denying him. So why exactly do the other gods get a pass and the orcs are labeled evil? Yes, they were built for raids and destroying yet if the paladin fueled by vengance isnt evil, why are orcs?

Because the other gods just cheated Gruumsh. They didn't really hurt him or his people. Gruumsh, on the other hand, commanded his orcs to slaughter all other races, even though those races were innocent, it was their gods that did the crime. He orders the orcs to commit genocide.

"There!" roared He-Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. "There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they will survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day will come when they cover the world, and they will slay all of your collective peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!"

Then their is the matter of racism. Orcs are of course hatefull of elves, however they do have good reason, I mean there god was shot in the eye of the elvish god.

Yes, but it doesn't say why it happened. It was because Gruumsh tried to kill Corellon and drink his blood to gain his power. That sounds like a justifiable reason to shoot Gruumsh.

BRKNdevil

2014-10-07, 08:20 PM

I guess it really is based completely on Tradition and Species-ism. Honestly I guess they are evil because the god that made them to get revenge on a serious injustice against him and thus were labeled evil by the other gods due to them going against their interests. That said I now have the perfect ability to argue a Paladin of Vengeance of Gruumsh is a perfectly viable character concept.

Rfkannen

2014-10-07, 08:25 PM

Yes, but it doesn't say why it happened. It was because Gruumsh tried to kill Corellon and drink his blood to gain his power. That sounds like a justifiable reason to shoot Gruumsh.

You do have a point, however I would say that most orcs would not veiw it that way, instead viewing there hatred of orcs as revenge for a serius injustice, either ingoreing the cause or claiming it was okay because of the fact gruumsh got no land.

Also I do not think that has specifically been said so far in 5e, it is pretty safe to assume however.

Because the other gods just cheated Gruumsh. They didn't really hurt him or his people. Gruumsh, on the other hand, commanded his orcs to slaughter all other races, even though those races were innocent, it was their gods that did the crime. He orders the orcs to commit genocide.

First I would argue that leaving the orcs withought anywere to live would be harming them. Second would be the fact that that would make Gruumsh evil, no the orcs. Imagine you are an orcish child and the story of why your people raid the elves is being told, you would be told a story that would revolve around your god richisly crushing the opressor gods of the other races, and of your heroic god beeing blinded in his attempt to bring a homeland to your people. No matter how Gruumsh may have acted an orcs actions would be based around the asumption that they were seriusly betrayed.

VoxRationis

2014-10-07, 09:25 PM

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-10-07, 09:29 PM

Rfkannen

2014-10-07, 09:34 PM

You ask why a Paladin of Vengeance isn't evil (or at least non-good)? Because someone kept complaining that alignment restrictions for classes were unnecessarily restrictive. Reap what they sowed.

Also, for a race with a short lifespan, poor medical traditions, and a warlike nature, worshipping a fertility goddess is only logical. It has nothing to do with alignment; it has everything to do with keeping a steady or growing population.

I am completly for not haveing alignment restrictions, as you can always come up with a character concept that requires a certain alignment with a certain class that may not be supported. What I am saying is that generally when you ask someone what alignement a vengance paladin is they will say some form of neuetral or good, not evil. I am just stating that it is pretty clear from their oath and abilities that in d&d vengance is not considered an evil act.

Yeah you are right, I mostly wrote that line as a joke.

Knaight

2014-10-07, 09:36 PM

You ask why a Paladin of Vengeance isn't evil (or at least non-good)? Because someone kept complaining that alignment restrictions for classes were unnecessarily restrictive. Reap what they sowed.

This doesn't follow at all - Paladins not having to be good anymore would prevent this issue.

As for the more major difference, it's not a matter of whether or not vengeance is evil. It's about the form of the vengeance and what it is over. Take Inigo Montoya - he sought vengeance against the man who murdered his father in cold blood. By the typical standards of morality applied to fantasy stories, that is just fine.

The orcs, meanwhile are there taking revenge for some land grabbing, and they aren't even taking it on the people who actually grabbed the land. That's a lot less legitimate.

Rfkannen

2014-10-07, 09:38 PM

I believe in the phb it details that orcs are not INHERENTLY evil, but they are inclined to it; their instincts and the Gruumsh-voice in their head is always compelling them to evil acts. It would take an orc of tremendous willpower and discipline to deny their nature, and its hard to imagine what would compel such an orc to do so.

basically you'd need to be orc drizzt

Here is the thing though, I would say that what Gruumsh tells orcs to do isnt inherently evil. Now yes they are raiding and pillaging. However from a certain perspective an orc could be very well convinved that the only just course of action is to do as gruumsh commands. I mean they are for the most part less racists than most of the good guys, I mean they only moderetly hate the good races other than elves, realy hate elves, but besides that I could realy see orcs as beeing a force for racial equality between the races generally considered evil or those on the darker side of nuetral. An orc driizt would be against gruumsh, I would say that you could be good and still follow gruumsh.

As for the more major difference, it's not a matter of whether or not vengeance is evil. It's about the form of the vengeance and what it is over. Take Inigo Montoya - he sought vengeance against the man who murdered his father in cold blood. By the typical standards of morality applied to fantasy stories, that is just fine.

The orcs, meanwhile are there taking revenge for some land grabbing, and they aren't even taking it on the people who actually grabbed the land. That's a lot less legitimate.

For the most part I actually agree with you, however here is the problem. So lets say that Inigo's dad was actualy far more of an ass hat than we see in the book, he did something we don't see that makes him completly deserve his death. I would say that since Inigo didn't realy know he would still be justified in the revenge of his father. I see it in the same vane, the orcs are most likely taught from a young age the story from Gruumsh perspective were he is the good guy, and as such the orcs are sympathetic to his cause. As to the fact that it isnt the actual people that took the land, yes, however there cultures continue to value the gods that caused this genocidal war, and as such they would for the most part veiw them as the same entitiy. I would say that this would make orcs certainly not good, but I woudnt call them evil. Even if this is an evil act then I would point to their other factors that would point to them not simply being evil maniacs.

Jeraa

2014-10-07, 09:50 PM

Paladins of Vengeance "punish those who have committed a grievous sin." Their targets more or less deserve to be killed.

Orcs on the other hand, kill innocents. They live for slaughter and bloodshed. They dismember bodies and use them for decorations.

Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. After savaging a settlement, orcs pick it clean of wealth and items usable in their own lands. They set the remains of villages and camps ablaze, then retreat whence they came, their bloodlust satisfied.

Their lust for slaughter demands that orcs dwell always within striking distance of new targets. As such, they seldom settle permanently, instead converting ruins, cavern complexes, and defeated foes' villages into fortified camps and strongholds. Orcs build only for defense, making no innovation or improvement to their lairs beyond mounting the severed body parts of their victims on spiked stockade walls or pikes jutting up from moats arid trenches.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-10-07, 09:51 PM

Here is the thing though, I would say that what Gruumsh tells orcs to do isnt inherently evil. Now yes they are raiding and pillaging. However from a certain perspective an orc could be very well convinved that the only just course of action is to do as gruumsh commands.
I think of this as the "Stupid or evil?" conundrum in real life. You can't know if someone is boneheaded or malicious in their secret hearts. You can only judge them by their actions.

Another way to put this is that Paladins don't fall because of thoughts, they fall because of actions.

I mean they are for the most part less racists than most of the good guys, I mean they only moderetly hate the good races other than elves, realy hate elves, but besides that I could realy see orcs as beeing a force for racial equality between the races generally considered evil or those on the darker side of nuetral. An orc driizt would be against gruumsh, I would say that you could be good and still follow gruumsh.

i would characterize such behavior as neutral at best, not good.

You're right that its fairly easy to come up with warrior race guy orc that fights for the good of his clan but I can't see any way to get all the way to Good.

Rfkannen

2014-10-07, 09:53 PM

Grayson01

2014-10-07, 10:00 PM

The real reason, Orcs came first. Then they had to retcon a reason for them to be evil.

Honestly your point has some validity in it.

However a counter point to it is the actions they take in their vengence. Raping, Murdering, and all the other terrible tortures that the Orcs do to the other races in the name of their vengence makes them evil. it would also make the Paladin of Vengence Evil if s/he slowly cut off the fingers of These Ultimate Evils to exact revenge. We are not just talking about letting Little Orphan Annies Orphanage burn down to go chase the evil demon who set it ablaze, we are talking "Hey those pointy eared elves' god shot Gruumish and wouldn't let him play in any raindeer games, now we go and slaughter all the Younglings, Burn down their Tree forts and have or way with the old elves".
That's kinda the difference that makes them evil.
but hopfully we will get an Eberron Splat book, and We can have Marradring Elves and Nature loving Orcs. Oh and Barb Halflings riding Dinos :-)

Objulen

2014-10-07, 10:15 PM

Unless a Paladin of Vengeance is geared towards very selective enemies (devils, demons, etc), it's very easy for one to be neutral or evil. Justice has to be an overriding concern, and the lack of mercy makes them very grey very fast if they aren't focused on truly irredeemable targets.

As far as Grumuush goes, it's the "murder them all, and their little dogs too!" that makes him evil. Whatever the other gods did to him, supporting the mass murder, enslavement, and rape of guiltless (or even guilty beings, for two out three of the articles mentioned) beings is evil no matter what your justification is in the long run.

An example of non-evil orcs would be orcs who claim a home territory and defend it fiercely, even to the point of attacking armed interlopers and selling off others for ransom. They could even be aggressive, stand-offish, and have no problems taking others territory if they start open war, but a constant state of warfare with others for the purposes of wiping them out or enslaving them wouldn't be on the table.

Knaight

2014-10-07, 10:21 PM

For the most part I actually agree with you, however here is the problem. So lets say that Inigo's dad was actualy far more of an ass hat than we see in the book, he did something we don't see that makes him completly deserve his death. I would say that since Inigo didn't realy know he would still be justified in the revenge of his father. I see it in the same vane, the orcs are most likely taught from a young age the story from Gruumsh perspective were he is the good guy, and as such the orcs are sympathetic to his cause. As to the fact that it isnt the actual people that took the land, yes, however there cultures continue to value the gods that caused this genocidal war, and as such they would for the most part veiw them as the same entitiy. I would say that this would make orcs certainly not good, but I woudnt call them evil. Even if this is an evil act then I would point to their other factors that would point to them not simply being evil maniacs.

Coming back to the analogy - lets say that by the time Inigo was old enough to hunt for the six fingered man, he was dead. So, he killed his adult children instead. After all, his adult children loved their father - this isn't even a "continue to value" situation. Inigo's just passing the enmity down.

That would be pretty equivalent to the orc situation as presented*. It's also pretty clearly evil.

*The arguments against having an evil race in the first place still pretty much stand, and I'd imagine that when it comes to how the orcs are actually played a lot of that will come up.

rollingForInit

2014-10-08, 01:10 AM

Orcs plunder, raid, murder and rape indiscriminately. Innocents, children, etc. They don't care. That makes them evil, not their motivation of some ancient vengeance.

A Paladin of Vengeance might exact divine justice upon those who've committed evil deeds. A Chaotic Good Paladin could kill off those who escape the law. A rapist who's been acquitted because a wealthy parent bribed the judge might be executed by a vengeance paladin. That's not evil; that's justice, just not by the law. It's even further removed from evil if the intent is to punish those who've committed atrocities to protect people from suffering at their hands again. Pretty noble goal, if somewhat messy and very illegal.

It's all about how the vengeance is applied and, perhaps even more importantly, how it is not applied. Vengeance on its own, without context, reason or intent, is neither good nor evil.

Ninjadeadbeard

2014-10-08, 01:41 AM

Keep in mind that the Tenets of Vengeance also state that the Paladin of Vengeance must pay Restitution for the sins committed by their foes. They cannot surely be Evil aligned in this case, as their oath explicitly demands that they pay for the damages their quarry causes to the innocent. So "at any cost" includes both personal spiritual sacrifice, as well as helping those innocents who suffered before the Paladin could slay their oppressor/enemy.

With regards to Evil-aligned races, I always justify it as Heroic Medieval Morality. If I wanted to play a more nuanced game, I'd just throw out the restrictions.

randomodo

2014-10-08, 07:01 AM

Let's also bear in mind that Gruumsh is an unreliable narrator. That orc myths say X about the origin of the world and the nature of the gods and their rightful place in the world has no bearing on the actual truth.

But the concept of vengeance (and paladin vengeance oaths) and the concept of evil aren't inherently linked. You can be good and have a vengeance oath.

From a standpoint of a race being always evil or trending towards evil, you can look at it in several ways with different explanations:
- Gamist, because it's nice to have a race you don't feel bad about having your players kill
- Theological, "the evil gods of the orcs make them evil"
- Biological, "orcs have funky amygdalas perhaps, also the pleasure center in their brain is activated when they engage in violence." Seriously, there's a whole bunch of neurological reasons you could use to explain why an entire species engages in behavior that we would call evil. Kinda beyond the scope of typical D&D, of course.

Bottom line, as ever, is that it's your game. If you don't want orcs to be evil, then they're not evil.

One of the key features of my last campaign was that an orcish chieftain had converted to the dominant human faith, and was imposing that faith on his subordinate tribes, which was leading to a reactionary increase in Gruumsh worship and orcish civil war that threatened to spill over into human territory. [Of course, this was about the time the PCs discovered that everything they thought they knew about religion and the gods of the game world was incorrect, but that's another story]

archaeo

2014-10-08, 07:23 AM

The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you.

Alignment is basically all fluff now. You can argue over whether always-evil orcs are problematic, but there's definitely no need to let that affect your own game.

Person_Man

2014-10-08, 08:30 AM

First came historical tabletop combat, where miniature armies attacked one another, which sometimes included siege combat against castles or fortifications. Then fantasy novels started to become popular, led by Tolkien. So players started to incorporate fantasy elements into their battles by adding wizards, elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. Then one day Gary Gygax and his friends played a game where players penetrated the dungeons beneath a castle, rather then just attacking the castle itself. The exploration of a hidden map was a new and fun aspect of the game. And since its hard to navigate large units through a maze, each player ended up controlling a single character and some henchmen instead, which made playing the game a lot quicker and easier, since it required fewer miniatures and you could resolve turns much faster since there were fewer pieces to move. And since players were only controlling a single character, they named them, started giving them personalities, started acting out their interactions with each other, created elaborate rules to have them become more powerful as they become veterans, and so on. Dungeons and Dragons was born, and it was a lot of fun.

But then when a set of rules to do this were pulled together and formalized in one book, it was clear that the default play style for Dungeons and Dragons ended up having players essentially take on the role of criminals, who break into elaborately protected homes, murder everyone they find there, and steal the former occupants' possessions. The game wouldn't be popular if it said this in the introduction, since most potential players don't think of themselves as sociopaths. So a reasonable moral justification for these actions had to be created that made sense in the context of a fantasy genre. Luckily, one already existed. The players were good, and they killed monsters that were inherently evil. Orcs are evil, and therefore its ok to break into their homes, kill them, and take their possessions. The end.

I for one do not support the orc holocaust for a variety of reasons. But it is the default mode of gameplay for D&D, and always has been. The more you blur the lines of moral certitude and make monsters into intelligent species who just happen have different biology and culture, the more you undercut the rationale of what typical players do in D&D. Therefore, orcs must be Evil, or the players are the true villains.

Shining Wrath

2014-10-08, 09:02 AM

Perhaps not all orcs are evil, just most of them.

I do not think we should take anything Gruumsh teaches his followers at face value - considerable grains of salt required.

My version of the world has the gods discover that they are more powerful when grouped together than when separate, because Power calls to Power. So during creation, even if Gruumsh is creating the Orcs, all the other gods were nearby, and when Moradin created the dwarves, all the other gods were nearby.

This means that there's a little of Morandin in every orc, and a little of Gruumsh in every dwarf; and so on for all the various permutations.

Which in turn means that when they tell you orcs are chaotic evil and dwarves are lawful good, they mean *usually*. There's exceptions. And in fact, back at the start of things, people grouped into tribes / clans / gens, and one of the things that helped them form these associations was similar alignment. So the chaotic evil dwarves tended to find one another and form a clan.

Therefore, if you find a village of orcs, the odds are pretty good that they all have the same alignment or one step away - but that alignment may not be CE.

Oh, and humans? Created by a bunch of demigods and lesser deities, each with a desire to prove themselves worthy. That's right; humans were done by committee. That's why humans show such variation in alignment, size, and appearance; and it's also why humans are always driven to prove themselves to the world.

pwykersotz

2014-10-08, 09:46 AM

Raimun

2014-10-08, 10:07 AM

No. It's not weird.

Orcs have pointed tusks for teeth. Ergo, they are evil and must be destroyed.

And then you should take their stuff.

Oh, and I guess they are violent or something? I Dunno. I always zone out when the village elders or the nobles start talking.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Triclinium

2014-10-08, 10:50 AM

I have always been opposed to the objective morality of D&D. Good and evil are man made concepts, and as such can never really be defined in the black and white terms D&D uses.

As for orcs being racially evil, that's been around for as long as orcs have. It's not that surprising that 5E continued that trend.

Daishain

2014-10-08, 11:40 AM

Sure, but only in the sense that I am opposed to the idea of racial morality. A good aligned orc may or may not be a little surprising, but should not be an impossibility, nor so rare that everyone thinks it is an impossibility.

However, as a group lore wise, the majority of orcs have a history of taking actions that place them firmly in the evil column. Not so sure about chaotic, but definitely evil.

Beleriphon

2014-10-08, 01:11 PM

You ask why a Paladin of Vengeance isn't evil (or at least non-good)? Because someone kept complaining that alignment restrictions for classes were unnecessarily restrictive. Reap what they sowed.

Also you're supposed to help the people that have been affected by that which you seek vengeance against. Thus if you get your vengeance against an orc horde you go back and help rebuild the towns that were destroyed. Orcs don't help each other, they slaughter each other to get to the top, slaughter each other to stay on top, and then take their slaughter to everybody else once they've been on top long enough to direct that energy towards somebody else.

Theodoxus

2014-10-08, 01:23 PM

I'm totally washing my hands of alignment in this addition. 4th got close, but 5th really put the nail in the coffin for even needing it as a descriptor. People aren't on an axis; orcs aren't on an axis. You could make a case that outsiders are, but really, it's just following a script - not unlike the Paladin Oaths.

So, if you're playing a Paladin in my game, I'll monitor how you follow the Oath, but I won't hand a label on how you play your alignment.

If you're not playing a paladin, then it doesn't really matter, outside of what your background might dictate (and even that's just for inspiration points). I played a Neutral Evil fighter - the worst evil I committed was hunting down a dock foreman and killing him on orders. He was working at cross purposes to my guild - heck, he was probably a family man.

Alignment has always been arbitrary and fluid. Good riddance.

Person_Man

2014-10-09, 09:04 AM

As a side note, there's a recent article out online called "The Best Monster" (which I won't link to here because of its adult content) which mentions this issue as a test to see whether or not you're an Old School Renaissance (OSR) D&D player. To paraphrase:

'You come across a bunch of baby orcs. Orcs are, by definition, pure evil. Do you kill them?"

'Pure evil?'

'Pure evil.'

'I kill them.'

'You're OSR.'

Daishain

2014-10-09, 09:07 AM

Morty

2014-10-09, 09:10 AM

The alignment system, and selectively labelling certain species as conveniently evil using it, have never made sense. One shouldn't expect it to suddenly start making sense now.

Person_Man

2014-10-09, 09:45 AM

Sounds interesting, but my googlefu is failing me. Any hints as to its location?

I found it through Longform.org

MaxWilson

2014-10-09, 01:39 PM

The story of the orcs origin starts with gruumsh going to grab his land, yet all the other gods are rude and deny him any dominion on the material plane. Gruumsh then went into a rage, made the orcs and claimed that there purpose was to reek revenge on the other gods denying him. So why exactly do the other gods get a pass and the orcs are labeled evil?

Because Gruumsh's story is a self-serving lie. It's the kind of thing evil people do to their ex-wives: tell stories that make yourself the good guy and the other person the bad guy.

I do think non-evil orcs can be quite interesting, but I think the default version as presented in the Monster Manual is just that: evil. My interpretation is that orcs keep their population under control by sending them off in small "manhood bands" as a coming-of-age ritual similar to Karsa Orlong's rampage in "House of Chains". They're supposed to kill and rape until they have good stories to tell and then come back home and take a position in the tribe. Most of them never come back at all. (This is where half-orcs come from for the most part BTW.) If some high muckety-muck unites the orc tribes you may not see any "manhood bands" for a few years, which is a bad thing because it means someone is saving them up for an invasion.

In theory you could just go in and genocide the orcs to death to remove the problem permanently, but many nations are unwilling to do that[1]. Instead they just defend themselves against threats as they pop up. (See: Israel, Palestine.)

[1] And I would argue that preemptively doing so requires a fairly Evil culture along the lines of the Romans, or a thoroughly rational Neutral or Good culture with its back to the wall. An emotion-driven Good or Neutral culture will generally put off doing horrible things until forced to.

MaxWilson

2014-10-09, 01:41 PM

First I would argue that leaving the orcs withought anywere to live would be harming them. Second would be the fact that that would make Gruumsh evil, no the orcs. Imagine you are an orcish child and the story of why your people raid the elves is being told, you would be told a story that would revolve around your god richisly crushing the opressor gods of the other races, and of your heroic god beeing blinded in his attempt to bring a homeland to your people. No matter how Gruumsh may have acted an orcs actions would be based around the asumption that they were seriusly betrayed.

If you are an orcish child who is told this story and decides that you want to kill the elves too, you are evil.

If you are an orcish child who is told this story and thinks, "But these elves today didn't do anything," and approaches war with a troubled heart, you are probably not evil. Even if you still kill elves. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

Snails

2014-10-09, 01:58 PM

Okay I suppose those are some pretty convincing quotes, however on that last quote, its fear tactics, not nececarly evil. Also does the first quote remind you of any group to have existed? Would you call those groups evil?

It is not a logical requirement that fear tactics be evil. But it is a good guess that those who make a cultural habit of the practice are fair targets to be smited by the righteous.

A similar situation exists with undead. There are many excellent reasons that most undead and the creation of undead is traditionally labelled as evil. But, no, there is no absolute logical reason that must be the case in every particular campaign setting.

Ditto certain orcish habits.

But yeah I guess after most of this thread orcs are mostly evil, however I would say that at least 5e is giveing them some sort of humanity.

I do find the idea of an orc Paladin of Vengeance to be plausible. The nice thing about the 5e paladin is there is room for neutral or even evil person to be a Paladin, under certain circumstances.

Daishain

2014-10-09, 03:00 PM

I found it through Longform.org
That... was not exactly what I expected, nevertheless rather interesting.

Because Gruumsh's story is a self-serving lie. It's the kind of thing evil people do to their ex-wives: tell stories that make yourself the good guy and the other person the bad guy.

Not necessarily. The story could very easily be the truth. It doesn't remotely justify the response, but it could be accurate.

MaxWilson

2014-10-09, 03:17 PM

That... was not exactly what I expected, nevertheless rather interesting.

Not necessarily. The story could very easily be the truth. It doesn't remotely justify the response, but it could be accurate.

I agree. It could be true, and you can come up with an interesting universe wherein it is true. That has interesting implications.

My interpretation however (for my current game) is that it is not true, and Gruumsh is a liar. YMMV.

Envyus

2014-10-09, 03:36 PM

Many Arrows did a great job of being a peaceful orc kingdom until the Drow ****ed it up by assassinating their king and putting a warmonger in change. Hell their Moon elf rivals were awful to Many Arrows, they were rude and disrespectful and many of them committed terrorist attacks on Many Arrows and when caught by the law enforcement the Moon Elf leaders let them off with slaps on the wrist. The Moon Elf Leader Sinnafain considered this to be a major mistake on her part given that while she had never supported the attacks she never condemned there ether.

Hell the major straw that broke the Camals back happened when Sinnafain and her drow husband Tos'un chased their daughter into Many Arrows territory. As they were trespassing they started getting chased by Orcs. Tos'un decided that in order to catch his daughter he would need to sacrifice Sinnafain and hobbled her leg so he could continue the chase while she got caught. Sinnafain fought hard and killed several orcs before being captured and the Leader of the potrol was Lorgu the Orc Kings oldest son and named heir. He decided to that in order to strengthen relations with the Moon Elves they would return their leader for an apology and some gold rather then kill her as they were quite entitled to do. This upset many an Orc and was the main cause of them getting super angry and allowing the Warmonger Hertesk (Who got a shout out in the Monster Manual.) to take over with the Help of the Drow. (Lorgu is still alive however.)

Snails

2014-10-09, 03:52 PM

To the OP: Let's consider the question from the other direction...

Why have Orcs at all?

The vanilla normal reason is to have the Other conveniently labelled so that the moral bar for applying violence is lower. "Lower" does necessarily mean zero, of course.

But the fundamentally, Orcs have to different in some way that matters to the logic that drives the narrative. Merely rough and tumble people could be played by humans.

So what makes an orc an orc?

If orcs are violent and often towards the dumb side, we have classic orcs, more or less.

If orcs have some positive traits and no particular negative, they are just another normal PC race or fey or etc. Maybe you could use a chaotic tribe of surface dwarves instead? (You get the drift...)

...

2014-10-09, 06:36 PM

Then their is the matter of racism. Orcs are of course hatefull of elves, however they do have good reason, I mean there god was shot in the eye of the elvish god. However besides that Orcs are shown to have a good attitude towards crossbreeds, be able to work with other races, and generally are remarkably accepting of the races not made by the gods that crossed gruumsh.

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not forget that Elves and Dwarves are every bit as racist as Orcs are. In fact, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings really aren't partucularly liked when it comes to Humans, Orcs, Goblinoids, and Non-Elemental Giants (Trolls and Ogres, for example). In fact, the sole reason that there are no Half-Elf Half-Ogres is that Ogres, unlike Humans, have standards.:smalltongue:

I'd link to the Stick it to The Elves TVtrope, but I am bad with postmaker-fu.

Rfkannen

2014-10-09, 06:49 PM

If you are an orcish child who is told this story and decides that you want to kill the elves too, you are evil.

If you are an orcish child who is told this story and thinks, "But these elves today didn't do anything," and approaches war with a troubled heart, you are probably not evil. Even if you still kill elves. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

You do have a good point however here is a questiont. Lets say your an elvish child and you hear stories of orcs brutality, and when you go into combat thinking "Pehaps this orc is just following orders, perhaps he has done nothing wrong" is that elf more good than one who thinks "This is an orc, it has probably killed people, I will kill it"

As an orc I would have no reason to beleive that all elves arent diffrent from their gods, I would have no other examples and was taught they were all evil

To the OP: Let's consider the question from the other direction...

Why have Orcs at all?

The vanilla normal reason is to have the Other conveniently labelled so that the moral bar for applying violence is lower. "Lower" does necessarily mean zero, of course.

But the fundamentally, Orcs have to different in some way that matters to the logic that drives the narrative. Merely rough and tumble people could be played by humans.

So what makes an orc an orc?

If orcs are violent and often towards the dumb side, we have classic orcs, more or less.

If orcs have some positive traits and no particular negative, they are just another normal PC race or fey or etc. Maybe you could use a chaotic tribe of surface dwarves instead? (You get the drift...)

First off, because orcs have cool designs.

Second, who said anything about no negatives? They still do pillage, kill, and do all sorts of atrocities, they are in no way good. In my campaign they are going to be one of the main enemies. I love traditional orcs in all there savage buety, I was just thinking about there good sides. You can have an enemy with some sort of humanity.

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not forget that Elves and Dwarves are every bit as racist as Orcs are. In fact, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings really aren't partucularly liked when it comes to Humans, Orcs, Goblinoids, and Non-Elemental Giants (Trolls and Ogres, for example). In fact, the sole reason that there are no Half-Elf Half-Ogres is that Ogres, unlike Humans, have standards.:smalltongue:

I'd link to the Stick it to The Elves TVtrope, but I am bad with postmaker-fu.

I may be misreading you but arent we agreeing?

...

2014-10-09, 06:55 PM

I may be misreading you but aren't we agreeing?

Yes, in fact. I just wanted to point out that you left some important facts out of your post. Also, I took the liberty of correcting your spelling mistake, if that's okay with you.

EDIT: You may have noticed that I don't like Elves.

Daishain

2014-10-09, 07:00 PM

Rfkannen

2014-10-09, 07:06 PM

Yes, in fact. I just wanted to point out that you left some important facts out of your post. Also, I took the liberty of correcting your spelling mistake, if that's okay with you.

EDIT: You may have noticed that I don't like Elves.

AH okay cool, Yeah that stuff is true

Noone likes elves

Yes, yes he is. The second elf is probably good as well so long as he acts with the right intentions, but he fails to recognize one of the deeper aspects of that outlook.

A large part of being a good person is being willing to see it in others. I don't mean that one should attempt to redeem every villain that comes your way, that only endangers yourself and others. But if circumstances that challenge assumptions about the nature of one's foe arise, the matter should be investigated if possible, and not be thrown away lightly.

I am glad we agree! especialy about the large part of being good, but here was the hidden question in my first question, if the orc that doesnt think about elf morality is evil, why is the elf that doesnt think about orc morality not?

Daishain

2014-10-09, 07:19 PM

I am glad we agree! especialy about the large part of being good, but here was the hidden question in my first question, if the orc that doesnt think about elf morality is evil, why is the elf that doesnt think about orc morality not?
Comparison of behavior.

Any elf can see the horror bands of orcs unleash on a regular basis. Assuming that tales concerning how all orcs are evil are accurate is unfortunate, but understandable.

The orc on the other hand, is going to have a VERY hard time finding an elf that behaves even half as horrendously as the creatures he calls blood kin. Even in the event the elves actually do take the offensive and wipe out a settlement, it is normally in retaliation, and does not involve the kind of horrific abuse the orcs are known to wreak on the innocent. Blindly believing that the other side is inherently in the wrong is no longer a reasonable response.

Rfkannen

2014-10-09, 07:22 PM

Comparison of behavior.

Any elf can see the horror bands of orcs unleash on a regular basis. Assuming that tales concerning how all orcs are evil are accurate is unfortunate, but understandable.

The orc on the other hand, is going to have a VERY hard time finding an elf that behaves even half as horrendously as the creatures he calls blood kin. Blindly believing that the other side in the wrong is no longer a reasonable response.

hmm Yeah I do suppose your right.

although I could see many an orc liveing their entire life with the only elves they see being soldiers. However from what we know of elven society they do have a lot more inocents then orcs. Which brings to question why they are all proficient in certain weapons...

...

2014-10-09, 07:22 PM

If the orc that doesnt think about elf morality is evil, why is the elf that doesnt think about orc morality not?

Because all nonhuman, nonteifling, nonhalf-orc PC races get a free pass when it comes to morality. Seriously, every time I look at the fluff for Elves (I'm sorry I keep going back to Elves, but they are the worst out of the three) I shake my head and wonder how the [CENSORED] they are Chaotic Good. Even the Humans get the kind, respectful, dignified treatment of being informed that Elves are superior in every way.

rlc

2014-10-10, 07:43 AM

if the orc that doesnt think about elf morality is evil, why is the elf that doesnt think about orc morality not?

Because the game is player-centric. So, yeah, it does have a lot to do with species-ism and double standards.

Felcat

2014-10-10, 08:12 AM

Also one of their main gods is a fertility goddess, what kind of evil people has one of their main gods be a fertility goddess?

Just as food for thought, a Fertility goddess isn't necessarily a "good" entity. After all, the point of her fertility is to make lots of Orc Babies so they outnumber their enemies, making it easier to murder, pillage, and despoil.

Sartharina

2014-10-10, 08:13 AM

Because all nonhuman, nonteifling, nonhalf-orc PC races get a free pass when it comes to morality. Seriously, every time I look at the fluff for Elves (I'm sorry I keep going back to Elves, but they are the worst out of the three) I shake my head and wonder how the [CENSORED] they are Chaotic Good. Even the Humans get the kind, respectful, dignified treatment of being informed that Elves are superior in every way.What fluff are you looking at? I think you're just jealous. And/or completely misinterpreting and twisting them.
Also one of their main gods is a fertility goddess, what kind of evil people has one of their main gods be a fertility goddess?The kind that love to spread that fertility to women who don't want it. The kind who use that fertility to quickly outnumber to destroy their foes, etc.

MaxWilson

2014-10-10, 11:40 AM

You do have a good point however here is a questiont. Lets say your an elvish child and you hear stories of orcs brutality, and when you go into combat thinking "Pehaps this orc is just following orders, perhaps he has done nothing wrong" is that elf more good than one who thinks "This is an orc, it has probably killed people, I will kill it"

I'd say it's very important WHY you are going into combat against the orcs. If you are beating back an orcish war party that is attacking elven or human lands, then you have probable cause and killing it is very sane and reasonable even if you are good. If you are an elvish druid flying over orcish lands and you see a random orc with a sword walking in the wilderness, and you land and Call Lightning it to death before continuing on your journey, you may not be good. I mean, you *could* still be good if you have actual reason to believe that that orc has a 90% chance of winding up in a raiding party attacking an innocent sometime soon (maybe due to experience with lots and lots of raiding parties)--"good" doesn't imply "not ruthless". But if you kill the travelling orc based on stories you heard in your childhood, I don't see a scenario where you can be simultaneously good and sane unless your INT is around 4.

tomandtish

2014-10-10, 11:59 AM

Perhaps not all orcs are evil, just most of them.

Oh, and humans? Created by a bunch of demigods and lesser deities, each with a desire to prove themselves worthy. That's right; humans were done by committee. That's why humans show such variation in alignment, size, and appearance; and it's also why humans are always driven to prove themselves to the world.

Humans: Designed by committee. Built by the lowest bidding contractor.

"Oh great. We were made by Sears".

"Nope. Humans are a K-Mart blue light special. Almost as good and a whole lot cheaper".

Person_Man

2014-10-10, 02:45 PM

Humans: Designed by committee. Built by the lowest bidding contractor.

"Oh great. We were made by Sears".

"Nope. Humans are a K-Mart blue light special. Almost as good and a whole lot cheaper".

Pretty much, yeah.

Though oddly enough, arguably the main evolutionary advantage that humans have over other creatures on Earth is our "designed by committee, built by the lowest contractor" approach.

Humans form hierarchical power structures (ie, committees, families, clans, monarchies, oligopolies, republics, etc) that allow us to coordinate our efforts to a much greater degree then any other species. And we naturally seek out the most efficient methodology to accomplish our goals in order to maximize our profit, food, land, power, safety, etc.

To quote Heinlein, "specialization is for insects." If there every were orcs, elves, dwarves, dragons, neanderthals, etc, human society, in all of its mediocre glory, kicked their butts.

Anywho, I think there's a catgirl I need to go murder somewhere....

pwykersotz

2014-10-10, 02:48 PM

...

2014-10-10, 06:23 PM

What fluff are you looking at? I think you're just jealous. And/or completely misinterpreting and twisting them.

5e PHB. To semiquote, "Elves think that they are better at everything and that pisses humans off."

Beleriphon

2014-10-10, 07:40 PM

5e PHB. To semiquote, "Elves think that they are better at everything and that pisses humans off."

Its more that elves are up their own butts and like the smell of their own farts sorts. If you can get past that they're actually okay and know lots of cool stuff. Its also the human perception of elves from the human box text about other races.

VoxRationis

2014-10-10, 10:34 PM

Pretty much, yeah.

Though oddly enough, arguably the main evolutionary advantage that humans have over other creatures on Earth is our "designed by committee, built by the lowest contractor" approach.

Humans form hierarchical power structures (ie, committees, families, clans, monarchies, oligopolies, republics, etc) that allow us to coordinate our efforts to a much greater degree then any other species. And we naturally seek out the most efficient methodology to accomplish our goals in order to maximize our profit, food, land, power, safety, etc.

To quote Heinlein, "specialization is for insects." If there every were orcs, elves, dwarves, dragons, neanderthals, etc, human society, in all of its mediocre glory, kicked their butts.

Anywho, I think there's a catgirl I need to go murder somewhere....
I'd argue that this is often overstated. It is true that the versatility of Homo sapiens contributes greatly to your—I mean our—success, but very little of that versatility is expressed in humans that is not also in elves, dwarves, or orcs.
What makes us strong?
-Tool use
-Opposable thumbs, allowing better tool use
-Abstract thinking and reasoning, along with generally high cognitive processing power
-Language use, allowing us to communicate both mechanical and abstract concepts to one another with comparative efficiency and precision
Arguably, one might say that our omnivorous diet leads to our adaptability, though I would counter that were humans endowed with all of the above but not omnivory, we would be able to adapt readily through cooking, domestication, and tool use regardless, since both plant and animal tissue is found in most environments and intelligence and/or tool use allow superior exploitation of niche food sources unavailable to other species. One might say that human physiology and morphology is a factor, but bipedalism and opposable thumbs are really the Big Two there—upright postures, balance-aiding glutei maximi, and vocal apparatus are nice, but we could get by without them for most human activities.
So what we have is a laundry list of traits which allow humans to become successful, adapt to multiple climates and biomes, and achieve a truly ridiculous distribution across the globe. Yes, humans are adaptable. But here's the problem with applying that to fantasy settings:

Elves, dwarves, and orcs have all of those things too.

Even orcs, with penalties to all their mental stats, have tool use, language, and adaptive capability. Dwarves and elves are the equals of humans in every way mentally. Every place a human can go, every thing they can attempt to do, a dwarf or elf can do (except for a few things which require long legs, at which point the dwarf is kind of left behind). In certain circumstances, they can do those things much better than a human can. Humans in a fantasy setting as diverse as D&D have the problem where for every niche they can perform at x level of competence, there is at least one group, and probably more, that can perform that niche at x+1 level of competence and match the humans in most of the other niches as well. That represents a problem, and it is largely due to the fact that the formative stories of the fantasy genre were either a) set in our very much human-dominated world, or b) as in Lord of the Rings, in the process of the world's becoming more like our own, does the 'humans are dominant' trope continue.

Beleriphon

2014-10-10, 11:00 PM

Even orcs, with penalties to all their mental stats, have tool use, language, and adaptive capability. Dwarves and elves are the equals of humans in every way mentally. Every place a human can go, every thing they can attempt to do, a dwarf or elf can do (except for a few things which require long legs, at which point the dwarf is kind of left behind). In certain circumstances, they can do those things much better than a human can. Humans in a fantasy setting as diverse as D&D have the problem where for every niche they can perform at x level of competence, there is at least one group, and probably more, that can perform that niche at x+1 level of competence and match the humans in most of the other niches as well. That represents a problem, and it is largely due to the fact that the formative stories of the fantasy genre were either a) set in our very much human-dominated world, or b) as in Lord of the Rings, in the process of the world's becoming more like our own, does the 'humans are dominant' trope continue.

I'd argue that Lord the Rings styled humans coming into their own is actually a psychological issue with the dwarves and elves. Elves are functionally incapable of dealing the world after a certain point falling into deep melancholy, and dwarves are paranoid and greedy as part of their very nature. I think that needs to emphasized very much in D&D even though dwarves and elves are relatable they aren't human and can't be treated as humans with pointy ears, or short humans with beards. There are reasons they don't dominate the world, and the reason is their very nature, they can't dominate the world like humans can because their nature actively prevents them from doing so.

Sartharina

2014-10-11, 01:27 AM

I'd argue that this is often overstated. It is true that the versatility of Homo sapiens contributes greatly to your—I mean our—success, but very little of that versatility is expressed in humans that is not also in elves, dwarves, or orcs.
What makes us strong?
-Tool use
-Opposable thumbs, allowing better tool use
-Abstract thinking and reasoning, along with generally high cognitive processing power
-Language use, allowing us to communicate both mechanical and abstract concepts to one another with comparative efficiency and precision
Arguably, one might say that our omnivorous diet leads to our adaptability, though I would counter that were humans endowed with all of the above but not omnivory, we would be able to adapt readily through cooking, domestication, and tool use regardless, since both plant and animal tissue is found in most environments and intelligence and/or tool use allow superior exploitation of niche food sources unavailable to other species. One might say that human physiology and morphology is a factor, but bipedalism and opposable thumbs are really the Big Two there—upright postures, balance-aiding glutei maximi, and vocal apparatus are nice, but we could get by without them for most human activities.
So what we have is a laundry list of traits which allow humans to become successful, adapt to multiple climates and biomes, and achieve a truly ridiculous distribution across the globe. Yes, humans are adaptable. But here's the problem with applying that to fantasy settings:

Elves, dwarves, and orcs have all of those things too.

Even orcs, with penalties to all their mental stats, have tool use, language, and adaptive capability. Dwarves and elves are the equals of humans in every way mentally. Every place a human can go, every thing they can attempt to do, a dwarf or elf can do (except for a few things which require long legs, at which point the dwarf is kind of left behind). In certain circumstances, they can do those things much better than a human can. Humans in a fantasy setting as diverse as D&D have the problem where for every niche they can perform at x level of competence, there is at least one group, and probably more, that can perform that niche at x+1 level of competence and match the humans in most of the other niches as well. That represents a problem, and it is largely due to the fact that the formative stories of the fantasy genre were either a) set in our very much human-dominated world, or b) as in Lord of the Rings, in the process of the world's becoming more like our own, does the 'humans are dominant' trope continue.

Actually, you missed something humans tend to do that other races don't, that give them a surprising amount of survivability as a species: Castles Everywhere! Some small enough for single families. Humans have the highest Walls Per Capita of any other race. Seriously - elves tend to live in hollowed-out single-room open-aired treehouses. Dwarves live in fancy tunnels. Orcs and other savage races live in caves or simple to knock down tents. Humans, meanwhile, build what are pretty much micro-castles all over the place, with walls to obstruct unwanted travel, windows providing accessible viewpoints, doors (usually two per micro-castle) to restrict traffic and often allow quick escapes, little dungeons they can hide in if invaders try leveling the place, and if invaders take one micro-castle from them, they can move to the one a block down the street or across the yard quickly (Safe-for-kids retellings of The Three Little Pigs tend to have the pigs exploiting this trait)... and there are so many of them that it's usually impractical to search all the micro-castles and all their dungeons in an area for survivors - a "Zero Survivors" purge of a human city should actually be pretty rare (While the interconnectedness of dwarven tunnels makes it possible to completely flush out a Dwarf Fortress of life, and Elf recluses are too open to hide all the elves - they tend to result in a lot of refugees.)

VoxRationis

2014-10-11, 01:29 PM

1) A complex of dwarven tunnels is not inherently more connected than a group of houses in a walled city. Both have a large number of dwellings opening onto a number of narrow thoroughfares, all constrained by stone with a few large entry points. Dwarves also tend to build for the long-term; putting defensive structures in their fortresses is not beyond them. Considering your impassioned Dwarf-Fortress-inspired "Dwarves are Superior" speeches in other threads, Sartharina, I'm surprised you're taking this standpoint.
2) This "Mini-castle" theory is based only on particular human cultures; many human cultures are historically nomadic, or build small shelters without cellars, or even use treehouses. Even so, a castle is different from a house in qualitative ways, not just size. A castle is more fire-resistant and built to be more defensible than a house.
3) It's much harder to go through a hostile forest, rooting out its inhabitants, probably while suffering from hit-and-run attacks, than it is to go through a series of row houses and kill/burn everyone in them.
4) Elves do not necessarily live in single-room treehouses. Rivendell, for example, is a palace complex, backed against defensible geography and accessible mainly by narrow, exposed stone bridges. Easily more defensible than a village of thatched-roofed cottages.

Demonicattorney

2014-10-11, 02:48 PM

It is not weird that Orcs are evil. They were created for the purpose of destroying the other races. They have an evil culture, which emphasizes war, rape, and all sorts of other atrocities. They worship an evil god. What more does it take for a race to be evil?

Beleriphon

2014-10-11, 06:27 PM

4) Elves do not necessarily live in single-room treehouses. Rivendell, for example, is a palace complex, backed against defensible geography and accessible mainly by narrow, exposed stone bridges. Easily more defensible than a village of thatched-roofed cottages.

More than that it was in a valley where the one main entrance if a ford which the owner magicked up to flood on command.

Objulen

2014-10-13, 02:12 AM

I'd argue that Lord the Rings styled humans coming into their own is actually a psychological issue with the dwarves and elves. Elves are functionally incapable of dealing the world after a certain point falling into deep melancholy, and dwarves are paranoid and greedy as part of their very nature. I think that needs to emphasized very much in D&D even though dwarves and elves are relatable they aren't human and can't be treated as humans with pointy ears, or short humans with beards. There are reasons they don't dominate the world, and the reason is their very nature, they can't dominate the world like humans can because their nature actively prevents them from doing so.

Depending on how much you want to stick with the Lord of the Rings archetypes, elves suffer from immortality being a fate worse than death when you've lost the things you love. The elves of Valinor are probably much happier with eternal life than those of Middle Earth. Dwarves are generally leery of others, though greed is more of short fall than working as intended.

VoxRationis

2014-10-13, 05:16 PM

I think that needs to emphasized very much in D&D even though dwarves and elves are relatable they aren't human and can't be treated as humans with pointy ears, or short humans with beards.

Returning to the initial topic of the thread:
Why is this a commonly accepted trope, but people have such problems with the idea that orcs can be evil ab initio?

Demonicattorney

2014-10-13, 07:56 PM

{Scrubbed}

Triclinium

2014-10-14, 12:19 PM

Returning to the initial topic of the thread:
Why is this a commonly accepted trope, but people have such problems with the idea that orcs can be evil ab initio?

Well, Tolkien was the one who popularized orcs being fundamentally evil, and the term has pretty much endured since then. People have a problem with that concept because many people do not believe in inherent morality or moral absolutism. Certainly D&D is much easier if we accept that kind of black and white morality, but that doesn't change how people think.

As for elves and dwarves, it's much easier for people to accept something like a race that perennially sits in the background, and the whole human dominance thing stems from the fact that most writers are human.

Basically we can get behind racial tendencies, but evil is such an ambiguous term that I at least have a hard time attributing it to a race.

randomodo

2014-10-14, 01:04 PM

the whole human dominance thing stems from the fact that most writers are human.

.

I'm not saying that we need to implement affirmative action in publishing, I'm just saying that we could use a lot more half-orc authors out there. Just sayin'

:smallsmile:

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 01:08 PM

Basically we can get behind racial tendencies, but evil is such an ambiguous term that I at least have a hard time attributing it to a race.Which is why you don't attribute the Alignment to the race, but the tendencies that draw them toward that alignment instead. Orcs aren't Brutish, Conquest-driven, and Rape-happy because they're Evil - they're Evil because they've got overwhelming tendencies toward battle, rape, conquest, and brutality.

Triclinium

2014-10-14, 01:23 PM

Which is why you don't attribute the Alignment to the race, but the tendencies that draw them toward that alignment instead. Orcs aren't Brutish, Conquest-driven, and Rape-happy because they're Evil - they're Evil because they've got overwhelming tendencies toward battle, rape, conquest, and brutality.

It would be much better to just leave the alignment out of the stat block. Evil comes in many different flavors, not all of which do orcs conform to. Give orcs flavor text that says those things, and allow people to call that what they choose. Otherwise alignment is just a pretty cowardly way of justifying what would nomally be mass murder. Moral dilemmas should be every bit as meaningful in D&D as in real life, and alignment mutes them a huge amount.

VoxRationis

2014-10-14, 04:51 PM

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 04:55 PM

It would be much better to just leave the alignment out of the stat block. Evil comes in many different flavors, not all of which do orcs conform to. Give orcs flavor text that says those things, and allow people to call that what they choose. Otherwise alignment is just a pretty cowardly way of justifying what would nomally be mass murder. Moral dilemmas should be every bit as meaningful in D&D as in real life, and alignment mutes them a huge amount.Why should they bother leaving alignment out of the statblock? It's a summary, but it gives plenty of information in the actual statblock about the flavor of Evil orcs tend to be. They have the flavor of evil they are already spelled out in the entry.

Triclinium

2014-10-14, 05:07 PM

Except that good and evil are already defined for D&D purposes (not to mention that the way in which orcs are evil tend to be pretty agreed-upon anyway)—if you agree that they are by nature prone to a particular series of tendencies, you agree that they're prone to being evil.

Except that in D&D labeling something as evil is declaring open season on it. It presents a really odd contradiction where wholesale slaughter is suddenly justified by previous wholesale slaughters. "Remember-The-Atrocity-Committed-Against-Us-Last-Time-That-Will-Excuse-The-Atrocity-That-We're-About-To-Commit-Today" isn't a reasonable train of thought. Calling something evil is going beyond saying that you are offended or horrified by the things they do. It is going so far as to say you would be doing to world a favor by removing it from said world. And that isn't OK if you propose to be "the good guys".

Demonicattorney

2014-10-14, 05:12 PM

Except that in D&D labeling something as evil is declaring open season on it. It presents a really odd contradiction where wholesale slaughter is suddenly justified by previous wholesale slaughters. "Remember-The-Atrocity-Committed-Against-Us-Last-Time-That-Will-Excuse-The-Atrocity-That-We're-About-To-Commit-Today" isn't a reasonable train of thought. Calling something evil is going beyond saying that you are offended or horrified by the things they do. It is going so far as to say you would be doing to world a favor by removing it from said world. And that isn't OK if you propose to be "the good guys".

Actually, it is. In the human world there are no people that are "inherently evil", so that sort of thinking is wrong. However, in a fantasy world, where there are entire races created for the express purpose of rape, pillage and slaughter, and do not rebel against that role but rather embrace it, than there is nothing wrong with killing them.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 05:12 PM

Except that in D&D labeling something as evil is declaring open season on it. It presents a really odd contradiction where wholesale slaughter is suddenly justified by previous wholesale slaughters. "Remember-The-Atrocity-Committed-Against-Us-Last-Time-That-Will-Excuse-The-Atrocity-That-We're-About-To-Commit-Today" isn't a reasonable train of thought. Calling something evil is going beyond saying that you are offended or horrified by the things they do. It is going so far as to say you would be doing to world a favor by removing it from said world. And that isn't OK if you propose to be "the good guys".You're thinking Orcs are people/humans. They're not.

They're the tools of an evil warlord-god purpose-built for burning and taking over the world for the glory of their overlord. They're battle-drones, nothing more.

You are trying to treat evil creatures like you would non-evil or Good creatures. And it IS doing the world a favor by removing them, just as it's doing the world a favor to remove Cancer, Rabies, or Smallpox.

Daishain

2014-10-14, 05:13 PM

Why should they bother leaving alignment out of the statblock? It's a summary, but it gives plenty of information in the actual statblock about the flavor of Evil orcs tend to be. They have the flavor of evil they are already spelled out in the entry.
Because it denies possibilities.

The fluff entry helps spell out common behavioral patterns amongst the race, and that does indeed paint them in general as evil. but it simply represents the majority, with plenty of room for individuals or even entire clans to break away from that behavior.

However, the racial alignment concept is definitive, it fails to account for individual deviation. In reality, only certain outsiders are that absolute, (and I would choose to argue that too if given the opportunity) even if 90% of all orcs ping as chaotic evil, there should be at least a small number of representatives of the race in every alignment category.

Daishain

2014-10-14, 05:17 PM

You're thinking Orcs are people/humans. They're not.

They're the tools of an evil warlord-god purpose-built for burning and taking over the world for the glory of their overlord. They're battle-drones, nothing more.

You are trying to treat evil creatures like you would non-evil or Good creatures. And it IS doing the world a favor by removing them, just as it's doing the world a favor to remove Cancer, Rabies, or Smallpox.
They're capable of rational thought, introspection, and emotions other than rage. They have all the tools they need to choose a different path. Most of them, do not, but don't deny the possibility of some that do. Frankly, if it wasn't for their god and cultural customs, the majority of them would likely end up (after several generations of eliminating the influence of the aforementioned things) in the true neutral or chaotic neutral bin.

Their behavior still justifies going to war against them. But in my opinion no one can truly call themselves a good person if they consider such foes to be nothing but mindless evil

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 05:22 PM

Because it denies possibilities.

The fluff entry helps spell out common behavioral patterns amongst the race, and that does indeed paint them in general as evil. but it simply represents the majority, with plenty of room for individuals or even entire clans to break away from that behavior.

However, the racial alignment concept is definitive, it fails to account for individual deviation. In reality, only certain outsiders are that absolute, (and I would choose to argue that too if given the opportunity) even if 90% of all orcs ping as chaotic evil, there should be at least a small number of representatives of the race in every alignment category.The alignment is NOT definitive - it outright says you can change alignment in the very first ****ing chapters of the monster book. The Statblock entry is just as mutable as the world information beneath it (I hate the term fluff, because it implies they aren't rules. They are. If you run orcs differently from how they're run in the monster block, then you're houseruling/homebrewing. Which isn't a bad thing. There's NO divide between changing what the statblock says, and what the entry says).

They're capable of rational thought, introspection, and emotions other than rage. They have all the tools they need to choose a different path. Most of them, do not, but don't deny the possibility of some that do.[Citation Needed]
In fact, the Player's Handbook and Basic Rules outright say they don't.
Please leave your homebrew/houserules out of this discussion.
Frankly, if it wasn't for their god and cultural customs, the majority of them would likely end up (after several generations of eliminating the influence of the aforementioned things) in the true neutral or chaotic neutral bin.And if it weren't for the destruction of the immune system, communicability, and lack of granting of superpowers, AIDS would be a beneficial disease. Without their god, there are no orcs. You CANNOT take Gruumsh away from the orcs, because he lives and speaks, and exerts his will within all of them.

hamishspence

2014-10-14, 05:28 PM

If another god were to kill Grummsh, would the orcs immediately expire?

The orcs couldn't have been created in the first place without a Grummsh to do the creating - but that doesn't mean they can't continue existing after he dies.

Daishain

2014-10-14, 05:33 PM

The alignment is NOT definitive - it outright says you can change alignment in the very first ****ing chapters of the monster book. The Statblock entry is just as mutable as the world information beneath it (I hate the term fluff, because it implies they aren't rules. They are. If you run orcs differently from how they're run in the monster block, then you're houseruling/homebrewing. Which isn't a bad thing. There's NO divide between changing what the statblock says, and what the entry says).

[Citation Needed]
In fact, the Player's Handbook and Basic Rules outright say they don't.
Please leave your homebrew/houserules out of this discussion.And if it weren't for the destruction of the immune system, communicability, and lack of granting of superpowers, AIDS would be a beneficial disease. Without their god, there are no orcs. You CANNOT take Gruumsh away from the orcs, because he lives and speaks, and exerts his will within all of them.
I cite pretty much every non-mechanical thing written by WoTC about orcs ever, including the entry in the PHb which you claimed explicitly defined their behavior as thoughtless and immutable (it does not). Their behavior, their culture, and their history would not have been remotely possible if they were simply drones. Orcs have a little ball of hate in their heads, urging them to do terrible things, but they are capable of ignoring it.

And if it weren't for the destruction of the immune system, communicability, and lack of granting of superpowers, AIDS would be a beneficial disease. Without their god, there are no orcs. You CANNOT take Gruumsh away from the orcs, because he lives and speaks, and exerts his will within all of them.
The orcs do exist because of Gruumsh, but they are not Gruumsh themselves, nor are they a part of Gruumsh. Kill Gruumsh and the orcs are changed, but not gone.

Hell, the lore suggests that this is exactly what happened with the kobolds and Kurtulmak, who was apparently killed by Garl Glittergold (the details this event heavily depend on who is telling the story) the kobolds didn't disappear, nor did they stop their work with no deity to guide them.

Based on the lore, the vast majority of the reason orcs tend to be evil is due to Gruumsh metaphorically whispering hate in their ears. Silence him, and the orcs are free of that influence.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 05:34 PM

If another god were to kill Grummsh, would the orcs immediately expire?Either that, or Gruumsh can't be killed as long as he has orcs to grow into a new Gruumsh if he dies.
I cite pretty much every non-mechanical thing written by WoTC about orcs ever, including the entry in the PHb which you claimed explicitly defined their behavior as thoughtless and immutable (it does not). Their behavior, their culture, and their history would not have been remotely possible if they were simply drones. Orcs have a little ball of hate in their heads, urging them to do terrible things, but they are capable of ignoring it.They're not thoughtless and immutable, but that 'little ball of hate' has absolute control over them. Ignoring it is like ignoring your own cerebral cortex.

Daishain

2014-10-14, 05:41 PM

Either that, or Gruumsh can't be killed as long as he has orcs to grow into a new Gruumsh if he dies.
Now THAT, is homebrew

They're not thoughtless and immutable, but that 'little ball of hate' has absolute control over them. Ignoring it is like ignoring your own cerebral cortex.
If that were true, the orcs would have been incapable of the multiple truces and even alliances they have made with the races Gruumsh hates the most.

hamishspence

2014-10-14, 05:46 PM

The PHB may be to the D&D world, as the 40K roleplaying books are to the 40K world - written with a player-centric bias.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 05:51 PM

If that were true, the orcs would have been incapable of the multiple truces and even alliances they have made with the races Gruumsh hates the most.What truces and alliances (That they've honored in good faith)?
Now THAT, is homebrew
As is the ability for Gruumsh to be killed.

If Underdark Drow have been likened to "Lolth Plays The Sims",

Orcs are aptly compared to "Gruumsh Plays Age of Empires"

Daishain

2014-10-14, 06:04 PM

What truces and alliances (That they've honored in good faith)?I'm not going to troll through to find every example for you, I have better things to do with my time. Just look up the kingdom of Many Arrows as one of many many examples (canon fourth edition forgotten realms, I think third edition as well, but am not sure)

As is the ability for Gruumsh to be killed.
The gods can be killed without the slightest bit of homebrew. Several have been killed as of this point, and several are prophesied to be killed in the future. In fact Gruumsh was nearly killed by correlon already, and lost an eye in the exchange. Now, in this particular edition, the PLAYERS have no current RAW means of killing a god, but that is rather beside the point. Gruumsh's death is a possibility.

If Underdark Drow have been likened to "Lolth Plays The Sims",

Orcs are aptly compared to "Gruumsh Plays Age of Empires"
A.) the drow's current disposition is actually a step back, they used to be significantly more varied

B.) they did that in this edition because they wanted to emphasize that there ARE exceptions (and thereby make money off of one particular exception). So go ahead, compare the orcs to the drow, you're only proving my point. Because as much as I hate Drizzt's marty stu ass, he is a completely canon example of a drow that chose a different path.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 06:08 PM

I'm not going to troll through to find every example for you, I have better things to do with my time. Just look up the kingdom of Many Arrows as one of many many examples (canon fourth edition forgotten realms, I think third edition as well, but am not sure)We're talking 5th Edition here.

The gods can be killed without the slightest bit of homebrew. Several have been killed as of this point, and several are prophesied to be killed in the future. In fact Gruumsh was nearly killed by correlon already, and lost an eye in the exchange. Now, in this particular edition, the PLAYERS have no current RAW means of killing a god, but that is rather beside the point. Gruumsh's death is a possibility.Have any Racial gods died and stayed dead?

Daishain

2014-10-14, 06:15 PM

We're talking 5th Edition here.
5th edition currently has jack all in the way of lore. Both sides of this argument heavily depends on lore. Dipping into other sources is therefore necessary for it to remain relevant

Have any Racial gods died and stayed dead?
Kurtulmak. Or at least that used to be the case. Going only on 5th edition info, no one knows at this point.

It has also been suggested before that all thinking races had a racial god at one point. Most are just dead or at least dormant and forgotten. Of course, that isn't 5E canon at this point either.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 06:27 PM

5th edition currently has jack all in the way of lore.Actually, 5e has a full double-page of lore on Orcs, in addition to blurbs on them in the Player's Handbook and Basic Rules.

And Oubold Many-Arrows is listed in 5e's book, with an "Open to interpretation" on whether his peace treaty is him being Not a Normal Orc (Which is something explicitly called out.), or as a ploy to rebuild the strength of the orcs before violating it again.
Kurtulmak. Or at least that used to be the case. Going only on 5th edition info, no one knows at this point.I said and stayed dead. Kurtlmak did not stay dead.

MaxWilson

2014-10-14, 06:27 PM

Except that in D&D labeling something as evil is declaring open season on it. It presents a really odd contradiction where wholesale slaughter is suddenly justified by previous wholesale slaughters. "Remember-The-Atrocity-Committed-Against-Us-Last-Time-That-Will-Excuse-The-Atrocity-That-We're-About-To-Commit-Today" isn't a reasonable train of thought. Calling something evil is going beyond saying that you are offended or horrified by the things they do. It is going so far as to say you would be doing to world a favor by removing it from said world. And that isn't OK if you propose to be "the good guys".

That absolutist view is not how some of us interpret "Evil" in D&D. Some of us would strongly object to the killing of innocent creatures even if they do happen to be Evil-aligned. You may even have relatives who are Evil.

Evil != Dangerous.

Daishain

2014-10-14, 06:54 PM

Actually, 5e has a full double-page of lore on Orcs, in addition to blurbs on them in the Player's Handbook and Basic Rules.

And Oubold Many-Arrows is listed in 5e's book, with an "Open to interpretation" on whether his peace treaty is him being Not a Normal Orc (Which is something explicitly called out.), or as a ploy to rebuild the strength of the orcs before violating it again.I said and stayed dead.
I don't have my own MM yet, but I don't recall the orc entry having much to say about their history with other races. It was however chock full of examples of a culture that would again have been impossible to form if they were puppets.

Besides, if Gruumsh did control every single aspect of their lives, he would be showing a greater level of power than the other gods that regularly kick his ass. That level of control would require incomprehensive levels of omniscience and mental discipline (something that doesn't ring well with Gruumsh's MO anyways). Gods in general however are described as merely exceptionally powerful individuals, they don't know everything and can be fooled, quite easily in some cases.

Kurtlmak did not stay dead.
But he did not come back to life either. He was dead dead, then a retcon occurrs and he is somehow now alive. Nothing about him possessing a kobold and regrowing himself as you suggested.

Triclinium

2014-10-14, 06:56 PM

They're not thoughtless and immutable, but that 'little ball of hate' has absolute control over them. Ignoring it is like ignoring your own cerebral cortex.

That's just untrue according to the PHB alignment section. "Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life." Influence, yes. Absolute control, not so much.

That absolutist view is not how some of us interpret "Evil" in D&D. Some of us would strongly object to the killing of innocent creatures even if they do happen to be Evil-aligned. You may even have relatives who are Evil.

Evil != Dangerous.

That is a fair view to take, although the "arbitrary violence" of Chaotic Evil seems to be at odds with the word innocent.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 06:59 PM

I don't have my own MM yet, but I don't recall the orc entry having much to say about their history with other races. It was however chock full of examples of a culture that would again have been impossible to form if they were puppets. Besides, if Gruumsh did control every single aspect of their lives, he would be showing a greater level of power than the other gods that regularly kick his ass.He controls every aspect of their lives in the same way any programmer controls every aspect of their creation's operation (Unless someone else starts mucking with the code). Orcs have about as much ability to defy the will of Gruumsh as Terran Marine #35 has the ability to go on a rampage on your own team (without Dark Archon possession) in any Starcraft game.

But he did not come back to life either. He was dead dead, then a retcon occurrs and he is somehow now alive. Nothing about him possessing a kobold and regrowing himself as you suggested.When was he dead-dead? In 3.5, he was killed as a mortal, and ascended to Deityhood by other deities in compensation for Garl being a complete *******.

Daishain

2014-10-14, 07:13 PM

He controls every aspect of their lives in the same way any programmer controls every aspect of their creation's operation (Unless someone else starts mucking with the code). Orcs have about as much ability to defy the will of Gruumsh as Terran Marine #35 has the ability to go on a rampage on your own team (without Dark Archon possession) in any Starcraft game. and yet they manage, check the PHb entry again, specifically the portion Triclinium quoted

When was he dead-dead? In 3.5, he was killed as a mortal, and ascended to Deityhood by other deities in compensation for Garl being a complete *******.
That is one version of the story yes. In others he was already a deity when Garl dropped that mountain on him, and he did not return.

This is rather besides the point however, deities can die, and there is no canon support for your orcs can become backup clones of gruumsh theory.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 07:17 PM

and yet they manage, check the PHb entry again, specifically the portion Triclinium quotedAt which point I do stand corrected - but such orcs are pretty obvious.

That is one version of the story yes. In others he was already a deity when Garl dropped that mountain on him.

This is rather besides the point however, deities can die, and there is no canon support for your orcs can become clones of gruumsh theory.
That was speculation. And even if Kurtlmak did die as a diety, he still came back. Likewise, killing Gruumsh is probably not permanent.

That absolutist view is not how some of us interpret "Evil" in D&D. Some of us would strongly object to the killing of innocent creatures even if they do happen to be Evil-aligned. You may even have relatives who are Evil.

Evil != Dangerous.I would too. Fortunately, one of the prerequisites for being Evil is to be Not Innocent. If you see innocence in Evil creatures, then the creature is either Not Evil, or your perception is skewed.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-10-14, 07:20 PM

Perhaps they are 'creepy evil', one of the hidden alignments.

Daishain

2014-10-14, 07:32 PM

And Oubold Many-Arrows is listed in 5e's book, with an "Open to interpretation" on whether his peace treaty is him being Not a Normal Orc (Which is something explicitly called out.), or as a ploy to rebuild the strength of the orcs before violating it again.
I forgot to comment on this earlier.

If is it "open to interpretation" then orcs not being able to choose is not official canon. At best it goes back to being my opinion vs yours.

In addition, the mere existence of a stable and coherent kingdom precludes its organizers and rulers from being of the chaotic alignment. Evil? sure, but not chaotic

VoxRationis

2014-10-14, 07:35 PM

MaxWilson

2014-10-14, 07:35 PM

That is a fair view to take, although the "arbitrary violence" of Chaotic Evil seems to be at odds with the word innocent.

I could argue that many cats on Youtube are Chaotic Evil, and humans think that is just adorable, because cats aren't powerful enough to be dangerous.

"Innocent" in this context means "not (yet) having committed any crime worthy of death." The XKCD cat (http://xkcd.com/729/) is "innocent" by this standard.

I would too. Fortunately, one of the prerequisites for being Evil is to be Not Innocent. If you see innocence in Evil creatures, then the creature is either Not Evil, or your perception is skewed.

As above, I'm using "innocent" in a legal context here. You can have a shopkeeper here who is just awful to his mom, cheats people at every opportunity and/or raises prices without compassion, and who also left his wife for a younger woman. That shopkeeper would probably be Evil (in my judgment), and yet I would strongly object if some idiot were to kill him out of hand for the crime of being Evil. He should only die if he has committed a crime worthy of death, or if he becomes dangerous and there is no better way to prevent the danger.

ObStormlight: "I will protect even those I hate, as long as it is right."

Daishain

2014-10-14, 07:49 PM

A kingdom which depends upon the charismatic leadership of a single standout leader is not stable (see: the conquests of Alexander, Genghis Khan, et al.), and to my knowledge, Many-Arrows himself is aware of that fact, worrying about whether his sons will end up tearing his realm apart once he dies.
In previous editions it lasted through several generations, until the drow assassinated the leader and put a psychopath on the throne. Not the most stable around, but it does qualify for the term.

Regardless, that is besides the point. The discussion concerns whether or not orcish individuals can break away from the alignment they are cast in. Many Arrows himself has shown that he has the characteristics of a lawful neutral individual, and others under his rule have shown that they are at minimum willing to go along with a lawful approach to life, at least so long as they have reason to do so.

Envyus

2014-10-14, 08:54 PM

In previous editions it lasted through several generations, until the drow assassinated the leader and put a psychopath on the throne. Not the most stable around, but it does qualify for the term.

Said Psycopath Hartusk even has a quote about him in the orc section of the monster manual were he rips a dwarf kings head off. He is also truly chaotic evil, Upon taking control of Many Arrows and forcing King Obould XVII's heir Lorgu to flee in exile (Obould XVII and his son Lorgu the future Obould XVIII were supporters of peace.) the first thing he did was smash the throne of Many Arows with his axe, preferring to called Warlord.

Later this happened

"Until my word, you stay in your hole," Hartusk ordered. "Have the goblin tribes arrived?"
"Yes, King Hartusk. Four tribes. They are in the tunnels and ready to come forth for the glory of Many-Arrows!"
The ugly and massive orc growled and nodded. The brute then kicked Innanig hard, sending him sprawling. "Warlord Hartusk," He corrected. "Let the puny dwarves and humans have kings"

Also the Kingdom's peace lasted from 3rd ed to this month as the Kingdom only fell apart now. It lasted fairly peacefully for more then a 100 years. It's quite possible that after Hartusk is killed and the drow are beaten down again that Many Arrows could go back to being fairly peaceful as the rightful heir of the kingdom is still alive and could come back to claim his throne.

Sartharina

2014-10-14, 09:31 PM

Envyus

2014-10-14, 09:43 PM

Just because Orcs can establish kingdoms doesn't mean they're Lawful. They rule through fear and power and a feudal power structure of fear and power. And a giant game of Chicken where the Warboss cheats by winning most collisions.

Not in general. This was just a statement that they can be lawful. However this is on a fairly individual basis. The Line of Obould and Zargath Human-Bane and his followers are the only lawful orcs I can think of.

hamishspence

2014-10-15, 01:15 AM

At which point I do stand corrected - but such orcs are pretty obvious.

How about when they've "chosen to be neutral" rather than "chosen to be good"?

Sartharina

2014-10-15, 01:54 AM

How about when they've "chosen to be neutral" rather than "chosen to be good"?

THey still don't hang out with Evil orcs.

hamishspence

2014-10-15, 06:18 AM

In 3.5 they did. Why not 5e?

An "evil army" can in fact consist of a mix of Evil and Neutral people - with the Neutrals being self-centred and conformist, but not outright cruel or sadistic.

Envyus

2014-10-15, 08:29 PM

Sartharina

2014-10-15, 08:48 PM

It was stated in 3e in an article about Orcs that they are more likely to be chaotic then they are to be evil. Hell even in 5e Orcs are not as evil as they used to be what with the general half orc backstory stating they tend to come about from alliances from Humans and Orcs and that the Orcs tend to be more accepting of half Orcs then other races. Evil tends to be more equal-opportunity than good. Good doesn't tolerate violent brutal rapists. Evil does.

An "evil army" can in fact consist of a mix of Evil and Neutral people - with the Neutrals being self-centred and conformist, but not outright cruel or sadistic.Because anyone fighting for an Evil Army has aligned themselves with that Evil Army and is thus Aligned with Evil and thus has an Alignment of Evil. That's what "Alignment"(note the word used) means.