PDA

View Full Version : Exterminate the orcs! (or some other cannon fodder monster)



Mastikator
2015-01-14, 07:52 AM
Is this still a thing that happens in games? It seems many are (rightfully) fed up with just murdering the orcs* "because they're evil". So when and if always chaotic evil orcs are present in a game is "murder" your goto action or do you try a different approach? Do DMs use orcs as cannon fodder, or are "our orcs are different" tropes often used, maybe some third option?

How do game masters use the traditional cannon fodder race?
How do players perceive and interactive with the traditional cannon fodder race?


*orcs, goblins, gnolls, ogres, trolls, gnolls, grimlocks, etc, any given cannon fodder monster race.

hymer
2015-01-14, 08:01 AM
As a DM, I don't use the "Because they're evil" approach, but my players usually do kill orcs and goblins on sight (or at least stay out of the sight of the enemy). And they're right to do so. Not because orcs and goblins are evil, but because they will try to kill any human, elf, dwarf, etc. they can. Why? Because humans, elves and dwarves kill goblins and orcs on sight, of course.
Once you're wearing the other side's uniform (or body) and there's a war on, you pretty much have to assume a fighting stance. Those who don't are either quite powerful or quite dead. Getting a non-fighting solution to work is pretty difficult, and usually not worth it. One side or the other is liable to come back with reinforcements.

Tiri
2015-01-14, 08:31 AM
My party usually tries to negotiate or stealthily take what we want, regardless of who our enemy is. If that fails and they attack, then we murder them without remorse. Except for undead, which the cleric of Pelor and undead-enemy ranger hate.

Yora
2015-01-14, 08:34 AM
I think in practice it's not so much that players indiscriminately attack and kill all orcs and goblins, but that really all orcs and goblins you are ever going to meet are very obviously engaging in some raiding and pillaging. It simply never happens that you run into any who are not obviously deserving of immediate smiting.

golentan
2015-01-14, 08:47 AM
I think in practice it's not so much that players indiscriminately attack and kill all orcs and goblins, but that really all orcs and goblins you are ever going to meet are very obviously engaging in some raiding and pillaging. It simply never happens that you run into any who are not obviously deserving of immediate smiting.

Right, they tend to be heavily armed and armored, in bands organized for...

Umm... I'm thinking of the PCs... Wait, no, I got this...

Generally if I have my character attack on sight, it's because they have some animus against orcs from their past, and such characters are neutral to evil. If the orcs trigger the initiative roll, though, even my paladins will immediately drop any pretense and go for the metaphorical and sometimes literal throat, though they accept surrenders.

goto124
2015-01-14, 08:58 AM
Have the enemies attack them first. Works for all races!

Tiri
2015-01-14, 09:02 AM
Generally if I have my character attack on sight, it's because they have some animus against orcs from their past, and such characters are neutral to evil.

I never understood this kind of thinking. I mean, just because a member of a certain race wronged you at some point doesn't mean you attack ALL members of that race on sight. For example, I used to know this Indian guy who liked humiliating me in public and calling me gay. That doesn't mean I automatically dislike Indians more than other races. I mean, maybe an Evil character might kill them just for the sake of killing, but even a Neutral character should be able to realize it's not acceptable to kill someone because a member of their race killed their family member (or some committed some other crime against them).

goto124
2015-01-14, 09:09 AM
I never understood this kind of thinking. I mean, just because a member of a certain race wronged you at some point doesn't mean you attack ALL members of that race on sight.

I've thought their hometown was raided by orcs and all relatives/friends/etc were killed by them or something.

golentan
2015-01-14, 09:12 AM
I never understood this kind of thinking. I mean, just because a member of a certain race wronged you at some point doesn't mean you attack ALL members of that race on sight. For example, I used to know this Indian guy who liked humiliating me in public and calling me gay. That doesn't mean I automatically dislike Indians more than other races.

Racism is a thing, and it seems to me more likely in fantasy settings. The extent of it governs whether I judge it to be more fitting with an evil or neutral alignment.

For example, my current elf druid has a thing about orcs. They killed her tribe, so she's carrying out a one woman vendetta on every orc with a weapon that she comes across. She'd feel the same way about a rival tribe of elves if they were responsible, but they'd be closer related so she finds it easier to tar orcish raiders with a broad brush than all elves would be (because her animosity is based on the death of her elvish tribe members, who she liked, so obviously the fault would be with the rival tribe rather than all elves, and it's okay her tribe raided other groups themselves because it was them: it's an insular worldview, not a correct one, hence it can't be good). A combative orc is not going to be allowed to escape or surrender while she's present unless she's forced to accept it by someone else, but she's not going to go after a civilian or an orc hanging out peacefully in a city, so I have her as neutral. It helps in this case that the orcs as a whole are at war with the other races, or I'd seriously consider moving her to evil.

Mastikator
2015-01-14, 09:24 AM
I'm noticing an interesting pattern here, the orcs are always "the enemy", it's always orc raiders/pillagers/bandits, it's never a traveling merchant caravan of orcs, an orc village, an orc fishing town, an orc-controlled toll-extracting bridge.

golentan
2015-01-14, 09:29 AM
I'm noticing an interesting pattern here, the orcs are always "the enemy", it's always orc raiders/pillagers/bandits, it's never a traveling merchant caravan of orcs, an orc village, an orc fishing town, an orc-controlled toll-extracting bridge.

That would be out and out evil. Evil campaigns can be fun, but really, killing civilians is really, really evil.

Yora
2015-01-14, 09:40 AM
I'm noticing an interesting pattern here, the orcs are always "the enemy", it's always orc raiders/pillagers/bandits, it's never a traveling merchant caravan of orcs, an orc village, an orc fishing town, an orc-controlled toll-extracting bridge.
Yes, my point.

Saladman
2015-01-14, 10:47 AM
I'm playing in an old-school B/X game, and its been interesting to see what emerges out of not trying to "fix" the game. That is, all the fiddly pieces like tracking encumbrance and wandering monster checks and reaction rolls and morale and xp for gold are all left in to see what happens.

And one thing that happens is players talk to monsters. If it can speak at all, if its not charging us because its a mindless undead, we will talk to it. If we can parley, great. If it takes a reasonable toll to avoid combat, we'll pay it, even if its a combat we're likely to win. If we can team up with someone/thing, even temporarily, that's the mother-lode to us.

All we really want is to get out alive, which comes with no guarantees, and preferably with treasure, because gold's the major source of xp. Every unnecessary fight is a loss of resources that we may need when the GM rolls for wandering monsters later.

I don't know exactly when the kill them all mentality entered D&D, but oddly it doesn't look like its a part of the original game.

hamishspence
2015-01-14, 10:50 AM
All we really want is to get out alive, which comes with no guarantees, and preferably with treasure, because gold's the major source of xp. Every unnecessary fight is a loss of resources that we may need when the GM rolls for wandering monsters later.

I don't know exactly when the kill them all mentality entered D&D, but oddly it doesn't look like its a part of the original game.

Maybe it was "AD&D" that started the trend?

Rogue Shadows
2015-01-14, 11:14 AM
I've never really run a campaign with all that many orcs, but I did run Red Hand of Doom. I tried to make the goblins and hobgoblins encountered in that reasonably nuanced. They were an invading army, but not all of them were really on-board with the idea. Most of them didn't wish any particular ill on the Elsir Vale, they were just soldiers following orders. It's just that most of their commanders and leaders were jerks who wanted conquest and glory for the Queen of Evil Dragons. Especially Hobgoblin Tina Turner Ulwai Stormcaller, who ended up replacing Kharn.

But then on the other end of the scale we hard the goblin Saarvith who was definitely evil but also intensely aware of his own mortality and never really bought into the whole Five Chromatic Glories thing. He and Regiarix survived their intial fight with the PCs and immediately thereafter decided to never, ever, ever, ever, ever fight them again, and also by the time the siege of Brindol started, what with Kharn dead, Varanthian dead, and Ulwai singing "Better be Good to Me" calling the shots, he no longer thought that the Red Hand could really win and the two ditched as soon as Abithriax was dead.

Yora
2015-01-14, 11:48 AM
Maybe it was "AD&D" that started the trend?

First edition still seems to opperate by the old paradigm. Everything needs to be killed starts with linear plot adventure, which I belive goes back to Dragonlance. First edition was still "explore an open dungeon for interesting or valuable stuff".

Dire Moose
2015-01-14, 09:27 PM
I've only included one "kill the orcs" mission in my campaign and even then, it was only a side objective. The PCs were looking for a magic item that was in a dungeon to the west of a large town, and since they were going there anyway, the local nobleman asked them to get rid of the orcs that had been raiding the western trade route to the dwarven cities.

Like before, it wasn't "Kill the orcs because they're orcs and orcs are always bad;" it was "we can't trade with the dwarves because of these orcs attacking our caravans; we need them gone."

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-15, 09:37 AM
How do game masters use the traditional cannon fodder race?

I make a place, then I decide [weird being X] happens to live there, then my players' characters stumble upon them and do whatever.

[Weird being X] includes humans.


How do players perceive and interactive with the traditional cannon fodder race?

Typically, they torture, murder or otherwise abuse them with little to no second thought.

And I don't need to prod them to do this. I don't need to give them excuses by, say, having them raid or pillage anything. My players are happy to come up with their own. In my experience, even if it's just [weird being x] women and children cowering in a corner because some armed hobo just busted their door in, the player characters will be happy to throw someone down an elevator shaft if they think it'll get them somewhere.

In short, I'm very much convinced that most roleplayers, especially new roleplayers, are perfectly happy to play antisocial murderhobos and do horrible things to fictional people completely on their own accord. Genre convention and "obviously evil" species (I mean, goblins and orcs are obviously evil, 'cause they're ugly and stuff. Duh.) can make them more likely to go that way, but even if you start a game with words "you're at the market place of a happy and peaceful village", one of them will go "cool, let's beat someone and take his stuff!"

SimonMoon6
2015-01-15, 10:02 AM
Well, of course, orcs are a completely evil race that you should kill on sight. That's how they were created to be in Tolkien which is the inspiration for D&D. Orcs don't really have any existence beyond that (and beyond the whole "let's make them different" approach).

Of course, an entire race of sentient humanoids who are always 100% evil is a silly and unworkable concept, but that's D&D for you.

goto124
2015-01-15, 10:11 AM
Well, of course, orcs are a completely evil race that you should kill on sight. That's how they were created to be in Tolkien which is the inspiration for D&D. Orcs don't really have any existence beyond that (and beyond the whole "let's make them different" approach).

Of course, an entire race of sentient humanoids who are always 100% evil is a silly and unworkable concept, but that's D&D for you.

Also, we already have an entire thread called 'Trend towards Non-Evil Races'.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-15, 10:39 AM
Well of course NPCs are just disposable game pieces you should seek to remove ASAP because they're there only to get on your way. That's how it was in wargames, which were the direct precursors to D&D. NPCs don't really have any existence beyond that.

Of course, the idea of all the NPCs being 100% antagonistic to you is somewhat limiting, but that's how it was and is in most games. So "unworkable" is not how I'd term it. :smallamused:

Beta Centauri
2015-01-15, 11:28 AM
I don't know exactly when the kill them all mentality entered D&D, but oddly it doesn't look like its a part of the original game. I really, really dig having alternate ways to win, but just talking or sneaking can become very, very boring, very, very quickly, particularly when one's character class is named "Fighter" and is not particularly good at either sneaking or talking.

Combat is easy to make fun and is an easy way to involve everyone. Alternate approaches can involve everyone, but it's not always obvious how.

Surviving the game is not enough for me (or for many people), especially if survival means an overabundance of caution and a dearth of action. I wouldn't watch that movie, or read that story, so I don't want to play that game.

As to the original question, I'd happily run a game in which there was one main enemy type, but in 4th Edition the monsters of that type aren't necessarily "cannon fodder." Some are, but those are built as minions. The rest are designed to pose more of a challenge, so it's not so much about sending in tons of easily killed monsters.

"Kill them all!" scenarios tend to be boring, though not as boring as "negotiate when you can!" scenarios, so I tend not to go that route as a GM. If I did, I'd probably use monsters that were irredeemable, such as undead, foulspawn or demons. But the idea of implacable waves of orcs does still have some appeal to me.

1337 b4k4
2015-01-15, 11:48 AM
I really, really dig having alternate ways to win, but just talking or sneaking can become very, very boring, very, very quickly, particularly when one's character class is named "Fighter" and is not particularly good at either sneaking or talking.

It's worth noting that in OD&D where the "kill them all" mentality was less, no class was "particularly good at either sneaking or talking". Being good at that was a combination of player skill and a default assumption. Even when the thief skills kicked in at higher levels, one person getting by silently isn't going to be sufficient for "all the treasures". OD&D was truly a different type of game from the one it's become.

Hyena
2015-01-15, 12:07 PM
I give all my characters an excuse, so they can murder any orc they see, no matter if they're evil or noble savage types, because a sight of an orc is an extreme annoyance to me as a player. That irrational hatred comes from my personal trauma from Word of Warcraft and its orc lore.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-15, 12:10 PM
It's worth noting that in OD&D where the "kill them all" mentality was less, It wasn't ever less. Some people enjoy that kind of story, and would try to bring it about, even if that wasn't what the game was trying to present.


no class was "particularly good at either sneaking or talking". Being good at that was a combination of player skill and a default assumption. Even when the thief skills kicked in at higher levels, one person getting by silently isn't going to be sufficient for "all the treasures". OD&D was truly a different type of game from the one it's become. And not a game that everyone wanted to play the way it was supposedly intended. I never had any desire to sit and argue with the GM in silly voices, or to sneak past situations I had equipped my character to be able to handle. Even if I did, those kinds of things are difficult to make much fun for very long: improvised arguments are painful to be involved in or listen to, and haggling over fictional money is pointless, especially when one side doesn't actually have any costs they need to cover; and sneaking is a complete absence of action, an overload of caution, and generally slow to boot.

And GMs who has lavished their creativity on a situation or a challenge or a trap is going to have an incentive to judge that the players' methods don't work anyway. That's not a problem for a GM who improvises rather than prepping, or who enjoys the work for its own sake, but for others it can be very frustrating.

It's possible that the point of the game was to avoid risk, not to move forward until risk had been completely minimized. I never saw that explicitly stated, and the cover art and other things spoke to me more about confrontations than negotiations. I'd rather have to choose between two exciting and equally risky options, mitigate them a bit, maybe, and then roll the dice to see what happens. I didn't have much time for anything else back then, and I have less time for it now.

So, while I wouldn't really dig an all-out kill-em-all game, I also eschew the opposite routes of negotiation or cautious avoidance. Fighting will be a challenge that will use up resources. Avoiding fighting will be a challenge that will use up different resources, possibly less... possibly more. Winning is about more than survival. Sometimes one can survive and still lose, and sometimes one can die and still win.

Honest Tiefling
2015-01-15, 12:21 PM
In my group, usually the kill 'em all race is usually undead. I don't know why, I think that people like to experiment with the creepy factor (or try to).

I think I remember one game that was probably set up as a kill 'em all game. However, the party (IIRC) consisted of a tiefling, a goliath, a shifter, a half-orc and a dragonborn. And the dragonborn was a (somewhat) reformed evil warlord. In that case, I suggested diplomacy because it didn't really make sense to kill everyone on the basis of race or even past deeds.

mikeejimbo
2015-01-15, 06:00 PM
The existence of a cannon fodder race seems a bit lazy to me. And I'm a really lazy DM. So there you have it.

1337 b4k4
2015-01-15, 11:11 PM
It wasn't ever less. Some people enjoy that kind of story, and would try to bring it about, even if that wasn't what the game was trying to present.

I have to disagree. XP for gold rather than killing, the morale rules, the treasures, early module information on factions even within the monsters, fantasy influenced by grand adventure fantasy and a lack of CRPGs (which by necessity, almost universally require a "kill everything" mindset), all add up to a game and a time in gaming when "kill them all and let god sort it out" was a less common mentality for D&D. That some people always played that way doesn't mean that the degree of play was the same as it became or is now.

NNescio
2015-01-15, 11:27 PM
I'm noticing an interesting pattern here, the orcs are always "the enemy", it's always orc raiders/pillagers/bandits, it's never a traveling merchant caravan of orcs, an orc village, an orc fishing town, an orc-controlled toll-extracting bridge.

Blame Tolkien for this.

(They were 'created' by the local Satan-analogue [or alternatively, 'twisted' from another race] to be a twisted mockery of creation, so yeah, Always Chaotic/Neutral/Lawful Evil).

Tengu_temp
2015-01-16, 01:01 AM
"Kill the orcs because they're evil" is not something that happens in my games. "Kill the orcs because they're attacking the village you were hired to protect", on the other hand, happens. I run games where characters have a reason to fight their enemies, not random mook bashes - and most of the time, they actually try to parley with intelligent enemies! Usually it doesn't work, until the enemies are starting to lose at least, but sometimes it does. And either way, it's the thought that counts.



In short, I'm very much convinced that most roleplayers, especially new roleplayers, are perfectly happy to play antisocial murderhobos and do horrible things to fictional people completely on their own accord. Genre convention and "obviously evil" species (I mean, goblins and orcs are obviously evil, 'cause they're ugly and stuff. Duh.) can make them more likely to go that way, but even if you start a game with words "you're at the market place of a happy and peaceful village", one of them will go "cool, let's beat someone and take his stuff!"

I agree, because Sturgeon's Law is something that applies to roleplayers as well.

Erik Vale
2015-01-16, 01:28 AM
Sometimes.

In the game I play where it's a solid yes, it's a case of the Horde [Orc/Goblin/Ogre/'Ogre Mage'(Orgs)] alliance being quite inimical to humans, seeing how they can't quite get their heads around farming [Despite managing crossbows, full plate, diplomacy with elves [who are mostly neutral], and magic... Though most of that may be Org guidance and Goblin nimbleness], practice slavery, and consider humans edible raiding targets. Orcs and Goblins also both qualify as explosive breeders, with Ogres being able to take on entire groups of non-adventurer humans solo, and Orgs capable of handing adventuring groups their rears.

When your racial alliance could take on man if it got it's act together, destroyed the human empire, and hounds humanity to this day, you don't stop to talk except during interrogation, or when you're both busy courting Elves/Dwarves/Dragons. Of course, only the Giants are truly neutral, with Dwarves slightly human friendly, dragons more Horde friendly, and Elves not really wanting either as neighbours, but Horde being slightly worse for them.

jedipotter
2015-01-16, 01:32 AM
Is this still a thing that happens in games? It seems many are (rightfully) fed up with just murdering the orcs* "because they're evil". So when and if always chaotic evil orcs are present in a game is "murder" your goto action or do you try a different approach? Do DMs use orcs as cannon fodder, or are "our orcs are different" tropes often used, maybe some third option?

The ''always evil'' races are alive and well in my game. Sure, lots of orcs are different, but they are always evil.



How do game masters use the traditional cannon fodder race?
How do players perceive and interactive with the traditional cannon fodder race?


Most players (rightfully) think of them as foes and targets to be killed.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 01:14 PM
I have to disagree. XP for gold rather than killing, the morale rules, the treasures, early module information on factions even within the monsters, fantasy influenced by grand adventure fantasy and a lack of CRPGs (which by necessity, almost universally require a "kill everything" mindset), all add up to a game and a time in gaming when "kill them all and let god sort it out" was a less common mentality for D&D. That some people always played that way doesn't mean that the degree of play was the same as it became or is now. My Red Box had a picture of someone going toe-to-toe with a dragon, and that's who I wanted to be. I don't think I was anywhere close to being the only one who thought that way, because CRPGs and new editions didn't create their entire audience: they were created in response to what existing audiences were perceived to want.

What you should wonder is when "winning" came to mean "survival" and "losing" came to mean "death." That there is just about the most insidious assumption in the entire history of the game.

I'm available for further discussion of this this topic (which is not that of the thread) via PM.

mikeejimbo
2015-01-16, 02:02 PM
I mean, it's all well and good to say "Oh no, it's not OK to just treat them as cannon fodder , that's why in my campaign the players attack them because they're raiding a village or openly at war or whatever." But if you're putting a race in that role, then they're still the cannon fodder race, you've just come up with a justification why.

I think that's somewhat why my group tends toward "evil". We don't buy justification for "it's OK to kill these guys" as much as we find "we are playing the abberant ones" to be a lot more realistic.

jedipotter
2015-01-16, 03:00 PM
I mean, it's all well and good to say "Oh no, it's not OK to just treat them as cannon fodder , that's why in my campaign the players attack them because they're raiding a village or openly at war or whatever." But if you're putting a race in that role, then they're still the cannon fodder race, you've just come up with a justification why.

I think it's silly how some DM really go out of the way to say ''Ok, only the 25 orcs here are evil and every orc is their own special person and can be anything of any alignment at any time''.

And as a player your like ''Um, ok, great....so can we attack the evil orcs now?"'

And the Social Trap DM-"You see a seven foot tall orc, he is covered in flesh blood and holding his massive war axe in both hands and looking right at you''

Player-"Sorn, attacks!''

DM-''Ha, ha! you just commuted an evil act! The orc is Lawful Good. He is a butcher, that is why he is covered in blood and the war axe is his family heirloom. Haha!''

hamishspence
2015-01-16, 03:11 PM
Context is everything.

"Bandits" can be a "cannon fodder faction" without them having to be all of specific "evil races" - you could have bandit bands containing a mix of humans, elves, goblins and orcs, rather than "all orc bands".

Conversely, you can have the characters meet "ordinary people" in cities, who happen to be orcs or goblins as well - with the city being fairly multiracial.

3.5's Cityscape discusses which races besides the "standard ones" are most likely to take up city life - and goblins are one of the most usual.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-16, 04:25 PM
... a lack of CRPGs, which by necessity, almost universally require a "kill everything" mindset.

I think this is ass-backwards way of looking at it.

CRPGs were, from the get-go, attempts to simulate D&D, and inherited their "kill them and loot their bodies" from there. D&D, in turn, inherited said attitude from war games, as I tried to point out earlier. (So people who blame Tolkien, give it a rest. Orcs may be a convenient label for enemy pieces you're supposed to destroy, but I assure you the concept of enemy pieces you're supposed to destroy is far older.)

So yeah. "Kill everything" was the default upon which RPGs were built. Stealth, diplomacy and other more nuanced ways to deal with in-game situations could be said to be innovations which put the RP part in the whole deal, but I think it's fair to say D&D always stood firmly on its wargame roots, and all fantasy CRPGs are pretty much ripping off D&D to this day.

Mike_G
2015-01-16, 05:08 PM
A lot comes down to setting and group preference.

Scary bad monster races are a fantasy trope. Plenty of people want to play classic fantasy, which can tend toward fairly stereotyped species/races.

And at its heart, D&D is a game centered around combat. You don't have to fight, but the combat system takes up most of the rule book, and many classes are built around fighting.

Do the rules exist for a diplomacy and intrigue adventure? absolutely. It works pretty well if the party wants to play Bards and Beguilers and so on. That's harder if they want to play Barbarians and Warmages.

I think the game works fine as long as the party and the DM are on the same page. Nothing is more frustrating than having the party kill the guys they were supposed to sneak around, or befriend the guys they were supposed to kill, or sneakily avoid the guys they were supposed to ally with. And a party with a "kill 'em all and let Odin sort 'em out" axe wielding Berzerker and a Diplomacy focused Bard can be trying.

D&D supports both play styles. You just need to agree on what kind of D&D you're playing.

1337 b4k4
2015-01-16, 05:10 PM
I think this is ass-backwards way of looking at it.

CRPGs were, from the get-go, attempts to simulate D&D, and inherited their "kill them and loot their bodies" from there.

They were, but they were also imperfect attempts, and they were imperfect precisely because negotiation, trickery and diplomacy are things that CRPGs have always had a difficult time with (by their very nature of being scripted tree paths). I'm not arguing that there was no such mentality in the early D&D games, player were after all tomb robbers. But I think relative to how common that mentality became, it was noticeably lesser in the early D&D days. It's also worth considering how the play style would have differed amongst different age groups.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 05:28 PM
It's also worth considering how the play style would have differed amongst different age groups. That's very, very important to consider, though I hope we all understand that it's not as simple as younger players wanting lots of fights and older players wanting "negotiation, trickery and diplomacy."

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-16, 05:38 PM
I don't think age matters that much. Any sort of game, RPGs included, is a great way to make adults regress to the mentality of 4-year-olds at a sandbox.

Tengu_temp
2015-01-17, 11:55 AM
I get the feeling you didn't get to play much with players who put thought and effort into roleplaying, Frozen Feet. Maybe 20% (and that's putting it charitably) of murderhobos are murderhobos on purpose, the rest are people who either don't care about playing a believable character or suck at it.

jedipotter
2015-01-17, 03:34 PM
I get the feeling you didn't get to play much with players who put thought and effort into roleplaying, Frozen Feet. Maybe 20% (and that's putting it charitably) of murderhobos are murderhobos on purpose, the rest are people who either don't care about playing a believable character or suck at it.

I'd say more like 75%. Murderhobo is a choice. A very active one.

The people not playing a believable character or don't have good role playing skills are just as likely to be very passive as they are to be aggressive. A lot of players have a hard time breaking out of the mold of ''why should my character do anything''.

dream
2015-01-17, 08:13 PM
Is this still a thing that happens in games? It seems many are (rightfully) fed up with just murdering the orcs* "because they're evil". So when and if always chaotic evil orcs are present in a game is "murder" your goto action or do you try a different approach? Do DMs use orcs as cannon fodder, or are "our orcs are different" tropes often used, maybe some third option?

How do game masters use the traditional cannon fodder race?
How do players perceive and interactive with the traditional cannon fodder race?


*orcs, goblins, gnolls, ogres, trolls, gnolls, grimlocks, etc, any given cannon fodder monster race.
Question 1: On what body of evidence do you base your ".....it seems many are (rightfully) fed up with just murdering the orcs*...."? Merely curious.

Question 2: What else do you do with Chaotic Evil creatures that will kill the PCs, given a chance? Evil monsters do evil things, so this justifies fighting them. That and X.P.


As a DM, I don't use the "Because they're evil" approach, but my players usually do kill orcs and goblins on sight (or at least stay out of the sight of the enemy). And they're right to do so. Not because orcs and goblins are evil, but because they will try to kill any human, elf, dwarf, etc. they can. Why? Because humans, elves and dwarves kill goblins and orcs on sight, of course.
Once you're wearing the other side's uniform (or body) and there's a war on, you pretty much have to assume a fighting stance. Those who don't are either quite powerful or quite dead. Getting a non-fighting solution to work is pretty difficult, and usually not worth it. One side or the other is liable to come back with reinforcements.
But, Orcs are evil. Have been since the beginning. It's kind of a thing.


I never understood this kind of thinking. I mean, just because a member of a certain race wronged you at some point doesn't mean you attack ALL members of that race on sight. For example, I used to know this Indian guy who liked humiliating me in public and calling me gay. That doesn't mean I automatically dislike Indians more than other races. I mean, maybe an Evil character might kill them just for the sake of killing, but even a Neutral character should be able to realize it's not acceptable to kill someone because a member of their race killed their family member (or some committed some other crime against them).
I can safely state that all Indians are not evil. All Orcs are evil, per numerous Monster Manuals. Thus, killing them is an honorable thing for D&D characters, since not killing them can lead to dead PCs and innocents.


I'm noticing an interesting pattern here, the orcs are always "the enemy", it's always orc raiders/pillagers/bandits, it's never a traveling merchant caravan of orcs, an orc village, an orc fishing town, an orc-controlled toll-extracting bridge.
A pattern created by facing an evil monster-race. I've yet to see examples of peaceful, orderly Orcs helping human, elven or dwarven cities. It'd be an amusing change. Any one know of any supplements like that?


I'm playing in an old-school B/X game, and its been interesting to see what emerges out of not trying to "fix" the game. That is, all the fiddly pieces like tracking encumbrance and wandering monster checks and reaction rolls and morale and xp for gold are all left in to see what happens.

And one thing that happens is players talk to monsters. If it can speak at all, if its not charging us because its a mindless undead, we will talk to it. If we can parley, great. If it takes a reasonable toll to avoid combat, we'll pay it, even if its a combat we're likely to win. If we can team up with someone/thing, even temporarily, that's the mother-lode to us.

All we really want is to get out alive, which comes with no guarantees, and preferably with treasure, because gold's the major source of xp. Every unnecessary fight is a loss of resources that we may need when the GM rolls for wandering monsters later.

I don't know exactly when the kill them all mentality entered D&D, but oddly it doesn't look like its a part of the original game.
It was a fun part of the original game (OD&D). And, "why are you talking to my experience points?":smallbiggrin:


I've only included one "kill the orcs" mission in my campaign and even then, it was only a side objective. The PCs were looking for a magic item that was in a dungeon to the west of a large town, and since they were going there anyway, the local nobleman asked them to get rid of the orcs that had been raiding the western trade route to the dwarven cities.

Like before, it wasn't "Kill the orcs because they're orcs and orcs are always bad;" it was "we can't trade with the dwarves because of these orcs attacking our caravans; we need them gone."
Very nice twist.


Well, of course, orcs are a completely evil race that you should kill on sight. That's how they were created to be in Tolkien which is the inspiration for D&D. Orcs don't really have any existence beyond that (and beyond the whole "let's make them different" approach).

Of course, an entire race of sentient humanoids who are always 100% evil is a silly and unworkable concept, but that's D&D for you.
Unworkable? Is that why Orcs & Goblins are still, after 40+ years, the go-to cannon fodder? Seems to work for WoTC & Paizo.


It's worth noting that in OD&D where the "kill them all" mentality was less, no class was "particularly good at either sneaking or talking". Being good at that was a combination of player skill and a default assumption. Even when the thief skills kicked in at higher levels, one person getting by silently isn't going to be sufficient for "all the treasures". OD&D was truly a different type of game from the one it's become.
wha:smallconfused: Not my recollection of OD&D/1st Ed. It was largely "Hack & Slash", with "Hey, let's talk to these monsters" being odd and nearly out-of-place. But that was early 80s gaming.

Thieves were the designated "sneakers", with tables for it even. With the modern game, pretty much all classes contain abilities once limited to Thieves. I agree low-level thieves were not very adept at sneaking, but generally better than fighters, clerics and magic-users.


I'd say more like 75%. Murderhobo is a choice. A very active one.

The people not playing a believable character or don't have good role playing skills are just as likely to be very passive as they are to be aggressive. A lot of players have a hard time breaking out of the mold of ''why should my character do anything''.
Believable to who? And if D&D is an RPG, and combat is a large part of D&D, when does combat stop being role-playing? Are role-playing and fantasy combat mutually-exclusive? Is the Universe flat or banana-shaped?:smalltongue:

Tengu_temp
2015-01-17, 08:35 PM
I'd say more like 75%. Murderhobo is a choice. A very active one.


A choice that has nothing to do with roleplaying. Most players who play murderhobos don't decide "I will intentionally play a character who's a sociopath and cares only about loot, and will kill innocents if that gives him the reward he seeks". They either didn't think that much about it, or simply don't give a **** because they play the game to kill monsters and not roleplay.

Those who intentionally roleplay a murderhobo characters are a small minority.


All Orcs are evil, per numerous Monster Manuals. Thus, killing them is an honorable thing for D&D characters, since not killing them can lead to dead PCs and innocents.

Wrong. Orcs are not always evil, they're usually evil. Neutral and good orcs are perfectly possible, and attacking peaceful orcs is evil. Also, killing a creature just because it's evil-aligned is not enough justification (with rare exceptions like demons), and is in itself an evil act. You need a good reason to kill it.

Both of those are official DND rulings.

Rogue Shadows
2015-01-17, 10:00 PM
Wrong. Orcs are not always evil, they're usually evil. Neutral and good orcs are perfectly possible,

I would, personally, from the "usually" line (and remembering that in the 3rd Edition MM that typically meant "51%") that as orcs are usually Chaotic Evil, the next most common alignment is likely Neutral Evil, followed by Chaotic Neutral. After that comes Lawful Evil and True Neutral, then any real shot at Good. I think that Good and Evil "weigh" more than Law and Chaos, so someone raised in a Chaotic Evil society is more likely to drift left to Neutral Evil, then up to Chaotic Neutral. Then from Neutral Evil they're more likely to drift left again to Lawful Evil then up to Neutral, and a Chaotic Neutral orc is more likely to drift left to Neutral than up to Chaotic Good.

Good orcs are exceptionally, exceptionally rare, and a very comfortable majority are Evil.

I'll agree with the broader point that you shouldn't be attacking D&D orcs on sight simply because they're orcs, but a comfortable amount of wariness and keeping a sword nearby and a spell in mind is certainly not untoward unless you've a good reason to think them trustworthy - it's worth remembering that they are, as a race (at least in, again, 3.5) unpredictable, aggressive, and stupid.

If I came across a quartet of orcs sitting around a campfire roasting a deer and telling stories, though, and knew nothing else about them, I'd certainly let them be.

Envyus
2015-01-17, 10:16 PM
Actually you are both wrong. Because Orcs are Often Chaotic Evil, not usually


Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.

Officially The 2nd most common Alignment that Orcs have after Chaotic evil is Chaotic Neutral.

Shadowsend
2015-01-18, 12:13 AM
I recommend replacing the word "Orc" with the word "Nazi" or the word "Goth" or the word "Viking" and see what different ideas you come to. In this way you can shift the orcs slightly away from that cannonfodder race. (That is, if you even want to.)

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-18, 07:55 AM
I get the feeling you didn't get to play much with players who put thought and effort into roleplaying, Frozen Feet. Maybe 20% (and that's putting it charitably) of murderhobos are murderhobos on purpose, the rest are people who either don't care about playing a believable character or suck at it.

On the contrary, I get to play with a lot of players, of various ages and experience levels. While I do agree much of unintentional in-game sociopathy is a result of people sucking at playing the game (and it's no suprise I should meet many of such people, as many of players are new to the hobby), I think the basic reason for prevalence of murderhoboism is more psychological than that, and related to how videogames like GTA are massively popular. In short, I think inside each of us lives an egoistic little sociopath, only kept in check by our understanding of consequences which would befall us were we to really act that way. Hence, when you give people an environment where consequences do not exist or do not directly affect their persons (after all, what's in the game is "not really happening"), they are happy to indulge in such behaviour.

As an aside, I do think jedipotter's point about a divide between aggressive and passive players is a good one. The typical murderhobo is still actively engaging the game - they're trying to play it, even if they suck at it. That's preferable to being left alone in the corner, as far as I'm concerned.


If D&D is an RPG, and combat is a large part of D&D, when does combat stop being role-playing?

It doesn't. What it does, is limit the sort of roles players can assume while still remaining engaged in the game. If violence is routinely the expected, or the only, option, the players will quickly learn to play violent characters. In this aspect, players are like Pavlov's dogs. Is in-game violence rewarding and a good way to achieve in-game objectives? Be prepared to see a lot of in-game violence, then, and very little else.

Rogue Shadows
2015-01-18, 10:02 AM
While I do agree much of unintentional in-game sociopathy is a result of people sucking at playing the game

I deeply resent the way you chose to word that.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-18, 10:08 AM
Do tell me all about it. :smalltongue:

Morty
2015-01-18, 10:40 AM
I would, personally, from the "usually" line (and remembering that in the 3rd Edition MM that typically meant "51%") that as orcs are usually Chaotic Evil, the next most common alignment is likely Neutral Evil, followed by Chaotic Neutral. After that comes Lawful Evil and True Neutral, then any real shot at Good. I think that Good and Evil "weigh" more than Law and Chaos, so someone raised in a Chaotic Evil society is more likely to drift left to Neutral Evil, then up to Chaotic Neutral. Then from Neutral Evil they're more likely to drift left again to Lawful Evil then up to Neutral, and a Chaotic Neutral orc is more likely to drift left to Neutral than up to Chaotic Good.

Good orcs are exceptionally, exceptionally rare, and a very comfortable majority are Evil.


Funny thing about that...


Actually you are both wrong. Because Orcs are Often Chaotic Evil, not usually

Officially The 2nd most common Alignment that Orcs have after Chaotic evil is Chaotic Neutral.

What he said. Statistically speaking, you're actually more likely to run into a neutral or good orc than you are to run across a neutral or evil elf. You're exactly as likely to meet a good goblin or hobgoblin as you are to meet an evil elf. And yet you don't see many people who claim evil and neutral elves or dwarves are a tiny minority.

Then again, it's not like the books don't merrily perpetuate this double standard, so I guess the players can't be blamed.

Rogue Shadows
2015-01-18, 11:09 AM
What he said.

Which book has Chaotic Neutral as the second most common orc alignment? While I'll certainly bow to the "often" line (I was working from memory), nowhere do I see it said that orcs who aren't Chaotic Evil tend to drift towards Chaotic Neutral over Neutral Evil, at least not in my copy of the 3.5 MM.

I work off of the assumption that "alignment drift" tends to happen along the same lines as gods are willing to allow their Clerics to be of different alignments: outliers to the norm tend to be within one step of that norm.


http://i59.tinypic.com/91m42e.png

So a society that's often Chaotic Evil is going to have, as its next most common alignments, either Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral. So of the three most common alignments, two are Evil. Then from there we follow the same "one step" rule to produce Chaotic Good, True Neutral, and Lawful Evil. So now of the six most common alignments, three are Evil and only one is Good. And so on.

I dunno, that makes sense to me. Like I said, I tend to give more weight to the Good-Evil axis than the Law-Chaos one simply by personal taste, but even if weighed equally this system still produces Evil far more often than Good (and, similarly, Chaos more often then Law). This makes sense: a society that rewards Evil and Chaos is going to by its nature produce Evil and Chaos much more often than it's going to produce Law and Good.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-18, 04:52 PM
wha:smallconfused: Not my recollection of OD&D/1st Ed. It was largely "Hack & Slash", with "Hey, let's talk to these monsters" being odd and nearly out-of-place. But that was early 80s gaming.

Thieves were the designated "sneakers", with tables for it even. With the modern game, pretty much all classes contain abilities once limited to Thieves. I agree low-level thieves were not very adept at sneaking, but generally better than fighters, clerics and magic-users. I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw it that way.


And if D&D is an RPG, and combat is a large part of D&D, when does combat stop being role-playing? When players are so worried about losing their characters or looking like they're making stupid mistakes that they stop making in-character choices and start making tactical ones. With a little thought during character design, those tactical choices can be the same ones the character would make, in which case combat never stops being roleplaying.

Blackhawk748
2015-01-18, 05:24 PM
My characters dont kill orcs because their orcs, they kill them because they are doing raiding or something. On the other side of this, Elves, Humans, Dwarves are also bandits, Orcs are just more common. This is because waaaaay back when Gruumsh got screwed over when the gods were picking lands, there was a fight with Corellian, and Gruumsh has been angry ever since. In Gruumsh's defense Corellian has been constantly needling him about his loss ever since, so hes never had a chace to get over it.

Maglubiyet just didnt get to choose any land for his people, so goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears just grab whatever than can and fight like rabid animals to protect it. Also most kingdoms view goblins as little more than a vermin infestation, so they, in particular, can be quite vicious.

prufock
2015-01-18, 06:40 PM
"Kill the orcs because they're evil" is not something that happens in my games. "Kill the orcs because they're attacking the village you were hired to protect", on the other hand, happens. I run games where characters have a reason to fight their enemies, not random mook bashes - and most of the time, they actually try to parley with intelligent enemies! Usually it doesn't work, until the enemies are starting to lose at least, but sometimes it does. And either way, it's the thought that counts.
I am 100% in support of this. Games should have internal logic. Both PCs and NPCs should have reasons, motivations, for the things they do, beyond killing x because it's x.

Angel Bob
2015-01-18, 07:24 PM
I had an interesting experience regarding the use of "cannon fodder" monsters:

When DMing for a group of rookies, I gave them a plot hook (several villagers found dead, town alarmed) and a quest-giver NPC, who told them it was probably the doing of the nearby goblin tribe. As I expected, they took the cash, geared up, and headed out to the goblin lair.

What I didn't expect was for them to try and avoid any and all conflict with the goblins. Their first attempt was to sneak past the guards and speak to the tribe leader; that failed, but they managed to negotiate their way out of a jam and win an audience with him. Despite the leader's oppression-born hatred of humanity, they spoke calmly and politely with him, asking if he knew anything about the deaths.

This was quite surprising to me, especially because it meant they figured out part of the twist early on: the goblins weren't actually responsible for the deaths. (In a shocking twist, the quest-giver NPC was actually the BBEG, and was trying to cover his tracks by sending the most powerful people in the town on a red herring quest.)

On the ethical side, I was very proud of them for showing such strong morals. I had been planning to stress the whole "not all goblins/etc. are Evil" message, and I was glad to see the players were on board. However, I have to admit, I was a little disappointed that they didn't end up fighting the goblin leader. He was a really cool boss. :smalltongue:

TL;DR A group of newbie D&D players surprised me by refusing to fight goblins just for being goblins. There is hope for this world yet.

goto124
2015-01-18, 09:07 PM
What did the newbies play before DnD?

hamishspence
2015-01-19, 02:23 PM
Which book has Chaotic Neutral as the second most common orc alignment? While I'll certainly bow to the "often" line (I was working from memory), nowhere do I see it said that orcs who aren't Chaotic Evil tend to drift towards Chaotic Neutral over Neutral Evil, at least not in my copy of the 3.5 MM.

It was one of the later MMs (IV or V) which also went into more detail on orc culture, and statted out several example orc NPCs.

Envyus
2015-01-19, 06:58 PM
Monster Manual IV.


Alignment: Orcs are brutish and bloodthirsty, selfish
and devious. They kill and destroy without a thought to the
consequences, and they dominate and persecute even other
orcs. Every orc craves personal authority and comfort and
is willing to eradicate rivals to secure these wants. As such,
orcs are often chaotic evil, with chaotic neutral being the
most common exception. An orc individual or group might
adopt a differing outlook, but another creature often controls
or governs such orcs—one they fear or revere.