The Trend Toward Non-evil Orcs

[DoomHat]

Has anyone else noticed that orcs are being portrayed less and less as murderous Always Chaotic Evil idiots?
It seems to me that the standard Tolkien based troupe has been subverted so hard so often the standard orc is more like an honorable Klingon then a ravenous morlock.

What do you folks think about this? Personally, I enjoy playing half-orcs that are flavored as just strait up orcs, but on the other hand I can appreciate the appeal of an irredeemable hoard of monster people that you can fight and kill without remorse other then more &@#ing zombies.

[Yora]

Both heroes and villains are much more interesting if they have a distinct ability and do the things they do because they chose to, and not because it's their nature.

And I think enemies you can kill without second thought are boring enemies as well.

You still can have an evil orc warlord with his big gang of evil marauders who slaughter and burn everything. The single step of showing that this particular orcs are terrible monsters instead of assuming that all orcs are automatically terrible monster really isn't such a huge burden to justify all orcs automatically being brainless evil.

[BWR]

Variation is nice. Sometimes you want to show a traditionally evil race can be something more. Sometimes you just want easy targets for the heroes to kill.

[TheCountAlucard]

Alignment: Often chaotic evil

Hm, curious...

Alignment
This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.

Seems the idea of them being Always Chaotic Evil is just wishful thinking.

[Knaight]

I generally find the entire concept of the monstrous intelligent species all sorts of boring. People have been warring over all sorts of things for a very long time, and smaller scale conflicts are even more prevalent. Some inherently evil force just isn't necessary, and generally smacks of laziness in setting design; a more complex perspective tends to lead to more complex and interesting conflicts. As such, the trend is entirely welcome, as it generally opens up options.

This gets particularly true as orcs within LotR have some specific considerations. They were elves which were deliberately altered by Morgoth and Sauron, which carry out the will of a particular character which is actually complex. There's still a complex character which isn't just a representative of some evil species at the heart of things. Absent that, the role of orcs is basically that of zombies, minus a whole bunch of the things that create the appeal in the first place. That is to say, the appeal is role is basically a watered down version of characters that deserve the term so little that they are often better compared to natural disasters and background setting, and which are generally explicitly mindless to boot.

For an intelligent species in a setting, that seems like a waste. I might have unusually high standards for the inclusion of non-human species, but that only really applies to the Klingon like orcs, not the zombie like ones.

Hm, curious...
Seems the idea of them being Always Chaotic Evil is just wishful thinking.

This isn't a D&D specific thread, and even if it were, the 3e SRD isn't particularly definitive for anything other than one point that can be looked at regarding the trend. 3e is also recent enough for that to be expected, it would be 1e having text like that that would call into question the original state, and even then it's trumped by what actual play looked like.

[Red Fel]

I'm inclined to agree with the people who find always-evil Orcs to be boring. While I appreciate the use of morally unambiguous cannon fodder in a given campaign (sometimes, as Freud wouldn't ever actually say, a baddy is just a baddy), I like my named NPCs to have more complexity in their motivations. I like to put my PCs in a position where they have to think, not just assume. When you see a bunch of blood-stained Orcs, foaming at the mouth, wearing spiky armor and riding spiky wolves, waving their axes around and gnawing on baby limbs, it's safe to assume they're villains. When you see an Orc in plain brown monastic robes, tending an herb garden and playing with small children, it may throw some players, but it seems fairly clear that he's probably not evil. And it's a nice, refreshing change. And when you see an Orc in black robes, it's just plain unclear - is he a Wizard, crafting spells for the greater good? Is he an evil cultist, consorting with demons? Or is he just on his way to the bathhouse, and you should bloody well leave him be? I like throwing away preconceptions like that.

I also dislike the idea of monolithic races generally. The idea that all Orcs are near-mindless bloodthirsty savages, that all Elves are enlightened tree-hugging swordsman arcanists, that all Dwarves are drunken Scottish hammer-wielding blacksmiths, but every human is a unique sodding snowflake, drives me nuts. N-V-T-S nuts. It's like the whole Star Trek-style "Planet of the X People," where every planet has a single, uniform, homogenous population. Of course people vary from place to place. Peoples is peoples. No is buildings. Is tomatoes, huh? Is peoples, is dancing, is music, is potatoes. So, peoples is peoples. Okay?

They don't have to be Drizz't, here, but they don't all have to be monolithically evil, either. At least, not in my games.

[goto124]

While I appreciate the use of morally unambiguous cannon fodder in a given campaign, I like my named NPCs to have more complexity in their motivations.

I guess you have both in your games, with a side of My Species Doth Protest Too Much?

Caution: Tvtropes page.

[123456789blaaa]

I enjoy both if done well. I do actually think inserting "morally ambiguous" into ALL works would actually lessen the quality of some of them. Morally ambiguous Skaven? No just...no.

Does cancer need to be morally ambiguous? Do demons need to be (and yes, I know some good works have had morally ambiguous demons)? Sometimes the narrative purpose of intelligent creatures is to be obstacles and/or to get across some message.

[Broken Twin]

It's in our nature to explore a popular trope, then subvert it, deconstruct it, and eventually reconstruct it.

Orcs started as murderous Evil savages, fit only for killing. Once that became the common expectation, subversions started showing up, like hippy orcs. Then it was deconstructed, and their savage side was developed into a tribal honor structure, where their morality was different, but not necessarily worse, than the civilized races. If anything, 5E partially reconstructs it, with the idea that Gruumsh's murderous impulses are constantly influencing their thoughts, thereby justifying why the majority of them turn to Evil.

(As an aside note, I'm not too fond of the 5E rendition, which is essentially stating that orcs as a species are mentally ill. But anyway...)

Personally, I'm not overly fond of the concept of single morality mortal species. Just seems like lazy worldbuilding.

[Red Fel]

Does cancer need to be morally ambiguous? Do demons need to be (and yes, I know some good works have had morally ambiguous demons)? Sometimes the narrative purpose of intelligent creatures is to be obstacles and/or to get across some message.

See, here's the thing. While I like morally ambiguous villains, they are ultimately villains. Sure, sometimes I may play up a sympathetic villain, or even one who could very well be a hero from a certain point of view, most of my villains are ultimately villainous.

But let me be clear one one thing: to be a villain, at my table, means somebody made a conscious choice. I can understand, for example, why 5e made Orcs universally brain-dead Evil - because it eliminates moral ambiguity and turns them into a simple combat encounter. But I don't like it. They're no longer villains, they're robots. My villains choose their actions. My demons and similar beings may be Evil by default, but they still embrace it. They revel in it. They like Evil. They're intelligent, and open to diplomacy and negotiations, but generally speaking, if the hero is dumb enough to say "You've been a boon to us; won't you fight for the side of Good?" My demons will laugh, say, "No," and kill him.

On second thought, they'll kill him, and then say, "No."

Evil is just too much fun, y'see.

[Knaight]

Does cancer need to be morally ambiguous? Do demons need to be (and yes, I know some good works have had morally ambiguous demons)? Sometimes the narrative purpose of intelligent creatures is to be obstacles and/or to get across some message.

Sure, but this pretty much never needs to be a species, and when it is it is almost always just laziness. A particular group composed of intelligent people can easily be an obstacle or get across a message just fine even when the group is entirely human. I'd even say that it's generally more effective. As for the cancer comparison, cancer isn't a moral agent at all.

Looking to literary analysis, one method of categorizing stories is by their central conflict, with the big three being person-versus-person, person-versus-the-environment, and person-versus-self. The cancer example is generally person versus the environment, though it can be a catalyst for one of the other two. What works for that is very different than what works for person-versus-person, and generally the point of having a species comprised of people being the main source of conflict is the person-versus-person set. There are some edge cases, such as zombies, which are usually either a person-versus-the-environment thing or a hostile scenario that sets up a person-versus-person or person-versus-self where none of the people involved are zombies. For orcs, that doesn't really seem to apply as much, and when it does there's generally no need for it to be all orcs everywhere.

[Shadowknight12]

I have never used, nor will I ever use, a mindless automatically evil race that you can just kill without concern. I do not approve of fostering the idea that killing is an enjoyable activity that should be undertaken thoughtlessly.

Which is why I am so glad we're moving forward towards non-evil races. I am really hoping traditional undead will be next (not just the pretty ones like vampires and ghosts).

I am also a big fan of these races being playable, and integrated as a part of the world just like any other. It's always fun to come up with ways to integrate orcs and other traditional antagonists as ordinary NPCs and realms in the campaign setting.

[Jay R]

In my current game, I warned everyone in advance:

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

The party has met orcs exactly once so far. They were attacking a town. But the party has no idea yet what orcs are like when they don't have ogres behind them demanding that they attack the town.

By contrast, they've met goblins lots of times. My goblins are disorganized and semi-sentient, but very good at following basic orders. When there's a gnoll directing them, they have good battle tactics. When they are riding wargs, they try to cut one party member away from the rest to carry off - the way wolves attack sheep or cows.

But when they are alone, the goblins just come jumping in with their crudely-made clubs and spears with no order or plan.

After the first time they defeated a small unit of goblins, the party asked, "Is their gear worth anything?"

I responded, "Consider the implications of the phrase, 'crudely-made club'."

[Joe the Rat]

They make convenient villains. So do bandits and cultists and opposing nations. But we don't slaughter them wholesale while calling ourselves the good guys. Humanoids are all about the strange icky uncivilized folk to the north/south/east/west/whichever direction is opposite this really cool wall we built. Making them not look like us makes them easier to not identify with.

Look at the "player" races in most fantasy games. You have humans, which are whatever you want to be, and then the other races, which are more like "ideals" of a concept. Elves are Grace and Nobility, often with a side of Tree Hugging or Vulcanism(ala Star Trek). Dwarves are Rough, Crude, Crafty, and Valorous. Usually with bit of Viking, Celt, or Vulcanism(ala Roman Mythology). Halflings are the Ultimate Common Folk. Every race ends up with a Hat, even if the individual characters don't wear them.

And each is "attractive" in a particular way - lean, robust, cuddly, etc.

Now look at the "Monster" Races. The are, in general, ugly. Weird skin tones, skin textures, noses, teeth... often heading into more bestial territory - particularly when you hit the [creature]folk types. They don't look right, and look dangerous or scary. They look like the bad guys, and they are given characterization to match. Or they are given a characterization, and given the look to match.

But then we get to the weird looking PCs. Giant bugs or lizards or robots or heaven forbid humanoids. This sort of opens the door to the idea that being that different on the outside doesn't mean you have to be as different on the inside. This makes the "traditional" monster races victims of circumstance rather than biology, and raises the dilemma of whether or not you should wipe them out. But you probably weren't doing in regards to your human opponents. Why not? Because they chose to be evil. But that choice may be as environmentally driven as the orc's. So we get good (or at least neutral) orc societies, and evil elf and dwarf races (because you couldn't have a regular elf be evil...), and good-powered undead (as opposed to the friendly neighborhood lycanthrope). But we've had rules for evil characters all along, with the caveat that playing one is bad and you should feel bad, and here's your incentives for being bad.

Hell, we've had entire game systems devoted to playing monsters, to see what being a monster is about, and if you can still be "human" or at least human-friendly. Or if you should be human friendly.

The best justification for any race being "generally evil" is viewing morality as a bit of a slope. It's easy to be evil. It's hard to be good.

If anything, 5E partially reconstructs it, with the idea that Gruumsh's murderous impulses are constantly influencing their thoughts, thereby justifying why the majority of them turn to Evil.

(As an aside note, I'm not too fond of the 5E rendition, which is essentially stating that orcs as a species are mentally ill. But anyway...)

Personally, I'm not overly fond of the concept of single morality mortal species. Just seems like lazy worldbuilding.

5e has brought it back to Tolkein. Why are the orcs being a big nasty marauding horde of an army? Mental domination by the All-Seeing Eye. They don't necessarily want to be there, and the tribes certainly don't get along. They'd rather be crude and cruel elsewhere. Perhaps not "good," but at least less antagonistic. And when the Eye falls, they scatter. It might be easier to picture Gruumsh's influence in this regard. If you could remove that influence, you might be able to "civilize" them. Really, all of the bad guy races have this - responding to influence (or fear of) their creator deities. Arguably, the same pressures exist for the "Good" races, but we don't talk about it because why would we have to explain why a race is "Always Good"?

And yes, it is lazy world-building to make a race almost always evil for no reason. Don't make them all evil, or give it a reason.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Tolkien orcs, and the orcs of many campaign settings, are created to be evil, trained to be evil, and led by evil. If your campaign setting has an origin for orcs that is rooted in evil, then it makes sense for orcs to be evil. If your campaign setting has a different kind of origin, then it would make sense for your setting to have a different kind of orc.

[hamishspence]

Arguably, the same pressures exist for the "Good" races, but we don't talk about it because why would we have to explain why a race is "Always Good"?

5E says that, because being Good is at least partly about respecting free will - the Good deities don't exert pressure.

[sktarq]

I don't really see much of an issue or even difference between the old 2E chaotic evil orcs and the more "Klingon" type you claim to be something different. A society based of a minimal amount of law, take what you can grab and defend, and high levels of violence would generally be described as chaotic and evil-and would thus be filled with chaotic evil members. . . If anything it is a drift away from chaotic stupid orcs to chaotic evil ones.

Look at the amount of law and structure to many elven or Norse civs in the game (many, if not most, being portrayed as CG) and make evil equivalents and you have a mostly CE race.

[Solaris]

In my Dragon Realms setting, an orc is reasonably intelligent, though not particularly logical or even reasonable, but isn't much more dangerous than an average human. He may not like you, but he's not gonna chop your head off and make it his puppet just for the evil shiggles.
Orcs, on the other hand, are dangerous. Get them together in a pack, and they're prone to get it in their heads that doing something stupid and violent would be a great idea. They're bad influences on each other, you see. Imagine stereotypical college frat boys - get them alone and they might be decent, but in large groups they're going to fall into the mold.

In my Clockwork Avalon setting, orcs have their genesis as proto-dwarves infected a healthy dose of demon blood. They're psychotic and evil, almost mindlessly violent, and all the more tragic because they might have been the greatest of all the races were it not for Gruumsh, their demon-god, stealing them from their true creator and warping them into his image (and in that setting, Gruumsh has a fertility goddess for a bride - they switch control over the orcs, leading to periods where the orcs breed like mad and periods where the orcs go mad). There they're less characters/races and more forces of nature, raw and primal.

[123456789blaaa]

<snip>
Personally, I'm not overly fond of the concept of single morality mortal species. Just seems like lazy worldbuilding.

So you're okay with single morality immortal species. Why?

See, here's the thing. While I like morally ambiguous villains, they are ultimately villains. Sure, sometimes I may play up a sympathetic villain, or even one who could very well be a hero from a certain point of view, most of my villains are ultimately villainous.

But let me be clear one one thing: to be a villain, at my table, means somebody made a conscious choice. I can understand, for example, why 5e made Orcs universally brain-dead Evil - because it eliminates moral ambiguity and turns them into a simple combat encounter. But I don't like it. They're no longer villains, they're robots. My villains choose their actions. My demons and similar beings may be Evil by default, but they still embrace it. They revel in it. They like Evil. They're intelligent, and open to diplomacy and negotiations, but generally speaking, if the hero is dumb enough to say "You've been a boon to us; won't you fight for the side of Good?" My demons will laugh, say, "No," and kill him.

On second thought, they'll kill him, and then say, "No."

Evil is just too much fun, y'see.

What do you think of a species that could do "good" actions but simply do not derive pleasure from them. Doing "good" acts-for whatever reason- simply does not give them any feel-good rush. There is 0 appeal. On the other hand, doing actions a person would generally consider "evil" gives them an enhanced rush. Thus they all do evil and no good unless it benefits them more.

Here we have a species that is "always evil" but they do technically choose to be evil. Do they meet your criteria for interesting villains?

Sure, but this pretty much never needs to be a species, and when it is it is almost always just laziness. A particular group composed of intelligent people can easily be an obstacle or get across a message just fine even when the group is entirely human. I'd even say that it's generally more effective. As for the cancer comparison, cancer isn't a moral agent at all.

Looking to literary analysis, one method of categorizing stories is by their central conflict, with the big three being person-versus-person, person-versus-the-environment, and person-versus-self. The cancer example is generally person versus the environment, though it can be a catalyst for one of the other two. What works for that is very different than what works for person-versus-person, and generally the point of having a species comprised of people being the main source of conflict is the person-versus-person set. There are some edge cases, such as zombies, which are usually either a person-versus-the-environment thing or a hostile scenario that sets up a person-versus-person or person-versus-self where none of the people involved are zombies. For orcs, that doesn't really seem to apply as much, and when it does there's generally no need for it to be all orcs everywhere.

Well I'm not talking about just orcs (forgetting even that "orc" can be a pretty broad label in the first place).

The "3 central conflicts" is a great shorthand but ultimately very fuzzy in specifics. I mean, in real life we haven't come to a clear consensus of when something becomes a "person". How much harder does this get when you bring in the practically infinite variations of fiction?

One could make the argument that for example "incarnations of humanities darkest and most depraved thoughts put into meat-suits" aren't "people" but are instead a particularly tricky environmental hazard. Are they right? Does it matter? And perhaps like zombies, they're used as a set-up for human's to interact with other humans in a particular way. Can you really not think of any justified circumstances in a story that would require them to be a species

And you can't think of stories where exchanging the group of intelligent people with humans would lessen the story?

How many examples of these would I have to give you for you to retract you statements?

[Lord Raziere]

Has anyone else noticed that orcs are being portrayed less and less as murderous Always Chaotic Evil idiots?
It seems to me that the standard Tolkien based troupe has been subverted so hard so often the standard orc is more like an honorable Klingon then a ravenous morlock.

What do you folks think about this? Personally, I enjoy playing half-orcs that are flavored as just strait up orcs, but on the other hand I can appreciate the appeal of an irredeemable hoard of monster people that you can fight and kill without remorse other then more &@#ing zombies.

I think its a good trend that should continue. and I don't need a specific race to kill evil things without remorse. thats what evil in general is for.

[Red Fel]

What do you think of a species that could do "good" actions but simply do not derive pleasure from them. Doing "good" acts-for whatever reason- simply does not give them any feel-good rush. There is 0 appeal. On the other hand, doing actions a person would generally consider "evil" gives them an enhanced rush. Thus they all do evil and no good unless it benefits them more.

I think that's another example of a robot, and I loathe it. Taking no joy from your actions but performing them anyway strikes me as dissonant. Instead, I would have a species that feels compelled to do good, but enjoys it, much like my demon-types enjoy Evil. That's how I play my angel-types. They're genuinely happy to operate as cosmic manifestations of their respective definitions of Good. The LG sword-and-fire types feel that their actions in judging the wicked are of profound value, and take immense satisfaction in it; the CG free-wheeling types take pleasure in promoting freedom, love, and beauty; the NG ones get a sense of tremendous satisfaction sharing their love and compassion with those in need.

I don't see why Evil alone has to give you a rush. Different strokes for different folks, and all. Evil just looks better while doing it.

Here we have a species that is "always evil" but they do technically choose to be evil. Do they meet your criteria for interesting villains?

They can. Few of my rules are absolutes. Even the idea of acting out a morality without thought isn't an absolute, if applied to something without a mind, such as a robot. I mentioned above that I love the idea of an Evil race that's Evil because it chooses to be. Because it loves it. I already explained that part.

My issue is having a near-universally Evil race without good reason for it to be so. Look, demons are an obvious choice - they're cosmic Evil given physical form. Similarly, if Orcs in your setting are the offspring of X and demons, I could see them having a strong hereditary predisposition towards Evil. Where I find it harder to grasp the idea of an "always evil race" is where there is no tendency towards Evil in the blood; that is, where it is cultural, or simply authorial fiat. I can see a tendency towards amorality within a culture, sure, but for an entire culture to be monolithically Evil stretches credulity, for me. Sure, it could go through a period - a generation or two - where a cultural revolution has resulted in an Evil administration, promoting and indoctrinating Evil ideals. We've seen that happen in real life, and need not discuss it. But for an entire society to be Evil, socially but not genetically, and to have been so for multiple generations, defies logic. You'd think there would have been a few independent thinkers, a revolution, a war as rival nations rise up as a whole to crush an Evil regime, something. And once that society collapses, so too would the societal impetus for Evil.

That said, being Evil by choice is a factor in creating an interesting villain, but alone it is not sufficient. An interesting villain, for me, is a holistic creature; many jagged parts coming together to form a complete and mystical whole. A villain is many things, and reducing it to one-word descriptors like "Evil" just fails, for me.

[123456789blaaa]

I think that's another example of a robot, and I loathe it. Taking no joy from your actions but performing them anyway strikes me as dissonant. Instead, I would have a species that feels compelled to do good, but enjoys it, much like my demon-types enjoy Evil. That's how I play my angel-types. They're genuinely happy to operate as cosmic manifestations of their respective definitions of Good. The LG sword-and-fire types feel that their actions in judging the wicked are of profound value, and take immense satisfaction in it; the CG free-wheeling types take pleasure in promoting freedom, love, and beauty; the NG ones get a sense of tremendous satisfaction sharing their love and compassion with those in need.

I don't see why Evil alone has to give you a rush. Different strokes for different folks, and all. Evil just looks better while doing it.

I think you may be misunderstanding. I'm saying they don't do "good" actions because they don't get any joy from them. Instead they do evil actions because it gives them an enhanced rush. A big reward for doing one thing and no reward for doing another. The choice isn't hard.

As for the reason? Well there are plenty to pick from. Perhaps they were genetically engineered by some scientist in order to prove a philosophical point. Perhaps they evolved that way in whatever warped dimension they came from because it was the best way to survive. Perhaps etc etc etc

They can. Few of my rules are absolutes. Even the idea of acting out a morality without thought isn't an absolute, if applied to something without a mind, such as a robot. I mentioned above that I love the idea of an Evil race that's Evil because it chooses to be. Because it loves it. I already explained that part.

My issue is having a near-universally Evil race without good reason for it to be so. Look, demons are an obvious choice - they're cosmic Evil given physical form. Similarly, if Orcs in your setting are the offspring of X and demons, I could see them having a strong hereditary predisposition towards Evil. Where I find it harder to grasp the idea of an "always evil race" is where there is no tendency towards Evil in the blood; that is, where it is cultural, or simply authorial fiat. I can see a tendency towards amorality within a culture, sure, but for an entire culture to be monolithically Evil stretches credulity, for me. Sure, it could go through a period - a generation or two - where a cultural revolution has resulted in an Evil administration, promoting and indoctrinating Evil ideals. We've seen that happen in real life, and need not discuss it. But for an entire society to be Evil, socially but not genetically, and to have been so for multiple generations, defies logic. You'd think there would have been a few independent thinkers, a revolution, a war as rival nations rise up as a whole to crush an Evil regime, something. And once that society collapses, so too would the societal impetus for Evil.

That said, being Evil by choice is a factor in creating an interesting villain, but alone it is not sufficient. An interesting villain, for me, is a holistic creature; many jagged parts coming together to form a complete and mystical whole. A villain is many things, and reducing it to one-word descriptors like "Evil" just fails, for me.

I have absolutely no problem with what you're saying here. I agree with it fully. What I'm arguing against is the notion that even with a good reason, it would be better for the story if the race had the potential to be "good". I think there are plenty of stories in which doing so makes it worse.

[the_david]

Has anyone else noticed that orcs are being portrayed less and less as murderous Always Chaotic Evil idiots?
It seems to me that the standard Tolkien based troupe has been subverted so hard so often the standard orc is more like an honorable Klingon then a ravenous morlock.

What do you folks think about this? Personally, I enjoy playing half-orcs that are flavored as just strait up orcs, but on the other hand I can appreciate the appeal of an irredeemable hoard of monster people that you can fight and kill without remorse other then more &@#ing zombies.

You know, Orcs used to be Lawful Evil. Gruumsh can still be found on the infernal battlefields of Acheron, the plane between the 9 hells of Baator and the clockwork nirvana of Mechanus.

[Beta Centauri]

Has anyone else noticed that orcs are being portrayed less and less as murderous Always Chaotic Evil idiots?
It seems to me that the standard Tolkien based troupe has been subverted so hard so often the standard orc is more like an honorable Klingon then a ravenous morlock.

What do you folks think about this?

I'm cool with it. Absolutes, and repeated tropes have a way of engendering opposing examples.

All drow are evil... except all these ones over here who were created to counter that. Now the "reformed drow" (or vampire, or werewolf, or Klingon, or assassin) is its own trope.

[1337 b4k4]

There's nothing inherently wrong with the "always evil, always good for killing" orcs. Someone upthread mentioned that when they're portrayed that way, they're more like a force of nature than a species and that's something of the point to that portrayal. The underlying theme in a lot of such portrayals is less "good vs evil" but more "civilization vs chaos and the wild" (in fact, consider that the original D&D alignment system was Law vs Chaos and not Good vs Evil). Mindless orcs are more like forces of nature precisely because they're supposed to model the chaos that civilization and law fights against. It's also what makes the trope subversion work, as orcs become less like a force of nature, they become more civilized. The comparison to zombies is also note worthy as zombies have (in modern story telling) taken up the role that was previously occupied by orcs and goblins, that of the scary evil, intelligent (but not civilized) force of nature lurking just past the city walls. And in fact I would expect to see within the next say 10 years, a trend towards "humanizing" zombies (in as much as they can be humanized and still recognized as a zombie). We've already done it to vampires and werewolves, and to a small degree we've already started on zombies (think Plants Vs Zombies portrayal or ZoHaS from Sluggy Freelance).

And it's also worth remembering that sometimes, monsters are there to serve a mechanical rather than thematic purpose. Some games are not better served by the morally ambiguous orc trope anymore than say Dynasty Warriors would be a better game if it explored the consequences of war on the peasants you spend the game mowing down or Zelda games would be better served by exploring the morality of Chuus. Orcs in these sort of games are obstacles to be overcome, not morality lessons to be learned.

I also think to some degree, the more you humanize and make a monster morally ambiguous, the more you take it off the table as an obstacle except in specifically highlighted "you can kill these guys" moments. Consider that both elves and dwarves and humans have monster manual entries. When was the last time your DM threw you up against a marauding hoard of elves? We (royal) had to specifically make "dark" elves and "dark" dwarves in order to give us throw away monsters we could use to fill that niche. Similarly, with humans, you might go up against bandits and assassins but unless you're playing a warring kingdoms or historical game, you're not likely to wind up wading through a dungeon populated by human "monsters" unless they're "cultists" or something else.

I've got no problems with either portrayal ultimately, if you want your orcs to be morally ambiguous, as long as the game is fun, I don't really care. Likewise, if your story requires simplifying orcs to "the bad guys", then again, as long as it's fun, I don't care.

[JusticeZero]

Old Orcs seemed to be something of a tusked picture of the indians in the old cowboy movies. Savage and bloodthirsty villains to be mowed down. Nowadays, we remember all that stuff, but those people that our old heroes mowed down in a hail of gunfire are working down the hall in your office.
"Once upon a time, heroes ventured into the darkness to battle monsters. Nowadays, there's no real darkness. We've discovered we're all monsters." -Unknown

[BWR]

Some settings like to play around with the tropes. Orcs in Mystara were created when the gods Immortals decided to punish a whole bunch of evildoers by reincarnating them into a race of violent brutes whose purpose was to be slaughtered. Goodness knows why they thought this would be a good idea other than for a lark, but that's where the goblinoid races came from. The gods themselves made them the short end of the stick and pure survival instinct and being hated and hunted by everyone else makes them meaner. They are violent tribes, not particularly bright and typical D&D orcs. They also have a tendency adopt any abandoned child they find, regardless of race (though it helps if you look orcish).

Then you have the group of orcs that tried to raid a big elven nation, were repulsed and trapped behind enemy lines and decided to join the winning team. The elves were a bit non-plussed but let the orcs stay, and the orcs started a rather successful firm. Everyone else is a bit bemused by the whole situation.

[LibraryOgre]

Old Orcs seemed to be something of a tusked picture of the indians in the old cowboy movies. Savage and bloodthirsty villains to be mowed down. Nowadays, we remember all that stuff, but those people that our old heroes mowed down in a hail of gunfire are working down the hall in your office.
"Once upon a time, heroes ventured into the darkness to battle monsters. Nowadays, there's no real darkness. We've discovered we're all monsters." -Unknown

I've long maintained that most of D&D is just westerns in fantasy drag, and that the attitude towards "humanoids" (orcs, hobgoblins, etc., as opposed to demi-humans like elves and dwarves) is similar to various eras and their attitude towards Native Americans in their Westerns. 40s and 50s Westerns were very much "The only good Indian is a dead Indian", while later material tended to take a more nuanced view.

When people question that orcs are evil, or even "most likely going to be evil", I point out that they are the special creation of an evil deity; most stories have them being literally created from his body. That evil deity, and his evil family-pantheon, oversees and interferes in the lives of almost all orcs so, while it's possible that an orc will be non-evil, it's quite unlikely.

[Yukitsu]

Personally, I always figured that you may as well just make it an all human game if you're just going to say orcs are funny looking humans. If they aren't brutal, bred for violence and vicious for malice's own sake, they don't seem to have any role other than being funny looking people. Same with all of the races, them filling some form of niche within the world rather than just being humans is kind of why they exist in myth or literature. If they were just more humans, that wouldn't have made a very good story, and to a large degree, those games where orcs are just more people are rarely good or interesting stories.

[Shadowknight12]

Personally, I always figured that you may as well just make it an all human game if you're just going to say orcs are funny looking humans. If they aren't brutal, bred for violence and vicious for malice's own sake, they don't seem to have any role other than being funny looking people. Same with all of the races, them filling some form of niche within the world rather than just being humans is kind of why they exist in myth or literature. If they were just more humans, that wouldn't have made a very good story, and to a large degree, those games where orcs are just more people are rarely good or interesting stories.

Why is dehumanisation inherently more valuable? Races that are not allowed the full spectrum of human behaviour/emotion end up being incomplete, hollow beings. You're playing with fragments who have been programmed to play a part, creatures that, by their very nature, can never be your equals. They're all simply there to make the heroes shine, since only they and some select NPCs get to be real people.

It all feels like self-indulgent puppetry to me.