Exterminate the orcs! (or some other cannon fodder monster)

[Mastikator]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Have the enemies attack them first. Works for all races!

[Tiri]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Beta Centauri]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.