I understand why this is appealing. I also hesitate at the idea of evil rendering people hideous and bestial. But itâs also all over these kinds of games to one degree another, so maybe Iâm just on a high horse about this instance.
My real sticking point is this: Some evil humans will inevitably have families. Would evil people not try to turn their families into orcs? Does the transformation only work on willing participants? If so, that seems oddly understanding of the fascists. Do I just need to not think to hard about this and enjoy the game?
Probably yes to the last one. But I canât help myself and want answers to these kinds of questions in my game.
Theryâre imaginary monsters in elf games. Code them how you wishâtheyâre not real and not analogues to anything in the real world.
Iâm going with a hard No.
Donât put fascism into your fantasy world, unless youâre going hard for a Wizards-like satire (and you probably shouldnât do that, either).
Donât restrict either evil or fascism to the other. Thatâs both boring and dangerous.
(Also, find something better than orcs for a change, but thatâs a different issue)
gonna agree with what a lot of people are saying:
-
just donât have orcs because they arenât that interesting, overplayed and carry tons of baggage. such a simple solution! sometimes the best solution is to EDIT. trim that enemies list down! add new monsters, get rid of some old ones.
-
there have been so many weak takes on fascism, that its also a hard subject to get excited by. on the other hand, subjects like The Proud Boys are actually interesting to me. maybe because they are part of my direct life experience. but the more i think about what i have experienced in terms of things roughly fascist, i just donât see that mapping well on orcs in any case.
â(Also, find something better than orcs for a change, but thatâs a different issue)â
Yeah, I dropped orcs a while ago. I keep thinking about adding a different type of pigmen, then I think folks would just think of them as orcs, anyway, so I leave them out.
The pigman from house on the borderlands are fantastic. However I do think that no matter how careful you are, people experienced with d&d will just immediately think orc no matter what.
I am a big fan of the fairy tale/folklore trope where all the monsters were originally human, but either did something horrible, or something horrible happened to them that transformed them. Although I donât have orcs in my game because I prefer avoiding all the typical Tolkein and Gygax isms, if I did I think coding them as fascist would be a reasonable approach.
One of the major official D&D settings managed to avoid them. Not that their replacement didnât run into the same Tolkienistic tropes, but oh wellâŚ
But to veer slightly back on topic, the issue for me wouldnât be that much better if âhumanoidsâ other than orcs would get that role, or even if it would just be regular humans. Itâs just a weird mix, especially if gods or magic are involved (which they usually are), never mind the slippery-slope arguments for KotB-like setups or domain play in general. I mean, one could construct a quite interesting campaign out of this, but this is a different matter to a general orc-fash-coding.
Now, Iâm assuming a rather thorough âfascist-codingâ, not just superficial elements. If itâs just about a bunch of enemies all having identical black armor, whoop-dee-doo.
I just read the orc description in white box, and you REALLY have to squint to see any fascist coding. they are pretty much just evil tribes. INTERESTINGLY they are only led by humans, fighting men or magic users. and that is where if you squint you can see fascist coding (stormtroopers!). but if you donât squint you just see Tolkien.
all that is pretty near irrelevant though to people playing RPGs these days⌠but indeed, I call FALSE PREMISE out here as well. maybe in that guys home games were they coded fascist, or maybe he is just remembering it that way.
also, hate to be a downer here, but labeling something fascist as a justification to kill it⌠well, I hope you donât have any Ukrainians in your gaming group cause they are at the rifles end of that happening to them right now.
I donât know about the historical claims made in this article and I donât necessarily like the idea of evil humans transforming into orcs, but broadly I think fighting stand-ins for authoritarianism is more interesting than fighting stand-ins for Native Americans.
Ever since I read this post by Gus L, Iâve been thinking about how interesting infiltration-style dungeons sound. Itâs a style of dungeon that more or less requires an intelligent, organized enemy force scattered across multiple rooms.
There are some OSR-style dungeons that sort of have this (Lair of the Gobbler, Scarlet Minotaur, etc.) but it seems to me to be a largely abandoned dungeon concept, and I partly wonder if thatâs because no one wants to touch the whole âvarious factions of orcs and goblins to pit against each other and slaughterâ thing that the Caves of Chaos did.
The Gus L post mentions the Guns of Navarone, a movie about infiltrating a Nazi base. It could be that authoritarian soldiers are a better fit for infiltration scenarios nowadays.
I would rather just not blend any kind of real world politics with D&D, whether weâre talking fascists or minorities. Especially not to solve a fictional problem. I donât know how he gets âfascistâ from the old books, though I know people in general tend to find ways to justify killing monsters (âtheyâre slaversâ is a common one). I guess for his group in the 70s, it was to make them fascist. Which is kind of gross, but makes sense, given that many people are okay with Nazi killing in fiction, and many also only associate Fascism with Nazism.
For me, I just reflect on the fact that the minotaur, the medusa, etc. were the monsters of folklore. Itâs not long before the hero has a good reason to cut off a monsterâs head; monsters and humans usually canât coexist peacefully. Itâs the nature of a monster to stalk, hunt, kill or otherwise make humans suffer. Whoever created the monster did so to get back at humans (or other people, like elves). Thatâs what makes them a monster.
That being said, there can certainly be situational drama. Maybe this particular monster doesnât need to die. But I view this as a personal decision made by a character (or a faction they belong to), not as some kind of moral or ethical law set by the universe or some global society of humankind. And when the heroes do slay monsters, they arenât compelled by some kind of absolute moral imperative. And the monsters donât deserve to die, per se. Itâs a matter of antagonism and survival. I aso donât often use alignment systems. Orcs arenât evil in the ways humans are evil, so calling them evil is just a distraction, and creates more confusion than it solves. Player interpretations of alignment turns out to be an intensely nuanced and subtle topic, and neither TSR nor WotC have ever come close to handling it in a way that contributes to the game. Orcs are also not a racial choice for PCs in my games, nor are there any half-orcs. I can imagine a half-monster (changeling) scenario, and it could be a lot of fun, but thatâs not what modern players mean they want to play a half-orc.
I think the problem is that, on this subject, D&D wanted to have its cake and eat it too. Orcs started as monsters, but soon it wanted them to be both poeple and monsters, and I donât believe you can have it both ways and make everyone happy. As evidence, I point to this hyper-fixation on orcs. Goblins get some attention like this too, but what about gnolls, bugbears, ogres, giants, or anything else that walks on two legs? Whereâs the âjusticeâ for them?
Iâm not quite understanding the âmonsters are bad, but not evilâ, especially for intelligent creatures. Whatâs a âmonsterâ in that system of thought?
But this:
Mechanically speaking, thereâs no difference. In OD&D, everything was a monster. Itâs not some essential quality, itâs a role. The table literally started with âMenâ, and yes, it included orcs, and medusae, and minotaurs. But also elves, dwarves and mules (to be fair, if you ever met a muleâŚ).
And since then, attempts to move more âmonstrousâ types into the playable area have been quite common. The Holmes basic set suggested playing monsters, not restricting itself to mere âhumanoidsâ.
We donât quite know how Gygax came upon âhalf-orcsâ as being included into AD&D 1E. Probably as a counterpart to half-elves, to get everything thatâs remotely by Tolkien into the game. It certainly started the trend that got us where we are.
But we also got products like Top Ballista, Orcs of Thar (ooh boyâŚ), the Complete Books of Humanoids etc. (And while weâre at 2E, its âMonster Mythologyâ also was the book of the deities of elves and dwarves)
I mean, we see something thatâs a lot like us in a game (humanoid, but often being able to reason is enough), and we see some common ground. So the instinct of wanting to play that seems natural, and Iâd argue that non-logistical (too big, too odd, too powerful) reasons boil down to handwavium and fiat.
On a way more superficial level, this also depends on the illustrations, of course. The badly-designed and -drawn pig men of the early era werenât as enticing as the post-Warcraft styles.
To add something to the pile of my objections against the initial concept: A unified culture and behavior of orcs or elves belongs to the worst kind of Star Trek worldbuilding.
maybe the distinction here between bad and evil is the old ethical universe vs moral universe issue?
I find like half of all âtalking past each otherâ is that people have a built in assumption about their gaming world, or the real world based on ethics vs morality.
@eeldip Yes, I agree. I have two simultaneous takes on this subject. The simplest one, which is most practical when it comes to me Game Mastering fantasy worlds for other people is what I posted above (edit: and now in more detail, below).
But in more sophisticated discussion that seeks to understand, I think that youâre right: unless people are willing to deeply discuss how the nature of morality and willing agents can (and maybe think should) impact a fantasy role-playing game, they many of us will just talk past each other. But in my experience, thatâs really hard to do. I wrote a 9 page essay on the ontology of alignment while trying to discuss this on EN World, which I didnât intend to do. But who is going to read and respond to that?? 
But my TLDR is that this is an extremely complex topic at its root, and itâs not my experience that people have the patience to dig that deeply.
oh, what would be pretty interesting is a world with say, two creator gods that are lets say, Good God and Evil God. Good God created humans. Evil God created orcs.
and then there ARE half orcs. so do half orcs transcend Good and Evil? do they posit a material ethical universe that is more fundamental and higher level then the universe created by the demiurges?
there is a vague gnostic element to this that I like.
Iâm not quite understanding the âmonsters are bad, but not evilâ, especially for intelligent creatures. Whatâs a âmonsterâ in that system of thought?
I have two answers to this.
One, of course you donât. We all have our own understanding of what âevilâ means, so itâs more reasonable that we shouldnât understand each other than that we should. Thousands of years of philosophy, religion, ethics, justice and politics havenât sufficiently answered the queestion such that all humans can agree, so neither will a fantssy novel, nor a roleplaying game, nor a whatever. This is why I generally donât include alignment in fantasy roleplaying games, because it offers a facade of simplicity that has the potential to lead to a hell of misunderstanding. My point here is that itâs okay that we donât understand each other when we use the word âevilâ. At my table, we donât need to. Maybe at your table itâs important to you, though. Just do a good job of explaining it and hope that nobody gets offended. Or let them get offended and leave; IDK, you handle it however you like. I wonât try to stop you. 
Two, monsters are monsters. Humans are humans, elves are elves, dwarves are dwarves*, gods are gods, animals are animals and monsters are monsters. This is one ancient way of seeing things, and in my game itâs the basis and works well for me. D&D is based on fantasy fiction. Fantasy fiction is based on fairy tales and mythology. So all of this stuff originated from ancient thinking, anwyay. Your character is free to complicate things, of course. Maybe your PC believes elves are monsters. Well, theyâre wrong, but that certainly would make for some interesting sessions. Maybe your PC belongs to a community or faction that believes elves are evil â not monsters, but evil. Well, thatâs their belief. We have no idea if itâs right or wrong, and we never will because the truth about evil is just as unknowable in our fantasy as it is in our world. If the faction is famous, perhaps many people think this way and elves are persecuted. If the faction is infamous, perhaps few think this way and the faction is persecuted. Itâs up to my table to decide. The PC can be zealous, but the player wonât be under any allusions: elves arenât inherently anything but elves. And orcs arenât inherently anything but monsters. Yes, orcs belong to a category that is larger than orcishness, and thatâs monstrousness. It represents all of those creatures that will always be in some way antagonistic toward peoples. Monsters are greedy, self-serving, and have no capacity for compassion towards others. But this doesnât make them evil by people standards. Asking if orcs are evil is no different to me if asking are fairies evil, or are leprechauns evil. Itâs a futile question. A more salient question is: is that pack of orcs kidnapping people from the village and turning them into slaves? Are they unwilling to bargain or stop doing it under any circumstances? Curse those damn orcs. Your PC may well decide that killing them is the only way. Just donât mistake the killing as âwiping out evilâ so much as âsaving the innocent villageâ. And they can feel proud of that, because they know the people in the village are compassionate people who help each other. And the orcs didnât give one shit about their lives. What about that pack of fairies playing mean pranks of the villagers? They also have no concern for the lives of the villagers, and only seek to amuse themselves at their expense. Killing is certainly a simple solution, but most players are (understandably!) not trying to play murder-hobos, and will find another way to deal with them. Since killing them isnât inherently good, thereâs no reason to do it other than laziness. Or perhaps roleplaying reasons (âmy PCâs sibling was kidnapped by fairiesâ).
So is there no good or evil in my worlds? Sure there is, but not in any Significant⢠way for me or the players, such as an alignment chart. I donât provide answers to questions like âare good and evil abosolute or relativeâ, because people at the table often donât agree about these things anyway. When characters do things that are largely agreed upon by the players as evil (ex. killing an innocent), then the surrounding society largely mirrors that and reacts the way that the players expect it to. So this can change from group to group. If there is real moral contention between players, I ultimately tell them that their own personal beliefs about good and evil are simply unknowns in the campaign setting. Their characters may behave however they see fit, but donât impose your own personal views on the fictional world, because they donât hold. And if thatâs hard, try to have the guts to understand someone elseâs imaginary viewpoint in an imaginary space. Practically speaking, Iâm fine with the words evil and good being thrown around, as long as itâs in the context of roleplaying and not used as an out of character justification for PC actions.
Finally, on actually using D&Dâs alignment system (from any edition): certainly nobody needs my advice, but it will always be, donât do it. Avoid heated internet wars and confusion at your table and just donât. But advice is cheap, take it or leave it. Maybe you have a group with like-minded beliefs on the subject and youâre fine. Thatâs great. Maybe you feel there is too much dramatic potential in an alignment system, and wish for it to be in your game. Well, read my 9-page essay on the subject, maybe youâll take something fun from it. I have yet to compose a working alignment system from it, myself. I just havenât seen a reason to put in the effort.
* â Often in practice I make it simpler and say that humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. are all âpeoplesâ, but this varies for me from campaign to campaign. It depends on the players. Why does this depend? What do I mean? Thatâs another discussion that goes outside the scope of this one. Weâre talking about orcs, here I will go forward using the term peoples though, to keep the text readable.
PS â I changed my mind about adding this to my earlier post. Itâs just too long, and I think deserves its own as itâs a separate subject from that one.
Sorry, everyone. I accidentally deleted one of my posts above when seeking to edit it. It wasnât a particularly important response, but I still apologize for breaking the thread and creating confusion. Might I recommend a confirmation when clicking the trash can icon? It was an accidental click. Anyway, carry on
Sounds like a feature request for Discourse!
Thatâs a quite tautological start, and I notice you get a bit deeper into that, but Iâll get to that below. You mention âfolkloreâ and âancient thinkingâ, but you donât even see that clear distinction there, either, never mind fantasy novels where putting a different spin on previously less three-dimensional characters has been a common trope.
Thereâs also a wide variety of negotiation involved when dealing with the supernatural, and I would argue that sufficiently advanced negotation is indistinguishable from normal interaction.
Now weâre getting somewhere. But what are âall those creaturesâ? Natural ones? There are plenty of stories where wolves are ravaging beasts, up to a mythical, sun-swallowing level. But thereâs also Romulus & Remus or the protectors & teachers of Native American myths.
Vampires used to be that, but it would be a bit unfair as they only gathered real popular interest once that single-minded antagonism was tempered.
Thereâs some chtonic creatures in the Greek myths that might qualify, but those tend to be the forgettable ones, more akin to natural disasters to the human imagination.
Of course one could just put all kinds of non-âpeoplesâ into these categories, like our titular orcs. But that, to me, requires quite a lot of handwaving. There are orc tribes, there are cave man tribes, but only one is The Other. Our games being fictional stories, thereâs no argument why one couldnât do that, of course.
But personally, I find that artificial dichotomy between DMly/divinely separated âpeoplesâ and âmonstersâ, despite them looking and partly behaving the same way, to be about as uninteresting (and a bit worrisome) than that between Good and Eeevil. This construct serves story needs I donât have, as thereâs no wiggle room, no negotation, no possibilities. Itâs the ârock falls, everyone diesâ of quite a few ways of approaching the game. And for little gain, Iâd say.
Does it evoke a bigger horror? Maybe, but that requires going quite a bit into how these creatures are that different. If that works, sure, things that are similar to us but follow totally different lines of action and reasoning are alien and uncanny. Here the similarity can increase our sense of the world going wrong. A zombie or the T-800 are scarier than a blob of bacteria or a tank-like robot, both of which could fill the same roles. But this requires quite a lot of heavy-handed exposition, and fighting decades of less essentialist portrayals.
Does it make the decision-making of the players more simple? Sure. I donât need to research why the orcs are raiding villages all of a sudden, thatâs just their essential nature or whatever. Not sure I would like the simplification here.
Note that I also donât like zombie movies or the Mythos, so Iâm aware that this is something personal. In the context of the original proposition, Iâd still advise against totally othering fascism, as that doesnât seem to produce good results IRL.