[Fantasy] When not to kill the Orcs

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

if your game world has "orcs are all evil" then make sure that is known fron the beginning... that way if a player wants to play a character who is kindly and unwilling to kill, she will know what she is getting into....

"you know the orcs WILL not meet your goody expectaions right?"

IMO given the experience it the other way round, the Genre exceptions is kill all orcs, and if the GM is playing a 'orcs are people too' campaign it's that needs the warning.

Nothing kiled a game quicker then when a kobold ban raided a merchain cavavan and took slaves as well as merchandice, then when the party stred their caves killed the warriors and rescued the prisoners, Than the GM hit us with indtriminated killing of 'people' problem for our rescue says they are people to with rights.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Michael Hopcroft

the problem. A reason that it is good or necessary to leave some alive or not to go into their camps and slaughter the children.

What children? In a D&D context I've always hated the "nursery full of humanoids" gimmick for a species which had Chaotic or Lawful Evil as their default morality. A Chaotic Evil species is alien so why would they have a human reproductive strategy? Harn and Warhammer 20K both have orcs who have no mothers and are brought into existence as full grown warriors. One approach I came up with are Orcs who are born almost immediately ambulatory and and omnivorous, and scramble around on all fours scavenging the food discarded by their legendarily sloppy eating elders, largely ignored until they are old enough to train, and scampering off any time combat breaks out. Even if they aren't trained, they have knowledge of weapons in their genes, programmed by their maker who wanted a reliable living weapons, not wusses who might want to be tradesmen or artists. A caring and nurturing environment isn't the way to produce a species of disposable evil mooks.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Harn and Warhammer 20K both have orcs who have no mothers and are brought into existence as full grown warriors.

Err, not quite. Harn has Orcs as a hive-like social structure. Each group is based around a breeding queen who is the biological mother of all of the members. So the nursery is pretty much the center of their culture. That said, the brutal jockeying for position begins pretty much at hatching, so the nursery isn't all about sing-alongs and learning to count.

[Icelander]

I like 'genocide is a reasonable, practical solution', myself.

It really makes a moral conundrum when the 'evil' way is easier, simpler and more practical. Orcs are people, yes, but they are more likely to be violent and aggressive than humans. Their social situation is likely to produce raiders and the resources of most areas are not enough to support the humans as well as the fast-breeding orcs.

Orcs are people, but they are people biologically predisposed to pose a serious threat to humans that compete for the same resources. What do PCs think is appropriate in such a situation?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Err, not quite. Harn has Orcs as a hive-like social structure. Each group is based around a breeding queen who is the biological mother of all of the members. So the nursery is pretty much the center of their culture. That said, the brutal jockeying for position begins pretty much at hatching, so the nursery isn't all about sing-alongs and learning to count.

The movie Orcs from the LOTR trilogy were certainly constructed as "kill them all -- they're EEEEVIL!" enemies. The horde that attacked Helm's Deep were only at most a few months removed from being "hatched", and it is strongly implied that when Sauron died the race of Orcs died with him. Even their natural lifespan might have been measured in months as opposed to years, and they were "born" knowing how to fight.

I don't recall whether Jackson was criticized for it.

But this isn't quite a Dungeon Fantasy thread, but might deal with other campaigns where Orcs are of natural origin. And might even occasionally be player-characters, albeit ones who have a lot of trouble among civilized places in the realms of other species where "the only good Orc is a decapitated Orc" is the normal attitude.

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

IMO given the experience it the other way round, the Genre exceptions is kill all orcs, and if the GM is playing a 'orcs are people too' campaign it's that needs the warning.

Nothing kiled a game quicker then when a kobold ban raided a merchain cavavan and took slaves as well as merchandice, then when the party stred their caves killed the warriors and rescued the prisoners, Than the GM hit us with indtriminated killing of 'people' problem for our rescue says they are people to with rights.

I agree that the gamemaster needs to let his players know one way or another.. And I do feel your pain. When gamemaster and players have different understandings it can play out badly.

I think being raised with GURPS and having orcs and goblins statted for players to play, I've always seen them as sentients.

[cosmicfish]

I ran a D&D campaign years ago where the players were trying (through various tasks) to prepare their frontier kingdom for war against a superior enemy. Part of that campaign wound up being the identification of those native groups and races that were willing, able, and acceptable to ally with them. They wound up with a significant force of orcs on their side, although some other groups wound up fighting against them and some others remained solidly on the "exterminate" list.

[Novembermike]

The simple orc is just an enemy. There are no children, no cooks, they just exist as creatures that need to be stabbed. The complex orc is a person with tusks and green skin. Decide on which one you are working with and make sure your players understand.

I'm honestly not much of a fan of complex monsters because they're easy enough to deal with as humans. Replace the orcs with "barbarians" and you can still have the same campaign without anyone getting the wrong impression.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Novembermike

I'm honestly not much of a fan of complex monsters because they're easy enough to deal with as humans. Replace the orcs with "barbarians" and you can still have the same campaign without anyone getting the wrong impression.

I disagree. Biology can provide an external reason for why people are more likely to fall into barbarism, ruthlessness and violence.

And it allows us to ask the question, in a world where there are differences between races, is racism wrong? Is genocide wrong when it is meant to save one race from another?

Not providing a clear answer to these questions is what good roleplaying is about, in my opinion.

[KevinJ]

Why do you have orcs in your game if you don't intend for the players to kill them all and let Nivek sort them out?

If you have peaceful orcs and the players kill them all then it is the GM that is a failure, not the players. If you want the orcs to be treated like people yo0u have to take Bruno's approach and make them people.

In my world, most of the Darkfolk are slavering monsters that only come south to raid and pillage and they never have peaceful intent because that is not their role in the world. That doesn't mean that specific individuals or small groups aren't peace loving and able to work within polite society. Like any adversarial group it's the GMs job to make sure the players know there can be a difference.