Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

[Bastian]

Bolded part of this quote, because I think this is absolutely correct. Role-playing a character in full awareness can be extremely valuable. The difficulty is that not everyone role-plays in full awareness and there might be a point at which there is so little awareness that unspoken assumptions in the game are indicative of a person's manner of thinking outside the game.

To quote an oversized humanoid who appears to be quite popular these days, you are right on the money here.

Other than being extremely valuable, I would go as far as to say that it is a mean of personal evolution and expression. Playing a character of the opposite gender can help one explore his Animus or Anima, or one's Shadow in Junghian terms (or your Omote and Ura sides in japanese martial arts or whatever is the frame of reference you are using.) So, yes, a hack'n'slash approach to D&D is at the least shallow as someone pointed out.

I don't think it was promoting racism, that's a step too far. Rather, it might be indicative of existing tendencies to stereotype. The hope is that critical consideration of the game can make us better people as a society than we would be without that critical consideration. That's my interpretation of the Giant's point: if even one person approaches the game or this comic with a new level of critical thinking and examines the willingness of human beings to stereotype, that will help improve society. And frankly, this whole thread is a testament to the fact that people DO think about this stuff, so I'd say the comic has been quite successful.

This.
An increased awareness.

[Fish]

But the question is less on the players and the game system itself, but the culture and environment that spawned the game. We need to ask why this style of game is represented, and what does it say about the society it was made in. ... The game system doesn't promote racist ideas. ... It's a reflection of society. ...

Agreed. As human beings with a few million years of evolution geared toward what can basically be called Survival of MY Tribe, Screw Your Tribe, we have devoted a large part of our instinctive behavior — our subconscious mental processes, if you will — on how we interrelate with other humans.

Some of our deepest emotions are based upon getting along with and wanting to be with our group, because cooperation promotes our survival: shame, guilt, loneliness, embarrassment, fairness, compassion, empathy, love. There's a reason exile and ostracism are such powerful and traditional punishments. We need other people. We're terrible at surviving in the wild as individuals. But as individual creatures who struggled to eat daily, we also have instincts for competing with other people (or other groups) who are trying to take Our Stuff: jealousy, envy, selfishness.

These emotions are natural to all of us, and to a large degree they depend upon our capacity to understand simple narrative: not just what happened, but what will happen, and why. We have spent quite a long time as a civilization trying to enlarge our ability to do the former cooperative traits, and to also enhance our latter competitive traits. When we write characters in stories, whether those characters are "real" (by any definition) we our exercising our social development. We interface with story characters using our social skills; characters push our buttons. We examine little narratives and, in so doing, push to create neural connections to better handle similar questions. I suppose that's why fairy stories all have morals to them, and why primitive tribal hunting stories — that's all monster stories are, really — have strategy lessons instead of morals. After all, you get better at the things you do all the time, right?

Nerd Paladin says there's nothing wrong with the primitive man-versus-monster story, because it's deeply rooted in our literature. He's right; it is. It's also part of our primitive us-versus-them psyche. We are, after all, a product of competetive development over many millennia. But I suppose Rich objects to that kind of storytelling — "there was a bad man and I killed him" — because it promotes the anti-cooperative social development, rather than the nuanced and understanding part. Indeed, I find it hard to pretend that one is entirely unaffected by reading "there was a bad man and I killed him" stories all the time.

[suzaliscious]

"There was a bad man and I killed him."

Doesn't make for a very good story, does it?

[Fish]

There's room for nuance, of course. The plot is wide enough to include Herakles, Dirty Harry and Ladyhawke. Basically, it's the same story. There's a bad guy, who is bad for no important reason, and we kill him. Encounter, initial failure, success through guile and learned tactics, then victory.

[rbetieh]

There's room for nuance, of course. The plot is wide enough to include Herakles, Dirty Harry and Ladyhawke. Basically, it's the same story. There's a bad guy, who is bad for no important reason, and we kill him. Encounter, initial failure, success through guile and learned tactics, then victory.

No no, my Fishy friend. Polyphemus was considered a bad guy by Odysseus because he ate human sailors, not because he was a cyclops. Goblins in this story drink the blood of the innocent, hence evil. Any story where the bad guy is just the "Opposing Force" only remains that way if the bad guy happens to be a Zombie.

[hamishspence]

I'm guessing "who is bad for no important reason" means

who is bad- but we're given no reason why he gravitated to doing bad things"

The "serial killer who was Just Born Evil" is an example of this kind of villain.

Goblins in this story drink the blood of the innocent, hence evil.

One goblin- the "high priest of this big demon prince guy" makes his children drink the blood of the innocent.

This says nothing about "goblins as a whole".

[rbetieh]

One goblin- the "high priest of this big demon prince guy" makes his children drink the blood of the innocent.

This says nothing about "goblins as a whole".

But it does, High Priest implies organized religion, which implies worshippers. There are a whole subsection of goblins that worship said demon prince guy, hence...

If you want to say only those goblins that worship Demon Prince guy are evil and everyone else worships the Fluffy Bunny God and thereby good, fine, but I find that....implausible.

[Fish]

No no, my Fishy friend. Polyphemus was considered a bad guy by Odysseus because he ate human sailors, not because he was a cyclops.

We often dehumanize our enemies by attributing to them some monstrous (to us) appearance and/or behavior. Witness Richard III, who was accused by Shakespeare of having disposed of the Princes in the Tower, of having a hunchback, and of generally being capital-E Evil. Dehumanizing them makes them easier to hate, and makes the victory satisfying and morally unambiguous. You see similar things in warfare all the time — though I will refrain from being specific about accusations against real-world enemies.

[Rennard]

Nerd Paladin says there's nothing wrong with the primitive man-versus-monster story, because it's deeply rooted in our literature. He's right; it is. It's also part of our primitive us-versus-them psyche. We are, after all, a product of competitive development over many millennia. But I suppose Rich objects to that kind of storytelling — "there was a bad man and I killed him" — because it promotes the anti-cooperative social development, rather than the nuanced and understanding part. Indeed, I find it hard to pretend that one is entirely unaffected by reading "there was a bad man and I killed him" stories all the time.

There's an aspect of the common story that you have overlooked, though I think it was probably unintentional. The bad man in every story is engaged in unprovoked violence and directly threatens the people that the protagonist cares about.

Greek mythology has monsters such as the Nemean Lion and the Harpies engaged in terrorizing or dominating the people of the Aegean sea region. The great heroes do not travel to Africa to right wrongs - they have largely parochial concerns. This reinforces your basic point about tribe vs. tribe mentalities in our legends and modern fiction.

pre-Tolkien Orcs and Trolls were meant to be ugly humans with fangs and a bad skin. They were developed to educate children of dangers. After all, even the Boogeyman is a man.

Actually, that is not so. Orcs were never intended to be anything but vicious, evil, two-dimensional thugs in the service of Sauron. Tolkien said as such, and was dismayed by the number of people who corresponded with him and were interested in the orcs. A fan of his work presented him with a handmade facsimile of the One Ring with writing along the band in black speech, and (while he accepted it politely) Tolkien was upset that ANYone would find his orcs or his black speech worthy of imitation. The black speech he developed utilized all the aspects of language that Tolkien found repugnant (guttural sounds and harsh pronunciations) specifically to make even their language unpleasant. The entire point of the orcs is that they were evil and twisted, soulless creatures.

From what I have read, the lesson inherent in the Lord of the Rings is not to teach children that danger exists, but rather to demonstrate the heroism and sacrifice that is required to fight it. Remember that Aragorn, Gandalf, and the host of Gondor were marching to certain death against the forces at the Black Gate specifically to buy Frodo more time. The same Frodo suffering from the crippling and corrupting influence of a ring powerful enough to have laid entire civilizations low. The Frodo taking the ring directly to Sauron's back yard and depositing it in sight of Barad-Dur. The mental and emotional torment Frodo experiences is mirrored by the physical torment that the orcs inflict on Middle-Earth - they are two parts of the same evil whole. The ring is sentient, but in no way good. The orcs are the same. The focus is on the actions of the heroes, not the nature of the creatures they fight.

This is the way that D&D was conceived of originally as well - both Gygax and Arneson have confirmed it it interviews. The game was heavily influenced by Tolkien, as well as Moorcock and pulp writers such as Howard. The original focus was more heavily weighted to the anti-heroical sword and sorcery archetype (you can read many Conan stories that seem to have been templates for early D&D modules). But as the game evolved, it became more Tolkien-esque in it's interpretations, with characters becoming involved in adventures to restore or protect the common good (Against the Giants being my personal favorite).

It is from Moorcock that D&D patterns its alignment system - the idea that Law and Chaos fight an eternal battle for control over a multiverse using mortals as agents. In fact, the original versions of D&D had only 3 alignments: Lawful, neutral, and Chaotic, the Good and Evil ideas and combinations coming later in AD&D.

The alignment system was adopted by D&D for the same reason that orcs were developed by Tolkien - Chaotic creatures provided the heroes with foils to act heroically against. These heroic actions would entail fighting the villains minions, struggling against impossible odds, and finally defeating the villain and putting and end to his evil ways. Fascination with the motivations behind the bad guy’s actions were not originally conceived of.

In that sense NP is absolutely correct. D&D as it was originally conceived understood goblins to be inhuman beasts that the PCs could kill without the feelings of guilt that people normally associate with murder. Fantasy authors from as early as the late 1800s have employed similar creatures for similar reasons, especially in children's books. Let's not forget the Tin Woodsman killing a host of sentient wolves or the Scarecrow twisting the heads off sentient crows as their party made its way to the Wicked Witch's castle in the original Wizard of Oz.

Arguing that the existence of creatures and our willingness to accept them starts us down the slippery slope of racism misses the point. The monsters were created both in the game and by their literary inspirations specifically for that purpose. Accepting them is part of the concept of fantasy literature and (by extension) fantasy RPGs.

You can see it outside of D&D as well. In Deadlands, your adventurers are fighting the Reckoners, beings of unmitigated evil who use the fears of humankind to create soulless monsters to create fear and death in the hopes of bringing about the Apocalypse. Now much room for moral ambiguity there.

In the Warhammer and Warhammer 40k series of wargames and RPGs (also heavily influenced by Moorcock) the forces of Chaos and their servants are evil with a capital "E" and once any being starts down that path, the only exits are death, demonhood, or a lifetime of torture as a Chaos Spawn. The servants of Chaos want to destroy the world and free their demonic masters who embody such concepts as Death, Plague, Hedonism, and Constant Mindless Rebellion.

Like it or not, the creatures that Rich describes as only superficially different from human were created specifically to do what Rich is arguing they should never do - serve as cannon fodder for the heroes, either in literature or RPGs. Rather than encouraging this behavior in real life, it reinforces that humans are NOT the same as the goblins and boogeymen, and therefore their lives have a value that the others do not. It heightens, not diminishes, value on human life. By limiting the intense violent action to monsters instead of humans, it reflects a society uncomfortable with the wholesale slaughter of fellow humans, even in a game where killing is the entire point.

I find that encouraging, rather than upsetting.

Edit: Added "s" in creatures in last paragraph. Corrected spelling in Nemean Lion.

[hamishspence]

But it does, High Priest implies organized religion, which implies worshippers. There are a whole subsection of goblins that worship said demon prince guy, hence...

If you want to say only those goblins that worship Demon Prince guy are evil and everyone else worships the Fluffy Bunny God and thereby good, fine, but I find that....implausible.

I'm not saying only those that worship the Demon Prince are evil- I'm saying that the practice of "drinking the blood of the innocent" has only been seen for goblins associated with that particular Demon Prince.

Those devoted to The Dark One may have practices of their own.

In the Dragon Magazine strips, there are multiple goblin cults- one of which is devoted to "darkness" - which the Order choose to spare, since they what they do is:

"mostly just make a big deal out of extinguishing street lamps" ("The Eternal Night begins NOW!")

Any general assumption, like "Goblins in OoTS as a whole, drink the blood of the innocent" should be questioned.

[Fish]

There's an aspect of the common story that you have overlooked, though I think it was probably unintentional. The bad man in every story is engaged in unprovoked violence and directly threatens the people that the protagonist cares about.

Often, yes; the villain displays that latter range of anti-social emotions I mentioned above, such as jealousy, envy, greed, wrath, and so on. He is killed for his inability to adapt to the social framework, taking more for himself than he gives to others. The classic villain ultimately promotes the model of selfish individuals ahead of civilized cooperation — or, if you like, the villain is a hunter-gatherer in a world of farmers. Though his actions may be demonstrably "evil," often his motivations are unexamined. Why does he behave this way? It doesn't matter; I kill him anyway.

That's why it's hard to hate Redcloak; he's not acting for his own selfish interests.

P.S. Nemean Lion; I mentioned it upthread. It's basically the "Bull of Heaven" story from Gilgamesh, with added plot twists.

[Rennard]

P.S. Nemean Lion; I mentioned it upthread. It's basically the "Bull of Heaven" story from Gilgamesh, with added plot twists.

I blush at my error.

[Bastian]

After 16 pages of this thread, I have to say that I feel a richer person for reading it. (Intellectually, that is. 'cause someone else was right on the money)

Thanks to you all for your precious insights

Bastian

[jere7my]

But it does, High Priest implies organized religion, which implies worshippers. There are a whole subsection of goblins that worship said demon prince guy, hence...

If you want to say only those goblins that worship Demon Prince guy are evil and everyone else worships the Fluffy Bunny God and thereby good, fine, but I find that....implausible.

Exactly. In the same way, the existence of the Manson cult demonstrates that all humans are evil.

I don't see why anyone has a problem with this.

[hamishspence]

Orcs were never intended to be anything but vicious, evil, two-dimensional thugs in the service of Sauron. Tolkien said as such, and was dismayed by the number of people who corresponded with him and were interested in the orcs.

The entire point of the orcs is that they were evil and twisted, soulless creatures.

I find this doubtful, given that:

In fact Tolkien in his letters and works specifically goes out of his way to point out even his orcs, even his Big Bad's, were not pure evil in origin. He really worked hard to get that point across with specific characters (like Gollum, or Sauron, Morgoth and Feanor) to general commentary such as that expressed by Faramir. He was adamant that even beings created as evil like the Uruk-Hai were nor irredeemable by nature, but only by nurture. Aragorn himself does not treat them as xp sources and offers them chances to surrender and avoid bloodshed on more than one occasion.

I would recommend that Paladin re-read the LoTR, as it contains far more nuance and detail than many people think it seems. Even his orcs (who seem lawful evil, if DnD labels are applied, and simply at that) are treated fairly and are not hated merely for their nature. The treatment is much closer to the Giant's work than seems to be recognised. Tolkien of course was very interested in how corruption can turn the most noble of beings into villains (his most prevalent theme IMO), and the giant in commentary on labels specifically. But they seem to come from the same moral perspective.

[Fish]

"I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood," says Faramir.

[Rennard]

In fact Tolkien in his letters and works specifically goes out of his way to point out even his orcs, even his Big Bad's, were not pure evil in origin. He really worked hard to get that point across with specific characters (like Gollum, or Sauron, Morgoth and Feanor) to general commentary such as that expressed by Faramir. He was adamant that even beings created as evil like the Uruk-Hai were nor irredeemable by nature, but only by nurture. Aragorn himself does not treat them as xp sources and offers them chances to surrender and avoid bloodshed on more than one occasion.

I have not read the letters described, so I cannot comment on them, but I find that interpretation doubtful, for several reasons.

First, there is no "nurture" element with Morgoth (also known as Melchor). He was one of the beings that sang the world into existence, and even then, he sang of Strife and Discord and brought them into the world. There is never a time when Morgoth was not evil, and never a time when his works (which included the orcs) were describes as anything but evil.

In fact, in his original interpretation of the orc, Tolkien envisioned them as created by Morgoth entirely from nothing, essentially as demons to serve this mythology's version of the Devil (in Old English, where Tolkien derives many naming influences, "orc" means "demon." It is only later that he decides that evil does not create, only corrupt, and so makes them twisted elves. This is not a nature / nurture decision by Tolkien, but a moral one. In his mind, good things create and bad things corrupt and destroy.

Sauron was corrupted by Morgoth, true, in the same manner that Saruman is corrupted by Sauron later. Nothing I have read states that he could have been converted back, but the possibility exists, so I'll grant the point.

The Uruk-Hai are Saruman's creations and as such, are of an inferior grade of magic than that possessed by Morgoth (even if they did contains some operational improvements). I suppose redemption would be possible, but it is never considered.

The point of Gollum from the Tolkien I have read is that he serves as a cautionary tale as to the corrupting power of the Ring, rather than as a redeemable character. Countless attempts are made to treat him well in the books (the movie interpretation of these events more closely resemble the idea that Samwise and a series of blunders by Faramir are the result of Smeagol's backslide to evil, but none of the is present in the book), and the bear no fruit - he is gone, lost in his desire for the ring. By giving us a look at what had happened to a "hobbit-like" person, Tolkien gives us a sense of the peril Frodo is in, heightening dramatic tension. It also heightens how sad and pathetic people who are evil truly are. In a world dominated by Orcs, Nazgul, and Sauron (all powerful entities embodying evil), Gollum shows us that for all its perceived power, evil people are lonely and haunted. He is (in my opinion) the most sympathetic character out of the bad guys, and that's probably the reason he is shown mercy on three separate occasions (once by Bilbo, once by Gandalf, and once by Frodo). The good guys WANT to believe that he is redeemable (because they are good, and feel empathy for him), but it is impossible for him.

Aragorn himself does not treat them as xp sources and offers them chances to surrender and avoid bloodshed on more than one occasion.

When is this? The nearest time I can think of to this statement is during the parley at the Black Gate, and that was an exercise in formality and deception by both parties. Aragorn demand that the Dark Lord (who has been winning the war hands down until Minas Tirith, despite the setback at the Hornburg) surrender and permanently withdraw all his armies. The very demand in the face of the military might of Sauron is provocative, one that no commander could consider, and Sauron would never accept. The Mouth responds that Aragorn's host are to surrender Minas Tirith and all their weapons and that Rohan and Gondor become vassal-states to Mordor, taking oaths never again to pick us arms against Sauron, even in secret. This is a demand that no member of either kingdom could seriously consider either. Neither offer is made with any serious idea that the other will consider it, it is done because that is how parleys before battle are conducted. It also lays the groundwork for later, should surrender negotiations by one side or another become necessary.

[hamishspence]

Nothing I have read states that he could have been converted back, but the possibility exists, so I'll grant the point.

The Silmarillion: Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age:

When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obesiance to Eonwe, the herald of Manwe, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eonwe to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and receive the judgement of Manwe.

Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith. Therefore when Eonwe departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.

[Rennard]

And some hold this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not within the power of Eonwe to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and receive the judgment of Manwe.

Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith. Therefore when Eonwe departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.

Emphasis mine.

Some people contend that he voiced repentance out of fear, not out of a general willingness to repent. And then, rather than face punishment for his actions, he returned to being evil again almost immediately.

No evidence there. Just conjecture immediately dispelled by Sauron's own actions. I conceded to possibility, but this passage is in no way proof.

I would recommend that Paladin re-read the LoTR, as it contains far more nuance and detail than many people think it seems. Even his orcs (who seem lawful evil, if DnD labels are applied, and simply at that) are treated fairly and are not hated merely for their nature.

Are we reading the same books? How can cannibalistic creatures who slaughtered an entire castle of their own kind over who would gain possession of a hobbit's cloak be considered "Lawful?" What higher order do those values ascribe themselves to?

As to the treatment they receive by the Free Peoples - they are killed. All of them. No prisoners taken, ever. No negotiations with them, ever. Even the parley at the Black Gate was done human to human. When are they treated in any other way? I suppose Thorin Oakensheild spoke to the Great Goblin with a degree of respect, but at the time he and his people were in chains awaiting a death sentence. And just days before, he stated that he would wear Orchrist, the Goblin Cleaver with honor.

Even Gandalf, the most forgiving and merciful being in the books never thinks twice about killing orcs. He offers a second chance to Saruman and to Grima Wormtounge, both of whom are traitors responsible for countless deaths. But not to a single orc.

[hamishspence]

A couple of helpful quotes:

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded. Morgoth's Ring, HoMe X, 419

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad (I nearly wrote ’irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good.)
Letter #153

[Baelzar]

*And really, D&D monster races are green humans. Even the most "unhuman" like in appearance is still very much a human in different skin. They think and feel like humans, because yes that's what most authors know, but it still makes them human, and makes critical thinking even more important. These things are written as green skinned humans because that's all they can be written as (we don't know anything else), and they still encourage the idea that "different = evil." If you replaced all the monster races with humans of different skin colour and race, you see the point. Think of the paladain attack on Redcloak's village, except now instead of green skin and pointy ears, they have white or black skin. Imagine Redcloak's callous disregard for his own people's lives because he doesn't like they're skin colour.

This shouldn't change because they have green or orange skin or look like a dragon. People are still people.

This goes right into the heart of the matter, and where I fundamentally disagree with you.

I think you are selling D&D and the Fantasy genre short by anthromorphizing the various species - humanoid or otherwise.

D&D features intelligent beings that have nothing in common with the PC races. I'm not talking about different tastes in housing or music; I mean they are created by an entirely different deity, for an entirely different purpose, on an entirely different PLANE, perhaps, and they might have instilled within their very souls (or fire, or goo, or holy spark, or the void, or whatever you can imagine) the indifference or hatred of all things you take for granted.

Maybe they want to simply own you, or control you. Maybe they like pulling your arms off when they're bored because they enjoy your screams. The only reason they may care about you - if care is a concept to them - is because you taste good.

Kobolds have their own deities in D&D, as do Orcs, Goblins and Kuo-Toa. You cannot simply lay your ethics down like a blanket over these things simply because they have two arms and two legs. You sell the entire Fantasy idea short, the idea that capital-e Evil can be imagined and encapsulated in a form that can reach out and touch your Heroes.

I think it's even more interesting (and scary) that the monsters might look like you. But they are monsters, and treating them as such is not a reflection on how we treat each other, in any way.

[Rennard]

Thank you. I found the quotes interesting.

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

This is basically the Geneva Convention for Middle-Earth. Orcs are stated as "irredeemable" in this text (meaning it is not going too far to call them such), but that does not excuse the Free Peoples from committing atrocities. It's a warning to the Free Peoples that they are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard than the Orcs.

It also doesn't change the fact that, despite this teaching, no orcs are ever taken captive (for quarter or for torture), and that they are all killed on sight by everyone with the power to do so. Actions speak louder than words, and so forth.

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad (I nearly wrote ’irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good.)

Never read this before, and found it kind of neat. On the surface it seems that the orcs are being given a redemptive door out, but as I read it, I realized something. Tolkien is describing orcs as being in essence abominations of creation (the need to become part of the World implies that they are somehow outside of it), and that they are naturally bad (though not irredeemably so). Their redepmtion is not one of the soul, however, but more one of inclusion. Becoming a "part" of the World (as opposed to whatever status they hold at present) would make them a part of a good creation. That's about as far as he goes. God's work is good, and the orcs could become part of it. This doesn't necessarily make them good, but places them in a framework that is good?

How did you interpret it?

[Anarion]

Maybe they want to simply own you, or control you. Maybe they like pulling your arms off when they're bored because they enjoy your screams. The only reason they may care about you - if care is a concept to them - is because you taste good.

You listed ownership, control, and a form of sadism. Those are all human emotions and human feelings. Real people have existed in this world who took delight from pulling the arms off of others (or something similar). I find that terribly frightening, but there it is. It's been discussed earlier in this thread, but it's nearly impossible to conceive of a truly alien intellect. At best, you can take human priorities and shift them around, so that the crazy devil only cares about how often it can disembowel someone because it has no need to eat or sleep. But it's still really motivated by pleasure that happens to manifest as a form of sadism and that is, sadly, all too human.

[Omergideon]

The time I refer to is at Helm's deep, where Aragorn offers a degree of clemency to all those who fought for the Dark Lord, be they man or Uruk-Hai. This is also when he warns them from going into the moved forest (for the life of me I wanna call the Huangs, though I know it is false) before they ignore him and carry on anyway. One example of his clemency. And Faramir, who says he would not even decieve an Orc, is pretty commonly considered the Author's voice when he speaks. He certainly is the one human to willingly ignore the influence of the ring.

I do also recall a character (though I cannot recall who) wondering as to how Orcs might become once the influence of Sauron is removed.

And I call Orcs lawful as they submit themselves to Sauron. Some from fear, some more openly. They subvert their whole being into pleasing him, and hence submit to a higher authority. one that permits violence etc (an Evil one) but a higher power.

As for Sauron, in the bolded part it mention he fell back into evil. This suggests, almost states outright, that he left evil and was thus for a time redeemed. That redemption can be rejected is of course true. But the clemency offered here (and granted to other beings at times when the did wrong) is proof that even the evils done during the times of Morgoth were not considered irredeemable. That the Gods give Sauron, give Melkor, many chances shows they COULD have been redeemed. And this is when the Valar act accoring to the will of Eru Illuvatar, not just their own initiative.

For Morgoth himself, at first he provided a discordant note. And opposition to the simple harmony. But this was accepted by Eru to be compatible with his designs and Morgoth did not fall then. As I recall in the Akallabeth he does not fall until some time after his discordant part in the song of creation is accepted, and absorbed and forgiven. At the first he was considered (and was) one of the noblest of beings among the Valar. Sadly my copy of the silmarillion has gone walkabouts, but it is in there to my knowledge. Remember that in works like Tolkiens we have more than just nurture and nature at work, but also will. A being with the correct nurture and nature can still choose to become corrupted if tempted by enough of a stimulus.

But the point is that Morgoth both fell after he purposefully corrupted his pure nature, and then was still offered multiple chances of redemption that were rejected by him. Some of his followers though DID repent and become good once more.



But in the broader perspective, Hamishpence has shown 2 clear quotes where Tolkien flat out rejects the idea of Orcs being irredeemable to all. To men and elves perhaps. But even then the words of the wise (who are all angelic beings, and could include Manwe in some interpretations) say they are to be treated with some dignity and respect. Sadly our heroes and protagonists are flawed and do not always do as they should.

And to steal a quote the movie used wholesale from the book. "Many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death in punishment". He speaks of Gollum in particular, but the principle is one applied to all. Now Gandalf from then on only encounters orc when engaged in armed conflict with them, and killing of enemy combatants during a battle is to many a clearly different scenario to doing so to a village of orcs not engaged in a fight. So the fact he kills them is of no suprise. And calling for an enemy surrender when outnumbered and threatened by all is not a wise move.

And at the Parley at the Black Gate.......I must admit I cannot remember the details so will hold off until I get back to my copy of the book. It has been a little while. But in general Gandalf at worst (when engaged in battles started by the specific orcs he is facing) acts according to generally established principles of warfare. I mean it's not like he calls for a slaughter ever. But he allows fleeing enemies......to flee. To leave undisturbed if they do not need to be fought anymore. When dealing with Saruman and Wormtongue it is when they are already in ideal situations. We do not see him in the same position with any orcs. Though he does seem to follow the principle that they are to be treated just like any man would be, not exterminated on sight. In my reading of the book at least.


I am leaving Gollum alone mostly as it is said in other letters that had Gollum's redmption not been possible the rejection of it would not be so tragic. The fact a character is not redeemed, when the author does say they could have been, is not evidence they were incapable of redemption. By definition if redemption can be accepted it can be rejected too.




And to repeat a key point of Tolkien's, and Catholic, philosphy. We have our natures (sinful to a man, or in LoTR at least corruptable and vaired), our nurture (not our fault, but also an impact and of significance to how guilty we really ever are) and our Will. Our will is the ability in all things to reason and overcome the influences of nature and nurture to accept the help of higher powers and become more noble. According to this philosphy even the most depraved and sinful by nature and nurture cannot be irredeemable, though in some it is harder than others. And Tolkien tried his hardest to make LoTR compatible with Catholic philosophy (with nordic myth as another inspiration). In Nature/Nurture debates for these there is always a 3rd element that can override both to some degree.

[Math_Mage]

You listed ownership, control, and a form of sadism. Those are all human emotions and human feelings. Real people have existed in this world who took delight from pulling the arms off of others (or something similar). I find that terribly frightening, but there it is. It's been discussed earlier in this thread, but it's nearly impossible to conceive of a truly alien intellect. At best, you can take human priorities and shift them around, so that the crazy devil only cares about how often it can disembowel someone because it has no need to eat or sleep. But it's still really motivated by pleasure that happens to manifest as a form of sadism and that is, sadly, all too human.

I think Baelzar's point is somewhat narrower than this. He doesn't seem to be claiming that the values held by D&D races have to be so alien that they cannot be described by human emotions or feelings, only that unlike in real life, fantasy races can be fundamentally instilled with values/traits that conflict with ours.

How would you go about describing the actions of aliens without invoking human concepts, anyway? We can take Niven's Moties, Ender's buggers, Heinlein's Martians, and other examples of well-developed alien races with alien cultures and behaviors...yet while their values are entirely strange to humans, they could still be described with human concepts.

There's at least one tier of alien-ness between what Baelzar describes and what you seem to want from a 'truly alien intellect'. What if a being existed that could only sustain itself by hearing human screams? A situation might develop that is similar to that of the crazy devil sadist who enjoys disemboweling people, and yet the situation is significantly more alien.

[Kish]

D&D features intelligent beings that have nothing in common with the PC races. I'm not talking about different tastes in housing or music; I mean they are created by an entirely different deity, for an entirely different purpose, on an entirely different PLANE, perhaps, and they might have instilled within their very souls (or fire, or goo, or holy spark, or the void, or whatever you can imagine) the indifference or hatred of all things you take for granted.

They might, but they don't. You won't find a single syllable in support of the claims you're making in any D&D book.

I would speculate--because I have to speculate, you're not actually making any effort to support your assertions with anything but more assertions--that you're treating, "Usually/Often X Evil" as supporting your claims. That interpretation requires aggressively ignoring what the Monster Manual says that actually means.

[Raimun]

I don't know, I think most killings in games of D&D are really case by case-solutions.

GM: "You see a horde of [insert creature type] with mean, pointy weapons charging at you. What do you do?"

Player: "I'll fight back."

The issue is not that the creatures are what they are but rather that they are, you know, attacking you, with the intent to kill.

Edit:Obviously, you could ask why we are playing a game which involves killing more often than not.

[Anarion]

I don't know, I think most killings in games of D&D are really case by case-solutions.

GM: "You see a horde of [insert creature type] with mean, pointy weapons charging at you. What do you do?"

Player: "I'll fight back."

The issue is not that the creatures are what they are but rather that they are, you know, attacking you, with the intent to kill.

Edit:Obviously, you could ask why we are playing a game which involves killing more often than not.

Disclaimer: I am not being totally serious here, so take this post with a grain of salt.

You could ask why they're charging at you, rather than slaughtering them blindly. Then if you found out why they were charging at you, you might ask why they had that motivation, as well as why you were in the situation to have them charge you in the first place. Then you could ask who sent the party on their quest, or whether they were wondering blindly in strange territory insensitive to the fact that undeveloped areas could nevertheless be the home of other sentient creatures. Then, you might ask what motivated your characters to even wander in the area or to take whatever quest they got that led them to the area. Not to mention their poor skills at tracking or pre-journey research so they wouldn't blunder into a horde of goblins.

Or you could ask why your GM was lazy enough to crib the Dead Alewives skit and suddenly materialize a horde of ogres goblins right next to you with no warning.

[Raimun]

Disclaimer: I am not being totally serious here, so take this post with a grain of salt.

You could ask why they're charging at you, rather than slaughtering them blindly. Then if you found out why they were charging at you, you might ask why they had that motivation, as well as why you were in the situation to have them charge you in the first place. Then you could ask who sent the party on their quest, or whether they were wondering blindly in strange territory insensitive to the fact that undeveloped areas could nevertheless be the home of other sentient creatures. Then, you might ask what motivated your characters to even wander in the area or to take whatever quest they got that led them to the area. Not to mention their poor skills at tracking or pre-journey research so they wouldn't blunder into a horde of goblins.

Or you could ask why your GM was lazy enough to crib the Dead Alewives skit and suddenly materialize a horde of ogres goblins right next to you with no warning.

My example was just a generalized scenario. It's quite common to encounter creatures that are dead set to fight you, even if you did question their motives.

It's usually like that because of metagame reasons. A DM has spent time and effort to plan the encounter and most players expect it to happen. That is why diplomacy might not always work, even if you roleplayed it well and were a diplomancer to boot.

[pendell]

I'm wondering if part of the reason we have "monsters" in western stories is because we consider it inappropriate to have real humans killed in stories for children. So if you want to market a product to 8- to-13-year-olds, and it has to do with war, you need some stand in for humans that will slip by the radar. I remember back in the 70s, when Space Battleship Yamato and Voltron were first brought over, all the on-screen character deaths were cut and the mooks who were killed were re-dubbed "robots". Cut scenes were dubbed in so apparent character deaths "escaped at the last minute". The fact that the characters were never seen again was just a coincidence.

In more recent stories, note the prevalence of "heartless" in the kingdom hearts stories where you need bad guys to beat up on, but you don't want the hero of a game designed for ten year olds to show him killing humans with his weapon. So hence we get the utterly corrupt and evil "heartless" who walk like humans and talk like humans but it's okay to kill them because they are literally darkness made real.

After all, kids aren't always big on the subtle nuances. They don't want to be confused with shades of gray. So point them at obvious bad guys and tell them to have at it and leave everyone else alone. You can't kill a human character in Kingdom Hearts no matter how hard you try.

On that line, I note that both Tolkien's LOTR, and Lewis' Narnia stories were originally made as stories for children. Which is no doubt why the antagonists are primarily Always Evil fairyland creatures while evil humans like Calormenes or Haradrim are given minimal screen time.

Rich Burlew writes stories for adults and not for children. If he reads this, I would be fascinated to see if he could do a one-off spin off aimed at the 8-15 year old set and see if he is able to subvert the expectations as effectively in that setting as he does with adult material. If he wishes to change the way people view D&D, it might even be more effective. Kids change their minds easier than adults do.

That last, incidentally, is also an example of stereotyping. Marketeers do it all the time because it's useful. Sure, there will be people watching football games who would be interested in buying women's underwear, but it's probably not a good use of your screen time. Probably better to use your super bowl ad money to buy beer commercials. Stereotyping is used in marketing because it works.

Respectfully,

Brian P.