# Why use D&D races in our stories?



## Dreamhand

In commenting on a story in the showcase that included Orcs, I offered the following... well... okay, it's a rant.  But I also think it's an important talking point for fantasy writers and I wanted to to put it out to the group.



Dreamhand said:


> I understand that Tolkien and Role-Playing Games are often the foundation of a fantasy writer's love of the genre (they were certainly mine), but drawing literally (as opposed to metaphorically) from those sources reduces your work from "a bold new vision" to mere "D&D fan fiction".
> 
> If you're just starting out, testing your writing craft, then sure... be derivative and utilize the tropes and cliches of the genre in your drafts.
> 
> But when your ready to tell your OWN story, don't use those works as a crutch, cannibalizing the work and creation of others to support it. Don't limit yourself (or the genre) to a single narrow body of tired, over-used conventions. You have to full scope of imagination to draw from, and yours is utterly unique from everyone else's... and THAT is what will make your tales exceptional.



_The argument was made that orcs are a convention of fantasy literature like knights and vampires, to which I respond...
_
A story about a *knight *or that has knights in it isn't derivative because of the documented historical precedent and the vast body of work that has made the concept an archetype of the genre.

A story about *vampires *isn't derivative because of the extensive cultural folklore that spans the globe that supports it and the vast body of work that has made the concept an archetype of the genre.

*Orcs *are Tolkien's creation (yes, Lief, they are.  He may have drawn from mythology, but the contemporary awareness of the "orc" is rooted squarely with Tolkien), a metaphor for the cruel brutality he saw in the world. D&D took Tolkien's creation and turned them into 1 hit-die targets for low-level player characters.  While there are many D&D novels that feature orcs, they all reference back to a single source - D&D - which in turn points back to Tolkien.  

Consequently, ANY work that features orcs ultimately will be associated with and over-shadowed by D&D and Tolkien.  It can't stand on its own merit because as soon as the reader sees "orc" they will think of either Gary Gygax or Viggo Mortensen (or possibly Ian McKellen).  What they WON'T be thinking of is the AUTHOR's story, and whatever tale they are attempting to tell will essentially be Tolkien fan fiction.

Not that there's anything wrong with Tolkien fan fiction.  It's a great world and a wonderful opportunity for a writer to hone their craft in a world where the original writer has done most of the heavy lifting.  Go for it!

I'm not suggesting anyone remove fantasy elements from a fantasy story.  I'm suggesting that, if you - as a writer - need a race to embody the archetype of cruelty and brutality in your fantasy world, that you create one based on YOUR story, not someone else's.


----------



## Queshire

I disagree with this. Yeah, sure they started that way, but with each time they are used in a story they change and evolve. You mention how vampires are ok because of the large cultural folklore assosiated with them, well, with orcs we're in the proccess of MAKING that extensive cultural folklore. 

There's plenty of ways to use orcs without just copying tolkein.

There's Blizzard Orcs which are proud warrior race guys.

The Orks from Warhammer 40k which have the mind of a little kid in a 300 pound killing machine.

Hell, there's even Discworld's Orcs who are considered to be terrible killing machines but are were really modified humans that simply didn't have a choice but to kill.

The orcs in my world follow the blizzard model most of all but with dashes of the others, they are genetically engineered soldiers created by the elves in their war against the dwarves, but eventually broke free and established their own culture that's equal parts roman legion and feudal Japan.

'Course, ignoring all the other ways to use Orcs, there's the simple fact that they're familiar to us. Why reinvent the wheel when there's a perfectly good one just sitting there?


----------



## Steerpike

Dreamhand said:


> Consequently, ANY work that features orcs ultimately will be associated with and over-shadowed by D&D and Tolkien.  It can't stand on its own merit because as soon as the reader sees "orc" they will think of either Gary Gygax or Viggo Mortensen (or possibly Ian McKellen).  What they WON'T be thinking of is the AUTHOR's story, and whatever tale they are attempting to tell will essentially be Tolkien fan fiction.



No, I don't think this is correct at all. It is perfectly possible to write an engaging, original story using orcs, and even Tolkien-style orcs, that is not even close to being Tokien fan-fiction, if that's what you want to do. To be honest, I find the breadth of the assertion to be ludicrous. Maybe that's how you read stories that have orcs in them, or other standard fantasy races that have appeared in any number of stories, but the idea that you put forth that any reader who comes across them will somehow be unable or unwilling to think of the author's story because they'll be so engrossed in thoughts of Tolkien or Dungeons & Dragons is insupportable, in my opinion.


----------



## Devor

I rather think it's normal and fine to use fantasy elements that are well-established by other works.  It's better, sometimes, than making a race almost identical to orcs - because that's the element you want in your story - and just calling them Pigmen or something.

I mean, put aside orcs for a moment.  Everyone has thoughts and opinions and preconceptions about orcs.

What about _mithril_?  One of the things some fantasy writers want to do is to find a way to create a better class of sword or armor, so new metals are common.  Is it better to create a new class of metal, with a new funny new name, with all of the same properties as mithril?    What's wrong with just using mithril?

The reason I defend orcs and mithril and the rest of them is this:  If you have _a lot_ of fantasy elements, throwing in a familiar element here and there makes it easier for the readers to accept all of the rest.  My current WIP doesn't use any of these D&D tropes.  But in one of the stories I had worked on, there were orcs and ogres and others - and then three new races called the Gorgit, the Traelu, and the Ettoch, around which much of the backstory was centered.  Using the established elements helped to create a more involving setting for these new and much more original races, without having the lengthy introduction process that would've been necessary to have created additional new races (which would have been a huge detraction from the story).

Even using orcs and ogres, I had no problem making them my own.  They were the brute races, which used violent actions to call upon their gods to have a steroid-like drug infused into their veins.  Too much of this blood-magic caused an Ogre to degenerate into an Orc.  The ogres were capable of living in their own villages; the polluted rage of being an orc made them an outcast, and they joined other orcs in raiding from the hills.  And right there, just like that, you already have a clear enough image of that situation in your head, a platform from which I can now talk about the much-more-important Gorgit, Traelu and Ettoch, which uses that same steroid-type magic to create essential (and much more original) plot elements.

It's like, if you're describing the arsenal of an powerful, ancient army, with half a dozen new magics and weapons and races, you might throw in "mithril" chainmail just to help set the mood without adding _still another_ confusing new name.  It saves time and what I can only call "comprehension energy" to help you focus on the more important stuff.


----------



## Reaver

Excellent point, Devor. My only questions are: is mithril spelled mithril or mithral? Also, is it a D&D idea or Tolkien's?


----------



## Devor

Reaver said:


> Excellent point, Devor. My only questions are: is mithril spelled mithril or mithral? Also, is it a D&D idea or Tolkien's?



Tolkein's.  He trademarked Hobbit but not mithril.  So his spelling his correct - it's not impossible that I misspelled it.


----------



## Dreamhand

I'm particularly taken with Queshire's idea that we're in the process of defining a new archetype.  That's intriguing and I hadn't considered it.  



			
				Steerpike said:
			
		

> ...the idea that you put forth that any reader who comes across them will somehow be unable or unwilling to think of the author's story because they'll be so engrossed in thoughts of Tolkien or Dungeons & Dragons is insupportable, in my opinion.



I think you may misunderstand the point I was making there.  By referencing something that is so strongly and definitively associated with something else - something unique and specific to one particular work - you invite all of the readers perceptions and beliefs ABOUT that work to be infused in the story.  That's something you as a writer have NO control over and - in my opinion - is a HUGE gamble.  If they hate D&D or Tolkien or whatever (or, like me, believe them to be over-used cliches), that taints the readers perception of the work.

It's like a lawyer asking a question in a trial that he/she doesn't know the answer to.  Why subject your story unnecessarily to such potential bias?  

(more later...)


----------



## Chilari

I agree with Devor that comprehension is best served by using established names for the types of critters, beings, metals or weapons your fantasy characters are using or coming across. As they say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If what you've got is a greenskinned humaniod warrior race, then yes, by all means call it an orc.

But why use a different species at all? Why not just use a different nationality - a different human culture? I know fantasy species (I wouldn't call them races) like elves, dwarves, orcs, trolls and whatnot are quite popular, but I've never thought much of them myself. They seem like a shorthand. You just need to write "x was an elf" and people think of Tolkein elves and you then don't really need to develop them much because everyone takes for granted that they're archers and live in woods. Same goes for any fantasy species. I'd rather see new cultures, cultures created by the author which are well developed, rounded and layered and interesting. As far as I'm concerned, a culture should be treated like a main character: it must have depth, good aspects and bad aspects and downright weird things about them which make them unique and believable.


----------



## Feo Takahari

I use common fantasy races _because_ I hate D&D and Tolkien. For instance, if I've just played an otherwise entertaining video game in which you kill hundreds of orcs, I'll write a story in which one of the protagonists is an orc.


----------



## TWErvin2

My novels don't contain orcs, but they have goblins, ogres, zombies, giants, dragons (fire, acid, frost, steam breathing), griffins, wyverns, gargoyles, wizards, werebeasts, etc. 

I guess just about everything you'd find in either D&D or Tolkien in some fashion. While there may be some reflection of those books and games, they're my own, created to be a part of the world created in The First Civilization's legacy series. In truth, a goblin is pretty much a goblin. So what? Kids get an idea of what a goblin is from way back when they're kids dressing up for Halloween. Using conventional elements of fantasy novels, and even some games--there's nothing wrong with that.

But I also have souled zombies, for example. There are fallen angels and WW II machines of war that come into the mix. The elves (greater elves or immortal bloods) are not the 'standard elf'. And the lesser elves are sprites and pixies. How magic works in my world isn't anything like D&D or Lord of the Rings.

One can go the direction of Stephen R. Donaldson, creating ur-Viles and the Blood Guard, for example--there's nothing wrong with that, but he did have giants.

If the 'standard fare,' including a novel that has orcs in it, doesn't strike your fancy, don't include them in your writings, or don't read stories that include them.


----------



## Dreamhand

TWErvin2 said:


> One can go the direction of Stephen R. Donaldson, creating ur-Viles and the Blood Guard, for example--there's nothing wrong with that, but he did have giants.



That actually reinforces the point of my stand on this issue, TWErvin2.  I never pictured or associated the Bloodguard or the ur-viles as anything but the unique creations Donaldson used to fulfill a needed element of HIS story.  He didn't call them "monks" or... um... geez, there is no parallel for the ur-viles... which again, speaks to my point.

And I'm not suggesting EVERYTHING in D&D is derivative and to be avoided.  All those marvelous mythic and legendary creatures you referenced have a rich heritage in mythologies from around the world... hell that's the mana we draw upon as writers!

I guess I'm not making my point clearly.  Let me try it this way...

If I wrote a story that had an order of badass warriors in it and I called them the Bloodguard, what would you think?  Would the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant come to mind?  I'm betting yeah (Donaldson leaves an impression ).  Now if my story was similar to Donaldson's would you think I was derivative, even plagiarizing?  Would it diminish the freshness and vibrancy of the story?  Would you now be on the lookout for other references to Donaldson's work in my story?

And if my story was nothing LIKE Donaldson's, then what did I gain by referencing it?  Nothing but confusion and distraction on the reader's part.  So why on earth would I do it?

I'm not talking about dragons or zombies or wizards... I'm talking about orcs and hobbits and gelatinous cubes and all the other things that point to and are derived exclusively from a single source.

I mean really... how many times do we need to roll out the short, stocky, surly, bearded miners who live under ground, drink beer, and wield axes?  

And if you know the race I'm talking about, then that makes my point, too.  




			
				Chilari said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, a culture should be treated like a main character: it must have depth, good aspects and bad aspects and downright weird things about them which make them unique and believable.



Yes, precisely.  Unique and believable... and I would go further to say unique to the story being told. If you're telling a story that requires orcs that are exactly as they are conceived of by everyone else, and elves as they are conceived of by everyone else, or hobbits that are called "hobbits", then you're not telling a new story.  You're not telling YOUR story.  You're riding on the coat-tails of someone else's work and if the story has already been told, then what motivates me as a reader to continue reading?


*Can anyone reference a novel by a recognized author that has incorporated "orcs" in its story in ANY way other than being ironic?  *




			
				Devor said:
			
		

> If you have a lot of fantasy elements, throwing in a familiar element here and there makes it easier for the readers to accept all of the rest.



Devor, you are an awesome, thoughtful, intelligent dude who I like and (more importantly) respect very much.  I've said that before and I want to go on record saying it again.

But if you ever toss me a story that has mithril or orcs in it to make it easier for me to grok your story, I will hunt you down.

I get what you're saying and you're right... there must be recognizable elements that the reader can relate to in order for them to engage with the story.  But I honestly do not see how using SOMEONE ELSE'S recognizable element serves you as a writer.  

Give the reader a little credit... and if you're throwing a lot of stuff at them and are worried about bogging them down, then find a better way to deliver the information... don't "dumb it down" with orcs and mithril.


----------



## ThinkerX

I was originally thinking in AD&D terms when I started writing, so I borrowed heavily from that system when it came to everything from monsters to magic.  Hence, I had dwarves, elves, orcs, goblins, dragons, and quite a few others, all more or less taken from the handbooks.  (I was far, far from alone in this; many of the fantasy works from that period did pretty much the same.)

Then I started thinking. I decided I wanted the races to be 'tweeked' a bit.  I wanted to justify them.  I also started reading up on the mythology.  So...

Dwarves remained pretty much the same as AD&D except for an ability to work some types of magic, as per the mythology.  I also 'urbanized' them quite a bit, several large human cities boast major numbers of dwarves.

Elves, mythologically speaking, come across as dang dangerous.  Tolkien, I believe was responsible for making them 'good' as a race; previously they were chaotic creatures you could sometimes deal with.  They are also represented as belonging in a sort of alternate dimension or 'universe of their own'.  I took that idea, mixed in some new age thinking, and came up with a race that *used* to dwell on a 'higher' or 'different' level of reality in *spiritual* form, but were tricked and trapped somehow into assuming mortal form.  They retain memories via magic of this spiritual realm, and wish to return, but it is a long, long process. Additionally, they cannot long abide isolation from others of their kind; it drives most of them to lunacy or suicide in short order.

I ditched orcs - pretty much Tolkiens creation as far as I could tell.  Goblins were usually seen as a sort of vaiety of fey or elf, but after some hesitation, I decided to keep them.  My problem here was that in fantasy writing today, goblins tend to have a racial reputation for evil, but that reputation really isn't justified.  I didn't care for that.  After a while, I came across the version of orcs used in the 'Harn' system.  Here, orcs are almost insectile as far as reproduction goes - there are a hundred or more male orcs to every female, and the internal and external competetion to reproduce can be fierce.  It results in a society where homicide is much more legitimately acceptable, and produces a *lot* of males that want to prove themselves in battle in the outside world.  I took this, tacked and tacked on a few mythological elements.


----------



## Feo Takahari

If you want to use something recognizable, use something from the real world. Readers may have an intellectual concept of elves, but you can only make them care if those elves feel human in some way (or, if your elves are antagonists, if the beings they target feel human in some way.)


----------



## Amanita

As far as my personal tastes are concerned, I agree with Dreamhand. I don't understand the strong fascination with "standard races" and the like either. To me, some stories with Elves and Dwarves  etc. like Eragorn for example actually do feel like fanfiction. Having written fanfiction for Harry Potter, I can understand this in some way because my very first attempts in my original world were quite derivative as well. I quickly moved on from that, because it didn't work out well and it wouldn't have been acceptable of course. With Tolkien and all the Game Worlds that are often mentioned here but which I'm not familiar with, it seems to be different. These things obviously can be taken and used by others without them being accused of copying. In case of Tolkien there is (or at least there seems to be) a deeper meaning behind this, but many derivative writers/game designers don't have anything like that but just use Orcs as canon fodder no one will mind see die.
Despite of my opinion, there seem to be plenty of readers and writers who like this kind of thing, and I don't mind them reading and writing it, as long as no one claims that there's some universal law that _requires_ this in fantasy. 

For me, a writer adding something like Mithril to his story would very likely be diminishing my enjoyement of his work quite a bit. If he wants a special metal (or any other special thing) because it matters to his story, he should invent one and give it a meaningful place in his story. If he doesn't want this or if there's no need for it, why add something like that at all? 
As others have mentioned, real life offers plenty of stuff which allows the reader to relate to a story, there's no need for borrowed fantasy elements. There's been an article about making magic relatable on the main page a few weeks ago. In my opinion magic doesn't become relatable because it's been used plenty of times before. Very often, the same form of magic works differently in different settings anyway. It becomes relatable if it has effects the reader can relate to. He won't be confronted with fire ball-throwing wizards in his life, but he very likely got burned at some time and knows what fire is and does. Therefore he will be able to imagine what effects the fireball will have on its targets. 
Not that this is always the author's intention, especially if the targets are Orcs which makes me return to the beginning of the post.


----------



## Graylorne

I'm a great D&D fan - in games - not books. If I were to use dwarves in my books, they would be the original ones like in Beowulf: gnarled, nasty types greedy for what the rocks yield. Elves would either be the secretive types living inside a hill, say the Shakespeare ones, or else the light- and darkelves from the Nordic Edda's. Trolls, yes; gnomes and giants, too. But no orcs.
And no mithril either; that would definitely give at least to me the wrong flavour to my story. The only way in which I imitate Tolkien is in going back to the source, the old legends, myths and sagas.

Of course that's my personal opinion. Tastes differ, as they should.


----------



## Devor

Dreamhand said:


> Give the reader a little credit... and if you're throwing a lot of stuff at them and are worried about bogging them down, then find a better way to deliver the information... don't "dumb it down" with orcs and mithril.



There was a thread about harpies a while back, and when I saw that word I immediately had a concept of what a harpy looked like - a race of winged women who go about raping males to reproduce.  When I clicked on the thread, that's exactly the concept that person was using.

And it has virtually nothing to do with the Greek Harpy at all.  Should he create something "new" for that concept?

Every time you write you're using the work of other authors.  Who decided that a vampire should go sloothing around as a private eye in the big city?  One person, plus copy cats.  Who decided we should use fantasy races at all?  One person, plus copy cats.  Who decided that we should create new worlds, new metals, new histories - that wizards should have hats or that faeries should be wistful?  Somebody else.

I think it's a lot more respectful to our readers to pay homage to the people who created these archetypes than to spend a chapter trying to convince them that our orcs are really Pignellian Swem and our mithril is really Tribetan Bronze - especially when these are _minor_ points in the story.  When you have a lot going on, control the essentials; outsource the rest.


----------



## Philip Overby

This is a good point.  In some way or another, we're going to always be borrowing from someone else's conception of what a race is.  If I say the word "dwarf" an image comes to your mind.  If I want to show that my dwarf is different from your conception of dwarf, then I'll describe it the way I want it depicted.  

In a way, I agree that using orc or hobbit is a greater problem than using elf or dwarf.  I dare to say if someone wrote stories about hobbits then they'd be ripping off Tolkien.  But if they write them about elves (even if they are very similar to Tolkien's version) then people won't bat an eyelash.  

I don't typically use a lot of fantasy races in my stories personally, but when I do, they're pretty close to what most people imagine they'd look like.  For instance a gryphon.  Think about it.  What's your image?  That's probably the same as I imagined them.  It does save a lot of time and worry to use races and creatures that are already imprinted in fantasy readers mind.  However, only using D&D stereotypes can't be a good thing.  

Also Stan Nicholls series "Orcs" from what I read isn't an ironic depiction of them, but you see the story from their POV.


----------



## Queshire

I think that, at times, coming up with a completely original race instead of using one of the classic standbys can actually harm your story. That you have to take to explain who they are, what they look like, and what they do, is time taken away from the actual plot. It'd be filler. By just saying Orc the reader already has a mental image meaning you can spend less time explaining them and get on with the bloody story!

Orcs and mithril have entered our cultural conscious. I have NEVER read something featuring Orcs and Mithril and thought it was copying tolkein, hell, until recently, I didn't even know that tolkein created both of them.

Further, neither Orcs or Mithril are completely original to tolkein. Yeah, those particular names start with him, but brutish beast men and mythological metal aren't solely his domain.

Finally, you have been seriously discounting the Blizzard style of Orcs which are as popular or more popular as the tolkein style Orcs.


----------



## Chilari

Queshire said:


> I think that, at times, coming up with a completely original race instead of using one of the classic standbys can actually harm your story. That you have to take to explain who they are, what they look like, and what they do, is time taken away from the actual plot. It'd be filler. By just saying Orc the reader already has a mental image meaning you can spend less time explaining them and get on with the bloody story!



If you're describing your fantasy race/culture like that, you're doing it wrong. By showing the reader, rather than telling them, what a culture is like - any culture, be it the main human culture or the new species of purple-skinned humanoids with horns - you can introduce that culture without needing to pause the plot of create filler. The way members of the race interact with other characters, the history between your main character's race and the new one - things you'd have to establish anyway whether you were using goblins or elves or the purple-skinned Rehovi - are what build the picture of the culture. Starting with exposition is doing it wrong and will harm the story. Showing the reader the culture is the way to do it.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you don't need non-human races at all, or special metals. Can't people with superior weapons or armour just have more advanced technology? Can't a warlike culture be human - look at Sparta. Or the Roman empire. Or a nature-loving, vegetarian group - why elves? There are human examples. Hippies, for a start. Huamnity is varied enough on its own to cover most humanoid races. Where things get supernatural - dryads and fae and nymphs, who are part of nature (certain types of dryad, for example, die if the tree they are born of is cut down) - by all means go with established species. Otherwise I see it as not merely unnecessary, but also lazy, because then you don't have to take the time to develop the culture if you just say "dwarves" or whatever - and then it becomes generic.

Of course, there are always exceptions. The way Pratchett deals with fantasy species is brilliant. Trolls in particular. He explains why they live in the mountains - the cold weather makes their brains work more efficiently - and why they have a reputation for stupidity amongst other races. As far as fantasy races go in general, he incorporates their unique qualities as rounded, believable, interesting characters. He even plays with our expectations of fantasy races - like the bank manager guy in Making Money - and in Snuff he really does goblins well. They have cultural depth.

I'll admit I'm not one for high fantasy. I've never seen the point in using non-human humanoid species. They feel like a shortcut. Hell, they feel like a stereotype. They feel like the author is telling me "humans are like this, and elves are like that, and dwarves are like that" and discounting the possibility that humans can be all of those things and more.

What they don't feel is well thought out.


----------



## Devor

Chilari said:


> The point I'm trying to make here is that you don't need non-human races at all, or special metals. Can't people with superior weapons or armour just have more advanced technology? Can't a warlike culture be human - look at Sparta. Or the Roman empire. Or a nature-loving, vegetarian group - why elves?



That's a good point, Chilari, which I think is lost on a lot of people.  But I do think there is a reason to want elves or orcs or another fantasy race - the _magical_ element of that race.  If you're reading about elves as simple as a nature-loving vegetarian group, then I think someone is doing it wrong.  Typically, elves _live nearly forever_ and are _immersed_ in some kind of magic.  Wanting those kinds of fantasy elements, and their impact on that culture, are in my opinion the only reason to consider having a new race.  If people are using a new race to create a caricature of some real world society, I think they're missing out.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't agree that having non-humans species puts humans in a box. I don't have a problem with non-human species having certain traits that define the species. What you actually find in such worlds is that humans still run the entire gamut in terms of character traits. I don't see any reason not to have non-human species, if you want them. Or any reason to include them if you don't want them. It all comes down to how you create your world. Either approach is valid, and either lends itself to telling complex, well thought-out stories.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Devor: I've read your essay on the role of magic in fantasy, and to a point, I agree with it. But I think fantasy is best served as the logical extension of the alternate-history genre, with questions like "What if there existed a power source that could ignore entropy?" rather than "What if Germany had won WWII?" 

I don't have the guts to write an alternate history in which the cultists in Jonestown were massacred as part of a U.S. government cover-up, so instead I'm writing a fantasy in which a Jonestown-esque cult was massacred as part of a cover-up by a nonexistent government. I don't have the guts to write an alternate history in which two otherwise likeable protagonists have no compunctions about killing "savages," so instead I'm planning a story in which two otherwise likeable protagonists have no compunctions about killing (what they think are) nonhumans.

In a more repressive time, even historical fiction sufficed to play the role of fantasy--when Arthur Miller couldn't discuss Communist witch-hunts, he used _The Crucible_ to discuss Puritan witch-hunts. We can now plainly discuss things that actually happened (at least, we can on the Internet), but stories about things that didn't happen are restricted by, at the bare minimum, good taste. Fantasy is a way of softening the edges of a distasteful story or premise.


----------



## Devor

Feo Takahari said:


> @Devor: I've read your essay on the role of magic in fantasy, and to a point, I agree with it. But I think fantasy is best served as the logical extension of the alternate-history genre, with questions like "What if there existed a power source that could ignore entropy?" rather than "What if Germany had won WWII?"



That's a nice use of fantasy, and thank you for bringing up the article.  Fantasy can definitely help an author to address questions that are otherwise too sensitive to touch upon, and I might consider talking about that sometime in an article.  I think fantasy can go beyond that, though - not every story needs pre-planned themes and real-world allegorical elements to make an impact, although there's many great works which do.

Fantasy stories can tell an impossible journey and help to push characters into otherwise unbelievable situations.  I could write a fantasy story in which a six year old is the guardian of a power the equivalent of a nuclear bomb.  Those story elements would never combine in real life, nor do they reflect any real world event that I'm aware of.  Yet if that situation occurs at a well-timed position in the right story, it could be very compelling.

Even within the context of historical fiction, you still need to ask what each particular fantasy element is doing for your story - that's mostly the question I was trying to address.


----------



## TWErvin2

Just as a point of reference, author Dennis L. McKiernan wrote and had published his Iron Tower Trilogy and the Silver Call Doulogy.

Nothing could more closely resemble Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, etc. Even so, it was a popular series for a while, garnering a number of fans and helpedd to launch McKiernan's writing career.

The point being that while familar settings and races and creatures may turn some readers off, there is potentially a large number of readers who don't mind, and actually seek out similar stories. Why do people go to the same restaurant? Why are there plenty of restaurants with similar menu items? Why do many fantasy novels have elves--long-lived, pointed-eared, somewhat reclusive peoples? Why do some have orcs, or orcs in all but name? It's what readers--at least what some readers--desire on the shelf.


----------



## James Chandler

> I don't have the guts to write an alternate history in which the cultists in Jonestown were massacred as part of a U.S. government cover-up



That's because it is not "alternate" history... it's just history. ;-)


----------



## James Chandler

TWErvin2 said:


> Just as a point of reference, author Dennis L. McKiernan wrote and had published his Iron Tower Trilogy and the Silver Call Doulogy.
> 
> Nothing could more closely resemble Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, etc. Even so, it was a popular series for a while, garnering a number of fans and helpedd to launch McKiernan's writing career.
> 
> The point being that while familar settings and races and creatures may turn some readers off, there is potentially a large number of readers who don't mind, and actually seek out similar stories. Why do people go to the same restaurant? Why are there plenty of restaurants with similar menu items? Why do many fantasy novels have elves--long-lived, pointed-eared, somewhat reclusive peoples? Why do some have orcs, or orcs in all but name? It's what readers--at least what some readers--desire on the shelf.



I have read quite a few books that used a lot of D&D elements or Tolkien elements, and had a lot of fun, including McKiernan. But, I don't know how much of a future those types of stories really have. A lot of the newer books being published are getting away from the old tropes and looking for originality.  Sanderson and Rothfuss are good examples.


----------



## shangrila

TWErvin2 said:


> Just as a point of reference, author Dennis L. McKiernan wrote and had published his Iron Tower Trilogy and the Silver Call Doulogy.
> 
> Nothing could more closely resemble Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, etc. Even so, it was a popular series for a while, garnering a number of fans and helpedd to launch McKiernan's writing career.


That's because he wrote it as a sequel to Lord of the Rings but they couldn't get Tolkien's estate to sign off on it so he just tweaked it until it was original.


----------



## TWErvin2

James Chandler said:


> I have read quite a few books that used a lot of D&D elements or Tolkien elements, and had a lot of fun, including McKiernan. But, I don't know how much of a future those types of stories really have. A lot of the newer books being published are getting away from the old tropes and looking for originality.  Sanderson and Rothfuss are good examples.



Yes, there are many books and authors going different directions. I was simply pointing out that there have been and still may be audiences for such 'retreads', so to speak.  How many 'vampire' novels, especially for YA have come out
 and been successful? Quite a few beyond Twilight. While it's hard to jump on the bandwagon quickly and successfully, there are some long-standing/established bits of content in fantasy that have recurred time and time again.



shangrila said:


> That's because he wrote it as a sequel to Lord of the Rings but they couldn't get Tolkien's estate to sign off on it so he just tweaked it until it was original.



The link I pointed to stated as such in the 2nd paragraph. It's not a secret, and McKiernan was very open about how it paralled Tolkien's works when the books came out. I listed the example to make a point.


----------



## Steerpike

James Chandler said:


> I have read quite a few books that used a lot of D&D elements or Tolkien elements, and had a lot of fun, including McKiernan. But, I don't know how much of a future those types of stories really have. A lot of the newer books being published are getting away from the old tropes and looking for originality.  Sanderson and Rothfuss are good examples.



And, eventually, it will probably swing the other way, where the readers want the Tolkien-style works again because there aren't many on the shelves. All it will take is for one big hit to come along in that style. The idea that those stories don't have a future isn't supported by the evidence, in my view. The fact that a lot of newer books being published are moving in a different direction doesn't tell you anything in and of itself, you still have to know how those traditional fantasies are doing, and I think they continue to do well enough. As Devor noted, they are on the shelf because of reader demand.


----------



## Dreamhand

See? And now I have no desire whatsoever to read Dennis L. McKiernan (for the same reason I regret wasting my time with The Sword of Shanara, another blatant Tolkien rip-off). With the metric butt-ton of fabulous fantasy fiction out there, we all have to prioritize our reading list... so I'll take *TWErvin2*'s advice and spend my precious reading time with Rothfuss, Gaiman, Pratchett, Butcher, or Kay, thanks.

_(btw, THIS is why I love being a part of the Mythic Scribes community. What a fabulous discussion!)_

Some confirmations...

Yes, we ALL draw from other authors in our own writing.  Our love of the genre and our desire to engage with it as writers is defined by the authors, artists, game designers, screenwriters and all the many media creators that have contributed to the fantasy canon.

And yes, there are archetypal creatures and conventions that inherently embody "the fantasy story".  Magic, creatures, mythic gods, and races (though I REALLY like *Chilari's *challenge that fantasy tales don't NEED anything but humans.  So true) are the backbone of a fantasy story.

And YES every writer is always totally free to write what they want, as they want, for whomever they want.  Every creative pursuit is "legitimate" and (in my opinion) a worthy achievement.​
So maybe I'm being an effete douchebag (which is occurring with alarming frequency these days) but there IS a difference between Firefly Fan Fiction and Patrick Rothfuss's "Wise Man's Fear" (please god, can we at least agree upon THAT?).  And IF we agree that there is a difference, then maybe we need to define what that difference is.  Not that one is "better" than the other, but that they are written and consumed in different ways for different reasons.

And IF that's the case, then understanding what those reasons are is vital to a writer who is seriously pursuing their craft.  Ultimately, I think we have to ask ourselves: 

*Who is our optimal reader?  *Who is the person sitting across the desk that we picture reading our story and liking it? (Yeah, yeah... "we're writing for as many people as we can reach". Whatever... there's always someone in our secret heart of hearts that we're writing to).

and 

*How do we want our work received?* Do we want, "Hey, that was a cute little fantasy thing you did" or do we want "Holy crap you changed my life!!"?  Or maybe something in between.

I've heard a lot of very compelling arguments so far (you guys really are awesome) about the nature of the Fantasy archetype and what we can and cannot and should and should not do as writers. My contention remains: Using elements (like orcs, mithril, hobbits, etc) that have a strong association with a SPECIFIC piece of media will skew how your work is received (by THIS reader, anyway) into the Fan Fic category.

I respect *Steerpike *and *Devor*'s valid contention that if it's on the shelves then readers must want them. I personally don't consider that a validation of the practice. The public wants a lot of things and as writers we always walk the line between artistic integrity and a paycheck.  With that in mind, the argument/observation I'm offering isn't intended to help an author be profitable, but rather urge writers to tell stories that express a unique vision (THEIR unique vision) and add to the canon rather than rehash ground that's already been covered.

Again... a very personal perspective that I offer for consideration and immediate dismissal if it doesn't resonate (and I promise, I won't rant if I offer comments on your stories... but I may include a link to this thread ).


----------



## Steerpike

It's not just that the readers want them Dreamhand, a lot of writers like to write it. Surely you aren't suggesting we only respect artistic integrity when it goes in the direction you want?

Take McKiernan, for example. He's a good writer. Some of his Mithgar books have been quite good, and some haven't been so good, but he writes them because he absolutely loves telling those stories and he loves the world and the characters. I was on an email list he was on for a number of years, and in additional to being an all-around nice guy I can tell you that his artistic passion, as a writer, is firmly grounded in that very traditional Tolkien-style world of his. You can tell from how he talks about it and how he responds to fans about it.

So what's wrong with that, and why should you be the arbiter of whether it is valid or invalid?


----------



## Ankari

> So what's wrong with that, and why should you be the arbiter of whether it is valid or invalid?



He has the right, but only in regards to himself.  

I am of the crowd that doesn't care what elements a writer uses, as long as the story is good.  All of the great writers, _even Sanderson*_, use established races and tweak them to make them unique.  Erickson uses ogres and giants.  Even Robert Jordan uses Trollocs which can be identified as orcs as they fit the same parameters**.  I am fine with it all, just make the experience unique.


*Sanderson uses the koloss i his books.  They are twisted versions of humans just like orcs are twisted versions of elves.  They are violent and warlike that serve a dark power, just like orcs.  The are of lesser intelligence just like orcs.  The only difference I see is that they are blue skinned while orcs are thought of as green or green/gray.

**See above footnote.


----------



## ScipioSmith

Chilari said:


> If you're describing your fantasy race/culture like that, you're doing it wrong. By showing the reader, rather than telling them, what a culture is like - any culture, be it the main human culture or the new species of purple-skinned humanoids with horns - you can introduce that culture without needing to pause the plot of create filler. The way members of the race interact with other characters, the history between your main character's race and the new one - things you'd have to establish anyway whether you were using goblins or elves or the purple-skinned Rehovi - are what build the picture of the culture. Starting with exposition is doing it wrong and will harm the story. Showing the reader the culture is the way to do it.



But sometimes you can do that by using an established race.

In the chapter I'm currently working on, the heroes visit the provincial capital which they find swarming with refugees fleeing the rebellion. Most of the are human, but the crowd includes an Orc blacksmith and a minotaur shepherd. 

And at once, this says something about the Empire: that it is a multicultural society, and that its expansionism does not equal human supremacism. Later, Gideon points to the treatment of the Orcs and the mintaurs as proof that the Empire is 'a society free from prejudice'. Later on, we get some of the history and culture of these peoples, but for now the shorthand lets me get a point across and do some worldbuilding without having to stop the action (a main character is currently being hailed as an emissary of God, and lauded by the desparate people) to do it.

Also, whoever made the point about Bloodguard. I haven't read Donaldson, so if I saw that name I would think it was an obvious and slightly cheesy name for an order of badass warriors, setting up for a slightly cheesy book, but I'd still find it perfectly serviceable. I mean dude, Bloodguard, it's cool in the same way that the Space Marines are cool, because it's so in your face about it.


----------



## Devor

Dreamhand said:


> I've heard a lot of very compelling arguments so far (you guys really are awesome) about the nature of the Fantasy archetype and what we can and cannot and should and should not do as writers. My contention remains: Using elements (like orcs, mithril, hobbits, etc) that have a strong association with a SPECIFIC piece of media will skew how your work is received (by THIS reader, anyway) into the Fan Fic category.
> 
> I respect *Steerpike *and *Devor*'s valid contention that if it's on the shelves then readers must want them. I personally don't consider that a validation of the practice. The public wants a lot of things and as writers we always walk the line between artistic integrity and a paycheck.  With that in mind, the argument/observation I'm offering isn't intended to help an author be profitable, but rather urge writers to tell stories that express a unique vision (THEIR unique vision) and add to the canon rather than rehash ground that's already been covered.
> 
> Again... a very personal perspective that I offer for consideration and immediate dismissal if it doesn't resonate (and I promise, I won't rant if I offer comments on your stories... but I may include a link to this thread ).



Three quick things, and then I will probably be done.  Great discussion, I just don't have a lot more to say.

1) First, I didn't recheck every post, but I think it was TWErvin2's point that such books still have a large readership.  It's a great point, I just don't want to take the credit.

2) There's definitely degrees to what we're talking about - I don't think anyone is encouraging people to write about Hobbits, for instance.  But referring to orcs specifically, I kind of think the concept is just too _obvious_ to call it stealing.  Tolkein did it first, but he was also the first to really use the whole concept of fantasy races.  Within that concept, "Hrmm, a ferocious evil and ugly creature" is one of the first clear possibilities, and the amount of work people have put into orcs show that they have endless amounts of potential.  That's why I keep saying, _It's better to just use orcs than to recreate the same concept and call them Pigmellian Swem._  There are plenty of people who would use the concept, or something close to it, regardless of Tolkein.  So let's give credit where credit is due.

I think that shows in Tolkein's own actions.  He trademarked _hobbits_, not _orcs_.

3)  I'm not currently using these elements in my main work in progress, so you won't have any need to lecture any time soon - such as when I put in for the podcast.  But I used these elements in a project I've pushed aside and may someday find a use for, for all the reasons I've already given about wanting _a very busy_ fantasy world for that project.  I still don't know how it could be possible to fit an incredibly complex fantasy world into a novel without using them.


----------



## Dreamhand

Steerpath...


			
				Dreamhand said:
			
		

> And YES every writer is always totally free to write what they want, as they want, for whomever they want. Every creative pursuit is "legitimate" and (in my opinion) a worthy achievement.





			
				Dreamhand said:
			
		

> Again... a very personal perspective that I offer for consideration and immediate dismissal if it doesn't resonate



Let me be very clear, bud... These are MY opinions.  I don't expect anyone to adhere to them, follow them, or adopt them.  As this is a community board, I wanted to put MY opinion out there to foster some discussion in the hopes of A) learning some new perspectives on the writing craft from my fellow MythicScribers, and B) see if there are any kindred spirits.

If there's a better way for me to conduct myself in the discussion, please let me know.  I honestly don't want to offend anyone.

Ankari... absolutely.  Sanderson/Jordan created a composite race, tailored to the story he was telling. And named them something other than "orcs".  Brilliant!  Awesome!  While I was unable to get through the first book of the Wheel of Time series, I have enormous respect for both authors and agree with how the CREATED something unique to their story.

Devor... I agree, it has been an awesome discussion. I also agree that it's about run it's course...with me politely agreeing to disagree with my sincere best wishes to all.  I need to consider my stance on this topic and also my articulation of it.  I still feel passionately about it, but with so many of my MythicScribes chums coming down on the other side of the argument, I'm thinking some reassessment may be in order.


----------



## Devor

Dreamhand said:


> Devor... I agree, it has been an awesome discussion. I also agree that it's about run it's course...with me politely agreeing to disagree with my sincere best wishes to all.  I need to consider my stance on this topic and also my articulation of it.  I still feel passionately about it, but with so many of my MythicScribes chums coming down on the other side of the argument, I'm thinking some reassessment may be in order.



I didn't have a problem with your articulation, or even with your opinion.  Maybe I should put it this way - even if they are reminiscent of Tolkein, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.  Maybe it's one more thing about which you need to get the reader to "suspend disbelief," but I don't think that's always so terribly hard to do with a good story.  And there's some benefit to using them in certain stories which might outweigh that minor difficulty.

Tolkein, after all, wasn't a story about orcs - it was a story about hobbits, living the peaceful life, being thrust into an epic world-changing journey.  Orcs are such an insignificant piece of that.  You aren't taking away Tolkein's thunder by using them.  I'm much more annoyed by many, many books out there which closely mimic that story than I am by original stories which happen to use orcs.  That's the truth of it.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with your opinion - in a way I even agree - I only think there's other elements which should weigh in.


----------



## Amanita

I agree with you, Dreamhand. Just to offer some encouragement. 
For me, writing and reading fantasy has nothing to do with simply repeating things created by others. Why should I spend my time writing and reading about the same invented races with the same stock personalities facing the same conflicts in the same political settings? 
I can accept that tastes are different of course, but I'd really be glad if the ratio changed a bit and there weren't that many books with either Elves and Orcs or Vampires out there. 
Of course, all of these beings can be used in interesting ways, but honestly, most of the time they're not. Elves are more perfect humans and Orcs are cannon fodder that adds a sense of danger and can be killed without bad conscience. In Tolkien's case all of this had a meaning for the story he wanted to tell (or at least I believe it did.) In many derivative works, I don't see such a meaning. It seems to be done because "that's what's done in fantasy" and not because it has anything to do with the author's own story. Might not be true, I don't know, but that's how it often feels to me.


----------



## Queshire

I'm not going to mess with the quotes thing because I'm  lazy, but I think the key thing is this;

"Using elements (like orcs, mithril, hobbits, etc) that have a strong association with a SPECIFIC piece of media will skew how your work is received (by THIS reader, anyway) into the Fan Fic category."

Frankly I agree with most of this, though I would use "ripping off" instead of Fan Fic because, as written, it demeans fan fic. (Fan Fic knows that it's using elements from a story and is done solely for fun, it has no pretension of being completely original, or just copying ideas to get in on whatever's the newest cash cow)

But, anyways, the thing is you say elements that have a strong association with a specific piece of media, to put it bluntly, Orcs and Mithril no longer have that strong association with Tolkein. Hobbits still do, but Orcs and Mithril don't.

And once more, I really have to adress all of you Orc nay-sayers to Blizzard style Orcs. These guys aren't mere cannon fodder, or neccesarily evil. Yes, more often then not, they are on the opposite side of whatever war from Humans, but they aren't treated as Always Chaotic Evil. They're treated as honorable warriors with a strong belief that the strongest should rule, kind of like a combonation of the various warrior cultures such as vikings, spartans, and samurai. I have been reminding you guys about these types of Orcs again and again but you completely ignore them. They are a prime example of how Orcs can be used without simply ripping off tolkein, though they have become a stock format as well.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

I feel like I take a "middle" position on this issue.

I mean, one the one hand, I like originality. On the other hand, I've seen "original" races species that were botched up. Mindfire recently brought up, in another thread, a series that uses several original species that are basically classic species with different names.


In my own first attempt at a novel, I came up with my own version of a succubus. The reader witnessed the birth of a daughter of Gluttony and Lust. She was shown to have hatched from a chocolate egg oozing with strawberry sauce, and started life as a fairy-like creature in a tiny adult body. She has the horns, batwings and pointy tail because... why not? From there I referred to the creature as a succubus, so the reader knows what this little girl is supposed to do when she grows up.

I have a variety of demons, but all of them have to be shown as they are unique. In my plan, I called them The Distorted Demons. In my story, I named each of them and referred to them as demonlords. That should probably be two words. (If the goblin taught me anything, it's: _Don't make your own compound nouns.)_


Getting to my point, assuming I have one, I think the classic races, species, creatures, etc. are one-word descriptions. Some invite more variation than others... (Lots of ways a dragon can look or act, but barbarians are always big, strong and loud.) ...but I think a single word that tells much of what the reader needs to know is a powerful tool.

I personally don't care to use orcs, elves and dwarves myself. I prefer to focus my stories around humans and include supernatural beings from both Heaven and Hell. As for what I read, there are no rules. Overuse of orcs, elves and dwarves probably would be a turn-off... but I don't think it's wrong to write them.


----------



## Feo Takahari

I think Dreamhand is looking at things through a different lense than Devor. Devor is treating all species that fit the concept "an ugly evil species" as "the same," while Dreamhand is treating all species that fit the concept "species that look and act exactly like Tolkien's orcs" as "the same," and appears to be treating species that only fit the concept "an ugly evil species" as different species with different narrative roles, potentially original in their use.


----------



## Ghost

I wouldn't hesitate to use a race or critter mentioned in D&D because those guys borrowed from everything. I do get why you wouldn't want to use certain beings. I wouldn't use orcs, hobbits, gelatinous cubes, gnomes, the jabberwocky, Mecha-Streisand, etc. I prefer using things that have multiple sources or things people believe(d) in. If I can't find that, I take the time to create something to suit my needs.

That said, people enjoy these races. Many fantasy readers grew up on orcs, elves, and dwarves. To some readers, the Tolkien-derivative novels might as well be lifted from the vaults of ancient mythology because it's seeped into their consciousness. Also, when an artist works on a standard concept, she's participating in a wider phenomenon. It's sort of like a passing of the torch between predecessors who originate or popularize the idea and successors use the idea in new contexts. (I love folk music, so I understand wanting to continue the succession.) Sure, beings like vampires, ghosts, and gods have been around much longer than orcs and are more widespread, but orcs are still part of the canon. And the point about orcs fulfilling a niche previously taken by other baddies (ogres, trolls, goblins, etc) is right on, although I think orcs are slightly more sophisticated to suit the times since they tend to have a society of sorts.

I don't see anything wrong with the desire to participate in the dialog between past and present, but writers need to be respectful of the source. What bothers me is throwing standard races into a novel because that's what makes fantasy. No other reason. It just seems "fantasy." It happens in other genres. It has lasers, so now it's science fiction. Grr!

If you orcs entertain you and you want to tell an entertaining story, orcs will do. Odds are it won't really be your story if you rely on someone else's definition of "orc" instead of doing the work to make it your own.

The idea of orcs entering the tradition is interesting. It gets tricky when things are in transition because it's not clear cut. We'll understand it better in a few decades, and by then we'll be arguing about why Klingons or Dementors–or whatever else takes authors' fancies–are unoriginal or lazy. I look forward to it.


----------



## Steerpike

Ouroboros said:


> I wouldn't hesitate to use a race or critter mentioned in D&D because those guys borrowed from everything.



Yes. Actually some version of virtually every mythological being or creature appears somewhere in D&D, and even if you create what you feel is a wholly original race or creature, there is probably an analogue for it in D&D because there is just that much source material out there after 30 or 40 years.


----------



## Dreamhand

I finally found an articulation of my UNIQUELY PERSONAL NOT TO BE IMPOSED UPON ANYONE ELSE issue with this topic AND it kind of ties in to Ouroboro's observations.  I found it at Jeff Goins blog (The Difference Between Art and Entertainment | Goins, Writer a most worthwhile trip for the writerly-minded)...

*Entertainment makes us feel good*. It doesn’t surprise us. It meets our expectations. And that’s why we like it: it coddles us. But the problem with entertainment is it leaves us unchanged. And we desperately need to change.

*Art, on the other hand, transforms us*. How does it do that? It beautifully wounds us – breaks our hearts, causes us to cry, and shows us our own inadequacies. Art forces us to make a choice. It does exactly what we don’t expect.​
I look at everything like ART.  My mistake.  That's ALL me, my bad, my fault.  That's the kind of writing I want to do - I want to make ART - and I tend to project that objective on others which is TOTALLY the wrong thing to do.

Using (as Legendary Side kick so wonderfully described) "one-word description" races is a great short-cut... and a great way to "get on to the good stuff".  Awesome. That's marvelously entertaining and I can get behind that.

But I don't think you can manifest something as transformative as Rothfuss or Kay using those one-word cliches.


----------



## Queshire

So the problems simple, yeah? If you don't think they're art then MAKE them art. To look at something and say, "nah, there's nothing I can do with that," Well, that's just a failure as an artist.


----------



## Devor

Dreamhand said:


> But I don't think you can manifest something as transformative as Rothfuss or Kay using those one-word cliches.



I can mostly agree with that.  Novels are long and complex enough to be a pretty mixed bag, though, so I think sometimes you can be transformative despite those cliches, but maybe not within them, if that makes any sense.




Ouroboros said:


> I wouldn't hesitate to use a race or critter mentioned in D&D because those guys borrowed from everything.



Careful, there's a number of D&D trademarks - ironic, right? - such as Mindflayers and Githyanki.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't have much of a problem with the distinction raised in that article between art and entertainment, but the leap from that to use or non-use of standard fantasy races as a factor in determining whether something is art is a huge leap and an unjustified one.

I think you just don't like those kinds of stories on a personal level, Dreamhand. That's certainly fine, as such tastes are personal and there is no reason any two people should share the same preferences. What I don't understand is why it is so important to you to objectively elevate what you like to some higher level. I think your viewpoint is self-serving and maybe even self-aggrandizing, but it certainly doesn't represent any truth as far as I'm concerned. You can make a work of art that includes these standard fantasy races, and you can make pure entertainment that doesn't include any of them (or even includes entirely original races and species). I get that you won't like the former, but I think you are looking too hard to justify that dislike to yourself.


----------



## Steerpike

Devor said:


> Careful, there's a number of D&D trademarks - ironic, right? - such as Mindflayers and Githyanki.



Well, they claim those as Product Identity under OGL, so if you are operating under OGL then I guess you've accepted that. I have real doubts as to whether either of them has any real trademark protection, WotC's statements notwithstanding.


----------



## Dreamhand

You know, you're absolutely right.  I clearly have a blindspot about that, and I appreciate you (and everyone) helping me work through that.  As a writer and member of the community, I really appreciate the support and your insights.

I hope everyone got as much out of it as I did and I apologize if this came off as anything but an honest inquiry.


----------



## Ghost

Devor said:


> Careful, there's a number of D&D trademarks - ironic, right? - such as Mindflayers and Githyanki.



I also said I wouldn't use something like a gelatinous cube, so I'd put mindflayers in that category as well. Steerpike was on the right track when he says virtually every mythological being and creature appears somewhere in D&D. That's what I was getting at. If my story has a selkie and someone tells me, "Gosh, no, that's in D&D monster manual 32.6!" I'd still use because I've come across selkies elsewhere. However, I wouldn't trawl D&D for material because of my desire for "multiple sources or things people believe(d) in" means I'll check folklore and myths for information, not a game.


----------



## Steerpike

Dreamhand said:


> You know, you're absolutely right.  I clearly have a blindspot about that, and I appreciate you (and everyone) helping me work through that.  As a writer and member of the community, I really appreciate the support and your insights.
> 
> I hope everyone got as much out of it as I did and I apologize if this came off as anything but an honest inquiry.



It's in interesting topic, that's for sure. I don't know why as writers we do so much of what appears to be minimizing the work of other writers, but that's another topic I suppose. Or else I was just reading the thread wrong, which is always possible.


----------



## Steerpike

Ouroboros said:


> I also said I wouldn't use something like a gelatinous cube, so I'd put mindflayers in that category as well. Steerpike was on the right track when he says virtually every mythological being and creature appears somewhere in D&D. That's what I was getting at. If my story has a selkie and someone tells me, "Gosh, no, that's in D&D monster manual 32.6!" I'd still use because I've come across selkies elsewhere. However, I wouldn't trawl D&D for material because of my desire "multiple sources or things people believe(d) in" means I'll check folklore and myths for information, not a game.



I'm in the midst of a selkie story. They are actually in the first edition D&D monster manual, so they have a long association with the game, but they are fixtures of myth and legend long before, so you and I share the same view on that. And of course it makes sense to consult multiple sources so you don't end up with your selkie being exactly the way selkies are in D&D (unless that's your goal I guess).


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Lots of differing opinions here... That's a good thing.
For me, I would always prefer the imagination of the author to create unique creatures, elements, or whatever as opposed to using any preconceived idea.
That being said, of it is an item or creature that's common in your world then maybe it's actually useful for your reader to already have a basic understanding of it (orcs for instance).
Generally though (in my opinion only) the highest magical experience as a reader occurs when the author's imagination conveys new creatures or cultures or metals in an understandable way... That's certainly not easy to do as they have to be well fleshed out & described in ways that avoid info dumping on the reader.
Let's not be confused about one point though.... ALL works are built upon those that came before us. To choose to diverge from that as far as the imagination allows or to choose to adhere more closely to those ideas is ultimately only author (or reader) preference.


----------



## Christopher Wright

Dreamhand said:


> I look at everything like ART.  My mistake.  That's ALL me, my bad, my fault.  That's the kind of writing I want to do - I want to make ART - and I tend to project that objective on others which is TOTALLY the wrong thing to do.
> 
> Using (as Legendary Side kick so wonderfully described) "one-word description" races is a great short-cut... and a great way to "get on to the good stuff".  Awesome. That's marvelously entertaining and I can get behind that.
> 
> But I don't think you can manifest something as transformative as Rothfuss or Kay using those one-word cliches.



But dude, look at Shakespeare. He based a lot of his plays almost entirely on work other people did. MacBeth? Hollinshed's histories. Troilus and Cressida? Some doofus named Illiad. He and Marlowe and the rest of their contemporaries basically used the same plot lines and settings over and over and over again.

And he definitely made art!

And then Marlowe wrote The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, and a few hundred years later Goethe ripped him off and turned it into another masterpiece.

Dante based his masterpiece trilogy of poems on a pre-existing mythology that was widely used by the dominant religion of his day. So did Milton, come to think of it, but I guess we can give him a pass because who wants to accuse a blind guy of plagarism?

;-)


----------



## Feo Takahari

I guess I don't really have anything against the idea of reusing species--I just really, really hate elves, at least how they're used today. (So they're just like humans, only they're better and smarter and more in tune with nature and they always talk down to humans but it's okay when they do it because they're just so special . . .) Anyways, I don't think there's any reason a story with slaads or githyanki would suffer from unoriginality, and if you're going to do something with elves other than have them represent your Mary Sue-topia, I'm not gonna complain until after I've read it to see how good it is.


----------



## writeshiek33

all i am going to say therer only so many original fantasy elements out there nof course there going to be resuded but it how you use them


----------



## writeshiek33

in fact i willuse certain d and character types in one story idea but wont be d and fan story it will be on it own merit but alas that on the back burner for now


----------



## Mindfire

For me, a big thing when I'm doing my plotting and worldbuilding is authenticity. Everything needs to be authentic and authentically mine. _As long as that's the case, it doesn't really matter if I touch on a trope that's been done before._ *HOWEVER...*

The problem with orcs for me is that thanks to entities like D&D, WoW, and the numerous spin-offs, rip-offs, parodies, and even original franchises that use the same idea in a different way, like Elder Scrolls, the D&D or more accurately "Tolkienian" races have become a HUGE "This is not authentic" sign. This goes for orcs, elves, dwarves, giants, halflings, and half-anythings. I'll admit I used these liberally in my early work but I stay away from them now for precisely that reason. 

I can tolerate- nay, enjoy!- orcs and elves and whatnot when I'm playing Skyrim. Doesn't bother me at all. But in a book, their use just sticks out like a sore thumb and makes the author seem like a creative scavenger unless their presentation is worlds apart from what I've seen before. To more clearly illustrate, the use of the warmongering orc or the broody dark elf Xil'umnilor feels just as hackneyed and forced as if the book had included an "Iron Sword of Thunderbolts" or "Superior Warhammer of the Tempest". In a videogame I accept dumb names for enchanted weapons because I know its impossible for the game to randomly generate good unique weapon names. Likewise the use of "typical" races in a video game doesn't bother me because they're so familiar that they become almost part of the scenery. They're so generic and bland that it allows me to project whatever I want onto them, which aids immersion. 

But in a book? I expect- nay, demand!- more from a book. The characters in a book aren't supposed to be bland, generic, background filler. In a videogame, that's acceptable because, once again, that sort of stuff acts as building blocks for me to play with in my imagination. But when I sit down with the book, I don't want a pile of imaginary legos or a blank canvas. What I want from a book is more like a musical duet. I want to enter into a partnership between my imagination and the author's imagination. He's written the piece, and we're playing it _together_. But this requires some effort from the author. It requires him to be authentic. Unlike a video game, he cant hand me a blank score sheet and say, "Have fun, I'm off to write Dark Chronicles of the Chosen Half-Elf-Dragon Book #32" or else I feel cheated. 

This is why I don't include elves, dwarves*, and orcs in my work. This is why I don't name weapons with the "X-adjective Y-weapon of Z-attribute" formula**. Authenticity. Authenticity and strong vision are IMO the most important quality in any work of fiction, but especially fantasy. In that respect, the greatest enemy of creative fanatasy can be the fantasy genre itself. Tolkien's inventions, as interpreted through the lens of innumerable RPGs have become "the default". But fantasy isn't supposed to have a default. Tolkien did more than just about anyone to establish fantasy as a genre. But the charm of his work isn't in the tropes, but rather in the fact that his stuff is practically bursting at the seams with imaginative authenticity. In order to truly honor that legacy, we need to leave his stuff alone and seek out authenticity instead. Also, subverting, averting, or parodying tropes does not guarantee authenticity. Sometimes it can hinder it. Sorry for the rant. I'm done now.

TL;DR: I agree with the OP. Strive for _authenticity _and let D&D, WoW, and Tolkien be.



Oh, and if I ever see a book that includes an "X sword of Y", that author's getting an arrow to the knee.









* I might include a tribe of really short swamp ninjas, but the jury's still out on that.

** I do, however, include an artifact called the Sword of Glass, but it has a very specific purpose and isn't one of those "I found it on quest" swords. I think the name works because of the juxtaposition of the words "sword" and "glass". A sword, which is supposed to be strong and durable, made of a weak and brittle material like glass. It has an irony to it that's thematically appropriate, perhaps even important. However, the name is missing the X-adjective part of the formula, so it doesn't really count anyway.


----------



## Kevlar

I agree with Dreamhand, Amanita and Mindfire, which puts me in the minority. But my problem with it takes a different form, and it developed from over-exposure. If I see orcs mentioned anywhere on the cover of your book I'm probably not buying it, simply because I respect Tolkien too much. Yeah, video games can get away with it. I don't like seeing orcs in Skyrim. Oh well, that game is pure entertainment, not art. One of the few games I'd call art was made by the same people, in a much more original world. But to me to take any of Tolkien's inventions would make me feel dirty, like I was disrespecting him. I know other people feel like it's a homage to him, which it is of course, but to me it feels like a disrespectful homage. I would pay homage in another, much smaller way.

It is for that reason elves are such a touchy subject for me, and dwarves to a somewhat lesser extent. Constantly I see them blindly following Tolkien's example. "But he took them from mythology!" you might say, to which I reply: "No. He looked at mythology, he chose them, and he changed them to suit his preferred image." So when people use them in his vein it is not using mythology. 

In Norse mythology elfs (alfar) were born, yes, but so too were they made. Yes, a human could be made an elf. Witchcraft ran in their blood, which passed to their half-bred children should they have them. And even the light elfs weren't entirely benevolent. Depictions of elfs never showed pointed ears, and they did show beards. They were, as far as we know, identical to humans.

Dwarfs (dvergar) were, believe it or not, never described as short in any of the Norse sagas. They lived underground. Like elves, they were a magical folk, and their magic was in some cases strongly tied to the forge. Little is actually known of them, and in fact a good case can be made that they are in fact synonymous with the dark elves (svartalfar) or black elves (dokkalfar), who may themselves be the same species. I can't remember the exacts of this, or what case/s is/are stronger, but a very strong point is a dwarf named Alfr. Literally elf. Another example, though I can't remember the entire meaning, was Gandalfr. I bet you recognize that name, and Tolkien actually regreted using it.

Taking a look at these old mythologies lets you seperate traits of the Tolkienish variety from the original and create something truly unique. You might keep some Tolkienish traits as a homage, such as pointy ears on your elfs. You're not likely to get away with tall dwarfs. You may by now notice my sporadic use of dwarfs/dwarves and elfs/elves, and that is another thing that goes back to Tolkien if I remember correctly. He changed the plurals.

This may be off topic but I go into those borderlands for a purpose. Tolkien took from mythology and created his own. When we want to be derivitive why can't we, as authors, go back to the source and not the product?

The reason I find Dragon Age: Origins to be balancing on the edge of the bin labeled "Art" is because it took the clichÃ©s and the mainstays of the fantasy genre in a warm embrace and then dashed them against a stone wall repeatedly as blood sprayed the room and made the more traditional works fidget with unease. When it let those clichÃ©s drop to the floors they were deformed but still recognizeable. It was a guilty pleasure to witness that violence.

You see, in the end I don't despise the use of fantasy mainstays so long as they're done in an original way. The problem with this topic is that orcs are a particularly sensitive isue for me. Elves have a long tradition in myth. Dwarves; vampires; werewolves; dragons; trolls; giants; ogres; goblins; selkies; minotaurs; centaurs; harpies; furies; succubi; thunderbirds; kitsune...

But in my opinion (and please, I am not trying to be rude, confrontational or in any other way derogatory), which can and will never change, orcs have and always will be Tolkien's abused intellectual property.


----------



## ALB2012

Interesting thread. Personally I suppose it depends what you are after. I don't mind the "regular" races such as elves etc, I do agree there are stereotypes but it does depend on the story.  If you want familiarity then go with it, I tend to agree to an extent that explain your Xirthi are such and such a race may or may not detract from the story.  I have a teribble memory and if I see an unfamiliar word I will probably have forgotten it by the next time its mentioned and have to go back and look. i would also think hmm long lived, pointy eared forest dwellers- well that is elves then

Of course originality is great and fair play to anyone who comes up with something new. But most fantasy is based, to some extent on Tolkein and that is based on mythology. There is a reason that people are familiar with elves and dwarves and dragons.  Vampires too, of course the definitive vampire is dracula but they have been used in a variety of ways. I bet most people below the age of 16 and female would cite the Twilight Vampires as original. 

The point I am making- both arguments are valid, if  justified. Lots of people like the familiar elves and dwarves, some don't. THis is fair enough, you can't please everyone. If you don't like a book don't buy it. 

My world for example has elves- yes they have pointy ears, they are more magical than the humans, the are older and long lived BUT they are pretty much slaves. They have no official civilisation being restricted to tiny and insular communities, or live in ghetto type dwellings in the city.  They are hunters, but so are humans and trolls. They are also warriors, assassins, thieves, mages, craftspeople, parents, sons, daughters and the same as the other races. 
Humans are dominant at present but that could easily fall and it is mainly a small group of humans. Most just get on and try and survive.  There are a good number of evil humans but also a good number of good and indifferent ones. There are evil elves but they have yet to appear. Why should they not be? 

My trolls are clever, hardy mountain dwellers with horns and shapeshifting/farseeing. But again they are also everything the humans are. In the case of the trolls the society is matrilinial and the ladies are in charge. 

Why didnt I use all humans? Simple answer it suited me the way I have written it. If people don't like it that is ok, if they do great. As I said you can't please everyone.


----------



## Mindfire

Kevlar said:


> Dwarfs (dvergar) were, believe it or not, never described as short in any of the Norse sagas. They lived underground. Like elves, they were a magical folk, and their magic was in some cases strongly tied to the forge. Little is actually known of them, and in fact a good case can be made that they are in fact synonymous with the dark elves (svartalfar) or black elves (dokkalfar), who may themselves be the same species.



Interestingly, Skyrim actually references this fact, or pays homage to it, with the Dwemer, known commonly as "Dwarves", who weren't actually dwarves at all. They were a sophisticated culture of normal-sized elves who just liked to live underground. xD The name "Dwemer" means "Deep Elves", i.e. underground elves or alternately "smart" elves (they were mechanically inclined). Similarly "dvergar" means "deep ones" or "deep elves" I believe.


----------



## Kevlar

Yeah, I meant to point that out and I forgot. I'm not sure the exact meaning of dvergar, but I'm positive it has nothing to do with elves. I believe in Old Norse elf was alfr (silent r, I think), plural alfar.

Wikipedia has this to say: 


> The etymology of the word dwarf is contested, and scholars have proposed varying theories about the origins of the being, including that dwarfs may have originated as nature spirits or beings associated with death, or as a mixture of concepts. Competing etymologies include a basis in the Indo-European root *dheur- (meaning "damage"), the Indo-European root *dhreugh (whence modern German Traum/English dream and trug "deception"), and comparisons have been made with Sanskrit dhvaras (a type of demonic being).



I think all of those possible etymologies open up some truly great possibilities for playing with the species.

Also, back on subject: I just remembered one thing that always bugs me, to a much lesser degree, is the use of wights to refer to undead, which I think can be traced back to (guess who?) Tolkien's barrow-wights. Wight, though, really meant a living thing or human being, and this I'm sure Tolkien knew. Those who came after just assumed it meant an undead creature. Still, I have a lot less issue with this than others.

And, to add on to the orc discussion, I just remembered something else:
The word ork was apparently used in the epic Beowulf. I've heard two theories on its meaning: 1. Savage, unwashed men or barbarians; and 2. Horned demons of some sort.

I'll see if I can verify its presence and find said theories and any others, but Googling "ork" isn't going to help much.


EDIT:

Here's a half-coherent but rather interesting Google translation from Danish Wikipedia:



> In the Old English tale of Beowulf the hero Beowulf fights against the evil Grendel, who is descended from the breed Orc-Neas, meaning "dead Orcus." Grendel lived in a cave under water, just as another of medieval orcs - killer whale. The killer whale is called in English orca and was a source from the Middle Ages described as: SkÃ¦ldet, grissetrynet, stiff brush and had tusks (like the orcs in some fantasy novels).



I think skÃ¦ldet is supposed to be or is the same as skÃ¦llet, which means scaly. I can't figure out grissetrynet, but gris means pig, so that might be telling.

According to Wikipedia, as far as Tolkien was concerned orc/ork was Old English for demon. Him being a Professor of Anglo-Saxon, this is a completely valid theory.


----------



## ShortHair

Late to the party, but this old gamer couldn't let this thread slide past without a word or two.

Suppose I want to tell a story about someone going into a forest. Suppose I want to include characters who live there. If I call those characters potrzebies (to use something besides "not elves"), I have to stop and describe potrzebies because you've never heard of potrzebies before. If potrzebies are basically elves, I've wasted your time and mine by describing an archetype and tacking on a couple of new features. (The Turkey City Lexicon rule is "Call a Rabbit a Smeerp.")

Now, if I call those characters elves, you have a certain response, because you've read other stories that include them. If I continue my story but don't develop them any further, I'm a lazy writer, because I'm relying on your stereotype of elves and nothing else. If I completely deconstruct them, they're not really elves any more, so I might as well call them potrzebies.

Most writers will fall between these two extremes. Suppose my story is a comedy. I introduce some elves, but I make them short, pudgy, and lazy. I've subverted the stereotype to some extent. They're still recognizable as elves, but I've changed them enough to make them memorable.

In straight fiction you get the same behavior. A bad writer uses stereotypes to fully define characters. A decent writer adapts stereotypes to give characters a familiar feel. A good writer creates good characters and gives them traits that may or may not be stereotypical.


----------



## Kit

So it's okay to call a rabbit a smeerp, as long as you develop the concept enough?


----------



## Steerpike

Kit said:


> So it's okay to call a rabbit a smeerp, as long as you develop the concept enough?



I think what Shorthair is saying is that it is OK to call it a smeerp so long as you've developed it to the point that it's not really a rabbit anymore. If it is still a rabbit call it that.


----------



## ThinkerX

Now that I think about it though, Tolkien was NOT the first fantasy author to make use of elves.  James Branch Cabell mentions them several times in his stories, which largely predate Tolkien, as did a couple other authors. 

But the biggie, of course, would be Lord Dunsay's 'King of Elflands Daughter', which revolved in part around elf/human relationships.


----------



## Taro

i don't think it matters if they were used in D&D doesn't mean they can't be used. i think most books have an element from every game/story already done, just need to make it yours. i couldn't really read tolkein apart from the hobbit, i might need to try to read it again. the way he did it was cool.


----------



## shangrila

I don't have a problem with it. If they're just basically described like they came off a cliche check list, like in Eragon, then yeah, it would turn me off. But orcs, elves, dwarves and the like aren't enough to turn me off a book, nor would they really stop me from writing about them.


----------



## Zophos

I don't use orcs. Do use elves, dwarves and gnomes. Also use the fay, which are nothing like hobbits, halflings or kender except for their diminuative size.

Never written anything of any length on gnomes and they are the rarest of the races (because the rest of the world tried to stamp them out), though they have the most fascinating cosmology and religion. Elves don't show up much either except in the lineage of certain humans and fanciful tales. 

I don't see anything wrong with using any of the them as every one long predates Tolkein, Lewis and obviously anything remotely resembling RPGs. Gygax layed down some very common conventions for all of them (and every other magical creature he could find in the arcanum), but his work was more of a catalogue of well-developed and long-developed tropes.

You can make up as many races as you want, but I think the expectations that modern fantasy readers (RPG enthusiasts chief among them) are not something you should take lightly. They will probably translate your race into one of the Big 5 regardless of how you rename, reconfigure or realign them.


----------



## Kevlar

ThinkerX said:
			
		

> Now that I think about it though, Tolkien was NOT the first fantasy author to make use of elves.  James Branch Cabell mentions them several times in his stories, which largely predate Tolkien, as did a couple other authors.
> 
> But the biggie, of course, would be Lord Dunsay's 'King of Elflands Daughter', which revolved in part around elf/human relationships.



Yes, but the modern image of elves as predominately forest dwellers with pointed ears is credited to Tolkien - and even then all we have that says Tolkien's elves had pointed ears is a letter in which he describes hobbit ears as "only slightly pointed and elf-like." He may have been speaking of some other quality than a point, so the one ever-present distinguishing factor of the modern fantasy elf may not exist in the source that spawned it.

Personally, unless I was to write for a premade world, I would never give my elves pointed ears and mostly forest-homes. In the world I'm building right now on this forum I'd come right out and call the Primordials (basically super-powerful humans and giants who displaced an older race and forced the whole Mortal Realm to accept them as gods) elves if not for the cultural connotations and the confusion it would create in a story not revolving around them and not including a foreward to explain. They're entirely identical to their mundane counterparts until they do something magically beyond mortal scope.

Egh, but I'm rambling. I spent most of the night reading REH Conan stories and I haven't had my coffee yet.


----------



## Frog

I think we're dealing with a very situational issue, here.  Tolkien and D&D both established a number of tropes.  Frankly, I think elves, orcs, and mithril are evolving or have evolved out of a simple connection with Tolkien.  Sure, they started there.  Or, they kind of started there.  But then we look at where Tolkien's elves come from, and we realize that he's pulled very heavily on Britannic and Celtic influences (with a little bit of Nordic and Germanic thrown in).  Tolkien condensed a lot of that mythology, repacked it, and gave us Middle Earth.

What we're really talking about here is the use of a trope, and that's something any author in any genre has to deal with.  It exists in all areas of fiction, from the bodice-ripper to the historical.  Tolkien condensed a whole lot of tropes and put some new names on them.  

The pros of the trope have been well-sung in this thread.  It is familiar to readers, and therefore a little comforting.  It allows one to access an entire description in a readers' mind with a single word (rabbit v. smeerp).  It is a little packet of pre-made knowledge just waiting to be triggered by one of us.  That's an advantage.

The cons of the trope have also been well-heralded.  It allows a reader to get lazy and complacent.  It lacks originality.  It makes a piece of work feel highly derivative.

So how do we handle tropes?  Well, some authors embrace the living heck out of them, to the point of making their entire work one big ol' trope.  We've all read them; the book where you pick it up, read it, and put it down, then feel as though you have added absolutely nothing to your life for having done that.  The book isn't necessarily bad, but you're left with the feeling that it's...insubstantial.  Like it doesn't matter.  That's mostly because you've already read that book, and you didn't even know it.

Some authors go long out of their way to avoid tropes.  This can lead to creative worlds, but it can also lead to the sense that the author is trying too hard.  The "call a rabbit a smeerp" phenomenon is the perfect example of this.  When an author wastes my time with an elaborate description of something when he could have just said "rabbit," I feel like that writer is being a little pretentious.  Instead of appropriately using existing tropes, the writer has gone the long way around, but in doing so he's added nothing to my experience.  Painstakingly avoiding tropes can end up making the book just as bad as overusing them.

I say all things in moderation.  If you want your story to have orcs, throw some orcs in there.  It's cool.  Don't throw some slightly-larger-than-human-green-skinned-almost-feral-barbarian-warrior-things-that-act-as-the-villain's-horde-army-and-are-called-Ulifs.  Just...call them orcs.  As long as you don't have your country-bumpkin hero fighting orcs in order to find/destroy the Magic Macguffin being held/sought by the Dark Lord of Whocares while being aided by the ancient wizard Really-its-not-Gandalf and a bunch of mysterious elves, then I don't think you're in any actual danger of being cliche.

Side note: (Lawyer mode activated) Remember that this does not apply to ALL things D&D.  WoTC has a copyright on a number of the unique monsters in D&D.  Using monsters that are copyrighted can get you tagged in a big way.  The fast-and-dirty way to figure out which ones do not is to compare the Pathfinder Beastiary to the 3.5 Monsterous Manual.  If they appear in both of those books, then it's pretty safe to say they're public domain. (End Lawyer Mode)


----------



## Steerpike

As an addendum to that last bit about copyright...keep in mind that the extent to which WotC may be able to protect a creature by copyright (in other words, the idea of the creature) could be fairly limited. The creature's name is generally going to be too short to get the benefit of copyright protection, and you could have reasonable disagreement on the extent to which copyright protects the remaining features of many of them. They seek to add additional support by calling some creatures "Product Identity," and looking at them more as trademarks. That may have some weight, but unless you are using the creatures as trademarks in your own work, the chances of infringement are relatively low (getting away from fiction for a second, if you produce gaming materials and agree to OGL or GSL, then you are agreeing to be bound by contract to what WotC says is Product Identity).

In other words, the rights Wizards of the Coast might claim to have in certain creatures and the rights that they can actually enforce may very well be two different things. What they have in their favor is that they likely have more money to throw at the issue than you do. Even if you turn out to be correct, it can cost you a lot of money to prevail. But I'm not convinced that WotC's game materials are as protected as they think they are. Neither game rules nor "ideas" are protectable by copyright, so there is a lot of area to work in whether you are writing gaming materials or fiction.

Also, we have at least one person in the forums who writes a sort of satire or parody of gaming life, and in that case even if you are using something that is protectable by Copyright or Trademark law, you have a certain degree of freedom to act.

/derail


----------



## Frog

Steerpike said:


> What they have in their favor is that they likely have more money to throw at the issue than you do. Even if you turn out to be correct, it can cost you a lot of money to prevail.



Everything else you said was also true, but I'm pulling out this quote because it is very, very important.  Until your legal budget exceeds that of WotC, I do not recommend testing your theory.


----------



## Steerpike

Frog said:


> Everything else you said was also true, but I'm pulling out this quote because it is very, very important.  Until your legal budget exceeds that of WotC, I do not recommend testing your theory.



Yep. And a copyright or trademark case can run you $300K to $500K, or more, if it goes to trial. It's a real nightmare.


----------



## Zero Angel

Hi all,

I wanted to chime in with my opinion on the original post. I apologize if this has been mentioned but my ADHD really did not agree with reading 8 pages -_-

I think that the OP is approaching this from a writer's perspective instead of from a consumer's perspective. How many people really know where orcs came from at this point in our culture? It's the 2010s, not the 1960s. Orcs may have been new and exciting 50 years ago, but by now they are firmly rooted and I would venture a bet that most non-writer/non-researchers that grow up enjoying fantasy work are unaware of what came first...or at least are unaware for the first several years they are consuming it. 

They may eventually come to appreciate Tolkien's work in building up these creatures and establishing them in our collective minds, but I don't think that they will resent another's work for including these awesome things or for building upon them. In fact, they may come to Tolkien's view of orcs and find them lacking.

I have two races of orcs in my novels, the orcs of Bershidai and the laorcs. The orcs of Bershidai are children of the hunter, while the laorcs are children of nature. 

Am I aware that Tolkien did orcs? Sure. Do I care? Not in the slightest. I think he dropped the ball with orcs in general (although it started rolling after falling!) and that the work that has been done on these races since then is completely awesome instead of rather boring.


----------



## Kevlar

Zero Angel said:
			
		

> Am I aware that Tolkien did orcs? Sure. Do I care? Not in the slightest. I think he dropped the ball with orcs in general (although it started rolling after falling!) and that the work that has been done on these races since then is completely awesome instead of rather boring.



I was perfectly willing to accept your opinions until I read this. There is no way one can look at Tolkien's work and say he dropped the ball with his version of orcs. That's like saying the Ancient Greeks dropped the ball with Zeus, the Egyptians with Ra, the Mayans with Camazots, the Norse with Loki. I'm not trying to be rude (I'm saying this because I know how fickle the mood of written word is) I just can't understand the logic or reason behind your thoughts.

Orcs started with Tolkien. Every feature he ever applied to him form the canon of true orcs. Yes the big, green, steroid-pumped, proud warrior-race-guys can still be called orcs, but they're a bastardized version. They can be considered divorced from the original canon, like Mormons are to Catholics, or they can be considered a reimagining. But in no way can they be considered the evolution of the original. The possibility for the species to evolve in the original canon died with Tolkien. The modern usage of orcs is more like any number of modernizations of Sherlock Holmes, or any Conan story not written by Robert E. Howard. They are a reimagining, a tribute or a spin-off, but certainly not some sort of retcon or true addition or edition of the original canon I keep referring to.

I'm not saying it's stupid to prefer the modern orcs. Its your choice entirely, I would never berate you for it or force my own upon you. Prefering the modern version of something, though, does not degrade the orginal. It would be like a Twilight fan saying VampMeyers are better than vampires proper and therefore true vampires are a stupid version: if you attempt to invalidate the foundation that which you have built upon it comes crumbling down.

Once again, I must enforce that I am in no way trying to offend. I'm simply putting forth my (no doubt opinionated) argument and hoping I misunderstood you in the first place. If I didn't that's just one subject we'll be forced to disagree upon. I won't judge you for something so superficial as having one seperate opinion, as I hope you would not judge me. This subject is completely impersonal.

My regards, and if you read that ramble I commend you.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Kevlar said:


> I'm not saying it's stupid to prefer the modern orcs. Its your choice entirely, I would never berate you for it or force my own upon you. Prefering the modern version of something, though, does not degrade the orginal. It would be like a Twilight fan saying VampMeyers are better than vampires proper and therefore true vampires are a stupid version: if you attempt to invalidate the foundation that which you have built upon it comes crumbling down.



This might sound like an incredibly weird question, but do Tolkien orcs really need to be the foundation of Blizzard orcs? I mean, Klingons fulfilled essentially the same role in later _Star Trek_ seasons, long before Blizzard ever existed, and while they did begin as an "evil" race in TOS, they weren't the same sort of evil that Tolkien orcs were. 

To put it another way, if you want to write Blizzard orcs, can't you write them as if Tolkien orcs never existed? After all, in the universe of your story, they _don't_ exist.


----------



## Steerpike

Blizzard orcs (and a lot of the rest of Warcraft, including art styles) came directly from Warhammer. The orcs in Warhammer are fairly distinct from Tolkien. You wouldn't have to have any knowledge of Tolkien's orcs to figure them out and incorporate them in other works.


----------



## Zero Angel

Hi Kevlar, I think there was some bit of misunderstanding, but also some understanding. I will clarify and elaborate. 



Kevlar said:


> I was perfectly willing to accept your opinions until I read this. There is no way one can look at Tolkien's work and say he dropped the ball with his version of orcs. That's like saying the Ancient Greeks dropped the ball with Zeus, the Egyptians with Ra, the Mayans with Camazots, the Norse with Loki. I'm not trying to be rude (I'm saying this because I know how fickle the mood of written word is) I just can't understand the logic or reason behind your thoughts.


I don't really agree with the metaphor here, although I do understand the intent I believe. Here's where I disagree. Tolkien made all of his creatures up based on legends (with original interpretations and extremely insightful connections and ideas), while the examples you are providing were of peoples that believed those beings existed and were real. They couldn't "drop the ball" because they never had it in the first place--it was just their way of describing the world around them and how they thought it worked. 

Maybe I should have extended the sports analogy a little farther and said that maybe he didn't drop the ball, but I don't think he made it into the endzone. I don't feel Tolkien went far enough with his "orcs". I feel that they are not fleshed out, and what I have read of their origins is conflicting. I've always accepted they were elves tortured to madness, but I believe there is at least one other origin story that is separate from this. I think the idea of them as elves tortured to madness is probably the best thing about Tolkien's work, and not too far-fetched when you consider how far Gollum changed in a single life-time. 



Kevlar said:


> Orcs started with Tolkien. Every feature he ever applied to him form the canon of true orcs. Yes the big, green, steroid-pumped, proud warrior-race-guys can still be called orcs, but they're a bastardized version. They can be considered divorced from the original canon, like Mormons are to Catholics, or they can be considered a reimagining. But in no way can they be considered the evolution of the original. The possibility for the species to evolve in the original canon died with Tolkien. The modern usage of orcs is more like any number of modernizations of Sherlock Holmes, or any Conan story not written by Robert E. Howard. They are a reimagining, a tribute or a spin-off, but certainly not some sort of retcon or true addition or edition of the original canon I keep referring to.


I'm not trying to imply that the current work done with orcs is meant to go back and retcon or add to the original work done with orcs, just that I like all of the different twists and turns orcs have taken in the years since. Whether it is a reimagining or a tribute to Tolkien, it doesn't bother me seeing orcs and when I see orcs, I do _not_ think of Tolkien. I think of strong monstrous humanoids that are (usually) green with boar's teeth. And I like to see what people are going to do with them.

Same thing for dragons. I don't think of the world's mythologies, but rather think of a vaguely reptilian (usually) flying monster that is anywhere from a savage beast to a supergenius. And when I think of wood elves of the Tolkien variety, I don't think of Tolkien, but rather some long-living race that lives in the woods with (usually) pointed ears and an affinity for magick. But these are just ways for me to be familiar with the creature right off the bat and seeing how each mythology (or book series) treats the creature is a treat. 

Also, I do have to bring up. The word "orcs" as first applied to this type of goblin-like creature is attributed to Tolkien, yes. But I do consider them derivative. Goblins were around before orcs and they were basically the same. In fact, Tolkien even started out calling his orcs goblins before he developed the word for them.

That's another thing, I always understood the books to imply that the goblins were the mountain type in the Hobbit and the orcs were a more sturdy version created in LotR, but this thread has prompted me to do a minimum of research and now I see that he had intended them all to be called orcs?! Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I interpret this as he originally called them goblins and then came up with his own name to differentiate his creatures from the other goblins that were out there. 



Kevlar said:


> I'm not saying it's stupid to prefer the modern orcs.


It's not even that I prefer modern orcs, I just like new things--they're shiny. ...and seeing new takes on familiar creatures is something I do enjoy. I have not read any of the books put out by Christopher Tolkien since his father's death, so I am not an expert by any means on the origins of Middle Earth and its races, but again, I would have liked more done than just bestial, small, savage humans with grotesque features that may be descended from insane elves, but might be something else also and bend to the will of whatever strong evil guy is ordering them around.



Kevlar said:


> Its your choice entirely, I would never berate you for it or force my own upon you. Prefering the modern version of something, though, does not degrade the orginal. It would be like a Twilight fan saying VampMeyers are better than vampires proper and therefore true vampires are a stupid version: if you attempt to invalidate the foundation that which you have built upon it comes crumbling down.



I _like_ Tolkien's orcs, so I'm not saying the foundation is bad, but I think this is an instance that is closer to what I was getting at (but possibly was too much in a hurry to expound upon before). Basically, most people (older than the age of 18) think of vampires as Bram Stoker's Dracula or similar, but it is true that there are types of vampires (sometimes called "vampires" and sometimes called something else entirely) the world over. Bram Stoker instead standardized it and gave it its popular name and this is what most of us think of as "true" vampires, even though it was a 19th century creation. 

According to Wikipedia, even the name "orc" is derived from the old English "orc" which means demon. In fact, if you were to draw a picture of an orc from Tolkien's description of them, I think most people would guess it as a goblin, not as what we think of as an orc today. And there is a good reason for this. Because Tolkien based his orcs on the image of goblins that was out at that time. He just standardized them and made up the name. Now, Uruk-hai are at least the right size for modern orcs.  



Kevlar said:


> Once again, I must enforce that I am in no way trying to offend. I'm simply putting forth my (no doubt opinionated) argument and hoping I misunderstood you in the first place. If I didn't that's just one subject we'll be forced to disagree upon. I won't judge you for something so superficial as having one seperate opinion, as I hope you would not judge me. This subject is completely impersonal.


Nothing wrong with intelligent argument! I'm not offended at all. Let me summarize my point of view once and for all:

I like Tolkien's goblins, orcs and uruk-hai, but I do not think of them as handed down from "on high". 
Although I credit Tolkien for standardizing them, I do believe they are derivative
One of my favorite things about any fantasy is seeing how they handle common tropes, including things like orcs and the like.
I especially like seeing new ways of interpreting these creatures that have been around for twice my lifetime (or more).
My main point: The fact that Tolkien had orcs will never prevent me from doing my own take on them (or multiple takes on them in different series).

And actually, after re-reading my post here, I have come to a hidden, but true main point I have been trying to make without realizing it. I fully support the use of any fantastic creature, whether from Tolkien, D&D or whatever, and the reason is that I don't think of the first work that came up with them when I see them--I just think of the creature existing independently. Which, to be honest, is probably one of their creators' greatest accomplishments. 

Hmm, probably some loose ends I never re-threaded, but I think this is relatively complete view of what I was trying to say. Now THAT is some real rambling. I appreciate the exercise!


----------



## Zero Angel

Feo Takahari said:


> This might sound like an incredibly weird question, but do Tolkien orcs really need to be the foundation of Blizzard orcs? I mean, Klingons fulfilled essentially the same role in later _Star Trek_ seasons, long before Blizzard ever existed, and while they did begin as an "evil" race in TOS, they weren't the same sort of evil that Tolkien orcs were.



Great point with the Klingons! I would say you could do it with any number of bestial warrior races. In fact, I have even seen fiction set in the neolithic age that treat neanderthals as a fantasy writer would treat orcs. And plenty of sci-fi series have an orc-like race, not just Star Trek. Nice point


----------



## Frog

Feo Takahari said:


> This might sound like an incredibly weird question, but do Tolkien orcs really need to be the foundation of Blizzard orcs? I mean, Klingons fulfilled essentially the same role in later _Star Trek_ seasons, long before Blizzard ever existed, and while they did begin as an "evil" race in TOS, they weren't the same sort of evil that Tolkien orcs were.



I think you're getting the idea of a foundation a little confused here.  To determine whether X is the foundation for Y, we can ask the simple question "would there be Y without X?"  Blizzard orcs would not be Orcs without Tolkien first inventing Orcs.  I can track that one back pretty easily.

Remember that WoW is not the first game in the series.  It's number four.  Warcraft:  Orcs and Humans was the first.  In that game, the evil orcs invade the human lands for the purpose of pillaging and conquest.  Even in WCII, it is undisputed that the Orcs are evil, and that their purpose is to enslave humanity.  Here's a mission heading from WCII:

"The hour of judgment is close at hand as the Orcish Hordes stand ready to sweep across this domain like a pestilence and seize the capital of Lordaeron. Standing vigilant above the plains like the descending arm of twilight itself, is the Violet Citadel of Dalaran. The Citadel - serving as sanctum and haven to the Mages of Lordaeron - is the last barrier between the Orcs and their subjugation of Humanity. Manifested in the combined magical prowess of all Mages within the Alliance, this place must fall for the Horde to conquer Lordaeron. Fortunately, Orgrim Doomhammer has saved his greatest weapon, ready to unleash it upon the unsuspecting Alliance at just this moment - Dragons."

It wasn't until WCIII that the Orcs were retconned to include their current "noble savage" image.  Are the current Blizzard Orcs like the Tolkien Orcs?  Apart from a couple of surface similarities, no.  But are the Tolkien orcs the foundation for the Blizzard ones?  Undeniably.

I just don't think that's a bad thing.


----------



## Devor

My contention is that there are some types of fantasy you almost cannot do without drawing upon the conventional tropes because there's only so much completely new material you can introduce and still keep readers engaged.  And I don't think there's enough widely accepted racial tropes out there without Tolkein. Monsters, sure, but not races.

Since Blizzard's come up, Warcraft in many ways has a phenomenal story.  Imagine telling it without using orcs, trolls, elves, dwarfed, gnomes . . . I really don't believe it can be done with the same sort of buy-in from an audience. I think too much of it would be too strange.


----------



## Zero Angel

Devor said:


> Since Blizzard's come up, Warcraft in many ways has a phenomenal story.  Imagine telling it without using orcs, trolls, elves, dwarfed, gnomes . . . I really don't believe it can be done with the same sort of buy-in from an audience. I think too much of it would be too strange.



I completely agree. I have dozens of new races in my multiverse, but I always ground my main series entries with the conventional races while introducing newer ones as they fit into the story.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Hmm . . . Can anyone think of a series that focuses heavily on many unconventional races? (The only ones that I can think of are _Stardoc_ and _Schlock Mercenary_.)


----------



## Steerpike

Steven Erikson and Ian Esslemont's Malazan books.


----------



## Ankari

Steerpike said:


> Steven Erikson and Ian Esslemont's Malazan books.



I'm not sure that is the case.  Both of them seem to leave the identity of their (main) races ambiguous.  

Tiste: Elves

Trell (Mappo): Ogre.  Steven Erickson actually uses that word.

Toblakai: Giants

Various shades of humans

The unique races would be the Jaghut, the Forkrul Assail and the Imass (even though that is questionable.  They resemble neanderthals by his description)


----------



## Steerpike

Ankari said:


> I'm not sure that is the case.  Both of them seem to leave the identity of their (main) races ambiguous.
> 
> Tiste: Elves
> 
> Trell (Mappo): Ogre.  Steven Erickson actually uses that word.
> 
> Toblakai: Giants
> 
> Various shades of humans
> 
> The unique races would be the Jaghut, the Forkrul Assail and the Imass (even though that is questionable.  They resemble neanderthals by his description)



It is true that not all of them are unique, but I think he does have a number of unconventional ones. The Tiste races are elf-like, but I don't think they're carbon copies of the traditional elf. As you note, the Jaghut and Forkrul Assail are unique. I think the Imass are fairly unique for a fantasy novel, though I agree that they seem like Neandertals. Also, there are the K'Chain Che'Malle.


----------



## shangrila

Jaghut seem to be orc/troll based. The Imass are more or less zombies; not exactly unique. And Lizardmen like the K'Chain have been done plenty of other times.

I really enjoyed the Malazan series, but his races weren't all that unique once he actually described them. The only one that was, IMO, was the Assail (obviously). But they did a hell of a job with them, so it kind of makes up for the rest.


----------



## Steerpike

The T'lan Imass aren't anything like zombies, in my view. Also the K'Chain Che'Malle may be reptilian, but I don't think they are much like portrayals of lizard men I've seen elsewhere.

To me, it doesn't make sense to simply look at physical characteristics. Otherwise, one could simply say no humanoid race is unique or unconventional. I think what Erikson and Esslemont have done is to establish some fairly unconventional races and have them play a large role in the world. Even the Teblor subgroup of the Toblakai are fairly unique in terms of how they are presented. You can't just say "Oh, they're tall and they have two arms and two legs, and that's been done," in my view. The details are where the races are going to be alike or different.


----------



## Ankari

The Imass pre-ritual were alive.  They resemble neanderthal.  After ritual they change to T'ann Imass or something like that


----------



## Steerpike

Ankari said:


> The Imass pre-ritual were alive.  They resemble neanderthal.  After ritual they change to T'ann Imass or something like that



They don't behave like zombies, however. They are undead, but they're not mindless.


----------



## Steerpike

As another example, suppose you come up with a cat race. OK, read _The Pride of Chanur_, or any of the Kzin books. But are your cats anything like those cats? If not, they can still be unique notwithstanding the fact that someone else has made a cat-like race.


----------



## Feo Takahari

I haven't read the Malazan series, but it may be that Erikson utilized the Five Races or a similar framework. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with this, though I'd prefer a little tinkering with the formula rather than just giving the reader straight-up orcs and elves.


----------



## Steerpike

Feo Takahari said:


> I haven't read the Malazan series, but it may be that Erikson utilized the Five Races or a similar framework. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with this, though I'd prefer a little tinkering with the formula rather than just giving the reader straight-up orcs and elves.



He doesn't use the Five Races. There are humans of various kinds, of course, and the Tiste races (Tiste Andii, Tiste Edur, etc.) are elf-like, but other than that the races are the ones we've been discussing above. I think the problem with the Five Races is that people tend to use them as limiting. There is nothing wrong with having the characteristics outlined there, but if your race has depth then you aren't really limiting yourself by operating within the Five Races confine.


----------



## Zero Angel

I agree with Steerpike here in that if your race is unique and has its own characteristics, go ahead and define it as being different. 

Please make a website though that at least nods to the influences (if you were influenced by them). One of the things I hate about the Wheel of Time is figuring out all of the apostrophe'd creatures and what they were _really_ supposed to be. 

I guess this is because I feel that he didn't describe them well enough for me to understand what he was talking about. 

(I love WoT and Robert Jordan though, so please don't take my nit-picking for despoiling one of your gods).


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel - not to derail too much, but have you read any of the WoT books by Sanderson? I sort of stopped right before that and thought of picking them up again.


----------



## shangrila

It doesn't matter that they're not mindless. They're rotting corpses that move. I'll give those guys credit for putting a unique twist on them, but it isn't like they broke the mold ala the Assail. This is all I'm really saying; they didn't do anything super special, not that they didn't have an interesting group of races.


----------



## Wynnara

I haven't read this full thread, but I find myself leaning toward the idea of giving the reader a place to start and then refining from there. 

I have elves in my novel that have elfish qualities and part the reason I included them as one of my races is because I wanted to say "yes, this is a _fantasy_ world that has _magic_ in it" etc. etc... particularly since magic is an element that isn't immediately obvious to the reader. I wanted to be able to say "elf" and for people to picture something non-human and magical in their mind. I would then go in and refine that image by saying the elves in my world have physical qualities of X, Y and Z.

I had a similar problem when I decided to include dire wolves in my novel. I am perhaps not as well-read as many of the fantasy authors here, so I was unaware of their usage by George R.R. Martin--and I imagine others as well. I actually came across them on wikipedia when I discovered them as a large prehistoric wolf. I ultimately decided to keep them in for the same reason as the elves. While I could come up with a wacky name for them, what I really wanted to get across as quickly as possible was really big wolf and then again, just painting in the specific details of my version.


----------



## Zero Angel

Steerpike said:


> Zero Angel - not to derail too much, but have you read any of the WoT books by Sanderson? I sort of stopped right before that and thought of picking them up again.


Yes. I've read the first two and the third is coming out next year I believe. They are beyond worth it. If you are paying _close_ attention, you can tell the difference between the two, but I think he does a great job of imitating Robert Jordan's style. Also, since he is trying to close out the series as fast as possible (although doing so by turning one book into a 900K word trilogy) you get so much of the satisfaction that you have been denied for several of the middle books. 

It was getting to the point in the series where I would read entire books and feel like nothing happened. I think Knife of Dreams picked up the pace considerably (the last by Jordan) and is my favorite of his last several books, but Sanderson increases the pace even more and is constantly rewarding the reader. 

As an aside, I really get frustrated with the male-female relationships in this book because it is an example of "We could figure it out if we would just talk to each other but I know better than they do" which is soooo frustrating to me when it shows up in books and movies.



Wynnara said:


> I haven't read this full thread, but I find myself leaning toward the idea of giving the reader a place to start and then refining from there.
> 
> I have elves in my novel that have elfish qualities and part the reason I included them as one of my races is because I wanted to say "yes, this is a _fantasy_ world that has _magic_ in it" etc. etc... particularly since magic is an element that isn't immediately obvious to the reader. I wanted to be able to say "elf" and for people to picture something non-human and magical in their mind. I would then go in and refine that image by saying the elves in my world have physical qualities of X, Y and Z.


I pretty much agree with you on all counts here. I believe this is the primary positive to use most of the stock races. The reader immediately has a starting point and is not wholly reliant on you for the description. Of course, this could just be me being lazy and not wanting to fully describe everything, but I'd like to think that it was for the reader's benefit...



Wynnara said:


> I had a similar problem when I decided to include dire wolves in my novel. I am perhaps not as well-read as many of the fantasy authors here, so I was unaware of their usage by George R.R. Martin--and I imagine others as well. I actually came across them on wikipedia when I discovered them as a large prehistoric wolf. I ultimately decided to keep them in for the same reason as the elves. While I could come up with a wacky name for them, what I really wanted to get across as quickly as possible was really big wolf and then again, just painting in the specific details of my version.



I am surprised this was your first encounter with them, but I have been playing D&D for a while. In D&D, _dire_ anything is a large, usually more aggressive version of an animal. Still, if people accuse you of ripping off Martin with dire wolves, then you can accuse them of being wayyy late to the game.


----------



## Wynnara

Zero Angel said:


> I am surprised this was your first encounter with them, but I have been playing D&D for a while. In D&D, _dire_ anything is a large, usually more aggressive version of an animal. Still, if people accuse you of ripping off Martin with dire wolves, then you can accuse them of being wayyy late to the game.



Hehe, well my strongest memory of D&D is being in Gr. 6 or so and the boys in the class not letting me play... mostly I suspect because I'm a girl.


----------



## Zero Angel

Wynnara said:


> Hehe, well my strongest memory of D&D is being in Gr. 6 or so and the boys in the class not letting me play... mostly I suspect because I'm a girl.



Wow. I always thought guys wanted girls to enjoy their dorkiness....maybe that's a development that came about in high school though.


----------



## Mindfire

Zero Angel said:


> Wow. I always thought guys wanted girls to enjoy their dorkiness....maybe that's a development that came about in high school though.



Nope. Middle school is firmly within girl vs. boy, "us vs. them" territory. Or at least it used to be. Kids these days.


----------



## SeverinR

I use mythical beings(humanoids/animals/monsters) that D&D also used.
I do not use D&D stats or characturistics except for those that are common to the myths.

I agree, if you use a Monster manual, fiend folio, MM2, and don't change anything about them, then it is fan-fic.

IMO beginning writers use established creations because they don't understand they can create anything from the original.  But eventually they will figure out they are the god of their world.


----------



## dangit

Chilari said:


> You don't need non-human races at all, or special metals. Can't people with superior weapons or armour just have more advanced technology? Can't a warlike culture be human - look at Sparta. Or the Roman empire. Or a nature-loving, vegetarian group - why elves? There are human examples. Hippies, for a start. Humanity is varied enough on its own to cover most humanoid races. Where things get supernatural - dryads and fae and nymphs, who are part of nature (certain types of dryad, for example, die if the tree they are born of is cut down) - by all means go with established species.



I agree with this portion. Not so much the rest


----------



## SeverinR

Why use D&D races in our stories? 
Because NASCAR races just don't fit...and they are copyritghted.


----------



## Gurkhal

I'm one of the people who thinks that using D&D races is a dumpster dive for any author or aspiring author. I don't get why people would really take something from D&D and try to fit it into their own stories. Inspiration is perfectly ok, but taking things, like drow, as a massive block and just move it between settings is something that eludes me.


----------



## Sparkie

I'm not sure how much 'race' matters in fantasy.  Regardless of what kind of racial variety you choose for your world, remember to write stories about _people,_ not races.


----------



## Zireael

Gurkhal said:


> I'm one of the people who thinks that using D&D races is a dumpster dive for any author or aspiring author. I don't get why people would really take something from D&D and try to fit it into their own stories. Inspiration is perfectly ok, but taking things, like drow, as a massive block and just move it between settings is something that eludes me.



I'm not sure why it eludes you. After all, D&D has no generic setting in its newer iterations, and you can use D&D in any setting (i.e. world) you wish.


----------



## Phietadix

A good book I've read the Burnfield Prohiesies (I'm not sure if I spelled that right) by Wayne Thomas Batson. Has elves as the main characters, but he added some new things to them, sure they still like trees and elagent buildings, but they are the children of light. A new thing he added, if they don't have sunlight hit their skin for a few days they die. He also had gnomes and changed them a little and added a new race of his own, the Gwar.


----------



## gethinmorgan

What an unutterably delightful thread ... (all IMO, in an non-argumentative, peace-loving way!)

I think this question goes part-way to explain why gritty-realist fantasy is making so much headway now. The awe-factor involved with alternative, alien races (as they would have been in Tolkien's time)  has been washed away by overuse. And even Tollkien went too far sometimes (Tom Bombadil, anyone?)

Thus fantasy has to seek new awe-inspiring things to wow the crowds. Enter Martin with his _The History of the Borgias_,  Erikkson with his paleontology/sociology background, Bakker with his philosophy/psychology.

The danger of using old tropes is that is doesn't move the genre forward, but only walks on pathways already cut back by others. While I love these to wile away an afternoon of hack-and-slash, they are, as already said, entertainment, for the same reason I love reading Star Trek novels, for using a known universe and rearranging some of the pieces for a new interesting plot. Which I forget once I've put the book down.

That is my readerly opinion.

My writerly opinion is gathered from years of being derided for reading 'that kind of crap' by people who didn't understand the genre; what freedoms Fantasy offers a writer, and how wide, or deep, or honest, or true a fantasy story can be. Case in point, *Mythago Wood* by Robert Holdstock. To put it nicely, that book blew the top of my head off ... with such imagination, such scope. A little part of me wished it was true, believed in magic again, wondered where my nearest Mythago would be ...

That book is ART. That book inspired me

Compare this to _another_ Orc Chieftain, looking down at a quiet little valley, thinking about the _good eating_ to come, or _another_ elf stringing his bow, looking up and saying "two riders approach" in a spooky voice. From this,  I can imagine the 'Making of' extras on the DVD, I can imagine the action figures, the versions of monopoly, or the fact that it gets mentioned on _Big Bang Theory_, and that it's part of geekdom and cosplay, and is a *product* rather than a work of *art*.

Which makes me sound like a real snob. Which I'm not. I like both, but I definitely prefer one more than the other.


----------



## Reaver

Phietadix said:


> ...and added a new race of his own, the *Gwar*.



GWAR? Outf**kinstanding! Any story with them in it is my kinda story.


----------



## Phietadix

I can't see videos on my computer . . . but something tells me you don't know what these gwar are.


----------



## kilost

Actually, quite relevant, in my WIP I'm using a bunch of standard fantasy races. However, I'm trying to give at least some cultures of each a unique spin. For example, only one culture among the humans is based on feudal Western Europe, with many others being based on West African, East African, Arabian and purely imaginary cultures. Among the dwarves, I've got more Inca-like groups, but also Plain Dwarves, living in warrens under the plains, emerging to hunt bison. I'm basing my merfolk cultures on different sea mammals. I've also got Tundra Orcs, an island-hopping Elven culture, etc.

I am of the opinion that the old-fashioned races are fun, but if you really wanna grab some attention, give them a unique twist.


----------



## Ghost

Phietadix said:


> something tells me you don't know what these gwar are.



Hey, the band GWAR was my first thought, too. Some guy tried to convince me they are the best band ever. They come to Albuquerque on their tours, but I haven't gone to see them.

I think you'll have to get used to the association if you're not changing the name. It's going to come up, especially from fans of metal.


----------



## Phietadix

Ghost said:


> I think you'll have to get used to the association if you're not changing the name. It's going to come up, especially from fans of metal.



If *I'm* not changing the name? I didn't write that book, I said the some of the things the author did with the classic D&D races. My races (Except humans) aren't D&D.


----------



## Ghost

Ah, I misread it. Sorry!

So Batson and Hopper have elves, gnomes, spiders, and gwar? (Along with drefids, which reminds me of triffids, but I'm probably the only one who'd think that.)

GWAR's been around since the eighties and the first Berinfell Prophesies book came out in 2009, but it's a MG series. I doubt many GWAR fans are in middle school.


----------



## rocknrollforyoursoul

I agree with the original post. I LOVE Tolkien, and I'm constantly in search of good, new fantasy writing, and though there are many reasons why this is such a difficult task for me, a big one is that if I'm in a bookstore and see a fantasy book that features orcs, I instantly think "Tolkien ripoff" and move on. Same thing when I see halflings. Heck, I even usually move on quickly when I see dwarves and elves, because even though Tolkien didn't invent those two, there is no doubt in my mind that he is the one most responsible for their popularity, so by and large I see others' use of these races as expressing a decided lack of originality. The world knows pretty much all there is to know about dwarves, elves, orcs, and halflings ... come up with something else.


----------



## SeverinR

I guess I'm weird, I played D&D before reading some of LOTR.
I don't routinely find many books with elves, if I do I give it a good look unless they talk of Christmas elves.

As with any cliche, avoid it. If you write of Tolkien elves, dwarves, and orcs, you will always be a shadow of the great.  Break out and make them yours.
As I have said many times,
WHo wants to read about humans, 95% or more has been written about humans, humans have to be cliche by now. But people still write about humans, they aren't cliche, worn out.  No race of story being is worn out more then humans, but people still read about them.


----------



## Steerpike

A good writer can make any subject matter fresh. Doesn't matter whether it is elves, orcs, vampires, halfings, or whatever.


----------



## Zero Angel

By now, haven't we all come to the conclusion that some people will hate it* no matter what so write what you want to write?

* — Re-using races or coming up with your own.


----------



## Fakefaux

One of the reasons I respect Tolkien so much (also Bram Stoker, for similar reasons) is because he went through the folklore and mythologies that interested him, doing extensive research. He picked and chose, kept some elements and not others, and slowly formed something that was his, something unique, out of the rich traditions of human belief and history. Our world is filled with incredible mythologies and folk traditions, a vast source of inspiration and material that anyone can tap into. Fantasy fiction has, for the most part, barely scratched its surface. 

Which is why when I see a writer using a carbon copy of Tolkien's elves, or Bram Stoker's vampires, or some variant of another author's creations, I tune out. It's derivative and unimaginative, and I have no patience for it.


----------



## TheTdroid

I am far from an expert about these things, but I am under the impression that this depends on how you present them. If you present them as cruel and "simply" an enemy or as a direct ripoff of the D&D version, then I would agree. However, if you take your own spin at them I am sure people will see that it is not simply a bluecopy.


----------



## OGone

I need help with this topic, actually. In my story I'd planned to use a race of gorillas whom live in savanna, stand on hind legs and have developed their own culture.... I named them "Girallon" then googled that and found a D&D race with the exact same name. I looked around but couldn't find any copyright issues, would they be okay to use? Their Girallons are four armed beast things...


----------



## Zero Angel

OGone said:


> I need help with this topic, actually. In my story I'd planned to use a race of gorillas whom live in savanna, stand on hind legs and have developed their own culture.... I named them "Girallon" then googled that and found a D&D race with the exact same name. I looked around but couldn't find any copyright issues, would they be okay to use? Their Girallons are four armed beast things...



How did you go through the naming? You're OK though. Here's the quote from d20srd.org



> The following monsters are considered "Product Identity" by Wizards of the Coast and are therefore not part of the SRD:
> 
> beholder
> gauth
> carrion crawler
> displacer beast
> githyanki
> githzerai
> kuo-toa
> mind flayer
> slaad
> umber hulk
> yuan-ti​


----------



## Steerpike

Whether or not WotC considers it Product Identity is helpful in terms of telling you how they view something. A person writing a story isn't going to party to the OGL, however, and isn't going to be bound contractually by WotC's definition of "Product Identity." To the extent WotC actually thinks it has trademark rights in all of those terms, I am skeptical of their chances of prevailing in court. That said, it would take a lot of money that WotC/Hasbro has and none of us likely do in order to find out


----------



## OGone

Zero Angel said:


> How did you go through the naming? You're OK though. Here's the quote from d20srd.org



I imagined them up way back when I was a kid in school and wanted to eventually create a fantasy world, I'd watched Planet of the Apes and just had a race of gorilla people called Gorilla, the "n" slapped on the end to make it seem more... racey? I renamed them the Girallon because back then naming things with anagrams seemed cool to me and "Gorillan" seemed a bit too blatant. I'll attribute the name to deriving from one of my created language's lexicon at some stage. 

The name really stuck with, though. Whilst researching mythical creatures on one site, I saw "Girallon" pop up and was like whattttt some snitch stole my idea. Then I found out they were a D&D creature, looked them up and thankfully they had nothing alike with my apes aside from white fur. I googled them again a moment ago and apparently they are in World of Warcraft (which I've never played) too. 



Steerpike said:


> Whether or not WotC considers it Product Identity is helpful in terms of telling you how they view something. A person writing a story isn't going to party to the OGL, however, and isn't going to be bound contractually by WotC's definition of "Product Identity." To the extent WotC actually thinks it has trademark rights in all of those terms, I am skeptical of their chances of prevailing in court. That said, it would take a lot of money that WotC/Hasbro has and none of us likely do in order to find out



Well I'll just continue calling them Girallon then and if I eventually, hopefully do find myself in a position where this becomes an issue then I'll be overwhelmingly happy that I'm actually selling enough books for somebody to care!


----------



## Steerpike

I wouldn't worry much about using the term Girallon.


----------



## Bortasz

In short:
you use tropes = races because they work. 

If I want race that life for long time, like art and life in forest I will call them Elf. 

If I want a science race that are very good craftsman I will call them Gnomes or Dwarfs. 

I use this names so people can associate the race with some basic. Dwarfs are short, bearded, beer loving miners/craftsman. Why creating new race for savage race with almost unlimited regeneration when I can simple call them Trolls and everybody will understand what expect from them.


----------



## WooHooMan

I find it strange how some people are _so_ afraid of appearing derivative.  I think cliches are best when they're *used* rather than avoided.

Now, why would I use a D&D race?  Because if the story/setting demand a species of humanoid monsters, I would prefer just having to call them "trolls" or "ogres" than taking time out of the story to explain who they are, what they do and make sure the reader can remember what they are called.  Call them "troll" and the reader is like "oh, I get it".

I also don't believe that the fact that you can trace the orcs to a specific person somehow makes it "less valid" than vampires.  I mean, you could argue modern vampires came from John William Polidori or Bram Stoker.
And really, did Tolkien *invent* orcs or did he just rename ogres?  Couldn't you have called them "ogres" and it wouldn't make any difference?

Personally, in my current thing I'm writing (which has an intentionally conventional setting), I do mostly avoid the *word* "orc" and completely avoid the word "hobbit" because I don't like those names.  I'm calling them "ogres and gnomes".  It makes no difference really except I won't need to worry about people saying I'm directly copying Tolkien.


----------



## Devor

WooHooMan said:


> Personally, in my current thing I'm writing (which has an intentionally conventional setting), I do mostly avoid the *word* "orc" and completely avoid the word "hobbit" because I don't like those names.



It's worth noting that unlike the rest, the word "hobbit" was trademarked and can't be used for anything hobbit-like.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Devor said:


> It's worth noting that unlike the rest, the word "hobbit" was trademarked and can't be used for anything hobbit-like.



Indeed. 
I wasn't aware of this when I started out. I had to come up with a new name for my hobbits - even just making the decision to change the name was difficult.


----------



## Fyle

Lots of responses on this one here, I am not 100% certain on what the argument here is, but to me it boils down to what is up for grabs to use from history, and was is going to be associated with Dungeons and Dragons or Tolkien if used in your original work.

I have to agree with the OP for the most part here, the fact of the matter is certain races in thier modern form have been made familiar by Tolkien and D&D. If you include specific races that are not generic from age old fairytales (generic means to me - dragon or mermaid which has no creators name associated with it) the imitation red flag will go up in many peoples minds.

I'm pretty sure GRRM realized this as well when he wrote A Song of lce and Fire, which is why you see generics; dragons, giants and zombies, but no "elves" or "orcs" in Westeros.


----------



## WooHooMan

Fyle said:


> the fact of the matter is certain races in thier modern form have been made familiar by Tolkien and D&D. If you include specific races that are not generic from age old fairytales (generic means to me - dragon or mermaid which has no creators name associated with it) the imitation red flag will go up in many peoples.



This is a complete assumption.  I think most modern readers have accepted elves and probably orcs as fantasy mainstays despite their origins.  Only the most inexperience fantasy reader will see the word "orc" and immediately assume that the author is ripping-off D&D or Tolkien.

I'm guessing GRRM choice to avoid elves and orcs probably comes from the fact that he chose to work on a grittier, human vs. human conflict rather than Tolkien-esque "high fantasy" racial conflicts.  Not because he was afraid of people accusing him of imitating someone else.


----------



## Trick

WooHooMan said:


> I think most modern readers have accepted elves and probably orcs as fantasy mainstays despite their origins.  Only the most inexperience fantasy reader will see the word "orc" and immediately assume that the author is ripping-off D&D or Tolkien.



Elves were very established in mythology before Tolkien ever put pen to paper and I would use them, although have not yet to date. Orcs may have a basis in mythology but they are Tolkien's brainchild. Every time I hear or see the word Orc, I think of Tolkien and I am not an inexperienced fantasy reader. I am, however, not a D&D player. Orcs have only one source in my mind, as I imagine they do in many others'. I have no problem with someone using them but I will not, for two reasons: 1.) I simply don't like the idea of an entire sentient, humanoid race that is evil as a whole... it's simply too far from reality for me. In one case where I need that function to be fulfilled, I used demons. 2.) It's easy to come up with my own name for a race and to vary them enough from Orcs that I simply do not need to use Tolkien's idea so directly.


----------



## WooHooMan

Trick said:


> Elves were very established in mythology before Tolkien ever put pen to paper and I would use them, although have not yet to date. Orcs may have a basis in mythology but they are Tolkien's brainchild. Every time I hear or see the word Orc, I think of Tolkien and I am not an inexperienced fantasy reader. I am, however, not a D&D player. Orcs have only one source in my mind, as I imagine they do in many others'.



I believe that with the Elder Scrolls and World of Warcraft recent rise in popularity, many newer writers/readers will see other sources.  In fact, Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall was probably my first look at orcs.
Likewise, D&D has been a major influence in fantasy fiction since the 70's.
The fact that many people say that Tolkien is the definitive example of nearly every fantasy element isn't good for the genre.  It causes a lot of people to become afraid of using the conventions in fear that they will be dismissed as a Tolkien copycat.

I also disagree that the orcs are a Tolkien brainchild.  I do agree that the word "orc" may be Tolkien's (this is debatable, it might be an Old English word or an Anglicized form of the French word "orke" which means "ogre") but not the concept.  In Tolkien's etymology, the word "orc" means ogre or monster.  They are ogres by a different name.  Tolkien had his own version of the orcs, sure, but they are not a more valid version than Elder Scrolls, D&D or WoW simply because they came first or have a bigger influence.



Trick said:


> I simply don't like the idea of an entire sentient, humanoid race that is evil as a whole... it's simply too far from reality for me.



This was a trait in Tolkien's orcs but they are not an indisputable staple of orc lore.  The fact that other fantasy works (like D&D) portray orcs in a less morally dark light demonstrates that the orcs have moved beyond Tolkien's versions.


----------



## Ireth

Even Tolkien's orcs were not Always Chaotic Evil, as it went against the grain of Tolkien's religious beliefs. We just don't get to see things from the orcs' point of view. There might well have been good orcs among the armies the other races fought, who were forced into the war against their will. They themselves may not even have really realized they were good.


----------



## Trick

WooHooMan said:


> I believe that with the Elder Scrolls and World of Warcraft recent rise in popularity, many newer writers/readers will see other sources.  In fact, Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall was probably my first look at orcs.
> Likewise, D&D has been a major influence in fantasy fiction since the 70's.
> The fact that many people say that Tolkien is the definitive example of nearly every fantasy element isn't good for the genre.  It causes a lot of people to become afraid of using the conventions in fear that they will be dismissed as a Tolkien copycat.



Like I said previously, I have never been into D&D. Elder Scrolls and WoW are also not things I've taken part in. I do not think, however, that Tolkien is the definitive example of "nearly every fantasy element." Quite the contrary; he based so much of his work on mythology that he is far from the father of fantasy in my mind. Tolkien's fame, it seems to me, is more about quality than originality. 

However, using the word Orc, much like using the word Hobbit (which I know is copyrighted and thus a different situation) just brings Tolkien into my mind. I would prefer to use their generic basis, ogre, or my own invented name because it bothers me, even if it never bothered any reader. 



WooHooMan said:


> I also disagree that the orcs are a Tolkien brainchild.  I do agree that the word "orc" may be Tolkien's (this is debatable, it might be an Old English word or an Anglicized form of the French word "orke" which means "ogre") but not the concept.  In Tolkien's etymology, the word "orc" means ogre or monster.  They are ogres by a different name.  Tolkien had his own version of the orcs, sure, but they are not a more valid version than Elder Scrolls, D&D or WoW simply because they came first or have a bigger influence.



It is very likely that he invented the word based on existing words. I would argue that if Tolkien had never used Orcs in his work, they would not be in D&D or any other fantasy game/work. As a matter of fact, if Tolkien had never written about them I don't think we'd be discussing this at all. As for Tolkien's Orcs, they may not be a more valid version but they, in your own words, "came first" and "have a bigger influence." That is precisely my point. I prefer to avoid that influence being too heavily implied in my own work and would feel the same using Orcs from D&D etc. 



WooHooMan said:


> This was a trait in Tolkien's orcs but they are not an indisputable staple of orc lore.  The fact that other fantasy works (like D&D) portray orcs in a less morally dark light demonstrates that the orcs have moved beyond Tolkien's versions.



I can agree but the "bad race" stigma is strong and all I'm saying is that I will never use Orcs. Not the name and not Tolkien's concept of them. If a race in my work resembles Orcs from other sources, at least it will be coincidental.


----------



## Mythopoet

Trick said:


> I simply don't like the idea of an entire sentient, humanoid race that is evil as a whole... it's simply too far from reality for me.



Well, fortunately, that isn't the case with Tolkien's Orcs. It only appears that way if you don't give much thought to the Orcs. Tolkien, however, did give a lot of thought to his Orcs and knew that they couldn't be wholly evil. It would contradict the entire nature of Middle-earth. Judging an entire race based on the few soldiers of that race that actually figure into the story is silly.


----------



## Ireth

Mythopoet said:


> Well, fortunately, that isn't the case with Tolkien's Orcs. It only appears that way if you don't give much thought to the Orcs. Tolkien, however, did give a lot of thought to his Orcs and knew that they couldn't be wholly evil. It would contradict the entire nature of Middle-earth. Judging an entire race based on the few soldiers of that race that actually figure into the story is silly.



Basically what I said.


----------



## Trick

Mythopoet said:


> Well, fortunately, that isn't the case with Tolkien's Orcs. It only appears that way if you don't give much thought to the Orcs. Tolkien, however, did give a lot of thought to his Orcs and knew that they couldn't be wholly evil. It would contradict the entire nature of Middle-earth. Judging an entire race based on the few soldiers of that race that actually figure into the story is silly.



"the few soldiers" ? I think 'few' is entirely the wrong word. If you're referencing the Named Orcs, all well and good but the fact that there are no Orcs who take part in the story that are good, even slightly, implies something; especially considering the nearly black and white morality. No one ever goes to the Orcs and tries to convince them to change their ways, it is silently taken for granted that they are just meaty, battlefield fodder. There's also the idea that they are tainted elves, driven to a madness-like state through torture and that they are now corrupt at birth. Tolkien never confirmed nor denied these things definitively enough for you to say that one opinion (or many in agreement, in this case) is silly simply because you think differently. You're awfully sure of what Tolkien thought about his Orcs; were you a personal friend or are you just putting your own opinion out as fact?


----------



## Steerpike

Trick said:


> 1.) I simply don't like the idea of an entire sentient, humanoid race that is evil as a whole... it's simply too far from reality for me.



The number of things in a fantasy work that depart far from reality are too numerable to list, but this is the one that does it for you? I don't think it is any more unrealistic than having dragons flying around or wizards flinging fireballs, or gods intervening in mortal affairs, and so on.


----------



## Trick

Steerpike said:


> The number of things in a fantasy work that depart far from reality are too numerable to list, but this is the one that does it for you? I don't think it is any more unrealistic than having dragons flying around or wizards flinging fireballs, or gods intervening in mortal affairs, and so on.



Actually, yes, and ideas like it. I love fantasy but there are many instances of ideas that lack explanation and I prefer something more definitive. If you say, "In this world, magic exists." I can take that at face value but saying, "All Orcs are evil." and then just moving on, especially in an epic work, doesn't do it for me. I'll even qualify per Mythopoet's assumption: "All Orcs that appear in this work are evil, and I will not discuss any other Orcs who may or may not be evil." That doesn't work for me either. This is just my taste, not the way things should be definitively. I want more conflict based on real emotion, from villains especially; even nameless villains without speaking roles are people.

One could argue that the Orcs are closer to animals than men. I don't agree, but even if that were the case, have you ever met an evil dog? A bad dog, sure, but that's because of bad owners. How about an evil puppy? Probably not. Since I can't see Orc babies trying to kill as soon as they can crawl, it doesn't work for me. I just want better backstory/explanation.


----------



## Steerpike

In Tolkien, I think orcs were created by, and/or corrupted by, sorcery. So if you can accept magic exists, what's the problem in accepting that magic can be used to create a race of wholly evil creatures?


----------



## Devor

I'm a little confused. Is it ever stated that orcs are evil?

Evil requires some degree of conscious decision. But there are impulses that lead people to at least some propensity of anger and violence. Given the way orcs fight anything, even each other, I don't think "evil race" is an accurate description. Evil army? Sure, okay. But I think orcs are more about intense violence than about raw evil. And I don't find that in any way difficult to accept as a fantasy race.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Steerpike said:


> In Tolkien, I think orcs were created by, and/or corrupted by, sorcery. So if you can accept magic exists, what's the problem in accepting that magic can be used to create a race of wholly evil creatures?



I think it related to what's believable or not.

As humans we have a whole lot of preconceived notions about how things are supposed to be. Logically, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to create a complete species where the natural alignment of the average member is evil. You just magic it up and that's it.
It does feel a bit thin though; a bit weak. 
How would such a species survive on its own in the long run? What's to prevent them from crumbling under their own evil nature, or to give in to infighting or some other form of squabbles. What's keeping them from destroying themselves. You can explain this by magic as well, but I'm resisting the idea even more now.
Why do I do that? Because in some way, I'm basing my image of what intelligent beings are like on my own experience of intelligent beings. It may not be right and it may not be fair, but subconsciously I'm still applying human values to the evil race and if they're behaving in a way that seems unnatural to me I'll react negatively to it when reading about it.

Accepting that someone can shot fireballs from their hands or turn into a giant wolf or that there are dragons, is pretty easy.
Accepting that someone will behave in an unnatural or illogical fashion is a lot more difficult.

EDIT: I'm not on about Tolkien's orcs specifically, but about a hypothetical magically created purely evil race.


----------



## Mythopoet

Svrtnsse said:


> Why do I do that? Because in some way, I'm basing my image of what intelligent beings are like on my own experience of intelligent beings. It may not be right and it may not be fair, but subconsciously I'm still applying human values to the evil race and if they're behaving in a way that seems unnatural to me I'll react negatively to it when reading about it.



It's nonsensical to apply human values to an obviously non-human race. Honestly, I would expect readers of fantasy and sci fi to be more open minded than that.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Mythopoet said:


> It's nonsensical to apply human values to an obviously non-human race. Honestly, I would expect readers of fantasy and sci fi to be more open minded than that.



Yes, ideally they would be, but I think there are limits for how open minded it's possible for people to be. These limits obviously vary from person to person and some are more open-minded than others. Overall though, I think it's very difficult for a majority of people to step completely outside of their regular frames of reference.


----------



## Trick

Steerpike said:


> In Tolkien, I think orcs were created by, and/or corrupted by, sorcery. So if you can accept magic exists, what's the problem in accepting that magic can be used to create a race of wholly evil creatures?



I would accept that if it were definitively explained to be the case. Since it's not, the reasoning behind the Orcs is unclear. I don't want to do that in my own writing. It also turns me off of books with similar ideas that are not explained. I'd look past it in a book with many other qualities but I'd have to be in love with the work before it came up. It's just taste, not fact.



Devor said:


> I'm a little confused. Is it ever stated that orcs are evil?
> 
> Evil requires some degree of conscious decision. But there are impulses that lead people to at least some propensity of anger and violence. Given the way orcs fight anything, even each other, I don't think "evil race" is an accurate description. Evil army? Sure, okay. But I think orcs are more about intense violence than about raw evil. And I don't find that in any way difficult to accept as a fantasy race.



You imply that the Orcs are closer to animals than humans (that's at least how I understand what you said) because there are plenty of humans with violent tendencies who choose not to act on them because of the ability to reason, and choose what they believe to be the right or moral course. The Orcs' instincts are violent and then they are used, somewhat like war dogs, by evil characters. If that is what Tolkien intended I think they should not have been able to speak because it implies a level of humanity that causes me to judge them on our level. I don't disagree with you, I think that Tolkien was not clear enough about Orcs for there to be a definitive answer.



Mythopoet said:


> It's nonsensical to apply human values to an obviously non-human race. Honestly, I would expect readers of fantasy and sci fi to be more open minded than that.



Throwing out words like 'nonsensical' isn't getting us anywhere. Svrtnsse was pretty clear that it may not be right or fair, simply that he feels that way and it effects him as a reader. I agree with him. You don't. And that's okay.


----------



## Devor

Trick said:


> You imply that the Orcs are closer to animals than humans (that's at least how I understand what you said) because there are plenty of humans with violent tendencies who choose not to act on them because of the ability to reason, and choose what they believe to be the right or moral course. The Orcs' instincts are violent and then they are used, somewhat like war dogs, by evil characters. If that is what Tolkien intended I think they should not have been able to speak because it implies a level of humanity that causes me to judge them on our level. I don't disagree with you, I think that Tolkien was not clear enough about Orcs for there to be a definitive answer.



There are violent impulses that people choose not to act on. All the time, absolutely. But _multiply_ those impulses, and build a culture that encourages violence, and you have Tolkein's orcs. That doesn't even mean that all of the orcs in Sauron's army are evil. They just appear that way from the outside.


----------



## Trick

Devor said:


> There are violent impulses that people choose not to act on. All the time, absolutely. But _multiply_ those impulses, and build a culture that encourages violence, and you have Tolkein's orcs. That doesn't even mean that all of the orcs in Sauron's army are evil. They just appear that way from the outside.



That is conjecture, though well-founded. Tolkien gave us very little cultural information on the Orcs, which is fine when there are no major questions. I think there are some major questions and I do not like the way they are portrayed because the explanation is lacking. All are free to disagree, my opinion only effects my own writing and reading habits.


----------



## Devor

Trick said:


> That is conjecture, though well-founded. Tolkien gave us very little cultural information on the Orcs, which is fine when there are no major questions. I think there are some major questions and I do not like the way they are portrayed because the explanation is lacking. All are free to disagree, my opinion only effects my own writing and reading habits.



Fair enough.


----------



## Mythopoet

Svrtnsse said:


> Yes, ideally they would be, but I think there are limits for how open minded it's possible for people to be. These limits obviously vary from person to person and some are more open-minded than others. Overall though, I think it's very difficult for a majority of people to step completely outside of their regular frames of reference.



It's part of the nature of the fantasy genre for there to be non-human sentient races. It is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics and major draws of the genre, that there CAN be non-human sentient races. Going into a fantasy book and measuring everything up by how much it conforms to human nature just doesn't make any sense. If I were you, I would try harder to take fantasy races as they are and not expect them to be like humans. 

Trick, we know quite enough about the Orcs to know that your analysis of them is wrong. The Silmarillion does in fact tell us that Orcs were once Elves and Humans twisted and corrupted by Morgoth and Sauron to do their bidding. We know that Orcs reproduce in the same way that Elves and Humans do. (All that nonsense in the FOTR movie about the Uruk Hai coming out of pods was just ridiculous.) We know that they are to a large extent under the control of Morgoth and then Sauron, they are thralls and do not have completely free will (and we know that binding the Orcs thus was the most evil thing that Morgoth ever did). We know that they ran in fear from the battle field when the Ring (and thus the power that bound them)was destroyed. We know that Orcs as a race are not constantly waging war against the other races, when there is not a power spurring them on to world conquest then have their own society and their own ways of doing things and sometimes they fight battles for their own reasons but mostly they don't. 

They are indeed a very violent race and they practice cannibalism. They obviously respect power and little else. They are, in fact, very animal like in some ways. But their nature, at its core, is still of the Children of Iluvatar. Tolkien said explicitly in his notes and essays that they are indeed redeemable so by definition they cannot be wholly evil. Really, they are victims. Possibly the most tragic victims in all the history of Middle-earth. 

Judging them based on what little interaction the heroes of LOTR have with them in the story is a shallow judgement indeed.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Mythopoet said:


> It's part of the nature of the fantasy genre for there to be non-human sentient races. It is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics and major draws of the genre, that there CAN be non-human sentient races. Going into a fantasy book and measuring everything up by how much it conforms to human nature just doesn't make any sense. If I were you, I would try harder to take fantasy races as they are and not expect them to be like humans.



If that is how you're reading me, that I expect fantasy races to be more like humans, you're either misreading me, or I'm not making myself clear enough. Probably it's a combination of the two.



Svrtnsse said:


> Why do I do that? Because in some way, I'm basing my image of what intelligent beings are like on my own experience of intelligent beings. It may not be right and it may not be fair, but subconsciously I'm still applying human values to the evil race and if they're behaving in a way that seems unnatural to me I'll react negatively to it when reading about it.



I'm not intentionally going into a fantasy book measuring everything up to how much it conforms to human nature. As you say, that wouldn't make any sense.

It is my belief that we judge everything we experience (including, but not limited to, the reading of fantasy books) by comparing it to other things we have experienced. How and why we judge things vary a lot, depending on a lot of things, like context.
Let's say I'm watching a movie about life at a fancy English boarding school. If it's supposed to be a realistic drama documentary, I wouldn't expect anyone to have magical powers and I'd be disappointed if one of the students turned out to be a secret wizard. If it was one of the Harry Potter movies, I'd be disappointed if there weren't wizards all over the place.

I've never been to an English boarding school so I don't actually know what one is like. I've read books and seen movies about them and I've got a fairly solid impression about what life there is like. It might not be a correct impression, but it's solid enough that if I see something that doesn't fit with that impression of how things should be, I'd notice it and it might be jarring.
This is regardless of whether it's factually correct or not, but solely based on my previous impression of how things should be.

The same goes with social interactions. 
When I interact with people I usually have certain expectations about how they will behave. When they don't behave that way, it gets confusing, but depending on how well I know the person in question, I have an easier time dealing with the confusion.
If a friend of mine comes up to me and says something ridiculously stupid, I understand that he's just messing around and I probably find it quite funny, even if it wasn't what I'd expected.
If a complete stranger comes up to me and says the same ridiculously stupid thing, that would be weird.

So far I've tried to give examples of how I compare things I experience with things I've experience in the past. I hope it makes sense, even if you perhaps don't agree.

Now, how does this relate to fantasy literature, or any literature?

Basically, I think it works just like with everything else. When I read about something, it will get judged and measured against something else that relates to it in some way. If the story tells me that the mountain is high I will base my image of that on what I consider to be high when it comes to mountains. If the story tells me the sky is blue, I'll base that on my image of what the sky looks like when its blue.
Everything gets compared and measured within my frames of reference. This isn't a conscious process, it just happens. It's not something that I have to think about actively.
Where things get weird is if the sky is actually green with pink dots or if the high mountain is high because it's been doing drugs. I could probably come to accept that as the natural state of things if the author eased me into it and got me used to a world where that's how things works, but even then the same thing applies. My experience of that specific world grows and it becomes easier for me to accept that things are the way they are.

The same goes with fantasy races in a fantasy world.
If they straight off the bat appear with a moral code that I don't understand and life priorities that don't make sense to me, it's going to put me off on them. However, if I get to know them, and come to understand how they work, I'll have a much easier time accepting their quirks and weirdnesses.


To try and sum things up nicely:
I'm not saying there shouldn't be strange and mysterious things in fantasy stories. I'm saying that the things we experience are judged based on other things that we have experiences and that I believe that it will be beneficial to take this into account when writing fantasy stories.

This isn't a fact I'm stating. It's my current belief and I'm not opposed to changing it. I'm also aware that there may very well be significant exceptions to the rule.


----------



## skip.knox

The word hobbit is trademarked, but I wonder if "holbytla" is also trademarked. Not that I would use the word, but I've considered something _halblen_ or _halbish_ for a similar race, deriving it from the German word for half (halb).


----------



## Queshire

Personally I would just do what Wizards of the Coast did when they ran into the hobbit problem and just call them Halflings. Arguments could be made for more exotic alternatives and they would certainly have valid points to them, but those same arguments could be used to call Elves Alfs or something similar. In other words, certainly a valid view point, but not strictly necessary.


----------



## skip.knox

The trouble I have with races that are wholly evil is the same problem I have with races that are wholly good. What's the definition? I have no problem with a character or even a whole nation regarding some other people as being wholly evil. That's a perception of the characters within the story. But the notion that there's some objective standard of good and evil to which a race conforms is far more problematic to me. Even more is the unwarranted assumption that all my readers are going to share the same standard.

Others have said more or less the same thing here. What matters is how I as the author portray what is good and what is evil within my story. How the reader reacts to that portrayal is a variable outside the parameters of the experiment.


----------



## Svrtnsse

skip.knox said:


> The word hobbit is trademarked, but I wonder if "holbytla" is also trademarked. Not that I would use the word, but I've considered something _halblen_ or _halbish_ for a similar race, deriving it from the German word for half (halb).



I've been toying with the idea of using the term holers or holebuilder/holediggers as a derogatory term for the anfylk. They do live in holes in the ground so it's a term that others could plausibly pick up on. Then again, holebuilders is probably a little too close to the original term for comfort.


----------



## skip.knox

FTR, Svrtnsse, I think anfylk is a spiffy name. Holebuilder or holedigger don't carry much negative overtones, for me. Diggers, of course, has an entirely different context. Two, really. Maybe grubs? Grubbers? Something with the word "dirt" in it? Having some derogatory nicknames is a great idea, given the world you've built. Are building!


----------



## Steerpike

I think the problem occurs when people try to take a subjective preference and state it as an objective truth. Anyone is free to dislike good or evil races, but when you try to cast them as unrealistic or use similar descriptors, you're making an objective assessment of yourself and other readers. You're a discerning reader with appropriate standards for literature and others just don't rise to that level. It's pure bollocks, of course, but it must be human nature, because people do that sort of thing all the time. There is no objective basis for preferring one over the other in this case. It is purely preference.

The "more realistic" argument is a particularly bad one in my view, because there are so many unrealistic things in fantasy novels. Many go without any explanation whatsoever. Many are more contrary to the real world than having good or evil races.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, fantasy fans, but most images of dragons you see on book covers or in movies would never be able to fly. They would never be able to hover in the air with only the occasional slow beat of their wings holding them aloft. They're a complete affront to aerodynamics and what we know of flying in the real world. How many fantasy novelists get into a detailed explanation of how they fly? Sure, they're magical creatures, but most of them aren't flying by magic. If they were, they wouldn't even need wings to begin with, they'd just flit around (some do; see Spirited Away). The author is silent on the matter. It is presumed they fly by purely mechanical means. They have wings. They flap them. They fly. Only, when you really look at them, it's just not possible. If that doesn't bother you, then you're really off base trying to paint evil races an an objective problem. Evil races are merely inconsistent with what we know of sentient races. Flying dragons are directly contradictory to the real world.

And while we're speaking of what we know of sentient races...it's almost laughable to use the real world as a basis to mandate what is in the fantasy world. How many real world races do we know of? One. That's our sample size. N=1. I hope I don't have to get into an explanation of statistics, and how you can't know anything based on that sampling. So if you want to say an evil race is unrealistic, then what are you basing it on? In reality, we only know one race - humanity. That doesn't tell us a single thing about what characteristics other races might possess. We simply don't have a frame of reference.

The point is, the "it's unrealistic" argument doesn't stand up to even mild scrutiny. Just say you don't like it, personally, as a reader, and leave it at that.

As for the definition of good and evil, that's set by the context of the story. You pick it up from the characters and events in the story itself. It doesn't have to match the real world. The same conceptions don't have to be shared by the reader. That's what fiction does - it transports you to different places and into the minds of people who think differently than you do. If you can't read a story about characters, or even a world, that have different value systems than those that belong to you personally, then I think your approach to fiction is far too limiting.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> And while we're speaking of what we know of sentient races...it's almost laughable to use the real world as a basis to mandate what is in the fantasy world. How many real world races do we know of? One. That's our sample size. N=1.



Strictly speaking we have two sentient races . . . . humanity and whatever race The Reaver is.

_*Ohh schnaps, total burn.* _

Where is he anyways?


----------



## Svrtnsse

I think part of the issue with this discussion is that the words realistic and believable get mixed up or confused or used interchangably.

Realistic is when something is depicted like it is in the real world. - Dragons can't fly.
Believable is when something is depicted in a way that makes sense within the world of the story. - Dragons can fly.


----------



## WooHooMan

Steerpike, those are good points and you presented them wonderfully.  However, I think we're straying away from the thread topic.

Tolkien orcs were inherently "evil"/monstrous, though arguable capable of redemption apparently.  Does that the fact Tolkien orcs are evil-to-a-degree mean that this is an official, indisputable part of the orc convention?
And to answer this question, we'd have to decide if Tolkien is the definitive word on orcs.

I say no.  Even if he invented orcs (which I don't think he did but even if he did), the orcs have now become a part of the fantasy genre.  They belong to any creator who wants to use them.  The greater fantasy community have come to the agreement that orcs have colored skin (usually green), sharp teeth, a human-size-or-larger build and a war-loving attitude but the trait of "inherently evil" has been rejected too often by influential works (such as D&D) to be considered an "official" characteristic of orcs.  Even Tolkien came to reject this trait.  So, in the end, it doesn't matter if orcs were evil in Lord of the Rings.
In the same way that ancient cultures agreed that Dwarves were short, we've agreed that orcs don't have to be evil.


----------



## Steerpike

Devor said:


> Strictly speaking we have two sentient races . . . . humanity and whatever race The Reaver is.
> 
> _*Ohh schnaps, total burn.* _
> 
> Where is he anyways?



Haha. Good point. Though there is only one Reaver to judge from as well


----------



## Steerpike

Svrtnsse said:


> Realistic is when something is depicted like it is in the real world. - Dragons can't fly.
> Believable is when something is depicted in a way that makes sense within the world of the story. - Dragons can fly.



That's a good point. But in my view, dragons being able to fly is no more or less believable than an evil race. Arguably, it should be less believable because it directly contradicts what we know of aerial mechanics, whereas an evil race just doesn't seem right based on our experience (i.e. one is inconsistent with our experience, the other is impossible from what we know of physics).


----------



## Steerpike

WooHooMan said:


> In the same way that ancient cultures agreed that Dwarves were short, we've agreed that orcs don't have to be evil.



Yes, I agree that orcs do not have to be inherently evil. An author can use them in whatever way she sees fit, and imbue them with whatever characteristics she likes. The can be good, evil, or anything in between, and be as varied a race as humanity. I'm just saying that if you want to use them, or create a separate sentient race, as a representation of a race that is truly, inherently evil, I don't think there is anything wrong with doing so (apart from the subjective preferences of some readers who won't like it).


----------



## Svrtnsse

Steerpike said:


> That's a good point. But in my view, dragons being able to fly is no more or less believable than an evil race. Arguably, it should be less believable because it directly contradicts what we know of aerial mechanics, whereas an evil race just doesn't seem right based on our experience (i.e. one is inconsistent with our experience, the other is impossible from what we know of physics).



Arguably, yes.
I think our tendency as humans is to check our instincts and emotions before actual facts and logic though - and that's why we end up with weird situations like that.

Let's take World of Warcraft. People are perfectly fine with giant two-legged cows that shoot lightning bolts, but when the lighting bolt hits them through a tree or a rock, that's outrageous.

This is probably a bit off topic though as it's more about human perception than about fantasy races (even if it's discussed within a fantasy context).


----------



## Trick

Mythopoet said:


> It's part of the nature of the fantasy genre for there to be non-human sentient races. It is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics and major draws of the genre, that there CAN be non-human sentient races. Going into a fantasy book and measuring everything up by how much it conforms to human nature just doesn't make any sense. If I were you, I would try harder to take fantasy races as they are and not expect them to be like humans.
> 
> Trick, we know quite enough about the Orcs to know that your analysis of them is wrong. The Silmarillion does in fact tell us that Orcs were once Elves and Humans twisted and corrupted by Morgoth and Sauron to do their bidding. We know that Orcs reproduce in the same way that Elves and Humans do. (All that nonsense in the FOTR movie about the Uruk Hai coming out of pods was just ridiculous.) We know that they are to a large extent under the control of Morgoth and then Sauron, they are thralls and do not have completely free will (and we know that binding the Orcs thus was the most evil thing that Morgoth ever did). We know that they ran in fear from the battle field when the Ring (and thus the power that bound them)was destroyed. We know that Orcs as a race are not constantly waging war against the other races, when there is not a power spurring them on to world conquest then have their own society and their own ways of doing things and sometimes they fight battles for their own reasons but mostly they don't.
> 
> They are indeed a very violent race and they practice cannibalism. They obviously respect power and little else. They are, in fact, very animal like in some ways. But their nature, at its core, is still of the Children of Iluvatar. Tolkien said explicitly in his notes and essays that they are indeed redeemable so by definition they cannot be wholly evil. Really, they are victims. Possibly the most tragic victims in all the history of Middle-earth.



You have an abrasive way of approaching an argument that is very off-putting. If I were you, I would try harder to take other people as they are and not expect them to be like you. 

If I had completed any 'analysis' of the Orcs I suspect I would have some factual information that I would have made very clear at some point in this post. This entire discussion was spurred by one sentence that I wrote: *I simply don't like the idea of an entire sentient, humanoid race that is evil as a whole... it's simply too far from reality for me.*

"Wholly evil" does not mean the same thing as "evil as a whole." The entirety of the Orcs in The Hobbit and LOTR are on the side of "evil" (Tolkien's concept of evil need not be torn apart for this discussion). There are no 'good' Orcs ever presented. You say that Tolkien said they were "redeemable." That does imply that they are not "wholly evil" which is fine since I never said they were nor did I use the term irredeemable. 

I have an opinion which all are free to disagree with, as I always try to make clear because I tend to write with a literal tone. 

The last thing I'll try to make clear is this: You said, "Judging them based on what little interaction the heroes of LOTR have with them in the story is a shallow judgement indeed."

And I am saying: Judging the Orcs based on what little interaction the heroes of LOTR have with them in the story provides only a shallow view indeed. Thus I will provide a more in depth view of my own villains and races employed by them whenever possible because I _feel_ that villains require more explanation in-story than Tolkien provided for the Orcs.

I think that should make it clear that I don't want anyone else to take my word as fact nor do I expect everyone to agree with my opinion. I don't like to be misinterpreted, especially by my own fault, so I am trying to be as clear as possible.


----------



## Steerpike

Svrtnsse said:


> Let's take World of Warcraft. People are perfectly fine with giant two-legged cows that shoot lightning bolts, but when the lighting bolt hits them through a tree or a rock, that's outrageous.



This is true. And I think it illustrates a great point for fantasy writers. The reason people become irate when a lightning bolt goes through a rock to hit them is that it apparently violates the rules of the fantasy world. It is established that these cows exist, but not established that lightning passes through solid rock. So it seems like either a glitch, or that the game is just ignoring its own rules because the devs want the mob to hit you. Similarly, in writing fantasy I think you can do anything you want, so long as you set it up and are consistent within the logic of the world you created. If you've established a basis for some seemingly extraordinary event, you'll be OK. If it just happens with no supporting rationale or structure, the reader is going to say "What the heck was that about?"


----------



## Trick

Steerpike said:


> That's a good point. But in my view, dragons being able to fly is no more or less believable than an evil race. Arguably, it should be less believable because it directly contradicts what we know of aerial mechanics, whereas an evil race just doesn't seem right based on our experience (i.e. one is inconsistent with our experience, the other is impossible from what we know of physics).



I think that I was talking through a broken translator (my own odd brain ) which lent to this discussion branching off in this direction. As a reader I cannot help but base things off of my own feelings and my goal as an author is to make readers feel, not just think. I easily accept fantasy elements that oppose scientific facts, largely because I am unaware of many but also because I don't find it jarring unless it's done very poorly. If something goes against my existing feelings I can either adapt, which grows respect for the author, or get jarred out of the story. The Orcs are just one example of a jarring event for me. As you said, personal preference makes a difference for the individual and this is mine.


----------



## Ireth

I think there's more than a little wiggle room in fantasy for things that don't work as they do in real life. Heck, there's room in real life for things to work even though science says they shouldn't. I'm not talking miracles here, either. Bees are an example of a thing that should not, by all laws of physics, be able to fly -- their bodies are not the right shape for it at all. They ought to be the chickens of the insect kingdom, basically. Yet they're not. Pretty sure most of us have seen one in flight at some point.

By that logic, why shouldn't dragons be able to fly?


----------



## Trick

Ireth said:


> I think there's more than a little wiggle room in fantasy for things that don't work as they do in real life. Heck, there's room in real life for things to work even though science says they shouldn't. I'm not talking miracles here, either. Bees are an example of a thing that should not, by all laws of physics, be able to fly -- their bodies are not the right shape for it at all. They ought to be the chickens of the insect kingdom, basically. Yet they're not. Pretty sure most of us have seen one in flight at some point.
> 
> By that logic, why shouldn't dragons be able to fly?



That's a great point. I read somewhere that for men to fly (with wings and not apparati) we would need wings so massive as to be impractical but I followed some bread crumbs and found an article on the way hummingbird wings work and how, if men had moderate to large hummingbird wings, we could fly very efficiently... until our hearts exploded from the strain, but that's a different thing entirely since simply saying that our physiology had adapted could explain that away. Hence, there will be men (fantasy improved, of course) who fly with hummingbird style wings in one of my WIPs.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Ireth said:


> Bees are an example of a thing that should not, by all laws of physics, be able to fly -- their bodies are not the right shape for it at all.



This is apparently incorrect. Aerodynamically however, it's right, as they don't really have the shape for it. It's not the shape though, but rather their movements that keep them off the ground: The Straight Dope: Is it aerodynamically impossible for bumblebees to fly?

I didn't learn about this until just a few years ago, and before that I too was convinced bees couldn't actually fly.

This ties into the discussion quite nicely though. It's a widely accepted "fact" that even though it's not correct still is part of people's view of the world. We don't question it because we've heard it before, from multiple sources, including some we probably consider reliable.


----------



## Mythopoet

Trick said:


> You have an abrasive way of approaching an argument that is very off-putting. If I were you, I would try harder to take other people as they are and not expect them to be like you.



Goodness, I'm sorry. I was just approaching the argument as if we were both rational, mature adults who mean what we say and say what we mean. I won't make that mistake again.



Trick said:


> "Wholly evil" does not mean the same thing as "evil as a whole."



Of course it doesn't.  

Ah well, I'm just a die hard Tolkien fan who can't help jumping into a discussion when I think I see someone misunderstanding his writings. I'm not really interested in the rest of the discussion here. I'll just let myself out.


----------



## Jabrosky

With regards to the question of wholly evil orcs, I believe any humanoid race with the capacity to form large and formidable armies will need some capacity for cooperation in order to maintain cohesion within the ranks. Cooperation is a major foundational block for most moral codes. Therefore, even your stereotypical warlike fantasy orcs would need some form of morality or obligation to cooperate binding them together.

I have an easier time imagining orcs as enemies of humanity, elves, or whatever due to inter-species competition. They could view non-orcs much the same way as lions, spotted hyenas, and other wild predators view each other: as competition that must be driven away. That wouldn't necessarily make them evil to the core, just ferociously xenophobic on the species level.

That said, I personally prefer my orcs to be nobler and more sympathetic.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Let's ensure we keep our comments on topic. Disagreements are fine. Personal attacks or insinuations are not.


----------



## Trick

Defined on Google: 
*wholÂ·ly*
ˈhōl(l)ē/Submit
adverb
entirely; fully.
"she found herself given over wholly to sensation"
synonyms:	completely, totally, absolutely, entirely, fully, thoroughly, utterly, quite, perfectly, downright, in every respect, in all respects; 

*as a whole*
phrase of whole
1.
as a single unit and not as separate parts; in general.
"a healthy economy is in the best interests of society as a whole"

If the Orcs were "wholly evil" it would imply that each individual is evil to their very core; i.e. that their very nature is irrevocably evil.

If the Orcs are evil "as a whole" it implies that the entire race is evil and makes no reference to the depth of evil per individual.


----------



## Steerpike

Yeah, the thing about bees is a misconception, though not an uncommon one.

The question I haven't seen anyone really answer yet is why a dragon flying purely by physical or mechanical means, which is patently impossible given the depiction of dragons in fantasy literature and runs directly contrary to what we know of aerodynamics, would be OK, whereas an evil sentient race, which is merely inconsistent with respect to our limited sample size of n=1, would not be OK.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Steerpike said:


> The question I haven't seen anyone really answer yet is why a dragon flying purely by physical or mechanical means, which is patently impossible given the depiction of dragons in fantasy literature and runs directly contrary to what we know of aerodynamics, would be OK, whereas an evil sentient race, which is merely inconsistent with respect to our limited sample size of n=1, would not be OK.



I tried to answer that, but maybe it just wasn't a satisfactory answer, or I'm unclear again. I'm not too good at expressing myself on these philosophical matters it seems.

I think the reason is that instinct and emotion kicks in before logic and, well, reason.

If I read "The dragon flew over the forest," I'm not really thinking about how the dragon actually flies. I've seen loads of pictures and movies of dragons that fly. Most of them flap their wings slower than my grandma walks and they still fly just fine, I've seen it with my own eyes.

If I read "The main characteristic of the bugbear race is that all bugbears are inherently evil," then that's something I'll react to negatively, because I have a hard time fitting it within my frames of reference. 
In my reading I may have encountered races where all members are inherently evil, but at this time none come to mind.


----
Something else that may be interesting to bring up on this topic is the human tendency to find patterns where none are. 
Apophenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may very well be that this applies in the case of the dragons and the evil bugbears as well. We want to find some meaning in what we see and because we have experience with unrealistic flight it's easier for us to accept that, than it is to accept unrealistic behaviour in other beings (even if non-human).


----------



## Svrtnsse

To try and get back on topic: 

I'm in favor of using stock fantasy races, like elves and dwarves and orcs etc.


----------



## Hainted

I think "stock" races are good for shorthand. I've seen elves, orcs, and dwarves, etc.... so they don't need a lot of explanation or background when introduced, but an author has to put in a little extra work to make them unique. Take the Elder Scrolls games for example. Their Orcs are master armorers, and weaponsmiths, and while they are still savages by most races standards they aren't the mindless hordes of most settings. or the Bosmer. Elves that respect wilderness, live in trees and are good with a bow. Standard. Then you come to realize that they respect the trees so much they are strict carnivores, refusing to eat or use ANY plant based material or byproduct, and dispose of their dead through ritual cannibalism so as not to defile the Earth. Not so standard.

Besides most non-standard races I've encountered are still the stock races just dressed in different skins. Honestly if your description for your brand new, genre bending race begins "They're like [insert stock fantasy race here] but..." just use the stock, and put THAT twist on them.


----------



## Guy

Jabrosky said:


> With regards to the question of wholly evil orcs, I believe any humanoid race with the capacity to form large and formidable armies will need some capacity for cooperation in order to maintain cohesion within the ranks. Cooperation is a major foundational block for most moral codes. Therefore, even your stereotypical warlike fantasy orcs would need some form of morality or obligation to cooperate binding them together.
> 
> I have an easier time imagining orcs as enemies of humanity, elves, or whatever due to inter-species competition. They could view non-orcs much the same way as lions, spotted hyenas, and other wild predators view each other: as competition that must be driven away. That wouldn't necessarily make them evil to the core, just ferociously xenophobic on the species level.
> 
> That said, I personally prefer my orcs to be nobler and more sympathetic.


Yeah, I always a completely evil race would self-destruct before it could get very far. I think the orcs in Monster Hunter were cool as hell.


----------



## Philip Overby

Perhaps an evil race may be hard to swallow for some, but what about a race that has no morality at all? I mean, animals don't have morality. They're pretty much shaped by their environment. A wild dog may attack people on sight if they get close to him, while a pet dog, if trained well, may lick that person's hand. What if there was a fantasy race that functioned to that capacity? They weren't necessarily good or evil, but they just existed the same way animals do, to reproduce, to eat, etc. To me, that would be more terrifying than if there was an evil race. 

I mean, what if sharks suddenly grew legs and decided to band together to form societies on land? We'd all be dead.


----------



## WooHooMan

Philip Overby said:


> Perhaps an evil race may be hard to swallow for some, but what about a race that has no morality at all? I mean, animals don't have morality. They're pretty much shaped by their environment. A wild dog may attack people on sight if they get close to him, while a pet dog, if trained well, may lick that person's hand. What if there was a fantasy race that functioned to that capacity? They weren't necessarily good or evil, but they just existed the same way animals do, to reproduce, to eat, etc. To me, that would be more terrifying than if there was an evil race.
> 
> I mean, what if sharks suddenly grew legs and decided to band together to form societies on land? We'd all be dead.



When people say "race" 9 times out of 10 they mean beings with at roughly human-level intelligence and reasoning skills.  Animals is another subject entirely.
An intelligent race that lacks all semblance of morality is not unheard of but can be difficult to convincingly write.  Often, how good or evil they are is shown in relation to other races.  Again, that's a whole other topic.


----------



## Ireth

Maybe it's not a case of lacking morals entirely, but a moral compass that's totally askew from what humans consider "normal". A blue-and-orange scale versus black-and-white, for instance.


----------



## Sir Tristram

I don't know if this has already been posted, and I'm feeling too lazy to go through all the replies and check at the moment, so here's something that you may find interesting.
reinventing fantasy races | Terminally Incoherent


----------



## Guy

Philip Overby said:


> Perhaps an evil race may be hard to swallow for some, but what about a race that has no morality at all? I mean, animals don't have morality. They're pretty much shaped by their environment. A wild dog may attack people on sight if they get close to him, while a pet dog, if trained well, may lick that person's hand. What if there was a fantasy race that functioned to that capacity? They weren't necessarily good or evil, but they just existed the same way animals do, to reproduce, to eat, etc. To me, that would be more terrifying than if there was an evil race.
> 
> I mean, what if sharks suddenly grew legs and decided to band together to form societies on land? We'd all be dead.


It would depend on how intelligent they are. If we're talking animal intelligence, then this could work. The xenomorphs in the _Alien_ movies, for example. Or zombies. But the term "race" implies intelligent creatures, and that would make this concept difficult. In order for a society to exist, it has to have rules of operation. That's a primary function of morals - they provide some sort of structural cohesion for the group. Any cohesive group, from human societies to wolf packs to herd animals, has some sort of hierarchy, behaviors that are required, behaviors that will not be tolerated, etc., which could be considered very rudimentary morals. With no morals whatsoever, without anything that could even be remotely considered morals, it wouldn't be a cohesive group, which sort of defeats the purpose of a group.


----------



## ThinkerX

> Maybe it's not a case of lacking morals entirely, but a moral compass that's totally askew from what humans consider "normal". A blue-and-orange scale versus black-and-white, for instance.



This is kind of / sort of what I did with goblins/hobgoblins on my world...then again, on my world these creatures are *aliens* of the low tech variety.  There is also a strong biological/reproductive component to their psychology and subsequent actions.


----------



## Ireth

ThinkerX said:


> This is kind of / sort of what I did with goblins/hobgoblins on my world...then again, on my world these creatures are *aliens* of the low tech variety.  There is also a strong biological/reproductive component to their psychology and subsequent actions.



I do that all the time with my Fae characters. They might seem amoral to humans, but they have their own codes of conduct.


----------



## Ryan_Crown

I've never really understood the viewpoint that not creating your own unique, original races and instead using the old standbyes means that a writer's work is (or is likely to be) derivative and/or unoriginal. While sure, world-building can be fun, in most cases I look at the time I would spend developing all these brand new races (especially knowing I'm going to have to spend further time in the story describing/explaining them) as time that would be better spent developing the specific characters of my story, and well . . . actually writing my story.

Instead of spending hours developing some brand new original race for my surly blacksmith character, and then having to explain his racial characteristics to my readers, I'd much rather just call him a dwarf and move on to who he is and what he does in the story, feeling my time is better spent there.

Which is not to say there's anything wrong with developing your own races, I just don't see how that could be considered a basic requirement for a story to be "original". I would say the same thing applies to character archetypes (or "classes" if you want to look at it from a D&D perspective). So you've got an elf ranger, human paladin, halfling thief, dwarf fighter, and human wizard as your main characters? So what? The Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy, for example, uses about as standard/generic a group of adventurers as you're likely to find, and yet in my opinion they're a brilliantly written set of stories.

As I've seen many people say (in one form or another) -- ideas are cheap, it's how you execute them that matters. I would say that a talented writer could take the most cliched, over-used story ideas and still make a very enjoyable story out of them. And conversedly, a not-so-talented writer can have all the original, unique, no one has ever done this before concepts that they want, and still not be able to make a decent story out of them.

But that's just my personal view of things. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Gurkhal

I think that one of the reasons as to why D&D races should be avoided is because they often lead to lazy thinking. 

For example you can start to throw in races into the world without making them having any noteable relevance for the plot and so get the thing bloated. If you have to come up with someonething of your own then you are less likely to just throw something in because you thought it would be nice right now and you may be more likely to invest something into your labor. 

However I will agree that to some degree its ok to use certain races but its not ok to go down into to specific parts. It can be ok to have elves, I wouldn't recommend it, but it can be ok. But if an author have Drow or Noldor elves in his story then I most certainly think that he is copying and that's to specifically tied to a world to be used like that.


----------



## Ryan_Crown

Gurkhal said:


> However I will agree that to some degree its ok to use certain races but its not ok to go down into to specific parts. It can be ok to have elves, I wouldn't recommend it, but it can be ok. But if an author have Drow or Noldor elves in his story then I most certainly think that he is copying and that's to specifically tied to a world to be used like that.



That I can certainly agree with. It's one of the reasons I would never use half-orcs in a story -- because (at least for me) that is even more specifically D&D than orcs are specifically Tolkien. I can also see your point about standard races being too easy to just throw into your story, even if you don't need them, just because there's no real work necessary in developing them. I think that's part of why I've never really sat down and thought, "Okay, what races do I want in my story?" I work through each individual character and ask myself, "Okay, based on what I want from this character, what would be a good race for him/her?" The races that end up populating my story world then build up out of that process.


----------



## Bortasz




----------



## gumsoul

Im glad I came across this thread, as it applies directly to something ive struggled with over the years in developing my fantasy epic. I agree with both sides, but the OP's eloquent and well made points have convinced me to revise my current draft. Like many here, i grew up with Tolkien, D&D and video games. RPGs are the inspiration for many of my characters. In fact, I still create D&D character sheets as the foundation for the characters i write, just to quantify their strengths and weaknesses. Its a visual aid that helps me, but I digress.

The number one rule of writing is knowing your audience. As a fantasy writer, i know my work will not be anyone's introduction to the genre, and they will have read and been familiar with themes, elements and tropes. Many readers, myself included, naturally begin to predict where the story is going early on. I wish to challenge those readers. It has been my self appointed mission to use terminology most fantasy audiences are familiar with, then add my own twist on it, to challenge their assumptions. I was asked recently when discussing my project with an old friend, "So youre writing a book? Whats the point of your book?" I couldnt think of the answer, as i was mentally caught up in the adventure of the narrative, so i just told him, "entertainment." But going back home and reflecting on the conversation, i remembered my purpose. If there was a theme or "point" i want my audience to take away, its the dangers of assumption and complacency, especially pertaining to students and teachers of history. I wanted this is be a theme and lesson learned by the characters AND the audience, as the story progresses. 

Assumptions such as "oh, this is the hero of the story, he just doesnt know it yet," to "oh, he has werewolves and vampires in his story, good thing ive watched all of the Underworld and Twilight movies!" 

The "Orcs and mithril" example discussed here is along those same lines of thought. Ive been a forum member here for less than a day, and have greatly benefited from the discussions. I think there are certain terms and ideas that should be respected as intellectual property, but not legally defined as such. Orcs are becoming part of folklore just as goblins and ghouls have centuries ago. We as writers can choose to strengthen that folklore, or challenge ourselves to add completely new creations into the fantasy genre's lexicon. 

Long story short, I am removing the word "orc" from my WIP, as well as others that are pulled directly from D&D, to further distance my work from fan fiction. Thank you all for your contributions to this thread.


----------

