• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Why use D&D races in our stories?

TheTdroid

Dreamer
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

Troubadour
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...
 
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Troubadour
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.

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!
 
Last edited:

Bortasz

Troubadour
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

Auror
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.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Inkling
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.
 
Last edited:

WooHooMan

Auror
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

Auror
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

Auror
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Ireth

Myth Weaver
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

Auror
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.

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.

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

Auror
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

Myth Weaver
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

Auror
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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.
 
Top