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

Why use D&D races in our stories?

Kevlar

Troubadour
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: Skældet, grissetrynet, stiff brush and had tusks (like the orcs in some fantasy novels).

I think skældet is supposed to be or is the same as skællet, 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Myth Weaver
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

Minstrel
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

Inkling
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

Minstrel
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

Troubadour
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

Scribe
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Scribe
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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.
 
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

Troubadour
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.
 
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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
  1. I like Tolkien's goblins, orcs and uruk-hai, but I do not think of them as handed down from "on high".
  2. Although I credit Tolkien for standardizing them, I do believe they are derivative
  3. One of my favorite things about any fantasy is seeing how they handle common tropes, including things like orcs and the like.
  4. I especially like seeing new ways of interpreting these creatures that have been around for twice my lifetime (or more).
  5. 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!
 
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

Scribe
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.
 
Top