Trolls Goblins Giants Elves Dwarves

A goblin by any other name is still a goblin

Lord Spike, your knowledge in these matters is most impressive, but goblins and orcs are still one and the same. That some people over the years have formed images in their minds of orcs being larger and more meaner does not make what I say less true. It simply shows that people are imaginative and take things and change them. It would have been better though, given that Gygax and those who came after him in the adventure/role-playing market, had either ditched Tolkien's world entirely to avoid copyright suits, or else acknowledged their source, payed royalties, and left goblins as orcs which is the truth of the matter, instead of making orcs separate from goblins.

The argument that orcs should be separate from goblins because goblins are childish and orcs are more adult, larger and more meaner, is an example of imagination doing things with reality, it is not a justification however. Goblins are sourced in the The Hobbit, orcs are primarily sourced in The Lord of the Rings. The goblins in The Hobbit are childish because nearly everything in The Hobbit is childish. The orcs in Lord of the Rings are more adult because nearly everything in Lord of the Rings is more adult. But the goblins in The Hobbit are still the orcs in LOTR. The orcs appear larger and meaner in the LOTR than they do as goblins in The Hobbit because the story demanded it, being a larger and more meaner story. Sauron and the dwarfs and Gandalf also appear larger and more meaner in the LOTR than they do in The Hobbit, yet no one believes, as far as I know, that the Necromancer is a separate being than the Dark Lord, or that the Gandalf of The Hobbit, because he is more childish, must be a separate being than the Gandalf in LOTR. Similarly with the dwarfs (or as Tolkien writes, dwarves). The dwarfs in the LOTR are not different from the dwarfs in The Hobbit, just because in The Hobbit they are more childish, and in the LOTR they appear more adult, more meaner and therefore 'larger'.

As for not being large in The Hobbit I remember when I first read this book I thought the goblins were very mean, and certainly large, especially the head goblin, whose name I think was Bolg. I think because people have a put down view of The Hobbit in relation to the LOTR that they put down monsters like the goblins in that book when compared to the LOTR, and this makes them want to separate goblins and orcs. If so this is a problem with them, not with Tolkien's writings. Goblins were, are, and always will be orcs.

In fact, as an admirer of Mr Tolkien's works I have to say he must be turning in his grave, so to speak, at the way AD&D, D&D and other spin offs have so maligned his creation over the years, and made false hoods, like the false idea that goblins and orcs are separate beings, into reality, to the point where people are now defending this falsehood as if it were, or should be true.

Imagine if someone got confused and decided that the Anglican Church was separate from the Church of England, or that alsation dogs are separate from german shepherds, or that Taiwan is separate from Formosa, or that Beijing is a different city from Peking. Imagine then a whole group of admirers and followers of that person going out into the world, writing books, or games, and making these same mistakes. Imagine then, when someone points out that these are errors and says that Beijing is Peking, for example, only with a name change and instead of getting acceptance for this, finds that a bunch of people are now hotly denying this is so, or admitting it but then justifying why they should be separate. This is the same with Tolkien, AD&D, goblins and orcs. Gygax wronged Tolkien, wronged his D&D/AD&D audience/followers by making orcs separate from goblins and now some of his audience/followers are defending what he did and saying goblins should be separate from orcs because orcs are 'larger and more meaner'. Gimme a break! Nearly everything in LOTR is larger and more meaner.

As for orcrist being Thorin's sword I stand corrected, it was twenty years or so ago when I read The Hobbit, so I gave the sword to the wrong person, but this does not change the fact that orcrist translates into 'the goblin cleaver', not 'the orc cleaver' thus showing that Tolkien knew that orcs and goblins were the same. It could be used to slay goblin-like creatures I suppose but the book doesn't mention this to my knowledge.

 

Rook - I agree with what you have written but I'll point again to the difference to between Snaga-hai (slave people) and Uruk-Hai (fighting people). They are so grossly different that in a game you have to construct some way of differentiating. DnD does this by labelling them as seperate species, MERP by taking them as the same species with radically different sub-species and RM crosses between DnD and MERP.

The orcs in The Hobbit have not been under the control of Morgoth or Sauron for many millenia. So they are not selectively bred or engineered in the way that Saruman or Sauron bred and engineered their orcs (this is how Tolkien attempted to resolve the differences between The Hobbit and LOTR). They appear again in LoTR where they are described as being significantly smaller than the Uruk Hai of Saruman as well as where Frodo and Sam witness the snaga and uruk chatting. How do you represent this in a PnP game? You have to make some kind of division between a tribe which is slightly bigger than a hobbit and a tribe which is around the same size as a common man.

Personally, I prefer making a division which splits them along human race lines. But as long as 'goblinoids' have the same general characteristics, splitting hairs over names isn't really worthwhile.

 

What I'd hoped to get across....

...was that not only do different names for them exist, but that there are different subspecies...not to mention individual differences as well. The members of the species of goblin-kind are no more identical than those belonging to the species of homo sapiens. The word goblin was not a Tolkien creation, either. Gygax calls them Jebli, which is goblin in the common tongue of the Flanaess. D&D draws heavily on Tolkien for it's inspiration, but not on it alone. The tales of Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and many, many others inspired this game. A suggestion to all...we should read more, and type less.

 

Goblins are orcs are goblins. Uruk-hai are just mutations

In relation to the Uruk-hai, the 'fighting Uruk-hai' of LOTR, it is true that they are different from orcs generally, as the orcs/goblins in Middle Earth, as described in Tolkien's writings, do seem less meaner and less capable than the Uruk-hai, which I acknowledge, but this is an example not of orcs being different from goblins, which they are not (being the same thing) but of what happens when you hybridize orcs into something else ! The Uruk-hai are similar to humans being hybridized into something bigger and meaner than normal humans (like the 'super soldiers' in The X-Files). Saruman created super orcs/goblins. So saying that the Uruk-hai prove that orcs are different from goblins is to misunderstand the situation. Orcs and goblins are the same thing, but when someone, like Saruman, hybridizes goblins and makes a bastardised version he has not made orcs out of goblins, he has simply made mutated goblins/orcs. The Uruk-hai are thus goblins that have been meddled with biologically. They are super goblins, the 'super soldiers' of the goblin race !

 

invalid comparisons

Dear Rook,

you seem to be more than just "an admirer of Mr Tolkien's works", maybe his lawyer? In the books of Mr. Tolkien orcs and goblins may be the same (as you state, aehm, 5 times), in DnD they are not. That´s it.

Your comparisons (Bijing/Peking) are not valid. Orcs AND Goblins do not exist, remember? So the names can be used as one sees fit...

p.s.: I admire Tolkien, too. And I quite sure that he isn´t turning in his grave...

---
kindly excuse my poor english

 

I don't understand the problem...

Sure Gygax and Arneson were heavily influenced by Tolkien's work when the created D&D but D&D is not just Tolkien rehashed. When Tolkien was creating his story he drew upon many influences, primarily European folklore and Medieval literature. But his elves, dwarves, goblins, trolls, giants etc. are not the ones described there. In the first place they couldn't be because all of these terms are used almost interchangeably in the folklore and in the literature. He decided that, for the sake of his story (and by story I mean the whole history of his world including the Silmarrilion, the hobbit, The lord of the rings and the notes and stories and whatever else he wrote.) he wanted to nail down what they meant. We could get into a whole other debate about his why's and wherefore's but it is really pointless unless you are an authority on all of the things hes used to create his story and were willing to spend years tracking it all down. The result might be interesting but it is not the concern here. Tolkien did what he did because he saw fit to do it that way and (i think i speak for everyone here) we have all benefited from that.Gygax and Arneson, for whatever reason, saw fit to create the game of D&D. They needed sources and inspiration, because, in order to complete the thing solely on their own would have required decades of work. They were inspired and borrowed from Tolkien obviously. their elves, dwarves halflings (hobbits) were more or less Tolkien's. Their goblins, however, are not so clearly derived from Tolkien. They are more like what was seen as goblinish in folklore. Their orcs are definitely inspired by Tolkien's Uruk hai and along with halflings are where they borrowed, IMHO, most from him. But D&D is not Tolkien. I don't see any Beholder's in the lord of the rings, no mind flayer's in the hobbit. There isn't a single roper in the Silmarillion. And where are the bugbears, kobolds, gnolls, gnomes, rakshasah, lamia, manticores, harpies, chimera, unicorns, pegasi, satyrs, centaurs, sphinxes, ki-rin, lammasu, couatl, shedu, pixies, nixies, dryads, nymphs, gelatinous cubes, aboleths, black puddings, green slimes, ochre jellies, gray oozes, yellow molds, skeletons, zombies, vampires, wights (okay you have me there), shadows, spectres, liches, drow, and on and on in Tolkien's story. Upon which city in Middle Earth did Gygax model Greyhawk. Which organization is the progenitor for the Scarlet Brotherhood. Where are the thieves guilds in middle earth. Where are the paladins and monks. I don't recall any clerics, nor any organized religion at all. How about druids? Okay I guess that's enough. Except this: Gygax is sitting there one day thinking' "We need an evil race that is the equivalent in abilities to the good races but opposed in every way otherwise. Can't be goblins, everyone just sees them as mischief makers and nuisances. Not hobgoblins, they are just big goblins. Not bugbears, they aren't motivated enough." He goes on for a while in this manner until: "Say, I will call them orcs. It's a good standard old english term for an evil humanoid (or demon). And tolkien provided the perfect template for what I am looking for and called "them" (the Uruk hai) orcs. Why not?" (he begins furiously scribbling on a note pad......)
I guess my main argument here is that Gygax and Arneson took what they wanted and needed and shaped it the way they thought it ought to be shaped. In the same way that everyone takes what they want an need and uses it to their advantage. Apparently they did something right. We are still playing D&D, in its many forms, over 30 years later. Two final reiterations. D&D is not The Lord of the Rings. Orcs are not necessarily goblins, in much the same way that dwarves are not necessarily elves. The context in which they are defined is what matters. So, it does not matter at all whether in Tolkien's work orcs and goblins are the same thing. In D&D they are different things, period.

Darmagon

 

LOL okay you have me. except that Satyr is pronounced SAIT' er as far as I know. Obviously I am going to have to re read the whole shebang because I don't recall those things. Of course Gygax/ Arneson only had access to the hobbit and the lord of the rings when they were making the game so I am not sure they all apply....(Beren was a gnome...?)

Darmagon

 

One thing you left out...

...was the Ranger character class. If this wasn't borrowed from Tolkien, then nothing was...I serve no man, but the servants of Sauron I pursue into whatever land they may go. There are few among mortal men who know more of orcs; and I do not hunt them in this fashion out of choice. The orcs whom we pursued took captive of two of my friends. In such need a man that has no horse will go on foot, and he will not ask for leave to follow the trail. Nor will he count the heads of the enemy save with a sword... No orc of any sort ever man-handled Aragorn, in spite of what you might have seen at the cinema.

As for the Uruk-Hai, they do exist in D&D, but are called by yet another name...1/2 Orcs. Saruman cross bred men from Dunland and orcs to make his ultimate warriors. I imagine he experimented quite a bit to get it right, testing with the many different breeds of orc to find the hardiest product. My guess is the 'great black Uruks of Mordor' were the toughest of the lot, and provided the best results...thus, the Uruk-Hai.

 

AD&D Rangers...

...of the first edition were arguably the deadliest fighters around. They got a +1 damage bonus per level versus all of the humanoid species, to include giantkind (but not giant animals and such, a common misconception). Weapon specialization made this even more deadly with the advent of the Unearthed Arcana, which also expanded the enemy races. Alignment was restricted to good, but they could be lawful , chaotic, or neutral.

Otis was getting +10 damage (on top of everything else) vs. any of the humanoid badguys in the Temple back in the good ol' days of the original PnP module...and Elmo was getting +4!

 

They also got an odd mix of cleric and wizard spells. I remember playing the old gold box D&D games and my rangers being able to memorize magic missile.

 

More on goblins ...

Goblins are orcs are goblins are orcs, period. Nothing anyone says or writes can change this. True, Gygax plundered other sources for his D&D, AD&D world, but the most important source it seems was Tolkien. He plundered but refused acknowledgement, not the most decent thing to do I would say. Just because he put in beholders, and ochre jellies, etc does not negate the fact that he took goblins/orcs from Tolkien. The sad fact is that he either got confused and thought, like a great many others, that goblins were really different from orcs, or else as Darmagon suggests he made orcs into a separate race from goblins to fill a niche in his game but either way this does not negate what I say: goblins are orcs. If Gygax really wanted a particular humanoid race with certain descriptors which he took from Tolkien's LOTR orc why didn't Gygax take what he imagined the LOTR orc was, make a separate race out of it but give it another name to really separate it totally and avoid possible later confusion ? It would have been so easy, after all he obviously had a lot of imagination to make alot of the other monsters (the ones he didn't plunder). Gygax's mistake was calling this new monster 'orc'. It is an admission, to me, that he not only plundered Tolkien, but that he really did think orcs were a different race to goblins. It shows that he, like a number of other Tolkien readers, did not understand what changed from The Hobbit to LOTR.

Gygax, and those who made the same mistake as Gygax, did not see that when Tolkien went from The Hobbit to the LOTR nearly everything became less childish, larger, more meaner, and more serious (more adult). Gygax, and like minded, thought that goblins in The Hobbit were childish, and since orcs in LOTR were seemingly not childish they therefore must be different races. They focused on this aspect of the comparison between The Hobbit and LOTR and overlooked that, as I wrote above, nearly everything goes from being childish in The Hobbit to more serious in LOTR. It is a major error. If Gygax had deliberately intended for orcs to be a separate race to fill a niche, he would have not used the name 'orc'.

Goblins are orcs are goblins are orcs.

I am not Tolkien's lawyer, but I do admire his works, I don't like what Gygax did to them, and believe that in a democracy it is OK to talk about this. It seems to me that Gygax ripped off so much from Tolkien, that this should be acknowledged, and the errors he made in the plundering corrected for the sake of doing things right. If orcs are going to remain a separate race to goblins, as seems likely, then orcs should get a name change to make the separation complete. That is my complaint.

 

gnome comes from the greek word nomos, wich means law.
originally in folklore they were the lawers of the forests.

elfs (notice the spelling wich Tolkien changed to elves so, as to differentiate them) were tiny and fixed your shoes when you wern't looking.

and the 1st Rangers were from Texas.

Tolkien borrowed. Gygax borrowed
folklore and rangers arn't copyrighted, pilgrim.