Trolls Goblins Giants Elves Dwarves

[Cujo]

A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant

I'm quite picky when it comes to how troll should look. Trolls come from norse mythology and the same story in differnt translations makes them dwarfs or goblins or sometimes giants. They had long crooked noses, only four fingers and toes on each limb, and most of them had long bushy tails and were stupid and would turn to stone in sunlight in some storyies in others they evolved smaller, smarter and crueler into the dwarves we don't know and love.

In Icelandic mythology, Trolls were a race of giants. In Norse mythology Trolls are represented as a type of goblin.Norse dwarves They are often identified and seem to be interchangeable with the Svartalfar (black elves) and the trolls. "No valid distinction though can be drawn between the dwarfs and the dark elves; they appear to have been interchangeable." the Dokkalfar, or dark elves, are the light-avoiding counterparts to the ljosalfar (light elves). While the Dokkalfar and the Svartálfar (black elves) may be one and the same, there is a confusion between these names and that of the Duergar (dwarves). In the Dungeons & Dragons the duergar are a race of cruel and evil dwarves. They are best referred to as the dwarvish equivalent of the drow.

So, just to F with you in Norse myth dwarves, trolls, and Svartalfar (black elves) are the same thing, Svartalfar (black elves) are Dokkalfar (or dark elves) but not maybe not the Duergar (dwarves) so it looks like the world of the underdark has one mother, where a drow, a troll, a goblin and a dwarf are all the "same" thing. It seems that they have evolved over the last century into there differnt races.

at least they had differnt types of elf.

[Lord_Spike]

...'borrows' from everyone. Kind of like Balrogs and Balors. Same thing, different name. I've even seen them referred to as pyroclastic demons, which makes for a great effect in movies.

[Zebedee]

The elves/trolls./dwarves probably come from the Kurgan progenitors of modern Indo-European languages.

In Celtic mythology, giants were tall as mountains and strode 6 leagues with a stride. The Mabinogion is great fun with it's accounts of the pre-medieval super heroes who fought the giants.

Tolkien drew bits from Icelandic (dwarves), Celtic (elves) and Saxon (trolls) mythology. You also see how he wove these threads into his world through the languages; Quenya is based on old Finnish and Sindarin on Welsh whilst Rohirric is Old English.

I've not played DnD outside of PC games (well, a few hours in a campaign as a follower counts for little). So my view of 'monsters' is heavily tinged by Middle Earth. I couldn't really get over how many liches you fight in BG2. In MERP using Rolemaster, a lich would annihilate any player group not playing munchkin rules. And as for dragons...

[Shiningted]

Sounds interesting! Yeah, Tolkien started off with, what, certain Elves being Gnomes (and what the heck were Gongs???) and he had giants but then ditched them (pity, though more consistent I guess).

Well how close to the classic D&D troll do you think Tolkien's were? Or do you see them changing along the way (I thought the Hobbit ones were a long way away from the rest of his ME work).

Liches in BG2? Really? Only played BG and TotSC. Liches sometimes come across wussy in games, but in D&D they were meant to be absolute kick-a$$ foes.

[ldonyo]

Yes, there is a lich in BG2 and he is very tough!

D&D trolls were nothing like Tolkien's. D&D trolls regenerated all but fire and acid damage and could spend all day in the sun, although they preferred not to.

[Rook Hudson]

I remember reading somewhere else that when the original creator of D&D, Mr Gygax, put out his game he got into trouble with the Tolkien estate for the way he seemed to rip off a lot of Tolkien's monster creations or ideas. Examples are: orcs, ents (which Gygax changed to treants I think), balrog (changerd to balor) and halflings. Gygax though seemed to get confused. He thought that orcs and goblins were separate monsters but Tolkien quite specifically says that they are the same thing. AD&D, and many spin offs have perpetuated this error.

Tolkien though took much of what he created from earlier norse, germanic and finnish mythologies, I seem to remember. This doesn't excuse rip-offs by Gygax and later writers, game developers and others who ripped off Tolkien, as Tolkien did not rip off anybody, he only drew inspiration from these earlier mythologies, in order to flesh out his work and bring it to life for a modern audience.

Having said that I think role-playing and adventure gaming would be much poorer without AD&D and it's spin-offs. I just think Gygax and others should acknowledge their debt to Tolkien.

I also wish that people would stop making orcs and goblins separate races. Orcs should be called something else to completely distinguish them from goblins. As long as they are called orcs they are really goblins which leads to this contradiction. This is my understanding of the situation, others may differ.

[Zebedee]

Orcs and goblins are the same in Tolkien but they are extremely diverse. Some resembled the golins of DnD (snaga tribes) others would more resemble hobgoblins or orcs as they are portrayed in some rules' systems.

ICE had the MERP franchise for ages, but even in their RM rules they still split up orcs into a variety of races (presumably to more resemble DnD).

On the subject of trolls in Middle Earth, there are at least six different types mentiones by Tolkien and all are different. Stone trolls are the only ones which turn into stone, with hill trolls, black trolls and stone trolls being given language. They also don't need to be burnt after death. Which is reassuring because they are darned nasty in MERP/RM (mind you add real physics to any RPG and you start to see the problems with fantasy worlds' assumption one hero could beat a troll single handed).

The liches in BG2 weren't tough for me sadly. But then BG2 really went overboard with munchkin equipment and I find that the BG series makes me go off and explore everywhere, boosting XP, so by the time I return to the main quest, the party is grossly overpowered. If there was only one lich in vanilla it may be that my ex had some mod installed which gave you more. A long time since I played now. Just re-ordered BG1 and sincerely hoping that it is going to be ok to play - UK version on 4 discs (TotSC included) is renowned for lacking vital information and being unplayable past original release's disc 2...

[Allyx]

Tolkien was a genius, his work was very well constructed, engaging, and enjoyable. I seem to remember a referance to tolkiens trolls arguing about how to cook Bilbo for so long that they turned to stone in the morning sun.
Tolkien said Orcs were elves once, but the difference between Orcs and Goblins is not too different to comparing Chimpanzee's to Ape's if you ask me, I'm quite happy to believe orcs are the larger (slightly) more inteligent cousins of goblins.

[Gaear]

Originally Posted by Zebedee

Just re-ordered BG1 and sincerely hoping that it is going to be ok to play - UK version on 4 discs (TotSC included) is renowned for lacking vital information and being unplayable past original release's disc 2...

I'd think you'd want Balderdash and maybe BGTutu for that . . .

[Rook Hudson]

Originally Posted by Allyx

Tolkien said Orcs were elves once, but the difference between Orcs and Goblins is not too different to comparing Chimpanzee's to Ape's if you ask me, I'm quite happy to believe orcs are the larger (slightly) more inteligent cousins of goblins.

I don't know which version of Tolkien you have been reading but in the version I have Tolkien never said orcs were elves. I seem to remember he wrote that Morgoth the original dark lord created orcs to mock elves which he hated. Also orcs are not the slightly more intelligent cousins of goblins, they are goblins, they are one and the same.

Orcs and goblins are the same thing. Orcs are not different from, related to, slightely larger versions, or anything else.

Allyx is showing that he, like a lot of others who read Tolkien, or bits of Tolkien, really does not understand why Tolkien called goblins orcs. Gygax got it wrong when he thought the orcs in Lord of the Rings were a different race than the goblins in The Hobbit. The truth as I understand it is that Tolkien used the name goblins in The Hobbit because he was writing a book aimed at children, whereas when he decided to write The Lord of the Rings he wanted to appeal to an older audience and so changed the name of goblins to orcs throughout that book. In The Hobbit Gandalf wields a sword called Orcrist, which translates into 'the goblin cleaver'. If goblins and orcs are separate races then the sword would have cleaved orcs not goblins, or be called goblinrist to cleave goblins.

Those who think orcs are different from goblins just do not get it. That D&D, AD&D, and all related spin-offs still make orcs different from goblins shows that a lot of people still just don't understand what Tolkien was doing.

I repeat: orcs and goblins were the same monster, just two different names. That's what Tolkien wrote. That's how it should remain.

Unfortunately because so many people have made the error of making them separate in publication after publication, game after game, it is probably almost impossible to undo what Gygax did all those years ago.

But Gygax did get it wrong. Orcs are not separate from goblins... they are the same monster. Allyx, go and re-read Tolkien again and see for yourself.

[Zebedee]

Originally Posted by Rook Hudson

I don't know which version of Tolkien you have been reading but in the version I have Tolkien never said orcs were elves. I seem to remember he wrote that Morgoth the original dark lord created orcs to mock elves which he hated.

Allyx has it right here. Orcs derive from elves Morgoth captured in the East who he then tortured and twisted. Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales are two good background books for this kind of thing.

edit: in his notes Tolkien considered making Orcs derived from men and orcs derived from animal spirits trapped by Morgoth. In the end he returned to the elven idea.

Goblins and orcs are the same, but I can understand why interpretations of Tolkien got it wrong (or made a design choice). Have a read of the conversation between the snaga and the uruk in LoTR III. They are so greatly different that you could be justified that they are two different species. It's kind of like giving a chihuhua (sp?!) the same stats as a mastiff. It's easier to split them off in some way rather than trying to cover it under a range of sizes system.

[smg225]

Originally Posted by Rook Hudson

But Gygax did get it wrong. Orcs are not separate from goblins... they are the same monster. Allyx, go and re-read Tolkien again and see for yourself.

I don't think Gygax was trying to replicate Middle Earth, he was drawing inspiration from it--the orcs are certainly portrayed larger and more menacing than the more childish goblins, you can see where he got the idea. And, it is a good one. I see no wrong done, only imagination at work; and imagination always relies on error to get things done.

[Allyx]

And besides if Gygax DID copy Tolkien to the letter, Tolkien could have (and probably would have) sued Gygax so far into debt that the entire D&D frachise would never have existed in the first place.

[Kalshane]

In The Hobbit Gandalf wields a sword called Orcrist, which translates into 'the goblin cleaver'. If goblins and orcs are separate races then the sword would have cleaved orcs not goblins, or be called goblinrist to cleave goblins.

Actually, Orcrist was Thorin's sword. Gandalf's sword was Glamdring, "the Foe Hammer".

[Lord_Spike]

...for different names of things in Tolkien's tales. It goes something like this: the manifold languages spoken yield different names. One example of this is Balrog, the Sindarin name for the Demons of Might which serve Morgoth,which were originally called Valarauko (spirit of fire) by all the Quendi. Language changes by region, by culture, and often enough by misunderstanding. Remember, Professor Tolkien was a linguist by training and a novelist by choice. The words Uruk, Orc, and Yrch all mean the same thing as goblin. It's just that one is a much more degraded and common form used by common folk in a common language.

Another thing to consider is that just as the race of the elves (Quendi) became sundered; so to did they become possessed of varying degrees of potential, based on how pure (or holy) they had become by either taking or refusing the journey to Aman. Morgoth made war upon all of the elves,(well, everything in Middle Earth, really...) and made captive an untold number of unfortunate creatures...including each type of elf at one point or another. It stands to reason that the more power a thing has , the greater it's potential for weal or woe. One of the Eldar is more powerful than say, one of the Moriquendi. Galadriel compared to Legolas is far more powerful. And if twisted to evil, capable of doing far more harm. I suspect that the lesser creatures of evil were derived from the less powerful of Morgoth's captives.

BTW, orc comes from latin orcus, meaning death. Tolkien didn't create it, but he did create Balrog, which is why orcs are still in D&D and Balrogs are not. Anything Tolkien's estate could say was their intellectual property has long since been removed from D&D because of legal action.

And Orcrist would cleave any creature of goblin-kind, regardless of whether he was spawned in Moria, Isengard, or Barad Dur itself.

[Rook Hudson]

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.

[Zebedee]

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.

[Lord_Spike]

...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.

[Rook Hudson]

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 !

[Mawhrin]

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

[darmagon]

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

[Shiningted]

Where are the gnomes

Beren in his original incarnation.

Where are the vampires

Thuringwethil, same story.

Where are the drow

Take away the black skin, you have the 'deep elves' of the Hobbit - you might call them the Noldor.

Where are the satyrs

Well, some would say LotR was a satyr on modern warfare, being written after WWii and all...

Ok, now i am being silly ;-)

[darmagon]

Originally Posted by Shiningted

Beren in his original incarnation.

Thuringwethil, same story.

Take away the black skin, you have the 'deep elves' of the Hobbit - you might call them the Noldor.

Well, some would say LotR was a satyr on modern warfare, being written after WWii and all...

Ok, now i am being silly ;-)

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

[Lord_Spike]

...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.

[Shiningted]

The fact that Rangers had to be ummm - it was Chaotic Good in AD&D wasn't it? - is a dead giveaway. If they were just forest folk they could have been any alignment.

Beren the gnome etc is from book of Lost Tales: the gnomes were what became the Noldor.

And yes, i probably stretched the satyr thing - I pronounce it 'satire' but I make no claims to being correct.

As for the 'great black Uruks' of Mordor, I never imagined them as having human blood - thats an interesting point.

[Lord_Spike]

...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!

[Kalshane]

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.

[Rook Hudson]

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.

[Shiningted]

Sorry but I really do think the above is wrong.

Gary, imho, wanted a bunch of humanoid monsters to populate his world. So he invented a whole bunch of different races then used existing names for them.

Goblin.
Hobgoblin.
Orc.
Kobold.
Elf.
Dwarf.
Gnome.

I am probably missing fifteen or twenty obvious ones.

The main give away that he was drawing heavily from Tolkien (other than the word 'orc' itself) is the inclusion of the 'half-orc' and 'half-elf' races (and halflings of course!) These were important in Tolkien, the former at Isengard, the latter in the Earendil - Elrond / Elros - Aragorn linage. He could have easily had half-dwarves, half-goblins etc, but he didn't, he used the Tolkienically familiar ones and only those. But i don't think there was ANY misunderstanding or any such thing - he made races and pilfered names, neither more nor less than that.

I DO agree that for Tolkien, goblin == orc, the Hobbit basically states this. Though as i pointed out above, there is a lot of development from go to woah.

[halarious]

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.