Do We Really Need Half-Elves and Half-Orcs?

[Charlaquin]

They’d be no more distrusted than foreign humans, unless the races of your world are more isolationist than the modern dnd norm. You are free to run your game however works for your table, obviously, but it also seems like your players aren’t exactly stoked about how you want to run it.

For how often DM’s complain about it, I haven’t met very many players who are bothered by the fantasy kitchen sink “problem.”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Keep in mind that while they may seem cliched to you, that's not necessarily the case for new players.

We don't need any of the specific races, a D&D game can do without elves and dwarves if you really wanted that. As for the core game, yes they are worth keeping. Not everyone is as burned out on them as you.

I have a setting in development for when my FR campaign ends, that may ultimately end up not featuring Humans, wood or high elves, and possibly dwarves. The dominant races are Eladrin, Gnomes, Goliath, Dragonborn, and to a lesser extent Kobolds, Kenku, Halflings, Fauns, Shadar-kai, and orcs (using half-orc stats).

You'll never play D&D with someone that's been murdered.
You will possibly play D&D with someone who has suffered the trauma of rape.

Understanding that difference and how those differences impact the people you play with is important.

This is completely dismissive of the psychological trauma of rape. The false equivalency presented here is harmful.

While your table may be accepting of rape as a commonality in your world it was a wonderful thing for the game to move away from a race that only existed due to rape.

Half-orcs haven’t “only existed due to rape” in DnD for decades. I rarely play them, but I’ve never played one whose parents weren’t just normal parents.

 

[Oofta]

Personally I do limit races, but it's more what makes sense for my world (and my players) than what I would like to play. So I allow half-elves and half-orcs but not dragonborn (at least not yet) because there's never been a huge demand for it. On the other hand I don't allow Drow because in my world they're the bogey-man that comes in the night. Literally.

But I allow half-elves because they have such a long history and half-orcs because I don't have a problem with people playing the big ugly rough around the edges character if they want. In addition, not all half-orcs are the product of force (or at least not a human female being raped) because there are communities of half-orcs. Sometimes orcish blood goes back several generations with a half-orc born to two human parents who happened to have a little orcish blood. In certain parts of the world there is more mixing of cultures and races than others.

So why not just allow orcs? Because I don't view orcs (or any other monstrous humanoid) as just people with funny skin color. They're just built differently and are pretty much universally incapable of being good. I understand that's an over-simplification for a lot of people, but I view it the same as tigers. No matter how much they're "tamed" they are never domesticated; they just aren't wired that way.

On the other hand, if it makes sense to limit half-orcs or half-elves in your campaign feel free. But if orcs are (presumably) potentially not evil in your campaign, then why assume half-orcs are the product of force?

 

[Ashrym]

I want to play Worf once in a while. I like the flavor of outcasts half-elves carry.

I don't think any DM should feel required to include any race (these are optional, after all) . I do believe the options are nice to have.

I have also written my backstory on half-orcs as genetic anomalies with full orc parents, the product of a "beauty abd the beast" relationship, drunken one night stands, a blind parent who only sees the positive personality, having both parents as half-orcs, and even the result of a bio-genetic test tube project by a mad wizard. Use your imagination more, maybe?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For how often DM’s complain about it, I haven’t met very many players who are bothered by the fantasy kitchen sink “problem.”

Absolutely. It’s only a problem in a mostly theoretical, “the idea of this bothers me” kinda way.

 

[Umbran]

Understanding that difference and how those differences impact the people you play with is important.

Understanding the difference means that you learn to *ASK* your players what is an issue for them, rather than assume you know and ban things from the table without consultation. Especially when the problem here is not the half-orc itself, but what is thought of as a common backstory. A half-orc without the violence in the past might be fine at the table - but you have to ask to know.

If a person had such a concern, I'd first consider a, "no sexual violence in backstory or in play," rule rather than ban the half orc - because you could still have the *real* issue arise without half-orcs.

 

[jmartkdr]

I've found that as a player in a monster squad party, a lot of dm's get annoyed that the game doesn't look like the setting they imagined - and they don't know how to deal with that. So suddenly dragonborn are scary monsters that aren't allowed in town, which removes the whole "talking to npc's" pillar of the game, which makes the whole thing less fun for everyone.

Frankly the easiest solution is for dm's to either chose not to care or make it clear they really really don't like non-humans and they'd rather the players only pick human.

(I personally wouldn't be inclined to join a human-only game unless there was something else interesting going on there, but I can respect a dm for wanting to run it and coming out and saying so, rather than wanting to run it, finding out not everyone feels the same way about it, and being disappointed in the game they're running.)

 

[Shiroiken]

I find the OPs premise rather silly. Do we need half-races? It depends on how you define "we" and "need." The game is better for them existing in the PHB. They are not necessary for any setting, but then again neither is any class/race/background/feat/spell/etc.

In my setting, 10% of half-elves can pass as pure elf, while 10% can pass as pure human. In most areas, half-elves are treated as human by elves, and elves by humans. 10% of half-orcs can pass as pure (if ugly) human, including all PCs because otherwise they'd be killed on sight by most civilized people. The races are far more insular, so inter-racial couples are very uncommon, often shunned. This keeps the half-breed population low, except in certain areas where there is a large amount of elf-human cohabitation, and half-breeds seldom find a mate themselves. Because of this, the PCs represent a rather large percentage of the half-breed population for most areas, and I seldom use half-breed NPCs.

You are the DM. It is your setting. You are the one who decides what is "needed" and what is not. The only real limitation you have is how far you can go before the players decide to play a different campaign.


P.S. half-orcs were not always considered to be product of rape, even early in the game. In the 1E adventure "The Sentinel" there is an ugly female magic user with three half-orc sons. The description gives every indication that she had an orc mate, rather than them being a product of rape. The rape trope was simply the easiest method to use, and many DMs and players can be lazy. Conversely, to believe that rape is uncommon by a race as evil as orcs is simply inconceivable (of course, I would figure the orcs would usually kill them afterwards).

 

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely. It’s only a problem in a mostly theoretical, “the idea of this bothers me” kinda way.

Precisely. There are a lot of things like this, that bother DMs who are thinking about it from a theoretical, “what does this say about the fictional world” perspective, but that players couldn’t care less about, since their concern is primarily about making and playing an individual character that they find interesting.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

They’d be no more distrusted than foreign humans, unless the races of your world are more isolationist than the modern dnd norm. You are free to run your game however works for your table, obviously, but it also seems like your players aren’t exactly stoked about how you want to run it.

I disagree. Look at the origins of Dragonborn, Tieflings, and Haf-Orcs. All three have origins that are from creatures viewed as monsters or marauders, creatures where parents tell their children stories to scare them, etc. Even good dragons are viewed with fear as well as awe because commoners know they are basically powerless against them. So, while cultures might be cautious of strangers, they won't often shutter their windows and lock their doors at their approach.

And my players have no problem with it at all. When I explained the reaction they would likely receive as a group, one suggested they are a fantasy version of the Suicide Squad. So far, we've embraced the concept and, most importantly, everyone is having fun. Anyway, I am not sure where your "modern dnd norm" comes from...

Either way, the bog standard dnd world sees Dragonborn as a noble race that is more a potential ally against the dangers of the world than a threat, and while teiflings are viewed with suspicion, history has enough good teiflings that only the crappy people genuinely assume evil when they see one.

"[Dragonborn]... a world that greets them with fearful incomprehension." (PHB p.32), so I don't see the standard dnd world seeing Dragonborn from your view. A creature that can breath fire or lightning, capable of killing "commoners", is not one quickly to be embraced by strangers.

And I have no idea what history you are referencing to counter the first line of the Tiefling description in the PHB. In my experience, I have only read about two Tieflings (from the Drizz't books) so far: one was a dominating evil warlord and the other a vile warlock who managed to change, albeit still not really "good".