Dragonlance Dragonlance Creators Reveal Why There Are No Orcs On Krynn

Talking to the Dragonlance Nexus, Dragonlance creators Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman revealed why the world of Krynn features no orcs -- in short, because they didn't want to copy Tolkien, and orcs were very much a 'Middle Earth' thing.

Weis told Trampas Whiteman that "Orcs were also viewed as very Middle Earth. We wanted something different." Hickman added that it was draconians which made Krynn stand out. Read more at the link below!

Why are there no Orcs in Krynn? Weis and Hickman give us the answer! - Dragonlance Nexus

Dragonhelm gets the scoop from Weis and Hickman on why there are no orcs in Krynn. Read More

dragonlancenexus.com

 

[Remathilis]

Ideally, I don't want people playing in my game because it's the only game in town, I want players who are exited about this game in particular. The best RPG experiences I've had have all been when both the DM and the players had fully bought into the theme of the game.

Unfortunately, real life gets in the way of idealism.

I play with a group of friends I've known for decades. We play twice monthly. A campaign takes on average two years to complete.

If my DM decides he's running a campaign set on Krynn and I had an idea for Orgzar the Elfcrusher, I don't have a way of using my idea for at least two years. If my DM decides he likes Krynn and all further games will be set on it, I'll never get the chance to play Orgzar. Not unless I want to abandon my friends and find a completely new group of strangers to game with.

Which I think becomes the crutch of this argument. If my DM is running Krynn now, but in two years we might run Eberron or Greyhawk or something, then I might be able to use Orgzar then. But if my DM is the kind that isn't going to swap up campaigns settings and has very restricted options, that can cause real tension in the group.

For the record, my DM is very permissive when it comes to options. But the example holds that finding a game that suits your tastes isn't always possible and DM's should equally watch that their "vision" doesn't turn off players as well.

 

[Faolyn]

You playing or DMing?
And if it was $45 would that be ok?

I both play and DM. So either/or

And no. Dragonlance has too many things I find dumb and not enough things I find cool to make me want to spend any amount of money. So far, the only thing that intrigues me is when the video (or at least, the synopsis of the video) in the other thread (Everything You Need For Shadow of the Dragon Queen) that said "War is represented by context -- it's not goblins attacking the village, but evil forces; refugees, rumours" because I'm interested in seeing how they accomplish that.

 

[Maxperson]

Not if it's for a system that already has everything in it. Do you really think that Eberron would have included everything if it didn't have to? Keith Baker even said that he had to do certain things because D&D required it.

WotC is requiring every setting be kitchen sink. This is NOT a system requirement like you are making it out to be. It's a business decision to do something that the system doesn't require.

So what is the difference between generic setting #471 and a setting that is basically a generic setting, except it has no orcs?

#471 is a non-generic setting that has no orcs. It's better than nothing, but not as good as a setting with even more things that make it non-generic.

Spelljammer was bad because they didn't include enough lore, not because they removed races or curated anything. What they had (save for the hadozee) was decent, they just didn't have nearly enough.

I agree.

So, you're not sure how a creature was created long before Tolkien doesn't have to rely on Tolkien's personal interpretation to be used?

It was not Tolkien's interpretation of that creature. If it was, he would have made his version something undead. He just used part of the name and made something entirely new.

So then it shouldn't require Tolkien's interpretation of how orcs are created either.

What?

I mean, you keep proving my point here. Elves in folklore are usually very small, often goblin-y or sprite-like in appearance, were tricksters who caused illness and seduced and abducted people. They got bowdlerized by the Victorians, sure, but Tolkien made them into the much taller, far more noble woodland archers, pretty people that we think of today--and that's what D&D used for their own elves. Weiss and Hickman had no problem using them, but for some reason thought that they had to have Tolkien's origins for orcs?

I'm not proving your point unless your point is that you can pick and choose which things to include and which not to include from any setting, novel or other entertainment medium.

 

[mamba]

Not if it's for a system that already has everything in it. Do you really think that Eberron would have included everything if it didn't have to? Keith Baker even said that he had to do certain things because D&D required it.

Who decided that it has to include every PHB race? Does 'certain things' even cover races?

So what is the difference between generic setting #471 and a setting that is basically a generic setting, except it has no orcs?

no orcs, but that is because you started with 'basically generic', DL is far from basically generic and if you think no orcs is the main distinguishing feature, you know nothing about it

Spelljammer was bad because they didn't include enough lore, not because they removed races or curated anything. What they had (save for the hadozee) was decent, they just didn't have nearly enough.

'not enough lore' is pretty much the opposite of 'everything from the PHB'

So, you're not sure how a creature was created long before Tolkien doesn't have to rely on Tolkien's personal interpretation to be used?

how is this even relevant? The D&D orcs are definitely Tolkien orcs. Not having an orc does not require any interpretation of what an orc is.

So then it shouldn't require Tolkien's interpretation of how orcs are created either.

mission accomplished then, DL does not have the same creation story for orcs as Tolkien

I mean, you keep proving my point here. Elves in folklore are usually very small, often goblin-y or sprite-like in appearance, were tricksters who caused illness and seduced and abducted people. They got bowdlerized by the Victorians, sure, but Tolkien made them into the much taller, far more noble woodland archers, pretty people that we think of today--and that's what D&D used for their own elves. Weiss and Hickman had no problem using them, but for some reason thought that they had to have Tolkien's origins for orcs?

Not sure how that is proving your point. They went with Tolkien elves and that somehow shows that they did not have to go with Tolkien for orcs?

 

[mamba]

If my DM decides he's running a campaign set on Krynn and I had an idea for Orgzar the Elfcrusher, I don't have a way of using my idea for at least two years.

only if, and bear with me here, these ideas require Orgzar to be a half-orc. Can't say I can think of anything that would require it, for any char idea

Which I think becomes the crutch of this argument. If my DM is running Krynn now, but in two years we might run Eberron or Greyhawk or something, then I might be able to use Orgzar then. But if my DM is the kind that isn't going to swap up campaigns settings and has very restricted options, that can cause real tension in the group.

has he been running exclusively DL up to this point ? if not, I would not overly worry that he will play DL exclusively going forward....

 

[Velderan]

Not if it's for a system that already has everything in it. Do you really think that Eberron would have included everything if it didn't have to? Keith Baker even said that he had to do certain things because D&D required it.

So the Theros and Ravnica project teams just didn't get the memo? As recently as 2 years ago it wasn't a requirement and interestingly skimming the Theros thread I found on here it grew to 7 pages and I found 1 comment saying someone wouldn't likely run a setting that only had 6 races in it. Simpler times I guess.

My guess is they just had a different vision for what they wanted Eberron to be so he was given different guidance.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You don't get to decide what is appealing about playing a given setting.

Sure I do. We all do.

If the lack of orcs is a key feature, I’d love to hear why.

I mean, I get the decision to replace them with Draconians as like the enemy hordes. That certainly was a wise decision, and gave the setting a specific enemy.

But it’s not like the presence of goblins and other creatures messed things up.

and I struggle to see how choosing a different race would make any difference at all, esp for something as generic and replaceable as an orc

it isn’t, it is a side-effect

If you have no interest in the world / adventure you are playing in, why did you even show up? Play something else instead that you actually are interested in

Or is your only interest to play an orc, come what may?

I’m not saying I’d need or want to play an orc or a half orc.

What I’m saying is that if I was running a Dragonlance game, there’s a host of things I’m going to focus on as the important setting elements way before I get to the lack of orcs.

To you. To me it's part of it. It was very refreshing to have a setting without orcs. It made the setting feel different.

For you. For a lot of us canon is important. At least important enough to not discard it so easily as you guys are making out.

Sure, for me. Of course. Canon should, in my opinion, serve the game. So it really depends.

My point is not so much about the orcs as it is about the setting and what it does and what makes it interesting. Honestly, orcs, or their absence, have nothing to do with that.

If they’re added with the new DL material, I just don’t see an issue. If a player played a half-orc or an orc, or just about any other race, I don’t see how it impacts the setting in any way.

Dragonborn I can see because of how they kind of clash with draconians and all that. I think a place could be found for them, but I at least can see why folks might find it more of an issue.

Again, my point was about how people sometimes latch onto very minor things when it comes to settings.

 

[Velderan]

not sure where you are getting this from "We wanted something different." sounds not very objective at all

see above, and also "We needed our own enemy. Draconians not only made our world unique but quickly became an important and deep diegetic pillar of Krynn.”

well, that is what they said. Note esp. “We had goblins for the soldiers”

So I take it you are now ok with excluding orcs

Not sure how people are missing literally 50% of the explanation as they focus on the Tolkien part. They felt it would have been too Tolkien (which clearly was on their mind when they decided how to make halflings into kender) AND they felt goblins and draconians filled the role so they just didn't see the need.

only if, and bear with me here, these ideas require Orgzar to be a half-orc. Can't say I can think of anything that would require it, for any char idea

I've had at least 3 D&D characters that started off as 1 race and ended up another either due to campaign location better supporting it or our adventuring group composition. The only race Orgzar would struggle to be is elven unless his last name was meant to be self-ironic or something.

 

[mamba]

The only race Orgzar would struggle to be is elven unless his last name was meant to be self-ironic or something.

it's a really clumsy elf

 

[Sacrosanct]

If I had a dollar for each PC I wanted to play but couldn’t for one reason or another (mostly cuz I’m the DM cuz no one else wants to), I could retire.

I know it sounds mean, but I don’t have a ton of sympathy for folks who might not be able to play a PC in a particular DMs campaign lol. That’s just life