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

 

[Umbran]

I have zero issue with that, not sure about you…

I don't have a problem with humans-only games.

I have a problem with a position that all races are equally interchangeable with no impact on the narrative (which is an upshot of something said, above). I've already given an example which should make this fairly, hopefully trivially, obvious.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what they said. Just that, to them, that particular thing was so rooted in Middle Earth, that avoiding that specifically made creating their setting feel more unique, and (this is the implication that I hear) it was a simple choice that was quite effective. Cutting out one of the most Middle Earth things allows the other stuff to stand more on their own merits, rather than that context tarring the whole thing as more LotR-y than they wanted.

I wasn't playing D&D until the mid 90's I was reading these stories before that though.
In the 90's it was pretty soon after I started playing (maybe a year maybe two it all blurs but still pre WotC) that I saw Orcs as anything OTHER then what TOlken did. However by 3e and beyond I almost didn't recognize them as even based on Toklen. BY now when they are just another race in the world most times (some good some bad some farmers some hunter/trappers) I just don't see it any more.

I can't imagine someone taking orc/half orcs as presented in the last 5 or so years and saying "They are just Tolken rip off the old minions of the dark lord"
as such the argument that putting them in would make it more cookie cutter or more kitchen sink or more 'tolken like' seems so odd to me

 

[mamba]

Not really. The lesser rings of power quickly corrupted the dwarf lords, making them greedy. Dwarves, despite their resistance to certain types of corruption, would fail the test of the One Ring very quickly.

notice the word particularly.

Tolkien could have found a different explanation, he just decided that this is how it is, and why not?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't have a problem with humans-only games.

I have a problem with a position that all races are equally interchangeable with no impact on the narrative (which is an upshot of something said, above). I've already given an example which should make this fairly, hopefully trivially, obvious.

but the difference between "there is Absolut Ly no difference between an 18ft giant and a halfling" and "It doesn't change the story or world in a fundamental way to add a single race to let a player play what they want if you don't have a reason not to" is light years.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

notice the word particularly.

Tolkien could have found a different explanation, he just decided that this is how it is, and why not?

exaclty and again dwarves were stand in for human greed and halfings a stand in for the 'everyman' going about there day and dragged into world affairs.

 

[DarkCrisis]

okay, it does to me.

If I sat down to watch the new Quantum Leap and it did a 1 for 1 of the series premier of the original Quantum Leap I would hate the protagonist. When I started my rewatch of the 80's version I was showing it to my fiancé who is many years younger then me and she was put off by several things that Sam (the protagonist) just did. I have seen her enjoy the newer one much more (except this week cause she hates the exorcist and this episode is based on that story).

Out of date isn't just inclusivity.

Ive been watching both shows and I have to say the old show is far more entertaining. Sam and Al have great chemistry. Al is the comedy adn Sam is the serious one.

Ben and his fiancée as his observer is a really odd choice both are the serious type. And how is Ben supposed to have to be romantic etc (if the Leap calls for it) with his GF watching him? I really hope they replace her job with Al's daughter who is much more of an interesting character so far. Plus i can't see this whole Pacifist thing last to long. Sam sometimes had to beat up a guy to save a life. The wild west episode really stretched it...

Then ew show has gotten better though since episode 1.

 

[billd91]

no, it subjectively is, Tolkien decided that, he could have done literally anything else too

Just because it was decided by the author, doesn't make it less objective. This isn't a question of whether or not Tolkien is an evocative author or not nor an opinion that may vary based on differing characteristics, qualifications, or perspectives of the reader. If Tolkien wrote LotR so that Hobbits were less vulnerable to the temptations of the rings, and it's pretty clear he did, then that's objective.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And how is Ben supposed to have to be romantic etc (if the Leap calls for it) with his GF watching him?

were the word romance wasn't used... and a not nice word that I don't want to type here was, the idea of sam being intimate in someone elses body (or with his body and there image) was NOT something my fiance liked and I hope that in 2022 no story will be written like that.

 

[Maxperson]

if you remove hobbits, and just make 'humans that do not crave power, just stay home and don't go more then 5 miles from home' have those traits it is the same...

This is objectively an impossible statement. If you remove hobbits and make humans you have changed the story, and since it's impossible for change to not equal change, you have in fact made it NOT THE SAME.

You really need to prove your argument that change =/= change before you continue, because it seems to me that your argument is fails on its face. If you can prove that change =/= change, then it's worthwhile to continue the discussion. If you can't, then any change, however small, will alter the feel for people.

 

[Maxperson]

no, it subjectively is, Tolkien decided that, he could have done literally anything else too

That's not how it works. It's not an opinion or belief that Tolkien's hobbits had those traits. Yes, they're imaginary, but they have those traits that he assigned them. I can't be wrong when I state that. "Could have" is irrelevant since he did not.