D&D (2024) Does the concept of subspecies of Elves come across as racist to you

[Horwath]

Additionally, where in the core books does it say that all orcs are 100% evil in all worlds without exception?

Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.

I was just quoting the post before me and saying that I would not mind if core books say that Orcs or any other race is 100% evil.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was just quoting the post before me and saying that I would not mind if core books say that Orcs or any other race is 100% evil.

I know, I meant additionally to what you said. I have no issue with 100% evil orcs either, but it doesn't say that in the books anywhere, and that's what I was taking note of.

 

[Corinnguard]

Any setting that has Orcs as a PC race no longer has them being 100% evil.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree but for a shared book you probably need to suggest “usually or often” unless we are willing to devote a long section per stat block to talk about the different regions.

I actually have have a nation of half orcs that have largely LN society/values. I have not decided how much this influences orcs but that will be a decision for world building too.

I wish the idea that a population can possess a characteristic or trait in the aggregate, while plenty of outliers exist within the population, wasn't something that needed a lot of nuance and explanation for people to understand, and was simply assumed true when talking about group characteristics.

"Men are taller than women" and "This woman is taller than this man" are not contradictory statements, because the first statement is obviously referencing the aggregate groups.

 

[Cadence]

I was just quoting the post before me and saying that I would not mind if core books say that Orcs or any other race is 100% evil.

I bring back from upthread that I would...

From having seen a lot of these threads, it feels like I would...

<snip>

2. Avoid having things you want treated like people (so, PC races) have biological/species parts that are just negative traits ("usually evil") or a set of traits that obviously fit with stereotypes that were used by real world racists/bigots against real life racial/ethnic minorities - especially when parts of the physical descriptions line up with the real world caricatures too (you can google those both in history, games, and books by famous authors). Unfortunately for creators, sometimes it's hard to see these at first, but once they're pointed out they're obvious to lots of people. And unfortunately, like with everything, there is a borderland where folks won't agree on if it's obvious or that bad. (Tangentially, I imagine an example of a race that tends to be very deadly when angered and is based on a certain dog breed as a justification... and then watch the defenders of that dog breed get angry about it.)

3. Someone will want to make lots of things people - so if you want something always evil maybe make it tied to an evil outer plane or undead or something like that (demon-cursed Gnolls, if they hadn't had a history of not being demon-cursed; vampires; far realm infested abberations). That won't solve everything, but see (6) below.

<snip>

6. Realize that you won't make everyone happy

 

[Micah Sweet]

Any setting that has Orcs as a PC race no longer has them being 100% evil.

In that scenario, orcs wouldn't be a PC race. I would think that was obvious.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Additionally, where in the core books does it say that all orcs are 100% evil in all worlds without exception?

Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.

It was hyperbole, but here is the excerpt from the book orcs were introduced in, Volo's guide to monsters. (If you have the dnd beyond version it no longer says this, as they went back and edited content)

'Orcs are vicious raiders, who believe that the world should be theirs. They also respect strength above all else and believe the strong must bully the weak to ensure that weakness does not spread like a disease. They are usually chaotic evil.'

Not exactly what I'd call a setting neutral depiction, and not giving a new DM any hint that the orcs in their setting don't have to be a bunch of evil raiders.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Volo's depiction in his titular book makes me hope I can Eldritch Blast him when I finally get around to BG3.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It was hyperbole, but here is the excerpt from the book orcs were introduced in, Volo's guide to monsters. (If you have the dnd beyond version it no longer says this, as they went back and edited content)

'Orcs are vicious raiders, who believe that the world should be theirs. They also respect strength above all else and believe the strong must bully the weak to ensure that weakness does not spread like a disease. They are usually chaotic evil.'

Not exactly what I'd call a setting neutral depiction, and not giving a new DM any hint that the orcs in their setting don't have to be a bunch of evil raiders.

I see no problem with this; it doesn't proscribe anything, and what's more I am deeply offended by WotC's choice to edit/censor their own product in that way. You want to do/say things differently? Make a new product.

 

[Cadence]

I see no problem with this; it doesn't proscribe anything, and what's more I am deeply offended by WotC's choice to edit/censor their own product in that way. You want to do/say things differently? Make a new product.

Is "Buy a different product" the obvious come-back?

Anyway, that feels a low bar to me to be "deeply offended" by.