D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Giltonio_Santos]

The 2e DMG, while giving guidelines for the creation of new PC races, states that the character should be the alignment listed for that monster in the Monstrous Manual. This is the same source for no Int penalty for orcs since it also states that -1 penalty to Int should only be the case with monsters of below-average Intelligence, which is not the case with the Monstrous Manual orc.

The Complete Book of Humanoids says orc PCs can be of any alignment (as a side note, it has orcs at +1 str/-2 cha and half-orcs at +1 str, +1 con/-2 cha). As those are rules for orc PCs and not guidelines on creating new PC races, I believe they have precedence, even when you consider the DMG's status as a core rulebook. It's worth mentioning, though that the DMG also puts orcs as a good option for new PC races, giving the cooperative nature of their people.

Kind of off-topic, but worth mentioning as well: going through some of my old Ravenloft modules, I don't see many alcoholic and villainous Vistani, much like I don't see dumb and always evil orcs in my Complete Book of Humanoids. Basically, WotC seems to be changing the "legacy" of D&D by fixing problems that they created in the first place...

 

[Maxperson]

Can you cite your source for this? Because page 49 of The Complete Book of Humanoids, under the listing for "Orc, Half-Orc" (which is for both full orcs and half-orcs), says the following in the Alignment section:

"Orcs tend toward lawful evil, half-orcs tend toward true neutral. PC orcs and half-orcs may be of any alignment."

It was in the DMG. I didn't look at expansion books, so it appears that they changed that later specifically for orcs and I'm assuming other humanoids.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I wanted to start a new thread to explore a specific element of recent discussions around D&D races that I think has the potential to at least encourage some kind of integration.

As I see it, there are two core truths or meanings that are underlying the two "sides" in the ongoing debate that, if we tease them out from the more extreme variants, are both quite reasonable (with the caveat that I don't like the idea of "two-sidedness," and find this polarization to be a major part of the problem):

1) D&D Heritage. D&D heritage, as a whole, is meaningful and should be preserved, including the act of creative imagination for its own sake, and the nature of fantasy as distinct from reality.

2) Inclusivity. The D&D game should be welcoming and inclusive to anyone who wants to play it, no matter their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or identity, ideology, disability, etc.

What I find interesting is that "heritage" is often made to stand in for unquestioning heritage remaining unchallenged.

For example nine point alignment. If we go back to the earliest days of D&D there aren't nine alignments but a mere three; Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic representing the clash of civilization vs nature. And this I find far more conducive to interesting gameplay than nine point alignment that doesn't really fit together and has some really weird legacy effects like all druids being neutral (which makes sense on the Lawful-Chaotic access but not when you throw in Good-Evil). And the True Neutral Balance Keepers are a perfectly sensible position on the Lawful-Chaotic alignment but terrible philosophy on Good vs Evil.

I also think that inclusivity isn't so much an acceptance of anything but a "no kicking" sign that can and sometimes should be enforced.

If we start from looking at those two points, I think it would be difficult to find that--taken on their own--they aren't both meaningful and valid, and worthy of consideration.

I don't see heritage as inherently valuable. I see it as useful to help answer the question "How can we have better games". I'm far from an OSR supporter - but they definitely brought back useful parts of the gaming heritage for richer and more interesting games.

1) Do you agree that both "truths" are important and worth acknowledging and nourishing? If not, why not? If so, then...

I believe heritage is something to be explored because people in the past weren't idiots and will have done things well we've currently forgotten. I don't believe that it's something to specifically be nourished so much as preserved and explored to make sure we haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater (the way IMO we did with XP for GP). Inclusivity on the other hand is something worth nurturing.

Which is my problem as well. Orcs and other evil monsters serve a role in the game. Just like Borg, Cardassians or The Dominion do in Star Trek.

Without orcs being evil it's just one more generic human with a rubber mask to me and I don't see what purpose they serve in the game.

EDIT: Might as well just make them another sub-race of elves.

First, I'd question whether the Cardassians are evil. Is Garak? (Paragraphs could be written in answer to that simple question). The Cardassian government is evil and the society that it controls is. But I don't think we can say the Cardassians themselves are evil any more than we can say the Germans are no matter how evil a certain mid 20th Century German government and society has become a deserved watchword of evil. But the Cardassians are much more interesting because they aren't inherently evil.

I could make a very strong case for the Borg being Lawful Good on the D&D alignment chart, seeking to help everyone. They are definitely hostile and are an excellent "dark mirror" of the TNG Federation, but they are interesting precisely because they have their own morality and coherent worldview. And like the Federation want to assimilate everyone - and aren't bound by that pesky Prime Directive or anything like it.

Even the Dominion? The Great Link was definitely evil, seeking control and domination. Was Odo? Were even the Jem'Hadar?

 

[Libramarian]

Without orcs being evil it's just one more generic human with a rubber mask to me and I don't see what purpose they serve in the game.

Maybe the purpose is to promote the official D&D adventures, since the monsters aren't ready-to-use anymore.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I tend to like having stereotypes be something that exist in-world, but the reality be a lot more complex. Eg I have drow, but they are thinking feeling sentient creatures, they don't exist purely to represent male fears of female power.

I'm currently writing a fairly old school Warhammer Fantasy inspired RPG which has Dark Elves. They're known as Dark Elves because of the colour of the sails of their ships and the colour of their armour - and feared because they are slavers. One of the rumours in the setting is that every elven trading vessel keeps a black sail and some armour paint in the hold (and the elves are already suspicious enough given that the biggest group of elves the PCs are likely to meet work for the East Megorinvian Company).

I noticed that Forgotten Realms orcs seem to often draw on tropes of Native American tribes attacking white settlers, but currently I'm more into old school pig-faced minions of evil orcs, like the 1e MM or the 80s DnD cartoon. I've been working on a caste based society ruled by half orcs, with orcs below and goblins at the bottom. The old half orc chief Vigguz promotes trade and avoids direct conflict with humans, but his offspring are less cautious.

At a risk of setting the cat among the pigeons there does seem to be a singificant difference between British and American orcs. Two of the biggest sources for British orcs are Tolkein and Games Workshop; Tolkein's orcs are very definitely lower class and talk like British infantrymen did at the Battle of the Somme (where Tolkein was present) and for all we're told things like they were made in mockery of elves and are all alike whenever we see them they have different perspectives to each other. Meanwhile early GW orcs were explicitly based on British football hooligans. American orcs do, I agree, seem to draw on tropes from Westerns (and the Law vs Chaos setting where the boundaries of the kingdom are unsettled also feels very Western-inspired).

 

[Oofta]

@Neonchameleon, @Libramarian, I don't really want to make this another "what role should orcs play" thread.

It's just my preference that we limit generic races that don't have a "hook". A lot of thing are over-simplified in D&D, different DMs and campaigns can always add more complexity to suit their needs and preferences.

I don't even allow dragonborn or tieflings in my campaign, it just doesn't fit the world that I envision. That doesn't mean someone else's campaign where everything looks like the Mos Eisley cantina is wrong in any way.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

You could probably divorce good/evil from most races and monsters without changing the game by distilling things into behaviors. Much of the flavour of a race can be kept but you can remove any 'cultural' comparisons to real world people. Then all races tend to look more like animals. Then, an 'evil invading army' is instead an 'invasive species'. Humans would get the same treatment, of course.

If you look at a Fantasy World as an episode of National Geographic, you can describe a species without categorizing it as good or evil. Sure, lions eat cute, little baby gazelles but the Narrator on Animal Kingdom never calls the lion 'evil'.

Orcs are large, aggressive creatures who are extremely territorial. They are usually led by an Alpha male whose dominance can be challenged by younger, stronger members of the group. Their strength is a major asset and they often solve disputes with violence but this violence rarely leads to the death of a member unless it is a challenge for leadership. While they are omnivores, their diet consists mostly of meat and, when their family unit or group/tribe starts to become too large for their territory, they try to expand out, violently pushing out other species or tribes.

Halflings live in tight Family Units. They are omnivorous and tend to have beneficial or symbiotic relationship with other species nearby. They are small and quick, and more likely to hide than to attack when threatened. That said, when backed into a corner, they can be quite ferocious. etc...

Orcs are a lot like most predatory pack animals.
you could even describe wood elves as monkeys that gather in family units in the forest.

Then a DM can figure out how it all fits into their setting and decide the political fallout depending on how different species interact because the characters within the settings will have their own views of good and evil but the Monsters Manual leaves it up to the Dm to decide how it works together.

Just a thought.

 

[seebs]

Sometimes the best way to keep your "heritage" in mind is to be aware that your ancestors were monsters.

 

[Gradine]

Without orcs being evil it's just one more generic human with a rubber mask to me and I don't see what purpose they serve in the game.

Well, this just makes it sound like you only have two roles: generic humans with rubber masks and evil generic humans with rubber masks. Which sounds like a personal problem.

I humbly submit that all of D&D's sundry races are varied and interesting in their own right, independent of their typical/required assignments.



I mean, except for the Drow, of course

 

[Olrox17]

Sometimes the best way to keep your "heritage" in mind is to be aware that your ancestors were monsters.

Advocating for the humanization of non-existent fantasy monsters, while carelessly dumping an immense slice of past humans into the monster bin. No historical perspective, whatsoever. Ok.