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

[TaranTheWanderer]

I feel goblins get about as bad a shake as orcs do. I find role playing out the extermination of a 'nest' of small sentient creatures, sometimes, repugnant. Mostly because the DM chooses to humanize them instead of portraying them as a scourge of vicious rodents. But almost every 1st level adventure has goblins as the main antagonist. They're like the gateway to murderhoboism which is another heritage of D&D. huh. Maybe this comment is better in the murderhobo thread....

 

[Libramarian]

So, now we're equating taking offense at language used to dehumanize real world groups as an excuse to torture and murder them for centuries with far right Christian fundamentalists?

Interesting take there.

I'm not equating them, just pressuring you to acknowledge that you do, in fact, evaluate the validity of someone's offense when they take offense to D&D.

And note, TSR DID listen to the Jack Chick style Christians - that's how we got 2e D&D. So, I'm not real sure that's the example you want to go with.

Oh I am aware. I'm predicting that 6e will have a similar decline in story/adventure quality as 2e, for similar reasons. The curse of the even-numbered editions is foretold.

 

[Aldarc]

Regarding Eberron orcs - does anything make them stand out from other races other than general appearance? Do, I don't know, ogres get the same treatment? What about fiends?

Orcs have different traditions, a different history, and different cultures than other peoples in Eberron. This is how most people’s in this game are. They are defined by their history in the grand scheme of things and their cultures. I would use orcs because of the region or the culture fits to what may be needed.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Their culture. Their history. What they stand for. Very interesting.
Gnolls get the same complex treatment. Hobgoblins get the same complex treatment. Not as simple as other settings.


Lots of monsters. Complexity of Eberron means humans can be monsters. I suggest reading it.
The head of a good church is evil. The evil general king wants to end war.

I actually find having an 'evil' head of a church offensive for my own sensibilities. Mostly because of the parallels it has with real world religion and the 'all religion is bad' crowd. It makes for a good story, though, and I find it interesting to explore as long as it's not cliche and not done in poor taste.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I actually find having an 'evil' head of a church offensive for my own sensibilities. Mostly because of the parallels it has with real world religion and the 'all religion is bad' crowd. It makes for a good story, though, and I find it interesting to explore as long as it's not cliche and not done in poor taste.

Should have clarified. Second head. Church itself is good. But very complex. Great roleplaying opportunities. Without baggage.
I find the one note religions to be distasteful.
I suggest reading it.

 

[tommybahama]

The problem with lists like that is that the horrors of WWII greatly skew the numbers of all other wars combined...Plus, if their book only counts military dead, then it is totally invalidated, as I was talking about civilian casualties too, including all the purges that do not count officially as a war.

If you want to now include civilian deaths then nobody can beat the 90 to 140 million or so victims of communism.

Even if you exclude the 20th century then your argument is invalid unless you can cite some numbers.

 

[Oofta]

So no one is going to answer "is it ever okay to have [effectively all] evil orcs in a specific campaign?"

Because I have a related question - what if there was a published campaign based on, say Greyhawk. My knowledge of that campaign setting is a bit fuzzy/limited but IIRC orcs were evil in that campaign. Yes, Robilar had an orc butler, but Robilar was evil.

My personal preference is not to make all humanoids another ethnicity of human. I go out of my way to not humanize orcs (or goblins for that matter). If "compromise" is "for all practical purposes they are humans that look different" then it's not compromise. It's throwing out a concept completely.

In addition I don't see why it stops there. Will no one consider the plight of the ogre?

 

[Maxperson]

No need to get rid of them. I don’t think anyone is saying get rid of them. Just nuance them. Having a few thousand good, neutral Or technically advanced orcs doesn’t invalidate the evil ones, it’s makes people stop making assumptions though.

No, it doesn't stop assumptions. I haven't has 100% evil orcs since 2e. I have had the vast majority very evil, though, like in your post above.

Having run orcs like that for multiple groups, do you know how many stopped assuming the orcs they encounter are evil? None. When 99 out of 100 orcs in the world are evil, there's little point in stopping to find out if this group of orcs is the rare exception.

You'd have to turn orcs into pig humans, rather than a different pig humanoid race to stop the assumptions. There would have to be a very large percentage of good and neutral orcs, not just a few thousand.

 

[Xenonnonex]

So no one is going to answer "is it ever okay to have [effectively all] evil orcs in a specific campaign?"

Because I have a related question - what if there was a published campaign based on, say Greyhawk. My knowledge of that campaign setting is a bit fuzzy/limited but IIRC orcs were evil in that campaign. Yes, Robilar had an orc butler, but Robilar was evil.

My personal preference is not to make all humanoids another ethnicity of human. I go out of my way to not humanize orcs (or goblins for that matter). If "compromise" is "for all practical purposes they are humans that look different" then it's not compromise. It's throwing out a concept completely.

In addition I don't see why it stops there. Will no one consider the plight of the ogre?

What do you think nuance means.

 

[FrogReaver]

What do you think nuance means.

seems like he’s trying to ask what it means to you.