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

[Xenonnonex]

Well, 5e seems to disagree. Celestials can fall, Zariel can be redeemed from devil to angel, there's a chaotic good devil in Descent into Avernus, and Acq. Inc. has a "good" lich.
I think most fiends should be evil most of the time. I think most celestials should be good most of the time. Aberrations are alien and can be evil all the time. Humanoids and other creatures aren't so clear cut.

But would not the point be they are very rare. Can build entire stories and campaigns around this.
Shows that temptation of evil is too great. Impactful that even angels can fall. But also shows the power of good.
But personally if there are to many of these makes it less impactful.

 

[Mercurius]

I mean, Gnolls can be good in Wildemount and Eberron. I would like a gnoll race just to be open, and we have Yuan-Ti. Like I said before, the base races should be as inclusive as possible.

One other thing that separates gnolls from orcs is that they haven't been traditionally used as PCs, except maybe in deep supplementation. We have half-orcs, and other more recent fantasy venues (WoW) that have broadened orcs, so it makes sense to broaden them in D&D.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I agree. In forgotten realms, they should be fiends. (I don't know if they're in Greyhawk, are they? If so, are they like FR gnolls?)
Eberron and Wildemount gnolls should be like the orcs in that setting. More passionate, wild, but still playable as good characters.

Eberron is another example of nuanced humanoids. Other than humans. Means that Wizards is thinking about. And creating solutions to these issues.

 

[Mercurius]

I would appreciate an apology.

My contribution is that obviously evil monsters do not need as changing. Or much changing. These can be obvious villains to engage with.

Oh, brother. To quote you, just stop.

EDIT: I'm referring to the apology part. I will give the benefit of the doubt and take your word that the red herring bit wasn't trolling, but that's been my impression of your contribution so far, and that you're not at all willing to see the other side - just double-down on your perspective and preferred solutions, which don't take into account what people on the "other side" are saying.

Many people have regarded orcs as "obviously evil monsters." This is part of the fun of D&D: we get to do with it what we want. The obvious--though imperfect--solution is broadening certain definitions, while still maintaining traditional D&D archetypes (evil orcs) as a supported option or even, in some cases, the default.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Another helpful point. Have streamed games play with monstrous PCs. And show them not engaging in evil. Will destigmatize.

 

[Campbell]

In general I think it is best to avoid uncritical use of colonialism tropes whether they resemble the Roman Empire, the British Empire, American Imperialism, etc. Basically fiction where you play the instrument of a powerful civilization and face off against savage uncivilized folk that are assumed to be lesser than you in some ways will always tend to reflect the experiences of marginalized people in a negative light. Basically avoid punching down.

 

[Valchrys]

I've read through this thread and I still don't get what makes an orc an orc. The answer I see most often is that orcs are defined by their culture, which is kind of a non-answer as a DM would then have to ask what is the culture of orcs? Which is a pretty big question. The official solution, taken from Eberron, seems to be the orcs will not be defined in the future. They guy who wrote Eberron clearly thought about orcs but he doesn't tell us why they are the way they are. Is it genetics? Is it magic? Is it a curse? Is it divine mandate? Not important questions for a PC, maybe, but these are good things to know for a NPC.

VGtM gives a clear answer, orcs live in constant terror of their gods. That's a pretty good theme to use as a jumping off point for creating a new NPC's, especially on the fly. So, if I have three orc guards, one can be honorable, one cruel and one dishonest but they're all linked by their shared mythology. They were made by Gruumsh and they will return to Gruumsh. In FR, at least, gods create culture by creating people to reflect their values. This maybe shallow but, in terms of making a game for Sunday, it's a very useful tool.

And tools are what I want for my $50 per book. Not undefined races that play like funny looking humans. I don't really care what happens on the PC side of things. But if official orcs are going to be undefined and I have to do all the work to create their culture, what am I paying WotC to do?

 

[Maxperson]

When a dwarf sees a human eating the flesh of another dwarf, "Technically, it isn't cannibalism," is not going to keep that human from getting an axe lodged in his head. And that rhetoric is not going to endear the jury to that human when considering whether the dwarf's act was justified.

This is true. It's still a horrible crime.

The situation under discussion has not had a real-world equivalent in tens of thousands of years, so our language does not have a word for it. Then, we reconsider the definition of cannibalism, not because "it is cool," but because we need a linguistic bridge to the situation.

By flatly rejecting the extension with no consideration or support other than "that's the definition," you assume the conclusion of your argument, which is weak sauce.

Tell us why, within the fantasy world, they would definitely not define it broadly, please.

I've seen movies, read books and looked at comics were some non-human humanoid creature ate a human. Not once did anyone ever say, "It's a cannibal!" Fantasy or sci-fi, they say something like, "It ate Joe!" or "The bugbear at the Bard, music will never be the same again!" However, when a human eats a human, sci-fi or fantasy, cannibalism is usually mentioned. You'd think that if in a fantasy world an elf eating a halfling is cannibalism, several authors would have called it that by now.

 

[Hussar]

Good questions, and, I'm sorry but, it's a long thread, and you made some really great points, so this is going to be a rather long post.

So a question--or challenge--for you. How would you re-work orcs to allow for the "brutal-savage-evil" type? Would you make them a sub-race? ("Gruumsh orcs"). And if so, how to portray their nature without the same language that you feel is racist-adjacent? Or if not a sub-race, but just "some orcs are like that," how would you do it? Would you just negate the issue entirely and generalize them to the point that no traits are assigned, essentially making them differently shaped humans that can be whatever the DM wants them to be? And would you apply it across the board, so that all humanoids are essentially just like humans in terms of the range of traits and cultures?

Actually, I think you largely answered your own question with this:

One other thing that separates gnolls from orcs is that they haven't been traditionally used as PCs, except maybe in deep supplementation. We have half-orcs, and other more recent fantasy venues (WoW) that have broadened orcs, so it makes sense to broaden them in D&D.

We don't really have to be terribly concerned about other races and whatnot because, well, no one is complaining about them. If we change orcs and people are happy, then job done. If we change orcs and then people move on to goblins, well, we can deal with that then. I don't see why we need to carve out one answer to rule them all forevermore right now. Let's just deal with what's the problem right now.

Part of the reason I ask is that one aspect of human vs. non-human in Fantasy Land--at least going back to Tolkien, but I think in the folklore--is the idea that humans are more diverse, they are the great "generalists," while non-humans are more specific, more formed around an archetype. Tolkien's elves, for instance, were essentially better versions of humans--more noble, artistic, intelligent, skilled, beautiful, etc--but also had something crucial lacking, perhaps the human capacity of self-determination. Thus you could talk about "elven nature" in a more specific way than "human nature." Orcs were the archetype of the twisted elf--a reversal of Iluvatar's most perfect creation. Dwarves were even more specific in that they were the creation of the crafter deity (Aule). Halflings were perhaps the most metaphorical race, in that Tolkien was obviously gently making fun of (an homage, really) his fellow English country-folk.

The point being, if we broaden each race in such a way that they become more human, they start losing their distinctness, their specificity. Furthermore, having non-human archetypes gives the freedom to explore various archetypes and What If questions without racializing it--if it is clearly understood that said non-human race is just that: not human. But if the point is to both de-racialize them (for those who make that connection) and bring them greater depth and complexity, how to do so without losing their distinctness? And if you use sub-races, wouldn't the same concern still apply or would the fact that "Gruumsh orcs" are one of many types negate the racial connotations?

Let's be fair here. The non-humans are caricatures. They aren't meant to be fully fleshed out. They are simply conceits in a story. And, really, so much of those conceits are grounded in people's own experiences and biases. I mean, is it really terribly hard to believe that an upper class English professor at Oxford, writing in the 1930's might hold a few ideas that are less than socially aware by today's standards? No one is accusing Tolkien of being a raging bigot writing KKK screeds. Of course not. What is being said is that because we are holding onto concepts that were written at that point in time, perhaps they aren't quite as socially conscious as they could be. Which brings me to Gygax:

/snip
But if that is enough for people to be happy, I think it really comes down to settings - and what fits the themes of that setting. If they republished Greyhawk, I'd hate to see them diverge too much from Gygax's vision. Meaning, Greyhawk should have Gygaxian orcs, not Mercerian or Bakerian orcs. FR can have its own orcs--and so too with every world. Let's not be monolithic, but allow creative diversity.
But in terms of the MM, it does make a statement about the default mode. How to depict that? "Orcs can be whatever you want them to be"...or do you go with examples of different types?

Again, here we've got someone, Gygax, who is writing as fast as his chubby little fingers can type to get a game out the door to meet this massive groundswell of demand. He's grabbing everything he can as fast as he can and stuffing it between the covers of books. In the early 1970's. Again, it's not really too much of a stretch, given the source material, to say that maybe, just maybe, the odd bit that was just a smidgeon culturally insensitive snuck into the game. I mean, come on, it was the 1970's, inclusiveness, cultural awareness and the like wasn't even on most people's radars at all. Worrying about colonialist biases in a game wasn't a concern then. Again, no one is accusing Gygax of being a raging bigot. He wasn't. And no one is saying that he was or that his writing was. But, again, it's not really a stretch to think that a writer, pulling from pulp genre fiction from the previous 50 years, writing in the 1970's maybe wasn't quite as culturally sensitive as he could have been.

Is it?

However, now, we have the benefit of forty or fifty years of the Civil rights movement and our views of history have changed. And they will continue to change. But, right now, we know that some of these elements are problematic for some people. So, yeah, cut out the problematic bits and see what's left over. Present orcs in official books in many different lights - good, bad, and in between.

Look, here is a link to a Greyhawk wiki on orcs: Orc This is a good example of what NOT to do. This is pretty bad.

But, here is a different wiki article: Orc - Greyhawk Wiki Now, there are still some problematic bits, but, that's a HELL of a lot better than the first one.

 

[Hussar]

This is true. It's still a horrible crime.


I've seen movies, read books and looked at comics were some non-human humanoid creature ate a human. Not once did anyone ever say, "It's a cannibal!" Fantasy or sci-fi, they say something like, "It ate Joe!" or "The bugbear at the Bard, music will never be the same again!" However, when a human eats a human, sci-fi or fantasy, cannibalism is usually mentioned. You'd think that if in a fantasy world an elf eating a halfling is cannibalism, several authors would have called it that by now.

If you want D&D's take on it, please read Book of Vile Darkness. They have a rather lengthy discussion about it.