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

[Mercurius]

Not problematic for the same reasons, there are definitely more parallels between orcs and how white supremacists have described black people than there are the other "monstrous races".

It is problematic that these races that have depth, culture, religion, and society are depicted as nearly completely evil.

I would say that is, as @Mercule said, a matter of GM/game designer preference--depending upon the internal dynamics of the campaign setting and/or game. It is a premise for a game, which is a version of story-telling. Fantasy and science fiction has a long history of playing with What If premises, in fact, it is their very nature. Added to clarify: they don't need to relate or make sense to our world; they just need to make sense within the internal context of the game or setting.

That said, one way in which D&D differs from literature is that it is a community--it is a shared experience, so the community has (and should have) some say in the premise of the game. Editions have been forged by an interaction between the designers and gamers, the creators and consumers. Community feedback is important, and this is why I think some changes are warranted.

 

[Derren]

Do aboleths have depth or religion? Do mind flayers have culture, depth, or religion (I guess they kind of have religion).

They're not problematic, as their existences depend wholly on enslaving, killing, or eating humanoids. They're alien creatures with nearly no semblance to humans.

This doesn't apply to Orcs, Kobolds, or Hobgoblins. They have depth, culture, religion, and society. They are people. They are semi-relatable.

Some monsters should just be monsters, but that doesn't apply to humanoids. IMHO, that label of "completely monstrous and evil" is reserved for Aberrations, Undead and Fiends (and even fiends have been shown to have depth and personalities, and undead can be good).

There is actually no difference.
All three, Aboleths, Mind Flayer and Orcs are fictional constructs made as enemies for an RPG. All three of them have a fictional culture and society. And when Orcs have the always evil alignement they too are alien creatures whos pretend existence depend wholly on raiding and killing.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I would say that is, as @Mercule said, a matter of GM/game designer preference--depending upon the internal dynamics of the campaign setting and/or game. It is a premise for a game, which is a version of story-telling. Fantasy and science fiction has a long history of playing with What If premises, in fact, it is their very nature. Added to clarify: they don't need to relate or make sense to our world; they just need to make sense within the internal context of the game or setting.

And that can be done in your own campaigns. It'd be better if it is your choice to make races one dimensional, where the base races are as open as possible.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

There is actually no difference.

So, you're just going to ignore the disproof of this statement in the post you're quoting?

All three, Aboleths, Mind Flayer and Orcs are fictional constructs made as enemies for an RPG.

And so are necromancers, but in D&D, all humans aren't evil.

All three of them have a fictional culture and society.

But a culture and society doesn't make them relatable, and therefore warranted to be made into people. Aboleths have a culture, but it was one of enslaving all humanoids. Mind Flayers have a society, but it's hidden and based on reclaiming their world.

And when Orcs have the always evil alignement they too are alien creatures whos pretend existence depend wholly on raiding and killing.

But in multiple D&D settings orcs aren't this way. This is a good excuse in your home campaign, but not a good excuse in the base game.

 

[Mercurius]

And that can be done in your own campaigns. It'd be better if it is your choice to make races one dimensional, where the base races are as open as possible.

Yes, which is why I say expand the definition, but don't cancel evil orcs as a supported option. My current suggestion would be greater depth for the orc, but one that adds rather than subtracts. Like so:

• Discussion of the variety of depictions of orcs in fantasy literature and gaming, from mythic origins (ogre/Latin Orcus), to Tolkien, different flavors of D&D, etc.
• Emphasize the "customize to your preference" approach.
• Provide examples of different depictions, from Gygaxian pig-men to standard D&D brutes to more recent treatments (Eberron, Wildemount).
• Provide guidance on incorporating orcs as a PC race.

Voila, done. Everyone happy?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, which is why I say expand the definition, but don't cancel evil orcs as a supported option.

Oh, I agree. Leave evil drow and orcs in the Monster Manual, but make it clear that these are examples of the worst orcs and worst drow, and in certain settings, these monster stat blocks aren't accurate.

Voila, done. Everyone happy?

That sounds good. Now, let's convince the others.

 

[Maxperson]

How the heck is someone that's not a person going to have a child with a person. They are both people. Edit: Furthermore, if orcs aren't people, wouldn't, by your reasoning, half-orcs be half-people?

No. I see a person as all or nothing. You either are or are not a person.

the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.

How doesn't this apply to orcs?

Men and women. Not male and female. That definition is for humans.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No. I see a person as all or nothing. You either are or are not a person.

And what makes orcs not be people, and half-orcs be people? If your definition of a person is only humans, then Dwarves and Elves aren't people either.

Men and women. Not male and female. That definition is for humans.

So, male Neanderthal's weren't men? They weren't people? They weren't modern humans, as in Home Sapiens, but that doesn't make them not people.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And, I said you're overthinking it. I seriously have no problem with orcs being free agents that are evil only because of upbringing, curse, or just overactive adrenaline.

There's also nothing wrong with saying "orcs are evil because they are". They're a made up race and, if that's one of the characteristics of them, so be it. There is nothing immoral in that.

Note: I'm not talking about in-game people saying that. I'm talking about the GM or game designers saying that it's a fact that is true. In that case, every PC/NPC trying to argue that you need to reform the orcs is a fool. Just like, if orcs have free agency, those saying "kill them all" are racists. It really depends on what you want out of your game.

As a game designer/GM, saying all orcs are inherently and irredeemably evil is no more racist/wrong/troublesome than saying demons/devils/angels/werewolves/slaadi are inherently aligned. It a question about game design. I have zero problem with WotC defining orcs as having free agency. As I said, before, that's actually my preference. Pretending like its some moral triumph or righting of past wrongs is pretentious and silly, though. Orcs don't exist. They aren't an allegory for any specific race/ethnicity/religion in the real world. If anything, they're an allegory for the brutishness and evil that is within any of us and a sort of "there, but for the grace of God" type thing, but I wouldn't push any deeper meaning too far. It's like all the emo Vampire: the Masquerade LARPers in the 1990s who though they were making deep commentary about the world.

This keeps being brought up, and it keeps missing the point. So, let us be a little blunt, shall we?

Why are orcs being inherently evil different than Demons/Devils/Angels/Werewolves/Slaadi?

Well, how is a Demon created? Demons arise from the chaotic and malignant energy of the Abyss, fully formed and ready to destroy from the moment they spontanesouly arise from the evil energy.

Devils? A devil is formed when a mortal sells their soul to the Nine Hells, being tortured and bathed in evil energies until they are reborn and branded into the form that the Masters of the Nine Hells desire.

Angels? Much like Demons, angels are formed from energy, specifically the divine energy of the gods. All angels being Lawful Good is a problem if they serve gods of different alignments, but whatever alignment they are makes sense.

Werewolves? A malignant curse that infects those bitten by it, turning them into bloodthirsty beasts, who infect others by the same manner.

Slaadi? Parastic beings created either by implanting eggs that burst forth from the infected or infecting humanoids with a disease that warps and twists them into other such monsters. The first of them were formed from the clash of energy from a device and the chaotic realms.


And how are orcs made? Two orcs have sex and have a baby.


Note something about that? Orcs are the only one on the list that start as an infant. Every single other creature you named, they don't grow up, they don't start as a baby. They are formed, fully mature and ready to fulfill their role. That is why Orcs being inherently evil is a bigger problem than any of the other creatures you listed.


And, as I said before. We've progressed to the point that going back to them being pure evil, is a hard step to take.

So, are you saying that every race in the monster manual that is inherently evil (or just presented in a very negative light), is problematic for the same reason orcs as a race are?

Not really, in the same vein I was just talking about, think about Gnolls for a second. Why are Gnolls different from orcs? Because a new gnoll is only born when a hyena eats the corpse of a humanoid murdered by a gnoll. Again, they are created fully formed, that is a big difference.

Hags? Born by a hag devouring a child and giving birth a few weeks later.

Trolls? Born from bits of a troll being cut off and regrowing into a new Troll.


But goblins... yeah, I've got problems with Goblins being born evil just like I've got problems with Orcs being born evil, or Dragons being born evil. (For Dragons, I've made them more like elementals, which helps me personally, and is way cooler thematically.)

So you can't make orcs a "not-people" unless they were people in the first place. Orcs have never been people, so not possible. They can be LINKED to people THROUGH half-orcs, though.

Sorry, you are wrong. They are people. Have been for decades. Just like Dragons are people.

There is actually no difference.
All three, Aboleths, Mind Flayer and Orcs are fictional constructs made as enemies for an RPG. All three of them have a fictional culture and society. And when Orcs have the always evil alignement they too are alien creatures whos pretend existence depend wholly on raiding and killing.

Following along with my same argument.

Mindflayers are created by attaching a parasite to a humanoid brain, and altering that person into a fully formed mind flayer

I'm not sure how new Aboleth's are created, but I do know that they are "born" with all of the memories of every Aboleth that came before them. They are almost literally the same hive mind and personality born again into new bodies.

All of these are far more alien than Orcs have been for decades.

No. I see a person as all or nothing. You either are or are not a person.

So, is a half-Orc a person?

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, you are wrong. They are people. Have been for decades. Just like Dragons are people.

Then it's a useless term for D&D. If everything intelligent in D&D is a person, then personhood in D&D doesn't really matter.