dfuller1138
Villager
Religion/politics
Absolutely. Orcs have "evolved" since the LotR days.
Within Fiction, orcs are assigned motivations. Motivations that can be interpreted by the reader, however the reader likes. Every character in written works is assigned motivations. Quite different from "sapiency". Orcs are not sapient considering the proper definition of sapience. Use Merriam-Webster. Orcs are the "bad guys" among many who do "bad things" to others. Orcs are the trope.
Orcs can be DEPICTED as possessing sapience. It is a depiction only. The portrayal of orcs as is, is the actual objection. Sapience has nothing to do with that. Orcs, by definition, are not sapient. There may be the rare depiction or portrayal.
Depictions should not be confused with sapience. It is a very fine distinction.
Orcs have no more agency - and much less agency - than the depiction of govenrment. Orcs are represented by The DM, government is represented by actual people. Neither are sapient. Whatsoever. Depictions and portrayals aside.
They still would be orcs. With culture and portrayals of sapience. And better armor, weapons, and assigned motivations. Perhaps. Basically, a human dressed in an orc skin. The only difference being appearance. What would be the difference between playing a High Orc Paladin and a Human Paladin? Appearances. Why bother playing the High Orc at all when a Human does just as well? The differences would be minor.
Thus no invention of a new race. The portrayal and desciptions would be the modifications. Been done plenty of times.
In the end, if Orcs have to be remediated? Devils & Fiends to. Beholders. Sahuagin. Tharizdun himself. Okay, maybe not Tharizdun. Remediate them all to satisfy REAL WORLD POLITICS. If it is good for orcs? Do the entire Monster Manual and all supplements the same way, with any monster that is portrayed as being capable of thought.
Personally, I think it would be interesting to have High Orcs. Since there is a Multi-verse after all. Perhaps the Humans would take the roll of traditional Orcs. I am sure someone would object to that to.
In the end, D&D is about Good vs. Evil. Too have evil, you have to have "bad guys". And "bad guys" do "bad things". And bad things are described. Could the descriptions of said "bad things" be more ah... circumspect? Sure. The "bad things" are still going to be there.
Arguing for the Rights of a Fictional Race in a Fantasy Game...
Does the portrayal of a fictional race (bad guys necessary for games) increase abusive behavior anymore than violent videogames produce children who are violent mass murderers?
We are now at the point of The PMRC and Elizabeth Dole being right, that D&D promotes abusive behavior (Satanism). This is an example of how far along The Left is in being the The New Right.
As to the original topic? There are limitations to inclusiveness. Changing orcs to fit some real world paradigm in order to reinforce real world behavior? IS NOT GOING TO DO IT. The expression of Heritage? That is evolving.
D&D is inherently objectionable on every level. Necromancy. Demons & Devils. Violence is integral to the game. Depictions of evil can not be anymore PC than Asmodeus being The Supreme Benevolent Being.
Otherwise, turn Dungeons & Dragons into Deliberations & Debates, Robert's Rules 6th Edition.
Within the confines of D&D as a game, orcs are sapient. You're counter-argument is inaccurate as you are describing an organisation chasing someone. "Government" in this case refers to an organisation, not an individual person, much has likewise you would use 'The Mafia' to describe someone. This is irrelevant to the
Within Fiction, orcs are assigned motivations. Motivations that can be interpreted by the reader, however the reader likes. Every character in written works is assigned motivations. Quite different from "sapiency". Orcs are not sapient considering the proper definition of sapience. Use Merriam-Webster. Orcs are the "bad guys" among many who do "bad things" to others. Orcs are the trope.
Orcs can be DEPICTED as possessing sapience. It is a depiction only. The portrayal of orcs as is, is the actual objection. Sapience has nothing to do with that. Orcs, by definition, are not sapient. There may be the rare depiction or portrayal.
Depictions should not be confused with sapience. It is a very fine distinction.
Orcs have no more agency - and much less agency - than the depiction of govenrment. Orcs are represented by The DM, government is represented by actual people. Neither are sapient. Whatsoever. Depictions and portrayals aside.
High Orcs is a questionable thing when just regular orcs works fine. They exist, they're historically playable, why invent a new race? Well, uh, 3E did that a ton but, 3E is 3E. I question why "Invent a new race" is around when just bringing orcs to a better place is available
They still would be orcs. With culture and portrayals of sapience. And better armor, weapons, and assigned motivations. Perhaps. Basically, a human dressed in an orc skin. The only difference being appearance. What would be the difference between playing a High Orc Paladin and a Human Paladin? Appearances. Why bother playing the High Orc at all when a Human does just as well? The differences would be minor.
Thus no invention of a new race. The portrayal and desciptions would be the modifications. Been done plenty of times.
In the end, if Orcs have to be remediated? Devils & Fiends to. Beholders. Sahuagin. Tharizdun himself. Okay, maybe not Tharizdun. Remediate them all to satisfy REAL WORLD POLITICS. If it is good for orcs? Do the entire Monster Manual and all supplements the same way, with any monster that is portrayed as being capable of thought.
Personally, I think it would be interesting to have High Orcs. Since there is a Multi-verse after all. Perhaps the Humans would take the roll of traditional Orcs. I am sure someone would object to that to.
In the end, D&D is about Good vs. Evil. Too have evil, you have to have "bad guys". And "bad guys" do "bad things". And bad things are described. Could the descriptions of said "bad things" be more ah... circumspect? Sure. The "bad things" are still going to be there.
Arguing for the Rights of a Fictional Race in a Fantasy Game...
Does the portrayal of a fictional race (bad guys necessary for games) increase abusive behavior anymore than violent videogames produce children who are violent mass murderers?
We are now at the point of The PMRC and Elizabeth Dole being right, that D&D promotes abusive behavior (Satanism). This is an example of how far along The Left is in being the The New Right.
As to the original topic? There are limitations to inclusiveness. Changing orcs to fit some real world paradigm in order to reinforce real world behavior? IS NOT GOING TO DO IT. The expression of Heritage? That is evolving.
D&D is inherently objectionable on every level. Necromancy. Demons & Devils. Violence is integral to the game. Depictions of evil can not be anymore PC than Asmodeus being The Supreme Benevolent Being.
Otherwise, turn Dungeons & Dragons into Deliberations & Debates, Robert's Rules 6th Edition.