D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

[doctorbadwolf]

Fine, but as I have pointed out before, whether people agree or not, I'm not going to walk on eggshells about things just because it might upset someone.

No one is asking you to.

You might be surprised at how fast boxed sets of Greyhawk are selling on eBay.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
And yet, the returning players are outnumbered by huge margins by new players, and even those who were brought in by older gamers don't all stick to the style of game shown to them as introduction.

 

[Helldritch]

Yep. And I think a lot of the older players would be happier if they just accepted the game is going to change. It's a sign of good health and D&D has consistently changed every few years anyway. D&D will either change or it will die, it's really as simple as that. It doesn't mean they need to like the changes, I don't like all the changes, but I'm perfectly fine with orcs not being evil all the time. (I'm also fine with them being evil all the time though.) The last campaign I designed I got rid of the orc in the monster manual and just used half-orc stats as the full orc.

Somethings never changed. The basic assumptions stayed the same for all editions. All editions, even Pathfinder. What did change over the years were the system themselves. From negative AC to positive ones, the change was beneficial and applauded. This was asked by the old grognards like me you know?

Systems changes and that is good. I much prefer the martial classes where they are at now than in third edition where they had lost all revelancy at high level.

It is not that we do not like change but it is that changing something just for change's sake is not a good thing. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Evil orcs have always worked for a lot of people and for those that did not like it, settings was the answer to satisfy them and you. I am more than willing to see non evil orcs or whatever in a setting that differs from the basic assumptions. I love Eberron, I am also reading through Wildemount and I have a blast.

If I can let you have your way in your settings, why can't you let me have mine in the core books?

 

[DND_Reborn]

No one is asking you to.

Maybe not, but it certainly feels like they are at times. And what about the outcry to WotC then? Aren't people asking them to?

I just feel like often such things become too one-sided and (believe me I understand this!) when you are hurting, it is sometimes hard to listen to others.

Anyway, I don't want to deviate this thread further. Back to the singing orcs!

 

[MGibster]

If I can let you have your way in your settings, why can't you let me have mine in the core books?

I don't control the main books. In fact, I'm perfectly fine with evil orcs. I'm just not bothered by always evil orcs no longer being the standard.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is not that we do not like change but it is that changing something just for change's sake is not a good thing.

Good news, then. The recent changes being demanded WotC make to races aren’t for change’s sake. They’re for the sake of making the game more welcoming to people of color.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

It’s broken.

Evil orcs have always worked for a lot of people and for those that did not like it, settings was the answer to satisfy them and you.

Actually for most of them, the answer has been to stop playing.

I am more than willing to see non evil orcs or whatever in a setting that differs from the basic assumptions. I love Eberron, I am also reading through Wildemount and I have a blast.

If I can let you have your way in your settings, why can't you let me have mine in the core books?

The core books are where new players get introduced to the game. If it makes them feel unwelcome, they won’t stick around to try other settings. Additionally, they shouldn’t have to deviate from the standard expectations to be able to play characters that appeal to them and not have to be evil. Maybe if you want races with mono cultures, you should play settings that specifically accommodate that, and let the core rules be as inclusive as possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I hope so, too, but I know some people have written on this forum about stories of people identifying with particular "races" in D&D for whatever reason--and those races were evil, stupid, or had some other negative feature.

For a simple example, suppose I have a "race" (or whatever you want to call it these days ) which is quick and dexterous, but generally curious to the point of foolhardiness and at a very dangerous level. Granting such people a DEX +2 and WIS -2 would be perfectly reasonable to me, even capping their WIS at 18 instead of 20 would be fine. Such mechanical representations help define this creature for me, and helps differentiate it from humans and other peoples.

I have no issue with imposing penalties, as long as the over all creature feels "balanced" compared to the rest.

As to the rhetoric used to describe creatures in a game, it is an unfortunate thing given the pain someone has already suffered IRL, but hopefully people will understand it is a game and any harm certainly isn't intended. Given that most of us agree even the "worst" of people that can be playable characters have exceptions that rise above the rest--and those exceptions can certainly be the characters themselves.

Did you just describe kender?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What makes an orc an orc is the quality of the orkiness in their souls. WAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!

In all honesty, I am a HUGE fan of the 40k ork, to the point where I recreated them for my 5e sci-fi game.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Did you just describe kender?

LOL! Not intentionally but yeah, I guess I did!

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's in the title. If we want to avoid racially charged languages in our descriptions of intelligent humanoids (and I sure think we should at least try), what does a "race" write up look like in the PH? Lore and mechanics, what differentiates an orc from a human, or an elf, or a gnome? Is it just physical appearance and lifespan? What are the mechanical widgets we're ok with, and how are those widgets explained in the lore? If we're not tying stat bonuses and/or penalties to the race, than what makes the races mechanically different from each other, and how do we present those differences? I'm really curious about what D&D is going to look like in a few years, and thought it might be fun to bandy around ideas. I don't really want to take a side, as I have all the material I need to play any way I want if the future isn't to my liking, but I am curious. This would work with any race that people might want to use for PCs, so Kobolds, Goblins, Gnolls, et al are all on the table.

An orc is a creature that when you poke it, it responds, "Poke, poke, poke, is that all you do?!"

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe not, but it certainly feels like they are at times. And what about the outcry to WotC then? Aren't people asking them to?

I don't think so. Asking someone to change something that is actively harmful isn't asking them to walk on eggshells. It's just asking for basic decency. It's "please stop standing on my foot."

I just feel like often such things become too one-sided and (believe me I understand this!) when you are hurting, it is sometimes hard to listen to others.

Anyway, I don't want to deviate this thread further. Back to the singing orcs!

Fair enough!