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

[Warpiglet-7]

Why are people so fixated on major rewrites? No one is actually advocating for major rewrites to orcs are they?

Strip out the obviously racist bits, and poof, you're done. There's nothing wrong with savage, strong, militant race. That's an archetype that works and no one has a major problem with. Heck, Klingons show exactly how this can be done.

So, why all the noise and thunder about how they're going to completely rewrite orcs into something totally different? Who is advocating that? Has anyone advocated that?

Or is that just the convenient straw man that has been invented to avoid actually talking about the real issues?

I think it is a reasonable conclusion.

If you take out behavioral tendencies and ability score modifiers you have gray tusk having people as likely good as evil.

sounds different than the current monster manual to me.

I suspect yes, they plan to rewrite the fiction in future releases.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why are people so fixated on major rewrites? No one is actually advocating for major rewrites to orcs are they?

Strip out the obviously racist bits, and poof, you're done. There's nothing wrong with savage, strong, militant race. That's an archetype that works and no one has a major problem with. Heck, Klingons show exactly how this can be done.

So, why all the noise and thunder about how they're going to completely rewrite orcs into something totally different? Who is advocating that? Has anyone advocated that?

Or is that just the convenient straw man that has been invented to avoid actually talking about the real issues?

Depends who you ask. I do not agree with you that there is nothing wrong with savage, strong, militant races. Klingons included.

 

[Bacon Bits]

This is a feature not a bug.

It was, but I don't think it's immune to re-examination. If you're going to keep the feature, I think there should be some explanation why racial ability modifiers are desirable.

Race/class limits are not considered desirable anymore. Any race can play any class. Class and racial ability minimums and maximums are also not considered desirable. You don't need to dump a 17 into a bad stat as a Paladin anymore. Making humans use pseudo a-la-carte multiclassing while non-humans use hybrid multiclassing with arbitrary racial level maximums isn't desirable anymore, either. Heck, multiclassing isn't even a first class mechanic anymore.

So, why are Dwarven Wizards bad? Or Elven Paladins? Or Halfling Druids? Or Minotaur Rogues? And if they're not bad, then why do the mechanics need to discourage the player from making that choice?

Why do the attributes for the player races -- remember, it doesn't even have to apply to the races in general because the PC doesn't need to be a racial exemplar -- why do the attributes for the player races need to reinforce whatever cultural norms those races have in the campaign setting?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends who you ask. I do not agree with you that there is nothing wrong with savage, strong, militant races. Klingons included.

I don't think I can see eye to eye with any philosophy that doesn't allow for Klingons. Qapla!

 

[Helldritch]

@Charlaquin

A bonus tied to culture would be better. Racial bonuses to stats should stay. Example: Orcs are a strong race, they get +2 to strength. If an orc is from a culture that favor scholars he could add a +1 to either intelligence or wisdom. If he is from a mercantile culture the bonus could apply to wisdom or charisma.

You could also decide to lessen the racial bonus to +1 and allow the cultural aspect take a more proeminent place. The orc from a scholar culture could add +1 to Intel and +1 to wisdom or +2 to one of the two.

Choosing a race should have a meaningful impact on character creation but culture could (should?) have an impact too. On that last part, I agree with you.

On an other note.
The Halloween costume analogy might not suit you. But you can't deny that this is what it would look like if races had no meaningful impact. You might not like this argument, but unless you prove it wrong it is a valid argument. This is what I feel that it would look and play like. And from what I can see I am not the only one. What would you consider to be a meaningful and impactful alternative?

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think I can see eye to eye with any philosophy that doesn't allow for Klingons. Qapla!

Don’t get me wrong, I like Klingons. But they’re not completely unproblematic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Don’t get me wrong, I like Klingons. But they’re not completely unproblematic.

I worry that the good ship "Completely Unproblematic" may have sailed. We might have to settle for "not terribly problematic" instead.

 

[Mr Fixit]

Depends who you ask. I do not agree with you that there is nothing wrong with savage, strong, militant races. Klingons included.

Hey now! I like my savage Klingons, nefarious Romulans, and Orwellian Cardassians.

Jokes aside, these are fantasy races (species, if you will). Reducing them to humans with funny foreheads (okay, they kinda already are those! ) is doing everyone a disservice. Blatant racial stereotyping based on perceived real-world traits of various ethnic or cultural groups is an obvious no-go, and steps should be taken to avoid such unfortunate descriptions in the future.

But barring that... why shouldn't there be a fantasy race (or, again, species, if that's more palatable) whose average member is, I don't know, prone to acting impulsively (or violently), or almost paranoid (by human standards) about its privacy, or logical in the extreme, or whatever else one might conjure up as an interesting facet of human societies and psyche to focus on, explore, or simply use as adventure bait? Not everything has to be terribly complex.

 

[Helldritch]

It was, but I don't think it's immune to re-examination. If you're going to keep the feature, I think there should be some explanation why racial ability modifiers are desirable.

Race/class limits are not considered desirable anymore. Any race can play any class. Class and racial ability minimums and maximums are also not considered desirable. You don't need to dump a 17 into a bad stat as a Paladin anymore. Making humans use pseudo a-la-carte multiclassing while non-humans use hybrid multiclassing with arbitrary racial level maximums isn't desirable anymore, either. Heck, multiclassing isn't even a first class mechanic anymore.

So, why are Dwarven Wizards bad? Or Elven Paladins? Or Halfling Druids? Or Minotaur Rogues? And if they're not bad, then why do the mechanics need to discourage the player from making that choice?

Why do the attributes for the player races -- remember, it doesn't even have to apply to the races in general because the PC doesn't need to be a racial exemplar -- why do the attributes for the player races need to reinforce whatever cultural norms those races have in the campaign setting?

These are called tropes. They are a useful tool to tell a story. These trope can also be used to do the unexpected and making that minotaur rogue will surprise your players or their foes. Just as the armored dwarf casting a fireball would be a massive surprise.

Tropes create expectations and playing on these expectations is what makes the game interesting. We all know that orcs don't cast spells. And boom! An orc wizard comes and shakes that belief.

But without these tropes, there is no expectations and thus, no surprise. This is simply because every races can be anything without a cost to pay in effectiveness. You lose the element of surprise. You go from: "What? That orc throws us a cone of cold!!???" To "Ho, that orc was a wizard. (Yawn)."

 

[Bacon Bits]

Helldritch is onto something.

I don't quite understand why ability scores are being singled out. So, no race should be mechanically stronger or less intelligent than others because of potential real-world parallels, feeding into stereotypes etc. Fine. But what about all other mechanical expressions of race? Skill benefits, speed, advantage to saves, innate magical abilities, etc? Heck, even life expectancy?

No. The player's stats shouldn't do that because they don't need to. The "race" available for the PC is not the whole darn race. It's just the package of abilities you get if you choose that ancestry. Yes, in general elves are lithe, dwarves are tough, and half-orcs are strong. But there's no need to reflect that in the race entry and not in the class or background or in an arbitrary selection during character creation because each PC is different. The PCs are allowed to be exceptional members of their race, and that includes having uncommon talents.

The PC "race" entry is often not a perfect reflection of the monster manual entry, right? The MM says hobgoblins deal 2d6 bonus weapon damage when within 5 feet of an ally. PC hobgoblins don't get that. The MM says bugbears deal an extra die of damage every time they hit with a weapon. PC bugbears don't get that. The MM says drow always use sleep poison. PC drow don't get that. MM deep gnomes all have innate spellcasting. PC deep gnomes don't get that without spending a feat. It's always been like this.

Indeed, even the MM entry doesn't define the race. That was literally the entire point of like a third of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and a good portion of Volo's Guide to Monsters: That the MM entry is not comprehensive. The MM is just sample entries for you to use in game as NPCs.