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

[Charlaquin]

Sorry no, I'm not gonna accept it. If that is the case we might as well remove them.

Folks have been saying for over a decade now that we might as well remove them, or at least significantly change them. I’m inclined to agree with them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would just say that there is only so much "nuance" many people want from their games. People only have so much head-space in their game, if every race is extremely complex they blur together for a lot of people. Kind of along the lines of the paradox of choice.

I think it is far easier to dumb things down and ignore the nuance if that's needed than to create that nuance from scratch.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would just say that there is only so much "nuance" many people want from their games. People only have so much head-space in their game, if every race is extremely complex they blur together for a lot of people. Kind of along the lines of the paradox of choice.

It's not that there's a bridge too far, it's that the default as a simplified caricature works better as a starting point.

For example in my games the Feywild is occasionally important. I've put more thought (and documentation) into the Sidhe and other fey creatures than I have orcs. For example, goblins are originally from the unseelie court (along with trolls and a few others). The version of the goblins in the feywild are different, if you ask them the goblins most people encounter on the prime material are a corrupted version that have been twisted to evil.

Goblins still aren't widely accepted in the prime material because goblins that have rejected the corruption are so rare (there's a single tribe far to the north).

But I can only do that so often for the exception to stand out.

I don’t think pairing down the frankly absurd number of races in D&D in favor of making the ones we keep better-written would be a bad move. In fact, I think it’s exactly what the game needs.

 

[Oofta]

So, from point 1 you have already misinterpreted the argument being made.

So if they don't represent real world people, there is no problem. Unless there is a different issue.

P.S. If you're just going to post "We've already explained it" or some variation don't bother because it adds nothing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t think pairing down the frankly absurd number of races in D&D in favor of making the ones we keep better-written would be a bad move. In fact, I think it’s exactly what the game needs.

That is what I usually for my own settings. I choose a handful of races that I include and then come up with a lot of lore and stuff for them.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

And this is the fundamental difference. Some of us think that racist propaganda disguised as fantasy is okay, some of us don't.

You have totally, totally missed the point.
Some of us don’t think it is propaganda at all. Some of us just view this as recapitulating myth older than antiquity in a game. Any similarity between that and real events is not/was not intended and has no bearing on how we feel about real people. Period.

WOTC wants to remove things that might upset others. They can do as they wish.

some of us like traditional monsters. If you think of traditional monsters=eugenics I can understand how it might seem creepy to participate.

I have studied human behavior for decades including differences in IQ testing and all manner of individual differences from a scholarly perspective.

I am firmly convinced there are no “races” per se and am further convinced there is no “superior” group of people as compared to others. Period.

Furthermore, there is not any convincing evidence that video games or rpgs are linked to increased violent OR RACIST behavior. There is no evidence that treating monsters as “other” has any impact whatever on the treatment of people as other. None.

what people imply here is that players can not discern the differences between fantasy and reality. People ARE NOT saying it’s good to treat outgroups like naughty word on this Earth. They’re saying it’s ok to do so with pretend monsters.

They are further saying it does not change their belief that real world people matter regardless of in group or out group status.

if these things held true, that just the idea makes people extrapolate to real life beliefs, please explain how you play D&D with a clear conscience. The game is predicated on extrajudicial killing of sentient creatures. Not that I am a fan of “legal killing” irl anyway.

So in short, half of the pushback you’re getting is that not everyone sees the Rorschach that you do and they don’t want their fun messed with because of YOUR perception.

If I believed D&D actually could encourage some future genocide, I would not play it. And you cannot tell me what the hell I am “OK with.”

Your post suggests people are ‘OK’ with racist propaganda if they like to pretend differently. That instantly makes people want to ignore your position and those like them out of hand.

In short, you and a few others aren’t just saying you think this is harmful (duly noted) but that others must have nefarious designs and flaws
If they don’t agree. I think this is patently absurd.

the reason I am even responding is so that others know that they don’t have to knuckle under to anyone’s psychoanalysis at a distance for fear of being labeled in some way.

I openly rebel against the group think imperatives of twitter mob rage. And that is exactly what led to this.

An orc is an orc. Just like a demon is a demon. The rules are clear that these are just defaults and a player or DM has the power to make exceptions.

 

[Charlaquin]

In 3e strength determined how much my PC could lift, drag and carry. That reflects inherent capabilities. Dex was quickness of reflexes and agility. That reflected his inherent capabilities. And so on for all 6 stats. 5e is the same. I'm not sure about 4e, but I suspect it was also the same.

They also fail to reflect many of the realities of the capabilities for which they are named, and blur the lines between one another, and have a whole host of other problems that make maintaining verisimilitude downright impossible if you’re not willing to ignore them. I’m just asking we be consistent. Either fix abilities so they make a damn lick of sense, or get rid of them. But this is a line of discussion for another thread.

 

[Oofta]

I don’t think pairing down the frankly absurd number of races in D&D in favor of making the ones we keep better-written would be a bad move. In fact, I think it’s exactly what the game needs.

But that's part of the problem right? Some people really think the idea of playing a Tabaxi is awesome, personally I don't have furries in my campaign. Depending on where in my campaign world the PCs are they may have never seen or even heard of an orc.

D&D is a big tent with a ton of different play styles. It provides the base, it's up to the writer of the campaign to add complexity that makes sense for their vision.

 

[Maxperson]

They also fail to reflect many of the realities of the capabilities for which they are named, and blur the lines between one another, and have a whole host of other problems that make maintaining verisimilitude downright impossible if you’re not willing to ignore them. I’m just asking we be consistent. Either fix abilities so they make a damn lick of sense, or get rid of them. But this is a line of discussion for another thread.

That doesn't make them disassociated. That makes them approximations. The association is there. Mirroring reality isn't.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would just say that there is only so much "nuance" many people want from their games. People only have so much head-space in their game, if every race is extremely complex they blur together for a lot of people. Kind of along the lines of the paradox of choice.

It's not that there's a bridge too far, it's that the default as a simplified caricature works better as a starting point.

For example in my games the Feywild is occasionally important. I've put more thought (and documentation) into the Sidhe and other fey creatures than I have orcs. For example, goblins are originally from the unseelie court (along with trolls and a few others). The version of the goblins in the feywild are different, if you ask them the goblins most people encounter on the prime material are a corrupted version that have been twisted to evil.

Goblins still aren't widely accepted in the prime material because goblins that have rejected the corruption are so rare (there's a single tribe far to the north).

But I can only do that so often for the exception to stand out.

Oh, and I notice this response doesn’t actually support the “rubber mask” argument in any way.

So if they don't represent real world people, there is no problem. Unless there is a different issue.

There is a different issue. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you through hundreds of pages and several threads.

P.S. If you're just going to post "We've already explained it" or some variation don't bother because it adds nothing.

Well, we have already explained it, but I’ll try one more time. The language used to dehumanize and vilify [insert evil fantasy race here] is the same as the language that has been (and still very much is) used to dehumanize and vilify real-world peoples. Including it makes the game less welcoming to people who have faced and do face discrimination on similar grounds. One doesn’t have to think that orcs are meant to be representative of one’s own ethnicity to be made uncomfortable by the fact that, in the make-believe game people are playing for fun, they like to pretend there’s this group of monsters that it’s ok to kill, for exactly the same reasons people have used to justify killing people like you in real life. Orcs don’t have to represent black people for people to be kinda put off by the fact that some folks get their kicks by imagining there’s this primitive humanoid subspecies who’s inherently violent and needs to be put down, and imagining themeselves as the ones doing the genocide.