D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[DnD Warlord]

Orcs have a base culture. It's just one you object to. What would you do different that would still give them a niche, make them worthy of an entry in the MM?

I didn’t object to anything (except kenders) my proposed solution is pretty simple though. So again we will just take orcs (but I think at least half the monster Manuel could get this treatment:

Orcs are on average strong and tough. Most are raised by a tribe. Enemy orcs could be a savage tribe, or an entire army breed for war, or just defending their own territory. Friendly orcs can be hunters who praise strength and nomads traveling to where they can find wealth. Any individual orc can be raised to think pretty freely. Often we use these as foot soldiers or savages but remember they each should have there own motivation. Presented below is a tribe of savages worshipping the god Grumish including half orc half ogers.

edit: add a side bar with 2-3 paragraphs of “orcs of ferun and Orcs of Eberon “

 

[Scribe]

Still not paying $50 for a picture book when Google Image Search is a thing.

That's fine, I don't pay for Eberron or other setting books that diverge from what I want.

The MM is still not the place for detailed, nuanced exploration of monsters and their culture.

 

[DnD Warlord]

That's fine, I don't pay for Eberron or other setting books that diverge from what I want.

The MM is still not the place for detailed, nuanced exploration of monsters and their culture.

Okay but can’t we represent just a smidge more then we do now... I mean some monsters already have multi choice backgrounds in the book adding 1 non evil wouldn’t be that hard

 

[Justice and Rule]

D&D's creatives and creators are mostly made up of people who have played D&D for 20+ years, because working as a designer at WotC is the pinnacle of the field, and people typically don't reach the pinnacle of a field in a year or two. You spend years as an amateur, years doing freelance work for smaller companies, then get on full-time with a bigger company, then those with notable ambition and talent make it into one of the handful of positions in the industry that have real influence (and decent pay and security). Look at Chris Perkins' or Mike Mearls' bio to see what a long grind it was for even the stars in the field to reach where they are today.

That's obviously changing, and a lot of people who have very little experience with RPGs are taking on important roles. But I doubt that turnover of positions could realistically be as swift as some want it to be, unless WotC adopts a policy of simply laying off or refusing to hire candidates who have more than a few years of experience with the game.

This is part of the problem, given the problems WOTC has had in the last year, particularly in regards to Orion Black. Valuing the "old boys club" creates an insular environment, and that's why you get these problems: you're stuck with guys who have been working in this for 20-25 years, rather than people who have a view of what is going on now.

A few paragraphs isn't a culture, it's a brief caricature of one. Look at the pages on orcs ion the MM - it's just barely enough detail to make them stand out from gnolls, bugbears, orges, goblins, quaggoths, etc.

I'm sure most of us could simply build off of that, but the book is for people who can't or don't want to do the work of making their own monsters. A monster manual full of "just make something up" is worse than useless - it's wasting people's time and money.

I mean, they don't stand out from those because it's all about being generic killers. This is the problem with these monsters: bloodthirsty killer of the anti-social variety is not particularly more interesting or different than that of the demonic-blooded kind. When you're just mad dog killers, what is the difference? Oh, you kill because you're really angry?

Those sorts of creatures barely need MM entries. If that's what you want, then why even have any more explanation? It's antithetical to what so many people here want from them. But you can map out the broad strokes of a culture that isn't just killing stuff and actually make it way more distinct comparably.

Orcs have a base culture. It's just one you object to. What would you do different that would still give them a niche, make them worthy of an entry in the MM?

Yes, because their "niche" is not really a "niche": there are plenty of monsters that are just bloodthirsty, unreasoning killers. Grimlocks were mentioned previously, and at least they have an interesting backstory and mechanical hooks.

 

[HJFudge]

No.

You're talking about someone ignoring their conscience - specifically you dismiss it as their "pride and morality", so they can murder a kid on the dubious belief that it'll save thousands later. Anyone whose "conscience" lets them murder innocents isn't CG.

What you're describing is clearly LE - he's following a tradition, and he's doing what he wants - murdering a kid to appease his personal belief that it will save thousands. He's methodical and by your own words "ignoring morality".

Indeed, this is the crux of the argument - if you say "Well you can be "Good" and murder kids if it's in a good cause!", you're basically opening up a situation we suddenly go from thousands to maybe two - basically anything is acceptable so long as the "murder balance" favours you.

Again, you're describing a villain.

It isn't lawful evil AT ALL.

They are neither amoral nor are they following the laws of the land. Of course they aren't, laws forbid murder and such.

If someone has no problem in killing someone in order to achieve a goal, yes they are clearly not good. But this isn't the scenario at hand. They are killing in order to achieve a good, to prevent evil. Probably at great cost to themselves and to others. They may be wrong, but being Good in the context of D&D does not and never has implied that all your choices be the correct ones.

People of the same exact alignment can be viciously and violently opposed to one another. Two good nations can go to war because each of them believes themselves to be right.

Your moral absolutism may be one way of playing D&D but it isn't supported in RAW nor, frankly, does it even work intellectually if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.

 

[Haffrung]

This is part of the problem, given the problems WOTC has had in the last year, particularly in regards to Orion Black. Valuing the "old boys club" creates an insular environment, and that's why you get these problems: you're stuck with guys who have been working in this for 20-25 years, rather than people who have a view of what is going on now.



I mean, they don't stand out from those because it's all about being generic killers. This is the problem with these monsters: bloodthirsty killer of the anti-social variety is not particularly more interesting or different than that of the demonic-blooded kind. When you're just mad dog killers, what is the difference? Oh, you kill because you're really angry?

Those sorts of creatures barely need MM entries. If that's what you want, then why even have any more explanation? It's antithetical to what so many people here want from them. But you can map out the broad strokes of a culture that isn't just killing stuff and actually make it way more distinct comparably.

“Old boys club” is pejorative. People who reach the top of almost every industry have to work their way up over many years. Experience and a proven track record matters to those who hire for top positions.

You’re hiring someone to lead a 2-year, $10 million project. It’s perfectly justifiable that you choose someone with 15 years of experience in the field who has successfully managed similar projects to completion over someone with two years of experience in the field who has never handled a project of that scope before.

 

[Scribe]

Okay but can’t we represent just a smidge more then we do now... I mean some monsters already have multi choice backgrounds in the book adding 1 non evil wouldn’t be that hard

That's the line for you. There's no correct answer.

 

[HJFudge]

It does seem there are two camps:

1. We need a baseline. It should be clear it's just a baseline and subject to variation, and it should be well-done (interesting, not racially insensitive, etc), but without one the entry isn't fully usable.

2. We should not have a baseline, but several brief suggestions and have the dm's fill in the details as they see fit. This avoids any sense of the baseline being seen as 'canon' (because some people will see it that way no matter how many times you tell them not to) and prevents any sense of monocultures because there's clearly more than one culture here.

The "why not both?" argument is the page count would get crazy if we included multiple complete cultural descriptions, meaning the MM would need to be huge and/or contain half as many monsters.

(Spitball idea: maybe it would be better to pick 2-5 "core" monsterous races and just -not- include obscure ones on the main MM. So orcs, goblinoids, lizardfolk, something that swims, giants of several sizes, maybe drow, and everything else can come later?)

I vastly prefer the 2nd. I find 1 limiting and constricting and I'll almost always end up just throwing it out and doing my own. With the 2nd, I can at least grab some ideas from a couple of the outlines.

My personal preference.

 

[Justice and Rule]

“Old boys club” is pejorative. People who reach the top of almost every industry have to work their way up over many years. Experience and a proven track record matters to those who hire for top positions.

You’re hiring someone to lead a 2-year, $10 million project. It’s perfectly justifiable that you choose someone with 15 years of experience in the field who has successfully managed similar projects to completion over someone with two years of experience in the field who has never handled a project of that scope before.

I get that, but Black's own account is fairly damning on their office culture, and I have to wonder how much of that is having an insular culture created from having people working up to these positions so long without actually reflecting the change going on outside.

 

[Remathilis]

That's fine, I don't pay for Eberron or other setting books that diverge from what I want.

The MM is still not the place for detailed, nuanced exploration of monsters and their culture.

I got no problem with a 5 paragraph description of orcs with some cleaned up language and a "not all orcs" type disclaimer, but don't sell 300 pages of stat blocks and filler art and tell me to figure it out.

Honestly, I'm thinking we're past time to give D&D it's own default Golarion "default setting" rather than try to cater 300 different options for elves and orcs in the core. Those orcs can be lawful Good for all I care, but it's time to pick one world and detail it rather than make bland porridge to serve them all.