D&D (2024) bring back the pig faced orcs for 6th edition, change up hobgoblins & is there a history of the design change

[Chaosmancer]

Are they? I don't remember any in Greyhawk (there was an orc servant IIRC to Robilar, but Robilar was evil). Dragonlance didn't have orcs, I never used Mystara enough to know. Eberron does a whole bunch of weird stuff which leaves ... wait for it ... Forgotten Realms.

Huh, I didn't know you spelled "Drow" as orc. I mean, you do remember we were talking about Good Drow, right?

And, I also can't seem to find my 5e copies of Greyhawk, Mystara and Dragonlance? Can you tell me what years those new campaign settings for 5th edition dungeons and dragons were published?


Oh, sorry, mid conversation you abadoned saying that Drow are evil by default in 5e and instead switched back to orcs are evil by default in older editions of dungeons and dragons. Silly me. Well, we can discuss older versions of orcs, but I'd still like to hear about how Drow are supposed to be default evil in 5e and how that is totally the default despite half of the published settings having them be good or evil, and the other half not featuring them at all.

In any case it just goes to show that people can change the base assumption. I think if you want to vary from the base assumption for any monster in the book it should be part of world building. The MM is the generic plain version that should be used as a starting point giving the description that fits adversaries for the PCs. The MM does not and cannot represent every aspect of every creature ever used in every campaign setting. For that matter, the races represented in the PHB have pretty minimal mono-cultures as well. Because it's just a default.

Any variation from the base whether that's for monsters (of all types) or playable races IMHO should be left up to the campaign setting. There should also be a big section in the DMG and maybe even in the MM on doing this, stressing that what you get out of the box is just a starting point. I just don't see why orcs should be singled out over every other intelligent creature.

It isn't just orcs. Heck, Drow are in the Players Handbook, despite being less popular than orcs and goblins.

And, again, why does the base assumption have to fit the model of them being mono-cultured evil? Doesn't have to be the case for Dwarves or Elves. Those races are allowed to be a lot more complex, why not orcs and goblins?

I mean, you say that the Elves are mono-cultured, but they have seeds for good and evil elves right there in the PHB. Same with Dwarves. It is obviously there and there is obviously not a problem with it, so, why not give that same treatment to the other popular player options?

And the MM is capable of showing adversaries who could be good or evil. Cloud Giants, Azer, Ghosts,
Dryads, Treants, Djinni and Marid, Myconids. And a lot of these races get less written about them than orcs and goblins and drow. So, if we can have those MM entries able to support being adversaries, good, or evil, then why not for the larger entries on Orcs, Goblins and Drow?

 

[Oofta]

"They only exist in the most popular setting in DnD, that is practically the default for the setting." Oh and Eberron which is another massively popular setting (the goddess doesn't exist, but Good Drow do). Oh, and Exandria where they specifically have a Drow empire that isn't evil.

And... hmm, no drow good or evil in Ravnica, Theros, or Ravenloft.


Doesn't that cover every published setting for Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition? Meaning that, if you are using an official setting, you either have no Drow, or Drow that could be Good or Evil? So.. what part of DnD 5e is limited to just evil Drow and nothing else?

Yeah, I mixed them up. But it doesn't matter because it's the same answer. The PHB explicitly stated that you should ask your DM.

I don't see any reason other than preference to distinguish between drow (or orcs) and any other monster in the book.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't see any reason other than preference to distinguish between drow (or orcs) and any other monster in the book.

Or humans.

 

[Wolf72]

What are you talking about? Erikson deconstructs so much of the inherent racism in fantasy in the Malazan series. He has entire books deconstructing the tropes and racism. He's talked about it publicly, many times.

The Black Company? Again, not sure what you are talking about at all. There's nothing I recall in the series that even tangentially relates to the topic.

Good grief, do we need to repeat it again? The problem with orcs (and a couple of other humanoids) is that the language used describing these races directly parallels the language used by racists to describe real world peoples.

For orcs this becomes especially problematic since, according the information we have, half-orcs are among the most popular played races in the game. One stat I saw pegged it at 5%. Which puts it in Gnome Effect territory, meaning that out of 4 groups of 5 players, one of those groups will have someone playing an orc, or, to put it another way, this affects 1/4 of the groups out there.

Now, some groups, like @Oofta's have decided that this isn't an issue. And that's perfectly, 100% groovy. No problems. But, at the end of the day, who cares? I'm sorry @Oofta, but, why should I care that your group doesn't care about this issue? If you can ignore the issue, you can ignore the fixed issue too. It makes no difference to you, so, why not let those who DO care actually have what they want? What does it cost you? What are you losing? As far as I can see, you lose absolutely nothing, and other people gain. Net win.

It utterly baffles me when people argue against changes that have zero impact upon themselves. Why do you care?

Erikson: so there were no groups of elves (wait, were they elves? memory failing here) that had any claim to a superiority complex? or any of the ancient races? Maybe we read different books. Did I find his books racist? Not at all, they were works of fiction.

Black Company et. al. -- Look, the point has been made that the language used has been used by those touting a racist agenda. You could open any of those books, swap a few words and viola you have now turned any literature we have in fantasy and fiction into someone else's agenda. It's been quite a while since I read them, but I'm pretty sure the fate of White Rose had she not been rescued as a young child would have been quite offensive.

I have ZERO problems with what WotC does with orcs. I just don't think that tying correlations that have a real world impact into a fantasy setting is as strong as some make it to be, mostly because the ability to twist A into B is way to easy anywhere.

Ignore it? well you've just repeated the moral of the argument. If you don't like it, don't use it. I totally agree, just don't apply so much meta-thought to a situation to create something that isn't. How is the orc issue not racist? Well, they are not real.

What I keep hearing (seeing) is that WotC has some sort of moral responsibility to avoid any product that could be misconstrued as [insert sensitive topic here] ... At some point the end user has a responsibility to act a in a mature manner and be able to have responsible conversations with other humans.

 

[jmartkdr2]

What I keep hearing (seeing) is that WotC has some sort of moral responsibility to avoid any product that could be misconstrued as [insert sensitive topic here] ... At some point the end user has a responsibility to act a in a mature manner and be able to have responsible conversations with other humans.

The hair being split is: it's not that any depiction of orc will make someone racist. If you weren't already inclined that way, you won't read the MM fluff text and suddenly start to think it's proof that some real-world group of people are inferior or inherently evil. No one's arguing that.

However, for people affected by racism, seeing language that mirrors racist talk can be uncomfortable. If said talk is being said by bad guys, or as proof that they are bad guys, or otherwise treated as wrong in some sense, it's usually fine, though. Racists are bad, so 'saying racist stuff' is a good way to kick the puppy.

But, and this is where WOTC has gotten in trouble lately: if racist-like talk is treated as true and accurate in the setting, that makes people who are victims of racism uncomfortable with the game as a whole. And no one, especially not WOTC, wants people to feel that way.

Where are the limits? Well, that's tough, and will require constant work to keep track of. We aren't going to solve it here, and frankly I don't know if it can ever be permanently solved since the public's ideas about race and racism are constantly changing. What WOTC can do is work on it, consistently, and try to get better. People will appreciate the effort, and forgive the occasional misstep if the effort is clear.

I don't have the book but I've been told that how Volo's describes orcs is pretty bad, so not doing that would be a start. Getting rid of alignment entries for races as a whole would probably be good, since most races would vary. You could probably leave them in for individuals and monster stat blocks for stuff like 'orc raider' and 'drow priestess' though, because those clearly don't speak for all orcs/drow. Make sure that any 'inherently evil' groups are clearly fantastical in nature (that is, the reason for them being evil isn't the same as a racist trope.)The usual suggestions, really.

 

[Faolyn]

How is the orc issue not racist? Well, they are not real.

What I keep hearing (seeing) is that WotC has some sort of moral responsibility to avoid any product that could be misconstrued as [insert sensitive topic here] ...

Orcs may not be real, but the language used to describe them is often the same language used to denigrate real-life people. Look at the orc section in Volo's, which says that orcs can be "domesticated" as if they were animals but will still retain their bloodlust.

That's what needs to be avoided. It's not up to players to ignore that paragraph; it's up to WotC to not include it in the first place.

 

[Wolf72]

If you take your arguments to the ultimate conclusion, they might as well not print anything at all. Something somewhere will strike a cord with someone about some horrific event in their life.

When you split hairs, your arguments become razor thin and so circumstantial you'll be paralyzed with bringing up something that hits home to someone or some group. Or the simple act of describing something is spot on to something that actually happened.

rabbit hole ... long and winding rabbit hole.

As much as some think I'm over reacting, I probably think the same in the reverse. This conversation has way to many easily usable punches and counter punches. Imagine if a I had a family member who had been murdered, then there was this game where you had to solve a murder mystery -- and the murderer has, almost action for action, killed the same way. Perhaps it was a total sci-fi-fantasy series and mine is real life.

I dunno, to me there is a huge separation of reality and fantasy. If something hits home, I'm sorry. Some history is so blatantly horrific and commonplace it can and will resonate everywhere. You cannot avoid it. Imagine growing up as a less than second class member of society for some reason (drugs, war, famine, any refuge), then get involved in a D&D game that hearkens back to the Vault of the Drow or A1-4 ... the players have to be able to rationalize what they're doing and adapt or take another path at that time.

Don't have Volo's guide (to anything), but from what you paraphrased it sounds like Volo can be kind of a poop-bag.

If you think WotC needs to tone down it's depth, fluff, flavor, background (running out of synonyms here), by all means you have made that point. I think the point making has crossed the line where rational rpg players should or would have been able to tell the difference.

BUT when I jumped in there was the argument that calling orcs Evil is racist. To an extant, that is ... "correct/right". That is why dwarves get a +1 to hit vs orcs/goblinoids (right, right I'm kinda stuck a few decades back). Taking that rule/background to what has been being put forth is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I can't imagine how supporting that theory would let anyone get through anything in modern media.

Time to step away (always easier said than done). My advice: Be educated, cognizant of history, know where to draw a line, don't over analyze a fantasy game or any media production for that matter.

 

[BookTenTiger]

If you take your arguments to the ultimate conclusion, they might as well not print anything at all. Something somewhere will strike a cord with someone about some horrific event in their life.

When you split hairs, your arguments become razor thin and so circumstantial you'll be paralyzed with bringing up something that hits home to someone or some group. Or the simple act of describing something is spot on to something that actually happened.

rabbit hole ... long and winding rabbit hole.

As much as some think I'm over reacting, I probably think the same in the reverse. This conversation has way to many easily usable punches and counter punches. Imagine if a I had a family member who had been murdered, then there was this game where you had to solve a murder mystery -- and the murderer has, almost action for action, killed the same way. Perhaps it was a total sci-fi-fantasy series and mine is real life.

I dunno, to me there is a huge separation of reality and fantasy. If something hits home, I'm sorry. Some history is so blatantly horrific and commonplace it can and will resonate everywhere. You cannot avoid it. Imagine growing up as a less than second class member of society for some reason (drugs, war, famine, any refuge), then get involved in a D&D game that hearkens back to the Vault of the Drow or A1-4 ... the players have to be able to rationalize what they're doing and adapt or take another path at that time.

Don't have Volo's guide (to anything), but from what you paraphrased it sounds like Volo can be kind of a poop-bag.

If you think WotC needs to tone down it's depth, fluff, flavor, background (running out of synonyms here), by all means you have made that point. I think the point making has crossed the line where rational rpg players should or would have been able to tell the difference.

BUT when I jumped in there was the argument that calling orcs Evil is racist. To an extant, that is ... "correct/right". That is why dwarves get a +1 to hit vs orcs/goblinoids (right, right I'm kinda stuck a few decades back). Taking that rule/background to what has been being put forth is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I can't imagine how supporting that theory would let anyone get through anything in modern media.

Time to step away (always easier said than done). My advice: Be educated, cognizant of history, know where to draw a line, don't over analyze a fantasy game or any media production for that matter.

This is the discourse. Art deserves to be deconstructed, talked about, examined... If there were easy answers, we wouldn't be talking about it.

In my view, there are many ways to love art. One way is to critique and examine it.

The entire genre of fantasy is rooted in the often xenophobic story of "us-versus-them" / civilization vs barbarians, light vs darkness, etc etc etc

That doesn't stop fantasy from being really fun or engaging.

But the discourse here is: how do we hold onto what we love about fantasy (literature, movies, games) without carrying forward racist tropes and stereotypes?

 

[Faolyn]

As much as some think I'm over reacting, I probably think the same in the reverse. This conversation has way to many easily usable punches and counter punches. Imagine if a I had a family member who had been murdered, then there was this game where you had to solve a murder mystery -- and the murderer has, almost action for action, killed the same way. Perhaps it was a total sci-fi-fantasy series and mine is real life.

This isn't the point here. We're not talking about individual traumas. We're talking about not using bigoted language and not making sweeping generalizations about entire species.

I dunno, to me there is a huge separation of reality and fantasy. If something hits home, I'm sorry. Some history is so blatantly horrific and commonplace it can and will resonate everywhere. You cannot avoid it.

Yes, you can avoid it.

For instance: rape. D&D books don't have it and barely even allude to it anymore, to the point that they now have "political marriage" as the reason for half-orcs (orc and human tribes sometimes form alliances, [...] When these alliances are sealed by marriages, half-orcs are born.). Rape is blatantly horrific, commonplace, will resonate everywhere, and is quite historical. D&D manages to avoid it just fine.

So that means that they can have orcs, drow, and other humanoids as having a wide an alignment spread as humans., with some being adversaries and some being allies and some being completely neutral.

Why does that concept bother you?

Imagine growing up as a less than second class member of society for some reason (drugs, war, famine, any refuge), then get involved in a D&D game that hearkens back to the Vault of the Drow or A1-4 ... the players have to be able to rationalize what they're doing and adapt or take another path at that time.

Don't have Volo's guide (to anything), but from what you paraphrased it sounds like Volo can be kind of a poop-bag.

Except that the books are presenting this as an in-game fact, not "Volo is a kind of poop-bag whose opinions can be safely ignored." If you go by the canon lore as of that point, orcs are savages, no matter what, although they can be "domesticated," as if they were animals, if raised by non-orcs.

If you think WotC needs to tone down it's depth, fluff, flavor, background (running out of synonyms here), by all means you have made that point. I think the point making has crossed the line where rational rpg players should or would have been able to tell the difference.

BUT when I jumped in there was the argument that calling orcs Evil is racist. To an extant, that is ... "correct/right". That is why dwarves get a +1 to hit vs orcs/goblinoids (right, right I'm kinda stuck a few decades back). Taking that rule/background to what has been being put forth is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I can't imagine how supporting that theory would let anyone get through anything in modern media.

None of us are saying that RPG players can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy and thus need to be coddled.

What we're pointing out is that, when we bring up the problematic tropes involved, people like you are downplaying them by coming up with completely unrelated hypothetical instances ("what if my family member had been murdered?") or saying that anyone who wants to remove the bigotry is ignorant ("My advice: Be educated, cognizant of history, know where to draw a line, don't over analyze a fantasy game or any media production for that matter.") rather than address the actual issue.

So my advice to you is, think about where you're coming from, and think about why you are so hesitant to change.

 

[Wolf72]

Talk about splitting hairs ... individual to groups becomes a fine line. How many instances does something need to be before you get to your magic number? Because that one number below, well you just told them they don't count.

Wha - What? No sweeping generalization of different races (species)? Ok, I guess you don't want to play D&D. It is a game of stereotypes of races with sweeping generalizations. (at least until bring out more racial spat books for another edition)

The concept of having general alignments does not bother me. If you would like to change the way the game works or is fluffed do it. But don't accuse them of something that is not true.

Do not 'downplay' your stance that demonizes (seriously, if you had to summarize the argument it would be "this supports real world racism") the industry because of what they use or have written and that it in some way relates and has a major impact on the real world. (It does relate, but welcome to anything ever written).

Avoids rape? I'm sorry Tanis Half-Elven, your mom and dad just had irreconcilable differences. I'd consider my DL/DLA collection as canonical as Volo is this case. (Heck Half-races in many descriptions of this game were the product of non-consensual relationships).

You want an unrelated hypothetical issue? Orcs, Goblins, Dragons, Elves, keep going list, are ... not ... real.

Just say what you mean, dude. Correct me if I'm wrong -- "I want the game to move to on to a less [insert concerns here] format" -- leave it at that. The more precise arguments you make, the more you've gotten away from the game and the more people are going to retaliate against each other.

I know exactly where I'm coming from. I don't think erasing the past is the way to go. Before you say "I'm not", you are. These things did happen in the game and are forever part of its history, use them or not at level you and your group are comfortable with. You have taken a paradigm of racism and managed to apply it on so many levels it has gone over the top and would like to do a sweeping change of a trope of the game. But the game is based on tropes, and stereotypes, and cliches. I don't think there needs to be a change, woot. You do, woot. I do feel like some are trying to coddle the next iteration of the game.

Play the game as we see fit. But if someone prefers that their bad-guy-mook-mob-blah-blah-blah be evil "and that's that", please don't accuse them, me, anyone of supporting racism or being insensitive to those who suffer through racism because we feel our orcs are mostly incurably evil.

If that was not the intent, it really feels like that was being said at many levels. Many posters simply said, "play your game, it is your game". That's all it should be, ease up on the rhetoric. Guess that applies to everyone here.