D&D 5E Are humanoid mono-cultures being replaced with the Rule of Three?

[Mecheon]

Giving orcs (or whatever) culture and character, and especially making them available as PCs, is what makes it a problem using them as stock enemies. "Doc, it hurts when I move my arm like this." Don't do that. Define your stock enemies as stock enemies, and there is no more problem.

You do know orcs have had playable stats since Basic, right?

Like, do we really want to have the argument about this again when their legacy in the game has been "You can play as these" and they have a legacy longer than gnomes? Because, Orcs of Thar was 1988, Top Ballista (I'm 90% sure that's the first playable gnome stats came from) was 1989

and like, I'm a gnome fan and I'm bringing this up.

It is maybe a bit late to start looking at making a race that has been playable in one form or another for the past 31 years and say "Nah this should be a souless NPC". If you want that, sorry, D&D orcs are not the race for you, nor have they ever been

It's safe to say that the OP's thread has been derailed so much that it's now in another continent.

That's what happens when someone brings up the ol' orc argument, again

Personally I like the idea of D&D colorizing their orcs and stealig ideas to split them up.

D&D has been trying hard to make their orcs grey, as distinct from the green Warhammer/Warcraft orcs, so I can't see them colourising. Certainly would be a way and its certainly what they did in the past, what with grey orcs in FR being their whole weird thing

 

[Reynard]

You do know orcs have had playable stats since Basic, right?

Like, do we really want to have the argument about this again when their legacy in the game has been "You can play as these" and they have a legacy longer than gnomes? Because, Orcs of Thar was 1988, Top Ballista (I'm 90% sure that's the first playable gnome stats came from) was 1989

and like, I'm a gnome fan and I'm bringing this up.

It is maybe a bit late to start looking at making a race that has been playable in one form or another for the past 31 years and say "Nah this should be a souless NPC". If you want that, sorry, D&D orcs are not the race for you, nor have they ever been


That's what happens when someone brings up the ol' orc argument, again

You sailed right past my point even though you quoted it.

 

[CubicsRube]

Just a shame to be having this argument again. It never resolves anything and the heat it generates just accelerates global warming. Or something.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Back to the original concept. What patterns should 3 different cultures fall into Usually the first one should be the one that's been shown in older sources. The second should be an alternate or opposite take on the first concept. And the third is something maybe unexpected.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Does it depend on the sexual reproduction? Because otherwise it's just as true for demons and devils

I meant more that they reproduce sexually exclusively, ie male orcs and female orcs get together and make baby orcs and that’s how you get more orcs. Demons and devils can make offspring but it’s not how they reproduce in most cases and they don’t have infants, generally.

 

[Yaarel]

What patterns should 3 cultures fall into?

Im a fan of the 5-guy band. Here is my variant of it.

1. heart guy
2. tough guy
3. rebel guy
4. jock guy
5. smart guy

The first three set up the essential dynamic. The fourth, the jock guy is a pragmatist and planner, and integrates aspects of all of the others. The fifth, the smart guy tends to be either a knowledgeable advisor or a mad-scientist technician.

1. The heart guy is a romantic idealist, generally innocent, who optimistically inspires the rest of the group.
2. The tough guy is a deadly one-soldier-army, who is highly protective of the group.

1 and 2, often function like "blue oni, red oni", albeit which is which can depend. The tough guy can be a cold-blooded pragmatist, while the heart guy is an emotional nurturer. Oppositely, the tough guy might be a highly emotional bodyguard who looks after the rest of the group as family, while the heart guy can be mathematically analytical, even architectural.

1. Thesis, 2. Antithesis, then comes 3. Synthesis.

3. The rebel guy is a nonconformist, often roguish, sometimes a trickster, who makes it possible for the other two to coexist. Generally the rebel guy is whatever the others are not, yet enables the opposites to work with each other.



Among the elves, I would speculate:

1. heart guy ≈ wood elf
2. tough guy ≈ drow elf
3. rebel guy ≈ high elf

The drow is definitely the tough guy. The other two can go either way. In contexts that idealize nature and the environment, the wood elf tends to come across as the innocent heart guy. Then the drow is somewhat an antinature tough guy. So the high elf, is the one doing its own thing, between the other two, as the rebel guy. However, in contexts where the high elf is more like the original elf, the drow becomes the antithesis. And in the war between the high elf and the drow elf, the wood elf leaves them both behind and vanishes into the wilderness, whence is the rebel guy.



Among the drow, perhaps it will be something like the following?

1. heart guy ≈ aevendrow (never fell)
2. tough guy ≈ udadrow (fell hard)
3. rebel guy ≈ lorendrow (participated in the fall, but climbed out of it)

 

[Dire Bare]

Back to the original concept. What patterns should 3 different cultures fall into Usually the first one should be the one that's been shown in older sources. The second should be an alternate or opposite take on the first concept. And the third is something maybe unexpected.

Why does their need to be a pattern? Why does there need to be three? I don't think this is really a rule anybody is consciously following, outside of the Planescape setting.

Three is just a natural number of options to create. Two is too few, four or more starts taking up a lot of space. Three gives you a sense of options.

Making this a "rule" of design . . . leads to needless symmetry and will become boring. Especially if there is a pattern to follow.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The pattern of Eberron Goblins?
-The Ghaaldar and their nation of Darguun and it's founder Lhesh Haruuc, somewhat resembles to me the nation of Modern Day Zimbabwe (which has nothing to do with the old Great Zimbabwe) and it's founder Robert Mugabe, much in the same way other places in Eberron might resemble France or Post-WWI Germany. But they might be the closest to typical Goblins in D&D.
-The Heirs of Dhakaan are a hidden people from the fallen Dhakaani empire who have little with the outside world, and seem to mostly be a threat to Darguun.
-City Goblins who live in Human cities, resemble marginalized minorities. There closer to Humans culturally, even if they often are members of the underclass.

 

[Reynard]

Back to the original concept. What patterns should 3 different cultures fall into Usually the first one should be the one that's been shown in older sources. The second should be an alternate or opposite take on the first concept. And the third is something maybe unexpected.

Dwarves are interesting this way:

The mountain dwarves are the dwarfiest: dour, greedy, isolationist and masters of forgotten arts of crafting. Their great empires and wars remain hidden from the wider world.

The hill dwarves are the most open, with a desire to see the sky and interact with other races. They must share the world and so are more tolerant, but still remember the animosity of their ancestors to the "green skins."

The duetgar are of course cold and cruel as the depths in which they dwell. If they come to the surface they bring only misery.

 

[Sithlord]

Why does their need to be a pattern? Why does there need to be three? I don't think this is really a rule anybody is consciously following, outside of the Planescape setting.

Three is just a natural number of options to create. Two is too few, four or more starts taking up a lot of space. Three gives you a sense of options.

Making this a "rule" of design . . . leads to needless symmetry and will become boring. Especially if there is a pattern to follow.

The number should be seven. Three is silly and Nordic. Four is Native American and not enough. But seven is a prime number and gives more than twice the options as 3.now we could do 13 because it is a prime number and would give almost twice was many options as 7 and we have 13 classes so there would be symmetry. So the answer is 7 or 13 providing wotc has enough staff to write 13 different ones.