D&D General All Dead Generations: "Classic Vs. The Aesthetic"

[Malmuria]

It's really weird that your options are "evil races exist in game and remain evil" or "evil races are removed from the game entirely"...at no point is it possible for you to consider removing the evil from the race and keep the race. It's a really odd argument to make. That strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Orcs are problematic because of the racist stereotypes. You can keep the orcs and remove the racist stereotypes. It will just be fractionally more work.

Either that or it is really telling that once you remove the inherent chaotic evilness of orcs they no longer have anything distinctive about them.

 

[Argyle King]

I think if there is redundancy that points to the fact that humanoid monsters are already presented as one dimensional foils for human cultures. Like, the whole thing with hobgoblins is that they are “militaristic.” That’s not, imo, meaningful worldbuilding, that’s just creating a fantasy race around a single cultural description.

I was looking more at the fact that orcs, hobgoblins, and a few other creatures already have identities which serve pretty much the same role.

So, odd as it may sound, I'm actually agreeing that those cultures should be given more definition.

I think that selecting a smaller amount of things to define better/more would be a better path than taking steps to make making a creature even more redundant with more parts of the game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, in other words the monsters weren't monsters any more.

Plenty of monsters are completely human.

But why bother?

Same reason as you bother with dwarves and elves.

D&D certainly doesn't need any of them, they are largely just a Tolkien holdover, but if they suit the setting there is no reason not to bother either.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The main antagonists in my current game are a githzerai arch-criminal and a a couple of powerful modrons. Because if you remove alignment, anyone can be a bad guy.

 

[overgeeked]

I did not say those were my two perceived choices.

Well...

However, if that means that they become functionally equivalent to being human, I'm not sure there's an added value to their existence in the game.

Right there. The continued existence of inherently evil races is self-justifying. The fact that they're racist stereotypes is causing problems. So clearly removing the racist stereotypes is a good in-and-of itself. But, then the race needs a new justification to remain...according to you. I disagree. There are plenty of things in the game that exist simply because they're fun, interesting, or a legacy. No reason that should be any different with orcs, goblins, trolls, etc...once the racist stereotypes are removed.

I see a push for some portion of the contemporary D&D audience to make choices primarily aesthetic in nature. I can disagree with that and simultaneously disagree with racism without turning it into a binary choice. My advocacy for cutting things out starts where the point to including something appears to end.

So the point of including orcs, etc is the racist stereotypes? That seems like what you're saying because once that's removed you need some other justification for keeping them in. The racist stereotypes are not the point of orcs, etc, it's an incredibly harmful knock-on effect. We can keep the orcs and toss the racism. The point of including them is that they're fun, interesting, or a legacy. Or any number of other reasons.

 

[Argyle King]

Well...

Right there. The continued existence of inherently evil races is self-justifying. The fact that they're racist stereotypes is causing problems. So clearly removing the racist stereotypes is a good in-and-of itself. But, then the race needs a new justification to remain...according to you. I disagree. There are plenty of things in the game that exist simply because they're fun, interesting, or a legacy. No reason that should be any different with orcs, goblins, trolls, etc...once the racist stereotypes are removed.

So the point of including orcs, etc is the racist stereotypes? That seems like what you're saying because once that's removed you need some other justification for keeping them in. The racist stereotypes are not the point of orcs, etc, it's an incredibly harmful knock-on effect. We can keep the orcs and toss the racism. The point of including them is that they're fun, interesting, or a legacy. Or any number of other reasons.

I completely disagree with your assessment of what I've previously said. I think, in a way, you're actually supporting my argument.

If something is going to be included in the game, it should have value to the game.

It's not inconsistent to say that I disagree with including orcs solely to fit some racist agenda and to also say that I disagree with including nondescript and flavorless orcs who might as well just be humans.

If they're made somehow "fun" or "interesting" they should be included, and that fits with what I've said thus far.

 

[overgeeked]

I completely disagree with your assessment of what I've previously said. I think, in a way, you're actually supporting my argument.

If something is going to be included in the game, it should have value to the game.

Fun has value. Interest has value. Multicultrualism has value. Because some random kid thinks they're neat has value.

It's not inconsistent to say that I disagree with including orcs solely to fit some racist agenda and to also say that I disagree with including nondescript and flavorless orcs who might as well just be humans.

Why are those the only options? Either they're racist stereotypes or they're "nondescript and flavorless"? This is a game about imagination and wonder. Can't you imagine something better for the orcs?

If they're made somehow "fun" or "interesting" they should be included, and that fits with what I've said thus far.

They already are fun and interesting...once you remove the racist stereotypes.

 

[Argyle King]

Fun has value. Interest has value. Multicultrualism has value. Because some random kid thinks they're neat has value.

Why are those the only options? Either they're racist stereotypes or they're "nondescript and flavorless"? This is a game about imagination and wonder. Can't you imagine something better for the orcs?

They already are fun and interesting...once you remove the racist stereotypes.

At no point have I opposed multiculturalism. Multiple times I've advocated for including more definition (which would include more variety than the stock pseudo-European human) rather than less.

Likewise, I have not said that the two options presented are the only two options. I am stating that it is not logically inconsistent to say that those are both options which I do not support.

 

[overgeeked]

At no point have I opposed multiculturalism. Multiple times I've advocated for including more definition (which would include more variety than the stock pseudo-European human) rather than less.

Likewise, I have not said that the two options presented are the only two options. I am stating that it is not logically inconsistent to say that those are both options which I do not support.

But at no point have you said there’s another option than status quo or bland orcs. In fact, you seem to have repeated the assumption that if the racist stereotypes are removed, then orcs would be bland. And stated that bland orcs should be removed from the game. So the only options you present are racist stereotype status quo or tossing the baby out with the bathwater. If you’re not suggesting that, then what other options do you have in mind?

 

[Argyle King]

Fun has value. Interest has value. Multicultrualism has value. Because some random kid thinks they're neat has value.

Why are those the only options? Either they're racist stereotypes or they're "nondescript and flavorless"? This is a game about imagination and wonder. Can't you imagine something better for the orcs?

They already are fun and interesting...once you remove the racist stereotypes.

In your view, what would you say is more fun or interesting about playing an orc versus the hypothetically diminished fun you might have if playing a green/gray human with big teeth? How do you define the experience of playing an orc in a way which is more appealing than choosing something else?

But at no point have you said there’s another option than status quo or bland orcs. In fact, you seem to have repeated the assumption that if the racist stereotypes are removed, then orcs would be bland. And stated that bland orcs should be removed from the game. So the only options you present are racist stereotype status quo or tossing the baby out with the bathwater. If you’re not suggesting that, then what other options do you have in mind?

What I've said is that there's already very little to define orcs as being something different than hobgoblins and a variety of other creatures. As such -yes; if they are also pushed into narrative (as well as game-mechanic, as other threads/posters have advocated) territory which gives them even less definition, I admittedly do see that as bland.

Do I have other ideas for how they could be defined differently? Yes, I do. In fact, in just the past few days I've participated in a different thread in which I briefly mentioned one of the ways in which "orcs" are different in non-D&D setting I've run. In that same thread, I also talked about a few different possible versions of an orc cleric character based around the idea that what people know of Gruumsh is wrong.

So, do I have ideas? Sure.

If you're attempting to advocate for me being chosen to rewrite large portions of D&D lore using specifically my vision and my ideas, I'm completely on board with being hired to do that.