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

[Faolyn]

Remove default alignment for entire races. Stop describing entire races as “savage” or “uncivilized” or “backward” or any of a dozen other blatantly racist tropes.

And recognize that there can be tribal creatures who are neither that nor "noble savages."

 

[Charlaquin]

To you 'nuanced' seem to mean 'identical to humans mentally and socially and in capabilities.' To me that is not nuanced, it is lazy. Making things identical to humans is not adding nuance, it is removing it.

Ok, so what would it look like for a D&D race to have as much nuance as humans without having the same range of mental and social capabilities?

 

[Lanefan]

And yet a paladin's fall isn't nearly as satisfying as pushing the elven bard off a cliff.

Oh, I dunno.

Time for a scientific experiment: let's push 'em both off and see who wins the race to the bottom.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok, so what would it look like for a D&D race to have as much nuance as humans without having the same range of mental and social capabilities?

I think the better developed Star Trek species and a lot of stuff in Glorantha, Uz in particular are good examples of the sort of thing I want to see.

 

[Scribe]

Ok, so what would it look like for a D&D race to have as much nuance as humans without having the same range of mental and social capabilities?

I'm not sure if I misunderstand but you would simply need to demonstrate multiple distinct cultures for a given species, to show the diversity possible.

It's just a world building, and canon, question.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the better developed Star Trek species and a lot of stuff in Glorantha, Uz in particular are good examples of the sort of thing I want to see.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand but you would simply need to demonstrate multiple distinct cultures for a given species, to show the diversity possible.

It's just a world building, and canon, question.

But, see, whenever that sort of thing gets suggested, the protestations of “humans with rubber masks!” start.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that is true. They however need to be something more than just green humans.

At the very least, yes.

And if we were only talking about Orcs, I'd be more or less cool with the idea they can be any alignment or ethos (though I'd still prefer an alignment tendency be listed in their MM write-up); another species to put alongside Humans, Dwarves, Elves, etc. in that mold.

But it seems we're not. There's been perhaps two or three dozen different creatures mentioned in this thread - including, incredibly, mind flayers; which are generally accepted as all evil, all the time - and some posters seem to want this same "they might just be misunderstood" treatment applied to the lot of 'em. That's overkill.

I wonder how much of this stems from people, for any given species, interpreting the listed MM alignment as an absolute rather than a tendency.

 

[Faolyn]

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?

To be fair, the MM's description of orcs, across the editions, has always been pretty bland outside of the fact that they're monstrous raiders. I don't think there's a single sentence in their 5e description that isn't supporting the idea that they're monstrous raiders.

This, of course, should be rectified in the next MM by giving them actual culture. In the meantime, though, it's not at all hard to homebrew one for them.

 

[Scribe]

But, see, whenever that sort of thing gets suggested, the protestations of “humans with rubber masks!” start.

Not quite. The protest starts when there is removal of what exists.

Removal of a general alignment is a problem to me.

Adding a network of tribes, villages, and hunter/gatherers (all Orcs for example) who instead of reaving form a community network that is distinct from that generalization (which is just a short hand for a DM anyway), is world building.

 

[Malmuria]

I think the better developed Star Trek species and a lot of stuff in Glorantha, Uz in particular are good examples of the sort of thing I want to see.

But that would make them more alike real people from the real world. That's precisely what some of us don't want them to be.

Some of us just need mindless caricatures to serve as the BBEG's foot soldiers.

I think defining and elaborating on, say, goblin cultures and their worldviews would be welcome in the contemporary game, but it stands in stark contrast to the position that they need to be different (i.e. inherently evil) to serve as fodder for the PC combat machine. Is the point of elaborating difference for the sake of creating vivid and deep alternatives to the human societies in a given setting, or is it just to provide monsters for the pcs to kill?

Also, @Crimson Longinus, you mentioned Klingons in the other thread, but I don't get how that's not the 'humans but in rubber masks' situation. Klingons are represented as having a particular culture, but that culture is basically comprehensible by the human characters as it is just an exaggeration of certain features of human culture. Unlike the Q or the Borg that are more truly alien.