D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Faolyn]

This too is tricky.

For example, if jotnar (who are normally human size but occasionally much larger) is a D&D species, I would prefer it to have an accurate Nordic culture, even speak the same languages that Nordic humans speak.

Emphasis on an "accurate" Nordic culture. Misrepresentations and stereotypes would feel highly problematic.

Jotunn are a Norse myth and thus should use a Norse culture, if you're trying to be accurate with them. What @Ruin Explorer means is saying "don't automatically make orcs into Norse because orcs are vicious raiders and therefore would be good Vikings."

 

[MGibster]

Jotunn are a Norse myth and thus should use a Norse culture, if you're trying to be accurate with them. What @Ruin Explorer means is saying "don't automatically make orcs into Norse because orcs are vicious raiders and therefore would be good Vikings."

Yes. Make them halflings because that's just adorable and awesome.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"don't automatically make orcs into Norse because orcs are vicious raiders and therefore would be good Vikings."

On the other hand, if the Orc Chieftain was signed to a long-term contract and was consistently underperforming, and the Orcs had an absolutely terrible record in the playoffs, with numerous tragic defeats ... then yeah, you could say they were great Vikings.

 

[CleverNickName]

The way I see it, they will never be able to pull off a 5E rewrite that doesn't turn into a total financial disaster or public relations nightmare.

But that's not to say the idea of a 'monstrous heroes' book is a bad idea. If it's done right, I think such a book could be a solid hit.

I'm thinking the best chance of success would be with a monstrous PC-themed splatbook in the same vein as Volo's Guide to Monsters and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Let's call it, I dunno, "Thar's Guide to Orcs and Goblins." Its scope: to expand upon the different races and subraces of goblins, bugbears, kobolds, trolls, and so forth.

First, they would need to sort out what it means to be "monstrous" in the game setting, and steer clear of outdated (and frankly, lazy) tropes like 'all trolls are bad guys, and all bad guys are evil.' They're better than that. And they can't use real-world cultures as templates for non-human creatures: I understand the temptation, but there's no polite way to refer to a real group of people as non-human. So Step One would be to flex their world-building creative muscles to create new cultures, names, and mythos completely from scratch.

Since this is a player-facing splatbook, there would need to be lots of new crunch for players: new magic items, new weapons, new feats, new mounts and familiars and spells, and new class options. If they're feeling extra-ambitious, and if they really want to bait that hook, they could throw in a whole new core class like Marshal (for the hobgoblin fans).

But DMs buy more books than players do, so they would need to write in lots of DM-facing materials to draw them in also. Instead of that weird "Orc Wars" mini-game, they could put in some fresh wargaming rules for mass combat and siege weapons. There should be plenty of new lore, like pantheons, new history, factions, and NPCs. There would need to be new maps of the Broken Lands, too, redrawn to fit whatever default campaign setting the 5E rules are publishing that year. Conversion notes for inserting The Broken Lands into Faerun, Eberron, Wildemount, and whatever.

I think it could work.

But I have to stress that this project would need to be a complete rewrite. The Orcs of Thar 5E would never work. Imagine what would happen if they just updated the mechanics and replaced the offensive text and images, and put out a sanitized version. Players new and old would take them to task! Twitter would explode with righteous fury, and shareholders would run for cover. No, the "silly D&D book" experiments of the 1980s all failed, and this one failed the hardest...they should not attempt it or anything like it, ever again.

 

[Maxperson]

On the other hand, if the Orc Chieftain was signed to a long-term contract and was consistently underperforming, and the Orcs had an absolutely terrible record in the playoffs, with numerous tragic defeats ... then yeah, you could say they were great Vikings.

Or a Raider. Hmm. Maybe it's in the name? Raiders and Vikings are very similar to one another.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

On the other hand, if the Orc Chieftain was signed to a long-term contract and was consistently underperforming, and the Orcs had an absolutely terrible record in the playoffs, with numerous tragic defeats ... then yeah, you could say they were great Vikings.

Nods approvingly in Minnesotan

 

[Yaarel]

By the way, the situation for the Vikings football team, seems to differ from that of the Redskins.

First, viking isnt a slur. Several Nordic nations are proud of their viking heritage. I am unaware of any Nordic person who might be offended by its usage for a competative sports team. It is all in good fun. Of course, it is nicer when they win.

By contrast, redskin is a slur.

Second, the horned helmet is wrongness to begin with, and Nordics tend to be humorous about. From the Nordic perspectives, people that use a horned helmet seem like idiots. But the Nordics themselves use it for playful fun, like at costume parties. (Actually the horned helmet derives from a motif from German opera to represent nonchristian divinity, analogous to a halo, and via Wagner distorted European perceptions about Nordic peoples.)

By contrast, the Native headdress is a sacred feature and requires ceremonial dignity.

 

[Umbran]

On the other hand, if Disney+ did carry it (with VERY STRONG disclaimers), I would be against efforts to remove it.

So, to show how hard it should be to come to certainty here, we can also look at it this way - you say you'd be against efforts to remove it. But...

We say the owner has a right to make available any piece they want. They own it, they have rights with respect to that ownership.

The people who raise their voices in effort to have it taken away... they have rights too, to raise their voices, yes?

So, now we are in the position of supporting one group's rights while telling others they should not exercise their own, similar rights? That's... super awkward, and kind of logically dicey stuff. Not a good place to have certainty.


There's a distinction I became aware of over the past couple of years that can serve us here. There is a difference between a problematic past piece being recognized as history, and giving it current representation and voice in culture. Song of the South is a pretty iconic example here - whether or not they have a legal right to do so, it would ethically crummy for Disney to make that piece available for general entertainment - if it showed up on Disney+, even with a strong disclaimer, that would be giving it new and pretty powerful voice. However, making it available to help teach the history and forms of racism in media, would be thoroughly legitimate, to the point where copyright protections would fail anyway as Fair Use.

And it may be helpful to start thinking of unfortuate legacy products in this manner.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am sensitive to how D&D portrays Nordic cultures. I know I would be annoyed if the Brits were all "elves" and the Nordics were all "halflings".

Sure, so long as you recognise that you are from one of the least-oppressed groups on the planet, with the least "live" negative stereotypes about it, so your "annoyance" doesn't remotely even start to compare to what most of this thread is about. Also, because that Halfling-Scandinavia doesn't line up with any Nordic stereotypes (apart maybe, at a stretch, the whole "hygge" thing, which is positive anyway), it's not making things worse, and further, likely as much as you dislike it, another Scandinavian will love it.

It's the same with British people and Elves (or Halflings, actually). I am annoyed when British and Elf are interchangeable lol. But some other Brits love it.

That's not at all the same as the kind of oppressive and nasty stereotypes we're discussing here.

 

[Yaarel]

Sure, so long as you recognise that you are from one of the least-oppressed groups on the planet, with the least "live" negative stereotypes about it, so your "annoyance" doesn't remotely even start to compare to what most of this thread is about. Also, because that Halfling-Scandinavia doesn't line up with any Nordic stereotypes (apart maybe, at a stretch, the whole "hygge" thing, which is positive anyway), it's not making things worse, and further, likely as much as you dislike it, another Scandinavian will love it.

It's the same with British people and Elves (or Halflings, actually). I am annoyed when British and Elf are interchangeable lol. But some other Brits love it.

Assigning halfling can come across as belittling and patronizing.

That's not at all the same as the kind of oppressive and nasty stereotypes we're discussing here.

A violation of an other peoples sacred heritage is something that most cultures can relate to why it feels wrong.



For Nordic peoples, Egyptians, etcetera, the heritage isnt sacred in a "religious" sense but it is sacred in an identity sense.