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

[Remathilis]

There's a third possibility--one that D&D has actually done in the past. In some of the 3x MMs, the monsters (or at least some of them) would have two sections at the end of each write-up, entitled "Monster in the Forgotten Realms" and "Monster in Eberron."

It seems that WotC could go back to something like that, if they had a "Nentir Vale 2.0." Here's how the monster is generically. Here's the role it plays in this particular setting. It would be particularly useful if those two sections were sometimes quite different, as opposed to "here's gnolls, who are violent ravagers, and here's gnolls in NV2, who are violent ravagers in this particular area." More like "Gnolls are territorial hunters but are willing to let intruders alone if they prove they aren't going to hunt the gnolls' food supplies. In NV2, they are actually demon-spawn who will kill anyone who enters their territory."

How detailed are we asking though? Would a description of Gruumsh orcs in NV2 followed by a "In Eberron, orcs are druidic mystics who fight aberrations" paragraph work? Because that's basically what we have now and I got the impression it doesn't.

 

[Faolyn]

How detailed are we asking though? Would a description of Gruumsh orcs in NV2 followed by a "In Eberron, orcs are druidic mystics who fight aberrations" paragraph work? Because that's basically what we have now and I got the impression it doesn't.

I think it would suffice if it starts at the beginning, like when 6e gets published (or if a section like this was put into each monster in the Monsters of the Multiverse book, which I think is going to replace the MM?). Eberron came late and the first MM (either for 3e or 3.5) didn't reflect Eberron's trends. You had to have read the Eberron books, or at least be familiar with them, to know that their orcs are different.

But imagine the 6e MM, where the first time you read about orcs, you get the following:

* Generic orcs, perhaps writing them as tending towards being very physical but not inherently evil--more "big emotions and very demonstrative about them," that sort of thing. At least that's how I see orcs; I dunno how 6e will write them.​

* Gruumsh's orcs, who are seized by religious fervor and because of that, are incredibly violent and warlike, as Gruumsh demands constant bloodshed in his name. This would be generic, in the sense that it can go in any setting and isn't tied to one published setting. But it's not the norm; it's just one group of orcs.​

* NV2's orcs, unless the generic orcs above are the NV2 orcs.​

And possibly, depending on what settings 6e wants to support:

* Orcs in the Realms or Greyhawk, who are mostly low-threat raiders, mercenaries, except in the cases of Obould Many-Arrows or the orc nation of the Pomarj, which are like this.​

* Orcs in Eberron, who are druidic mystics who fight aberrations.​

And each section would likely only need a few sentences to start with. This would take up a lot of room, yes, but honestly I think they could make it fit. Of course, by the time this hypothetical 6e comes out, they could decide to have a huge online section, or sell extended pdf editions that have all the info they couldn't fit in the printed book.

And this assumes that orcs (and other playable races) are even in the MM to begin with. If there's an extended NPC statblock section and a list of racial templates (akin to the one currently in the DMG), and that's the only place where orcs and other humanoids are listed in the MM, with the idea being that you just slap the orc template on the Commoner or Noble or Thug or Warlord stats, then that'd be fine by me.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it would suffice if it starts at the beginning, like when 6e gets published (or if a section like this was put into each monster in the Monsters of the Multiverse book, which I think is going to replace the MM?). Eberron came late and the first MM (either for 3e or 3.5) didn't reflect Eberron's trends. You had to have read the Eberron books, or at least be familiar with them, to know that their orcs are different.

But imagine the 6e MM, where the first time you read about orcs, you get the following:

* Generic orcs, perhaps writing them as tending towards being very physical but not inherently evil--more "big emotions and very demonstrative about them," that sort of thing. At least that's how I see orcs; I dunno how 6e will write them.​

* Gruumsh's orcs, who are seized by religious fervor and because of that, are incredibly violent and warlike, as Gruumsh demands constant bloodshed in his name. This would be generic, in the sense that it can go in any setting and isn't tied to one published setting. But it's not the norm; it's just one group of orcs.​

* NV2's orcs, unless the generic orcs above are the NV2 orcs.​

And possibly, depending on what settings 6e wants to support:

* Orcs in the Realms or Greyhawk, who are mostly low-threat raiders, mercenaries, except in the cases of Obould Many-Arrows or the orc nation of the Pomarj, which are like this.​

* Orcs in Eberron, who are druidic mystics who fight aberrations.​

And each section would likely only need a few sentences to start with. This would take up a lot of room, yes, but honestly I think they could make it fit. Of course, by the time this hypothetical 6e comes out, they could decide to have a huge online section, or sell extended pdf editions that have all the info they couldn't fit in the printed book.

And this assumes that orcs (and other playable races) are even in the MM to begin with. If there's an extended NPC statblock section and a list of racial templates (akin to the one currently in the DMG), and that's the only place where orcs and other humanoids are listed in the MM, with the idea being that you just slap the orc template on the Commoner or Noble or Thug or Warlord stats, then that'd be fine by me.

So, then the idea is to provide a "pick your orc" option? Present the classic savage-tribal orc alongside the Eberron orc, the Many-Arrows orc, the Ondonti, and scro (spelljammer) orcs. Or provide the Unudrow, Aevendrow, Lorendrow, Vulkoor, Sulatar, Umbragen and Devkarin in the drow section. Each culture gets a paragraph of explanation and that's it. Then a DM picks the one they are using and it's off to the races.

Its an interesitng options, although, I really detest the idea of any sort of online component required to get the full picture. A lot of 4e material was paywalled behind D&D Insider and in Dragon, and it's lost to time now unless you had the foresight to save it or resort to unsavory means of acquiring it. Put it in the book or don't bother with it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, then the idea is to provide a "pick your orc" option? Present the classic savage-tribal orc alongside the Eberron orc, the Many-Arrows orc, the Ondonti, and scro (spelljammer) orcs. Or provide the Unudrow, Aevendrow, Lorendrow, Vulkoor, Sulatar, Umbragen and Devkarin in the drow section. Each culture gets a paragraph of explanation and that's it. Then a DM picks the one they are using and it's off to the races.

Its an interesitng options, although, I really detest the idea of any sort of online component required to get the full picture. A lot of 4e material was paywalled behind D&D Insider and in Dragon, and it's lost to time now unless you had the foresight to save it or resort to unsavory means of acquiring it. Put it in the book or don't bother with it.

I think they should really give some sort of core identity to the species. Something you then can hang more specific interpretations to. If orcs are passionate, hardy and love freedom, outdoors and challenges that test their mettle, respect bravery, personal strength and honesty, despise guile and empty gestures, prefer practicality and durability over finesse and finery and glory over wealth, then that at least is saying something. And then you can have examples of different orc cultures expressing those base features in different ways.

 

[Mordhau]

I think they should really give some sort of core identity to the species. Something you then can hang more specific interpretations to. If orcs are passionate, hardy and love freedom, outdoors and challenges that test their mettle, respect bravery, personal strength and honesty, despise guile and empty gestures, prefer practicality and durability over finesse and finery and glory over wealth, then that at least is saying something. And then you can have examples of different orc cultures expressing those base features in different ways.

I have Orcs with a basic trait they were given by their ancestor as a blessing (but many other races consider a curse). They have unstoppable wanderlust. They can not stay in one place for more than a week. Imprisoning an Orc will drive it mad. This puts a kind of unity to different types of Orcs.

They are always nomads; some are steppe raiders, others are peaceful herders or peddlars, but they are always moving, and all Orc cultures are based around it. I even had one single Orc city which is built on a giant gnomish contraption that moves constantly around the plains, although other Orcs tend to think they're extremely weird and the idea of even that kind of city makes them uncomfortable.

This kind of explains something about the traditional attitudes towards Orcs, by linking it to the age-old conflicts between settled and nomadic peoples, while allowing for a variety of different cultural expressions.

 

[Hussar]

People are commenting on what they see WotC actually doing, not on what they in theory could do. Yes, I would love to see D&D species to be expanded to have nuanced deep lore like the Klingons. But that absolutely is not what is currently happening. As noted, all the new species are incredibly barebones, they have next to no lore, to the point that even their physical size is undefined. It is the literal opposite of nuanced deep lore.

Sorry, and I'm not being dense here (or maybe I am) but, when you say "new species", what are referring to specifically?

The Unearthed Arcana examples listed earlier? (Or, do they appear in Strixhaven?)

Umm, new races never have a lot of lore because they are new. Good grief, how much lore did ANY race have on first release? A paragraph? Maybe two? Most had even less than that. Heck, go back and reread the 4e introduction of Dragonborn. We're talking a page of material, at the absolute outside. For what has become one of the most played races in the game.

It does take a bit of time to build up that lore.

 

[Hussar]

I like the concept, but Dragon+ is not Dragon Magazine, having a well-earned reputation as a worthless bundle of advertisements. Maybe they can start a web series with ecology articles. Connecting anything you want people to read to Dragon+ doesn't do anyone any good.

One must be careful not to let biases color perception.

After all, the old Dragon Magazine had an audience in the 3e days of maybe 50000 readers. How many downloads does Dragon+ get? How many people does it reach? And, wouldn't adding something like these Ecologies address the notion that it's a worthless bundle of advertisements?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sorry, and I'm not being dense here (or maybe I am) but, when you say "new species", what are referring to specifically?

The Unearthed Arcana examples listed earlier? (Or, do they appear in Strixhaven?)

Umm, new races never have a lot of lore because they are new. Good grief, how much lore did ANY race have on first release? A paragraph? Maybe two? Most had even less than that. Heck, go back and reread the 4e introduction of Dragonborn. We're talking a page of material, at the absolute outside. For what has become one of the most played races in the game.

It does take a bit of time to build up that lore.

Yeah, this is accurate. The Unearthed Arcana for the Spelljammer races have more lore than the entirely new races/lineages (Dhampir, Hexblood, Reborn, Owlin, Harengon, Fairy). It's probably because these are new and just not as fully developed as the older races are.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry, and I'm not being dense here (or maybe I am) but, when you say "new species", what are referring to specifically?

The Unearthed Arcana examples listed earlier? (Or, do they appear in Strixhaven?)

Yes, those. And several of them have appeared in books since UA.

Umm, new races never have a lot of lore because they are new. Good grief, how much lore did ANY race have on first release? A paragraph? Maybe two? Most had even less than that. Heck, go back and reread the 4e introduction of Dragonborn. We're talking a page of material, at the absolute outside. For what has become one of the most played races in the game.

It does take a bit of time to build up that lore.

All of the PHB races have several pages. They literally didn't even give height or weight to the new races. There is basically nothing. Also, making up this lore is literally the job of the people who write these books. If they can't be arsed to do that, why would we pay for such books?

 

[Hussar]

Wow, height and weight tables are the new hill to die on? Good grief, I didn't know anyone actually used those. And, frankly, everyone ignores it anyway - no one cares that that halfling is the size of the three year old. It has nearly no mechanical impact and no one cares.

Do you really need to know the exact height and weight range of a race for it to be considered to have lore?