D&D 5E D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism

[FrogReaver]

Well, let me ask you this... do you use the phrase 'N-word'?

I mean... it's the whole reason why we use 'N-word' now rather than the actual word when wanting to indicate it in a discussion. I mean, I could just use the word in this post and then defend myself by saying I'm trying to use it academically... but at some point it's just easier to use 'N-word' because I'm less inclined to get called out for using it no matter the reason.

If you really want to try and fight society on word useage, more power to ya... but at some point it's no longer worth the bother, isn't it?

For what it’s worth that is An interesting but IMO undiscussable example - at least here.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or do they not believe it's racism because doing so would prevent them from using something that want?

For me I actually prefer orcs that aren’t always evil in my games. I like the bit of gray better than the black and white. So I’ll answer firmly for myself. No that’s not true of me.

But more broadly, when the only way your attacks make sense is for those you are attacking to be choosing their beliefs based on their preferred outcome then IMO it’s a strong indication that there’s a flaw in your reasoning.

 

[DarkMantle]

I think it's a good thing to state one's 'bigger picture'. Because that's where it's all really coming from for somebody. I think that's a step forward.

And it seems clear to me that a major 'big picture' for a lot of people, across a variety of problem words, has been: who has the final say regarding acceptable use of our shared language? Those questions are not going away, it's going to continue to divide the D&D community for the foreseeable future, just as it's been contentious in other circles.

With the articles I've Googled so far on this topic (regarding why/how a word has recently become problematic), the author's tone has sounded very empathic to me. I assume the authors of those articles are an authority on sociology matters (and know what works/doesn't work)

So maybe the truth is one of:

• my assumptions above are totally wrong
• OR I've encountered a sampling bias when googling articles
• OR the soft approach is the most pragmatic/results-oriented approach when discussing shared language

 

[Vaalingrade]

But more broadly, when the only way your attacks make sense is for those you are attacking to be choosing their beliefs based on their preferred outcome then IMO it’s a strong indication that there’s a flaw in your reasoning.

Or its a strong indication you're dealing with humans.

one or the other.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am going to pay for this. I am sure. But, instead of debating an argument, on which the two sides will NEVER agree. Perhaps it is best to try and come up with a solution for players that wish to add orcs to their game that are inherently evil. I am going to start, and if you feel so inclined, please feel free to remove or change any problematic wording:

Orcs
These creatures are feared by all throughout the realm. Touched by an unknown evil in an age before history, they have waxed and waned in influence over the realm. Today, they are relegated to more remote areas, where they cause panic to those living on the edges of civilization.
Physical Appearance
Orcs are a thick boned species that stand a bit shorter than the average human. Their skin ranges from poison green to swamp green, and houses little to no hair. The only hair they do have is on top of their skull. Their back is often hunched, but like the rest of their body, is dense with striated muscles.
History
An orc's history goes back long before there were books. The evil that created them long forgotten. And once histories became written, they too began to appear. Though they are often little more than footnotes, their presence has dominated many decisions in history: Whether an army should advance on a neighboring kingdom, or do they stay put for fear of the orcs they recently saw? Does the kingdom choose to begin to populate the forest in the north, or do they choose the lands in the south where no orcs were present? These "footnotes" have been noted by some scholars, and some kings, which grow weary of making their decisions around the evil entities.
Society
The living conditions of an orc, of any orc, is one of filth. Loose knit groups are how they survive, and within those groups is an inherent violence towards all. The leader rules by force and fear. Trades, such as weaving and sewing and flint carving are passed down, yet even these lessons come with punching and biting. Hunting and foraging sustain the groups, as does invading small homesteads and travelling caravans.

Obviously, this is not great, nor fleshed out. But it is a start. A start to try and end an endless debate.

NOTE: If you are one that just cannot fathom an orc (or any race) being inherently evil, you should, for all intensive purposes, declare your view so everyone knows it. Because that view does not align with D&D's alignment system. It does not align with D&D's lore. Nor does it align with how the game is presently played. (Devils and Demons - Angels and Archons - Torm and Tempus - you get the point.) Once the view is declared, then at least everyone debating understands your stance. This might help things move in a better direction.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't thing 'live in filth' and 'inherent violence to all' is any better an olive branch than 'inherently evil' is.

It just adds another layer of the same other-washing as calling them 'primitive' and 'savage' to justify calling them evil.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or its a strong indication you're dealing with humans.

one or the other.

You are human too. Anything that generally applies to other humans, also applies to you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You are human too. Anything that generally applies to other humans, also applies to you.

Yes.

But I don't have a strong need to use 'savage', so I don't have to do any gymnastics to ignore the issues with it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am going to pay for this. I am sure. But, instead of debating an argument, on which the two sides will NEVER agree. Perhaps it is best to try and come up with a solution for players that wish to add orcs to their game that are inherently evil. I am going to start, and if you feel so inclined, please feel free to remove or change any problematic wording:

Orcs
These creatures are feared by all throughout the realm. Touched by an unknown evil in an age before history, they have waxed and waned in influence over the realm. Today, they are relegated to more remote areas, where they cause panic to those living on the edges of civilization.
Physical Appearance
Orcs are a thick boned species that stand a bit shorter than the average human. Their skin ranges from poison green to swamp green, and houses little to no hair. The only hair they do have is on top of their skull. Their back is often hunched, but like the rest of their body, is dense with striated muscles.
History
An orc's history goes back long before there were books. The evil that created them long forgotten. And once histories became written, they too began to appear. Though they are often little more than footnotes, their presence has dominated many decisions in history: Whether an army should advance on a neighboring kingdom, or do they stay put for fear of the orcs they recently saw? Does the kingdom choose to begin to populate the forest in the north, or do they choose the lands in the south where no orcs were present? These "footnotes" have been noted by some scholars, and some kings, which grow weary of making their decisions around the evil entities.
Society
The living conditions of an orc, of any orc, is one of filth. Loose knit groups are how they survive, and within those groups is an inherent violence towards all. The leader rules by force and fear. Trades, such as weaving and sewing and flint carving are passed down, yet even these lessons come with punching and biting. Hunting and foraging sustain the groups, as does invading small homesteads and travelling caravans.

Obviously, this is not great, nor fleshed out. But it is a start. A start to try and end an endless debate.

NOTE: If you are one that just cannot fathom an orc (or any race) being inherently evil, you should, for all intensive purposes, declare your view so everyone knows it. Because that view does not align with D&D's alignment system. It does not align with D&D's lore. Nor does it align with how the game is presently played. (Devils and Demons - Angels and Archons - Torm and Tempus - you get the point.) Once the view is declared, then at least everyone debating understands your stance. This might help things move in a better direction.

IMO That’s a good example of a better orc write up that hopefully would make more people happy.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't thing 'live in filth' and 'inherent violence to all' is any better an olive branch than 'inherently evil' is.

It just adds another layer of the same other-washing as calling them 'primitive' and 'savage' to justify calling them evil.

Suggestions on how to change it?