Dragonlance Dragonlance Creators Reveal Why There Are No Orcs On Krynn

Talking to the Dragonlance Nexus, Dragonlance creators Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman revealed why the world of Krynn features no orcs -- in short, because they didn't want to copy Tolkien, and orcs were very much a 'Middle Earth' thing.

Weis told Trampas Whiteman that "Orcs were also viewed as very Middle Earth. We wanted something different." Hickman added that it was draconians which made Krynn stand out. Read more at the link below!

Why are there no Orcs in Krynn? Weis and Hickman give us the answer! - Dragonlance Nexus

Dragonhelm gets the scoop from Weis and Hickman on why there are no orcs in Krynn. Read More

dragonlancenexus.com

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That doesn't answer his question. How does this convince him that adding orcs is a good idea? Half orc assassins in one novel is enough to make it a good idea(nor a bad one).

he asked me what it would take for me to change MY mind then he called me a hypacrit even though I have given my way...

 

[Erdric Dragin]

The question doesn’t make sense. What’s the in-game reason why there aren’t any tinker gnomes or minotaurs in Middle Earth? There just aren’t.

Did Gruumsh just not bother expanding? Did the gods of Krynn hold Gruumsh back? Saying there just isn't doesn't do anything for worldbuilding. It's the equivalent of telling a child "Because I said so."

When we have things like portals and Spelljammers and all other ways to worldhop, it's a very legitimate question.

 

[Erdric Dragin]

There is no canon now.

Pretty much what Perkins made a big announcement about.
So I'm curious, now, for the in-game reason why there are orcs in Krynn (because of the Half-Orc race option).

Or if they actually do plan to follow Krynn lore, why there isn't (which begs why when we are literally seeing D&D do this whole "multiverse" theme, and even prior to that we knew portals and Spelljammers and other world-hopping methods existed).

Wish D&D lore was just consistent. Almost as bad as Legacy Star Wars at this point.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

why not run with it and pick one of the solutions provided for this in replies?

Because the solutions proffered aren't ways to be a non-renegade wizard unaffiliated with the Towers of High Sorcery, they're ways to justify a character surviving as a renegade wizard.

Fundamentally, I don't buy into the premise of there being only a single wizarding order that has an ironclad monopoly on practitioners of the arcane. Do the elves not have their own archmages? Has no king ever taken issue with the idea that their court wizard (assuming such exists) might be more loyal to the Towers of High Sorcery than to the crown they claim to serve? Has no one in the Towers ever argued that maybe the way they do things is somehow wrong? Have wizards declared renegade by the Towers never banded together for safety? Are there no independent wizarding schools on the other side of the world?

The idea that these are questions that Dragonlance just...doesn't think it necessary to answer, or seemingly even consider, simply baffles me.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Did Gruumsh just not bother expanding? Did the gods of Krynn hold Gruumsh back? Saying there just isn't doesn't do anything for worldbuilding. It's the equivalent of telling a child "Because I said so."

When we have things like portals and Spelljammers and all other ways to worldhop, it's a very legitimate question.

Unless your player characters are rubbing shoulders with gods on a regular basis, there's going to be a lot of stuff that's well above their pay grade and which simply won't come up in play.

Should a lore book delve into the in-game reasons for why Krynn is the way it is? Sure, if WotC thinks there's a market for it. But I suspect most people are focused on what the world is actually like in play.

("We need to go on an epic quest and beat the gods until they explain the platypus and nipples on men." "Give it a rest, Ken.")

 

[Morrus]

Saying there just isn't doesn't do anything for worldbuilding. It's the equivalent of telling a child "Because I said so."

I strongly disagree. I don’t think that position bears any relation to how art is made. da Vinci doesn’t have to explain why the Mona Lisa doesn’t have a hat on. She doesn’t have a hat because he didn’t paint her with a hat.

Middle Earth doesn’t have a school of wizardry because Tolkien didn’t put a school of wizardry in it. My novel doesn’t have a robot in it because I didn’t want a robot in it. One doesn’t have to explain the absence of every possible element.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Fundamentally, I don't buy into the premise of there being only a single wizarding order that has an ironclad monopoly on practitioners of the arcane. Do the elves not have their own archmages? Has no king ever taken issue with the idea that their court wizard (assuming such exists) might be more loyal to the Towers of High Sorcery than to the crown they claim to serve? Has no one in the Towers ever argued that maybe the way they do things is somehow wrong? Have wizards declared renegade by the Towers never banded together for safety? Are there no independent wizarding schools on the other side of the world?

Eh... it comes back to certain out of universe elements that informed a lot of why DL is the way it is and which we're not allowed to talk about on this board, but the long and short of it is (I believe) that magic is a gift from the divine via the towers, so whoever controls the towers get to be in charge of magic and trying to extract the wizards is 1) trying to fight wizards in D&D with non-wizards, so you WILL lose, and 2) seen as an attack on the divine.

Which... to me doesn't really hold up because the gods left everyone to go hang, so I'm not sure why anyone honored it after the world ended.

Maybe the entire population is nerds, so tradition really held on that long.

The idea that these are questions that Dragonlance just...doesn't think it necessary to answer, or seemingly even consider, simply baffles me.

One of the things I try to point out to other DMs and designers both new and old is that some things make a great book, but isn't so fun to play. My go-to is Cast from Hit Points. Using magic at the sake of your life is cool and cinematic, but most people won't put up with playing or adventuring with someone who has the choice of contribute or continue to live.

 

[Maxperson]

Fundamentally, I don't buy into the premise of there being only a single wizarding order that has an ironclad monopoly on practitioners of the arcane.

I buy it. There's an in-fiction reason for why wizard banded together like they did.

Do the elves not have their own archmages?

Yep, and they are members of the orders. Dalamar being a black robe.

Has no king ever taken issue with the idea that their court wizard (assuming such exists) might be more loyal to the Towers of High Sorcery than to the crown they claim to serve?

That could well be an issue, but one which a king would be loathe to cross. Three full orders of wizards that would band together against you if you try and protect a renegade is strong incentive not to do it. If trust is then an issue, don't have a court wizard.

Has no one in the Towers ever argued that maybe the way they do things is somehow wrong?

Probably, but history being what it is in Krynn and the numbers against that person would keep it from doing anything.

Have wizards declared renegade by the Towers never banded together for safety?

Band together with who? They've been doing this for centuries and there aren't enough renegades at any given time to band together.

Are there no independent wizarding schools on the other side of the world?

Apparently not, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't make one as the DM.

Also, all my answers are for wizards only. Non-wizards wouldn't be part of the three orders and might have their own organizations.

 

[Maxperson]

I strongly disagree. I don’t think that position bears any relation to how art is made. da Vinci doesn’t have to explain why the Mona Lisa doesn’t have a hat on. She doesn’t have a hat because he didn’t paint her with a hat.

Middle Earth doesn’t have a school of wizardry because Tolkien didn’t put a school of wizardry in it. My novel doesn’t have a robot in it because I didn’t want a robot in it. One doesn’t have to explain the absence of every possible element.

I mostly agree with you, but it does bear pointing out that D&D is not like other art mediums. Da Vinci didn't paint a few hundred thousand Mona Lisas and then hand them out to people with the admonition that they paint on it to make it their own, the way D&D encourages tinkering with the game. If he had, I might want to know why she didn't have a hat. If I agreed with the reason, then no hat. If not, on goes a hat!

Rightly or wrongly, this admonition by the creators of D&D and the nature of the game are why people want to know why. I had(and still have) no desire to question why The Wizard's First Rule had no orcs in it. I was very much curious as to why Weis and Hickman didn't put orcs in Krynn and I'm glad they responded recently and gave their reasoning.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

da Vinci doesn’t have to explain why the Mona Lisa doesn’t have a hat on.

Dan Brown will be diving into this in his next book.