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

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes, I am overthinking that. I agree that the visitor from another world is the least interesting option. As a DM, I would have several ideas ahead of that one to pitch to a player who wanted a race not covered.

But I was playing around with the idea in my head, and the more I thought (ie the more I over thought) the spelljammer character the more issues I had with it. I decided (for myself) that the emphasis on the relationship between the gods and the people of Krynn makes Dragonlance a bad fit for most types of spelljamming/planescaping campaigns.

For the record, as a DM I would just build in a community of orcs (or other race) "just over that next hill" and let the play decide if they ever come into any closer focus.

Someone posted an idea about an [insert playable race here] having hatched from a bad batch of draconian eggs which I found interesting. Perhaps there is a limited number of strange looking creatures now out in the wild (having escaped) who may have important information, but because of their appearance are not trusted and are hunted, captured and executed.
One such character could be a PC - who is rescued by the rest of the party.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Im always curious at the attitude of ‘I want to be [race X] in [setting where the established lore doesn’t include race X]’, what is going to be able to play that specific race bring to your enjoyment (besides perhaps mechanics, which by itself IMO is a terrible reason to force playing a race), but why do you need to play them in this setting where they’re not specifically?

Tangentially, much earlier in this thread i saw a comment to the effect of ‘why would i want to play a human? im always a human, humans are boring’ but I feel like that’s this same problem from the other side, being or not being a specific race does not make your character interesting, there are tons of franchises that only have humans but those aren’t the least bit uninteresting because it is not your race that makes you interesting.

If you’re a player in a game in a specific setting play that setting, play to what you have, not what you haven’t.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes, I am overthinking that. I agree that the visitor from another world is the least interesting option. As a DM, I would have several ideas ahead of that one to pitch to a player who wanted a race not covered.

But I was playing around with the idea in my head, and the more I thought (ie the more I over thought) the spelljammer character the more issues I had with it. I decided (for myself) that the emphasis on the relationship between the gods and the people of Krynn makes Dragonlance a bad fit for most types of spelljamming/planescaping campaigns.

For the record, as a DM I would just build in a community of orcs (or other race) "just over that next hill" and let the play decide if they ever come into any closer focus.

I think Dragonlance and Spelljammer work very well together . . . . in a Spelljammer campaign. I don't much see the point in a Dragonlance campaign. But, if a player just had to play their "visitor from another world" character idea . . . I'd make it work.

It's been a loooong time since I've read through the Spelljammer material, but I seem to recall rules that covered just that scenario, when a PC cleric travels to a crystal sphere where their god has no presence. I think the basic idea was that, if your god has an equivalent in the new crystal sphere, you make a connection with that god and can cast your spells. If there isn't one, then you can't. I don't really like that solution, as it can screw with cleric players pretty seriously.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Im always curious at the attitude of ‘I want to be [race X] in [setting where the established lore doesn’t include race X]’, what is going to be able to play that specific race bring to your enjoyment (besides perhaps mechanics, which by itself IMO is a terrible reason to force playing a race), but why do you need to play them in this setting where they’re not specifically?

Years ago, I had a rare chance to play instead of DM, but it was a Dark Sun game. Rather than whining about not getting to play a gnome, I played a Thri-Kreen instead. I had a grand time, slaying and eating feral halflings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I am overthinking that. I agree that the visitor from another world is the least interesting option. As a DM, I would have several ideas ahead of that one to pitch to a player who wanted a race not covered.

But I was playing around with the idea in my head, and the more I thought (ie the more I over thought) the spelljammer character the more issues I had with it. I decided (for myself) that the emphasis on the relationship between the gods and the people of Krynn makes Dragonlance a bad fit for most types of spelljamming/planescaping campaigns.

For the record, as a DM I would just build in a community of orcs (or other race) "just over that next hill" and let the play decide if they ever come into any closer focus.

See, to me THAT is the least interesting option. It's changing an established setting for no other reason or narrative beat than, "I don't care about your game, I want to play an orc".

 

[Dire Bare]

Im always curious at the attitude of ‘I want to be [race X] in [setting where the established lore doesn’t include race X]’, what is going to be able to play that specific race bring to your enjoyment (besides perhaps mechanics, which by itself IMO is a terrible reason to force playing a race), but why do you need to play them in this setting where they’re not specifically?

Tangentially, much earlier in this thread i saw a comment to the effect of ‘why would i want to play a human? im always a human, humans are boring’ but I feel like that’s this same problem from the other side, being or not being a specific race does not make your character interesting, there are tons of franchises that only have humans but those aren’t the least bit uninteresting because it is not your race that makes you interesting.

If you’re a player in a game in a specific setting play that setting, play to what you have, not what you haven’t.

Let people play what they want to play. Sheesh.

If you invite me to a D&D game, and I just love playing elf characters . . . or orcs, or tieflings, or whatever . . . especially when it's trivially easy to add them in to just about ANY D&D campaign.

I'm always curious at the attitude of badwrongfun . . . if you don't play my way, you aren't doing it right.

 

[Faolyn]

Quite frankly, I didn't like the putting dragonborn in Eberron. The resistance to orcs in dragonlance is the same reason I don't want Jedi in faerun. It's a retcon that undermines decades of there being no orcs there. It changes Canon for no reason except to make all places feel the same. It's OK to add flavour and keep it consistent. If you want an orc equivalent player race in dragonlance, minotaurs exist. Play that and do something new. Then it will feel like a unique experience.

Y'know, a faction of people with magical powers and flaming swords who go around acting as diplomats and peacekeepers sounds exactly like something you'd find in Faerun. It totally would have had a prestige class or two in 3x.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Let people play what they want to play. Sheesh.

If you invite me to a D&D game, and I just love playing elf characters . . . or orcs, or tieflings, or whatever . . . especially when it's trivially easy to add them in to just about ANY D&D campaign.

I'm always curious at the attitude of badwrongfun . . . if you don't play my way, you aren't doing it right.

I’m not saying you can’t play it, but why in this setting? in this game? why is it so critically important you must be an elf or an orc or a tiefling? or is your character so much more important than the setting they live in?

‘I don’t care if they fit or not I just want to play them’

 

[Vaalingrade]

Im always curious at the attitude of ‘I want to be [race X] in [setting where the established lore doesn’t include race X]’, what is going to be able to play that specific race bring to your enjoyment (besides perhaps mechanics, which by itself IMO is a terrible reason to force playing a race), but why do you need to play them in this setting where they’re not specifically?

Tangentially, much earlier in this thread i saw a comment to the effect of ‘why would i want to play a human? im always a human, humans are boring’ but I feel like that’s this same problem from the other side, being or not being a specific race does not make your character interesting, there are tons of franchises that only have humans but those aren’t the least bit uninteresting because it is not your race that makes you interesting.

If you’re a player in a game in a specific setting play that setting, play to what you have, not what you haven’t.

Again, turn the question around and the question is why is it so important to restrict the species players can use because some writer who isn't at your table excluded them?

It's not like games aren't an exclusive investment in time or that most people only play one at a time. We're talking about having a preference that's locked out for weeks, months or even years for no good reason. Having one Freak +1 on a team of Freaks isn't going to make the setting implode.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let people play what they want to play. Sheesh.

If you invite me to a D&D game, and I just love playing elf characters . . . or orcs, or tieflings, or whatever . . . especially when it's trivially easy to add them in to just about ANY D&D campaign.

I'm always curious at the attitude of badwrongfun . . . if you don't play my way, you aren't doing it right.

The player in your example is saying that not bending the setting to allow that one person to get what they want is a bad thing. I disagree. Neither side is required to give in. If a compromise can't be reached, one side or the other should walk away. The belief that the DM should just knuckle under is an opinion.