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]

If adding orcs or half-orcs to Krynn somehow impacted the feel of the setting, then I’d say to not do it unless comfortable with such a change. But I’m struggling to see how doing so would really substantially change anything about Krynn at all.

With orcs comes history, lore, religion and customs and their relationship with other races....etc
As a DM I say no thanks, that is why we use published settings so that the work is done for me.

The lack of orcs is not what should be appealing about playing/running Dragonlance.

Conversely, the ability to play orcs should not be appealing about playing/running DL.

I think far too often people focus on entirely the wrong things when they worry about this stuff.

Yup.

Most settings are not so fragile that they can’t accommodate a new idea or two. Plus, it’s all made up, so canon can just wander off and die.

The idea was the books should include a sidebar acknowledging the native races of Krynn (goodwill and all) but making it known that each table can do what it wants. The side who seems to be starved of playing orcs in 8 years of 5e's FR prefer that sidebar not be included so that their apparently DM empowered DM's won't have any or as much justification to limit the orc character they've been saving for just this setting. #bizarrebuttrue.

 

[Minigiant]

Why?

Because a player agreed to play D&D and the game assumes that the player gets to build their own PC if they wish and playing a very strong PC is on of those options.

Just like a player can't force a DM to change their setting, a DM cannot force a player to play a specific style of PC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or the elf player can instead play at a different table where elves are part of the setting. That way everyone gets exactly what they want!

Rather bold of you to assume such a table exists. Which is the whole problem here, I think. Many, many, many, many (to the Nth power) times, there is one game on offer. Or there is one game a person can make time for, or which is run by people they know (and thus they are actually comfortable playing in it), or...etc. It's real easy to dismiss legitimate concerns with "oh just find a table that does what you like!" without actually factoring in that that can be very difficult.

I've tried searching for a game, scoured multiple forums, even managed to get one game together by hyping up people from three different forums (which, sadly, fell through after the first adventure ended.) That game was the one success I had at finding a 4e game after the long-runner I was in had to fold due to sudden massive lifestyle changes our DM had to make.

One success. Three years of looking. You may understand, now, why I take such a dim view of blithe "oh just find a game that suits you!" responses.

Edit: And the assertion from your previous post is simply false. You do not need to establish those things. They can be allowed to grow up organically in whatever ways make sense. As Dungeon World puts it, draw maps, leave blanks, just in this case the "map" is the list of known sophont species and the "blank" is about something beyond the horizon or the like.

The only DM who needs to establish such things is one who demands unilateral control over the contents of the narrative space: "You can tell any story you want, so long as you only use the newspaper clippings I permit you to have."

Why?

"I don't like meat, so I'm just serving tomato and lettuce on hamburger buns."
"Uh...couldn't you...at least have a veggie burger or something?"
"Why?"

That's how your question comes across to me. Simply deleting something which serves a key, foundational part of an expected experience--removing without replacing--is likely to lead to an impoverished experience. Of course, what qualifies as "foundational" is subjective. For some, if there aren't always-evil orcs, it's not D&D. For some, if there are always-evil orcs, it's not D&D. But there is, at least loosely, a general understanding of what must thematically be present in something called "D&D." Axing elves, and doing nothing whatsoever to fill their "magical, aloof humanoid" niche is likely to leave players dissatisfied unless you get their enthusiastic buy-in for such a premise.

Popularity and tradition are useful guides here. Dragonborn, for example, are not traditional but they are (at least based on substantial data sets from active characters on D&D Beyond) popular and growing in popularity. A game that lacks them might be totally kosher for one group, and verboten for another. By comparison, drow technically have quite a long pedigree but are...shall we say, a selective taste, really loved by the fans and not particularly cared that much about by the non-fans. Missing drow in a game may simply never come up as a relevant issue. You also have things like settings that use an absence as a conceit: dragons are rare to unknown in Al-Qadim, there are no divine classes (and there have been multiple exterminated races) in Dark Sun, Eberron is specifically designed to be pulpy action-adventure fantasy kitchen sink, etc. Egregiously breaking those patterns can lead to problems.

 

[Maxperson]

And Eberron has all the stuff that regular D&D has, and more.

Only because the setting was written that way, not because of the system.

You realize I was using that as an example, right?

Sure, but you used it as an example of something the system has and it doesn't have it.

If the question is "why does this setting have A, B, D, and E, but not C," and the answer is "because I didn't want to be just like the guy who made a setting with A, B, C, D, and E," then it's not a good answer.

Yes it is. It's a perfectly good answer. Nobody has to answer to you for how they build their setting. When creating a setting, "I feel like it doing it this way." is as valid a reason as any other.

Either include C, or make the setting have A, F, J, L, and Z instead.

Nope. YOU include in YOUR setting or make it have A, F, J, L and Z instead. You don't have the right to expect me to cater to your desires when you've agreed to play in the setting. As soon as you agree, you've agreed to that setting with all it's additions and restrictions and it's bad faith to expect things to change just because you want them to.

But Dragonlance isn't a homebrew setting, now is it?

It basically is, yes. The only difference between Dragonlance and homebrew setting 471983 is that it was published by TSR and WotC.

They didn't want to include orcs because then they'd have to include all of Middle-Earth's orc history... and yet they had no problem not including all of Middle-Earth's dwarf and elf history, despite the fact that D&D dwarfs and elves more closely resemble Tolkien's than they do mythological dwarfs or elves.

It's probably a good thing that wasn't their only reason then, isn't it. I will repeat it again.

"Tracy: “What people sometimes forget is that Orcs in Middle earth have a deep and specific history and origin as do their cousins the Uruk-Hai. That foundation simply didn’t exist in Krynn … ergo no orcs.”

They aren't there because the foundation to have them isn't there. In Middle Earth Morgoth had elves tortured and corrupted into orcs, which provided the foundation for orcs. In Krynn evil clerics captured good dragon eggs and corrupted them into draconians, which provided the foundation for draconians.

I don't find that unreasonable at all.

Clearly. A lot of people think their unreasonable expectations are reasonable. You need to write Hollywood and have the movie Elf banned for not including all of the other Tolkien races. Oh, and Harry Potter. That needs to be remade with all the D&D/Tolkien races, because they left out orcs and other races. Can't have settings like those two excluding things. Including goblins, but not orcs was an unconscionable thing for Rowling to do!

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not saying you should be forced to include orcs in your world.

I'm saying a good designer building a setting for D&D for commercial mass appeal sale would replace orcs with goliaths, minotaurs, leonin, gorillamen, hulks, aesir, some other new custom strong race, or allow players of other races to boost Strength

Okay. That makes more sense.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Because a player agreed to play D&D and the game assumes that the player gets to build their own PC

True. The game also makes the DM the Master of the World - and they may adjust the setting as they see fit. There is no mention of a replacement theory.

if they wish and playing a very strong PC is on of those options.

I guess you have a special number of how many very strong PC options are needed in the game.

Just like a player can't force a DM to change their setting, a DM cannot force a player to play a specific style of PC.

Style of PC? What does that even mean?

 

[Maxperson]

Because a player agreed to play D&D and the game assumes that the player gets to build their own PC if they wish and playing a very strong PC is on of those options.

Yes and no. The game actually doesn't assume a strong race will be there for the players. That's why the PHB admonishes the players to consult the DM for house rules. The admonishment comes on page 6 before even getting to the rules on how to use the book or play the game. It's that important.

"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon
Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."

It makes sense to replace orcs with goliaths or something, but it's valid by the rules for there not to be a strong race in the DM's setting.

Just like a player can't force a DM to change their setting, a DM cannot force a player to play a specific style of PC.

The DM gets to set up the setting, including what races, classes and such are available for players to play. The player can opt into those limitations or opt not to play. The DM can't force the player to play a specific style of PC, but can exclude specific styles from the game that he is running.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Rather bold of you to assume such a table exists. Which is the whole problem here, I think. Many, many, many, many (to the Nth power) times, there is one game on offer. Or there is one game a person can make time for, or which is run by people they know (and thus they are actually comfortable playing in it), or...etc. It's real easy to dismiss legitimate concerns with "oh just find a table that does what you like!" without actually factoring in that that can be very difficult.

Ideally, I don't want people playing in my game because it's the only game in town, I want players who are exited about this game in particular. The best RPG experiences I've had have all been when both the DM and the players had fully bought into the theme of the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's probably a good thing that wasn't their only reason then, isn't it. I will repeat it again.

"Tracy: “What people sometimes forget is that Orcs in Middle earth have a deep and specific history and origin as do their cousins the Uruk-Hai. That foundation simply didn’t exist in Krynn … ergo no orcs.”

They aren't there because the foundation to have them isn't there. In Middle Earth Morgoth had elves tortured and corrupted into orcs, which provided the foundation for orcs. In Krynn evil clerics captured good dragon eggs and corrupted them into draconians, which provided the foundation for draconians.

A flimsy answer at best.

There are elves in Dragonlance. But these are--openly!--also Tolkien elves. Like...they are very specifically aping on all the tropes and concepts etc., a legacy Tolkien left on the high fantasy genre completely without intending to. Yet they are NOT given the same rigorous requirements. They weren't the first children of Iluvatar. For goodness' sake, they even have their own kinslayer wars, even though that's nowhere near as mythologically deeply-rooted as it is with the Ñoldor due to the silmarils (literally the single most important story in the entire legendarium) and Fëanor's (and his sons') idiotic blood oath.

So they're perfectly fine "borrowing" from Tolkien wholesale when it suits them for one race. But they can't do so for another? That's downright capricious.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ideally, I don't want people playing in my game because it's the only game in town, I want players who are exited about this game in particular. The best RPG experiences I've had have all been when both the DM and the players had fully bought into the theme of the game.

Sure. That is ideal.

Sometimes, one needs to accept that the perfect can be the enemy of the good. Adamant refusal to even consider doing so is, as I said, a blithe dismissal of real problems that real people--like myself--have faced.

Edit: By which I mean, when it is the (metaphorical) "only game in town," the correct response is not to throw a DM hissy fit if your players want something that isn't part of your diamond-perfect vision. It's to have an adult conversation about it, and see what can be worked out. It's to be respectful in both directions, not to demand unilateral respect. It's to foster that deep, sincere player enthusiasm at every opportunity, because I'm 100% with you on that. Genuine player enthusiasm is the most precious resource DMs can obtain, far more precious even than inspiration or personal satisfaction (because one can always find new things to derive satisfaction from; one cannot always find new things which will replace a player's genuine enthusiasm.)

I don't say that to mean "you should always sacrifice absolutely everything forever to get the tiniest drop of enthusiasm." That's obviously foolish, though I'm sure someone would gladly spin what I've said in that direction if I don't explicitly reject it repeatedly and vigorously. Instead, I'm saying that it is an extremely precious resource, very difficult to replace and very easy to lose if you treat it with a cavalier attitude. Anything you do, anything whatsoever, that sacrifices player enthusiasm should be damn worth it, because you are paying deeply precious coin to get it. And, likewise, if you can do something that isn't an egregious sacrifice, but that will earn you solid returns in player enthusiasm, you should strongly consider doing it, because that's a killer investment opportunity.