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

 

[Velderan]

by that standard NO race in d&d does...

And I assume that is why most people buy a campaign setting. To give you those extra details the PHB doesn't provide because it assumes you're either playing in an established setting or homebrewing your own world where you get to flesh out the material to make the world come to life. Otherwise, you're probably playing something much closer to OD&D where it was a lot more generic dungeon crawls (or at least that was my experience with it).

 

[Maxperson]

no it doesn't...

it argues that the character can be rewritten with minor ease.

But not without changing the character in the same way as those two Mona Lisas. Would it have helped if instead of Groucho Marks I made one of them an elf? Would you think those two pictures were the same then since only the race changed?

 

[Maxperson]

agai, just show how it did and I will drop it.

We have. Time and time again. You just seem to be incapable of understanding it. You should take your own advice from upthread and just get that it does have that effect for some people.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What's the point of settings if DMs are forced to include everything ever published by WotC in the setting? They're all the same then.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think it's about orcs at all. It's pretty obvious they are not important.

It's really about a philosophical belief, I alluded to a couple of months ago, that has appeared in the last couple of years. That is, that everything in the core rules MUST be allowed in the game. Preventing a player from playing what they want is morally objectionable.

again... I have not heard anyone say "You can never remove" I have seen 2 groups

1- If you remove you must add something in... a sub group of this is reskining. (not my argument so I wont try to defend it but I am also not apposed to it)
2- If you remove it you must show how both the world and story will/would be different if you did allow it (this is my argument and it comes from the place that if it's important it has a reason, and if it doesn't have a reason it can't be that important) now my subset since this answer came out has been simple... the answers only work if you see Orcs and Half Orcs as minons of the dark lord and tolken rip offs.

You see it in "The trouble with halflings" thread. Some people don't like halflings. That isn't the trouble, surely you can just say "we don't have halflings in our game"? Problem solved, right? No, because "We can't disallow halflings THEY ARE IN THE CORE RULES". So, they are trying to get halflings removed from the core rules because they think that's the only way to not have them in their game.

this has 2 problems...
1- if the table agrees to remove the halflings then no matter how core they are they just never get seen.
in my experence 60-70% of characters are human or elf and like 10-20% dwarf dragonborn and teifling and all the other races make up what is left... we went like 5 campagins in 3.5 and then realized not 1 pc not 1 named important npc was a dwarf and we had a good laugh about it.

2- if the table does NOT agree then is when you have a problem... and I have seen this. again in 3.5 I had a player come to atable with a hafling girl that was like 3'5 60lbs carrying armor a full sized great sword and a long bow and was a multi class psywarrior barbarian... and the young girl playing her had art of the character that was less crazy then most cloud art I see... and other players were like "That can't be, you can't have a 19 str 3'5 girl with a sword that is taller then her and weighs almost 2/3 of her.

 

[Maxperson]

but here they are in the PHB

So what. The options in the PHB are not guaranteed to the players. The PHB even tells the players that. There's nothing inherent in a PHB option that requires any setting to change in order to accommodate that option, even if a player wants to use the option.

 

[Umbran]

I have done that before. I mean I talk about that campaign like all the time on here. I just don't do it for every setting, and when I do it I can answer why I am doing so without it being 10+ years out of date.

That does not actually answer the question.

What you seem to say amounts to the idea that all races are equally interchangeable, that what races exist does not matter, ever. So, the question really is why have races at all? By implication, races mean exactly jack squat, and have no impact on the narrative. So, why have them?

Before you answer, remember that it means that, say, The Lord of the Rings would be exactly the same if hobbits were 18' tall frost giants...

If you can't address this satisfactorily, then races are pretty clearly not interchangeable, and your assertion is not true.

 

[Xamnam]

If you remove it you must show how both the world and story will/would be different if you did allow it (this is my argument and it comes from the place that if it's important it has a reason, and if it doesn't have a reason it can't be that important)

I think this is where you're going to miss a lot of people.

 

[Velderan]

look at what you are saying.
"I can fit a half orc in"
yeah you can it doesn't change anything to take the half orc (or the dragon born or the teifling) and refluff them as human... I even did so for a campaign.
but once you let that in I have to ask, why is no orcs such a big deal? (in my setting the lack of orc, elf, dragonborn ect was a HUGE plot point and part of the theme of the setting and part of the pitch)

Mechanically it's a half-orc, sure. Honestly, there probably should be more guidance in the DMG for newer DMs that might not realize you could just reskin a race to work the mechanics in to help a player get the play experience they want if the lore of your campaign doesn't support having something there.

Anyhow, I think by now you and I have figured out where our common ground is on this so just going to leave this at that and agree to disagree where we don't see eye to eye.

 

[AnotherGuy]

okay so what SHOULD we be focusing on? I'll hear you out

Oh dear, I haven't been clear enough.

Your post was absolutely fine. I have no issue with players enjoying various segments of the game. That is why in my first post I said I'm not calling you out, I'm just using your post as an example.

So why was I using it as an example?

Because when the canon-lovers expressed their desire to play DL pure (without orcs), some posters dropped into the threads and informed us that we canon-lovers shouldn't be concerned with the banning of orcs as the aspects of the game one should focus on should be a, b and c as that was more true of their conception of the DL setting.

My entire point with your post was that these same posters would not drop in to correct yours and Minigiant's focus from orc fluff, ascetic or mechanics to a, b and c.
It is the double standard that annoys me.

In essence you and I have no disagreement in this regard. Apologies for the confusion caused.