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

 

[Maxperson]

well WotC is reimagining DL so I guess we can stop argueing now

That makes no sense as a response to what I said or what this discussion is about.

 

[Maxperson]

Hey, GMfPG said that this is their argument:

You're not going to blunt force them into accepting they're wrong without addressing it through this lens.

No. If you alter even one tiny thing, the story changes immediately. Change = change. He needs prove his assertion that change =/= change. I mean, we can't be wrong about this since change does in fact = change.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, swap hobbits and 18 foot tall frost giants.

There are several places in Tolkien where hobbits small stature is key to what events transpire. Those events cannot happen if the hobbits are three times taller than orcs.

Moreover, several themes become nonsensical if the hobbits are not small, unassuming folk who are generally unthreatening.

yup... okay I guess if you change it to an absurd detail like 4ft to 18 ft... but that isn't 'put a tribe of orcs living over there and let your player have a half orc PC' by a mile so I am not continueing down this argument any more

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That makes no sense as a response to what I said or what this discussion is about.

you said reimagining changes things... we are talking about a reimagining. so any argument about it changing things in null if you can't reimagine without change...

 

[Xamnam]

No. If you alter even one tiny thing, the story changes immediately. Change = change. He needs prove his assertion that change =/= change. I mean, we can't be wrong about this since change does in fact = change.

Hey, I don't personally agree with their stance, but if you don't address it, what's even the point of posting? It's not going to convince them, and it's probably not going to convince anyone else. This isn't a quote or fact we can look up and prove or refute definitively, it's a philosophical stance.

 

[Maxperson]

you said reimagining changes things... we are talking about a reimagining. so any argument about it changing things in null if you can't reimagine without change...

Not in this thread about change being an issue it doesn't.

We aren't arguing like you are that change does not equal change. Nor are we arguing that they can't change it. We're arguing that we wouldn't like such a change being the default AND that the change will alter the feel for some people. Our arguments are not affected by WotC reimagining the setting. Their reimagining it is the entire point!

 

[Minigiant]

This is what @Paul Farquhar was talking about earlier, about this philosophy that has crept into the hobby where it is automatically assumed all playable options have to exist in every setting. It is very different to the 80's and 90's way of thinking were differences (including the removal of races/classes) were celebrated.
That is why some fight the sidebar because it is a belief that it disarms the players from their must-have options

I think it's less that there is a new idea that many players assume that every PHB option is available as more that there is an assumption that every PHB option is available, replaced, or has mechanical houserules to mitigate the lost options.

For example you cut orcs but add minotaurs or goliaths. Or you cut clerics because the gods are gone but you allow druids, warlords, and psions/ardents.

So basically if you run a human/dwarf/elf/halfing cleric/fighter/rogue/wizards, you will have to really work on your lore, have a nice bunch of houserules, or have an established group.

"Because I don't like it" is a valid excuse to ban stuff. However it isn't on its own a strong enough reason to keep many players at you table. Especially those who started D&D post2000.

 

[Maxperson]

Hey, I don't personally agree with their stance, but if you don't address it, what's even the point of posting? It's not going to convince them, and it's probably not going to convince anyone else. This isn't a quote or fact we can look up and prove or refute definitively, it's a philosophical stance.

If they can't or won't understand that change = change, nothing we can say is going to convince them of it. Change =/= change isn't a rational position.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If they can't or won't understand that change = change, nothing we can say is going to convince them of it. Change =/= change isn't a rational position.

all you have to do is show the change...

show me a story that can't happen or would have to be rewritten ground up if there was a tribe of orcs 'over there' and some times there are orcs and half orcs in the background.

 

[Maxperson]

all you have to do is show the change...

show me a story that can't happen or would have to be rewritten ground up if there was a tribe of orcs 'over there' and some times there are orcs and half orcs in the background.

Wait! You're seriously arguing that adding orcs to a setting with no orcs isn't a change to that setting?!