D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Hussar]

Can I just say that if folks are STILL not on board with the reasoning, you are not going to convince them with more quotes. It’s really just futile at this point.

 

[TiQuinn]

Can I just say that if folks are STILL not on board with the reasoning, you are not going to convince them with more quotes. It’s really just futile at this point.

Sometimes it's not about convincing them.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Those have 4e cooties.

ROLES for monsters? How video gamey. What happens if my drudge picks up a battle axe? Does his hp change to warrior? If a raider is at home, does his stat block need to be rewritten?

Well it's a combination of 4e and 5e (2014). As for your queries, in 5e the weapon and armour worn affect the stat block. Abilities remain.

 

[AnotherGuy]

From the 5e MM - Guard, Medium Humanoid (any race) is not just showcasing a guard of X race? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?

The humanoids races had particular stat blocks with specific descriptors separate to the roles at the back of the MM. With this new MM those particular roles specific to race per their stat blocks are no longer there. It requires more work for the DM. Also those descriptors were evocative, creative inspiration.

 

[ezo]

All of this...

Page 87, under the Roleplaying an Orc section:

<snip>

If the book wasn't trying to get the point across about how evil all the orcs are, it would have mentioned the Many Arrows tribe and Ondontis as examples of good orcs in the Forgotten Realms that weren't "domesticated" (still ew).

Has nothing to support your claim here:

Volo’s Guide to Monsters absolutely does make it sound like all orcs are innately violent and evil and that it’s okay to slaughter them on sight.

Particularly the bolded part.

If you require that it outright says "all orcs are evil, full stop," then this passage likely won't satisfy your demand. But I personally see "they're all innately evil" and "they're all culturally evil, but a 'domesticated' Orc can learn a small semblance of empathy and compassion" as practically a distinction without a difference. The assumption very much is that the players are justified in slaughtering them all. Or, at least, kill all the adults and force the children to be raised by "civilized" peoples. All of the rest of the lore in the book talks at length about how evil and monstrous they are, using some questionable language to get the point across. They're tribal primitives that breed like rabbits, live short lives, kill inferior children Sparta-style, half-orcs are basically orcs physically but humans mentally, they're "brutal and feral" warmongers, they're so primitive they can't create wheeled vehicles, they were too dumb to make their own script for writing and had to steal the Dwarves' (which they still don't use well), and they have no concept of marriage.

(bolded) No, that is not the assumption, that is YOUR assumption.

I could go on.

Please try, because so far you haven't really shown it at all.

In fact, you conveniently skipped over part:

Which stats emphatically that orcs are not by their very nature evil.

So, they are not innately evil as you claim, either.

As I see it, the only thing you really have correct is they are violent (well, most orcs are... according to the text, which means some aren't).

In fact, the only reference to "evil" in the entire section in Volo's is about evil commander-types:

Strength Respects Strength​

Orcs appreciate physical prowess and formidable combat ability in any form. As such, they might accept other creatures into their ranks from time to time. Orcs have been known to associate with wereboars and ettins, both creatures that can markedly improve a tribe's murderous efficiency. For a promise of sufficient food and loot, a troll might accompany a tribe temporarily.

A group of orcs can be dominated by evil creatures of immense power, and they accept this subservient role either because they are forced to or because it offers them a measure of security while they engage in their savagery. Green dragons, for instance, sometimes use orcs as sentinels or shock troops. Orcs are sometimes attracted to the service of frost giants or fire giants, who then "reward" their loyalty by turning them into slaves.

If a tribe is defeated and driven from its lair, the survivors might come under the sway of a strong but dimwitted creature, such as a hill giant or an ogre. It is also not unheard of for an exceptionally strong and charismatic evil human to lead stray orcs that no longer have a tribe to call their own.

You seem to be equating a lot of "violent" and evil. The two are not the same thing.

So, it is not "okay to slaughter them on sight" as you think. Nothing in the book even remotely suggests that.

 

[Scribe]

You seem to be equating a lot of "violent" and evil. The two are not the same thing.

I mean, I wont even get into UFC/K1/ONE or old school Muay Thai.

Are all Boxers Evil?

 

[TiQuinn]

The humanoids races had particular stat blocks with specific descriptors separate to the roles at the back of the MM. With this new MM those particular roles specific to race per their stat blocks are no longer there. It requires more work for the DM. Also those descriptors were evocative, creative inspiration.

Why does this Monster Manual have to be a one for one match with the previous Monster Manual? You already pointed out a bunch of Orc subclass types that came out in the Volo's Guide. It seems to me there was a clear trade off - add new monsters or re-add all of the old ones. They opted for a "just use the Tough NPC" approach.

I think there will be places this breaks down, surely. Some drow could levitate. A drow priestess of Lolth is a different kind of cleric than others. But who knows, we may get all this in some Underdark book, or something similar. Duergar, the same thing. Not to mention, I'm willing to bet most of the people here have a 2014 MM or Monsters of the Multiverse book. As for the descriptors, how many times do you need to be told that Orcs are "aggressive"?

Or is this really just worry beads be carried for all the new DMs?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Why does this Monster Manual have to be a one for one match with the previous Monster Manual? You already pointed out a bunch of Orc subclass types that came out in the Volo's Guide. It seems to me there was a clear trade off - add new monsters or re-add all of the old ones. They opted for a "just use the Tough NPC" approach.

I think there will be places this breaks down, surely. Some drow could levitate. A drow priestess of Lolth is a different kind of cleric than others. But who knows, we may get all this in some Underdark book, or something similar. Duergar, the same thing. Not to mention, I'm willing to bet most of the people here have a 2014 MM or Monsters of the Multiverse book. As for the descriptors, how many times do you need to be told that Orcs are "aggressive"?

Or is this really just worry beads be carried for all the new DMs?

I didn't realise they were catering for me and so didn't have to repeat anything. If that's the case I would change the DMG as I know most of the info they are regurgitating in it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Do you mean are they based on a real world mythological race?

I've walked all over this land we call the Flanaess, and though I've heard whispers in dark places I've yet to find evidence of these so-called "dark elves." They're likely a myth to frighten elf children, methinks.

As well as rats that walk like men. Bah!

 

[TiQuinn]

I didn't realise they were catering for me and so didn't have to repeat anything. If that's the case I would change the DMG as I know most of the info they are regurgitating in it.

Then I really don't get your issue.