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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

All of this...


Has nothing to support your claim here:

Particularly the bolded part.


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


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

In fact, you conveniently skipped over part:
View attachment 395601
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:


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.

This is utterly ridiculous and pointlessly pedantic. You are hyperfocusing on the (contradictory) minutia and ignoring the context which absolutely does support my point. It is the broader subjects of the book that paint the picture, even if a single bit of lore says they're not "innately evil," (which, again, I consider in direct contradiction with the idea that even "domesticated orcs" struggle to contain their bloodlust and have limited empathy, love, and compassion).

I have written enough homebrew lore for different D&D species to know how to tell lore that is meant to imply they're all innately evil and it's okay to kill them all from lore that focuses on the evil aspects of their culture/society while reminding the reader throughout the text that it's not inherent to their nature and they shouldn't be killed on sight. I can tell when D&D lore is treating a species like monsters or like people.

The assumption of the book is that Orcs, and Goblinoids, and Yuan-Ti are all "kill on sight" monsters. If you showed a new player this lore for the first time, they would likely come to the conclusion that it's good to kill all Orcs.

Page 183 says:

To the common folk of the world, an orc is an orc. They know that any one of these savages can tear an ordinary person to pieces, so no further distinction is necessary.

And even the follow up is about how Orcs know that they are diverse . . . in their evilness. How an orc tribe would be offended if you conflated them with some other evil tribe that they're rivals with. And about how individual Orcs focus their worship on a different one of their evil gods than the others!

The monstrous PC advice section (which is about Orcs and the other "monstrous" races) gives an example that an monstrous adventurers might have to hide their identity while in public to avoid being attacked on sight. The base assumption for Orcish PCs is that they do get attacked on sight. The base assumption is that Orc PCs are evil and team up with the party out of convenience, to spy on outsiders, or even that they're not truly a member of their race and were merely transformed into it. The suggestions for non-evil Orcs are afterthoughts, and even then the lore tries really hard to stress to the reader that even the "good ones" are innately violent, bloodlusting, and dumb (-2 to Intelligence). The text talks on multiple occasions on how much of Orcish behavior is simply nature to them. There's a single, small mention about how some Orcs are "domesticated" and even then they struggle with their violent, unempathic nature Paarthurnax-style.

If the book was not presenting the orcs as a race meant to be killed on sight, it would have spent literally any time discussing the Many Arrows tribe or examples of non-evil Orc tribes. Something along the lines of "Although many orc tribes are raiding warmongers, there are tribes filled with friendly orcs that reject Gruumsh."

Contrast this to the section on Drow in Tome of Foes. That section does give actual advice on playing a good drow. It mentions Eilistraee and doesn't mention anywhere a genetic predisposition to the evil alignments. The Drow culture and religion is presented as the source of their evil, not an inherent "lust for blood that even 'domesticated' drow have." The older (disgusting) lore of what happens when a drow is pregnant with twins is nowhere to be found. It mentions how there are drow within drow society that recognize how evil their culture is, and reject Lolth to carve their own path. Tome of Foes even gives a (brief) mention of Eberron's Vulkoori drow and Krynn's dark elves and how they differ from Lolthite drow. It actually spends a good amount of time discussing non-evil drow and how the outcasts of society might be good. Most of the Drow adventure hooks are about how predatory and back-stabbing Drow society is and how this might force Drow to abandon the old ways.

The Orc lore section in Volo's spends almost all of its pages talking entirely about how the Orcs are evil dumb savages. The mention of them not being innately evil like Gnolls and might have been raised by Humans is an afterthought. The text ignores established lore about good Orcs because it wants to play up their savagery and how to use them as villains. It treats them like monsters. Mordenkainen's Drow lore spends most of its pages discussing how evil the drow pantheon and society are, but treats the drow like people and it regularly mentions how Lolthite culture marginalizes people inside their society. Drow are treated like people. There isn't even a token good Orc god, equivalent to the Drow's Eilistraee. Because Volo's treats them like kill-on-sight monsters and not like people.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

Are all Boxers Evil?

Are D&D Orcs boxers? Is that the type of violence Volo's was talking about? Is it innate, genetic bloodlust and a lack of empathy that motivates boxers to do that sport?

 

[Laurefindel]

The issue is you get orc guard, elf guard, goliath guard, aasimar guard, etc, etc. That ends up a lot of redundant statblocks.

If you give them all the same stats, yeah. Still, I’d rather have an orc guard statblock and an elf guard statblock and an aasimar statblock than the same guard statblock but here with tusks, here with pointy ears, and one that glows…

At this point I’d settle for orcs like lizardfolks; humanoids that can take any NPC statblock, and some elemental orcs or fiendish orcs or aberration orcs or whatever it takes for them to also have an entry in the MM.

 

[Scribe]

Are D&D Orcs boxers? Is that the type of violence Volo's was talking about? Is it innate, genetic bloodlust and a lack of empathy that motivates boxers to do that sport?

You ever partook in actual fighting?

The type if violence in Volos, the type of violence PCs execute?

Similar to the violence throughout our history?

I mean I know who I would want on my side, between pre 5.5 Orcs, and Gnomes.

 

[Jensaarai]

It treats them like monsters.

my personal opinion is the devs really wanted to hearken back to the orc's modern origin in those works by Tolkien, but didn't think or want to grapple with the problem of innate evil, and also didn't consider the fact that writing the same kinds of problematic elements today is different from looking back at something written more than a half-century ago

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You ever partook in actual fighting?

Only if being beaten up by bullies when I was in school counts.

The type if violence in Volos, the type of violence PCs execute?

PCs in my games don't typically kill their weak children, go on devastating raids that slaughter entire towns, sacrifice the victims to their gods, and take the survivors as slaves. The adventuring parties in my campaigns are generally morally gray mercenaries that go on adventures and help people largely because it benefits themselves. I cannot think of a time when this involved them massacring a village, monstrous or otherwise. Even in games where the characters were outright evil and did minor war crimes, they didn't act like this.

Similar to the violence throughout our history?

Volo says Orcs are more violent than humans are. Whatever bloodlust humans have, Volo's says Orcs have more of it.

I mean I know who I would want on my side, between pre 5.5 Orcs, and Gnomes.

But Gnomes are monsters! They even have lairs!

Edit: Forgot an important "don't"

 

[ezo]

the context which absolutely does support my point.

Actually, none of it supports your point that orcs are innately evil. Violent, perhaps, most of them certainly are and that is a valid claim according to the text in Volo's.

But NO WHERE, I repeat NO WHERE, is there any evidence to support your claim, especially when you go on to claim "that it’s okay to slaughter them on sight."

I have written enough homebrew lore for different D&D species to know how to tell lore that is meant to imply they're all innately evil and it's okay to kill them all from lore that focuses on the evil aspects of their culture/society while reminding the reader throughout the text that it's not inherent to their nature and they shouldn't be killed on sight. I can tell when D&D lore is treating a species like monsters or like people.

Homebrew lore??? Seriously? Anything you write is skewed by your own views... which include the assumptions you come to based on the text in Volo's.

The assumption of the book is that Orcs, and Goblinoids, and Yuan-Ti are all "kill on sight" monsters. If you showed a new player this lore for the first time, they would likely come to the conclusion that it's good to kill all Orcs.

Only if they feel homocide is justified because a race is violent...

And even the follow up is about how Orcs know that they are diverse . . . in their evilness.

Then show me this "follow up" and where it mentions diverse ways they are "evil"... becomes I'm not seeing it anywhere:

To the common folk of the world, an orc is an orc. They know that any one of these savages can tear an ordinary person to pieces, so no further distinction is necessary.

Orcs know better. Different groups of orcs exist within a tribe, the actions of each dictated by the deity they pay homage to. To complement the various kinds of warriors that spill forth to ravage the countryside, each tribe has members that remain deep inside the lair, seldom if ever seeing what lies outside the darkness of their den.

In addition, orcs have special relationships with two creatures that are sometimes found in their company: the aurochs, a great bull that serves as a mount for warriors that revere Bahgtru, and the tanarukk, a demon-orc crossbreed that is so depraved and destructive that even orcs seek to kill it. The aurochs is described in appendix A. The tanarukk is described below.

Nope, nothing about being evil. The closest you get is the "demon-orc crossbreed" which is "depraved". Of course, that is not an "orc", but a demon-orc, not quite the same thing really.

The monstrous PC advice section (which is about Orcs and the other "monstrous" races) gives an example that an monstrous adventurers might have to hide their identity while in public to avoid being attacked on sight. The base assumption for Orcish PCs is that they do get attacked on sight. The base assumption is that Orc PCs are evil and team up with the party out of convenience, to spy on outsiders, or even that they're not truly a member of their race and were merely transformed into it. The suggestions for non-evil Orcs are afterthoughts, and even then the lore tries really hard to stress to the reader that even the "good ones" are innately violent, bloodlusting, and dumb (-2 to Intelligence). The text talks on multiple occasions on how much of Orcish behavior is simply nature to them. There's a single, small mention about how some Orcs are "domesticated" and even then they struggle with their violent, unempathic nature Paarthurnax-style.

If the book was not presenting the orcs as a race meant to be killed on sight, it would have spent literally any time discussing the Many Arrows tribe or examples of non-evil Orc tribes. Something along the lines of "Although many orc tribes are raiding warmongers, there are tribes filled with friendly orcs that reject Gruumsh."

Did you even read this section completely or do you enjoy cherrypicking?? I mean, you certainly can treat orcs how you want to, and in many games they might be met with suspicion or hatred, but even then you cannot slaughter them on sight. It would be murder.

The text tells DMs (along with their groups) to consider the roles of monstrous characters, how are their species considered in the game world? It includes establishing a monstrous creature as just another culture in the campaign as an option.

So, it does spend time dicussing it, apparently.

Contrast this to the section on Drow in Tome of Foes. That section does give actual advice on playing a good drow. It mentions Eilistraee and doesn't mention anywhere a genetic predisposition to the evil alignments.

So, shifting goalposts by bringing drow in? Ok... well, no where in the Volo's text does it talk about orcs having a genetic predispotition to evil.

The Orc lore section in Volo's spends almost all of its pages talking entirely about how the Orcs are evil dumb savages.

Not evil. Violent, yes, but not evil--especially not inherently evil.

The mention of them not being innately evil like Gnolls and might have been raised by Humans is an afterthought.

Hardly an afterthought! It is the SECOND sentence under Roleplaying an Orc!!!

The text ignores established lore about good Orcs because it wants to play up their savagery and how to use them as villains. It treats them like monsters. Mordenkainen's Drow lore spends most of its pages discussing how evil the drow pantheon and society are, but treats the drow like people and it regularly mentions how Lolthite culture marginalizes people inside their society. Drow are treated like people. There isn't even a token good Orc god, equivalent to the Drow's Eilistraee. Because Volo's treats them like kill-on-sight monsters and not like people.

Look, we're discussing orcs, not drow. I'm not going to take the time to hunt down all the stuff on drow like I did for orcs. Maybe when I have more time these weekend I'll review it for you, but certainly not tonight or tomorrow. Offhand, however, I would say that since Drow were in the PHB as a race, while Orcs were not, having more text/info on "good drow" is not surprising.

Now, the text in Volo's certainly could be offensive to some people, but despite the language they use orcs are not inherently evil and creatures you should feel justified in slaughtering on sight--unless you are playing an evil PC?

 

[R_J_K75]

RIDICULOUS!

 

[Deset Gled]

RIDICULOUS!

Expecto patronum!

 

[ezo]

RIDICULOUS!

Expecto patronum!

And combined the two...