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

[Gradine]

And some people are just looking at a game piece, or a package of stats and rules to...play a game.

This is the "just an elf game" argument, which is certainly a valid way to approach the game, but begs the question as to where the emotional connection to the specific issue requiring the continuation of the argument is coming from, if it is indeed "just an elf game"

 

[Maxperson]

I would suspect that 95%+ of the time that orcs have appeared in a D&D game since the game was first released in 1974 it was in the role of villain that the player characters were supposed to fight and kill. Half-orcs have existed since the 1e PH; I don't remember the exact language from that book, but I believe that the subtext was that many if not most of them were the product of rape. Orcs were bad; they did bad things. We can debate the exact wording of the Volo book on orcs, but that clearly hadn't changed much in 42 years.

I personally don't have any problem with any DM making orcs savage, violent, or "evil" in their games, or using them in that "traditional" role. But I think that Wizards of the Coast had legitimate reasons for toning that back in the new "default" version of the game in 2024, and I think it's a valid choice to take them out of the MM now that they have appeared as a playable race in the PH. I still have the stat blocks from my 2014 books and may even use some of them in my 2024 games, since I will continue to have orc villains in my campaigns, as well as human villains, dwarf villains, etc.

1e just says that orcs create many cross-breeds. The PHB does not say or imply how, though it does call the half-orcs mongrels which isn't great.

2e's book of humanoids says that half-orcs result from orc unions with virtually an humanoid or demihuman race except for elves. It also does not mention how they are created, but it does say this about orcs under the half-orc entry.

"A few orcs even attempt to reject their evil natures in order to try and become honorable warriors. While an orc will never become a paladin, some do attain the orcish equivalent of holly warriors."

So orcs were not inherently evil to the point where they were always evil.

3e went waaaaay further and in the MM orcs were only usually chaotic(?) evil, which meant that more than 50% were the alignment listed in the MM. Up to 49.99% of orcs could be good and they would still be usually the alignment listed.

 

[Gradine]

All hail to Blood Bowl and the Orkland Reavers!

The vibes haven't been the same though since they moved to Lack Vrag

 

[ezo]

Like, humans are probably TN based on their normal description. But, I liked the idea of how humans used to be the only paladins back in the day, and I thought of making them be the "world's paladins", a nation of people devoted to Light and Hope and Justice. They have all the classic stereotypes of a tightly religious community; as a whole, they're kind and compassionate and helpful to those in need, but they're also judgy and intolerant of deviance and lack of conformity.

Gotcha.

I've always thought dwarves and elves both come off as too xenophobic and insular to really be "good", so I liked putting them at opposite poles as LN and CN to reinforce their classic rivalry. Dwarves and humans become natural allies, and elves are generally wastrels gallivanting about and making nuisances of themselves.

Yep, I would put them a LN and CN, respectively, as well.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the "just an elf game" argument, which is certainly a valid way to approach the game, but begs the question as to where the emotional connection to the specific issue requiring the continuation of the argument is coming from, if it is indeed "just an elf game"

I answered that much earlier in the thread. Humans by nature look for patterns and associations. That often leads to us "finding" patterns and associations that aren't really there. We make such connections, ignoring that correlation does not equal causation, all the time.

If literally anything negative is said about a group in the game, we can if we look find a real life group that has had that negative thing said about it. That doesn't make the game group about or connected to the real life group.

 

[Remathilis]

False Equivalences remain false. Game groups and real life groups are not equivalent. How you see one has no inherent bearing on how you see the other.

So if I say "orcs are immoral creatures unable to determine right from wrong, therefore the game is ok with you destroying them" and then I say "D&D players are immoral creatures unable to determine right from wrong." You can't fill in the rest of the sentence?

 

[Maxperson]

So if I say "orcs are immoral creatures unable to determine right from wrong, therefore the game is ok with you destroying them" and then I say "D&D players are immoral creatures unable to determine right from wrong." You can't fill in the rest of the sentence?

If you do that, it wasn't because of orcs. It's because for whatever reason you don't like D&D players. The orc language has nothing to do with you saying that about D&D players. Correlation does not equal causation. It would be coincidence that you and the orcs are using similar language.

 

[Scribe]

This is the "just an elf game" argument, which is certainly a valid way to approach the game, but begs the question as to where the emotional connection to the specific issue requiring the continuation of the argument is coming from, if it is indeed "just an elf game"

Because the game is enjoyable, and I wish people could see it as such. I very much am Team Elf Game.

 

[FrogReaver]

So if I say "orcs are immoral creatures unable to determine right from wrong, therefore the game is ok with you destroying them" and then I say "D&D players are immoral creatures unable to determine right from wrong." You can't fill in the rest of the sentence?

The difference might be that it is actually true of the fictional orc, while not true of d&d players.

 

[Bedrockgames]

1e just says that orcs create many cross-breeds. The PHB does not say or imply how, though it does call the half-orcs mongrels which isn't great.

2e's book of humanoids says that half-orcs result from orc unions with virtually an humanoid or demihuman race except for elves. It also does not mention how they are created, but it does say this about orcs under the half-orc entry.

"A few orcs even attempt to reject their evil natures in order to try and become honorable warriors. While an orc will never become a paladin, some do attain the orcish equivalent of holly warriors."

So orcs were not inherently evil to the point where they were always evil.

3e went waaaaay further and in the MM orcs were only usually chaotic(?) evil, which meant that more than 50% were the alignment listed in the MM. Up to 49.99% of orcs could be good and they would still be usually the alignment listed.

They've definitely been bad guys in older editions, which I don't see as a negative (having cool bad guys in the monster manual is always good).

Taking a look at 2E again they are described as Lawful Evil in the MM, and this is a pretty relevant section:

Orcs are aggressive. They believe other species are inferior to them and that bullying and slavery is part of the natural order. They will cooperate with other species but are not dependable: as slaves, they will rebel against all but the most powerful masters; as allies they are quick to take offense and break agreements.

Orcs believe that battle is the ideal challenge, but some leaders are pragmatic enough to recognize the value of peace, which they exact at a high price. If great patience and care is used, ore tribes can be effective trading partners and military allies. Orcs value territory above all else; battle experience, wealth, and number of offspring are other major sources of pride. Orcs are patriarchal; women are fit only to bear children and nurse them. Orcs have a reputation for cruelty that is deserved, but humans are just as capable of evil as orcs. Orcs have marriage customs, but orc males are not noted for their faithfulness.

I think the line "Orcs have a reputation for cruelty that is deserved, but humans are just as capable of evil as orcs." is noteworthy

In 2E the alignment section generally refers to tendencies unless an entry has more absolute statements. I think on orcs you could read it a number of ways (as it either being a product of their culture or their culture being a product of their nature). But there are a lot of lines like this that to me suggest the focus is more cultural:

Orcs have a slightly stooped posture, a low jutting forehead, and a snout instead of a nose, though comparisons between this facial feature and those of pigs are exaggerated and perhaps unfair.

To me language that says calling their snouts piglike is unfair suggests a lot more sympathy for them, and the next sentence says they have human eyes.

Again for me, I can go with any number of things. I am fine with evil orcs, I think they can be interesting, and I think since all humans are one race, this sort of flavor isn't a problem in D&D as it is nowhere suggesting groups of humans have these kinds of differences (we are talking about differences between species). Personally I like more culturally evil orcs (where they are just warlike and a threat to humans). But I also think you can go outside that (I had a large empire of civilized 'roman' orcs in one of my settings and I felt that fit for orcs pretty well). When you start making orcs less metal though, they lose some of their essence in my opinion (this is one of the reasons that family outing depiction of orcs doesn't quite work for me)