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

[QuentinGeorge]

You know the easy solution to this, right? Pick one setting at the exclusion to all others and tightly integrate that lore into the game. You don't have generic elves that are supposed to be moon elves, Qualinesti, Areneral, etc. You just have moon elves and you explore moon elf culture as it pertains to Faerun, the Official Setting of Dungeons and Dragons.

Oh no, WoTC long ago decided the multiverse means no setting can have its own identity.

But people cry "muh toolbox" and how specific lore ruins their homebrew. So D&D dances between being lore heavy enough to explain why gnolls are fiends and lore light enough to allow 76 unique cultures of elf over 12 different settings.

You can have a toolbox and have some basic lore. 2E seemed far more toolboxy to me than 5E and it had a stack of lore. And orc statblocks that managed to not talk about Gruumsh.

 

[billd91]

Exactly, nothing about this is 'Evil'.

 

[Micah Sweet]

« Orcs survive through savagery and force of numbers. Theirs is a life that has no place for weakness, and every warrior must be strong enough to take what is needed by force. Orcs aren’t interested in treaties, trade negotiations or diplomacy. They care only for satisfying their insatiable desire for battle, to smash their foes and appease their gods. »

So, not evil?

That all sounds very Klingon to me.

 

[Scribe]

Give me your definition of Evil then.

Mines pretty simple, and it boils down to individuals being fundamentally selfish, vs selfless.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I never stated causation was a factor. You (and people who have been arguing about it) have tried to make it about causation.

But let's extend the metaphors. Let's take all the negative stereotypes about gamers. They are antisocial. They are nerds. They are fat. They don't understand hygiene. They are weaklings who can't do a single pushup. They hate girls. Now, let's make a monster named Grognard, make them chaotic evil, and put them in the Monster Manual as creatures to fight or bully. Let's make nearly every encounter with them one where the characters are supposed to beat them up or mock them. And we'll say "but some grognards can be good people".

How do you feel about my grognard? I'm sure people will not connect them to real gamers. You certainly wouldn't be offended that they use the same language used to mock gamers in the real world. They're made up. Silly elf game. Get rekked grognard!

I mean, the game didn't tell me to go beat up gamers. It just said I'm justified in disliking fat, smelly, awkward creatures.

No offense, right?

That sounds like what happened with that THAC0 npc in the Witchlight publication!

 

[gban007]

Not in the least. Add as much nuance as you like, and if its enriching ones life, and enjoyable, great.

There is no nuance in the 5.5 Orc. Its a "Good" entity now. We have simply swung from one end of the pendulum to the other, and the game (not lore, not nuanced, just pure game) is less for it imo.

Wizards is not in the business of providing a nuanced, deep, and interesting Fantasy world, that much seems obvious to me.

I can certainly understand the point of view, but if just an elf game does it need much nuance? It reads a bit like one race / playing piece out of many got changed- prior to the change, there was no problem as just an elf game, but post change there is a problem, but I dont see that it isn't still an elf game as such, and I'm not sure why the one race changing makes the game less.
Overall though I think WOTC is dealing with a twofold sort of problem, trying to be a generic toolset where things should be light on lore / prescription (though then still prescribe gnolls etc), and the problematic history of how Orcs and Drow have been portrayed at times (and sometimes WOTC has contributed to this themselves).
I think if stuck to describing a setting, whether Forgotten Realms, Nentir Vale or Greyhawk, and didn't have the history of problematic descriptors, could have stuck with both being evil, but can't given the history as such.
Whereas other games which haven't had such a history or broad scope haven't needed to change, e.g. I would argue Warhammwr / 40k, where the Orks are always something to fight, but real world parallels are a lot less (except from memory basis on English football hooligans) who in 40k at least always just live for a fight, not caring why or who against, and I don't think they face the same blowback.
Lord of the Rings games similarly draw on the setting background of Orcs being there to fight, but without precluding option to do otherwise, and otherwise draws on history of arrogant elves some who did evil, humans who seemed to split fifty between good and evil and such.

 

[Scribe]

I can certainly understand the point of view, but if just an elf game does it need much nuance? It reads a bit like one race / playing piece out of many got changed- prior to the change, there was no problem as just an elf game, but post change there is a problem, but I dont see that it isn't still an elf game as such, and I'm not sure why the one race changing makes the game less.

Because there is no play* piece now, for the Orc. The stat blocks are gone. Contrasting with Shadowdark, which has one. And again, there is an Elf in Shadowdark, and Drow (no Dwarf though?!) so...there's that.

Ultimately I blame myself for all this. I fought against the description of Tiefling in the UA, and that was fixed. I should have applied my righteous efforts to the Orc as well.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Can I refer you to the concept of the "dog whistle"? It's a concept in public speaking where you don't overtly say what you mean, but the language is known by those who are familiar with it's second meaning. Politicians use it all the time when they want you know who is really responsible for a certain problem without saying the quiet part out loud.

I'm familiar with it, and it's not a particularly compelling argument. It's pretty much "oikophobia" in that certain things can't be said, not because there's anything wrong about those words in particular, but that they might inflame the sensitivities of the less-educated or less-intelligent in society. (The people who use the term dog-whistle never class themselves as such, of course).

I suggest if you are hearing dog whistles constantly and others aren't, you might be the dog. Are you being inflamed into violence against minorities when you read about orcs? I'm not, and I don't know anyone else who has.

"Your Honour, I beat up that guy because orcs are bad."

 

[ezo]

Not THAT is creepy!!!

That all sounds very Klingon to me.

Yep, warlike and violent, but not evil--just different.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I don't feel like they are either of these things.

I haven't pored over every page of the PBH or Monster Manual, so maybe I missed something, but 5.5 Orcs seem to be less a "good" entity and more a nonentity. There isn't nuance so much as there is "Orcs are totally non-controversial now, we promise. Please stop talking about them."

Nuance for me at least requires more than two paragraphs and some cowboy art.

And I like the cowboy art! I just wish they told us how they went from Volo's Guide to gauchos.

Hilariously because I'm not American those orcs look more to me like Boers on the Veldt. And I thought, they've turned the orcs into Afrikaners? Bold choice...