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

[Alzrius]

NG - 'Beastfolk' collectively the 'animal people' species of hargenon, tortles, owlin, tabaxi, minotaurs, grung and leonin

Just seeing that list makes me glad that WotC dumped ardlings, since I suspect that at least some of those would have been swept under that umbrella.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ahh, now I understand.

It's far more important to nit pick tiny points that are pretty much completely unimportant while ignoring the HONKING BIG ISSUE in the room because, boy howdy do we have to make sure that the tone we use is just properly policed.

The fact that orcs were originally depicted as pretty much:



why are you not jumping all over @MGibster for insisting that orcs should always be evil in the game? After all, you guys have been going on and on about how it doesn't actually say specifically that orcs are evil, yet, when someone says that they want always evil orcs that are there to be killed, that's perfectly fine.

Yeah, all we need is for someone to start constantly asking "whaddabout" style questions and we've basically got the whole disingenuous trifecta.

Hussar, I am not being disingenuous. And I have answered your posts in good faith. I am not attacking you, nor am I insulting you. So please don't do that to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

why are you not jumping all over @MGibster for insisting that orcs should always be evil in the game? After all, you guys have been going on and on about how it doesn't actually say specifically that orcs are evil, yet, when someone says that they want always evil orcs that are there to be killed, that's perfectly fine.

This hasn't been my point. My point is they have been generally put forward as evil, and that the explanation for this has varied across editions. When I quoted the 2E entry, that was simply to show that for that edition, you see evidence that it could be read as evil by culture rather than nature (but I also said that entry could be read as they naturally tend towards evil). What I found interesting was it had that, but there was still a flash of sympathy int he writing (i.e. saying the comparison of their snouts to pigs is unfair, and the making of the point that orcs were known to be cruel and evil (and that the reputation was deserved) but then men were also capable of evil too). The reason I like the 2E entry personally is it allows for that old: orcs are evil kill them on sight shot em up approach (which whether people like it or not, a lot of folks still like to play the game that way) and a much more nuanced approach where it is just a cultural tendency

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's far more important to nit pick tiny points that are pretty much completely unimportant while ignoring the HONKING BIG ISSUE in the room because, boy howdy do we have to make sure that the tone we use is just properly policed.

It was an important point because it ties directly to the overall argument that orcs are built on words that all have connotations making them problematic. Violent is one of the words in that part of the discussion as well

 

[CreamCloud0]

Just seeing that list makes me glad that WotC dumped ardlings, since I suspect that at least some of those would have been swept under that umbrella.

i don't think ardlings were a bad idea per se, just that they need to be their own thing rather than being a replacement for something else.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Expanding on the mentality for each of these species in the hypothetical setting. (these are not descriptions for the alignments themselves but more, the central idea that puts each species in their respective alignment)

LG - Dwarves

"all great things need proper foundation, structure and support, that includes people"

NG - 'Beastfolk' collectively the 'animal people' species of hargenon, tortles, owlin, tabaxi, minotaurs, grung and leonin

"be in tune with the world and people around you, and care for them in the ways that you can"

CG - Warforged

"no gods, no kings, help your neighbor when they need assistance but no man should own another man"

LN - Dragonborn

"there are ways things are done and ways they are not, respect the traditions"

TN - Halflings

"a life well lived is it's own reward, if you lived well is up for you to decide"

CN - Gnomes

"the only limits that truly matter are the ones that you put upon yourself"

LE - Orcs

"you earn the right to take whatever you want by winning it in fair challenge, but it must be earned and it must be fair"

NE - Changelings

"at the end of things you are in this by yourself, those who aren't willing to take what they need to survive, die"

CE - Eladrin

"the world exists for our own amusement, be that pleasure comes by indulging in it, coveting it or by destroying it"

 

[ezo]

why are you not jumping all over @MGibster for insisting that orcs should always be evil in the game?

Why would anyone do that when that wasn't what @MGibster actually said...?

The reason they were originally in the game was to serve as antagonist as their function in the game was to serve as obstacles to be overcome much like Illithids, red dragons, and rot grubs. Seeing as how they were originally intended to be used in games, it strikes me as a good enough reason not to give descriptions of orcs outside of their raiding and other violent activities. The 2024 Monster Manual doesn't include any description of the gnoll as anything other than violent robbers, so I guess they've taken the place of the orc. But it's okay because they're fiends.

Scanning... scanning... nope, no claim that "orcs should always be evil in the game" at all.

Keeping them used as antagonists seems more the implication--but antagonists aren't always "evil" either, are they??

 

[Remathilis]

Keeping them used as antagonists seems more the implication--but antagonists are always "evil" either, are they??

I assumed you meant "aren't" always evil?

If alignment is subjective, yes. My PC is LG in his own mind, CG to his allies, NE to his enemies. But D&D has always played alignment is objective; my PC IS LG. He is on team law and good in the cosmic football game. And it's done that as a way of excusing the violence that is the core gameplay loop.

If mindflayers raise slaves and conquer new lands to increase its breeding stock needed to maintain its dietary needs, it's no different than a rancher that moves farther west to gain new grazing lands for its cattle. But make a module you're supposed to fight a bunch of ranchers to free their livestock and people are going to get uppity (Well, maybe not PeTA). So, you make them evil squid men with a desire for brains tartar and the game smiles at the cognitive dissonance. But to the mind-flayer, he's not much different than your rancher who also would like to eat and keeps lesser beings as its food supply. It doesn't care any more about the village it destroyed and the people it captured than the rancher did about the cattle he acquired. The difference is the mind-flayer's cattle are sapient and they look like us.

D&D's morality is already rather sus, and perhaps its only attempt at hail Mary is "but they're cosmically EVIL" to justify why you put goblins to the sword rather than engage in geopolitical diplomacy and international law. They game ain't as much fun to bust in, serve warrants, and demand the goblins show up at court at 10am. Graying up the morality further means the violence is justified even less.

 

[Scribe]

Anyone even offered up what Evil is, other than me?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Anyone even offered up what Evil is, other than me?

What was your definition ?