D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

Lanefan said:

It does if, like me, you want PCs and NPCs of the same race to use the same mechanics because internal consistency actually matters.

Thus, if the MM says Orcs have an average Strength of 14 that to me locks in that PC Orcs are also going to have an average Strength of 14, and I then need to find a way to mechanize that into the char-gen system. A flat bonus is one answer. Tweaking the 3-18 bell curve such that the high point on that curve is 14 rather than 10.5 is another and IMO better answer - for example maybe Orc strength runs on a bell curve from 8-20 for both PCs and NPCs - if a bit more complicated.

Either that, or I change the MM such that NPC Orcs use the same 3-18 Strength range as PCs.

Click to expand...

They can have different stats than each other that fall within the 3-18 range though.

Mind of tempest said:

define evil then? can you.

Click to expand...

Man that is a pretty big ask considering the definition of evil or if it even exists is something that people have been discussing/arguing/debating with no end in sight for centuries!

I mean, maybe we here on an internet forum about RPGs will solve this but I kinda doubt it!

Charlaquin said:

I don’t disagree.

Click to expand...

HJFudge said:

Man that is a pretty big ask considering the definition of evil or if it even exists is something that people have been discussing/arguing/debating with no end in sight for centuries!

I mean, maybe we here on an internet forum about RPGs will solve this but I kinda doubt it!

Click to expand...

Old D&D is evil.

Generally I go with if you deliberately go out if your way to inflict suffering in others (in a serious way).

Mallus said:

So I might need to think this thorough more. Or at all. But I do find the idea of a race of cow flayers inadvertently created by the radical diet of a sect of vegan Illithids in Sigil to be very... ahem... D&D.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I may have just found the next monster for my home game. The much feared cowflayer.

Zardnaar said:

Old D&D is evil.

Generally I go with if you deliberately go out if your way to inflict suffering in others (in a serious way).

Click to expand...

A soldier defending their country against an invading force is going to go out of his way to inflict suffering on the invaders, in as serious way as they can manage.

Is that evil?

Maybe. I dont know. I'd tend towards no, as would most, but the argument can be made and it bears serious consideration.

Oofta said:

Hmm. I may have just found the next monster for my home game. The much feared cowflayer.

View attachment 133285

Click to expand...

Those PCs better MOOOOve out of it's way.

Or they will be udderly destroyed.

Oofta said:

Orcs, to me have a simple hook. They're the ravaging horde seeking destruction of the civilized races which they think are weak. I don't need or want much more than that. They're a genetically engineered race made (and controlled) by a vengeful god; if they were real I'd actually feel sorry for them.

Click to expand...

There are three problems which you're not really acknowledging with this:

1) They're not consistently presented as genetically-engineered killing machines who are sort of the "dead hand" of a vengeful god. In fact, that's quite a rare presentation of Orcs. Typically they're presented as "a tribal race who are strong and violent, and worship a nasty god", which is a very different kettle of fish.

2) They have, including in 5E, aligned perfectly with some really SUPER RACIST tropes that been put around about black people and asian people at various points in the 20th century. Now, that's not your fault, and arguably, in some early iterations, they didn't align as well with these SUPER RACIST (like whoa) tropes that have done at other points. But all the stuff about them being fast-breeding, unnaturally strong, brainless violent thuggish worshippers of darkness who descend as hordes to wipe out "better" races is basically literally straight up the text of racist history books, propaganda articles and so on. And not in like, the distant past. Like, there are Facebook posts right now, this second, still saying this kind of thing. There were textbooks saying it published within MY lifetime, and I'm only 42. Some people playing D&D read those textbooks (I'm not saying they believed them or whatever, but point is, the contemporaneous).

EDIT - Hell, there are Bush-era textbooks which had tame versions of this stuff in them (but the same essential sentiment). Fringe textbooks, but ones that got into schools in parts of the US. I'm not even going to start on some of the more recent stuff of a similar nature.

3) It's too late to revert to "Grummsh's GEKMs" as the only trope for Orcs. We've had decades of other presentations being the majority presentations - primarily the "violent tribal people" presentation.

I think you're coming at this like, could you have a race which was just genetically-engineered killing machines who are sort of the "dead hand" of a vengeful god and it not be problematic? Yes. But you'd want to do stuff like have them coming out of sludge pits like LotR, or be manufactured by some ghastly machine (surprised Tolkien didn't come up with that actually, seems like he'd have been into it), not be flesh and blood creatures with opinions and free will, which they explicitly are, even, unfortunately, in the "Grummsh's GEKMs" scenario. They should have NOT had free will. They should have been made in pits. They shouldn't have been extremely well-aligned with ultra-racist tropes.

It has to be fixed now. And the fix means de-aligning them from ultra-racist tropes.

By all means create something that fills the same role as you're proposing, or even use Orcs - but I hope you can understand why they're no longer suitable for this role. TSR and WotC screwed up. They created this situation.

HJFudge said:

A soldier defending their country against an invading force is going to go out of his way to inflict suffering on the invaders, in as serious way as they can manage.

Is that evil?

Maybe. I dont know. I'd tend towards no, as would most, but the argument can be made and it bears serious consideration.

Click to expand...

Said soldier is reacting to the invasion so isn't going out of their way to do it. Then you get preemptive strikes or situations like the Spanish in Mexico vs the Aztecs and their religion.

HJFudge said:

Man that is a pretty big ask considering the definition of evil or if it even exists is something that people have been discussing/arguing/debating with no end in sight for centuries!

I mean, maybe we here on an internet forum about RPGs will solve this but I kinda doubt it!

Click to expand...

that is the point he wants simple evil bad guys but can't define it in a meaningful way thus it is not a real option.

HJFudge said:

A soldier defending their country against an invading force is going to go out of his way to inflict suffering on the invaders, in as serious way as they can manage.

Is that evil?

Maybe. I dont know. I'd tend towards no, as would most, but the argument can be made and it bears serious consideration.

Click to expand...

What kind of suffering, I think is the question? Like I think most people have a pretty keen innate sense for what's legitimate and what's cruelty, and it's the latter that's going to get you with a by red E for evil on your character sheet.

If you're torturing people for the sake of scaring the enemy, yeah, sorry mate, you probably got E stamped on your sheet. That's how D&D works. It's objective not relative morality.

If you're just ensuring a situation where they have no safe water to drink, no safe food to eat, well, it's unlikely a Good person would do that, but it's probably N on your sheet at worst.

Also, if they're just trying to cause pointless suffering, that's almost certainly Evil with a capital E. For it not to be, there needs to be some kind of legitimate and proportional aim.