D&D 5E Are humanoid mono-cultures being replaced with the Rule of Three?

[Dire Bare]

No, that’s the opposite of what I’m saying, instead of more cultures and subraces, make the cultures themselves more diverse. Talk about cultures in terms of generalities instead of absolutes, and then be sure to actually show examples of exceptions to those trends.

Any culture, real or fictional, is going to be more complex than a player option blurb can do justice. But we need those short stereotyped blurbs to get a general picture of what the core concept for each culture is. Then, both players and the DM can flesh out those cultures in game. Or, they can pick up the (inevitable) "Complete Guide to the Lorendrow" on the DMsGuild.

The new drow cultures aren't any more or less fleshed out and diverse than anything else in the PHB . . . . and we've only seen marketing material introducing them. At least one of these cultures is going to be featured in the next Salvatore novel, and presumably will get more detail and diversity.

I've got no issue with what we've go so far on these two new cultures. We'll get more before the year is out.

I would love to revisit the splat-era of D&D with titles like "Complete Book of Elves" that could expand on each specific culture, perhaps provide culture-specific class archetypes, backgrounds, feats, spells, and items. Either from WotC direct, or some enterprising fan-designer on the DMsGuild.

 

[Reynard]

I am not familiar with the supplement, but from reading the LotR repeatedly (including within the last six months) orcs sure do seem to have freewill to me. Some are true loyalists, some are opportunists, some are just scared AF, and most (it seems) believe the Dark Lord's lies about humans and the freefolk, so see little choice in not trying to destroy them. The Dark Lord may have created them to destroy the Free People of Middle-Earth, but that doesn't necessarily make that their self-directed purpose.

It is explicitly stated that orcs do NOT have free will. The humans in Sauron's service have been bullied, tricked or tempted, but orcs are inherently evil.

 

[el-remmen]

It is explicitly stated that orcs do NOT have free will. The humans in Sauron's service have been bullied, tricked or tempted, but orcs are inherently evil.

Where? By who?

 

[Dire Bare]

I don't care about inherently evil races. I think the complaints about them are overblown. The problem is taking inherently evil races and then putting them in a space that allows exceptions -- because now it is not "inherent" and it is problematic. If you say, "Orcs are horrible monsters created by The Dark Lord from the tortured souls of elves to hunt and murder the Free People," you don't actually have a problem. Grognak the Orc Paladin creates the problem. Don't do Grognak and the problem goes away. I mean, we don't have this discussion about Ghouls.

Tolkien's orcs were "horrible monsters created by the Dark Lord", but they WERE also people. From the beginning. And lots of folks have found that problematic, even before Gygax "borrowed" the orcs for his new game, D&D, back in the early 70s.

D&D's orcs are, of course, inspired by Tolkien's . . . but they aren't Tolkien's and they have been not-people-but-people coded with racist language from the beginning. That ship sailed a long time ago.

 

[Mirtek]

I also like 4E's take on Gnolls as well. Much more developed and usable compared to 5E's take on Gnolls and their background. But hey, that's why you can have BOTH 4E/5E Gnolls in your 5E games.

Wasn't 4e the edition that started the "they're the demonic spawn of Yeenoghu" nonesense wheres up to then one of their main points was that Yeenoghu was not their creator and just stole them from their original pantheon?

 

[Reynard]

Well, I disagree. Or, at least, I don't see it as in bad taste, because it wouldn't be intended as a "gotcha," more as "things can be complex."

I mean, do the PCs not defend themselves if attacked on the off chance that the attacker is just trying to feed their children? Of course not. But more to the point, a creature attacking you could have many reasons. D&D assumes "evil" or "conquest" or somesuch, but what if the DM wanted to add a bit of complexity? How is that a "gotcha"? If anything, it could add an interesting layer where the players have to think twice about their actions and not make the usual assumptions.

Not saying that this is how a game "should" be played, but that such a game isn't necessarily about "gotcha-ing" players. It is a different approach, and one that adds a certain level of complexity that could be interesting.

Obviously, we all have different preferences. I am just saying that I would absolutely be offended by the scenario you described. I would expect a GM that was trying to engage in some sort of ethical dillema play present it honestly.

I am not saying ti is "realistic" that the orcs would tell the PCs to open their pockets first, or that they would flee for their lives. I don't know what "real" orcs would do. I am saying that if the orcs did not do that and instead played the part of a typical random encounter where the only solution was to kill them all, and then the GM showed me their starving wives and children, I would be angry.

Hell, I am mad imagining it and it didn't even really happen.

 

[Xeviat]

ORCS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

When nonhuman fantasy races very often are used as allegory for real peoples, or take inspiration whole cloth from real people, it's very easy for real people to get upset by the portrayal.

When humans all live in medieval cities with castles and commerce and draw upon European cultures, while orcs live in tribes and are hunter gatherers and draw upon native American or African cultures ... do you see?

 

[Reynard]

Tolkien's orcs were "horrible monsters created by the Dark Lord", but they WERE also people. From the beginning. And lots of folks have found that problematic, even before Gygax "borrowed" the orcs for his new game, D&D, back in the early 70s.

D&D's orcs are, of course, inspired by Tolkien's . . . but they aren't Tolkien's and they have been not-people-but-people coded with racist language from the beginning. That ship sailed a long time ago.

To be clear, I am using orcs as a broad shorthand for inherently evil enemies that also happen to talk and like to drink beer and whatever. Would it change the discussion if I said "gnolls" or "ogres"?

 

[Reynard]

When nonhuman fantasy races very often are used as allegory for real peoples, or take inspiration whole cloth from real people, it's very easy for real people to get upset by the portrayal.

When humans all live in medieval cities with castles and commerce and draw upon European cultures, while orcs live in tribes and are hunter gatherers and draw upon native American or African cultures ... do you see?

Which D&D orcs draw on native american cultures?

 

[Dire Bare]

It's weird we don't have this argument about bandits and cultists.

Sigh.

You don't have a choice whether you are an orc or not. Or who your parents were, what culture you were raised in, and other circumstances of your birth.

But you do certainly have a choice whether to turn to banditry or join a cult. You might be living in abject poverty and have seemingly limited options, but you have a choice.

In the real world, it's considered horrific to kill someone without a second thought based only on their ancestry (although we have a long history of doing just that). In most modern cultures, it's ALSO considered horrific to kill someone who is trying to rob you (bandits) unless you feel your own life is in danger. We also don't kill folks for joining weird religious cults. Arrest them, jail them perhaps . . . .

The excuse, "It's just fantasy!" Or, "It's just fiction!" doesn't fly for many of us. If it works for you, great I suppose. But this is the direction the hobby, and society at large, is going . . . and I for one LOVE IT.