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

[Mirtek]

I meant more that they reproduce sexually exclusively, ie male orcs and female orcs get together and make baby orcs and that’s how you get more orcs. Demons and devils can make offspring but it’s not how they reproduce in most cases and they don’t have infants, generally.

That's what I meant with whether the reproduction part is the important thing. Because fiends do have cities, cultures, craftsmen, artists etc.

Basically they meet all the criteria except for making babies (and some even do this sometimes)

 

[Yaarel]

I treat angels and devils as echos of human behavior. When humans do bad, then even the angels fall becoming devils. When humans do good, then even devils can rise becoming angels.

In this sense, only humans have the freewill. Angels and devils strictly lack freewill. And the angelic world responds to human freewill.

In D&D, all humanoids have freewill. Nevertheless, I make the angels and devils dependent on humans only. The link between humans and the astral planes is a mysterious one that no one has fully explained.

 

[Sithlord]

I treat angels and devils as echos of human behavior. When humans do bad, then even the angels fall becoming devils. When humans do good, then even devils can rise becoming angels.

In this sense, only humans have the freewill. Angels and devils strictly lack freewill. And the angelic world responds to human freewill.

In D&D, all humanoids have freewill. Nevertheless, I make the angels and devils dependent on humans only. The link between humans and the astral planes is a mysterious one that no one has fully explained.

That is interesting. Not for the type of settings I personally make. But that is cool.

 

[Mecheon]

What patterns should 3 different cultures fall into

I'd argue enough to show a variety of thing across a race. So however many or however few it takes to do that

Ironically I'd say dwarves fail at this given you've got Grumpy (Hill), More Grumpy (Mountain), and Super Grumpy (Duerger) as the big dwarf groups in most settings

 

[Mercurius]

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.

I'd have a different response if I was a player. I'd think, "OK, this is an interesting scenario to role-play."

 

[Mercurius]

But more seriously, it feels like a game where the vast majority of the rules are about killing things isn't the best game for folks who don't want to have killing things as a frequently necessary thing (how does D&D 7e look if it's predominantly exploration and social...).

Bingo. D&D is simulating fantasy, pre-industrial adventure. It is not trying to represent contemporary socio-ethical situations. I mean, it could be used that way, but I would protest the idea of making the core rules about that. I mean, we have the real world to do all that.

 

[Mercurius]

I would hate it, but at least the DM is at least being creative and has an actual reason for screwing you over. The 'surprise, you made a dozen sad orphans' trick is usually just the DM satiating their own... tendencies.

You must have played with some pretty nasty DMs, if that is your assumption of such a scenario.

 

[Cadence]

Bingo. D&D is simulating fantasy, pre-industrial adventure. It is not trying to represent contemporary socio-ethical situations. I mean, it could be used that way, but I would protest the idea of making the core rules about that. I mean, we have the real world to do all that.

I've been listening to westerns on the old-time-radio station for a number of years, and catching a bunch on TV lately. It's hard to find a western without killing. It's pretty amazing how differently the indigenous Americans are portrayed in some of the radio shows (Gunsmoke and Fort Laramie for two; where it seems a pretty fair portrayal to me in most cases) vs. on some of the movies I've been seeing lately (where it seems as racist as one might expect to find). The former has plenty of bad guys to kill - following the law in most cases - without needing to have an entire group of people marked with targets. And a lot of the better westerns do fine with shades of gray. Westerns, of course, have the problem of bullets being a pretty quick death even for the heroes in a lot of cases as opposed to the Sword & Sorcery or High Fantasy battles. But I find the better ones inspiring.

As far as shades of gray and seeing how motives clash, this was an episode on Sirius/XM today that I hadn't heard before: The Well | Frontier Gentleman | Western | Old Time Radio Downloads

 

[Mercurius]

Personally I like the idea of D&D colorizing their orcs and stealig ideas to split them up.

Green - Fightin' Orcs. Closer to warhammer orcs, green orc just build their whole society around strength and combat. Not all evil, just all ultraviolent. They can be a great ally if channeled to fight enemies or a nuisance if left alone. Still hate elves. Still hate farming.

Blue- Smart orcs. These orcs are the smarter orcs. More likely to produce orogs. Blue orc are smart but still violent. Again look at warhammer and see their Black orc and Hardboys. They aren't hobgoblins. The blue orc tribes are still savage despite their plate armor and well kept axes. Group tactics is still not and thing and organizing is iffy as each blue orc is smart enough to snatch their own prizes.

Brown- Basicially Warcraft orcs. Brutal yet civilized people with a on/off switch on savagery. This is where half orcs come from. Can play nice with races and nations they don't have grudges with. Might be spiritual. Won't raid you for food. Will have the best justification for fighting you.

That's how I've been doing it for years, with different details. My Green orcs are shaman-led aboriginals. My Gray orcs are the classic evil raiders. My Blue orcs are basically the nerds of the orc world, wizards and artificers. My Red orcs are militaristic and imperial, living in a southern desert climate. Green and Blue orcs integrate with other races, while Gray are bandits and seen as bad. Red orcs are feared because their empire is expanding.

Anyhow, I didn't do this for any other reason than it sounded interesting and fit the world.

 

[Minigiant]

That's how I've been doing it for years, with different details. My Green orcs are shaman-led aboriginals. My Gray orcs are the classic evil raiders. My Blue orcs are basically the nerds of the orc world, wizards and artificers. My Red orcs are militaristic and imperial, living in a southern desert climate. Green and Blue orcs integrate with other races, while Gray are bandits and seen as bad. Red orcs are feared because their empire is expanding.

Anyhow, I didn't do this for any other reason than it sounded interesting and fit the world.

I did split my orcs for same reasons. My orcs where created by elves to fight wars who rebelled. So now orcs are divided based on their emphasis on rebellion, fighting, and CHAOS!!!

Basically take chaotic evil strong orcs and have them choose to focus on the chaotic orc, the evil orc, the strong orc, and the pure orc.