D&D (2024) bring back the pig faced orcs for 6th edition, change up hobgoblins & is there a history of the design change

[Faolyn]

There is no superiority or inferiority in the language describing orcs. The killing of orcs is also not based on a belief or doctrine about differences. In D&D, orcs as written ARE savage killers of humans. The humans killing the orcs also kill humans that kill humans.

If ALL orcs are savage killers, while only SOME humans are, that's bigoted and not cool.

 

[Faolyn]

It's no more racist to say that a tiger is dangerous than to say fictional monsters are evil if the fiction says they are.

Tigers aren't capable of higher reasoning. Orcs are.

 

[Maxperson]

If ALL orcs are savage killers, while only SOME humans are, that's bigoted and not cool.

Why?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, I mixed them up. But it doesn't matter because it's the same answer. The PHB explicitly stated that you should ask your DM.

I don't see any reason other than preference to distinguish between drow (or orcs) and any other monster in the book.

And that has nothing to do with the question either.

Why are we saying that the default for Drow is that they are Evil, when they are allowed in the PHB, and every single officially published setting for the edition has them as not solely evil, if they exist at all?

Is default DnD somehow different from every DnD setting in 5e?

 

[Faolyn]

Press "Reply" in order to actually reply to an individual.

"I guess if you don't want to make cultures for your PC races, then yes, D&D is a game of stereotypes." -- Do as you need, when you need. Alignments and stereotypes are there as tools, tweak them or not when you feel like. Sometimes I get deep, other times not.

You are trying to claim that D&D is a game of stereotypes; therefore, we must use stereotypes because to do otherwise is not to play D&D. ("Ok, I guess you don't want to play D&D. It is a game of stereotypes of races with sweeping generalizations.")

"I assume you have accepted the changes the game has made since it was first created. So why are you so against changes being made now?" -- you are absolutely right here. Why? not against them. More accurately I don't feel or see the need for them. My problem is how wide a net has been thrown and the allusion that those who support the old school game are feeding, supported, or the very least not speaking out against racism.

If you are actually against the game itself changing because you prefer old-school style gaming, then yeah, you may actually be part of the problem here.

Especially when you realize that you can still have old-school style gaming in your own game.

"Since you apparently haven't realized it from the thousand times it's been said already by many people in this thread: We are not talking about your game. We are talking about what WotC is doing." Well, we are talking about 'my' game, 'your' game, what have you.

No, we're not. We're talking about the game. Which you are apparently against changing because you prefer old-style gaming.

Nobody cares about your game. We're talking about the books they put out.

If you haven't realized from a thousand times before, said by many people in this thread WotC isn't being racist. There is context to everything, apply that context to help you separate real from fantasy.

They have used language with racist connotations in the past. They are hopefully moving away from that.

It doesn't matter if the language is about real people or fantasy people. The goal is to not use it at all--not to pretend it doesn't matter because it's against a fictional people.

"For some reason, when we say that WotC is starting to move away from using bigoted language, people like you get upset and offended. Why is that?" Here again, you want to claim or allude to something not as true as you'd like it to be. When you call out "Why is that" it really comes off as snarky and only being used to get some sort of dig in there. I've explained my reasons too.

Well then, why are you so upset that WotC is moving away from Always Evil races and bigoted language? It can't be just because it's "not old school" enough.

I grew up with Orcs are Evil,

So did I. Orcs were Evil, Elves were Good, THAC0 was a thing, etc.

Just because "its what you're used to" doesn't make it better.

I've read countless books where Orcs are Evil, watched some very long movies where Orcs are Evil. Why is that racist or bigoted?

Because those things are saying that every orc is evil, or that any non-evil orc is an incredibly rare anomaly.

If I refuse to let the scorpion ride on my back to cross the river, is that bigoted?

Scorpions are animals.

Orcs, goblins, and drow are not. They talk, think, can use magic, have religions and politics, and can choose things.

If the Inn/barkeep is a crabby Half-orc who dislikes elves as much as elves dislike him and continually calls them Faeries (they're grey elves) am I supporting bigotry or having a developed NPC (even if it is a simple trope).

Do... do you not understand the difference between individuals and entire groups of people?

They gave us starting points, work from there, I see that claim of bigoted language as not as strong as you seem to feel it is.

You also seem to think people and unintelligent arthropods are the same thing and that individuals are the same as groups, so I don't think your vision is all that great.

"And if they're bad guys, then they need a motivation beyond "they're an orc, goblin, or drow." -- Why? the publisher puts out the general ideas, the users expand, refine, redefine as they see fit. They say Orcs are Evil, then you ask yourself why, then do your magic and own it. Or maybe at this time you don't see the need to expand on them, it simply 'is'.

Because (A) that's what writers generally do, if they're good writers, and (B) because it's both lazy and bigoted to just say "all orcs are evil just 'cuz."

"You are the one who has a problem with that." What you call problem, I call role-playing opportunity. My first character when the UA came out? A good drow ranger. Had to overcome a lot reactions in towns. I didn't feel like TSR was trying undermine my life or teach me how to treat other people.

Again, and?

Oh, I get it. You don't like it when WotC tries to push the idea of non-evil orcs or drow because it makes you feel like you've maybe done something bad. Gotcha.

... what I'm trying to get at is, You think I'm offended by changing the fluff of the game. I'm not.

For someone who claims to not be offended by it, you've spent a lot of words on talking about how much you don't like it.

There has been very strongly claims or fears of racism permeating out of the game. When some one says that TSR/WotC are using language that racists have used, it doesn't mean they are supporting that nor do they approve the message.

And I don't think anyone here has said that WotC is racist. We've said that they've used language that's racist. It's probably totally by accident. That doesn't make it OK.

The context matters, I can separate my D&D, Shadowrun, Battletech, from my real life and maintain my grip of right versus wrong. Volo was harsh and said something harsh ... actually kind of Lawful evil-ish imo. I know a bit here and there about the character, is he normally that way? If so, something to consider if your PCs encounter him.

And yet, he's Chaotic Good. Fortunately, I don't run in the Realms.

 

[Wolf72]

And that has nothing to do with the question either.

Why are we saying that the default for Drow is that they are Evil, when they are allowed in the PHB, and every single officially published setting for the edition has them as not solely evil, if they exist at all?

Is default DnD somehow different from every DnD setting in 5e?

I'm thinking that most settings updated them to the setting. Which settings are you referring to? I know squat about Eberron, so I can't help there.

In Greyhawk they're evil. In 1e, 2e, 3e, PF ... they're evil. There are always exceptions, but they're supposed to be "rare". In FR they're evil, but there is a small group who aren't.

 

[Faolyn]

Why?

Seriously?

Do you not understand the problem saying "all members of this race are bad"?

 

[Charlaquin]

Nomadic life was better on the lower back, too. We haven't been farming for long enough in sedentary communities to adapt to all the bending, carrying, and heavy labor yet.

So to be accurate to history, any characters from sedentary communities should have 1 Level of Exhaustion from lower back pain at the start of the campaign.

Many anthropologists would argue agriculture was a mistake. For a lot of reasons.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

The sides are dug in, and no actual exchange of ideas is going on at this point. It seems the only thought or consideration going on is in thinking up retorts. That's not of any value. Thread closed.