Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DnD Stereotypes In The Home Game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7822576" data-attributes="member: 6801845"><p>I don't really have much of an opinion on how other people run their games. Orcs are not the creations of Gruumsh, not hard wired to be chaotic evil? Maybe they have more flexibility than the hard lines indicated in the MM? Go for it! I do think FR is kind of "mushy" at times, but it's just a personal preference. I don't want to anthropomorphize non-human races, I want them to be distinct. That goes for elves just as much as orcs. I don't want elves to be humans with pointy ears and a long life span.</p><p></p><p>As far as depth, I only have so much time to document and explain my game. The more I have to balance in my head space when coming up with campaign concepts the better off I am. For example, in a previous campaign gnolls were a big problem in the region. They had a slightly different origin (an evil comotose god that had been defeated by Thor long ago), but everything else was things I could just pull in from various sources without having to retcon. The more powerful versions are so obsessed with blood lust that even while dying they still strike out.</p><p></p><p>Or take orcs. The orcish priest (forget what they're called) has a spell list that fits the base assumption, other leader-type orcs have features that just fit the canonical description of orcs. The goblin captain(?) is a coward that sacrifices other goblins to protect himself and so on. </p><p></p><p>I can read the fluff on the monster and be done, as can my players. That frees up conceptual space for a bunch of other fluff. I accept that "orcs are evil" is just one of many simplifications in D&D. I just don't see a lot of gain from diluting the nature of the races. In addition I view the alignment of MM entries and the fluff of where they fit in as a core rule. I don't see a need to change it because the PCs will always need bad guys to fight.</p><p></p><p>Also, where does it end? Are demons no longer evil? Are ghouls suddenly Fallout ghouls, just victims of some magical energy that transformed them? </p><p></p><p>Not sure any of that helps explain much of anything. For me having a world where basic assumptions are easy to grasp makes the stories flow more easily for me. The complexities I do add stand out more.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7822576, member: 6801845"] I don't really have much of an opinion on how other people run their games. Orcs are not the creations of Gruumsh, not hard wired to be chaotic evil? Maybe they have more flexibility than the hard lines indicated in the MM? Go for it! I do think FR is kind of "mushy" at times, but it's just a personal preference. I don't want to anthropomorphize non-human races, I want them to be distinct. That goes for elves just as much as orcs. I don't want elves to be humans with pointy ears and a long life span. As far as depth, I only have so much time to document and explain my game. The more I have to balance in my head space when coming up with campaign concepts the better off I am. For example, in a previous campaign gnolls were a big problem in the region. They had a slightly different origin (an evil comotose god that had been defeated by Thor long ago), but everything else was things I could just pull in from various sources without having to retcon. The more powerful versions are so obsessed with blood lust that even while dying they still strike out. Or take orcs. The orcish priest (forget what they're called) has a spell list that fits the base assumption, other leader-type orcs have features that just fit the canonical description of orcs. The goblin captain(?) is a coward that sacrifices other goblins to protect himself and so on. I can read the fluff on the monster and be done, as can my players. That frees up conceptual space for a bunch of other fluff. I accept that "orcs are evil" is just one of many simplifications in D&D. I just don't see a lot of gain from diluting the nature of the races. In addition I view the alignment of MM entries and the fluff of where they fit in as a core rule. I don't see a need to change it because the PCs will always need bad guys to fight. Also, where does it end? Are demons no longer evil? Are ghouls suddenly Fallout ghouls, just victims of some magical energy that transformed them? Not sure any of that helps explain much of anything. For me having a world where basic assumptions are easy to grasp makes the stories flow more easily for me. The complexities I do add stand out more. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DnD Stereotypes In The Home Game
Top