Dragon 372 - Design & Development: The Gnome, the Bad, and The Ugly

[Green Knight]

The problem really seems to be that some of the D&D designers (namely Chris Sims) really have no imagination when it comes to certain races; orcs have to be brutal, evil creatures and can't be "noble savage" types (like Eberron orcs).

That's more a continuation of what they always were than anything else. Just read their 3E MM description. They weren't noble savages there, either.

 

[Sammael]

We could also decide that Elves are actually pathological killers that hide in the forests and kill humans.

What do you mean "we could also decide?" Doesn't everyone play elves like that?

 

[jgsugden]

You can explain half-orcs many different ways, but after hearing complaints from some players that I play with about the heritage issues relating to half-orcs, I decided to be true to D&D's history and steal from Tolkien.

In my campaigns henceforth, half-orc is just a slang term for Uruk-Hai. Uruk-Hai translates to orc folk in Tolkien's Black Speech, and it will translate to orc folk in my campaign's orcish.

Uruk-hai will be a true breeding race very similar to orcs. Unlike in Tolkien, my half-orcs will merely happen to have features in common with both orcs and humans. Those similarities resulted in the Uruk-Hai name.

No weird breeding experiments. No God blood.

As for the gnomes - I see these gnomes the same way that I see Eladrin:

They found an element of the game they wanted to stamp out (3.5 gnomes). They removed them. To discourage a reinstitution of the 3.5 concept in 4.0 by others, they took the name and used it to name something else that was also suitable to the name.

 

[Spatula]

Because Orcs are intended as antagonists. That requires us to make them evil...

Not at all. It requires there to be a conflict, but the existance of a conflict doesn't say anything about the moral character of either party.

That's more a continuation of what they always were than anything else. Just read their 3E MM description. They weren't noble savages there, either.

No, the "noble savage" orc is an Eberron thing. But that's not the only place I've seen it. 3e explicitly allowed for the possibility of non-evil orcs (and brought back the half-orc as a core race), and others took that and ran with it in their homebrews before Eberron was ever announced.

 

[Rechan]

Because Orcs are intended as antagonists. That requires us to make them evil, like Goblins and Kobolds.

And Lizardfolk? Lizardfolk have been an antagonist in D&D since 1e.

And yet izardfolk alignment has always been neutral.

It is wholly possible for two groups of Lawful Good to be antagonistic to one another - purely because they either have conflicting goals, or conflicting views on who's right.

To use a Historical reference, Orcs could easily be the Vikings to (well, anywhere) or could be the Mongols to the Chinese. That's antagonistic. They're raiders, destroyers, but they're not evil due to genetics.

I have had quite a few Human, Elven, Gnome and Dwarf antagonists in my games. Race =/= alignment, to me. But then, I don't care about alignment.

And you know. WotC put out an article on playing Good Gnolls. If we can't have Good Orcs, I don't know what the world is coming to.

 

[Marshall]

Yeah, me too. I don't like full-on weird Dragonlance-style tinkers, but I do like eccentric clockwork makers who ride airships and protect themselves with golems. I hold out hope that I can use the artificer when it comes out to add a little tinker to the gnome.

Those arent Gnomes, they're Dwarves.

The problem here is that the term 'Gnome' is used for two very disintinct archetypes in myth and legend. The industrious tinker from the Shoemaker tale and the Fey Garden Gnome variety. The first is better represented by D&D dwarves, other than the 3" tall parts.

 

[WhatGravitas]

No, the "noble savage" orc is an Eberron thing. But that's not the only place I've seen it.

The Warcraft universe also features the idea of the noble orc pretty promimently. Thrall is a poster-chield noble orc and the WoW orcs follow that notion.

Cheers, LT.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Because Orcs are intended as antagonists. That requires us to make them evil, like Goblins and Kobolds.

Not ever member of an "evil race" is evil, and D&D is full of examples. (Think duel wielding scimitars).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not at all. It requires there to be a conflict, but the existance of a conflict doesn't say anything about the moral character of either party.

Sure. But Orcs in D&D fall very typical in the "evil" cliché. Not always, sure. But what is wrong with them being evil? Should we maybe make all races non-evil?
At some point, we decide whether a race is evil or good. Considering that the Orcs are related to Gruumsh, and Gruumsh also makes a nicely evil god, why not make the Orcs evil, too? Of course, we could also make Gruumsh non-evil.

Not ever member of an "evil race" is evil, and D&D is full of examples. (Think duel wielding scimitars).

Yes. Is this enough to create a half-race?

 

[Rechan]

Sure. But Orcs in D&D fall very typical in the "evil" cliché. Not always, sure.

Unless of course you're playing in Eberron, where Orcs are the tree-hugging protectors of nature.

But what is wrong with them being evil? Should we maybe make all races non-evil?

I invite you to this thread where we are debating just that.

At some point, we decide whether a race is evil or good. Considering that the Orcs are related to Gruumsh, and Gruumsh also makes a nicely evil god, why not make the Orcs evil, too? Of course, we could also make Gruumsh non-evil.

What is this "We" stuff? I don't think there's a committee that decides what alignment every race must be in everyone's game. I don't want anyone to have a say in how I treat my campaign setting.

I propose it comes down to: how alignment is handled in your game, how morals are handled in your game, and what alignment you assign to various things.

But the savage tribes that are competing about animals and land? They don't meet peacefully to talk about how working together makes everything better. Because it doesn't. They are savage, incapable or unwilling to create civilize the land, grow lifestock or work with agriculture. They are competitors, and they don't compete about who sings the best songs, they compete about who gets to get food the next winter.

Sounds like Vikings to me.

They don't in your campaign. But in mine, orcs aren't evil, not by birth. And human barbarians/orc tribes thus have traded with eachother, including members of their own tribes, as peace offerings. Interbreeding and all that.

Savage can mean a few different things. By your standards, Tarzan is a savage. But he's not evil. And, you take Tarzan, give him a haircut, take him to England, and he's still going to want to climb the buildings and swing from lamp posts. Tarzan is fully capable of thought - he IS a man - but he's more in touch with his instincts. His nature is to be wild.

And, the Human:Elf::Orc:human implication is easy to imagine. We have stories of women falling for the savage. Beauty and the Beast. Again, Tarzan. I don't imagine there's a whole lot of difference between Orcs and say, modern day Bikers, and women still fall for them. An Orc may very well not be relationship material, but it's one hell of a roll in the hay. I imagine they also have rather large tracks of land.

Yes. Is this enough to create a half-race?

Rules for playing Drow aren't in the FRPG just to play evil characters.