Dragonlance Dragonlance Creators Reveal Why There Are No Orcs On Krynn

Talking to the Dragonlance Nexus, Dragonlance creators Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman revealed why the world of Krynn features no orcs -- in short, because they didn't want to copy Tolkien, and orcs were very much a 'Middle Earth' thing.

Weis told Trampas Whiteman that "Orcs were also viewed as very Middle Earth. We wanted something different." Hickman added that it was draconians which made Krynn stand out. Read more at the link below!

Why are there no Orcs in Krynn? Weis and Hickman give us the answer! - Dragonlance Nexus

Dragonhelm gets the scoop from Weis and Hickman on why there are no orcs in Krynn. Read More

dragonlancenexus.com

 

[Umbran]

I have zero issue with that, not sure about you…

I don't have a problem with humans-only games.

I have a problem with a position that all races are equally interchangeable with no impact on the narrative (which is an upshot of something said, above). I've already given an example which should make this fairly, hopefully trivially, obvious.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what they said. Just that, to them, that particular thing was so rooted in Middle Earth, that avoiding that specifically made creating their setting feel more unique, and (this is the implication that I hear) it was a simple choice that was quite effective. Cutting out one of the most Middle Earth things allows the other stuff to stand more on their own merits, rather than that context tarring the whole thing as more LotR-y than they wanted.

I wasn't playing D&D until the mid 90's I was reading these stories before that though.
In the 90's it was pretty soon after I started playing (maybe a year maybe two it all blurs but still pre WotC) that I saw Orcs as anything OTHER then what TOlken did. However by 3e and beyond I almost didn't recognize them as even based on Toklen. BY now when they are just another race in the world most times (some good some bad some farmers some hunter/trappers) I just don't see it any more.

I can't imagine someone taking orc/half orcs as presented in the last 5 or so years and saying "They are just Tolken rip off the old minions of the dark lord"
as such the argument that putting them in would make it more cookie cutter or more kitchen sink or more 'tolken like' seems so odd to me

 

[mamba]

Not really. The lesser rings of power quickly corrupted the dwarf lords, making them greedy. Dwarves, despite their resistance to certain types of corruption, would fail the test of the One Ring very quickly.

notice the word particularly.

Tolkien could have found a different explanation, he just decided that this is how it is, and why not?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't have a problem with humans-only games.

I have a problem with a position that all races are equally interchangeable with no impact on the narrative (which is an upshot of something said, above). I've already given an example which should make this fairly, hopefully trivially, obvious.

but the difference between "there is Absolut Ly no difference between an 18ft giant and a halfling" and "It doesn't change the story or world in a fundamental way to add a single race to let a player play what they want if you don't have a reason not to" is light years.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

notice the word particularly.

Tolkien could have found a different explanation, he just decided that this is how it is, and why not?

exaclty and again dwarves were stand in for human greed and halfings a stand in for the 'everyman' going about there day and dragged into world affairs.

 

[DarkCrisis]

okay, it does to me.

If I sat down to watch the new Quantum Leap and it did a 1 for 1 of the series premier of the original Quantum Leap I would hate the protagonist. When I started my rewatch of the 80's version I was showing it to my fiancé who is many years younger then me and she was put off by several things that Sam (the protagonist) just did. I have seen her enjoy the newer one much more (except this week cause she hates the exorcist and this episode is based on that story).

Out of date isn't just inclusivity.

Ive been watching both shows and I have to say the old show is far more entertaining. Sam and Al have great chemistry. Al is the comedy adn Sam is the serious one.

Ben and his fiancée as his observer is a really odd choice both are the serious type. And how is Ben supposed to have to be romantic etc (if the Leap calls for it) with his GF watching him? I really hope they replace her job with Al's daughter who is much more of an interesting character so far. Plus i can't see this whole Pacifist thing last to long. Sam sometimes had to beat up a guy to save a life. The wild west episode really stretched it...

Then ew show has gotten better though since episode 1.

 

[billd91]

no, it subjectively is, Tolkien decided that, he could have done literally anything else too

Just because it was decided by the author, doesn't make it less objective. This isn't a question of whether or not Tolkien is an evocative author or not nor an opinion that may vary based on differing characteristics, qualifications, or perspectives of the reader. If Tolkien wrote LotR so that Hobbits were less vulnerable to the temptations of the rings, and it's pretty clear he did, then that's objective.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And how is Ben supposed to have to be romantic etc (if the Leap calls for it) with his GF watching him?

were the word romance wasn't used... and a not nice word that I don't want to type here was, the idea of sam being intimate in someone elses body (or with his body and there image) was NOT something my fiance liked and I hope that in 2022 no story will be written like that.

 

[Maxperson]

if you remove hobbits, and just make 'humans that do not crave power, just stay home and don't go more then 5 miles from home' have those traits it is the same...

This is objectively an impossible statement. If you remove hobbits and make humans you have changed the story, and since it's impossible for change to not equal change, you have in fact made it NOT THE SAME.

You really need to prove your argument that change =/= change before you continue, because it seems to me that your argument is fails on its face. If you can prove that change =/= change, then it's worthwhile to continue the discussion. If you can't, then any change, however small, will alter the feel for people.

 

[Maxperson]

no, it subjectively is, Tolkien decided that, he could have done literally anything else too

That's not how it works. It's not an opinion or belief that Tolkien's hobbits had those traits. Yes, they're imaginary, but they have those traits that he assigned them. I can't be wrong when I state that. "Could have" is irrelevant since he did not.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just because it was decided by the author, doesn't make it less objective. This isn't a question of whether or not Tolkien is an evocative author or not nor an opinion that may vary based on differing characteristics, qualifications, or perspectives of the reader. If Tolkien wrote LotR so that Hobbits were less vulnerable to the temptations of the rings, and it's pretty clear he did, then that's objective.

It is objective truth in his story.

If someone reimagines the story as a sci fi story they can come up with other objective truths and keep the story theme beats and even out and out do scene for scene recreations with very little diffrence.

in the other more fun (but way less active*) thread we are talking about Star Wars and Dragon lance as a mash up


edit* people ask why i argue about this on here... I had 20 minutes to kill and posted in the more fun and more heated threads... I got half a dozen replies to one and non to the other... so now I replied with the time I had to play and talk about D&D and now am going to a meeting... anyone want to guess what thread I get more replies in while I am gone?
We argue becuse that is what drives posts on enworld

 

[Maxperson]

notice the word particularly.

Tolkien could have found a different explanation, he just decided that this is how it is, and why not?

The bolded doesn't matter at all. He didn't, so we have what we have is hard fact. It is a hard fact that Tolkien's hobbits have the trait and the dwarves and elves, despite similar traits are not capable of success. It's a hard fact that his humans don't possess any resistance to the ring's corruption at all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is objectively an impossible statement. If you remove hobbits and make humans you have changed the story, and since it's impossible for change to not equal change, you have in fact made it NOT THE SAME.

this is infact wrong. it is OBJECTIVLY wrong. you can substitute without changing theme or story.

You really need to prove your argument that change =/= change before you continue,

no you need to show how something being added or subtracted effects it.

because it seems to me that your argument is fails on its face. If you can prove that change =/= change, then it's worthwhile to continue the discussion. If you can't, then any change, however small, will alter the feel for people.

 

[DarkCrisis]

were the word romance wasn't used... and a not nice word that I don't want to type here was, the idea of sam being intimate in someone elses body (or with his body and there image) was NOT something my fiance liked and I hope that in 2022 no story will be written like that.

They seem to change on a whim if he's in someone's body or just looks like them to others. Most episodes point to its Sam but he looks different to others, IE a little girls sees her mom as Sam. And one episode where he has no legs but can walk. Al has mentioned the Leapee being inS ams body in the future. This is contradicted sometimes though, like Al seeing Sam as a woman or recognizing a Leapee in the future.

Also, I don't think Sam ever takes it more than making out. He is very religious and a stand up guy, it turns out. I don't tjhink he would do anything untoward if he can avoid it. I'm almost done with season 2.

Ben

 

[Maxperson]

It is objective truth in his story.

Which is literally the ONLY Tolkien story. Nobody else can make a different Tolkien story, because they are not Tolkien.

If someone reimagines the story as a sci fi story they can come up with other objective truths and keep the story theme beats and even out and out do scene for scene recreations with very little diffrence.

Any re-imagining at all, no matter how tiny, alters the feel of the story for people since it is objectively not the same story. And your declaration of "very little difference" is not a fact. It's only your subjective opinion about how you personally view it for yourself. Your opinion this doesn't go beyond you.

 

[Maxperson]

this is infact wrong. it is OBJECTIVLY wrong. you can substitute without changing theme or story.

Wrong. Mary had a little lamb becomes an objectively different story with a simple name change. Peter had a little lamb isn't the same story. What you propose is drastically more than that. Until you can show that change =/= change, your argument fails on its face.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Also, I don't think Sam ever takes it more than making out. He is very religious and a stand up guy, it turns out.

1st episode and 2 or 3 in both had it happen... I don't remember romance being such a point when I was a kid but he defiantly did sleep with people

 

[Xamnam]

Hey, GMfPG said that this is their argument:

2- If you remove it you must show how both the world and story will/would be different if you did allow it (this is my argument and it comes from the place that if it's important it has a reason, and if it doesn't have a reason it can't be that important)

You're not going to blunt force them into accepting they're wrong without addressing it through this lens.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Any re-imagining at all,

well WotC is reimagining DL so I guess we can stop argueing now

 

[Umbran]

this is infact wrong. it is OBJECTIVLY wrong. you can substitute without changing theme or story.

Again, swap hobbits and 18 foot tall frost giants.

There are several places in Tolkien where hobbits small stature is key to what events transpire. Those events cannot happen if the hobbits are three times taller than orcs.

Moreover, several themes become nonsensical if the hobbits are not small, unassuming folk who are generally unthreatening.