Chaltab
Legend
The armor also made me think Hobgoblins.I always thought these were hobgoblins and not orcs. Holloway's orcs are pretty cool too but look different. Really good scene either way.
The armor also made me think Hobgoblins.I always thought these were hobgoblins and not orcs. Holloway's orcs are pretty cool too but look different. Really good scene either way.
The 2nd edition Monstrous Manual had humans in it, but no statblock for a normal human, only bandits etc.The reason they were originally in the game was to serve as antagonist as their function in the game was to serve as obstacles to be overcome much like Illithids, red dragons, and rot grubs. Seeing as how they were originally intended to be used in games, it strikes me as a good enough reason not to give descriptions of orcs outside of their raiding and other violent activities. The 2024 Monster Manual doesn't include any description of the gnoll as anything other than violent robbers, so I guess they've taken the place of the orc. But it's okay because they're fiends.
Which should be fine now too. I don’t need a statblock that is meant to represent a whole people, I need a statblock that represent an adversary.The 2nd edition Monstrous Manual had humans in it, but no statblock for a normal human, only bandits etc.
Ditto. While I miss Alignment, over the years I've simply accepted it's inclusion simply isn't something WotC cares to make a priority. Quite frankly, I'm surprised there's been so much talk of Alignment in this thread as it's been akin to an appendix over these last few years.Honestly, I’m ready to move away from alignment altogether. I already have in my games for a while, but the more I think of it, the more I feel this artifact is hurting and restraining the game more than it enriches it.
Yeah alignment is def somethign I've found doesn't really add as much as it seems to. E.g. so there is a litmus test to let me know someone's morals, cool I'll factor that into my calculations, but how does that change the game for the PCs or the DM? I rather prefer a model of where we have entites with goals and wants and work out the tangled web from there, and alignment doesn't really help with figuring out what an NPC would do in a situation since its not an iron code of behaviour. So we end up circling back to what does it add.Which should be fine now too. I don’t need a statblock that is meant to represent a whole people, I need a statblock that represent an adversary.
I’m not interested in having a universal orc entry in the MM as a monolithic people, I want an orc raider entry, and an orc champion, and an orc warlord, and other nasties that a orcish civilisation may throw at my adventurers. Settings can then decide whether these orcs in the MM are accurate representatives of the local civilisation, a religious or political branch of extremists, or pariahs living on the fringe of their own society.
Honestly, I’m ready to move away from alignment altogether. I already have in my games for a while, but the more I think of it, the more I feel this artifact is hurting and restraining the game more than it enriches it.
Yeah, they do look like a couple hobgoblins and a bugbear - but there is an orc down on the field (you can see his face).The armor also made me think Hobgoblins.
Commoner could be used for those rare times you get a mob with pitchfork and torches.Which should be fine now too. I don’t need a statblock that is meant to represent a whole people, I need a statblock that represent an adversary.
Ahh, now I understand.1. Okay, I will try not to do that. I was just making an attempt to cover each point.
2. See the quoted section below. This was your post that I was responding to. Perhaps Ezo brought it up earlier and I was unaware, or maybe there was meant to be quotes around it and you were quoting him. But here you mention violent animal, which is what I was referencing
3. How is bad faith if I say I agree with your core point about orcs being presented as evil and simply take issue with this one aspect of the argument. And the reason I take issue with it is I think it is an important detail: if we say violent is equated with evil that is going to miss a lot of violent entries and characters in fantasy who aren't: i.e. Conan is a violent barbarian but we aren't meant to see him as evil. Now I may disagree with you over evil orcs being a problem, but I do agree with you that orcs have generally been depicted as the bad guy in various editions
The reason they were originally in the game was to serve as antagonist as their function in the game was to serve as obstacles to be overcome much like Illithids, red dragons, and rot grubs. S
I've never seen a citation that proved a connection(other than the Orcs of Thar). All the citations that I've seen amount to, "Language used for orcs is similar to this real world group over here." That's not a connection between the two. That's people trying to make a connection based on similar language, which isn't at all proof of a real connection.This is blatantly false.
The connections to orcs have been cited repeatedly. Yet despite your claims, no one is connecting, say, the descriptions of gnomes to any real world groups. Or mind flayers or beholders.
Either start to show your work or stop repeating this.