D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Chaltab]

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.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

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.

The 2nd edition Monstrous Manual had humans in it, but no statblock for a normal human, only bandits etc.

 

[Laurefindel]

The 2nd edition Monstrous Manual had humans in it, but no statblock for a normal human, only bandits etc.

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.

 

[MGibster]

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.

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.

 

[theBardic life]

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 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.

 

[Stormonu]

The armor also made me think Hobgoblins.

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 blurb for the cover read though "The last three survivors of an orcish army, their standard still aloft, challenge their elvin opponents to one last fight. Jim Holloway's cover painting for this month has no title - but if you have a suggestion for a possible title, write it down and send it to us. We might print the more interesting ones in a later issue."

 

[Stormonu]

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.

Commoner could be used for those rare times you get a mob with pitchfork and torches.
<Edit:> Also, we don't just stats for the bad guys. Like gold or silver dragons, you could have a commoner that either needs to be protected or is along with the party for one reason or another. It should be a tiny stat block anyways, and probably more relevant that his cat nemesis.

The old I6 - Ravenloft had stats for such a group, for example.

 

[wizard71]

Perhaps they should have had a section in the monster manual exploring Drow culture if only for the reason that the Drider makes no sense now as a monster inclusion. Just a small blurb about Dark Elf culture in Dragon Lance, Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk worlds.

 

[Hussar]

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

Ahh, now I understand.

It's far more important to nit pick tiny points that are pretty much completely unimportant while ignoring the HONKING BIG ISSUE in the room because, boy howdy do we have to make sure that the tone we use is just properly policed.

The fact that orcs were originally depicted as pretty much:

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

why are you not jumping all over @MGibster for insisting that orcs should always be evil in the game? After all, you guys have been going on and on about how it doesn't actually say specifically that orcs are evil, yet, when someone says that they want always evil orcs that are there to be killed, that's perfectly fine.

Yeah, all we need is for someone to start constantly asking "whaddabout" style questions and we've basically got the whole disingenuous trifecta.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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.

Do you have a citation to a actual connection? Because if there is hard evidence that a connection exists, I'll alter my stance.