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

[Scribe]

I was not aware Shadowdark treats orcs with the same variety of options it treats elves with. Orc cities full of knights, orc archmages, orc nobles at dancing galas, etc. Perhaps I underestimated it. Tell me more.

It doesn't. Orcs are not playable. Amusingly Goblins are.

 

[delericho]

The claim is perhaps "overstated" if you insist on the literalness of "every single orc in the game is evil and must be killed". But no one is claiming that. Even if they don't word their posts perfectly or clearly. You know better.

No, that is exactly the thing I'm questioning, because the word used was 'literally'.

You want me to agree that there are problems with the historic depiction of orcs? Done. You want me to decry the 2014 MM as a particularly bad example of that? Done.

But if the claim is that the books literally do something, then it's not unreasonable to question the literalness of that.

Interesting.

So, what do you say to the gamers who deride WotC and its products for not giving them traditional, vicious orcs who are always evil (or are so with high enough frequency) and can be slaughtered indiscriminately?

Several things. Firstly, they have always been able to use orcs however they wish, and the recent changes don't change that. Secondly, as I noted several posts back, D&D orcs haven't been universally evil for decades, if that was ever the case - every version of the game has provided support for playable orcs at one stage or another.

Edit: actually, I'm wrong - I forgot I did briefly plat 1st Ed, and don't know if that ever supported playable orcs.

 

[Umbran]

Heck, it doesnt even HAVE Good and Evil.

5e doesn't have it in a meaningful way, either.

I don't think the point is dependent on the game having an alignment system. It seems more to do with implied playstyle.

F'rex, one person I read recently specifically wanted to put emphasis on the wargame aspects of play, and in wargames, you just assume the enemy is, in fact an enemy.

 

[MGibster]

So, what do you say to the gamers who deride WotC and its products for not giving them traditional, vicious orcs who are always evil (or are so with high enough frequency) and can be slaughtered indiscriminately?

I'd tell them you can't expect D&D to be all things to all people, but they're free to handle orcs however they'd like in their own games. Or just replace orcs with gnolls. It's still okay to kill them on sight.

 

[Scribe]

5e doesn't have it in a meaningful way, either.

I don't think the point is dependent on the game having an alignment system. It has to do with implied playstyle.

True enough. It's a wonder with Alignment being such a non issue in 5.0...

Shadowdark knows it game and doesn't have its head up its own back end. The implied playstyle being, play the game, roll some dice, and have a good time.

 

[Umbran]

Shadowdark knows it game and doesn't have its head up its own back end.

Uh... huh. Right.
The implication being that a game that treats the moral implications of actions with any nuance has its head up its own back end?
And the players of those games?

And we wonder why this winds up as an argument.
Sigh.

 

[Dire Bare]

No, that is exactly the thing I'm questioning, because the word used was 'literally'.

You want me to agree that there are problems with the historic depiction of orcs? Done. You want me to decry the 2014 MM as a particularly bad example of that? Done.

But if the claim is that the books literally do something, then it's not unreasonable to question the literalness of that.



Several things. Firstly, they have always been able to use orcs however they wish, and the recent changes don't change that. Secondly, as I noted several posts back, D&D orcs haven't been universally evil for decades, if that was ever the case - every version of the game has provided support for playable orcs at one stage or another.

Edit: actually, I'm wrong - I forgot I did briefly plat 1st Ed, and don't know if that ever supported playable orcs.

Ah, nevermind.

 

[delericho]

Ah, nevermind.

Probably the wisest thing either of us has said in this exchange. I'm more than happy to leave it there.

 

[Scribe]

Uh... huh. Right.
The implication being that a game that treats the moral implications of actions with any nuance has its head up its own back end?
And the players of those games?

And we wonder why this winds up as an argument.
Sigh.

It's no wonder at all, we live in a post-2018, post Twitter driven polarized world.

Some people feel there is an issue.
Some people disagree.

If we were able to actually discuss as adults, maybe we would agree to disagree and move on, or maybe not.

We can't though, and red text and thread locks for over a decade is my proof.

Only one group is told to compromise, implied to be racist, blamed for the corruption of society, and when that group points out "it hasn't been like you say for decades" the answer is what?

Nobody is stopping anyone from playing Orcs as noble defenders of truth and justice, since at least 3e.

You want me to agree that there are problems with the historic depiction of orcs? Done. You want me to decry the 2014 MM as a particularly bad example of that? Done.

But if the claim is that the books literally do something, then it's not unreasonable to question the literalness of that.

Indeed.

 

[Remathilis]

It doesn't. Orcs are not playable. Amusingly Goblins are.

I didn't ask if they were playable, I'm interested in how these nuanced "beyond good or evil" orcs are different from the classic savage tribal stereotype orcs of D&D.