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

[AnotherGuy]

Bear in mind that it's not necessarily the same people complaining both times.

Case in point me. My table does not invest in miniatures.

 

[delericho]

Actually, thinking about the Eye of Gruumsh specifically, it probably is true that it was first introduced to allow WotC to sell a miniature, and it's true (IMO) that removing it is a step backwards.

I think the thing that was off-base, back in the day, was the objections at its introduction - the addition of something cool is still something cool, even if it is "just" to sell minis. They could easily have done much worse.

(And I should add, I guess, that it's a step back for now. There's nothing to say that it's gone for ever and ever, of course.)

 

[Remathilis]

Let's just get rid of the interesting names and abilities, and just make everything even more vanilla kitchen sink boring. ~ WotC mantra.

Or hey, maybe they could add unique entries for human, elf, dwarf, gnome, dragonborn, orc, goliaths and aasimar into the MM that represents a variety of each species. 4-6 statblocks each.

Now, which ten monsters in the Monster Manual are you cutting to put in Dragonborn Knights of Bahamut and Elf High Magic Weaver?

 

[Remathilis]

Strangely elves in D&D seem less complex than Tolkien's are - have a look at some of the stuff they got up to in the Silmarillion.

All of this is testament to WoTC's general lack of imagination and wimpiness when it comes to these things - instead of complexity and diversity we just get vanilla blandness and cutting and running from anything difficult lore-wise.

You know the easy solution to this, right? Pick one setting at the exclusion to all others and tightly integrate that lore into the game. You don't have generic elves that are supposed to be moon elves, Qualinesti, Areneral, etc. You just have moon elves and you explore moon elf culture as it pertains to Faerun, the Official Setting of Dungeons and Dragons.

But people cry "muh toolbox" and how specific lore ruins their homebrew. So D&D dances between being lore heavy enough to explain why gnolls are fiends and lore light enough to allow 76 unique cultures of elf over 12 different settings.

 

[Guest 7037866]

All this talk of Volo’s made me go back and read the section on orcs and all I can say is it was definitely written by someone saying “yyyyyyeah, how do I say they’re evil in so many ways while giving the slightest possibility that a few may be non-evil to allow for PC characters?”

Sure, but none of that makes orcs "innately evil entities which you can slaughter on sight without remorse" -- which was the initial claim.

You judge a creature on its actions. So, if you encounter orcs attacking "innocents" or something and you want to rush to defend the "innocents", fine, that is what most PCs would do. But if you are winning and an orc surrenders, dropping its weapon, and you continue to kill it--well, that is not so fine if you are a good PC. That is the type of thinking that it is "okay" to kill them...

Monsters they may be, but if it comes down to needing someone at my side in a battle, a physical endeavor? I'm taking the Orc.

Yep, orcs may be monsters, but let's also remember that to the orcs, PCs are the monsters.

I'm not going to respond to this in point by point breakdowns. Once discussions turn into that, that's where they stay and it bogs up the whole thread.

Fine with me, however, I find it best to be able to address points individually and makes the disucssion easier to follow.

I do not understand how someone would hear the lore "Orcs are inherently, genetically more bloodlustfull and violent than humans, and less empathetic, loving, and compassionate" and somehow not understand that to mean they're innately evil.

Because I understand that different creatures and different cultures have different views on what is "good" or acceptable or whatever.

To be clear, I am not saying that most orcs are probably evil. What I am saying, and have been since the beginning, that they are NOT innately evil. They are raised in a society of brutality, etc. which if removed from it can develop a limited capacity for all the "good" things you want.

I understand the "limited capacity" phrase bothers you, but there are many people IRL who have different capacities for those things, some much, much less than others. Does that makes those people "inherently evil" who was can slaughter without remorse???

Love, empathy, and compassion are practically the exact opposite of evil. To inherently lack that means they're inherently evil.

Ok, so you do think that....

My point in bringing up the Drow was to point out that most 5e lore about the historically always evil species was that how 5e lore discussed always evil monsters and races with evil cultures was different. Mordenkainen's Drow, Githyanki, and Duergar lore emphasizes that their evil is cultural, not innate. Volo's Orc lore specifically mentions how much of their behavior it natural to them a lot. They're primitive, because they're naturally dumb. They're naturally chaotic and it requires outside influence to force them to become orderly. They're naturally violent, callous, and heartless, it takes "domestication" to force them to gain some semblance of empathy. I think Volo's was just wrong in the sentence "they're not innately evil."

And I have countered with how orcs are not innately evil, like gnolls apparently are, but are mostly evil because of the brutal society they are reared in--just like drow, duergar, et al.

Not because Orcs are naturally evil in my games (they're not), but because I think it contradicts with the rest of the text and the purpose of the Orc lore and monster stats in VGtM. I started playing and DMing D&D in 5e. Volo's was one of the first books I bought and read after the 3 core rulebooks. I base how I write my lore on WotC's style and how they communicate ideas to the readers, which is why I brought up my homebrew lore. When I created an evil culture for my homebrew world, I studied how Mordenkainen's communicates that the drow aren't naturally evil, but their culture, religion, and society is. Then I used the same tools WotC used to communicate the same idea.

But it doesn't contradict the rest of the text anymore than the text on drow does. It is the nature vs. nuture argument, of course. Volo's specificly states that unlike gnolls, orcs are NOT innately evil, it is not just their nature (urge to prove strength through combat), but the very life of violence and slaughter into which they are indoctrined.

I cannot count the amount of times people that argued in favor of always evil Orcs told me not to think about how they're depicted because it's just a game and how the PCs job is to massacre settlements of Orcs and Goblins, even the women and children. My games' PCs do not do that, but from my understanding that was more of the style in older editions. Like, Gary Gygax said it was Lawful Good to kill goblin children because "nits make lice." I do not agree with that stance and dislike that playstyle on many levels. I'm not the one making the argument that it's okay. I'm pointing out that that was the core assumption of the game for a long time and the reason why the monster lore emphasizes how evil they are is to justify the PCs violence against them.

I started with AD&D back in the late 70's. I grew up playing the game slaughtering the women and children in Keep on the Borderlands (for example) probably a dozen times. Back then, that was certainly the mentality, and as you are aware times they are a changing... It isn't the core assumption anymore to kill wantingly without remorse if you have a good PC.

And honestly I'm baffled by your argument or what you're even trying to say. Is your point that Orcs didn't need to change because the 5e books didn't say they're all evil? Because I think even if you are technically correct that the books don't outright say "All orcs are evil, it's okay to kill them on sight," that is both what the assumption used to be in D&D and what WotC wrote most of the early 5e lore for.

I am correct, the text even specifies orcs are not innately evil. As I posted before if a group of PCs sees a group of orcs travelling on a path, is it okay to move into ambush and fireball the lot of them "just because" most orcs are savage, bloodthirsty, and have a society where might makes right??

Of course not. The PCs know nothing about these orcs. Where are they going? Why are they there? I agree it is fine to be suspicious or cautious at least, but again I circle back to your original statement... which is not supported anywhere by the Volo's text.

If you're so adamant in your position that it doesn't portray them as innately evil, what do you think Volo's was trying to communicate?

Simple: that most orcs are born into and violent and warlike society and often when you encounter orcs, particularly any sort of war band, they will be eager to engage in combat and prove their strength in front of their fellow orcs. After all, that is how they gain position in the tribe.

I could make comparisons to cultures in real life that act like this (or have in the past) and that doesn't make those peoples inherently evil, either; but as I don't want to risk offending anyone, I won't. You can DM me if you want to privately discuss that.

There is a very nice section in Volo's which hasn't been addressed:

Special Enemies​

When orcs attack a settlement of humans or halflings, they will kill anyone who presents a threat, but they are more interested in grabbing plunder and food rather than in wanton slaughter. The elderly, children, and any who seem weak or meek enough might escape death. If they leave the population more or less intact, the orcs leave themselves the option of returning to raid the community over and over.

When orcs fight elves, all of that changes. The enmity between the two races cuts to the core, and no orc will leave an elf alive. Orcs become so frenzied in combat against elves that they forget all about taking loot and valuables back to the tribe-the only trophies of any worth are the heads of their enemies.

Orcs treat dwarves somewhat differently from other foes, because they covet the homes that dwarves fashion for themselves. If a tribe succeeds in fighting its way into a dwarfhold, the orcs will butcher any dwarf that stands against them, but it's really all about the property-they would be just as happy if all the dwarves ran away.

For humans and halflings, they kill those who are threats, being more interested in plunder and food.

For elves, well that is a long-standing religious-fueled feud and the elves have gotta die.

For dwarves, let them leave, the orcs just like their home and want it for themselves--plus dwarves are tough to fight and stubborn and don't want to just go.

So, orcs don't just run around killing and eating their victims like gnolls--which do this because of being driven by their god or whatever IIRC.

 

[FrozenNorth]

When the justification is one guard is the same as another, it is well to point out that previous MM didn't just showcase guards of x race.

Also worth pointing out that a lot of the D&D adventures would say things like : X is a guard but has darkvision and can cast Fairie Fie once per day, if the guard were a drow.

 

[Remathilis]

Very true. I'm not sure that I want to think about what that means regarding drow...

Drow are Sexy Evil, a culture of female-led, backstabbing , poison using slave keeping, dominatrix coded, and deceiving yet beautiful. Every female negative trope personified. They are literally associated with spiders (black widows). I kinda think the black skin was a bit of a red herring here, Gary clearly wanted them to represent a view of women as temptress and deceiver. Knowing what I know about Gary now, I wouldn't put it past him.

I think you can thank Salvatore for making the Drow anything but D&D's dark skinned dommie mommies monster.

 

[delericho]

Drow are Sexy Evil, a culture of female-led, backstabbing , poison using slave keeping, dominatrix coded, and deceiving yet beautiful. Every female negative trope personified. They are literally associated with spiders (black widows). I kinda think the black skin was a bit of a red herring here, Gary clearly wanted them to represent a view of women as temptress and deceiver. Knowing what I know about Gary now, I wouldn't put it past him.

I think you can thank Salvatore for making the Drow anything but D&D's dark skinned dommie mommies monster.

I was thinking more of the whole "we can't kill them if they're pretty" stance.

For the rest of it: yes.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You ever partook in actual fighting?

The type if violence in Volos, the type of violence PCs execute?

Similar to the violence throughout our history?

I mean I know who I would want on my side, between pre 5.5 Orcs, and Gnomes.

You’d rather have a CR 1/2 Orc than a CR 12 Gnome Archmage? It’s your choice, but the Orc isn’t the best choice in combat.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So @Levistus's_Leviathan consider the pop culture view of the Spartans. What they apparently (I'm not a scholar, I dont know this) did to their sons, was horrible. There are people, who as a hobby, get beat up. I did it for near 10 years, before Covid, and a week did not go by without me being bruised either with a black eye, busted up nose, forearms, upper leg, elbows/knees, or shins.

So, would you say that you were:

less empathetic, loving, and compassionate"

than most humans, because otherwise, you are ignoring a pretty important part of @Levistus's_Leviathan ‘s argument.