D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Alzrius]

The truth is that alignment in AD&D 2E (probably 1E as well, but I didn't play it) was never as hard coded as people today like to claim it was. There is probably text to support the claim somewhere in the edition, but there's enough contradictions to cast doubt on the concept (not uncommon in 2E; there's a thread in the older editions forum where people are quoting multiple books trying to pin down how specialty priests work). Any Monster Manual or Monstrous Compendium entry can be read as "is" or "is generally" depending on the group's preferences. I know the groups I played with played pretty fast and loose with it back in the 90s. I doubt we were the only ones.

From the Introduction to the MC Monstrous Compendium Volume One (affiliate link) for AD&D 2E:

ALIGNMENT shows the general behavior of the average monster of that type. Exceptions, though uncommon, may be encountered.

 

[Guest 85555]

From the Introduction to the MC Monstrous Compendium Volume One (affiliate link) for AD&D 2E:

Late 1E and early 2E is also where, if my memory is right, character’s like Drizzt were appearing and I think those of us who played assumed these were tendencies in the setting but not absolutes.

I think too the alignment system is something to think about here. The idea comes from fantasy stories where you have creatures like elves that are aligned with cosmic forces. I think that works best in the simpler Law, Neutrality and Chaos (or just law and chaos) but AD&D tried for more detailed alignments where individuals can be aligned with these forces, but do can societies and even whole races (doesn’t mean you won’t encounter a good orc, just that most are not going to be). I do think by 2E it seemed to straddle cultural explanations and cosmic ones. A good example of this would be the dark elf trilogy I think, where they try to think through what an evil society based on the alignment system would look like. It wasn’t especially realistic (a lot of fantasy isn’t) but it was interesting. And it also gets into classes too (at one point Drizzt is told by another character that he is a ranger—-which is a revelation for Drizzt)

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think if you saw the movie you would see warlord doesn't quite seem appropriate. He isn't downtrodden of course, but he is martial expert with a large group of followers who have a racket where they sell protective talismans and people who don't buy them and put them on their homes at night, end up murdered. He isn't taking over countries or anything like that. It is all criminal-like activity.

So, you give an example of a movie and finish your point with "and even the downtrodden can be villains!" and then agree that... the villain of your movie example isn't downtrodden? He's actually a wealthy criminal. Also, in a context like China or Japan during their Warring States period, a warlord doesn't conquer countries, just small regions.

Like, a guy with a ton of money, military structures (like castles) and a large group of well trained followers...

I have given reasons. If they don't persuade you, then fair enough. But I feel like I have offered an explanation for why I think many of the changes occurring in the hobby, however well intentioned, are bad for the hobby and bad for free expression in the hobby.

You are right. You've given reasons. You haven't given evidence. I can give plenty of reasons that anything is harmful. But without evidence it is just theories and speculation.

A criminal empire he used to be part of. Yes of course the dynamic was against wick. It usually is against the action hero. That is pretty standard. But I would not say killing people in the criminal organization you used to kill for is punching up. And I don't think action heroes need to punch up. This is a new idea people have latched onto as some kind of rule, and I don't think it improves media to make sure they are killing all the right people. Again look at John Wick, if you really want to get into the ethics of it, he is killing countless low level thugs who have nothing to do with the death of his dog. In the real world, if a man went on a murderous rampage against his own gang or crime syndicate because the leader's son killed his puppy, we would not be holding that person up as a hero (we'd understand that is how a psychopath behaves). Part of my point here is the more you make the violence in these movies justifiable like that, sometimes the worse it is because at the end of the day it is still killing.

Right, I think I see where you misunderstood my point. Wick isn't specifically punching up against people above him in the first movie. But no one sitting in that theater sees Viggo in his massive penthouse, in his expensive suite, and drinking expensive scotch and thinks "Ah, this man is like me, just an ordinary person." Clearly he is wealthy, powerful and his wealth and power are a direct result of criminal activity. Note this is a common theme. You very very rarely see one of these movies where the boss, the main villain, is some poor schlub barely ekeing out a living.

Does it make it morally justified from an objective stand-point? No, I never claimed it did. But the tone of these movies you keep trying to cite is always that the lone person who is enacting this virtuous violence is attacking the powerful, the wealthy, those who have the means, usually illicitly. Those who don't deserve their wealth and power. And that matters. John Wick's story would be very different if he spent the first movie killing all the homeless people from the Rookery. Because those people are the downtrodden. These dynamics exist because we mentally have "acceptable targets" for violence. That can be wrong, but I haven't argued that it is right, just that it is true.

I think if the elves were evil you might call it a lair.

Again, orcs are monsters in the setting. You can take that kind of historical realism to the game if you like (i often do this), but D&D has a lot of conceits that are there to facilitate game play. Dungeons also don't often make a lot of sense if you stare at them too long. The architecture of most dungeons is pretty ridiculous. But it is designed with an eye towards play, not an eye towards being built. Nothing wrong with taking a more historical or naturalistic approach, I just don't think D&D is that game in its default state

Right, but here is where we run into a problem. You are determining what to call a structure based on alignment. You insist on calling an orc village a "lair" because Orcs are monsters. But what makes Orcs monsters in 5e DnD?

They are a playable race, just like humans, elves, ect.
They are in the monster manual? So are Dryads, Couatls, Unicorns, and Treants. Sure, these are "technically" monsters, but they aren't treated the same way as orcs have traditionally been treated.

So, when we strip out the othering language, and we see that it is merely the terms we use to describe them that make Orcs acceptable targets... doesn't that start to make sense why people would connect them to groups of people who were targets of violence purely because of othering lannguage?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, the amount of time can always be debated in what is reclaiming what is lost and what is conquering new territories.
In this case dwarves have the advantage of longer lifespans so window for reclaiming is wider.

So, Dwarves are justified in killing the Orcs who have done nothing wrong, because the orcs great-great-great-great grandfather wronged that Dwarf? The sins of your ancestors mark you for death, regardless of what you have done personally?

You were invaded from that territory some time ago(undefined) and now your scouts/spies have concrete evidence that new invasion is imminent. That would be a perfect time for some kind of preemptive strike, if you can do it that is.

Ah, concrete evidence. Well, hopefully that is actually true and no one is lying.

It its the classic setting.
But yeah, anyone can invade anyone. take your pick for your homebrew setting.

And why is it the classic setting? Why do we accept that the default is this and it can never change, less the foundations of DnD crumble into the sea and the game is killed forever? You think I'm being hyperbolic, but people have reacted to this idea of not having orcs as acceptable default targets like all of DnD combat will forever be removed.

 

[Horwath]

So, Dwarves are justified in killing the Orcs who have done nothing wrong, because the orcs great-great-great-great grandfather wronged that Dwarf? The sins of your ancestors mark you for death, regardless of what you have done personally?

Sure, dwarves can send an envoy to inform the orcs that they need to vacate the area in a give time or else...

Ah, concrete evidence. Well, hopefully that is actually true and no one is lying.

we can always hope.

And why is it the classic setting? Why do we accept that the default is this and it can never change, less the foundations of DnD crumble into the sea and the game is killed forever? You think I'm being hyperbolic, but people have reacted to this idea of not having orcs as acceptable default targets like all of DnD combat will forever be removed.

And why not?
FR can have rampaging, evil, pillaging orcs as default.
Eberron can be something else
Some other setting the orcs can be the dominant race that cares for the realm and humans are invading through portals and taking more and more land.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Tropes do not incentivize us judge based on appearance any more than violent games make kids violent. Games are games. Reality is reality. A trope can be lazy or even offensive, but it's not going to change the behavior of someone.

Well, that's just false. There have been studies on the facts that Black men are seen as larger, more violent, and more threatening than white men. Why is this? It isn't because of reality, it is because media portrayed them as such for 200 years, conditioning people to consider them dangerous, powerful threats.

Bias =/= action. Violence in games causing violent action is different than repeated stereotypes creating a simple and fast mental image that is biased against certain people.

Horrible example. The good example is.

This person

View attachment 282240

And this person...

View attachment 282243

And because I can cherry pick pictures, too, there's this person.

View attachment 282246

And this person.

View attachment 282245

Oh, I cherry picked? Interesting. So, we never have human adventurers coming from cities, dressed in armor? Tell me, which of these cities is that human man from? Neverwinter? Baldur's Gate? Silverymoon?

Meanwhile, what is the standard armor for the most powerful of Orc leaders in the book? Chainmail. Not plate mail, chainmail. What does the typical orc wear? Hide. Kind of strange isn't it, where did you get that image from? Oh, that hooked sword means it is from Tolkien.

Interestingly, Tolkien orcs are master smiths, making massive ironworks and war machines. Unlike... pretty much every single DnD orc. In fact, the height of DnD orc crafting is said to be a ramshackle wagon. Meanwhile, what is the height of human engineering in Dnd? Bet it is more than a wagon.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Racism is a story tool that ppl (like me) don't want to see discarded or left out the tool box.

Your question sets up a gotcha moment that implies that racism needs to be in every storyline.

Can you see the difference? My upthread post with the racism tool is important for those stories but it would likely not be important say on a Minrothadan Merchant Prince expedition (sea voyage charting new lands) or seeking an audience with the stone giant thane to request use of her conch of teleportation in Storm King's Thunder.

Then keep it in your personal toolbox. That doesn't mean you need it baked into the setting so everyone is forced to use it. But when we ask for that, when we ask for it to be taken out as a default, we are told that we are making EVERYTHING bland and uninteresting, every story will have its conflict removed. Which is strange if racism isn't in every single story you tell.

 

[Guest 85555]

So, you give an example of a movie and finish your point with "and even the downtrodden can be villains!" and then agree that... the villain of your movie example isn't downtrodden? He's actually a wealthy criminal. Also, in a context like China or Japan during their Warring States period, a warlord doesn't conquer countries, just small regions.

I still don't believe the character is meant to be a warlord (also don't think it is a warlord era movie but again I could be wrong as the time period isn't essential to the plot(. Possible I am wrong, but the movie just doesn't convey that to me. But you can throw in any other example where you have bandits who have risen up from poverty or something, or other types of characters. The villain in Reign of Assassins for example, while he holds a position of power is certainly downtrodden in the sense that he was castrated and is desperately seeking a relic that he believes can reverse the process. It makes for a much more compelling villain actual because he has some pathos to him. You could read it as a story of punching up, but you could also read it as a story of punching down if you examine it more from his point of view (he even says to the main character "is it too much to ask to be a regular man" (and points out she has been allowed to retire and find a husband---so why can't he have what he wants?). The point of allowing for punching in all directions isn't so we can revel in hurting people who are weak or marginalized, it is because there are interesting characters and interesting villains to be found from all walks of life (and villains are often the best characters in a movie). It gets kind of corny when the bad guys are always elites in positions of power.

You can definitely have downtrodden villains though. In a lot of these kinds of scenarios bad guys are people who are down on their luck just like the hero but take another course. People don't usually become bandits because they were already living a luxurious lifestyle. My point is just if it works, it doesn't matter which direction the hero punching. I think in most movies you are going to see them do what people now would call punching up. And that makes sense because it is easier to sympathize with characters who punch up. But I don't think we need to place an artificial limit on that.

Like, a guy with a ton of money, military structures (like castles) and a large group of well trained followers...

Again this is just one movie. Bandit groups appear in countless films like this. In this case, they don't go into deep explanation of the headquarters, or anything like that. But it doesn't look like he is a military leader to me when I have seen the film. It looks more like he is a local martial bully who has amassed a following large enough to declare him number one in the martial world. But I am not here to prove Lady Hermit is about a guy who isn't a military leader. Personally, if there is something I have missed about it, I would love for someone to point that out so I can understand it better. So feel free to watch it and analyze for yourself (I just don't think you get the complete picture from the trailer).

You are right. You've given reasons. You haven't given evidence. I can give plenty of reasons that anything is harmful. But without evidence it is just theories and speculation.

We are just going to have to disagree here. I feel like in this thread and others I have given evidence. If I think of any more I will provide it. But We have been going back and forth for a long time, so I feel like it is unlikely any further evidence i provide will persuade you (and I am not saying you are being stubborn or bent on not hearing me, I just don't think there is evidence I can give at this point that will move the discussion)

Right, I think I see where you misunderstood my point. Wick isn't specifically punching up against people above him in the first movie. But no one sitting in that theater sees Viggo in his massive penthouse, in his expensive suite, and drinking expensive scotch and thinks "Ah, this man is like me, just an ordinary person." Clearly he is wealthy, powerful and his wealth and power are a direct result of criminal activity. Note this is a common theme. You very very rarely see one of these movies where the boss, the main villain, is some poor schlub barely ekeing out a living.

No but we can tell that he, John Wick and probably most of the men in his organization weren't born in luxury. Again I could be wrong about that, as I haven't read the John Wick source material or I could have missed a line of dialogue, but with Viggo especially I thought the contrast between him and his son was that he rose up and made his way from humble roots, while the son was born into the lifestyle and didn't have that struggle so he just didn't understand things the way Viggo did.

And I agree usually the bosses in these movies are powerful and wealthy. Like I said in my other post, it is easier to root for a hero fighting a powerful figure than a weak one. But there are also movies with more street level villains too. And I don't see why poor people should be excluded from the villain role in a movie. As I said in the other post, I would probably find a villain with those kinds of struggles more compelling.

Does it make it morally justified from an objective stand-point? No, I never claimed it did. But the tone of these movies you keep trying to cite is always that the lone person who is enacting this virtuous violence is attacking the powerful, the wealthy, those who have the means, usually illicitly. Those who don't deserve their wealth and power. And that matters. John Wick's story would be very different if he spent the first movie killing all the homeless people from the Rookery. Because those people are the downtrodden. These dynamics exist because we mentally have "acceptable targets" for violence. That can be wrong, but I haven't argued that it is right, just that it is true.

I haven't seen the fourth movie yet (still trying to get the wife to go). But I would love for the Bowery King to be a villain. Again, I don't really see a problem here, provided the downtrodden are antagonists (I mean yes if he is going into the streets and murdering homeless people who aren't doing anything, that would be weird, but if he were being attacked by homeless people sent after him, I wouldn't have a problem with that (especially if they have a solid motivation like the other villains have).

Again I just don't think the punching up thing is as true as people want it to be. Yes it's a general trend for a reason in most movies. That doesn't mean it needs to be an unbreakable rule, or that there is anything immortal about a movie where the bad guys are downtrodden

Right, but here is where we run into a problem. You are determining what to call a structure based on alignment. You insist on calling an orc village a "lair" because Orcs are monsters. But what makes Orcs monsters in 5e DnD?

I don't play 5E so I can't really answer that as well as another poster. But I don't have a problem with the game designating orcs as monsters and calling their headquarters lairs (though I just threw lairs out there as a term). Like I said there is a place for something mythic like venturing into the wilderness or a dungeon and slaying monsters.

They are a playable race, just like humans, elves, ect.
They are in the monster manual? So are Dryads, Couatls, Unicorns, and Treants. Sure, these are "technically" monsters, but they aren't treated the same way as orcs have traditionally been treated.

Personally I think making orcs playable was a big mistake. But you can still do that the way we did with Drow, where the majority of orcs are evil, but you have exceptions. There are ways to make it work.

But you are listing off benevolent entries in the monster manual. Orcs were set up as adversaries (they even look like what one expects a monster to look like).

So, when we strip out the othering language, and we see that it is merely the terms we use to describe them that make Orcs acceptable targets... doesn't that start to make sense why people would connect them to groups of people who were targets of violence purely because of othering lannguage?

I don't think so

 

[AnotherGuy]

Then keep it in your personal toolbox.

I do.

That doesn't mean you need it baked into the setting so everyone is forced to use it.

Which setting? And why are you forced? I'm missing something here.
Are you talking about FG, orcs specifically, general monster history, something else?
I need the answer to the above to understand your request (the rest of your email).

 

[Chaosmancer]

Wildmount shows orcs as part of the civilised nations on a regular basis. It even talks about orcs being merchants on the Menagerie coast. There is even a certain Half-Orc called Fjord who everybody loves.

Eberron has orcs acting as some of the main protectors of the setting, preventing the demonic incursions from entering the rest of the continent. And outside that, they have a reputation for being bounty hunters and inquisitors.

So, the setting Matt Mercer made in the 2010's is more progressive than stuff made pre-2000. Shocking. But also, in both those settings can you name a massive orcish city with gorgeous architecture?

Oh wait, the Eberron orcs are a tribal society that lives in swamps, and in Wildemount the two major orcish settlements are a mobile tent city and Bladegarden a FORMER orcish settlement, now rebuilt as part of the human military machine. Other than that, all the orcs live in tribal roving clans.

So, hey, progress, they aren't all monsters driven from society, but considering the vast array of possible depictions, it isn't really super inspiring that the best orcs can do is "not evil monsters"

And yes, there is a reason it's always the same few species put in these positions as raiders and bandits. It's because the designers made up scary monsters for the monster manual first, and then further development into actual people came later on. And then once they had been developed into actual people, their endless use as 'generic bad guy' started looking odd.

But, again, most things that weren't human were first created as scary monsters. Elves were first created as scary monsters. So why are orcs stuck as scary monsters?

The word 'orc' literally means 'evil spirit', 'corpse', or 'sea monster'. Depending on the translation, culture, and time.

And depending on the translation, culture and time "dwarf" is an insult or a creature who will curse your home. What's your point? Who cares what Orc used to mean?