D&D (2024) How to import "race" flavor into D&D 2024 inclusively

[Mistwell]

Heh, with regard to the "standard Greyhawk" Orc,

Do you mean a Noneuropean "savage" "tribe" who can be slaughtered on sight for fun?

I think that's a caricature of the Greyhawk orc that was never true. They've always been much more complex than that.

 

[Yaarel]

I think that's a caricature of the Greyhawk orc that was never true. They've always been much more complex than that.

The complexity of the old school Orc is the problem. The Greyhawk Orc is too human to be killed on sight.


It is impossible to ignore the racism in the various Orc descriptions. To kill a "primitive" "tribe" on sight? To unconsciously associate Indigenous "tribal" peoples with Evil who deserve to be killed?

1e AD&D Monster Manual: "Orcs appear particular disgusting because their coloration − brown − highlights their pinkish ears."

Seriously, brown skin with pink areas is "disgusting"?

Since when are animal features a problem? A "snout" can be cute.


And later editions just get worse from there, when players learn how to massmurder Asian "shamans". Or African "witch doctors".


In case any readers didnt notice the racist innuendos, an official D&D supplement, Orcs of Thar, for the Mystara setting, spells them out. The "red" Orcs are American Indians whose "tribal" chiefs include "Chief Sitting Drool". The "yellow" Orcs are Mongolians.

Whether subtle in passing or blatant for "humor", this racist flavoring seems indefensible.


Anyway. I think we can all agree. This subject matter about D&D racism has been heavily hashed out.

I am deeply grateful. When 5e 2024 comes, this racist stuff will be gone forever.


For D&D 5e today, there is no room for both "yes they are just like humans" and "yes Good characters can murder them on sight".

An inhuman Orc such as a Fiend or Shadow to kill on sight, is defensible, but that ship has sailed.

A Humanoid Orc is humanlike and requires a cautious rethink.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think in general leaving it to peer pressure is a bad idea, that’s a recipe for tension at the table and people not enjoying themselves and groups breaking up.

And given that 5e is several factors more successful than any earlier edition and has been selling well for ten years, I somehow think there’s sufficient functionality for DMs within it.

And I don’t see any reason why I should have to censor my opinion; I’m not trying to sell you books.

What the heck are you talking about? This is a matter of saying that design should consider and account for both sides of the gm screen rather than the current combination that creates significant negatives for both sides vrs the Idea that design should look at it as if d&d were a single player game and only consider a very select set from one side of the screen. Why are you carrying on as if anyone is suggesting that the gm should receive exclusive focus?

 

[Mistwell]

The complexity of the old school Orc is the problem. The Greyhawk Orc is too human to be killed on sight.

I never found killing Nazis on sight during a war to be a problem. The Greyhawk orcs were taking over nations one and sometimes two at a time, enslaving and murdering entire populations indiscriminately, under dictatorial demi-Gods trying to conquer the world. It's never been an issue in our games that heroes fight back.

It is impossible to ignore the racism in the various Orc descriptions. To kill a "primitive" "tribe" on sight? To unconsciously associate Indigenous "tribal" peoples with Evil who deserve to be killed?

It truly isn't impossible to ignore the racism when that's not the analogy they're based on in your game.

I am not asking that the published orcs be the ones I use and never advocated for that. You asked me what kinds of orcs I use and then I answered. You then you implied I was racist for using those kinds of orcs. Which sure seems like a needless personal attack. I'm not trying to police your game, so why are you trying to police mine?

But we've been over this probably a dozen times this past few years. I don't see how another discussion would be productive.

 

[CreamCloud0]

What is an ORC?

green skin, tusks, averagally physically tougher than most of the other species.

 

[Scribe]

I certainly wouldnt do this with Backgrounds (capital B game object), but with a free level 1 Species (capital S game object) limited Feat (capital F game object).

Which is really just shuffling of deck chairs though, because all you are really doing then is moving the subspecies choice into a Feat.

Solution for a problem that doesnt exist.

 

[Yaarel]

I never found killing Nazis on sight during a war to be a problem. The Greyhawk orcs were taking over nations one and sometimes two at a time, enslaving and murdering entire populations indiscriminately, under dictatorial demi-Gods trying to conquer the world. It's never been an issue in our games that heroes fight back.

That is the difference. In the case of Humans, the analogous Nazis are a "faction" that is committed to doing an Evil ideology. In the case of the 1974 Orcs and onward, the entire "race" is Evil. This demonized "race" is "primitive" "tribes" with "witch doctors".

In 2024, I expect Orcs to have a "Gruumsh faction" that is likewise committed to doing an Evil ideology. These Gruumsh fanatics can be killed on sight. If the Gruumsh Orcs dont want to be killed on sight, they can stop being members of the Gruumsh faction.


I view Gruumsh as personification of "rage". I feel it is a mistake to connect the entire Orc species to Gruumsh. In a way, it is accurate to say Gruumsh is a creator of the rageous aspects of the Orc Adrenaline Rush. The Adrenaline can be joyful daredevil thrill seeking, facing any challenge, competitive sports, terrified escape and empowered confrontation, and also uncontrollable rage when a person "loses it". Gruumsh specifically associates with the aspect of rage. The Gruumsh faction embraces rage existentially. For the faction, they seek an altered state of the mind where this rage is the entirety of reality.

Like Humans, all Humanoids experience rage at times. Gruumsh can appeal to their losses of control as well. The Gruumsh faction includes Nonorc species as well as Orcs, and they intermingle. Compared to Humans, Orcs experience adrenaline surges more frequently and more profoundly. Orcs can channel these surges toward Good goals, to face challenges for Good purposes. But when succumbing to obsessive blinding rage, Orcs experience the Evil aspects of rage more profoundly, and then more affinity with Gruumsh.

It truly isn't impossible to ignore the racism when that's not the analogy they're based on in your game.

I am confident, Gygax and Arneson and the designers thru editions are nonracists. The racism shows up accidentally or in poor taste humor, and always in the context of looking for "entertaining" tropes for a D&D encounters.

When racist tropes do show up, it is good to call attention to them and to remove them. It is especially important to keep the D&D core rules free from racism.

You asked me what kinds of orcs I use and then I answered. You then you implied I was racist for using those kinds of orcs. Which sure seems like a needless personal attack. I'm not trying to police your game, so why are you trying to police mine?

I assume you arent racist. If someone suggests such, it would offend you.

I am calling attention to the tropes in play, where those tropes come from, and some of the less admirable implication of those tropes.

For example, say someone says something foolish like, "That woman is so beautiful every man wants her." Well, no, not every man. The one who said this might not mean to be homophobic, but that is actually a hugely homophobic thing to say. Stuff like this happens when not paying attention to the implications of what one is saying.

Same goes with racism. Sometimes D&D texts miss the mark, require a rethink, and so the game can move on better.

But we've been over this probably a dozen times this past few years. I don't see how another discussion would be productive.

I agree. As far as I know, everything that needs to be said has already been said. 2024 is in process of acting on the awareness.

 

[Yaarel]

green skin, tusks, averagally physically tougher than most of the other species.

5e describes the Orc as "gray". But probably 2024 should return to "green". Green is more clearly nonhuman. Plus, having a fun Shreck vibe can only help when rehabilitating the Humanoid Orc description.

I certainly wouldnt do this with Backgrounds (capital B game object), but with a free level 1 Species (capital S game object) limited Feat (capital F game object).

Which is really just shuffling of deck chairs though, because all you are really doing then is moving the subspecies choice into a Feat.

Backgrounds are where to find anything "cultural".

Feats might supply something "biological".

Normally, the background feats are also cultural. But there are exceptions, such as the Lucky feat. Then the rest of the background might be the individual learning to cope and adapt to the phenomenon of being Lucky.

Lucky, in the sense of fate, can be an Elf feat. There are other species that also might be especially fateful, such as Halfling, and even Human.

In a case where a background feat specifies a species, such as dragon scales for an AC bonus, any species can take this species feat. The crossspecies feat evidences that the character descends from ancestors of more than one species.


(We will see what the format will be. Currently I use lowercase for the names of all the game objects: species, class, background, feat, skill, etcetera. But for a specific element of an object I capitalize: Orc species, Monk class, Artisan background, Lucky feat, Athletics skill, etcetera.)

 

[Vikingkingq]

What the heck are you talking about? This is a matter of saying that design should consider and account for both sides of the gm screen rather than the current combination that creates significant negatives for both sides vrs the Idea that design should look at it as if d&d were a single player game and only consider a very select set from one side of the screen. Why are you carrying on as if anyone is suggesting that the gm should receive exclusive focus?

You were saying that 5e's system for increasing attributes is bad for DMs and only good for players, I was suggesting that that's not the case. Moreover, I think that your concern with the supposed downsides for DM and your comments in about design and who buys the most books speaks to a not directly-stated belief that DMs should be prioritized.

 

[tetrasodium]

You were saying that 5e's system for increasing attributes is bad for DMs and only good for players, I was suggesting that that's not the case. Moreover, I think that your concern with the supposed downsides for DM and your comments in about design and who buys the most books speaks to a not directly-stated belief that DMs should be prioritized.

It's not a zero sum thing, I talked about specifis too.. Go back and read what I actually said

Spoiler: here it is

No, you are just talking about preference. You miss the actual reasons it's the worst of both. By making ability scores matter like 3.x players face strong pressure to minmaxing the perfect attribute distribution &rush it to 20 rather than feeling like they have choices. By using 2e style attrib=19 with those 3.x super important drip fed attribute bumps rather 3.x style attrib+n or 2e style not too important attributes the other side of the GM screen (the gm) has little freedom to use actually reward players with those items without or use a desire to improve attributes as incentive for player investment in the world/plot/adventuring motivation. Worse still for the gm actually rewarding those items in a way any player might care about creates extra work for them in the form of needing to adjust monsters to compensate unless the item is useless (ie int=19 on a fighter/str=19 on a wizard).

All out together 5e style is the worst combo for both sides of the gm screen

All or nearly all of those examples negatively impact players too