D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Vaalingrade]

It does always seem to be orcs and drow that get fixated on, doesn't it*? For me, it's telling that the same sort of reaction isn't provoked by fiends or hags, or even ogres and giants.

Ugh, giants have their own garbage baggage.

Looking at you, 'lol fat people' hill giants.

 

[Bohandas]

Yes, and rightly so. There is a difference. No demographic I belong to has ever oppressed or marginalized the French. In fact, in the modern world at least, the French have never been oppressed or marginalized by another group, that I’m aware of.

What about the Nazis?!?

 

[Bohandas]

Firstly, none of that is the same sort of thing as being oppressed because they’re French. They got invaded by an expansionist power seeking dominion over the continent.

Which is exactly the same thing that happened to the native americans (with the significant exception that the france thing happened in living memory), and yet I'm sure people would take less kindly to poking fun at the native americans than they would at poking fun at the french

 

[Faolyn]

Or even other humanoids, for example goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins, etc. which are common enough in fantasy folklore, but did not suffer of the specific biases of orcs and drows.

Orcs (or at least half-orcs) and to a lesser extent, drow have been playable since 1e, and have been in either the main books or in other Big Important Books, like 1e's Unearthed Arcana. Other races have very much been relegated to extremely optional books or Dragon Magazine articles.

Also, both orcs and drow can interbreed with humans, whereas there haven't really been official half-hobs or half-kobolds. This brings them yet another step away from being just monsters.

But mostly, I think it's that people use orcs and drow as a shorthand that encompasses all potentially PC races that are normally evil. It's annoying to have to write "orcs, drow, kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc." each time you want to have a discussion about creature alignments.

Alignment is guidelines anyway, and nothing prevents a DM from having monsters and NPCs of almost any alignment (except for fiends where the PH is fairly specific, there can not be non-lawful evil devils for example).

On the contrary, ever since the first appearances of the drow, there have been non evil drows, these are listed in encounters in Erelhei-Cinlu in Vault of the Drow...

Except... while sure, the DM can easily decide that this orc is good or neutral, or even that this entire society of orcs is good or neutral, nothing in the books supports that. If you want to have a society of non-evil orcs, you have to make up all of their lore yourself. A lot of DMs don't want to do that, don't have the time to do that, or just aren't that good at doing it themselves. It would not only involve ignoring or rewriting possibly decades worth of published lore, but getting the players to read and remember that lore as well. Unless you're lucky enough to also have a table full of players who are willing to accept that orcs aren't or shouldn't be automatically evil.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It does always seem to be orcs and drow that get fixated on, doesn't it*? For me, it's telling that the same sort of reaction isn't provoked by fiends or hags, or even ogres and giants.

Sure. The races people play are more important than ones they don’t.

The rest has been discussed many times, and @Morrus has asked everyone to not get into that topic anymore.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What about the Nazis?!?

You gotta be kidding me.

Which is exactly the same thing that happened to the native americans (with the significant exception that the france thing happened in living memory), and yet I'm sure people would take less kindly to poking fun at the native americans than they would at poking fun at the french

No, it isn’t the same thing, at all.

The French are not a group that the Nazis committed genocide against. Native Americans were victims of genocide for hundreds of years, and are still being marginalized in a pervasive and systemic manner. Within living memory, Native kids were stolen from thier families, forced into state schools, and beaten when they spoke their native language.

Equating that to the invasion and occupation of France is reprehensible.

 

[Scribe]

Except... while sure, the DM can easily decide that this orc is good or neutral, or even that this entire society of orcs is good or neutral, nothing in the books supports that. If you want to have a society of non-evil orcs, you have to make up all of their lore yourself. A lot of DMs don't want to do that, don't have the time to do that, or just aren't that good at doing it themselves. It would not only involve ignoring or rewriting possibly decades worth of published lore, but getting the players to read and remember that lore as well. Unless you're lucky enough to also have a table full of players who are willing to accept that orcs aren't or shouldn't be automatically evil.

And when the default going forward becomes (already is) 'Do whatever.' The DM's...still need to write it.

Established settings? They are what they are. People can wait for the inevitable retcons, but they simply are. Orcs and Drow (and all the minor ones you mentioned) are simply Orcs and Drow.

The whole half-X thing...I almost think just needs to go in some capacity. There is so much that from todays 'modern gamer' perspective simply doesnt work, and nobody is going to be happy if they dont just eradicate whole swaths of that decades worth of published lore, or they tell the 'modern gamer' to just write it themselves if they dont like it.

We saw the 'write it yourself' approach, its 5e core + volos. Well apparently thats not satisfactory anymore, so whats the next step?

WoTC: "There is no canon."

There's option 2.

Option 3? Eberron style stuff.

 

[Faolyn]

And when the default going forward becomes (already is) 'Do whatever.' The DM's...still need to write it.

And I'm sure the books will give suggestions and generalities as to what the races are or can be like. Maybe even a table to roll on. I know you've said you're not fond of lore when it's "they can be like this, or maybe like that." But that's better than "they are like this" and no other options for those who aren't great at making up their own, or who enjoy reading these suggestions for inspiration.

Established settings? They are what they are. People can wait for the inevitable retcons, but they simply are. Orcs and Drow (and all the minor ones you mentioned) are simply Orcs and Drow.

Sure, and in the Realms or Greyhawk or whatever, there's established lore on orcs and drow and how they're generally evil. But this would be for other settings--homebrews, newer official settings, and 3pp settings.

OTOH, is the established evil lore on orcs and drow actually interesting lore? Personally, I tend to dislike it. Evil D&D societies rarely make sense to me, and I find them so one-note as to be boring. Either that or it's so over-the-top evil that it's ridiculous, like that Dragon magazine article (I think it was a Dragon) that said that drow fetuses fight each other to the death and it's super-orgasmic for the mother. Because drow are so evil that even their fetuses are evil.

The whole half-X thing...I almost think just needs to go in some capacity.

<shrug> Some people like playing half-whatevers. I think if you're going to allow the races to interbreed, then they should go further. Let's see the gnomelings and dworcs!

There is so much that from todays 'modern gamer' perspective simply doesnt work, and nobody is going to be happy if they dont just eradicate whole swaths of that decades worth of published lore, or they tell the 'modern gamer' to just write it themselves if they dont like it.

Well, you're not going to be happy, but nobody? I highly doubt that.

I've been playing since '91 or so, so I don't think I count as a modern gamer. I've always been fine with picking and choosing and getting inspiration from the books and then writing up my own stuff. I don't think it ever occurred to me that the lore was something that I was really supposed to care about. And I'm fine with old lore not being used in new books, because why spend money on a book that just rehashes the stuff I already have? It's not a novel or comic book. I don't care about the plot. It's why I was glad at the massive changes they made to my favorite setting. I already have most of the 2e and 3e Ravenloft books. In addition to interesting mechanics I got a brand new interpretation of the domains to yoink things from.

We saw the 'write it yourself' approach, its 5e core + volos. Well apparently thats not satisfactory anymore, so whats the next step?

We did? I recall a ton of lore in Volo's, and a lot of regular and implied lore in the main books. I don't recall any of those books having a "write it yourself" approach. Unless you're actually meaning "rewrite it yourself if you don't like the lore we're giving you."

WoTC: "There is no canon."

Didn't they say that there was going to be no forward facing canon that they're going to make game-writers adhere to? That's a bit different from saying there's no canon at all.

There's option 2.

Option 3? Eberron style stuff.

Where the PCs, not high-level NPCs, are considered to be heroes? And you the DM don't have to worry about some published adventure or novel (that you may not have bought or read) changing everything and making you either change the way your campaign works or else get less use out of new published material because some writer decided that something weird and world-shattering just occurred?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[Scribe]

I know you've said you're not fond of lore when it's "they can be like this, or maybe like that." But that's better than "they are like this" and no other options for those who aren't great at making up their own, or who enjoy reading these suggestions for inspiration.

Yeah, Wizards actually says something, and people can ignore it or not. Wishy-washy stuff is...not great to me to say the least.

Either that or it's so over-the-top evil that it's ridiculous, like that Dragon magazine article (I think it was a Dragon) that said that drow fetuses fight each other to the death and it's super-orgasmic for the mother. Because drow are so evil that even their fetuses are evil.

That is really cringe. Like...I'm erasing that from my mind after this.

Some people like playing half-whatevers. I think if you're going to allow the races to interbreed, then they should go further. Let's see the gnomelings and dworcs!

Thats one of my issues with it. Why just half humans. Its just not a great look to me. That said, I loved Tanis.

We did? I recall a ton of lore in Volo's, and a lot of regular and implied lore in the main books. I don't recall any of those books having a "write it yourself" approach. Unless you're actually meaning "rewrite it yourself if you don't like the lore we're giving you."

Yes, lore you could then ignore, and write your own. Thats what you had mentioned in regards to the DM having to do the work if they didnt like it.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Then there you go, a setting that works for you. Lets leave the rest as they are then as they worked for others.

Thats not how this works? Oh. Right.

 

[Faolyn]

Yeah, Wizards actually says something, and people can ignore it or not. Wishy-washy stuff is...not great to me to say the least.

But as I said, having only one option isn’t good for all the people who don’t like it but can’t rewrite it for whatever reason.

Plus, there’s always the possibility that you will find you like one of the other options.

Yes, lore you could then ignore, and write your own. Thats what you had mentioned in regards to the DM having to do the work if they didnt like it.

From what I’m reading, it sounds like you’re OK with other people having to rewrite stuff as long as you yourself don’t have to put out that sort of effort. Is that the case?