D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Mind of tempest]

Well, XP is (unfortunately, in my opinion,) going out of fashion. And even us grognards who insist XP-based advancement is superior To story-based or session-based, have shifted towards giving XP for overcoming challenges and completing quests rather than killing monsters.

how is killing a thing not overcoming a challenge?

 

[wingsandsword]

Once Tolkien created a whole species of "Orcs" that creation ALSO brought with it the new moral quandary of why and how an entire people are evil and servants of evil. Which itself has unpleasant echoes in reality*. D&D has continued this on a larger scale, making, for example, singular monsters like the Minotaur or Medusa into species. This carries with it the same moral quandary.

D&D orcs are NOT Tolkien's orcs. There are similarities, to be sure, but they are very distinctly different. One of the big differences between Tolkien's orcs and D&D orcs is that D&D orcs are CLEARLY established to have free will to choose good over evil. They aren't inherently evil, there is nothing saying that any individual orc couldn't be lawful good and lead a moral and pious life. . .and in 3rd edition and later there's nothing to say they couldn't be a Paladin or Cleric of a good-aligned deity.

D&D orcs are evil because they have a culture that encourages evil behavior, and because the major religion in their society is veneration of an evil pantheon. . .but they aren't inherently evil

The point of orcs, and similar humanoid creatures like bugbears or goblins, in D&D is a stand-in for human enemies. They are there so no human group has to be demonized, and so it's fairly clear at first glance what side they're probably on.

It's a convenient storytelling and literary shorthand. It lets DM's set the stage with fewer words and less time having to lay out the individual culture and motivations of some invading evil country or hostile nomadic tribes.

If an NPC says his farm was raided by orcs, PC's know pretty quick that he's the victim and that the orcs were the bad guys and PC's can almost certainly go after the orcs and defeat them and be heroes. If an NPC says his farm was raided by armed men. . .were they troops from the local Lord there to forcibly collect back taxes and going after those soldiers will bring down the whole Kingdom on you, were they some bandits and outlaws the PC's can kill with impunity, were they a raiding party from the next Kingdom over and going after them might start a war (or make the PC's heroes). . .it makes things more complicated.

For a lot of D&D players, they don't want super-detailed, super intricate stories, they want relatively straightforward narratives, and complicated NPC cultures and deeply nuanced NPC races don't facilitate that.

Humanoid foes like orcs are a nice literary and storytelling shorthand for things that would take a lot longer to tell, and require a much more skilled DM, than it does now. They're typically evil villains, but they do have free will so exceptions certainly exist and PC's cant presume that every last single orc in the world is evil, even if the typical orc warrior they run into in a dungeon isn't going to be on friendly terms with them.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, XP is (unfortunately, in my opinion,) going out of fashion. And even us grognards who insist XP-based advancement is superior To story-based or session-based, have shifted towards giving XP for overcoming challenges and completing quests rather than killing monsters.

Does that include gaining XP for accumulating treasure? Because if so, that's a case of what's old becoming new again.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, Defcon seemed to be saying so, right?



Of course, there's a difference between feeling like you're being treated unfairly and actually being treated unfairly. Some folks remind one of the aphorism that "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

I don't think so. In case I missed something, can you point to me where they said we need to make up for it, and what it is exactly that they are asking us to do in order to make up for past injustices? Saying they don't have a lot of sympathy for people in the majority suffering what oppressed people have felt for decades is not the same as asking your or me to actively do something to make up for those past aggressions.

I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), so if you can point out the "what" we are being asked to do, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Mannahnin]

D&D orcs are NOT Tolkien's orcs. There are similarities, to be sure, but they are very distinctly different.

I feel like we're talking past each other a little, but I agree with most of this post.

 

[Sacrosanct]

D&D orcs are NOT Tolkien's orcs. There are similarities, to be sure, but they are very distinctly different. One of the big differences between Tolkien's orcs and D&D orcs is that D&D orcs are CLEARLY established to have free will to choose good over evil. They aren't inherently evil, there is nothing saying that any individual orc couldn't be lawful good and lead a moral and pious life. . .and in 3rd edition and later there's nothing to say they couldn't be a Paladin or Cleric of a good-aligned deity.

D&D orcs are evil because they have a culture that encourages evil behavior, and because the major religion in their society is veneration of an evil pantheon. . .but they aren't inherently evil

I feel deja vu lol. Originally, yes, orcs were inherently evil. They were literally described that way in the MM from 1979. Not until years later, in dragon articles, and 2e, and other books did that change. But originally? They were very much inherently evil. There was no other information at the time (late 70s) to remotely tell you otherwise.

Edit and for the pedantic folks out there, when this same topic came up not long ago, the 1e MM says the alignment is the characteristic of the creature. The definition of inherent is "in a... characteristic way". And orcs are lawful evil. There is no other conflicting information for anyone picking up the MM in 1979 and not assuming orcs are evil, inherently.

 

[Charlaquin]

Eh. I think it's pretty clear that Gary was aiming for metaphoric blackness made literal like a fairy tale, not trying to make a point about real world people. Whereas the GW guys were always more politically-conscious, even apart from how Moorcock's Melniboneans were one of the major influences on their Elves.

I’m quite sure that was the case. But the thing is, outcomes matter infinitely more than intent. Gary and company almost certainly weren’t trying to make a point about real world people. They just weren’t aware that they were perpetuating a harmful sociological trope. Now that awareness is increasing, we have the opportunity to address issues with the game that, while not created out of malice, still exist and make the game less welcoming to certain people. And I for one want to encourage the caretakers of the brand to take advantage of that opportunity.

 

[Alzrius]

D&D orcs are evil because they have a culture that encourages evil behavior, and because the major religion in their society is veneration of an evil pantheon. . .but they aren't inherently evil

Right, hence the ondonti.

 

[Mannahnin]

I’m quite sure that was the case. But the thing is, outcomes matter infinitely more than intent. Gary and company almost certainly weren’t trying to make a point about real world people. They just weren’t aware that they were perpetuating a harmful sociological trope. Now that awareness is increasing, we have the opportunity to address issues with the game that, while not created out of malice, still exist and make the game less welcoming to certain people. And I for one want to encourage the caretakers of the brand to take advantage of that opportunity.

Yup.

 

[turnip_farmer]

Eh. I think it's pretty clear that Gary was aiming for metaphoric blackness made literal like a fairy tale, not trying to make a point about real world people. Whereas the GW guys were always more politically-conscious, even apart from how Moorcock's Melniboneans were one of the major influences on their Elves.

I'm not sure Games Workshop has ever been politically conscious. I grew up near GW HQ, so I've been there more than once. They used to have a bunch of dioramas in the back. I think it's now been turned into a proper museum that you pay to enter nowadays, but when I was a kid it was more a place that the guy running the shop would take you to see when it wasn't busy.

One of the biggest (and best) dioramas they had was the one showing the Praetorian Guard's defense of some outpost against a horde of Orks. Praetorian guards were just Mordians with the head of a Cadian painted differently, but the diorama was popular enough that they released a line of Praetorian models.

Thing is, this whole scene was based on the film Zulu. That's not interpretation, that's what the creators said. And they chose to represent the British soldiers by human Imperial guardsmen, and the Zulus by Orks.

The Warhammer World is full of real world cultures represented by monsters. But even to the people who created that the idea that evil elves had black skin seemed problematic.

It's been one DnDism that I have refused to accept in my games. If drow have been condemned to live beneath the surface and suffer in the sun, then they must have pale, almost translucent skin. Anything else offends reason.